Navy Community - discussions, photos, video - Navy Times

Editorial: With Iran on the brink, it’s time to speak softly

After years of rhetoric from Washington that military action against Iran is imminent, Persian Gulf nations are bracing for an American attack on the Islamic republic.

At a recent meeting, Gulf Cooperation Council nations discussed how to react if Iran, as promised, responds to a U.S. attack by showering missiles on America’s regional allies. They concluded that they would have to join the U.S. campaign. In an interview, the Saudi armed forces chief underscored the need for unified action.

U.S. saber-rattling aside, GCC states fear the rise of a hegemonic Iran equipped with nuclear weapons. But there is also an explosive religious subtext. Iran is a Shiite Islamic republic with a democratic streak in a world of Sunni monarchies. The two sects are already at each other’s throats in Iraq, where Iran is allied with the Shiite majority, and Saudi Arabia and others support the Sunni minority. America has backed the Shiite government while seeking help from Sunnis.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear he wants Iran to be the region’s true superpower. His destructive influence already extends across the Middle East through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas and others.

That’s a scenario his neighbors refuse to accept.

All of which sets the stage for a nightmare. The price of a barrel of oil, already nearing $100, would skyrocket if war devastates the facilities that supply a hefty chunk of the world’s petroleum.

That doesn’t address the human toll. A majority of the citizens of the nations would be targeted — Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — live in a few major cities that are easy targets for a missile attack.

It is hard for the Persian Gulf not to expect the worst, thanks to the powerful pro-attack vibe emanating from Washington — or, more specifically, one powerful office with a proven record of preemptive action: that of Vice President Dick Cheney. He believes that only a credible threat of military action can force Iran to give up its nuclear weapons.

The problem is, Washington is divided. The State and Defense Departments oppose near-term attack. Better, they say, to negotiate and build international consensus to diffuse the situation.

They’re right. The U.S. won’t even talk to Iran, which plays into the hands of factions in Tehran who seek confrontation with America and want to reinforce the perception that America is a unilateralist bully. But Iran’s rulers are as divided as Washington over confrontation.

More broadly, it’s unclear whether the Iranian people and body politic share Ahmadinejad’s zest for brinksmanship.

Diplomacy and statesmanship are prerequisites to curbing Iran’s influence and ambitions, nuclear and otherwise. If wide-ranging and highly visible diplomatic efforts fail, that process will add the needed legitimacy for future military action.

Moreover, such diplomacy would help reassure allies left rattled by the Iraq war that has eroded America’s credibility worldwide, particularly in the Middle East. Precipitating another Middle East war isn’t the way to do that.