 |
Peter Brookes writes
a weekly column on foreign policy and defense
for the New York Post and is penning
a book on national security affairs for McGraw
Hill due out early next fall. He appears regularly
on national TV and radio.
Prior to joining the Heritage
Foundation, Brookes served in the Bush
administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense (DASD) for Asian and Pacific Affairs
in the Office of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, where he was responsible for the
development, planning, guidance and oversight
of U .S. security and defense policy for 38
countries and 5 bilateral defense alliances
in the Asia-Pacific region.
Brookes has a distinguished military background,
including active duty in support of military
operations in Iraq/Kuwait (Desert Storm);
Haiti (Restore Democracy); and Bosnia (Joint
Endeavor). He flew reconnaissance missions
in East Asia and the Persian Gulf while stationed
in Japan covering military matters related
to the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam,
Iran and Iraq. His personal awards and decorations
include: the Joint Service Commendation Medal;
the Navy Commendation Medal (3 awards); the
Navy Achievement Medal; several naval and
joint unit awards; the Defense Language Institute’s
Kellogg Award; the Joint Chiefs of Staff service
badge; and Naval Aviation Observer (NAO) wings.
Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this
article? Visit the discussion forum.
View
the Brookes Archives
|
|
|
|
September 13, 2004
[Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this commentary? Visit the
discussion forum.]
The Bush
administration is actually pursuing a vigorous, multilateral (yes,
multilateral) policy for grappling with the growing Iranian threat
- though you certainly wouldn't know it from the critics.
The Kerry
campaign is (no surprise) probably the most fickle, moving from
position to position to see which sound-bite gets the most traction.
Last December, John Kerry told an audience at the left-leaning
Council on Foreign Relations: "The Bush administration stubbornly
refuses to conduct a realistic, non-confrontational policy with
Iran, even where it may be possible . . . As president, I will be
prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran,
just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade
ago."
In March, campaign aide Rand Beers revised Kerry's stance on Iran
with the announcement: "John Kerry is not saying he is looking for
better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran."
Most recently, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Susan Rice charged
that "the Bush administration has stood on the sidelines while [Iran's]
. . . nuclear program has advanced." Rice continued: "It is past
time for the [Bush] administration to develop a tough and effective
strategy for dealing with Iran - and to show real leadership when
it comes to addressing the most dangerous threats this country faces."
So there you have it: The administration is too hard, too soft
and has no Iran policy at all. What a bunch of hooey!
But with the International Atomic Energy Agency gearing up to meet
today on Iran's nuclear (weapons) program in Vienna, it's a good
time to take stock of what the White House is doing to deal with
the rising Persian power:
* Iraq and Afghanistan: Nothing is more powerful than the
power of example. And sowing the seeds of democracy in Iran's eastern
and western neighbors will have a major effect on Iran's future.
The repressive Iranian clerics are shaking in their robes at the
thought of upcoming democratic elections in the former snake pits
of Iraq and Afghanistan
- and the inspiring effect it will have on Iranian youth, yearning
for political reform. Success in Iraq
will also reduce Iran's radical sway over Shi'ites there - and worldwide.
(America's new Persian-language service - Radio Farda - will ensure
they are informed of the developments abroad.)
Iran is the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism.
And liberalizing the repressive, fundamentalist Iranian regime will
loosen Tehran's embrace of international terrorism once and for
all.
* Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD): In the coming months,
the United States will field the first elements of a national defense
against ballistic missiles. BMD will protect the homeland at first,
but eventually will be deployable around the world, diminishing
the threat from the likes of Iranian (and North
Korean) nukes.
* Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI): America is leading
a 60-nation effort to shore up flagging nonproliferation treaties
by taking a more proactive approach to stop the spread of weapons
of mass destruction and missiles. The PSI interdicts ships, planes
and trucks that carry materials, which contribute to the development
or production of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Iran's
nuclear program is certainly in the PSI's crosshairs.
* The European Union initiative: The White House is also
supporting the efforts of France, Germany and Britain to end Iran's
nuclear activities.
Those E.U. labors are likely to fail, but supporting the diplomatic
initiative lays the groundwork for promoting more drastic measures
later on, such as U.N. economic sanctions or military action. (The
United States also has low-level contacts with the Iranians via
U.N. channels in New York and elsewhere.)
No doubt: Dealing with Iran is tough. The options are limited.
But it's clear that the administration does have a comprehensive
policy for dealing with the growing Iranian challenge.
Critics may carp about the Bush's Iran policy, but it has done
more than any previous administration to contain Iranian power and
threats to American interests and international security. And, fortunately,
it's also the most likely to achieve the desired result - an open,
terrorism-free, non-nuclear Iran.
Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. E-mail:
peterbrookes@heritage.org
 Email
this page to friends
[Have an opinion on this article? Sound
off here.]
© 2004 News World Communications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Mr. Brookes is a Senior Fellow for National
Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. This
column originally appeared in the New York Post. All opinions
expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily
reflect those of Military.com.
|
