Primer: Iran’s nuclear threat
The recent death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar is a momentous turning point in the Middle East. It opens the door toward a resolution of the terrible conflict in Gaza, making possible the return of Israeli hostages and the end of relentless war and terror for Gazans. It also is an opportunity for US diplomacy to finally move toward a more permanent solution – with the caveat that Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu even entertains peace talks and finally addresses questions about “the next day.” But looming large in the background is Iran, the regional power that has exchanged missile exchanges with Israel and supported terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Their messaging after Sinwar’s death has been predictably aggressive – “martyrdom of commanders, leaders, and heroes will not make a dent in the Islamic people’s fight against oppression and occupation” – but there is still optimism that negotiations can more easily move forward. Their nuclear status, though, may prove problematic when mapping out a brighter future for the Middle East. This leads us to this Monday’s resolution: Military action is justified to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In a recent interview, presidential candidate Kamala Harris said she considers Iran to be America’s “greatest adversary,” a nation that has “blood on its hands” for its missile barrage at Israel and its funding for terrorist militants. She is exactly right: Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, a key US ally and backbone of American diplomacy in the region. These actions, as well as the 1979-81 hostage crisis, make it overwhelmingly clear that Iran is an enemy of the United States. The pro side’s argument, then, is obvious: the US should do whatever it takes to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons, including military action. We have already tried diplomacy with the 2015 nuclear agreement, which placed significant restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. This agreement fell apart in only a few years: former President Trump withdrew in 2018 and reinstated key sanctions because the deal didn’t address Iran’s ballistic missile program and proxy warfare. Whatever the merits of the withdrawal, what’s done is done, and diplomacy failed - the end result is that Iran is stockpiling uranium reserves again. The next option is military action. In February, strong US military action deterred a campaign of near-daily attacks by proxies on US forces in Iraq and Syria, so there is reason to believe that it can be a recipe for success in the nuclear arena. Whatever form action takes, it is clear that Iran is an enemy of the US, diplomacy didn’t work, Iran is building a nuclear weapon, and deterrence works. Military action is the best option to suppress this threat.
The con side’s argument is more hopeful in diplomacy. First, it’s unclear whether diplomacy failed or whether Trump failed at diplomacy. The nuclear agreement got off to a smooth start, and only Trump’s belief that it was a bad deal caused it to collapse. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom all tried to keep the agreement alive – showing that diplomacy was an option foregone. As opposed to risking American lives and inflaming huge tensions with Iran, the US should at a minimum attempt to re-engage in diplomatic negotiations to hash out a new deal. Further, military action in Iran could jeopardize attempts toward a two-state solution in Gaza. Iran wants to avoid an all-out war in the region, but if American troops are targeting their nuclear capabilities, they will feel more threatened by the Israel-US power arrangement and resist steps toward conflict resolution. Diplomacy should be the answer, not military violence.
Join us this Monday at 7pm in Scott Hall 201 for the debate!
"Amerikan Policy" by Saint Iscariot is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.