The American gloom about the economy is misplaced: The greatest danger our country faces is not a recession, but the Bush administration’s zealous desire to extend our foray in the Middle East, out of Baghdad and into Tehran. If our government, or one we support, attacks Iran, the little international respect we still have will all but vanish along with any hope for regional stability.

Any strike on Iran would be predicated on destroying its nuclear infrastructure (The administration has ignored the contentious 2007 National Intelligence Estimate asserting that Iran has stopped its nuclear program and would not have a nuclear weapon before 2010 to 2015).

Most alarmingly, the administration appears intent on regime change and has, in private talks, compared President Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler. The ground forces involved would flow from Azerbaijan (where America established bases after 9/11) in addition to Iraq. Despite intense arguments to the contrary, the Bush administration has decided that the government of Iran must be overthrown in order to preserve regional stability; moreover, as a lame duck president with little control over domestic policy, President Bush has little responsibility to any constituency except history, which he believes will accord him favor.

Though the administration’s rationale shifts as its position becomes untenable, its central focus remains the same: the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program and the overthrow of the Iranian government. The earliest charge, that Iran is a dangerous regime intent on controlling the Middle East, is mentioned less and less often, especially after the 2007 NIE report.

Realizing the weakness of this argument, but still seeking war with Iran, President Bush has accused the government of Iran of aiding terrorists, especially Hezbollah, and arming groups fighting American forces in Iraq.

The last argument is flawed for two reasons. First, those hostile groups only exist because of the American occupation, so it is more accurate to blame the proxy war on ourselves. Second, we have special operations forces engaged in intelligence and proxy operations in Iran, so we are exorcizing Iran for playing the same game in which we are engaged.

Even if we accept that the government of Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, an attack on Iran would be incredibly counterproductive. For example, President Ahmadinejad derives his popularity from the antagonism of the Bush regime. Having destroyed Iran’s economy, he and his party are increasingly unpopular.

In addition, the Supreme Leader and Council of Guardians, both of which are unelected, actually have greater control over Iranian policy than the President. In other words, President Ahmadinejad, the man portrayed as our greatest enemy, is not as powerful as the Bush administration insists, though our belligerence only strengthens the little power he has.

In addition to solidifying popular anger against the American government, an attack on Iran would destabilize the entire region.

Iran would unleash Hezbollah to attack Israel, and it is possible that Iran would directly attack Israel. In addition, Iran would increase its funding and weapon-provisioning of groups in Iraq.

If the government were to face an existential threat, it could even directly invade Iraq, opening a two-front war and further overextending our forces. Moderate countries which have played key bargaining roles, such as China and Russia, would side with Iran, paralyzing any Security Council action and complicating our relations with most countries. In addition, our efforts to woo the Syrians away from Iran would be for naught.

Finally, a preemptive attack would radicalize the entire region and force moderate governments, such as those of Jordan and Egypt, to reconsider their relationships with America.

An attack would be interpreted as another move to control Middle East oil, and young people everywhere would rally violently against our government. It is, after all, the presence of American troops in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, which instigated the first wave of Islamic terrorism and our presence in Iraq which created the “terrorists” fighting us there. An invasion of Iran would only create more terrorists.

It is undeniable that attacking and/or invading Iran would have exactly the opposite affect President Bush intends: America would be less safe from terrorists, our forces in Iraq would be in greater danger and international opinion would rally against our hubris.

If, as President Bush fears, Iran’s nuclear weapons lead to World War III, it will be because of our actions, not theirs.

Until Jan. 20, 2009-and then only if John McCain does not win-America represents the greatest threat to stability in the Middle East.

Zachary is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a staff columnist. He can be reached via e-mail at [email protected].

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, April 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.