Is Iran next? The Bush administration's crusade to "democratize" the Middle East is zeroing in on Iran's nuclear ambitions. The result could be devastating--but the worst need not happen.

As the current crisis with Iran unfolds, discussion of a possible war is tinted with a sense of deja vu and burdened with a feeling of inevitability. Once again, the Bush administration issues grim warnings about the prospect of "weapons of mass murder" falling into the hands of a deranged ruler heading a terrorist-sponsoring regime. Once again, the administration lobbies the UN Security Council, rather than Congress, for "authority" to wage a war it insists is necessary to preempt a dire global threat. And the Iranian regime's defiant militancy apparently leaves little reason to hope that the anticipated war--which even hawkish observers believe would be devastating--can be avoided.

However, there are sound reasons to believe that war can and will be avoided. First of all, the Bush administration confronts a severe shortage of military assets to deal with Iran. It is also in a strategic straitjacket as a result of the removal of Saddam Hussein; the resulting power vacuum has been filled by Iraqi allies of Tehran, an "axis of evil" regime.

Bad as the present situation is on the ground in the Persian Gulf, the Iranian regime, according to the Bush administration's own intelligence estimates, is years away from acquiring the means to build even a single nuclear weapon. And that assumes that Tehran is involved in a secretive effort to develop nukes. The chief "evidence" in support of that proposition has been provided by an Islamo-Marxist terrorist group that seeks to supplant the existing Iranian regime--and that, once in power, could actually be even worse.

While the Bush administration and those who echo its party line would have us believe that war with Iran is both imperative and impending, a realistic appraisal of the situation yields a different conclusion. War is avoidable and would be counterproductive.

Order of Battle

The ongoing war in Iraq has tied up nearly all of our available manpower and resources. Iran is a mountainous nation four times larger than Iraq (roughly the size of Alaska) with a population of roughly 70 million--nearly two-thirds of which is younger than 30. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a viable air force and a relatively homogenous population that does not necessarily support its government, but would unite against a foreign aggressor. The nation absorbed an estimated one million casualties in its war with Iraq during the 1980s, a conflict in which the aggressor, Saddam's Iraq, received material and military aid from both the United States and the Soviet Union.

The removal of Saddam's regime resulted in a new government aligned with Tehran. The new Iraqi parliament is dominated by the United Iraqi Alliance, created with the blessing of the Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah All Sistani (a near physical twin of the late, unlamented Ayatollah Khomeini). The alliance includes the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which is headquartered in Iran. SCIRI is led by Abdel Aziz-Hakim, who spent 20 years in Iranian exile as a guest of the Tehran regime. SCIRI's Iranian-funded military arm, the Badr Brigades, includes many veterans of the Iran-Iraq war (on the Iranian side).

The alliance also includes the Dawa Party, led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; Dawa's military affiliate is the Mahdi Army, which was formed in 2003. The Mahdi Army survived a three-week assault conducted by U.S. Marines in Najaf in November 2004. Sadr paid a high-profile visit to Iran in late January as a gesture of support in Tehran's escalating confrontation with the United States. "If any Islamic state, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, is attacked," warned Sadr's spokesman during the visit, "the Mahdi Army would fight inside and outside Iran." Mahdi Army loyalists have insinuated themselves in key positions throughout the new Iraqi military and police. Sadr has also opened diplomatic channels with Syria's Bashar Assad, who rules another nation targeted by Washington for "regime change."

British journalist Andrew Cockburn, who has covered the Persian Gulf for over a decade, believes that the occupation of Iraq has left the United States strategically checkmated in any potential military conflict with Iran. "Jimmy Carter presented Iran with 52 hostages," writes Cockburn. "George Bush has done a lot better, sending 130,000 Americans across the ocean as guarantees of his administration's good behavior toward the Islamic Republic."

