POINT OF VIEW/ Robert Dujarric

Fukuda’s first task: Preventing a U.S.-Iran war
Special to The Asahi Shimbun

Japan has a new leader. Obviously,
the voters expect Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to take care of the economy and their pensions. But one of
Fukuda’s most important tasks should
be to convince the United States not toattack Iran.
The Bush administration’s Iran policy has been incredibly contradictory.
On the one hand, by removing Saddam Hussein, the United States simultaneously eliminated Iran’s No. 1enemy and enabled Iraqi Shia factions
beholden to Tehran to dominate mostof Iraq.
The porous Iraq-Iran border is now
a highway for Iranian agents, weaponsand money infiltrating Iraq.
Turkey was another bulwark
against Iranian inroads. But thestrengthening of Kurdish separatists
in the wake of the Baath regime’s demise has created new challenges for
Ankara and undermined the TurkishAmerican alliance. It thus knocked
Turkey out of the containment ringsurrounding Iran.
On the other hand, President
George W. Bush clearly detests theIranian mullahs, branding theirregime a member of the infamousAxis of Evil. There is no doubt thatWashington is considering all options,including war, in dealing with theIranian atomic program.
Moreover, even more than in thecase of Iraq in 2002-3, there is broad bipartisan support in the United States
for such as course of action. Many
politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, have been vociferous in calling for considering military force
against Iran. International support
would also be stronger than during theIraqi War.
Germany, which campaigned against
the invasion of Iraq, cannot appear toside with a regime that calls for theextermination of the Jewish State. Dr.
Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreignminister, urged his country to be readyfor war with Iran, an indication that
Paris would also side with Washington. Russia would secretly welcome aconflict that would hurt the UnitedStates, push Iran towards Russia andincrease the price of Russian oil andgas. China would be happy to see
American power diverted from East
Asia.
War, as Carl von Clausewitz noted,
is a most unpredictable activity. But
the probable consequences of a U.S.-led
assault will be massive increase in Iranian support for anti-U.S. insurgents inIraq and Afghanistan, possibly bombings and assassinations throughout theArab world and beyond, and a Hezbollah attack on Israel and what is left ofthe Lebanese state.
In many ways, as a Japanese government official told me, Iraq is toAmerica what the Chinese quagmire
was to Imperial Japan in the 1930s.

Striking Iran would
be America’s Pearl
Harbor.
It would not end
with a U.S. capitulation to Iran, but awar could spell theepitaph of American power and influence in thePersian Gulf.
What will be the Robert Dujarricconsequences forJapan? First, this country’s security depends on American hegemony. Another U.S. defeat in the Middle East
(Iraq being the first one) would further erode the ability of the UnitedStates to act as the main pillar of theworld order upon which Japan depends.
Second, Japan—and the rest of theworld—needs a continuous, but gradual, climb in petroleum prices. This
will enable the market to develop new
sources of energy, thus reducing theworld’s thirst for oil. Oil has the twin
disadvantages of being located in unstable or hostile nations and of damaging the environment.
Therefore, the sooner it is relegated to the history books, the better forour planet. However, a conflagration
involving Iran could suddenly push oil
prices to stratospheric levels and disable supply networks, hitting the Japanese and world economies like atsunami.

Third, Japan’s economic interests inIran could suffer seriously if its American ally attacked Iran.
Some observers will argue that theserisks are worth taking to prevent a nuclear Iran. Indeed, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad calls for wiping out Israel and his Messianic beliefs do notmake him the ideal candidate to havehis finger on the nuclear trigger.
But in many ways, former dictatorof the Soviet Union Joseph Stalin andhis successors were far more dangerous than Iran’s president. These massmurderers were convinced that the ultimate victory of communism would
require the unlimited use of militaryforce against the capitalist enemy. Unlike Iran, they had at their disposal a
massive nuclear and conventional arsenal. Yet, the right combination ofstrength and flexibility allowed the freeworld to deter the Soviet Union. Iranian behavior since Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah indicates thatTehran is not “irrational” and that it
can be deterred.
Therefore, Japanese should hope
Fukuda will not repeat former Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s mistake ofencouraging the United States as it
contemplates yet another catastrophic Middle Eastern war.
The author is director of the Institute of Contemporary Japanese Studies at Temple University’s Japan
Campus in Tokyo.