Jamie Weinstein
Terror in Tehran
By Jamie Weinstein
© 2006 Cornell Daily Sun
As I write, Iran is continuing its illicit nuclear program, almost certainly in pursuit of an atomic weapon. This is frightening.
The current Iranian regime is among the leading sponsors of terrorism in the world. Hezbollah, which gets its funding from the Islamic theocracy, is believed by many to be more organized and capable than al-Qaeda.
Iran also has long range missile capabilities. Their Shahab-3 missiles are able to hit almost any city in the Middle East and are capable of even reaching some cities in Europe. The Islamic theocracy also has a long stated policy on calling for the destruction of Israel. In case the world community forgot this, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently made a point of boldly restating this policy initiative.
And it is not only Israel that Iran seeks to destroy. As Ahmadinejad said in 2005, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Coming from a man who hopes to bring about Messianic world conflict, I don't think we can afford to assume that he is just kidding.
Now, some may say that Iran would not really attack America, Europe or Israel, because the consequences for it would be great. This may be true, but the consequences of being wrong are stark. For Israel, it could mean the possible destruction of its country and the mass slaughter of its people. As a former Iranian President has noted, "the application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." Such thinking doesn't provide room for common notions of deterrence.
The question is, what can the United States do?
Some say the threat is not imminent (which, to an extent, may be true). They argue that Iran may be as much as five or ten years away from obtaining the bomb. Having heard many experts talk about the Iranian threat, I have come to the conclusion that no one really actually knows how close Iran is to reaching nuclear capabilities. All the predictions seem very uncertain. And when it comes to potential nuclear holocausts, uncertainty is not something I want a lot of.
The consensus seems to be that there are not very many "good" options in dealing with the rogue regime in Tehran. One option commonly floated is an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor similar to the one carried out against Iraq's Osirak reactor by the Israelis in 1981. However, this comes with its own risks.
For starters, it is not clear whether such an attack would be successful. Some say the Iranians have learned the lessons of Osirak and their program is scattered throughout the country preventing an "Osirak" type of operation from being successful. Furthermore, it is also believed that their nuclear program is hidden deep underground, making it even more difficult to strike.
While in recent months some high profile American and Israeli experts have said that such an attack, if planned right, may very well be successful in slowing down Iran's nuclear program, such an attack would also carry very negative consequences other than the obvious. One such consequence would be that the Iranians, whose operatives have been causing trouble in Iraq, would increase their activity there resulting in the death of more Americans and Iraqis, thus creating greater instability and increasing the prospects of all-out civil war.
Negotiations with the Iranians are also still an option according to some. Germany, France and Britain held extensive negotiations with the Iranians over the summer, but those negotiations did not get very far. Iran was offered economic incentives in exchange for the acceptance of restrictions on its nuclear program, but this deal was rejected by the Mullahs. In truth, it is highly unlikely that any agreement like this could come about with the Iranian Regime. The Islamic fanatics running Iran seem hell-bent on obtaining nuclear capability, and no amount of incentives will entice them to give up on their holy quest for the "Islamic Bomb."
Another option in dealing with Iran, at least according to U.S. Reps. Mark Kirk '81 (Rep.-Ill.) and Rep. Robert Andrews J.D. '82 (Dem.-N.J.), is the possibility of creating a type of "quarantine" to block gasoline imports heading for Iran. According to this theory, Iran is so dependent on gasoline imports that such an embargo would cripple the Iranian economy in weeks, leading to a revolt by the Iranian people to overthrow the Mullahs. Of course, this too has several possible negative consequences, not least of which is the possible skyrocketing of oil prices and the fact that such an operation may be considered a causi belli for war. Even so, it is something to seriously consider.
Other options in dealing with Iran that have been expressed include covert intelligence operations by either the Americans or the Israelis with the intent of sabotaging Iran's nuclear program by targeting its suppliers. But who knows how much this would affect Iran's nuclear progress.
There are, of course, at least two more options. One of these is the Iran Freedom and Support Act which is currently circulating around Congress. The bill, which has wide bi-partisan support, calls for the United States to support groups in Iran who oppose the regime and support democracy. The bill also seeks to strengthen sanctions on the Iranian regime. Whether this legislation will be effective and hasten the fall of the Iranian theocracy is questionable. Nonetheless, the U.S. should do whatever it can to instigate a revolution that would topple the Iranian despotism.
The final option available is war with Iran. With the U.S. tied up in Iraq, a ground war seems unlikely, maybe even unthinkable, at this time. But a high-scale aerial assault does seem like a possibility if all else fails.
While military action would be unfortunate, the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran seems inconceivable. Military force must be on the table. In the words of Senator John McCain: "There's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear armed Iran."
