I was distressed by Mr. Smith’s Your Turn piece of Nov. 1 that advocates a military solution to Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that our failure to act will lead to an Iranian nuclear genocide visited upon Israel. I was perhaps even more distressed at Mr. Cohea’s Nov. 12 letter of rebuttal in which he made some rather intemperate and overstated remarks about U.S. policy.

Although I can appreciate the thrust of both arguments, both gentlemen seem somewhat removed from the real world, and apparently oblivious to some pertinent historical facts.

A bit of background may be useful. First of all, over the years we have clearly earned a fair measure of displeasure from Iran. In 1953, our CIA was instrumental in overthrowing the then newly democratically elected government of Iran, which was threatening to nationalize British (and U.S.) oil interests. We rented the Iranian security police and used them to put the autocratic and often brutal and wildly unpopular Shah back on the imperial throne. Using our close financial ties with the national police apparatus, we supported the Shah faithfully for the next 25 years, to keep the oil flowing.

The vast majority of Iranians were not pleased with our activity. In 1979, reacting to this displeasure, the religious mullahs, who are now the present regime, led the mass of the population into the streets to overthrow the Shah. The new government took out Iran’s long-standing anger at the U.S. by occupying our embassy and holding our people hostage for more than a year.

Next, all during the 1980s we retaliated against Iran by quietly but more or less openly supporting the Iraq tyrant Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran, and the bloody eight-year war that followed. We provided advice, financing, intelligence and armaments, including some very lethal weapons.

We even managed to shoot down an Iranian civilian passenger plane with 290 on board over the gulf. It was not our most shining hour.

Saddam, of course, repaid our largesse by invading Kuwait at the end of the decade. And Iran was pleased to see their two main enemies at war with each other.

One other interesting item. Right after the 9/11 attack, Iran offered official condolences, and offered real assistance in hunting down al-Qaeda. The offer was ignored. Then in January 2002, Iran was labeled in the State of the Union Address as a member of the Axis-of-Evil. The speech was not well received in Iran.

So when Mr. Cohea claims that Iran’s nuclear program is possibly a rational response to the threats they have endured from both Iraq and the U.S., he may have a point. Iran looks at Pakistan, one country removed, and notes that its nuclear arms seem to have forestalled an all out attack from their traditional enemy, India, also with nuclear arms.

In the Iranian view, nuclear arms seem to prevent attack from nuclear armed enemies, bent on aggressive policies. And it seems quite understandable that Iran views our general policy toward them as being historically aggressive.

The last five and a half decades would seem to make the point. Notwithstanding the fact that many are dismayed that we launched a costly and lengthy preemptive war against Iraq, allegedly to retaliate for attacking us on 9/11 (which they did not) and for having stores of weapons of mass destruction (which they did not), I would suggest that Mr. Cohea’s assertion that we are wildly imperialistic and paranoid, and the greatest threat world peace, while perhaps worthy of rational debate (using less inflammatory language) goes too far by half. And it tends to undercut his basic position concerning the underlying rationality of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

On the other hand, I am alarmed at Mr. Smith’s assertion that if we do not end Iran’s nuclear program, by military means if necessary, we are certain that Iran will use nuclear arms to obliterate Israel, as one would be led to believe by listening to President Ahmadinejad. Iran’s president is a truly disgustingly bigoted nut case, who says outrageous things about Israel. But he does not control Iranian foreign policy, and does not control Iranian nuclear policy. He is widely viewed internally as an entertaining blowhard. The majority of the Iranian population, including the real power brokers, do not take Ahmadinejad’s ranting very seriously. He puts on a good show, but he does not control the Iranian military.

The Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, not the president, is the commander-in-chief. And Khamenei is the leader of the National Council, where true political power resides, and the National Security Council, with control of the Revolutionary Guards.

Ahmadinejad is used to entertain the hard-core faithful, more or less like Rush Limbaugh, or maybe Glenn Beck, or perhaps Keith Olbermann. Like them, he issues no orders to the military.

True, the world does not need any more nuclear weapons, Iranian or otherwise. But to try to obliterate their nuclear program by military strikes would not succeed, and would only create a senseless new round of conventional warfare in the region. Further, the military leaders who would control any weapons know full well that if they were to try to utilize them, they would precipitate a nuclear exchange which would virtually destroy not just Israel, but certainly Iran as well.

Negotiations and international pressure will ultimately work. Nuclear armegeddon is not the solution. To paraphrase the words of Churchill, jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war.

Jerry Funk, of Helena, is a retired CIA intelligence officer and senior staff member on the National Security Council in the Carter White House.

Related

• US threatens world peace
• Iran’s threat must be confronted