In Iran’s Mind, America Is Just a “Tame Wolf,” Not a “Killer Wolf”

In early 2012, leading American academic journal Foreign Affairs published a lengthy article titled “Time to Attack Iran,” resolutely declaring “strike now or suffer later.” This article gave rise to months of subsequent interest in European and American academia, followed by the media. The latter concluded that 2012 would be a decisive year for the Iran issue. Europe and America, when waging any foreign war, have followed the rule: “do not move in advance of public opinion.” It seems like the Iran War really wants to get started.

But the reporters in Iran don’t have the sense of urgency that comes with a world war. In the Alborz Mountains north of Tehran, people go skiing and enjoy the view of the city from crowded teahouses on the peak. People are crowding the streets to a degree worse than in Beijing or Shanghai, and vehicles are lining up to be refueled. Visitors go to the bustling museums, and occasionally you can see groups of middle school students. And outside of movie theaters you can see lines of people waiting to get in. In Iran’s third largest city, Isfahan, the evening crowds bring good business to the downtown stores.

Once, in 2003 before the outbreak of the Iraq war, friends told me of three characteristics of preparing for war: running to posts, listening to sirens and constantly having fighter planes in the air and armored corps passing through the streets, sometimes also sounding an alarm. Having enjoyed a long period of peace, Chinese people don’t have any memory of preparing for war. And it is the same for the citizens of Tehran.

In Tehran, I approached a TV host who was born in the U.S. but worked in Iran and asked, “If war breaks out, what will you do?” She jokingly told me that this is a question for the FBI. She then slowly explained that the United States will not do it because it goes against common sense. Because of Iran’s position in the world, war would be a global disaster; the U.S. would not be so foolish.

To the Americans, Iran has drawn two red lines: The first is Iran having nuclear weapons, the second is blocking the Strait of Hormuz. But at this time, Iran will not seek to completely blockade the strait. Even during the 1980s, in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran found it too difficult to block the strait. It won’t take the initiative to do so now. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly declared that Iran would not seek to possess nuclear weapons and that the peaceful use of nuclear energy would be under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Chinese entrepreneurs who have been in Iran for many years also acknowledged Iran’s lack of determination to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore, the U.S. is far from finding reasons to raid, attack or launch a large-scale war against Iran.

According to America’s critics, whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons is simply a matter of America’s calculations, not Iran’s claims. If America wants to fight, who will stop it? But does America really want to go to war? After five or six years, the war in Iraq has just died down, but on the rumors that there will be a new war in Iran, the Chinese Embassy in Iran is ready to retreat. But a war in Iran is like “crying wolf;” regardless of how much you cry out, people will still not believe you.

The truth is simple: Iran is the “wolf.” If you extinguish Iran as a threat, then the Arab world would not depend on the U.S. and its weapons, and could drive it away. America is a “tame wolf,” not a “killer wolf.” America wants to exaggerate the Iranian threat to keep the Arab people in fear and maintain the global balance in the Middle East. It is only when there is the threat of imbalance that the U.S. will become involved, as it did in 1991 with Saddam Hussein.

From this we can see that America’s policy on Iran is a strategy of global “off-shore balancing” — condensed. Just as the balance between Japan and China, India and Pakistan or NATO and Russia is not a last resort, the balance between Iran and the Arab world will be a long-term core of the U.S.’ Middle East policy. Of course right now it is against Iran, but this is nothing more than using sanctions to force Iran to its knees and chasten it to enact some honest changes.

The next question is: Will these sanctions on Iran be helpful? At the beginning of the year, the British newspaper The Independent published an article titled, “Sanctions Can Only Deepen the Iran Crisis.” The article states that sanctions are really for the “demonization of Iran. The problem is that Israel and its right-wing American allies are more interested in regime change than Tehran’s nuclear program.” The article also mentioned that the sanctions have impoverished Iraqis, killing over 500,000 children. In fact, sanctions have caused many non-humanitarian consequences. In Iran, for example, aviation equipment couldn’t be upgraded for 30 years and old models were used. In 25 years, 15 people have crashed planes — more than 1,700 people have been killed.

It is like the poem, “Rise, the People Suffer; Die, the People Suffer.” In Tehran, I look at the money still there in the form of luxury, brand-name cars, while many of the beautiful girls in black robes walking down the streets wear old, outdated pants and shoes. I feel a sense of bitterness toward the U.S. sanctions. In the end, whom do they hurt?

Americans justly claim they oppose Iran’s “dictatorship.” Iran is autocratic, that is true. A dictatorship is not conducive to the well-being of civilians, but sanctions are no better. What impact does foreign power have on the lives of ordinary people in the end? This is the confusing ideological paradox of political science.