Myopia is an all too common condition, both physically and metaphorically. I myself suffer from it, more so in one eye than the other. Here in America it is known as near-sightedness and in Britain short-sightedness. It is a condition where the light that enters the ocular orb does not focus on the retina but rather in front of it, causing the image that one sees when looking at a distant object to be out of focus, but a close object to be seen with sharp clarity…
I shall not bore the reader with the too many examples in my long life when I focused on the immediate at the expense of the long term or took a route of convenience one day that I deeply regretted the next or even ever after. I have not been immune to foolhardy blunder, and if the truth were known to the general public, the catalog of my own errors would undercut whatever air of authority I try to assume…
A benefit of living as long as I have is that it leaves one with a degree of wisdom, the ability to see error when none was perceived before, the ability to acknowledge error after having foolishly attempted to hide it for so long, and the ability to recognize myopia whereas before it seemed to be simple focus…
What brings this up is the recent appearance of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, before a joint session of Congress. His message was that the United States, by dialoging with Iran and attempting to arrive at some accommodation over that country’s acquisition of nuclear technology, is endangering Israel, the United States and the rest of world. According to the prime minister, the greatest danger facing the globe is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. He said that Iran is intent on imposing a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world…
I think I can understand his perspective, as his country perceives the regime in Iran as one antithetical to the interests of his own people. And I understand, or think I understand, why he feels that Iran’s possession of nuclear technology could undermine the security of his country…
At the same time, I think it is myopic for the prime minister to believe, or anyone to believe, that the nuclear genie can ever be put back into the bottle. While it may be possible for us present day nuclear-haves to delay for a few years, or maybe a decade, or even a generation the nuclear-have nots from obtaining such technology, we cannot suspend the proliferation of that technology forever. The know-how to harness the atom exists. It is taught at hundreds of universities throughout the world. It is unrealistic to think that we can stop the spread of knowledge…
The difficulty is that we are all functioning from our own limited national perspective with little appreciation for the perspective of others or a clear understanding of what our actions are going to provoke. I am reminded of the Suez Crisis of 1956, when four countries, all of whom had far more interests in common than differences of any sort, acted and reacted in ways that immediately seemed in keeping with each’s own interest but which collectively proved damaging to the long term prospects of all four…
The crisis was precipitated by Israel’s invasion of Egypt, which was quickly followed up by invasions by Britain and France. Each invading country had its own motives, but all shared the common aim of removing Egyptian President Gamal Nasser from power, attenuating Soviet influence in the region and regaining Western control of the Suez Canal. And while the Israeli, British and French military forces executed well, with the Israelis overrunning the Egyptian Sinai, the British and French using that as a pretext to issue a joint ultimatum for a cease fire followed by the landing of paratroopers along the Suez Canal and the defeat of Egyptian forces, the move proved a debacle. Despite the denials of their governments, it became clear that the Israeli invasion and the subsequent well-coordinated Anglo-French attack had been planned beforehand by the three countries. As the fighting progressed, the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations forced the three invaders to withdraw. Shipping through the canal was blocked entirely until March 1957. Nassar remained in power. President Dwight Eisenhower, miffed at the British action, which he had previously warned against, threatened action against the British financial system, opening up a rift in the Western Alliance. The Soviets then exploited this to the detriment of the West, using the opportunity the disarray presented to crack down on growing dissent in Hungary, where the populace was progressing toward throwing off the yoke of communism. Many historians believe that the Suez Crisis, more than any single other event, precipitated the utter demise of the British Empire…
In the current circumstance involving Iran, all parties need to remind themselves that precipitate action, while perhaps useful in stemming what may be perceived as an immediate threat, carries with it a long term implication that may saddle all of us with a legacy we would rather not bear…