© Jamie Weinstein
© 2006 Cornell Daily Sun
As I write, Iran is continuing its illicit nuclear program, almost certainly in pursuit of an atomic weapon. This is frightening.
The current Iranian regime is among the leading sponsors of terrorism in the world. Hezbollah, which gets its funding from the Islamic theocracy, is believed by many to be more organized and capable than al-Qaeda.
Iran also has long range missile capabilities. Their Shahab-3 missiles are able to hit almost any city in the Middle East and are capable of even reaching some cities in Europe. The Islamic theocracy also has a long stated policy on calling for the destruction of Israel. In case the world community forgot this, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recently made a point of boldly restating this policy initiative.
And it is not only Israel that Iran seeks to destroy. As Ahmadinejad said in 2005, "God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism." Coming from a man who hopes to bring about Messianic world conflict, I don't think we can afford to assume that he is just kidding.
Now, some may say that Iran would not really attack America, Europe or Israel, because the consequences for it would be great. This may be true, but the consequences of being wrong are stark. For Israel, it could mean the possible destruction of its country and the mass slaughter of its people. As a former Iranian President has noted, "the application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." Such thinking doesn't provide room for common notions of deterrence.
The question is, what can the United States do?
Some say the threat is not imminent (which, to an extent, may be true). They argue that Iran may be as much as five or ten years away from obtaining the bomb. Having heard many experts talk about the Iranian threat, I have come to the conclusion that no one really actually knows how close Iran is to reaching nuclear capabilities. All the predictions seem very uncertain. And when it comes to potential nuclear holocausts, uncertainty is not something I want a lot of.
The consensus seems to be that there are not very many "good" options in dealing with the rogue regime in Tehran. One option commonly floated is an attack on Iran's nuclear reactor similar to the one carried out against Iraq's Osirak reactor by the Israelis in 1981. However, this comes with its own risks.
For starters, it is not clear whether such an attack would be successful. Some say the Iranians have learned the lessons of Osirak and their program is scattered throughout the country preventing an "Osirak" type of operation from being successful. Furthermore, it is also believed that their nuclear program is hidden deep underground, making it even more difficult to strike.
While in recent months some high profile American and Israeli experts have said that such an attack, if planned right, may very well be successful in slowing down Iran's nuclear program, such an attack would also carry very negative consequences other than the obvious. One such consequence would be that the Iranians, whose operatives have been causing trouble in Iraq, would increase their activity there resulting in the death of more Americans and Iraqis, thus creating greater instability and increasing the prospects of all-out civil war.
Negotiations with the Iranians are also still an option according to some. Germany, France and Britain held extensive negotiations with the Iranians over the summer, but those negotiations did not get very far. Iran was offered economic incentives in exchange for the acceptance of restrictions on its nuclear program, but this deal was rejected by the Mullahs. In truth, it is highly unlikely that any agreement like this could come about with the Iranian Regime. The Islamic fanatics running Iran seem hell-bent on obtaining nuclear capability, and no amount of incentives will entice them to give up on their holy quest for the "Islamic Bomb."
Another option in dealing with Iran, at least according to U.S. Reps. Mark Kirk '81 (Rep.-Ill.) and Rep. Robert Andrews J.D. '82 (Dem.-N.J.), is the possibility of creating a type of "quarantine" to block gasoline imports heading for Iran. According to this theory, Iran is so dependent on gasoline imports that such an embargo would cripple the Iranian economy in weeks, leading to a revolt by the Iranian people to overthrow the Mullahs. Of course, this too has several possible negative consequences, not least of which is the possible skyrocketing of oil prices and the fact that such an operation may be considered a causi belli for war. Even so, it is something to seriously consider.
Other options in dealing with Iran that have been expressed include covert intelligence operations by either the Americans or the Israelis with the intent of sabotaging Iran's nuclear program by targeting its suppliers. But who knows how much this would affect Iran's nuclear progress.
There are, of course, at least two more options. One of these is the Iran Freedom and Support Act which is currently circulating around Congress. The bill, which has wide bi-partisan support, calls for the United States to support groups in Iran who oppose the regime and support democracy. The bill also seeks to strengthen sanctions on the Iranian regime. Whether this legislation will be effective and hasten the fall of the Iranian theocracy is questionable. Nonetheless, the U.S. should do whatever it can to instigate a revolution that would topple the Iranian despotism.
The final option available is war with Iran. With the U.S. tied up in Iraq, a ground war seems unlikely, maybe even unthinkable, at this time. But a high-scale aerial assault does seem like a possibility if all else fails.
While military action would be unfortunate, the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran seems inconceivable. Military force must be on the table. In the words of Senator John McCain: "There's only one thing worse than military action, that is a nuclear armed Iran."
© Jamie Weinstein
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
