
What makes this man tick? … Arrogance and some history.
Le
Figaro, France
Why One Need Not
Despair Over Iran …
"The Persians will
need to overcome their tendency for arrogance, a character trait that once saw
King Xerxes whip the waters of
the Dardanelles as punishment for the storm that had destroyed his navy."
By Alexandre
Adler

Translated
By Mike Goeden
September
22, 2007
France
- Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
If Bernard Kouchner was right not to talk to the
French like children or people nostalgic for the France of former Prime
Minister Edouard Daladier
- who's career culminated in the 1938 Munich
Agreement [in other words, Kouchner was right not to appease Iran, as was done
with the Nazis
] - perhaps
he should also have pointed out that this isn't Ancient Troy and there's little
reason to fear any new Persian Wars
.
No doubt the Iranians tend to get carried away. A great people with a culture
thousands of years old, the Persians have had difficulty over the past century
understanding how they could have fallen so low, and as a result, are often
filled with enthusiasm for seizing on shortcuts for a return to power. This is
unlike the wise followers of Kemalism in Turkey, who were quite careful not to provoke
Stalin or Churchill [Kemalism is the secularist
philosophy of modern Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk
].
Instead,
the former Shah, Reza Pahlavi, decided to side with
Nazi Germany, which could hardly have offered him help. His arrogance cost him
his throne and weakened the monarchy until 1953. As for President Mosaddeq [ousted in a U.S.-sponsored coup
], isn't it obvious that by
agreeing to discuss modest compensation for British shareholders, he would have
split the Anglo-Saxon front and most likely benefited from the goodwill of the
Americans, who only reluctantly followed Churchill's hard line?
[Editor's
Note: In 1953, it was Britain under Winston Churchill who pushed the United
States into toppling Iran's democratically elected President, Mohammad Mosaddeq.
The Brits were angry that Mosaddeq had nationalized
the Iranian assets of British Petroleum, and they wanted to see a return of the
Shah to reverse that decision. Washington obliged
].
Finally, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi,
the last shah, also got carried away when in 1973 with the help of his
Venezuelan allies, he succeeded in transforming a small, whimsical [oil] strike
by the humiliated Saudi Arabians into a true hostage taking – only this time
with economic hostages - thus disrupting the entire Western economy. [The 1973
Arab Oil crisis
].
No one in Paris, London
or Washington had forgotten this theft of the century - pompously called the
"first oil crisis" - during which Islamic fundamentalist
demonstrations began to undermine the Shah's regime. Most Westerners at the
time held the opinion that Iran would benefit from a lesson in domestic
democracy.
And now
we have the mullahs demonstrating their usual arrogance, concluding too quickly
that American difficulties in the Middle East are so great as to prevent them
from taking armed action to prevent Iranians from becoming a nuclear power.
This attitude
is all the more ridiculous as it rests on an almost-exact analysis. But, just
as the devil is in the details, this "almost" makes all the difference. In 1952, Mosaddeq was right to think that the West, including Great
Britain, would eventually accept the nationalization of Iranian oil, just as
America under Roosevelt had resigned itself to the nationalization of Mexican
oil in 1936
. But he
failed to remember that Mexican President Lazaro
Cardenas had provided Washington the prospect of a solid alliance based on shared
anti-fascist values, in particular the defense of the Spanish Republic [the
Spanish Civil War
].
Mosaddeq,
who could have played the democracy card of Nehru's non-aligned movement
,
proved so determined that the need to inflict political damage on him exceeded
the stakes over oil. Even from Stalin's point of view, nascent Iranian
nationalism had to be prevented from becoming, in its turn, a cause for
concern.
It's true
that today, the Western world is willing to tolerate important exceptions to
the principle of nonproliferation. The Bush Administration has thus closed its
eyes to India's nuclear program to secure the political-strategic favors of New
Delhi. And with this intention it became necessary for the U.S. to close its
eyes to Pakistan's nuclear program - once Musharraf
had somewhat restrained his nuclear ambitions. "Why," certain Iranian
leaders ask in good faith, "wouldn't the West tolerate a limited Iranian
nuclear program that everyone knows would offer a balance to the Saudi
Arabian-Pakistani nuclear program, rather than represent any real threat to the
existence of Israel?"
The answer to this question is simple. To arrive at a compromise, Teheran
must find the words and gestures to reassure its negotiating partners. Without
a doubt, the provocative steps taken by Ahmadinejad
have been aimed at preventing any such compromise, so as to allow for a harder
line from the regime. This is the primary goal of its most fundamentalist wing.
But now
the situation is in flux. Everyone understands that at the end of the Bush
presidency, the United States will start to withdraw from Iraq, even if the
civil war hasn't been contained. And here in a trick of history, America's
relative impotence is transformed into a strength: No
Iranian government can choose to abandon the Shiites in Iraq to their fate.
That means that the Americans must remain on the spot for a while longer.
To arrive
at a minimal agreement, Teheran needs to make a number of major concessions,
after which a long and complex bargaining process could begin during which
nonproliferation would be formally reaffirmed and Iran's right to a nuclear
arsenal would be established in a not-necessarily remote future. Still, in
order to do that, the Persians will need to overcome their tendency for
arrogance, a character trait that once saw the Achaemenid
King, Xerxes
, whip the waters of the Dardanelles
as punishment for the storm that had destroyed his navy.
CLICK HERE FOR
FRENCH VERSION