Professors and scholars across Coastal Carolina University spoke on the war with Iran, following U.S. and Israel’s airstrike attack against Iran on Feb. 28.
A variety of professors across different disciplines presented their thoughts as to why the war began in the first place, as well as the history of U.S. and Israel’s long-term relationship with Iran and where the conflict may be headed.
Mark Chandler, a professor and the director of government relations for the intelligence and securities department, is a retired Marine intelligence officer and a retired U.S. Department of Defense intelligence executive.
Chandler said that the U.S. is attempting to decapitate the Iranian government. Following the strike against Iran’s former cleric and Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, he said the U.S. have now turned their focus to killing Mojtaba Khamenei, the former leader’s son.
“So, if we take out the leaders, then the others traditionally will have trouble organizing and being prepared to fight out there,” Chandler said. “So, in this case, what we’re seeing is Iran actually decentralized, so it’s a significant strike. It’s a major strike.”
Chandler said that the U.S. is fighting Iran’s government, the Islamic Republic.
“We are not fighting the people of Iran because the people of Iran, if they can break free of the chains of the Islamic Republic, they’re going to prosper,” Chandler said.
Chandler said Iran has had a couple of objectives, one being to spread their version of Shia Islam across the Middle East, the Shia Crescent.
“Iran has conducted destabilizing efforts across the entire Middle East. So they are, if not the number one, the second best spread of terrorism around the world,” Chandler said.
Christopher J. Ferrero, a professor in the intelligence and security department, said that it is unclear why the U.S. is attacking the Iranian government in this current moment, stating that Iran did not pose an imminent threat.
“We just have a long history of lacking a coherent strategy for dealing with Iran and those chickens are coming home to roost right now,” Ferrero said.
Ferrero said there’s a long-standing position from the Office of the Supreme Leader, stating that nuclear weapons are against the Islam religion despite their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
“And what I’m concerned is going to come of this war is that the regime will remain in place. And clearly, once this war is over, Iran will do everything that it can to acquire nuclear weapons,” Ferrero said. “And so, the norm against acquiring nuclear weapons has prevailed in Iran until now tenuously, but it has prevailed. I’m concerned now that the outcome of this war, ironically, will be a nuclear Iran.”
Joseph Fitsanakis, a professor of intelligence and security studies, also believes this war will lead to a more catastrophic reality in Iran, despite a large fraction of Iranians being supportive of the Iranian regime. In fact, he said the widespread supports has left millions of Iranians more than willing to die in this war for the regime.
During the attack on Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s 14-month-old granddaughter, daughter and son-in-law were killed. Because of these deaths, Fitsanakis said he believes that Iran will more than likely to not surrender.
“So, at this point, what he’s saying is that ‘I will take it down with me.’ He doesn’t care. You have nothing left to live for except to become like his father, a martyr, right?” Fitsanakis said. “So, in effect, if you’re looking for a more friendly regime, you’ve actually done the exact opposite.”
Fitsanakis said that when considering previous wars the U.S. had been involved in, such as Iraq and Afganastan that lasted longer than anyone could have predicted, causes concern for this war’s length.
“And the danger here is that if you’re a superpower like the United States, it’s relatively easy to start a war but it’s very difficult to stop,” Fitsanakis said. “So, there’s always the danger that you might think, ‘yeah, I’m America, I can say the war is over,’ but the Iranians said ‘the war is over when we say it’s over.’ … ‘You can’t just say ‘I’m done.’ You have to participate.”
On the other hand, Fitsanakis said the U.S.’s urge to go to war is clear, and was not about removing the Iranian regime but instead about the power of controlling Iran’s oil control.
“Now, you know, some people say, ‘Well, I say it’s an authoritarian regime’, yes, but so is Saudi Arabia, and we’re not going to war with them,” Fitsanakis said. “Why is that? Because they are giving us access to the oil, so I think it’s just basically to do with energy.”
He said if oil barrel prices reach to levels of $140-$160 however, it becomes unsustainable, and the U.S. may pull out.
“We’re talking now about a global economic recession that is going to have severe ramifications for everybody’s lives, right?” he said. “So, if we see that it’s going there, I think Trump is going to say, ‘Okay, I won, I’m moving out and we’re done. Thank you for fighting. We were the best, we won.’ He’s going to back out.”
Unlike the U.S., Fitsinatikis said he believes that Israel will not back out at any cost, because they want Iran annihilated. However, it is still a question whether or not the U.S. will back out if Israel doesn’t.
“Israel’s not going to stop. Even though we say it is over, it’s not over until the Iranians say it’s over and the Israelis say it’s over,” Fitsinatikis said.
On March 20, the Edwards College of Humanities and Fine Arts as well as the Department of Intelligence and Security Studies hosted a panel about the conflict in Iran titled, “The War on Iran and Iran’s Internal Conflicts.”
Fitsanakis moderated and introduced the speakers, which included Mohsen Kadivar, an international public intellectual and research professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, Ferrero, Suheir Daoud, a professor of political science and Jeffry R. Halverson, a professor of religious studies.