Military analyst William Lind concurs that Tehran has the strategic initiative. "It can shut down its own oil exports and, with mining and naval action, those of Kuwait and the Gulf States as well," writes Lind. "It can ramp up the guerilla wars both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It could also do something that would come as a total surprise to Washington and cross the Iran-Iraq border with four to six divisions, simply rolling up the American army of occupation in Iraq. Syria might well join in, knowing that it is only a question of time before it is attacked anyway. We have no field army in Iraq at this point; our troops are dispersed fighting insurgents. A couple dozen Scuds on the Green Zone [the Coalition's headquarters in Baghdad] would decapitate our leadership."

Is War Inevitable?

Grim and forbidding as such scenarios may be, hawkish analysts and commentators insist that the alternative--"the world's most destructive weapons in the hands of clerical radicals who might use them," in the Wall Street Journal's words--is immeasurably worse.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the 1970s-era radical student movement that helped overthrow the Shah and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, subscribes to an apocalyptic strain of Islam: "We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the return" of the Shi'ite Muslim Messiah, the "Mahdi" or "Hidden Imam."

Ahmadinejad has stated that Israel should be "wiped off the map," has questioned the historic authenticity of the Jewish Holocaust, and has claimed that a divine "aura" emanated from him during his speech before the UN General Assembly last fall. He seems almost perfectly cast in the role of the Mad Megalomaniac from the Middle East. In fact, neo-conservative war hawk Michael Ledeen, an "Iran-Contra" figure notorious for his tight connections to shadowy individuals in the intelligence community, has whimsically suggested that "the CIA managed to recruit this guy from central casting [to be] the perfect person to get the West to take the Iranian threat seriously."

With Iranian public opinion catalyzing behind a figure seen as a modern Persian incarnation of Adolf Hitler, the atmosphere is being tuned for a potentially devastating war.

"The unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice: one way or another, unconscionable acts of war may now be unavoidable," lamented prominent British commentator Gerard Baker in the Times of London. "Those who say war is unthinkable are right. Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world. They will, quite probably, entrench and harden the Iranian regime. Even the young, hopeful democrats who despise their theocratic rulers and crave the freedoms of the West will pause at the sight of their country burnt and humiliated by the infidels. A war, even a limited one, will almost certainly raise oil prices to recession-inducing levels"--with $150 a barrel oil a realistic possibility. Yet allowing Iran to go nuclear, Baker continues, would be "a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler."

Niall Ferguson, a British historian teaching at Harvard University, offered an even bleaker prediction in a January 15 essay for the London Telegraph. Written from the vantage point of a hypothetical "future historian," Ferguson's essay posits Iran's acquisition of nuclear capability in the very near future, a 2007 nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, a humiliating retreat from Iraq by U.S. forces overwhelmed by Iranian-backed militias, and a four-year war between a U.S.-led coalition and Iranian-backed Shi'ite forces.

These disheartening assessments, it should be understood, are offered by two commentators who support the idea of a military strike against Iran--and who apparently overlook the fact that Israel's strength provides a major deterrence in the region.

The Worst "Best-case Scenario"

If these projections could be taken as worst-case scenarios, what would a best-case scenario look like? The Iran Policy Committee (IPC), a high-octane beltway think-tank composed of prominent military and diplomatic figures, offers what it considers to be a suitable alternative to either "appeasement" of Iran or preemptive warfare against it.

"For too long, Washington has been divided between those who favor engagement with and those who support military strikes against the Iranian regime," stated the IPC in US Policy Options for Iran, a report published roughly a year ago that has gained an audience in Washington during the present crisis. "The Committee stresses the potential for a third alternative: Keep open diplomatic and military options, while providing a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change."

While the IPC advocates regime change rather than a military assault, they justify their plans in much the same way as the neo-cons do. Reiterating a key theme recited by the Bush administration in the build-up to war with Iraq, the IPC insists that "time is on Iran's side. The world cannot wait for proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' of an Iranian bomb. The risks of delay are too high. The international community should be prepared to act on the recent discoveries of evidence of weapons-related nuclear activities. Discoveries over the past two years, along with the revelations by Iranian opposition groups that Iran is developing a nuclear trigger, constitute 'clear and present evidence' of illicit activities that, unless halted, may lead to bomb-making."

