RSS

Should the U.S. Attack Iran?

"Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region...our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions... We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon." Dick Cheney’s recent statement underlines what observers have long expected: the Bush administration is on its way to laying the groundwork for a military attack on Iran.

Speculation on an imminent military operation has been plentiful since U.S. plans of attack were (supposedly) revealed at the beginning of this year. And events within the last weeks have solidified the impression that the US is again pounding the war drum: President George W. Bush’s attempt to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a foreign terrorist organization; the Senate passage of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill, which states that the U.S. should be prepared to use military force against Iran because of its actions in Iraq.

But what would justify an attack on Iran? Why would it make sense now? And finally, does it even make sense at all?

• Diplomacy is at a dead end
  So far, diplomacy has been America’s favored mode of confronting Iranian nuclear ambitions. However, the negotiations have led nowhere. While Iran continues to enrich uranium, the UN Security Council has not arrived at an effective response to Tehran’s defiance of the international community. A decision on stricter sanctions has been postponed until November when the next round of reports on recent negotiations and progress in the Iranian nuclear program is presented. And it remains unclear whether Russia and China would even support tougher sanctions.
  Negotiating a compromise only promises to get more difficult in the future and a diplomatic solution is now further away then ever before.
  
  
• Iran’s support of terrorism and interference in Iraq
  An attack on Iran could stabilize the situation in Iraq and be the logical continuation of the war on terror. Iran’s influence in Iraq is currently a major concern to the United States and there is growing evidence that Tehran’s meddling is preventing real progress from being achieved. As General Petraeus has pointed out, Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by supporting Shiite and Sunni fighters with money, training and weapons. At the same time, Iran is the main supporter of terrorism in the Middle East with proxies Hezbollah and Hamas threatening the likelihood of regional peace. The Hezbollah link might even represent a trail of blood from Iran to the 9/11 attacks.
  
  
• Threat of force bolsters negotiating leverage
  While a real attack on Iran might never occur, a combination of threats, sanctions and compromise might be a far more successful approach than simply attempting individual and piecemeal measures against Tehran. Additionally, reacting weakly to aggressive Iranian behavior is an approach that the West cannot afford to take. Only a strong position can keep Iran from expanding its deadly influence.
  

• Militarily and strategically counterproductive
  Even the U.S. military seems to be doubtful about the effectiveness of a possible attack on Iran. It is clear that targeting Iran’s nuclear sites would only slow down its nuclear program. And attacking the Revolutionary Guards would only put the American troops in the region at even greater risk. With its arms support to Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran could easily inflame the whole region and go for a fully-fledged proxy war. An American attack would therefore not serve any long-term strategic goals and would neither force Iran to give up its nuclear program nor its support of terrorist organizations.
  
  
• The United States needs Iran’s help in Iraq
  One should not underestimate the stabilizing influence Iran has on its Middle Eastern neighbor Iraq. While it is true that Iranian influence has been destructive at times, Tehran also supports the sitting Iraqi government and its economic development. Iran’s motivation to increase leverage in Iraq is also not necessarily due to its desire to export the Iranian revolution but is based in more pragmatic, existential reasons. Therefore, in order to temper Iran’s destructive influence it should be engaged, not attacked. A constructive engagement could pave the path for an American exit strategy from Iraq without destabilizing the country and the region even further.
  
  
• Against US political interests
  Declaring the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization and attacking their facilities is the wrong way to pressure Iran. At this point, the Revolutionary Guards are highly fractioned. Most of them actually supported Khatami and the reformist movement and feel quite alienated by Ahmadinejad. The same is true for the rest of Iran’s elite and its people. An attack on Iran would only create a rally-around-the-flag effect. The alternative -- continued monetary support to reformist movements, sanctions against the regime, a compromising stance on the nuclear program and a positive rhetoric toward Iranian people -- might ultimately lead to the regime change America is ultimately looking for.

You can vote on this issue in our poll on the right.