Reading Tuesday's editorial pages, I was jarred out of my semi-conscious state of late-night procrastination. I wasn't expecting any thrills when I started perusing The Dartmouth when I noticed a considerably hawkish "Confronting a Nuclear Iran" by Dan Knecht (The Dartmouth, September 28). His opening line -- "within a few months, America will have lost the 'War on Terror'" -- sent shivers down my spine and I was soon wide awake in anticipation of something extraordinary. Alas, Mr. Knecht failed to deliver the goods. While I enjoyed reading his piece, I must respectfully disagree with him that a tactical airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities or any other form of military attack at this time will provide a feasible solution to the problem.
Firstly, I beg to differ that Iran poses "the gravest threat to our security and prosperity." Al-Qaida presents the biggest and most imminent threat to American security and it is still thriving. It has shown its intention of destroying the United States by attacking it on its own territory and killing over 3,000 innocent civilians. Its elusive leader, Osama bin Laden, and his top associates have not yet been captured and they continue to plot terrorist attacks against American interests. CNN reported only a few weeks back that Bin Laden is planning "a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future." Its radical leaders have taken it upon themselves to destabilize Iraq and they continue to murder and threaten innocent men and women who are working to rebuild the country.
Al-Qaida's Afghan fighters continue to undermine President Karzai's regime and have even re-captured part of the country. In fact, Al-Qaida does not even refrain from killing Muslims. "The War on Terror demands," notes Mr. Knecht, "that we strike our foes wherever they are, and whatever form they take."
If we really want to "strike our foes," we need to fight Al-Qaida and capture its leaders. We need to utilize all our military resources to defeat our most dangerous enemy since the demise of the Soviet Union, as the Bush Administration has been striving to do, and not dilute our efforts by striking Iran and creating more instability in a region where we are trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the people. Quite obviously, an attack on Iran will only strengthen Al-Qaida's claim that the United States is leading a crusade against the Islamic world. It has to be painfully clear to everyone that the United States must find a peaceful solution to the current Shi'a uprising in southern Iraq very soon, and attacking Iran, a majority Shi'a state, will do little to pacify the Shi'as in Iraq.
Secondly, Mr. Knecht fails to recognize vital differences between Iran and Iraq. While, Saddam Hussein ruled supreme in Baghdad with very little internal resistance, the radical Iranian regime faces strong domestic opposition. Students, social workers, moderate Muslims, liberal politicians and others form a very active pro-democracy, pro-human rights civil society, something that was lacking in Iraq. Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi represents the moderate majority of Iranians who are striving for democracy and political freedoms. The Iranian President Mohammad Khatami continues to implement liberal political reforms, following the lead of his predecessor, Hashemi Rafsanjani.
As I wrote in these pages more than a year ago, "[Khatami's] liberal agenda in conjunction with popular pressure will force the Ayatollah [Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran] to democratize" and abandon his regime's radical agenda. Moreover, Iran has the military capability of igniting a full-fledged war, very different from the opposition we faced in Iraq. As Mr. Knecht points out, Iran's "nuclear program is dispersed among 15 different sites." A single strike at a single facility will do little to halt its nuclear program and an attack on all 15 will be tantamount to a declaration of war, something that the United States can ill-afford, especially strategically, at this stage of the War on Terror.
While I must confess to be a realist and I hardly agree with liberal ideas -- as opposed to realist, not conservative, thinking -- of using economic incentives to soften radical regimes and integrate them into world society, I do not think that a forceful response to the Iran crisis will serve our interests in any way at this time.
Iran has shown its willingness to support the War on Terror by capturing several Al-Qaida operatives, and we can only do well by encouraging it to participate more broadly. The United States needs to adopt a more proactive approach with Iran and persuade it to abandon its nuclear aspirations and radical agendas. The Libyan experience has shown us that this is indeed possible and that it is not always necessary to use force to achieve our goals.