[Politics] Bombs Are Not the Answer to Iran

As the eyes of the world look toward Iran and its pursuit of nuclear technology, the U.S., by some interpretations, is preparing to attack to Iran in what would be another "go it alone" military pursuit. Such an attack, aimed at halting Iran's nuclear programming and curbing its hostilities toward Israel and the West, is still very much on the table according to Bush Administration. But the U.S. military is reporting today that an air campaign, involving thousands of bunker-busting missiles for a period of several weeks, would likely leave the Iranian nuclear program mostly intact. For one thing, U.S. intelligence is not comprehensive enough to know the location of all of Iran's nuclear facilities, and additionally, our military is acknowledging that it is very likely that many of these facilities are buried too deep in the ground to be affected by our highly-advanced bunker-busters. If nothing else, these facts alone should prevent us from engaging in such an attack.

While those that are optimistic that such an attack would at least set Tehran back several years in its development of nuclear arms, it is crucial, in my opinion, that we make such an attack, not only a last resort, but also one that must be pursued by a true international force. I recognize that Iran's President Ahmadinejahd is highly defiant and confrontational, and certainly not to be trusted, and inherit within this admission is the belief that at some point relatively soon, a military attack on Iran may be necessary. But now is not the time. While preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons should be a high priority for the U.S. and the entire world, such an attack that does not destroy their program will have one seriously negative effect: it could give the population of Iran good reason to back their government's hostile approach to the world.

It is a known fact that most of Iran's population is relatively progressive in its beliefs, as compared with much of the rest of the Muslim world. In fact, most Iranians do not support their own government. And the only way to lose their support of democratic ideals is to attack them. One thing we should know by now as an unaffordable mistake, is to turn progressive Muslims into hostile hard-line fundamentalists. We must, in fact, do the opposite and give monetary and even military support to such progressives where it is reasonable to do so, so that they may pursue their own freedom (much in the same way France did for us during the American Revolution).

We must also engage our enemies. And while I am skeptical that a diplomatic approach, specifically multilateral discussions, could work in Iran, I do believe that it is avenue we must approach before dismissing it. Few believed such an approach could work with North Korea as well, and while the recent agreement between North Korea, its neighbors and the U.S. may not provide an ideal set of assurances for our nation, it does represent a growing optimism in all parts of the world that diplomacy between enemies and neighbors can still be an effective path in sustaining peace.