Why We Should Not Militarily Strike the Islamic Republic of Iran

There exists a country of great danger in the Middle East. Its leader has been labeled crazy and irrational. It has been accused of developing weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists within their borders. It contains a large portion of fossil fuels for extraction.

While thoughts of Iraq might be ringing through your head, the previous paragraph was actually a description of present day Iran. The Bush administration is ratcheting up their pressure and their rhetoric against another country they believe is a danger to the United States. While there is ample reason to respond to threats in a way that protects civilians and stops violence, there is no reason to resort to military force. The United States federal government should not conduct military strikes on Iran and every effort by the voting public should be made to stop them.

We as a country were told long ago that our mission was "accomplished" back when Bush stood on an aircraft carrier as he declared victory over Iraq, yet we still occupy it. There exist massive parallels between what led up to the Iraqi invasion and what is happening now. They range from accusations of weapons of mass destruction to branding their leaders as completely insane. The outcome of any military action against Iran could not turn up any better than in Iraq because not only is their geography massively different and more difficult than Iraq, but also because Iran possesses a stronger capacity to respond to an American offensive via military invasion or bombing campaign..

Scholars state that responses to such offensives by the United States would result in Iran retaliating by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a very narrow naval passageway, which would cause oil prices to skyrocket worldwide (Cirincione and Grotto 32). Henry Sokolski, Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, and Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, state that the Strait facilitates transport for 15 to 16 million barrels of oil every single day which accounts for 66 percent of tanker transported oil globally and accounts for 20 percent of total oil demand per day. The strait is of vital importance to the global economy because of the strait gets closed down because of Iranian meddling, the world will not be able to access a critical portion of oil they need on a daily basis (209). This affects every single individual in the United States, mainly because of gas prices. They are already higher than they have ever been now; just imagine how high they will jump if 20 percent of our petroleum source was knocked off-line. Being able to afford driving around in those conditions would be nearly impossible.

Even if this retaliation did not happen, we have to think about another huge question: Will military strikes be successful. Many who are pro-attack claim that military strikes will be successful in halting Iran; many of the same people believed that Iraq would be a piece of cake as well. Scholars, however, have stated the exact opposite. Barry Posen, director of the Security Research Studies Program and professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states that striking Iran would not stop their nuclear program. He states that it might slow it down but would not stop it from being pursued in the long run. He also points out that even if we did carry out strikes, we do not have the intelligence necessary to effectively destroy all of their nuclear capability (7). Intelligence failures seem to be a continuing presence within our government, why should we begin trusting them after intelligence failures such as Iraq. Scholars agree that not only would we not destroy their nuclear program, but military strikes would eliminate any possibility of Iran pursuing a peaceful nuclear program. In fact, they argue that striking Iran would only accelerate their nuclear program because other countries such as Russia will have incentive to help Iran acquire nuclear weapons in a more transparent and aggressive fashion. Think about it, if your country is developing nuclear energy and you get attacked by the most powerful nation wouldn't you protect yourself by getting the most powerful weapons possible. This would allow Iran to construct a nuclear weapon even faster than if we had left it alone (Cirincione and Grotto 31). Unlike in Iraq, United States strikes will not be successful in achieving their objective.

It is not only that they wont achieve their objective in terms of destroying all the nuclear sites, but also we will not achieve our objective in uprooting the current regime Secondly, striking Iran is said to have to possibility of uprooting the current regime and replacing it with a more democratic regime which, even if successful, has proven a dramatic project as in Iraq. Scholars indicate that military strikes would have the exact opposite effect and would strengthen the current regime. Persian nationalism and patriotism would rise and rally around the current theocratic regime in the event of United States military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The people of Iran would be solidified in their belief of the West as a threat to them (Posen 7). Experts say that following air strikes there will be a few years where the Untied States can effectively pursue a policy of regime change in Iran but that those few years are not nearly enough to create a stable democratic regime in Tehran (Cirincione and Grotto 32). Our war in Iraq allowed us to unseat the current regime and at least give us the hope of installing a newer one but in Iran, the situation is much different and militarily striking will only have negative consequences for the United States and the world.

History repeats itself, but the consequences are not always the same. In this case, however, they are much worse. The last thing this country needs is another military occupation of a country. Others will argue that we have to do something to stop this country from gaining nuclear weapons. My point, however, is not that they should get to have weapons, just that we should not deal with the fact that they might in a military fashion and proceed to bomb them. Diplomacy is a great tool to resolve conflict. Negotiating with them over their nuclear program can have a much better effect than if we decided to act purely militarily. Ultimately, we have to think about the consequences of our actions through the lens of history. History is shouting to us that attacking Iran is a terrible idea. But the megaphone that is Iraq may not be loud enough to reach the ears of one George W. Bush and its up to us to pump up the volume. Citizens have a very simple form of volume control: votes. The collective voice of the voting American public can make the volume of caution so loud, no one can ignore it.

Work Cited

Cirincione, Joseph, and Andrew Grotto. "Contain and Engage: A New Strategy for Resolving the Nuclear Crisis with Iran" Center for American Progress March 2007 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/02/pdf/iran_report.pdf

Posen, Barry. "A Nuclear Armed Iran: A Difficult But Not Impossible Policy Problem." The Century Foundation. 2006 http://www.tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/posen_nuclear-armed.pdf

Sokolski, Henry et al. Getting Ready For a Nuclear Iran. Ed. Henry Sokolski and Patrick Clawson. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute, 2004