A tale of two approaches to Middle Eastern struggles

As the Iranians now admit to shooting down the Ukrainian Boeing 737 aircraft with Canadians, Ukrainians, and Iranians onboard, it is instructive to review some past experiences in the region. 

Our battles with some members of the Islamic world go back to the origins of our nation.  At that time, there were two lines of thought to managing the problem posed by the Barbary pirates of northern Africa.  In the end, the approach used by Thomas Jefferson (our third president) won the day.  He opposed the payments of tribute to the governing bodies of the Barbary coast, as had been done by John Adams and George Washington.  Strikingly, it is similar to the approach used by Donald Trump in contrast to Barack Obama.

The British fleet was the protectorate for the American colonial merchant sailors.  However, with independence, the USA was at the mercy of the Barbary states (who were semi-autonomous under the Ottoman Empire).  These pirates took prisoners from the high seas and beyond to sell as slaves.  The pirates rarely engaged armed frigates, though.  The USA solution included a peace treaty in which a large sum (up to 20% of the budget) was paid annually to secure shipping rights.  In 1794, Congress decided to create a U.S. Navy that could protect our shipping, which was the main source of national income (through tariffs).  But this would take time.

While Jefferson was the ambassador to France and Adams the ambassador to England, they were told by the ambassador from Tripoli that infidels were subject to this type of treatment.  When Jefferson became president, he decided to end the ransom payments — and hostages were taken again.  After this decision, the leaders of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. in 1801.  Jefferson dispatched our ships without any declaration of war by Congress.  Initial battles were successful, but then the USS Philadelphia was captured.  Later, it was destroyed, and the war ended in 1805, with a U.S. victory.  In the process, the Marines were created, and they captured Tripoli.

The War of 1812 with Britain weakened the U.S., so the Barbary states resumed attacks.  In 1815, the U.S. again battled the north African states and won another undeclared war.  These warring states were fully vanquished by the French only in 1830.

In 2009, Somalian pirates began to attack global commercial shipping.  They harassed ships from many countries.  The east African coast became an area to evade until 2012.  An encounter with American Navy boats ended badly for the pirates.  The initial offers of ransom by many nations did not halt the attacks.  Only military action (again not declared by Congress) and prosecution of the pirates ended the piracy.  The lesson for the West was that strength is necessary for good relations.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has used proxies to hit U.S. interests since its inception in 1979.  At that time, "students" took our U.S. embassy personnel hostage.  This did not end until Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.  Iranian surrogates killed many of our soldiers via advanced IEDs by the 2010s.  We never took adequate military action against Iran, which empowered the most radical elements. 

Killing Qassem Soleimani was a change in the strategy, which, though risky, might lead to internal changes in Iran.  Already we see young people and others marching in the streets against the regime.  Only internal rebellion will succeed to remove the mullahs.

President Obama, by contrast, sought to purchase peace and delay the nuclear aspirations of the Iranian mullahs.  This would not weaken that nation, but would only strengthen it financially.  Trump sought to knock out the country's economic base.  His aim was to have the majority young populace overthrow their rulers.  Obama did not support such an uprising in 2009, and it languished.  With Soleimani gone, it may be harder to put down these civilians. 

Trump campaigned against endless Middle Eastern wars.  He hopes to use economic pressure to force Iran to the negotiating table.  In this calculus, the mullahs must determine that their survival requires moderation in encouraging and subsidizing terrorism.  If successful, this would be a great boon to the region and the greater world.  Though a long shot, this approach might be the last hope to avoid a war with Iran.  Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon with its extreme theological concept.  It will be up to the U.S. to stop the Iranians, given the world's other hesitant entities.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com