| Preventing nuclear-armed Iran remains priority U.S. Senator Roger F. Wicker As
the year 2009 ended, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed a
deadline from the United States and our allies on a United Nations deal
to halt uranium enrichment, a key component in Iran’s nuclear program. This
is the latest in a series of snubs by the Iranian regime beset by
increasing domestic unrest. In December, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton admitted that the Obama administration’s diplomatic efforts
have “produced very little in terms of a positive response,” and she
also conceded what many of us have thought all along: “Additional
pressure is going to be called for.” Rising Tensions A
nuclear-armed Iran would have global implications, particularly for
strong U.S. allies in the Middle East, including Israel. During a
speech before the U.N. in September, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu stressed this point, saying, “The greatest threat facing the
world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the
weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this
body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear
weapons.” All evidence indicates Iran is
accelerating its pursuit of a nuclear bomb. The failure of diplomacy
has led the Obama administration to consider alternative options in
dealing with Iran. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, recently declared that a military option could not be ruled out.
In an annual assessment of the nation’s military risks and priorities
he wrote, “My belief remains that political means are the best tools to
attain regional security and that military force will have limited
results. However, should the president call for military options, we
must have them ready.” I share Admiral Mullen’s
view that we should first exhaust our political options. Our strongest
non-military approach is economic sanctions. Currently,
Iran is subject to a range of U.S. sanctions, which place restrictions
on trade, investment, and foreign aid. Efforts are underway in Congress
to strengthen U.S. leverage with partners, such as China and Russia, to
back international sanctions. Recently, the
House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would
authorize President Obama to impose sanctions on nations that sell or
otherwise provide Iran with refined oil. The Senate will consider
similar legislation soon. Potential Outcomes As
the U.S. addresses this international priority, which promises to
intensify this year, there are three scenarios that could unfold: The
first is that the international community would have to contend with a
nuclear-armed Iran. With nuclear capability, Iran would have greater
leverage than ever to impose its will on the Middle East and create
unprecedented regional instability. This could
heighten the likelihood that nuclear weapons could fall into the hands
of terrorist organizations, which have a long history of support from
Iran. These terrorists have pledged to destroy
America and spread violence across the globe. It would be illogical to
ask our soldiers to fight terrorist organizations in Afghanistan and
Iraq, while ignoring Iran’s role in bolstering terrorism. The
second scenario is that Israel, which is within reach of Iran’s
missiles, could act unilaterally to protect itself. Israel has taken
such action in the past. In 1981, Israel staged the world’s first
airstrike against a nuclear plant and took out Iraq’s Osirak reactor. More
recently, Israel launched a strike on a partially constructed nuclear
reactor in Syria. An attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would
certainly prove more difficult, as facilities have been strategically
spread across the country. As Prime Minister
Netanyahu warned, “History has shown us time and again that what starts
with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.”
Because Israel would face a tremendous tactical challenge that would
likely require the involvement of the U.S. and other allies, this
option should be viewed as a last resort. The
third and most hopeful scenario would involve the Iranian people
themselves and a democratic uprising that is not as far-fetched as some
believe. Iran has a century-old tradition of democracy, and the world
is now seeing how thin the people’s support for the regime truly is. When
President Ahmadinejad’s term was extended in June, millions of
civilians took to the streets to protest the hijacked election. In
late December, hundreds of thousands of Iranians flocked to the
religious capital of Qom for the funeral of the Shiite cleric who
helped lead the largest anti-government movement in three decades. Just
last week, new demonstrations against government oppression erupted in
cities across the country. The regime, clearly threatened by its
empowered populace, responded with deadly violence. A
number of democratic activists were shot and killed, while many others
were arrested. The population of Iran, the majority of which is under
the age of 30, is ideologically primed to lead the way to a hopeful
future, free from the oppression of the current regime. Despite
the many challenges posed by Iran, there is hope. This issue will
remain a top priority for the U.S., and we should work to employ the
diplomatic strength of the world to bring about change in Iran’s
behavior. In addition to sanctions, we must
demonstrate U.S. support and encouragement for the democratic yearnings
of the Iranian people to usher in a new government that serves and
protects their interests.
|