By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). Whatâ€™s the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regimeâ€™s founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were â€œun-Islamic.â€ The countryâ€™s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that â€œdeveloping, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.â€ Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeiniâ€™s statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.
Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehranâ€™s aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesnâ€™t need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear â€œbreakoutâ€ capacityâ€”the ability to weaponize within a few monthsâ€”would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Iranians arenâ€™t suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as â€œa messianic, apocalyptic cult.â€ In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iranâ€™s ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by thoseâ€”including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon.
One of Netanyahuâ€™s advisers said of Iran, â€œThink Amalek.â€ The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, â€œGo and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.â€ Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.
Iran isnâ€™t a dictatorship. It is certainly not a democracy. The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy. Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the â€œmad mullahâ€ who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahsâ€”which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority. Iran might be ready to deal. We canâ€™t know if a deal is possible since weâ€™ve never tried to negotiate one, not directly. While the regime appears united in its belief that Iran has the right to a civilian nuclear programâ€”a position with broad popular supportâ€”some leaders seem sensitive to the costs of the current approach. It is conceivable that these â€œmoderatesâ€ would appreciate the potential benefits of limiting their nuclear program, including trade, technology and recognition by the United States. The Iranians insist they must be able to enrich uranium on their own soil. One proposal is for this to take place in Iran but only under the control of an international consortium. Itâ€™s not a perfect solution because the Iranians couldâ€”if they were very creative and dedicatedâ€”cheat. But neither is it perfect from the Iranian point of view because it would effectively mean a permanent inspections regime in their country. But both sides might get enough of what they consider crucial for it to work. Why not try this before launching the next Mideast war?