CQ Today – Think before acting in Iran

Before the US, ourselves and other nations invaded Iraq in 2003, there were extensive explanations provided for why war was necessary. The main case for the war was the alleged development of so-called weapons of mass destruction by the Saddam regime. The US Secretary of Defence, Colin Powell, addressed the United Nations with evidence of these claims. So, we went to war to remove the regime accused of these crimes. I supported that war based on the information that was provided. I thought that we were involved in an admirable enterprise of removing a dictator and delivering democracy and freedom to Iraqis. I was wrong. Saddam was executed for his crimes, but the power vacuum left led to the rise of ISIS and an Iraqi regime that is now largely controlled by hardline Shia clerics aligned with Iran. The hopeful scenes of Iraqis with ink-stained fingers demonstrating their joy at voting seem to be from a long-lost, naive era. Before Iraq, we removed the Taliban. NATO later removed Gaddafi. And, in recent years, Assad has been chased from Syria. All of these regime changes have left their countries mired in chaos and violence. Some of the changes, like the rise of ISIS, continue to cause terrorism in Australia. All told, more than $8 trillion was spent on the global war on terror (which is around a quarter of the US debt), and more than 8000 lives of allied soldiers were lost, including 47 Australians. So, with this experience fresh in my mind, I have not joined the champagne popping for this week’s attacks on Iran. I am not mourning the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a brutal dictator who is responsible for the deaths of many, but I must ask after our recent record of regime change, what next? Donald Trump addressed Iranians after the attacks and said that: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.” But history proves that when a chaotic and violent power vacuum emerges, it is the most ruthless and most violent forces within a country who normally seize power. Flower power progressive types preaching democracy and freedom tend not to seize power when a nation is under attack and at war. So, there is no guarantee that the deaths of the Iranian leadership won’t be replaced by even worse people. My scepticism has not been calmed by the shifting justification for the attacks by the Trump administration. Notwithstanding the President’s comments about regime change, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, said that: “… we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” This seems to imply that the US only attacked because Israel wanted to attack. But that begs the question about whether such attacks were wise in the first place and why the US would let another country dictate when and how it went to war. At this stage, and unlike Iraq, Australian forces are not involved. However, if things do not go to plan, we may be asked to provide help. Before we do, it is important we get more clarity about the goals and objectives of this war. Modern history demonstrates that we should never enter a war that we do not have a clear plan for getting out of. Australia faces a challenging security environment in our own region. The conflict in Iran demonstrates our unhealthy dependence on other countries for oil, fertilisers and many other basic commodities. We should focus more on improving our selfsufficiency before getting involved in another war halfway around the world.