What Revelations?

"In December 2004," continues the group's report, "Iran's main opposition coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), uncovered a new missile program secretly pursued by Iran, as well as a program to develop a nuclear warhead. The new secret missile, produced at the Hemmat Missile Industries Complex in northeast Teheran, is named Ghadar, NCRI reported. North Korean experts are believed to be assisting the Iranian program at this complex."

The activist arm of the NCRI is a guerrilla group called the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), or "People's Mujahideen." The Iran Policy Council claims that the MEK has "an impressive network in Iran, where it has been gathering intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons program as well as its activities in Iraq." In fact, according to the Bush administration, the NCRI/MEK alone is responsible for uncovering vital evidence of Iran's secret nuclear weapons program--evidence that was somehow concealed from inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) during its inspection of Iranian nuclear facilities.

"Iran has concealed its ... nuclear program," stated President Bush during a July 16, 2005, White House press conference. "That became discovered, not because of their compliance with the IAEA or [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], but because a dissident group pointed it out to the world, and [that] raised suspicions about the intentions of the program.

On January 20, the Jerusalem Post reported another discovery by the NCRI--a "hot press" and a "hot iso-static press" supposedly kept at a secret site 25 miles west of Tehran. "These machines are able to simultaneously use pressure and heat to produce uranium spheres for production of nuclear bombs," stated NCRI spokesman Dowlat Nowrouzi in London. "Both of these machines are banned items."

Iran insists that it has been in compliance with its treaty obligations and that it seeks to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The key evidence contradicting that claim has been produced by the MEK and its Paris-based political front, the NCRI. Several members of Congress, including Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), want to provide material assistance and support for the MEK as a presumptive government-in-exile for a liberated Iran.

The Iran Policy Council insists that the MEK should play a "central role" in regime change in Iran. In fact, once regime change is accomplished, the nuclear threat will become moot, asserts the IPC, since "the nature of the regime in Teheran is of greater import than its nuclear weapons capability: An Iran with representative institutions with a nuclear weapons capability would not be as destabilizing as nuclear weapons in the hands of the unelected, expansionist theocracy."

The problem with all of this is that the MEK--which the Bush administration regards as its key source on Iran's clandestine nuclear ambitions, and which stands to benefit from "regime change" in Iran--has been officially listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department since 1997. Before the Iraq War, the Bush administration pointed to MEK camps in Iraq as evidence of Saddam's support of terrorism.

Profile of an "Ally"

The MEK was created in 1965 as part of a Soviet-sponsored international terrorist network that waged wars of "national liberation" throughout the developing world. Human Rights Watch, which describes the MEK as an "urban guerrilla group," points out that the group's ideology is a Muslim variation on "liberation theology." In Latin America, liberation theology was Marxism-Leninism wrapped in Christian symbolism and language. MEK's version makes similar cynical use of Islam. As noted by Human Rights Watch:</p> <pre> The organization's founding trio focused their initial thrust on creating a revolutionary ideology based

on their interpretation of Islam that could fuel an armed struggle by persuading masses of people to rise up against the government. This ideology relied heavily on an interpretation of Islam as a revolutionary message compatible with modern revolutionary ideologies, particularly Marxism.... In addition to religious texts, the group also studied Marxist theory at

length. </pre> <p>In 1970, 13 members of the MEK received training (most likely under Soviet supervision) at PLO camps in Jordan and Lebanon. Upon their return, the PLO-trained MEK cadres shared their newly acquired skills with their comrades, and the group embarked on a wave of attacks and bombings intended to bring down the Shah. During one rampage, MEK terrorists killed several U.S. military personnel and contractors who were working in Iran. The group suffered some attrition from gun battles, arrests, and executions. It survived long enough to lend its support to the Khomeini revolution, including the seizure of American hostages in October 1979. But it was purged from Khomeini's coalition in 1981 and much of its leadership was driven into exile.

