I feel like I should not have to ask that question, but the more I speak with people, the more a favorable opinion of intervention arises. You hear all the same arguments from the Iraq War: What if they get a nuclear bomb? What about our ally, Israel? What about oil security? They support terrorists/they are a terrorist state.
I will answer all of these arguments, and make a case for why war with Iran is a terrible idea. But first, let's look briefly at the history of modern Iranian-American relations. I recently saw a brilliant video about this on youtube. As the video explains, the current spat between the United States and Iran did not begin, as most believe, with the 444 day long Iranian Hostage Crisis, but instead in 1953 when the United States overthrew the government and installed a dictator (as we have done in more than 20 other nations since 1945). While this video makes a compelling case about the history of the dispute and it's true causes; it does not address most modern american's reasons why they think war is a great idea. I'm going to start with the most obvious concern:
What if they get a nuclear bomb?
The real question is not if they will get one, but if their acquisition of a bomb is really a bad thing. I believe that a nuclear Iran could be very stabilizing for the entire Middle East. Much like Europe at the end of the Second World War there is, as of now, only one nuclear power in the region. The United States greatly feared the Soviet Union getting a bomb, but once they had it and after the initial panic caused by the Soviets getting it, the Cold War stayed cold. Currently, Israel is the only nuclear power in the region; it is an advantage they definitely do not want to lose. Practically speaking, a nuclear war between Israel and Iran is completely impossible, especially because of the theocratic government in Tehran. All of Islam's holy sites other than Mecca are located in Jerusalem. A nuclear attack on Jerusalem itself would destroy all of those sites, bringing massive anger from Islamic populations worldwide. So no nuke in Jerusalem. What about other leading population centers: Tel-Aviv,Beersheeba , or Rishon LeZion. While these places could be destroyed without harming holy sites, another huge factor comes into play. Fallout. While the distance fallout travels varies due to wind and the type of radioactive isotopes, it can still travel a long way. This places neighboring countries (including allies of Iran) at major risk. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the Gaza strip, and their populations would all be at risk of contamination. Therefore, Israel cannot be attacked. What about the United States? Firstly, Iran does not have the capabilities to strike the United States or it's territories by conventional means (like a missile); even if they did have a missile we have such incredible missile defense systems that it would likely take hundreds of independent warheads to slip through the safety net. The only other way a nuclear bomb could enter the United States would be through smuggling, and even if they somehow made it through the countless radiation detectors at a port or in an airport the relative impact of a single devise (though incredibly tragic) would be small. The type of bomb allegedly being developed by Iran is very small compared to what is in our arsenal, and it's blast radius would likely be similar to that of Hiroshima meaning that even in an incredibly dense population area there would be much less death and destruction than the bombs we would immediately drop on Iran. Which brings up my final point on this subject: Using a nuclear bomb would be an act of national suicide. The entire Iranian population would be eliminated in the matter of about 5 minutes. One American "Peacekeeper" missile drops ten 300 kiloton hydrogen bombs (for comparison "Fat Man", the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was 21 kilotons). The entire country would be turned to glass.
What about our ally, Israel?
This is a fair question given the incredibly deep ties our nations have with each other, but there are some very practical points that need to be considered. The first being "should our support be unconditional"? No, it definitely should not be. I certainly do not wish to be drafted into a war that was not started by us and especially when we were not attacked. The "logic" of unconditional support is what started World War I, and was the reason it was such a bloodbath. Another thing to consider is Israel's own military capabilities. They are incredibly talented in combat, and have successfully defended their nation on numerous occasions. Also, as mentioned above, they are a nuclear power. The fact stands that Israel does not really need our unconditional military protection. I have no problems standing with them diplomatically, but if Israel were to be the aggressor in a conflict that support would be morally wrong.
What about oil security?
This question has been the most recent one to arise because of threats to close the Straight of Hormuz. Like using a nuclear bomb, this move would also be national suicide. However, instead of being physical it would be economic suicide. 50% of China's oil comes from Iran and passes through the Straight. China is already the second largest consumer of oil in the world, and they certainly would not stand losing half of that. Oil prices worldwide would skyrocket, and odds are that both China and the United States would strike to reopen the supply route. Also, Iran produces 4.252 million barrels of oil a day. At a market price of $101/bbl that is equal to a daily profit loss of almost $430 million a day if the straight were to close. In all, threats to close the Straight are completely hollow threats, and should not be taken seriously at all.
They support terrorists/are a terrorist state
This may be true, but it is not a cause; it is an effect of US manipulation in their country and in their neighbors countries. If we look back in history the United States is actually the largest single supporter of terrorists worldwide. Bay of Pigs, Contra affair, the recent Fast and Furious operation, and most importantly we built Sadam Hussein to fight Iran. If we left these people alone international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda would likely go the way of the dinosaur. Al Qaeda is not an ideological group that all Muslims rally around. They are a tool to fix a regional problem. Their support would plummet in a matter of years if we radically changed our foreign policy back to what our Constitution intended.
In all, war with Iran would be terrible. It would be completely unjust and would only continue to ruin our claims of "installing freedom and democracy" around the world. More than all of that we simply cannot afford it. The last ten years wars have added over $4 trillion to our debt, and even as I write this the number is growing exponentially from $15 trillion to new heights. Another war would be our final tipping point; it would completely bankrupt us.
No comments:
Post a Comment