| |
Proponents Say: Only Military Action Can Prevent Iran from Developing WMD.
- The current nonproliferation regime has been unable to prevent Iran from making significant progress towards developing
uranium-based and plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Given the continued anti-U.S. stance of Iran's ruling hard-line clerics,
and Iran's support for terrorist groups such as Hizbollah, Iranian acquisition of WMD would have catastrophic strategic
consequences for the United States.
- As evidenced by the convincing victories against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the forces of Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
the U.S. military is capable of executing highly effective strikes against enemy targets, while keeping allied and civilian
casualties to a minimum. New technologies employed in both of these conflicts, such as "smart bombs" equipped with Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology and conventional "bunker busters," can destroy enemy targets with unprecedented
accuracy. Such technologies could be used against suspected WMD facilities in Iran as well.
- In the wake of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, the United States military has forces deployed in the area
with which it can conduct strikes against Iran. In addition, new military relationships between the United States and other
countries in the region, such as Qatar, Pakistan and several Central Asian republics, may allow the United States to launch
such an attack from bases in countries on all sides of Iran.
- While the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was opposed by many other countries such as Germany, France, Russia and China,
relations with these countries have not experienced the irreparable damage that many had predicted before the operation
began. A similar operation, or even the mere threat of a similar operation against Iran, could end Iranian WMD development
without incurring high political or diplomatic costs.
- A successful operation against Iran's WMD program might have a significant effect on other states considering
beginning WMD programs of their own. Potential proliferators may learn the lessons from Iraq and Iran that pursuing
weapons programs in defiance of the international nonproliferation regime may lead to devastating military response
from the United States.
Opponents Say: Military Action Would Create More Problems Than it Would Solve
- The U.S.-led war on Iraq to dismantle that country's WMD programs generated stiff opposition from other
Arab states, including states that had supported the United States during Operation Desert Storm. Another
military operation, particularly one against another Muslim state, would support the claim that the United
States is waging a war against Islam, further inflaming resentment towards the United States within the
Muslim world. This would have significant negative consequences for the United States as it attempts to
maintain its partnerships in the global war on terror, and to work towards mediating a settlement to the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
- Operation Iraqi Freedom also generated strong opposition from U.S. allies in Europe. Another military
conflict undertaken without UN sanction would further strain ties between the United States and its European
allies, and could jeopardize the future of the NATO alliance.
- Relations between the United States and Russia would also be damaged if the United States took
unilateral action against Iran, particularly considering the degree of nuclear cooperation between Iran
and Russia. Russia maintains that its assistance to Iran will not contribute to a nuclear weapons program,
but a U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would undoubtedly jeopardize Russia's nuclear contracts with Iran.
- Generating support for attacks on Iran to stop its WMD programs would be particularly difficult following
the war in Iraq. Before that conflict, U.S. and British intelligence cited Iraqi WMD programs as a justification
for military action. After the war, however, coalition forces were unable to find these weapons within Iraq. As a
result, even the presence of accurate and condemning intelligence regarding Iranian WMD programs would likely not
be enough to convince other countries of the necessity to launch attacks against Iran.
- Much like Iraq, the location of all of Iran's WMD facilities is not known to U.S. intelligence, so surgical
air strikes may not be sufficient to completely dismantle the program. (A full invasion of the country would likely
be more difficult than Operation Iraqi Freedom, considering the greater size and population of Iran, its more rugged
topography, and its larger military.)
- The political situation in Iran is also much different from that of Iraq before the war. Although conservative
clerics control the Iranian government, due to their influence in the military and the judiciary, the democratically
elected president, Khatami, is a moderate who favors closer ties with the United States. If the United States attacked
Iran, moderates like Khatami would lose legitimacy, and the fundamentalists would be able to consolidate their power.
This would reverse the trend of growing pro-American popular sentiment in Iran, as different groups in the country
united against the attacker.
|
 |
Further Reading:
|
