Crib Sheet: Why We Shouldn’t Attack Iran
By Ben Furnas
Thursday February 22, 2007
According to the Bush administration, Iran is bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and killing American troops by supplying explosives to Shi’ite militias in Iraq. The UN deadline for Iran to end their uranium enrichment passed on Wednesday, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad snubbed it by pledging to continue Iran’s nuclear program. Sounds like grounds for attacking Iran, right? Hold on, we’ve been here before (remember Colin Powell at the U.N. in February 2003?). Here are some questions to ask before pounding the drums and unleashing the dogs of war: [AP]
Where did those explosives really come from? Bush insists that the deadly IEDs (improvised explosive devices) came from the Quds force, a branch of the Iranian military. But he also admits that he doesn’t know whether anyone high up in the Iranian government ordered the arms transfer. The combination of an active black market for weapons and a porous border with Iran means that these explosives, even if they were Quds-made, could have come from anywhere. To put it in perspective, many of the guns used by the insurgents are American or Russian made, but nobody is suggesting these governments are complicit. [Talking Points Memo] [Juan Cole]
Is Iran really targeting U.S. soldiers? Even if the Iranian government is knowingly supplying weapons to groups in Iraq, they are unlikely to be supplying the Sunni insurgents who are responsible for most of the attacks on U.S. soldiers outside of Baghdad. After all, Iran is a Shi’ite-governed nation with a long antipathy toward Iraqi Sunnis. Instead, Iran is likely to be supplying the Shi’ite forces who are in a civil war with Sunni factions. The groups that Bush has linked with the Quds weapons have a much more complicated relationship to the U.S. than is implied. The Mehdi army, under control of Moqtada al-Sadr, is a key supporter of the U.S.-backed Maliki government. And the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq is led by Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, a man who Bush met with in December 2006 and applauded his “strong position against the murder of innocent life.” [Juan Cole] [Think Progress]
How close is Iran to a nuclear weapon? Not so close, actually. A recent New York Times piece says that Iran’s clunky uranium enrichment program’s “bluster may far outstrip its technical expertise.” U.S. intelligence experts put Iran at least four years away from producing a bomb ( Iran continues to insist that their enrichment program is for energy only), and this is without any international sanctions or diplomatic pressure. [New York Times]
Shouldn’t we be talking to Iran? Without diplomatic channels open, the United States is flying blind against Iran, and ignoring a key partner in stabilizing Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton commission, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and former Secretary of State Colin Powell have all “criticized the administration for its refusal to negotiate” with Iran. The United States and Iran have a mutual interest in a stable Iraq and both fear the threat from Al-Qaeda. These common interests could form a basis for diplomatic engagement. [Progress Report] [CNN]
Would attacking Iran make Ahmadinejad more popular? Ahmadinejad’s support in Iran is waning. His party lost seats in Iran’s latest elections, and Iranians are growing weary of his empty populist rhetoric and the diplomatic brinksmanship that is alienating Iran in the international community. But as Ali Ansari writes in The Guardian, “Only the U.S. hawks can save the Iranian president now.” An attack on Iran, or even escalating rhetoric, could rally the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad, shoring up his support and reinforcing Iran’s ambitions for nuclear weapons. [The Guardian] [The Financial Times]
Would attacking Iran make us safer? A coalition of British NGOs, think-tanks, and labor unions produced a report calling strikes against Iran “highly dangerous.” Their reasoning? Attacks on Iran would lead to retaliation from Iran linked groups across the Middle East, from Hezbollah to militias in Iraq. The attacks would further radicalize the region, intensifying conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, increasing sympathies with Al-Qaeda style anti-Americanism, not to mention send oil prices skyrocketing, and lead to countless civilian deaths. [CrisisAction] [Financial Times]
Ben Furnas is research assistant at Mic Check Radio, a project of the Center for American Progress. He graduated from Cornell University last year.
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
|
!
thanks for helping me w/ info to think through a rational position. tell me there is a hell and bush and his owners will burn in it…....
— toni - Feb 23, 09:12 PM - #NVQYXD
— http:// - May 9, 01:18 AM - #