Collegiate Times

There are a number of claims one can make as to why it would be a terrible decision to attack Iran.

There is the obvious fact that international law prohibits attacking another country, whether by air strike or ground invasion, simply because we feel like it. There are the countless civilians who would likely be injured and killed, the outraged global response that would follow, and the dramatic increase in terrorist recruitment that would almost certainly result.

As Peter Galbraith put it in the New York Review of Books, sustained air strikes will not halt Iran's nuclear program: will endanger civilians, and will unleash a "virulent anti-U.S. reaction in the Islamic world."

And yet reports are that the Bush administration is pushing forward nonetheless. Pentagon planners have apparently developed as many as 2,000 bombing targets in Iran and Vice President Dick Cheney may be advocating the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites.

The idea that one nation could launch a nuclear attack upon another for the ostensible goal of reducing nuclear proliferation is absurd, to say the least. An unprovoked nuclear attack by the United States could well compete for war crime of the twenty-first century. Thankfully, Condoleezza Rice has reportedly put her foot down, telling President George W. Bush that she will resign if he chooses to preempt the diplomatic path with air strikes.

There is another element of the potential attack on Iran that has not received enough attention, and that is the effect it would have on the moderates and dissidents within Iran. Local elections in Dec. 2006 saw moderates and reformers defeat the more radical allies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What is to become of them in the face of an American air strike?

An American attack will serve only to validate the rhetoric of Ahmadinejad over that of his domestic opponents who favor a dialogue with the west. The costly damage to infrastructure; the maimed and dead civilians, already a crime in itself, will only serve the propaganda purposes of the Iranian hard-liners at the expense of the moderates.

The U.S. cannot prove Ahmadinejad wrong by behaving as a belligerent; tossing around threats and intimidation only highlights the truth in their claims. So what is the most likely result of an attack?

Think back to 9/11. What characterized our response? First of all, as a people we were horrified by the terrible human loss and the shattering of our security. We struggled to cope and come to terms with this new wound.

And what happened to the voices of dialogue and moderation? Unfortunately, they were muted and generally ignored, and the collective American response allowed for a most aggressive militarism on the part of our leaders that continues to this day.

To attack Iran, as envisioned by some of our leaders, would be a grave injustice. We would be spitting in the face of those who favor dialogue by proving them wrong. "America doesn't want dialogue; it wants war," the radicals will say. What will the moderates say in response? What can they appeal to when we have just demonstrated their calls for moderation nave and unfounded?

What of those who continue to speak for diplomacy and non-retaliation even after a strike? Just as federal authorities rounded up tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants in the aftermath of 9/11, so the Iranian authorities will likely track down democracy advocates, human rights activists, pro-westerners, pacifists, and others opposed to a violent response. Given the domestic nature of the Iranian regime, it is hard to imagine a bright future for those poor souls.

Still our leaders press on. Ramping up the threat of Iran, calling on them to cease their nuclear program while their regional adversary, Israel, possesses an arsenal of dozens of nuclear weapons. This is the course we are committed to?

President Ahmadinejad does not have final say in Iran. His threats and insults are meaningless without the signature of the considerably more moderate Ayatollah Khamenei.

Nuclear proliferation is an evil, and not a necessary one.

However, it is not contained with reckless threats and hints of nuclear aggression. It is part of a larger problem, that of militarism. The United States cannot prevent nuclear proliferation with aggression. Every threat, every intimidation, and will cause them to press on all the harder.

We can, however, take a great step toward a reduction in nuclear weaponry. We can begin to fulfill our obligations in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by dramatically reducing and eliminating our nuclear stockpiles. As long as we are bent on developing new and more effective nuclear weaponry, we stand in violation of the treaty.
The steps that would follow our decision are not set in stone but it is easy to guess. Perhaps such a decision would spur China, France, Russia, and Britain to further reduce their own stockpiles.

This, in turn might lead India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea to sign (or return to) the treaty and eliminate their own weapons. As long as we maintain ours, we cannot credibly call on others to eliminate theirs. As long as there is a nuclear club, nations will forever by vying for its membership.

We can begin the process if we desire. Nuclear non-proliferation begins at home. It is not to be found in a tactical nuclear strike on another nation. It will not be found in military occupation in the Middle East.

If we want to force Iran's hand, let's preempt it with peace. Rather than deny it a seat on our nuclear pedestal, let's join Iran and the rest of the world in their non-nuclear statuses.

Let's see where the 'dead' peace process takes us if the halting of Iran's nuclear program is contingent on the reduction and elimination of our own nuclear weaponry. Something tells me their ears would suddenly perk up.