Here's a quick question: How alarmed should the United States be about the mounting hostile tensions with Iran? Paramount concerns about Iran's international agenda are piling up as its adamant nuclear development, assertive support of revolutionary factions, such as Hezbollah, and incendiary remarks made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are deeply suggestive of planning for a future, premeditated struggle against the United States.
The Bush administration recently stated that all options are on the table in terms of methods to quell the flames of this potential inferno. This includes the possibility of war with Iran. Bleeding-heart notions of peace aside, a war with Iran would be malignant to both countries in many ways and should not be pursued.
A war with Iran would presumably mean that the United States' goal ultimately would be a diametric regime change to a more pro-Western government. For the sake of argument, let's say the United States decides to pursue military action against Iran and succeeds in toppling the Ayatollah—now what?
Well, in order to prevent Iran from becoming the next Somalia, which is currently a failed, rogue state that harbors violent radicals, it would be necessary to rebuild the nation. Physical reconstruction, as well as the development of infrastructure, economic diversification and reliable institutions to meet the basic needs of all Iranian citizens would be vital to ensure stability. These foundations are also essential prerequisites to democratization because functional and true democracy require relative stability.
However, to accomplish these objectives, it would require a hefty military and monetary commitment from the United States. Given prior, identical obligations in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be reckless and unwise to take on this responsibility.
Additionally, if the Iraqi reconstruction is any preview of an Iranian one, it would be replete with graft, frivolous waste and scandal in spite of the extensive financial and military contributions. It is rational to conclude that a hypothetical Iranian reconstruction would be handled in a similar fashion, which would plant the seeds of instability and provide perfect conditions for harvesting civil war and terrorism.
Equally important, serious combat in Iran would require many thousands of U.S. troops. Our troops are stretched thin—as they are in a number of countries in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan—and there has already been talk of the possibility of reinstituting the draft.
Due to this increased demand in able-bodied soldiers, there would be a greater probability that this country would restore compulsory military service.
Even though it may seem that Iran and the United States have taken serious steps to prepare for a bloody, cataclysmic clash, it is not too late to explore nonviolent options.
Both efforts of ordinary citizens and powerful politicians combined could be effective in breaking the link connecting this frightening prospective chain of events. Firm, multilateral pressure to dismantle the nuclear program in Iran is a viable alternative to meddlesome, aggressive intervention.
Also, citizens at home could apply pressure on the government via the channels of democracy to seek diplomatic means of evading this potential, eruptive quagmire. With mutual patience, tact and open communication this dilemma can be solved without anymore bloodshed.
