Within a few months, America will have lost the "War on Terror." There will be no Waterloo, no skirmish, no shot fired. According to the Bush Administration, however, America is winning the War on Terror and bringing "evil-doers" to justice. Unfortunately, the gravest threat to our security and prosperity has slipped slyly beneath our radar. Instead of monitoring our most threatening enemy, Iran, our politicians squabbled over the legitimacy of the Iraq war and Democratic Sen. John Kerry's hokey war record. We have failed to realize the danger in allowing this vitriolic and rabidly anti-American regime to acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran succeeds in doing such, our entire War on Terror will be a bust.
Since President Bush announced this "War on Terror" three years ago, our country's foreign policy changed drastically. No longer would America feebly deal with terrorist threats, as was done throughout the 1990s. America would now actively hunt down terrorists wherever they lurked. This mantra revolved around several key elements: destroying terrorist infrastructures, evicting regimes harboring terrorists and preventing enemies from acquiring WMDs. This strategy seems to be working well -- countless terror plots against Americans have been foiled, many terrorists have been jailed and the Taliban and Saddam Hussein ousted from power.
Still, as well as we have done against some of our repugnant adversaries, we have yet to deal with the largest threat. Have Powell and Rumsfeld become queasy at the thought of confronting Iran? The rising death toll in Iraq and the highly contentious election have led to a less hawkish response to the menacing mullahs than might be expected. However, like it or not, the Iranian nuclear bid is yet another developing front in the nebulous "War on Terror," and perhaps the most pivotal one.
Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons in order to drive American influence out of the Middle East, emerge as a regional superpower and export Islamic fundamentalism abroad. This oil-laden country has no need for an alternative fuel source. Nor does Iran need nuclear weapons for defense; Iran's purported existential threat, Israel, is merely a sick Islamic obsession. The reasons for its nuclear pursuit are painfully evident. The mullahs suffer from illusions of grandeur.
With nuclear weapons, Iran will emerge as a regional superpower. The nuclear option will provide the theocracy a powerful bargaining chip and source of national pride. Consequently, the emboldened regime will increase their support of proxy terrorist groups such Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and even Al-Qaida. These groups already receive ample money from Iran to stage attacks on Israeli civilians, Westerners and more recently, Allied troops in Iraq. American intelligence even suspects Iranian agents are fomenting civil unrest within Iraq. With a nuclear deterrent, fear of direct Western retaliation would be minimal.
Thus Iran could take bolder steps to bolster an Islamic regime in Lebanon, promote fundamentalism in Egypt and fan the flames of the intifada. If by next year, Iraq is still struggling for stability, Iran could prop up a theocracy in Baghdad, or attempt to carve away a part of Shiite southern Iraq for annexation.
What would prevent the mullahs from sharing their recently acquired technology with fellow rogue states? Syria, Egypt, Algeria and a handful of other miserable regimes already actively seek nuclear technology. Tehran might share its new technology to further weaken America's influence in the region. Clearly, nuclear weapons proliferation to other anti-Western enemies is a foreseeable consequence.
America needs to deal firmly with Iran before it is too late. Nothing would be more difficult that attempting to negotiate with another North Korea in an already tenuous region. While the IAEA has already demanded Iran halt uranium enrichment, one of the final steps to attaining nuclear capability, Iran has scoffed at the hollow admonition. In fact, Iran has threatened the international community with retaliation if they continue to interfere with its atomic affairs. When diplomacy fails, as it undoubtedly will, our government and allies should not rule out a tactical military strike.
Over 20 years ago, Saddam Hussein ruthlessly pursued his own atomic energy project. Ironically, the Iranians recognized the danger in such a move. Months before Osirak's completion, the Iranian Air force bombed the reactor. Alas, the squadron's incompetence left the nuclear plant unscathed; the bombs ricocheted off the reactor dome and tumbled harmlessly to the ground. Israel, however, successfully leveled the plant with pinpoint precision weeks later. A similar strike should be considered. Though an aerial assault on Iran's nuclear complex is strategically more difficult, it is not impossible. Iran is a much larger country than Iraq and its nuclear program is dispersed among 15 different sites. However, our military technology can overcome such difficulties. Indeed, the ramifications of such a strike could be severe, including Iranian interference with Iraqi reconstruction, outwardly abetting terrorists and a conventional military response to regional allies and American bases. In fact, the Defense Department stated that they were displeased at the results of a recent war game. They were unable to prevent an escalation of conflict. Yet, the consequences of inaction appear woefully more disconcerting.
America and her allies are faced with a difficult choice. We cannot, however, ignore the imminent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Our War on Terror demands that we strike our foes wherever they are, and whatever form they take.
