Iran is the elephant in the Middle East room

The elephant in the Middle East room is Iran. Stopping the Islamic Republic of Iran from reaching a nuclear capability is the most important issue facing the international community. If we fail to do so, the implication on many issues, from energy to stability in the region to terrorism and to nuclear proliferation, will be profoundly negative and dangerous.

On the other hand, if the U.S. and others succeed in preventing Iran from going nuclear, as President Obama has committed to, then a series of positive developments could flow. Included are a strengthened American image in the region, a tilt away from the Islamic extremists, and possibilities for progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front.

We see this in microcosm when we look at what has been in happening in Gaza.

It is impossible to understand what’s going on in Gaza and with Hamas without recognizing Iran’s role. It is hard to comprehend Israel’s reaction to Hamas without seeing the role of the looming threat to Iran. It is impossible to find a solution in Gaza without taking Iran into account. And it is critical that very soon the world must move its attention from Gaza to Iran itself as the clock toward an Iranian nuclear weapon keeps on ticking.

When Hamas began to take control in Gaza, many took comfort that at least it was a Sunni regime that unlike Hezbollah in Lebanon, would not draw too close to the Shiite Iranians.

It was false comfort. Iran has become the major supplier of weapons, increasingly sophisticated, flowing to Hamas. Iran provides full diplomatic support to Hamas. And Iran works to strengthen the Islamist Hamas against the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas.

The first necessity for the international community is to openly identify and expose Iran’s role in building up Hamas. The Palestinian terrorist group has now been able to launch missiles that can reach Tel Aviv and cause great damage simply because of Iran. Iran ships its Fajr-5 and many Grad missiles through Sudan and, in the words of the head of the Republican Guard, Major General Mohammad Ali Ja’afari, “we have given them (Hamas and others in Gaza) the necessary technology for the Fajr-5 and today mass quantities of this missile are being produced.”

And make no mistake about it: Iran is determined to up the ante, to increase both the weaponry and training for Hamas that will allow it to become the same level of threat to Israel from the south as Hezbollah is from the north.

Any solution to the threat of Hamas to Israel must provide a way to interdict that flow of arms from Iran. The cease-fire agreement reached through the good offices of the U.S. and Egypt and follow-up negotiations will focus primarily on what role Egypt will play to stop that arms flow. Based on past experience, even with a Mubarak regime that was far friendlier to Israel than the current Morsi government, stopping weaponry will at best be a sporadic business.

And so, inevitably, when it comes to truly reversing the dynamic in Gaza (Israel may have regained some deterrence and some reasonably quiet time, but it didn’t change the fundamentals) it is what takes place with regard to the Iranian bomb that could play the pivotal role.

First, as if we need it, the latest conflict in Gaza reminds us of what a priority it is to stop Iran from going nuclear. A resurgent Iran, after obtaining nuclear weapons, would undoubtedly multiply its destructive options manifold. Keep in mind the comments of French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius about the Gaza conflict: “What’s new is that now there are long-range arms…and there are Iranian arms. Iranian responsibility is heavy in all of this.”

Second, preventing Iran from going nuclear, whether through diplomacy, sanctions or the military option, will embolden more moderate forces in the region to stand up to the extremists. Indeed, the balance of power within the Palestinian camp could shift toward the Palestinian Authority and away from Hamas.

All in all, it would make it less likely that Iran could see itself as the expansionist power arming its terror-prone allies and causing destruction everywhere.

So let’s keep things in perspective. Let’s encourage any agreement that in the short-term will stop the launching of rockets from Gaza into Israel.

If we truly want to change the dynamic in the long run, however, dealing with the main address -- Tehran -- is the way to go. That’s what “keeping your eyes on the prize” means in today’s Middle East.

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Commentary: Will Obama, Romney meet the Commander-in-Chief test?

Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan 
Special to McClatchy Newspapers

Kansascity.com, 22 Oct 2012 -Monday’s presidential debate is a chance for the candidates to meet the commander-in-chief threshold and address foreign policy matters before an expected audience of more than 60 million viewers in advance of the Nov. 6 election.
Middle East issues are likely to be of particular concern and immediate problems in Iran, Iraq, and Syria will take center stage. The temptation will be to address the challenges in each country separately. In fact they are inextricably intertwined.
The nuclear threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran leads some to think that it will be the most difficult to solve. It may be the easiest. And solving the Iran problem has significant implications for peace and stability in Iraq, Syria, and the Middle East more broadly.
Tehran’s clerical rulers are increasingly on shaky ground with an angry and restless population. With their currency in free-fall and a domestic economy hampered by international sanctions imposed to curtail uranium enrichment to weapons grade levels, many inside the country are asking whether there isn’t a better way.
The realization that there is a viable political alternative in the Iranian opposition has only increased calls for democratic change.
But as Iran’s internal woes have heightened, the regime has dug in by closing ranks with Shiite officials in Baghdad and expanding their violent arc of influence to include Damascus.
Iraq’s Nouri al-Maliki maintains a strong grip on his fledgling country but the emerging realization that he is a puppet of the Iranian regime has diminished his stature on the world stage and led to criticism of his continued leadership by U.S. lawmakers.
Positive relations with Tehran have also made al-Assad’s twenty-month crackdown of domestic protest in Syria possible. Iranian shipments of weapons, munitions, IRGC officers, and tools for monitoring domestic dissent have facilitated Assad’s brutality, led to the displacement of more than one hundred thousand people, and resulted in more than thirty thousand causalities.
Increasingly aggressive denunciations of the U.S. and Israel have also become a means of distracting attention from Tehran’s mounting domestic woes.
The candidates can demonstrate facility with contemporary Middle East issues by indicating that their administration will support regime change in Iran. Such change is the only viable means of addressing problems in Iran, Iraq, and Syria in a sustainable way and realizing U.S. and Israeli security interests.
The recent removal of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) from the State Department’s terror roster was a preliminary acknowledgement that Iran’s aggression must be checked.
The group is an integral component of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a coalition of opposition organizations that reject clerical rule and stand for democratic change. No coalition is more capable of exacerbating Tehran’s current troubles and promoting grassroots change from within.
The de-listing of the groups signaled the world that the Clinton-era policy of political engagement designed to appease the regime through concessions had come to end and that all options would be considered to manage the Iran threat.
On the heels of this diplomatic shift, however, more must be done to support the democratic cause in Iran and harness the opposition’s current momentum in support of U.S. security objectives.
Here’s what the candidates need to know about the Iranian opposition group:
• PMOI/MEK’s removal from the State Department’s foreign terrorist organization list was an acknowledgement that the group failed to meet the statutory criteria necessary for the designation. It was also an illustration of the bi-partisan consensus that the group’s resistance represented a useful internal check on the regime’s regional influence and the best hopes for a more peaceful and stable Iran.
• No opposition organization stokes the regime’s fears more than PMOI/MEK and U.S. support for the group does little to disabuse Tehran’s anxieties. In this regard, the U.S. embrace of the group provides a source of leverage to force the regime to comply with international obligations.
• Academics that have studied the group have long known that, vis-à-vis other opposition movements in the Middle East, including those that have received recent U.S. support, no group is more capable engendering broad worldwide confidence than PMOI/MEK. Neither does any other opposition group have such a vast and intricate network inside Iran.
• The group has been a valuable source of intelligence on Iran’s emerging nuclear weapons program and their new-found legitimacy is likely to reveal even more information that is useful to the west.
• A 2006 study carried out by the Iran Policy Committee found that the group’s positions were consistent with democratic principles. That the group stands for a non-nuclear Iran that upholds human rights, gender equality, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, and positive relations with regional neighbors and the west provides further justification for the group’s embrace.
The candidates can meet Monday’s commander-in-chief test by demonstrating that they are committed to preventing Iran’s nuclear pursuits by further weakening the regime internally and rejecting the false choice of military confrontation or prolonged political engagement with Iran.
By calling for regime change in Tehran from within and linking broader security issues in the Middle East with the Islamic Republic’s current regime, the candidates can demonstrate leadership, a belief in peace through strength, and a willingness to support those who seek freedom and human rights.

About the writer:
Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the Director of the Negotiation and Conflict Management graduate program in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore. The opinions expressed are his own. He can be reached by email at isheehan@ubalt.edu. <mailto:isheehan@ubalt.edu>