Lillian Murphy -December 1st 2004
If you believe that the doctrine of pre-emption dictates that we should go to war with any country that appears to present an imminent threat, Iran certainly is a candidate. We have not been friendly with Iran since the US-supported Shah was removed from power and the hostage crisis of the Carter Administration (1970's). Iran has always felt that it lives in a dangerous neighborhood and therefore needs powerful weapons as a means of deterrence. A survey of Iranian citizens showed that the overwhelming majority of Iranians support the idea of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. We know that Iran has been refining uranium (Iran contends it is for the purpose of building nuclear power plants). Just this weekend, the leading cleric in Iran condemned the US invasion of Iraq while members of the Iranian Navy chanted "Death to America!" in response - definitely chilling. We also have reason to believe that Iranian as well as Syrian citizens have been moving across the borders of Iraq to participate in the insurgency.
I would argue, however, that while there seems to be more evidence of a WMD program (nuclear in particular) in Iran than there was for Iraq pre-US coalition invasion, it would not be prudent at this time to invade Iran.
First and foremost, the US government simply cannot afford to spare any of its military resources currently in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is still significant fighting in Mosul and Fallujah, and there have been calls from the Iraqi interim president for additional troops in Iraq to squelch the insurgency before the hoped-for January elections. Just last week the US Congress approved raising the debt ceiling to $8.164 trillion, 70% of the US GDP. This is the third increase since 2001. If we can't afford to raise taxes to support increased spending at home for the Medicare prescription drug program and Social Security, we certainly can't afford it for the increased military spending that would be required to invade another country. Moreover, invading Iran would require additional troops, and that would most likely mean bringing back the military draft, a measure so unpopular that I don't believe that it could be instituted even in the current political climate.
Secondly, Iran has a stronger, more cohesive military than Iraq did pre-invasion. An invasion of Iran, I would wager, would be even more costly to American soldiers' lives and to the US budget than Iraq has been up to this point. Now, this is purely speculation on my part and is not based on any factual evidence, but I would suggest that Iraq was chosen as the "easier" target by the Bush Administration, since the facts seem to show that Iran is more of a risk to US national security and US allies than Iraq was in 2002 and 2003. In addition, China, a significant trading partner and economic ally to the US, is very interested in keeping the oil pipeline from Iran open; a US invasion could strain our relationship with a country that holds a significant amount of the United States' credit right now.
Third, there seems to be some tentative progress in reaching a diplomatic solution. Great Britain, France, and Germany have been involved in talks with Iran to halt its nuclear program and subject its program to IAEA inspections. In return, the Europeans are offering trade and technology incentives, including nuclear power plant technology. According to a report on NPR aired Sunday, November 28, Iran had indeed agreed to halt its refinement of uranium, at least for the time being. The Europeans have been fooled before, and yes, the current agreement is perhaps not tight enough. But Iran does not want this issue to go before the UN Security Council, something the Bush Administration has been advocating, and Iran has made some steps to at least delay its development of a nuclear weapons program for the immediate future in order to avoid possible UN sanctions. In another gesture of cooperation, Iran and Syria, along with US ally the Republic of Turkey, have agreed to support the training of Iraqi security forces and military. Iran and Syria have also agreed to tighten their border security. After all, none of Iraq's neighbors can afford a civil war in Iraq.
Finally, can the US really afford to invade another Middle Eastern country when some are already calling its motives in Iraq imperialist rather than pre-emptive or defensive? Talk about a "clash of civilizations" that could end very badly for the United States . . . ! And what would an invasion of Iran mean to North Korea, a country that has proclaimed loudly that it has a nuclear weapon and is not afraid to use it, but the US seems to all but ignore? If we can allow multilateral talks to find a diplomatic solution to the headache of North Korea's nuclear program, can we not do the same with Iran? To invade Iran would certainly lend credence to the protestors' cries of "Blood For Oil".
The US is already stretched too thin militarily, monetarily, and diplomatically. We need to watch the situation in Iran carefully, but declaring an invasion of Iran in the next few months would be foolhardy.
(Sources for my argument are from my reading of the NY Times OnLine, NPR, and Time Magazine. I do not claim to understand or know all the facts, that I have the most up-to-date information, or to be an expert in international affairs.)