When President Bush gave his "Axis of Evil" statement, it was not only his intention to raise awareness of the three countries named (Iraq, Iran and North Korea), but it was also part of an argument to show Iraq as the greatest threat, and the one that needed to be dealt with. In the time since the speech, Iraq has been invaded with Saddam Hussein deposed, and North Korea is being dealt with. Iran, however, has gone largely unchecked and has only become more dangerous.
In the waning days before the invasion of Iraq, the news broke that Iran was enriching uranium, a process critical to the development of nuclear weapons. The news got some attention for a few days, but then the invasion of Iraq took all attention away. With Iran's arch-enemy, Saddam Hussein, now gone, Iran has gone largely unchecked in trying to gain supremacy over the Middle East. Iran now clearly has the ability to build nuclear weapons (there have been recent reports that they are presently building these weapons, but these reports are disputed), and to distribute them to terrorist cells operating throughout the Middle East (not the least of which being their puppet group, Hezbollah, which operates out of Southern Lebanon to attack Israel). Furthermore, with the successful tests of Iran's Shahab-3 medium-range missiles, Iran has the capability to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, or even parts of Europe.
The Middle East is, and has been for some time, a powder keg. Rival groups have been in-fighting trying to claim dominance as each advances their own goals. The only thing that has kept this powder keg from exploding is the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. Critical to that current balance is that Israel remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East. With Iran now attempting to disrupt this balance, the Middle East is far more dangerous than it ever has been before, and the United States must do everything it can to stop Iran from building these weapons.
For now, the best approach is non-military. Through pressure from the European Union and United Nations, which have both expressed willingness to cooperate, Iran would be squeezed into a position where it risked losing its status within the world. Without funds, Iran would no longer be able to support many of its terrorist groups, and would lose some of its stature with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, greatly decreasing the incentive for Iran to build its nuclear weapons.
If this doesn't work, however (and history has shown that sanctions often don't work), then other options must be examined. The American military is now overextended and overcommitted, so American military action in Iran would not be wise. However, what may be the wise course would be for the United States to step out of the way and allow Israel to make a preemptive airstrike to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.
This kind of an attack would not unprecedented. In 1981, intelligence reports showed Iraq developing a nuclear facility in the western part of the country. Israel decided the threat of a nuclear Iraq was too great to ignore, and launched a preemptive strike on the site. The strike on Iraq was nearly universally condemned at the time. However, 10 years later, following the end of the First Gulf War, inspections discovered that Iraq was as few as six months away from having nuclear weapons, and American government officials began to say that had Israel not conducted the strike in 1981, Iraq would almost definitely have had nuclear weapons when it invaded Kuwait, creating results that would have been disastrous.
While Iran's nuclear facilities are more spread out than Iraq's were in 1981, an Israeli strike would still be able to hit almost all, if not all, of the sites. The result would set Iran's nuclear development back to a point that it will no longer pose a significant nuclear threat to the rest of the Middle East.
While there would likely be terrorist response to such action, the devastation of a terrorist response will be nothing compared to the devastation of these same terrorists getting hold of Iranian nuclear weapons. Iran itself will not militarily respond as its own military is simply too weak to compete with an Israeli military that has consistently shown itself to be the most powerful in the Middle East, and the Iranian government is pragmatic enough to understand the futility of such a response. While there would be a lot of shouting, and this action is certainly undesirable, an Israeli strike on Iran may very well prove to be the only way to save the Middle East from a true disaster involving nuclear weapons. That is, if the United States is willing to let it happen.
Sam Leven's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sleven@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Prides and joys
By Shaleah Tolliver | 5 hours agoI have seen what student journalism can do — it can highlight the marginalized, influence the majority and spark conversations.
PARTING SHOT: Failure does define you
By Grace Duregger | 5 hours agoFour years at the University have taught me what it means to make an impact despite setbacks.
PARTING SHOT: On fighting imposter syndrome and being cool
By Mary Kurbanov | YesterdayUltimately, though, I now know that success in a role is possible if deep-seated passion is the main source of motivation.
