This editorial appeared in the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006. It summarized my sentiments about the brewing Iran situation.
Is the United States planning to use military force against Iran in the hope of preventing it from developing a nuclear arsenal? The idea seems absurd on its face, given the price Americans have already paid in Iraq and the likelihood that a new war would only worsen a bad situation in the Middle East.
Yet both the Washington Post and Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker, report that the Bush administration is studying military options. Hersh also says that using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities is being considered.
There are so many reasons why attacking Iran is premature at best that it's hard to believe the administration would go beyond having a contingency plan for a worst-case scenario. But some analysts believe it would.
It would be reckless to use military force barring evidence of a greater threat than is now apparent. While Iran continues to defy international demands to stop enriching uranium (now President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims they have enriched enough uranium to power a small nuclear reactor), widespread fears that it plans to build nuclear weapons, while well grounded, do not justify pre-emptive war.
President Bush says he still favors diplomacy and calls the media reports "wild speculation." One must hope that's true. Iran is a more formidable adversary than Iraq was. It could unleash terrorist groups in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories; it could cut off oil exports and block the Strait of Hormuz to other Persian Gulf countries' exports, sending already high oil prices soaring; its hard-line regime could use a U.S. attack to stir up nationalist sentiment and crack down on domestic reformist elements; and while bombing Iran's nuclear plants might set back its presumed weapons program, such a strike would be unlikely to end it if Iranian leaders are as determined as U.S. leaders believe them to be.
By attacking, the United States would assume a burden that would be very costly in every sense, provoking political turmoil in an election year. It might also deal a serious blow to relations with America's principal ally, Britain, whose foreign secretary says a military attack against Iran would be "completely nuts."
Some critics say they believe Bush and key aides, despite the setbacks in Iraq and the resurgence of anti-Western forces in Afghanistan, remain in a state of denial. They cite a recent administration National Security Strategy document, for example, that calls Iran the most serious threat to U.S. security. Against that, one must hope that the president, as he says, remains committed to a diplomatic course. Indeed, it's conceivable that the stories were generated by dissident Pentagon and other officials seeking to put the White House on the defensive.
A diplomatic solution to the clash of wills over Iran's nuclear program will not be easy. Russia and China, who have veto power in the United Nations Security Council, strongly oppose both the use of force and tough sanctions against Tehran.
Still, the worst thing the United States could do now is to launch another war of choice that is likely to worsen, not improve, U.S. security and standing in the world. Military contingency plans are a prudent option. But going beyond that in the absence of a clear and present danger would compound mistakes already made, inflame opposition to Bush at home and possibly destroy what's left of the coalition of the willing mustered against Iraq.
Technorati Tags:
Iran
No comments:
Post a Comment