Letters to the Editor | Iran must be regulated by force

For perhaps the first time this year, or even during my time at Vassar, an op-ed writer in the The Miscellany News other than myself has addressed the most pressing issue of our time, and more surprisingly, has drawn the correct conclusion: “Iran can’t be trusted with anything that can possibly be converted into a nuclear weapon” (“U.S., Europe must stand firm on Iranian nukes,” published on 3.31.06). The mistake, sadly, lies in the solution offered: to defeat this menace, a menace—on account of Islamic fundamentalism and an absence of regional leverage—greater than North Korea, Ian Saxine insists we must establish an economic embargo, or, in other words, rely on sanctions enriching the politically connected, as we know they did in Iraq. Even if we began a full blockade, which would never happen, this would hardly be sufficient. Russia, not to mention China, has interests that do not coincide with ours: they, at their peril, prove willing to deal with butchers. More to the point, supposing we could get the Security Council—or even NATO—to sanction such a course of action, it is the height of irresponsibility to reduce our security to a fishing net: all it takes is one reactor, one piece of uranium, and finally, one bomb, to slip through the mesh. Unlike Iraq, there is absolutely no doubt they will cooperate with terrorist groups.

Iran, more than any other government on earth, is a terrorist. This has nothing to do with Holocaust denial or even their stifling authoritarianism—as morally repugnant as both may be—and everything to do with its long-running state sponsorship of terrorism, now extending, as all evidence indicates, to the support of Shiite militias in Iraq. Truly, amongst countless mistakes made in the reconstruction, none has been so great as permitting Muqtada al-Sadr to not only live, but more absurdly, participate in the political process. The Sunni insurgency engineered by Zarqawi, simply put, is no longer the greatest problem confronting us in the region: it is, precipitated by sectarian war receiving outside influence, another Iran. Those, then, who say we cannot deal with Iran until Iraq is finished cannot seem to grasp that Iraq will never be finished if Iran isn’t.

If economic pressure cannot provide an adequate safeguard against the gathering threat, diplomacy—the dismal shibboleth of the Europeans—is a much worse idea. Without the threat of enforcement, no agreement will accomplish anything but mortgage the future. Whatever political fallout results, military force remains the only appropriate option. Dismantle your plants and get out of Iraq—or we’ll make you.

To be certain, Iran denies involvement in the mounting civil war in Iraq and any interest in the pursuit of nuclear weapons (albeit at the same time as asserting their right to have such weapons), which understandably leads some—given the contentions over prewar intelligence in Iraq—to inquire: what if we’re wrong? In response, only the following can be said: no moral government has the right to take that risk. And we, as some have hoped, cannot rely on the Israelis, a la Osirak, to do our dirty work—not simply because it would be to our eternal shame, but because they do not possess the military capability.

For even us, it would, as one analyst notes, take “something in the neighborhood of a thousand strike sorties,” and moreover, would only likely set back their nuclear program, so as important as military action is, we cannot stop there—and, as the recently released prisoner of conscience Akbar Ganji indicates, we need not. Roughly three quarters of Iran—Western to an extent perhaps even the Israelis are not—wants an end to theocracy, and though we have earmarked financial support for the only example of heroism in politics, even $85 million—increased from a pitiful $3.5 million—is not enough. The amount should be increased tenfold and pledged until the poisoned fruit the Islamic Revolution bore is no longer a living reality.

Every American claimed by terrorist aggression demands nothing less.

—Marvin Campbell ’06