FSU Editorial: "A Record of Failure" by Ghassan Abdallah, PhD 09/11/2007

A RECORD OF FAILURE
by Ghassan Abdallah, Ph.D.
September 11, 2007

The failure of successive U.S. administrations to deal appropriately with the Iranian threat has emboldened the Mullahs in Tehran, undermined American credibility in the Middle East, and imperiled the security of the pro-Western moderate Arab governments of the region. Beginning with the taking of American diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979, to the bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut in the 1980s, to present-day supply of explosively formed penetrators (EFP’s) to insurgents in Iraq, the Iranian regime has rarely passed up an opportunity to target American interests in the region. And what has been the American response so far? All too little.

Conservatives in the United States often point to the Reagan presidency as the ideal model to be followed. In doing so, however, they omit a very dark and embarrassing chapter in Reagan’s legacy, known as Iran-Contra. The scandal, which involved rewarding Iran with American-made weaponry in exchange for the release of American hostages held by Hezbollah in Beirut, capped a series of mistakes committed by the Reagan administration in Lebanon during the 1980s. It all began with the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, resulting in the death of 17 Americans and more than 40 Lebanese nationals. At the time, the bombing constituted the deadliest-ever attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission and marked the beginning of Islamist attacks on U.S. targets worldwide. The embassy bombing was orchestrated by Iranian intelligence operating from the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The Reagan administration failed to respond militarily against Syria and Iran whose aim was to drive the United States out of Lebanon. The embassy attacks were followed by the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut in October 1983, resulting in the death of 241 American servicemen. Again President Reagan, acting on the strong advice of Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, opted not to retaliate.

For certain, some in the Reagan administration wanted to respond. Assistant Secretary of Defense, Richard Armitage was among those who favored a strong military response. Armitage, who went on to serve as Deputy Secretary of State between 2001 and 2005, would testify before the 9/11 commission. The critical exchange reproduced below (March 4, 2004) between 9/11 commission member and former Secretary of the Navy, John F. Lehman and Richard Armitage perfectly illustrates the perils of not retaliating against terrorists and those who sponsor them.

Lehman:

“I'd like to get your perspective on the long view, specifically back to a trauma that you and I both lived through in the Pentagon in '83 when our Marines were killed in the terrorist suicide attack in Beirut. And it's particularly apropos to this, to our mission, because Osama bin Laden has cited that as a seminal event in his awakening to the vulnerability of the U.S.”

“And as you'll recall, we did not retaliate, even though we now know that there was an intercept directly of the Iranian government ordering the assassination of our Marines, and that was in the hands of a few, although not all, policy-makers.”

“And as a result, even though the president wanted a retaliation, no retaliation was ever ordered for that. And Osama is our authority to say that the fact that there was no retaliation, and it was followed by the withdrawal of the United States from Lebanon, exactly what the purpose of the attack was to achieve, laid the groundwork for a tide of subsequent terrorist acts.

Armitage:

“Yes, sir. As you, I was personally affected by that tragedy, those Marines and Navy corpsmen who were killed. And I remember a discussion with you, when you and I were on the same page. We wanted to put a cruise missile in the window of the Iranian ambassador in Damascus.”

That cruise missile never went through the window of Iran’s ambassador to Syria, Akbar Mohtashami. Instead, Mohtashami continued to direct his thugs and assassins in Lebanon to wreck havoc--- airliners were hijacked, U.S. citizens were killed and some were taken hostage. The sale of weapons to Iran by the Reagan administration did not help all the hostages. The longest held, Terry A. Anderson, the Associated Press chief Middle East correspondent remained a captive for almost seven years until December 1991. The United States was driven out of Lebanon and Syrian and Iranian hegemony ensued.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: SAME MENACE DIFFERENT DECADE

The United States finds itself battling the Syrian-Iranian axis in Lebanon once again. The Bush administration has thrown all of its weight behind the democratically elected Lebanese government of Fuad Saniora, which is being threatened by the pro-Syrian and Iranian opposition, primarily consisting of Hezbollah. The U.S. has provided the Saniora government with significant economic and military assistance as well as strong political backing. George W. Bush began to take a keen interest in Lebanon following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Under heavy American and French pressure, the Syrian army withdrew from Lebanon, ending almost 30 years of Syrian hegemony over the country. The Bush administration has also been instrumental in the establishment of a U.N. sponsored international tribunal in the Netherlands to prosecute the killers of Hariri, widely believed to be high-ranking officials in the Syrian regime. The Bush administration is the first American administration to take a firm stance and achieve some success against the Syrian-Iranian axis in Lebanon. That being said, the struggle over Lebanon is far from over. Syria and Iran have continued to smuggle weapons and provide money to groups inside the country that aim to overthrow the Lebanese government.

Among those working tirelessly to destabilize Lebanon is, Hezbollah Chief Hassan Nasrallah. Like his masters in Iran Nasrallah is a narcissist. His fiery speeches are filled with references to “purity,” “victory,” and “nation-pride.” During the summer of 2006, his group kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight more. These actions led to a war with Israel that lasted for more than a month. Following the war, Hezbollah declared the battle a “divine victory,” never mind that 1200 Lebanese citizens were killed, over a million were displaced, Lebanon’s infrastructure was demolished, and the country’s economy collapsed. The so called “divine victory” was parlayed into an attempt to overthrow the Lebanese government which created sectarian tensions and pushed the country to the brink of civil war. In short, Hezbollah has been the worst thing to hit Lebanon since the Mongols, led by Genghis Khan’s grandson Hulagu, ransacked the area in the 13^th century.

The United States’ struggles with Iran are not confined to Lebanon but extend to Iraq. Iran has armed militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing explosives. According to Pentagon officials, these potent-Iranian smuggled weapons have been responsible for the death of numerous American soldiers. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, which reports directly to Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei, is believed to be the organization that introduced explosively formed penetrators to the Iraqi theater. The theocrats in Tehran will do their outmost to see the U.S. fail in Iraq since the last thing they want to see is a secular representative government across their borders.

THE SETTLING OF SCORES

Who is the superpower? Judging from the rhetoric coming out of Iran one is led to believe that Iran is. The Iranians behave as if they are oblivious to the fact that the U.S. has amassed enough naval and air power in the neighborhood to bomb Iran to the Stone Age. If the Iranians are calculating that America’s troubles in Iraq will prevent U.S. policymakers from launching military strikes against their country, then they are mistaken. According to credible reports, including that of the Times of London (September 2^nd 2007), the Pentagon has drawn up “plans for massive air strikes against 1200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days.” Any future attack on Iran will not be of the pinprick variety. The recent inclusion of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the terrorism list and other rumblings of discontent by the Bush administration may be ominous signs that a military confrontation is close at hand.

Contact Information
Ghassan Abdallah, Ph.D.
832-767-3807
Email