Beginning that year, the MEK began a hit-and-run guerrilla war against the Iranian regime in the hope of triggering a popular uprising. When that proved unsuccessful, the group set up the NCRI in Paris. In 1985, notes Human Rights Watch, the MEK's "leadership was transformed when Masoud Rajavi announced his marriage to Maryam Uzdanlu.... The husband and wile team became co-leaders" of the MEK and announced an "ideological revolution."

All of the group's members were required to undertake an individual "ideological revolution" by engaging in Maoist-style "self-criticism" sessions. Adherents were expected to listen raptly "to radio messages and explanations provided by [their] commanders" in order to "gain a deep insight into the greatness of our new leadership, meaning the leadership of Masoud and Maryam.... To believe in them as well as to show ideological and revolutionary obedience to them." By 1987, the MEK had acquired "all the main attributes of a cult," writes Iranian scholar Ervand Abrahamian, with Masoud Rajavi claiming the titles Rahbar (leader) and Imam-i hal (the Present Imam), and the forerunner to the impending second advent of the Mahdi.

Expelled from France in 1986, Masoud Rajavi was welcomed in Baghdad, where he and his followers built a "National Liberation Army" that joined the Iran-Iraq war on Saddam's side. The MEK's plan to "liberate" Iran reads a great deal like the U.S. neo-conservative fantasy of a "cakewalk" in Iraq. As quoted by Human Rights Watch:</p> <pre> We will not be fighting alone; we will have the people on our side. They are tired of this regime, and ... they have every

incentive to get rid of it forever. We will only have to act as their shields, protecting them from being easy targets for the [revolutionary] guards. Wherever we go there will be masses

of citizens joining us, and the prisoners we liberate from jails will help us lead them towards victory. It will be like an avalanche, growing as it progresses. </pre> <p>When the war ended in 1988 without victory for Iraq or the "National Liberation Army," the MEK leadership imposed yet another "ideological revolution" on its followers, this one involving forced mass divorces and torture of those suspected of espionage or ideological deviation. Following the first Gulf War, the MEK collaborated in Saddam's crackdown on Shi'ites and Kurds.

In 2003, U.S. forces disarmed MEK fighters who operated several camps within 60 miles of the Iranian border. Rather than treating them as terrorists, the Bush administration designated the MEK fighters as "protected" persons under the Geneva Convention. Amazingly, the Bush administration rebuffed an offer from Iran to exchange MEK leaders for al-Qaeda suspects being held in Tehran.

The Way Out

The MEK "has tried to establish itself as the Iranian equivalent of Ahmad Chalabi's 'government in exile,' the Iraqi National Congress [INC]," writes Iranian expatriate Reza Aslan, author of No God but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. "Like the INC before the [Iraq] war, the MEK has advocates in the highest levels of government. And like the INC, the MEK has been inundating the US intelligence community with uncorroborated and, according to some intelligence officials, highly suspect information meant to encourage the White House to carry out the same policy of regime change in Iran that it did in Iraq."

At this point, there simply are no good alternatives in dealing with Iran. An unsuccessful military attack, or even a successful one, could have catastrophic consequences. Swapping out the current Iranian regime for one run by a Marxist cult would not result in a net improvement. And the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is--not to put too fine a point on the matter--unnerving. Perhaps the good news in all of this is found in the fact that our chief "evidence" of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program comes from the MEK.

Military disengagement from the Middle East, coupled with a serious effort to achieve energy independence, would be the best alternative. Advocates of war with Iran focus on Ahmadinejad's hostile intentions toward Israel. But Israel is a regional superpower, boasting a nuclear arsenal and the most formidable conventional military in the Middle East; it is quite capable of protecting its own interests, as we should protect ours.