Firstly: Iran is not a dictatorship. Democracy in Iran was dealt a serious blow by the Islamic Revolution, but many democratic institutions were still retained. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been thoroughly vilified by our media, is far from the most powerful person in Iran. His position as president is dependent on popular mandate, and his decision-making powers are limited. Most important decisions are taken by the Supreme Leader and have to be ratified by an 86-member constituent body that is popularly elected. The catch is that every member of the assembly must be qualified to practice Islamic law and has to be approved by a 12-member “Guardian Council” who are half-appointed by Supreme Leader Khamenei. This convoluted system of balances spreads power over a large enough area that no one person is given absolute authority. However, the requirement that all members of government be practitioners of Islamic law ensures that the Republic’s actual politics will not change very greatly over time. This is what most Americans refer to when they call Iran a “dictatorship.” It is a vast oversimplification.

Secondly: a nuclear-armed Iran will not make aggression its first priority. The world has avoided a nuclear catastrophe so far, largely due to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction that still remains in place. If Iran were to declare a first nuclear strike on anyone, the nations of the world would unite against them, certainly removing its Islamic government, and perhaps atomizing its major cities in retaliation. Striking Israel, so vividly imagined by our fear-mongering press, would be the height of folly, as Israel is widely believed to have nuclear weapons and would undoubtedly be capable of reducing Tehran to rubble on first word of a nuclear attack. A similar outcome would surely occur if a rogue group detonates a nuclear device traceable to Iran.

Thirdly: Iran is not interested in chaos for the sake of chaos. All of its policy decisions, from the lurid kidnapping of a British boat crew in disputed waters to the active funding of Hezbollah and Hamas have been to secure regional dominance, both for the Iranian state and its Shia constituents. The writing on the wall for Iran was clear when the U.S invaded the countries directly to its east and west, and the point was driven home when they were placed on the “Axis of Evil,” a statement which could only be interpreted as a threat. And, of course, there is the shrewd calculation that Iraq and Afghanistan are bleeding the Americans dry, that they must leave eventually, and Iran should be in the most advantageous position when they do.

For the time being, it appears as though Iran shall get its way. Despite the frothing statements by some of our more militant presidential candidates, a military operation in Iran is simply not practicable. It is essential that we leave Iraq and Afghanistan with some sort of understanding with Iran, for it is they who we will ultimately hand the regional reins to. Rattling our sabers has gotten us nowhere. It is at least conceivable that diplomacy might.

Pavan Vangipuram is a State News columnist. Reach him at vangipu1@msu.edu .