The Iranian Question: what is the correct course of action concerning Iran, and to what capacity should America be involved?

          If you have been following the news lately, you are probably well aware of the dilemma we face concerning Iran.  In addition to the possibility of an Israeli strike, many ideas have also been circulating around as to what to do.  However, too many of them appear to ignore crucial details.  On one end, you have people, like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney, who say that the best solution would be immediate military action, yet, on the other end, you have people like Ron Paul who say that we should stay uninvolved.  However, in analyzing the situation, it seems that neither side is completely correct.  So, where does the situation stand and what should be done?

            Obviously, this is not an easy question to answer.  In order to fully understand the current state of affairs, it would first be necessary to go back and take a look at some of the history surrounding the present-day situation with Iran.

            In 1925, Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar Dynasty to become the Iranian Shah.  However, in 1941, Reza Khan was forced to abdicate leadership to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, after Iran was invaded by Britain and the USSR in order to secure Iranian railroad capability during World War Two.

In 1951, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister of Iran.  Mosaddegh, after taking office, took state ownership of the Iranian oil industry, thus gaining him immense popularity with the Iranian public, but angering the British because it violated an oil contract with British Petroleum.

In response, Britain set up oil embargos against Iran and blocked the Strait of Hormuz, thus shutting down much of Iran’s economy.  Britain then recruited The United States (who were concerned about USSR involvement) in a plot to overthrow Mosaddegh and return the Shah to power.  The coup, known as “Operation Ajax”, was successful and in 1953, power was given back to pro-Western Reza Pahlavi. [1]

Pahlavi (who was backed by strong American support), did much to help bring Iran through an industrial revolution, but his regime began using increasingly brutal measures to suppress political opposition.  Pahlavi was subsequently overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution.

After the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, who had been a strong critic of both the West and of Pahlavi, returned from exile and was declared supreme ruler of Iran under a new constitutional theocracy.  Khomeini still rules today and is in large part responsible for many of Iran’s actions.

Anti-Western sentiment was high after the revolution and diplomatic relations between Iran and America broke down quickly, resulting in such matters as the Iranian Hostage Crisis.

Later, Saddam Hussein (then president of Iraq), sensing weakness and disorganization, invaded Iran, resulting in the eight-year Iran-Iraq War.  Ultimately, the war ended in a stalemate, with an estimated 500,000, or many more, dead.  With Iran afraid of Iraqi WMD capability, and Iraq afraid of further Iranian attacks, neither power could venture forth to become a regional hegemon.

However, we see an interesting development occurring in recent times.  When Saddam Hussein was in power, he made sure that Iraq and Iran were enemies.  However, now that he has been removed from power, and Iraq has been proven not to possess WMDs, Iran has lost one of its major enemies and enduring sources of fear.  In some ways, you could say that Iran was the one who won the war in Iraq.

            We see this now as the balance of power changes in the Middle East.  Iran no longer has the same set of inhibitions that they did before, and now this has emboldened them in their defiance of the West.  In addition, now that they are not pre-occupied with Iraq, they can turn their attention to other nearby powers that they believe might compete with them (such as nuclear-armed, American-backed, Israel).

           

At the same time, now that we have left Iraq and given them autonomy, yet another change has, and is, taking place.  Just as our invasion of Iraq neutralized one of Iran’s biggest enemies, our withdrawal from Iraq may have potentially paved the way for a new alliance.  Without Saddam Hussein in power to insure enmity between these two states, some of their cultural similarities may bring them closer together.

            Additionally, since we are no longer in Iraq, it would be much easier for Israel to potentially bomb Iran (Israel would have to fly over Iraq in order to bomb targets in Iran because none of their bombers have the range to fly all the way around Iraq, deliver their payload, and then make it back again).  Before we left, America had expressly forbid Israeli forces to fly bombers over Iraq in order to bomb targets in Iran because of two reasons.

Firstly, if they did, the international community would likely blame the U.S. for allowing the attack to happen (because it would have been technically possible for us to intercept their bombers, even though we probably would not have).  This would have put America in a very tricky place indeed, especially if the attack resulted in a high number of deaths or if Iran retaliated violently.

The second reason not to allow Israel to bomb Iran would be for fear that, since we had troops and bases within firing range of Iranian forces, Iran might decide to retaliate, possibly resulting in hundreds, if not thousands, of American deaths.

            So, in invading Iraq, we removed one of Iran’s worst enemies, but in withdrawing from Iraq, we left Israel the possibility to now bomb Iran.  The question you may ask, however, is what would happen if Israel did decide to bomb Iran?  They’d take most of the heat from the international community and we’d have one less enemy to worry about, right?  It’d be all good, wouldn’t it?

            Well, probably not because this is a complicated issue.  For one thing, whatever Israel does, America is seen as right behind them, so we would get much of the blame, even if we were uninvolved.  Keeping this in mind, there are two distinct possibilities that could arise should Israel bomb Iran.

