What Do We Do About Iran?

Whether we like it or not, the current problems with Iran lead right back to America's insistence on placing a corrupt Shah and his cronies into power in the 1970s and then suffering the consequences when the Shah was ousted and a theocracy, led by the infamous Ayatollah Khomenei took over, resulting in Americans being held captive for many months. Now, of course, even while there are many young people in Iran who would prefer to be more Westernized, the fact is obvious that the mullahs and conservative Muslims are thoroughly in charge and are funding the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and now working to build their nuclear supply. For this reason, among others, President Bush has linked Iran with North Korea and Syria and called them the "axis of evil." The underlying problem of Iran's terrorist activities lies in its goal of developing nuclear capabilities which, many fear, will be made available to terrorists and also to destroy Israel. To that end, Iran is lining up Muslim nations to unite against the West and our focus must be on the nuclear dilemma Iran now poses.

The same hawkish militants in the U.S. who prompted this country to go into Afghanistan and Iraq now want some sort of "positive" result from the threat of Iran having nuclear weapons. Actually, there is a wide spectrum of comments, ranging from the somewhat more liberal CNN which, on April 24^th aired some comments from its correspondent in Tehran, Aneesh Raman, who gave the Irani "line" about strictly peaceful use of nuclear energy. TIME Magazine (April 3, 2006) focuses more on the unstable government and its headstrong President in a report by Johanna McGeary. Looking at comments from leaders throughout the world on the Internet, again one can see a split even among Republicans about Iran. The Global information network reports (May 1) that moderate Republicans are seeking some sort of direct talks between the two Presidents.

There is no doubt that among the military there are some hawks. In a recent issue of The Officer it was stated: "We must be prepared to use all means at our disposal to combat this terrible and real threat to global security. As unpalatable as it is, we must consider all options, from sanctions and regime change to military intervention" (Saxton 2006 20). There are also editorial comments about the involvement of Israel: "The most likely scenario is U.S. or Israeli destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities" said the Washnington Times on Jan 16, 2006. An editorial in the New York TIMES blamed part of the problem on American indecision: "If the ruling mullahs continue to sense indecision and disunity in the West, they will surely continue with their program" (Oct 22, 2004).

For once, Congress is making very little noise in trying to build public support of some sort of action against Iran. Various congressmen and senators on the popular talk show circuit Sunday mornings were hesitant to give any sort of go-ahead signal. Most were able to say no more than "We don't really have enough information." It would seem that the consensus of authorities believe in a wait-and-see attitude, hoping that some compromise among the various nations can lead either to closely-monitored inspection and control.

One can believe that the U.S. faces problems, regardless of its options. For one thing, there are many people in the Administration who have (and historically have) distrusted the UN on anything having to do with the Middle East. So, the option of the UN acting as a sort of mediator and watchdog, while it would be approved by most Western nations, would not have the backing of a Republican government in the U.S. Lawmakers admit they don't know enough to make any sort of decision: "Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, concurred. 'Our intelligence is thin,' she told Fox News. 'I don't think we have enough sources, I don't think our analysis is sharp enough'" (Reuters 2006 3).

Harmon goes on: "'This is not a time to be saber-rattling in our government...Just the fact that the Iranian government is making a lot of noise doesn't prove their capabilities'" (Reuters 2006 3).

There is a threat that seems a problem far more than the actual use of nuclear technology in Iran. That is the escalating rhetoric that puts the Islamic nations on alert that the reason for the Western attacks on Iran and its nuclear capabilities has nothing to do with the technology, but are, rather, aimed at resisting Islamic rise to power. It becomes a religious, rather than a political dilemma for the U.S. and the West, already under attack by Islamic militants for its invasion of Iraq. This week, the New York TIMES quoted an Irani cleric: "Iran's supreme religious leader vowed Wednesday that Iran would retaliate "twofold" if it were attacked by the United States over its refusal to comply with demands regarding its nuclear activities" (Fathi 2006 1).

The prudent solution would be for the UN or a combination of nations which the Islamic world respects act as achieving some sort of compromise. Thus Islam will not feel pressured by the nation they love to vilify: the U.S. "The willingness of the U.S. and Europe to make a deal has always been compromised by Iran's unpredictability. At this point, there are few outside Tehran who consider its behavior anything but destabilizing, if not sinister...Thus diplomacy for the moment is centered on the U.N." (McGeary 2006 70-72).

A disputed article in a recent New Yorker stated: ""The [George W.] Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups" (Hersh 2006 30). Will the option of preventing Iran's supplying terrorists with weapons and funds end up with another U.S. military mission? If so, it may be even more devastating than Iraq's blunders. Terrorism, whether we want to believe it or not, is anti-Americanism and anti=-Western attitudes by Muslim activists.

WORKS CITED:

Fathi, Nazila: "Iran Threatens Retaliation if Attacked" New York TIMES, April 26, 2006 p. 1

Hersch, S. "The Iran Plans-Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb? New York: The New Yorker April 17, 2006, Vol. 82, No. 9, pp. 30+

McGeary, Johanna: "Will This Man Get The Bomb? As the world weighs how to contain Iran and its fiery President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, TIME assesses the potential threat of a nuclear Iran" TIME Magazine, April 3, 2006 v167 i14 p74

Raman, Aneesh: "CNN Reports" April 24, 2006 cited on The America's Intelligence Wire

Saxton, J.: "Iran: Epicenter of a Global Threat" Washington DC: The Soldier, April, 2006, p. 20

No author listed: "Intelligence on Iran nuclear threat seen as inadequate" Reuters News Service April 23, 2006, p. 3