(Point-Counterpoint) Should the U.S. Attack Iran? - Vol. 29 No. 16

Yes

By Adam Beckman

Iran will possess a nuclear bomb in less than twelve months.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave this estimate last week, and the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, published the same one.

For those who haven’t yet considered them, the implications of a nuclear Iran are terrifying.

The U.S. has had poor relations with Iran for decades Though some international officials dubiously point to Iran’s camaraderie with Latin America as a direct threat against our national security, Americans cannot avoid more pressing concerns about their only democratic ally in the Middle East and the stability of this region.

In 2005, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke about “wiping away” the “Zionist regime.” (In response to those who vainly dispute the translation of this comment, this official version appears on Ahmadinejad’s own website.) With their Sahab-3 missiles, a nuclear Iran could reach Israel and attack its major cities. No one has argued the impossibility of Iran pursuing this option.

If we suppose Iran would not risk the repercussions of a counterattack, though, we then face the alternative that Iran would give the bomb to Hezbollah. Armed with a weapon of mass destruction, some believe this terrorist group would happily deploy it, despite the political ramifications. Even for an American who might remain undisturbed by the destruction of an allied city, a nuclear war in the Middle East would quickly translate into a scary situation.

Even the most optimistic and possibly naïve view—namely, that no group would ever actually use the weapon—presents serious dangers in the form of a “cold” war. Neither Iran nor any of its supporters would need to detonate the bomb in order to threaten the stability of the world. We have already learned this lesson.

For the past years, Western nations have hoped that stricter economic sanctions would eventually lead Iran to forfeit its quest. The European Union (EU) recently matched America’s aggressiveness and banned any importation of Iranian oil. Still, Russia said it will fill this gap with new demand for oil, and thus Iran seems undeterred.

For Israel, the next response to Iran is, though extraordinarily unappealing, rather simple. Ronen Bergman and Jeffery Goldberg, among other journalists, have shown us the seriousness with which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak are treating this situation. As Goldberg stated last year, for Israel “a nuclear Iran poses the graves threat since Hitler to the physical survival of the Jewish people.” Left with no other choice, at some point in the next year, Bergman and Goldberg tell us that Israel will likely send a group of its aircraft to bomb the numerous enrichment, research, and reactor sites in Iran. 

The question, then, is would it be better for the U.S. to stand side-by-side with Israel during an attack or hide in the shadows? 

The reality of an air strike for Israel is a brutal counterattack during which neighboring groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah would fire their over 50,000 rockets at Tel Aviv and other cities, while Iran and possibly Syria would also barrage the nation with violence. An Israeli military attack would thus lead to a full-blown regional war in an area where the U.S. has too many not to get involved later on. Thus, no matter whether we pursue a military strike initially, the U.S. will likely find itself entering another war during the next year. Hiding, then, is not an option. 

The best way to limit the size of the war is to make the strike against Iran strong enough to delay Iran’s nuclear program by two to three years or, best-case scenario, discourage Iran from continuing its program at all. A small attack conducted by Israel alone is likely to lead to a drawn-out war for both sides, and may not even sufficiently slow Iran’s progress. If America joins Israel from the start, together both countries are at least more likely to put real roadblocks in the way of Iran’s nuclear program. 

Furthermore, the U.S. could handle the political ramifications of an air strike far better than an increasingly isolated Israel could. It would be wrong for America to internally applaud Israel’s actions but not back them on the international stage. 

The U.S. thus needs to pursue joint-military action with Israel against Iran soon.

As many have eagerly pointed out, though, Obama is not likely to view entering another war favorably. The American people were frustrated with our involvement in Iraq and Libya, and Obama will need popular support during the election season. Certainly it is possible Obama will go for the Jewish vote because of recent criticisms, but the support he gains from attacking Iran may not outweigh the votes he loses. 

Obama and his administration may then need to make a decision not based off of his reelection but the dire consequences that a nuclear Iran would entail. And if Washington’s current political climate is any indication, this may be the greatest upcoming challenge our nation faces.