           

The first possibility following an Israeli attack on Iran would be total and complete retaliation, as Iran has threatened to do.  This would likely entail Iran launching as many missiles as they could at countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, and then shelling almost everything within range, including targets in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly nearby American bases).

Of course, after this, Israel (and possibly America, depending on the situation) would then follow up with an all out counter strike, destroying anything of strategic value: bases, bridges, power stations, factories, etc.  We could be looking at a very nasty back and forth bombing campaign between Israel and Iran.  Naturally, the aftermath of such an exchange could be catastrophic.  Israel would win without sustaining major losses, but the international political fallout would be nasty, especially if America got involved in any way. 

            The second possibility, following an Israeli strike, could be non-retaliation from Iran.  Although this would at first seem to be the ideal outcome, there are some hidden catches.

            Although they have been making threats, if Israel carries out a technically unprovoked strike against Iran without sufficient evidence, and Iran does not retaliate, they could very well petition for the U.N. to punish Israel for starting an illegal war.  Needless to say, if Iran tried this, America would argue against and veto any measures potentially levied against Israel.  However, such actions would prove detrimental for America because it would cause the international community to view us as enablers of violent action, so long as the perpetrators are our allies.

Either way, although Iran would be temporarily neutralized, future diplomatic relations would be even more strained than they are now, and we, as well as Israel, would be at odds with the international community.  Although the former option would likely be the worst, the latter one, in which we vetoed any measures taken against Israel, would damage relations with a number of countries, such as China, Russia, Pakistan and India (who’s economy, by the way, is threatening to overtake China’s).

            Many of these same dangers also exist if America were to try and attack Iran either before, or with, Israel.  In addition to the possibility of an Iranian counter strike, we would alienate or anger many of the countries which we must keep good relations with.  Most of the world doesn’t want to see America take the leading role in another war (which is why we took a supporting role instead of a leading role in the bombing of Libya).

            However, if we do not do something about Iran, as some would have us do, we will have a serious problem a little ways down the road.  Let me just remind you how horrible a nuclear strike, anywhere in the world, would be.  This earth already has too many unstable, or semi-stable, nuclear armed states.  We do not need another fanatical regime to possess the power to instantly kill millions.  Just look at how difficult of a situation the world has had concerning North Korea.  With the ability to destroy cities like Seoul or Tokyo, this tiny state can influence the entire world with its rhetoric.  All of East Asia has had to live under the potential threat of attack and this state of affairs has seriously hampered economic and diplomatic relations in the area.

            Iran already has the ability to seriously influence the region around it.  However, they can only go so far.  If you let them become a nuclear-armed state, this ability to cause commotion in the world is only increased.  Right now, Iran has but to mention shutting down the Strait of Hormuz to cause a global spike in oil prices.  In reality, they could never actually close the strait.  They know that our navy would blow them out of the water without even trying.  However, even so, they also know that if they threaten to close the strait, it will have a serious economic effect, thus legitimizing their power and potentially causing their export profits to increase.

But make Iran a nuclear-armed state and the game changes substantially.  If they had nuclear weapons, and they did decided to close the strait, would we be so likely to intervene?  What if they threatened to launch a bomb at Israel if we tried to breakup the blockade?  They, and the world, would know that there would be a lot less that anyone could do to influence their actions.  With this knowledge, how much more influence could they exert over oil prices? Ultimately, having nuclear weapons will only amplify Iran’s existing power.  Notice how much North Korea has been able to get away with without serious consequences, for example: the sinking of a South Korean naval ship.

Additionally, and maybe even more importantly, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons technology could spark a regional arms race.  Just look at Pakistan and India.  Both are enemies, yet as soon as India gained nuclear capabilities, Pakistan followed suit less than a year later.  If Iran gets a bomb, how many others are then going to want one?  What if other Middle Eastern countries started trying to develop nuclear bombs?  What if it even spread to some African, East Asian, or South American countries?  What if Iran decided to share their technology with their allies, such as Venezuela?  There really are no good alternatives here.

            So in conclusion, if we intervene militarily, the global political ramifications could be highly detrimental.  However, if we put our heads in the sand and allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons technology, we will have stood by as yet one more state gains the power to kill millions and to wield significant influence over the world.  What is the answer?  Both alternatives seem disastrous.

It does appear that we need to take a more pragmatic, all options on the table, approach.  Obviously, given the situation, there is no simple or eloquent answer.  We cannot bullheadedly attack them without first considering the international community, yet we cannot play blind and ignore them.

            Ultimately, if all other measures fail and the time comes, we, or someone else, will most likely have to intervene militarily.  A nuclear-armed Iran poses too great a threat to the world for us not to do something.  However, until that time comes, if it comes, we need to hold fast and use our every diplomatic resource to try and deter them from this path.  We cannot pretend that they are not there, yet we cannot launch an attack until the time is right and every other alternative has been used.

For now, let’s just hope that a peaceful resolution can be reached.

(1)       Stephen, Kinzer, All The Shah’s Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, John Wiley and Sons, 2003.  Print.