No

By Oliver Bok

In President Obama’s January State of the Union Address, one of the few lines that garnered bipartisan applause was the President saying that “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The implication is that the United States is prepared to bomb Iran into submission if the Iranians don’t stop enriching uranium. Has a threat of war ever been issued with such a tenuous grasp of the facts?

Here is a fact for President Obama and all of the other warmongers: according to America’s top spies (as detailed in the National Intelligence Estimate) there is not a shred of evidence that Iran is currently producing a nuclear weapon. Iran is enriching uranium, it’s true—but at the 20 percent enrichment level needed for nuclear power, not the 90 percent level required for nuclear weapons. Threatening war with Iran over a weapons program that Iran doesn’t even possess is irresponsible. Obama’s threat also reveals an inexplicable lack of understanding of the Iranian regime. 

The Ayatollah’s are not hard to read. Like all totalitarian regimes, their number one objective is to maintain their hold on power. The Iranian political elite were watching as Muammar Gaddagi was thrown from power by the West after giving up his nuclear weapons program. They have undoubtedly also noted that the famously nuclear North Korean regime has not been seriously threatened in the last decade because the West fears the North Korean nuclear arsenal. The Iranians have understandably concluded that the only way to gain Western respect is by having a few nuclear weapons lying around. 

As I said earlier, Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon. The Iranians know that beginning a weapons program would be a clear violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and would lend international legitimacy to an American or Israeli bombing campaign. But I’m not naïve. The Iranian nuclear program isn’t just to keep the lights on in Tehran. The regime wants the capability to build a nuclear weapon within a relatively short time frame if the regime feels threatened by the U.S. or Israel.

Clearly, the only way to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power is through true engagement; if the Iranians trust the United States and Israel to refrain from seeking their downfall, they will in turn refrain from constructing a nuclear weapon. There are a variety of ways President Obama could begin to build that trust. 

He could formally apologize for the despicable 1953 CIA coup that ousted the elected Prime Minister of Iran in favor of a hated American-backed dictator; the 1953 coup is the root cause of Iranian animosity for America. 

Obama could drop the crippling economic sanctions against Iran. History tells us that sanctions don’t work; during the nineties, the U.N. Security Council put harsh sanctions on Iraq to persuade Saddam Hussein to end his Weapons of Mass Destruction program and to destabilize his dictatorship. The result was a horrific famine in Iraq, widespread anti-Americanism in the region, and a firmly entrenched Saddam Hussein. The sanctions being put into place against Iran will hurt the Iranian people, not the Ayatollahs—and dropping the sanctions could help build the trust necessary to prevent Iran from weaponizing.

The president could also negotiate to have other countries export lowly enriched uranium to Iran if the Iraniances agree to stop enrichment at their own reactors. Iran has shown signs of being open to such an agreement in the past, which would both guarantee nuclear power to Iran while denying them a nuclear weapon capability. 

Here is what won’t stop Iran from getting in the nuclear club: bombing them. There is no way to bomb Iran that will permanently derail their nuclear program. Moreover, bombing Iran and violating their sovereignty will ensure the Iranians decide to build nuclear weapons to defend against future bombing campaigns. An airstrike could delay the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear capability only at the cost of making Iranian nukes inevitable.

Attacking Iran also has another huge potential downside. Iran could block the Straits of Hormuz with naval mines, which would be a truly cataclysmic event as nearly one fifth of the world’s oil exports travel through the Straits of Hormuz; oil prices would run wild, the global economy would take a steep dive, and Obama would feel obliged to declare a full scale war to secure the waterway.

But even if Iran does build the bomb, it won’t mean the end of Israel. Israel has 300 nukes, and the Iranians aren’t suicidal; they aren’t Bond villains pissing themselves in spasmodic glee over the thought of mushroom clouds over Israel. The Iranians want a nuclear capability to protect themselves, not to start a nuclear war. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction will save the Middle East just as it saved the world during the Cold War. A new Cold War in the Middle East is not a desirable outcome, but unfortunately that is the future the current warmongering policies of the Obama administration will create.