IRAN A Looming Threat By Ian Gibson INTRODUCTION Since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the United States has experienced a rampant frenzy of military activism across the globe in the growing War on Terror. With the massive amount of fear and anxiety running through the veins of all Americans, a change in national foreign policy become necessary. Through legislative, diplomatic, and military measures, several nations have been portrayed as posing an active threat to the United States. Starting with the passage of the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” resolution on September 18th, 2001, the Commander in Chief has been “authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11th, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.” Needless to say, this has started a world tour of US military forces against any nation deemed enemies of freedom and democracy. President Bush took the time to describe the specific nations that posed a threat to national security during his 2002 State of the Union speech. “North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. … States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” Five and half years later, the state of the axis of evil is ill – Iraq’s government has since be toppled by military force and North Korea has bowed to international pressure, promising to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. The only renegade nation remaining that continues to threaten the United States is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The credibility of fear surrounding Iran and the available options open to the United States in responding to Iran will be addressed in this policy paper, as well as a final recommendation of the preferred course of action. THREAT CREDIBILITY With the continued progress in Iran’s nuclear program and their continued support of numerous international terrorist organizations, Iran stands as a highly credible threat to the security of not just the United States but also the international community. Iran’s nuclear program was established with help from the United States in the mid-1950s during a period in which the two nations were friendly. Progress and peaceful diplomacy was halted upon occurrence of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, in which Islamic Fascists took control of the Arab nation. Since then, Iran has attempted to jumpstart its nuclear energy facilities with illegal aide from foreign nations such as North Korea and Russia. The possession of nuclear technology by a renegade nation has brought concern for the world, even though Iran has stated that nuclear weapons “have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine.” However, the National Council of Resistance in Iran, a revolutionary movement within the Islamic nation, has helped expose in recent years the enrichment of uranium – a process used only in the development of militarized nuclear material. Further supporting the claim of Iranian nuclear weapons is the possession of numerous ballistic missiles by the rogue Arabic nation. The North Korean Taepo Dong missile delivery system is currently in the hands of the Iranian military, and has a range of 2000 kilometers (1,242 miles) – firmly placing Israel within striking distance. Other missile delivery systems believed to be possessed by Iran but not officially confirmed include the Shahab 4 and 5. The Iranian-made Shahab 5 consists of a three stage rocket booster a 1,000 kilogram payload capacity. Range is significantly improved to 4,300 kilometers (2671 miles), allowing for attacks upon any country within Europe. Each of these advanced delivery systems, in addition to Iran’s smaller missiles and plethora of SCUD missiles, can be easily outfitted to carry nuclear weapons. With such military technology and a secretive nuclear program, Iran stands as a dangerous nation with an arsenal capable of killing millions of innocent civilians. In addition to their military capabilities, Iran poses a serious threat to the United States specifically due to their support of anti-American terrorist organizations. Hezbollah, a radical Shi’ah Islamic group based in Beirut, is largely funded by Iran. In several attacks against Israel, including large-scale shelling in the summer of 2006, Hezbollah has used Iranian supplied weapons to kill innocent civilians. Long-range mortars and over 8,000 Katyusha rockets, fired by Hezbollah forces across the Lebanese border in Israeli cities, have been directly linked to Iran’s Revolution Guards. Iran also had direct connections to several terrorist groups operating against coalition forces in Iraq. “Tehran has long supported Shiite militias in Iraq,” states a congressional report. In fact, one militia leader in Iraq was appointed directly by the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Several Iranian politicians have even infiltrated into the newly-formed government of Iraq, spreading chaos and corruption. By operating on two fronts, Israel and Iraq, Iran is effectively waging a proxy war against the United States. The negative effects of such actions upon the effectiveness of the continuing war on terror cannot be underestimated. Iran stands as a renegade nation that is continuously perpetrating military and diplomatic acts against the United States, and as such does pose a highly credible threat to the interests of America and the international community at large. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS As the threatening nature of Iran has continued to reveal itself to the public at large, several solutions have been posed. Each attempts to deal with the renegade nation in a manner which severs its terrorist ties and disarms its nuclear program. Diplomacy, tactical strikes, and full military invasion - each have their benefits and downfalls to be fully discussed in an attempt to determine the best solution. The primary and preferred solution is the use of diplomacy. Multilateral talks with Iran will be used in encouraging disarmament, much the same as what occurred successfully with North Korea and the six party talks. Compromises would be made by both sides in order to ensure a sense of trust between parties. The international community would likely agree to drop several of the many economic trade sanctions currently imposed against Iran, who would then agree to full inspections of its nuclear facilities as well as complete disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. Major proponents of diplomacy include liberal democrats and those with a non-interventionist view of foreign policy. Even though diplomacy has great aura of democracy about it, there is a major downside – the high susceptibility to dishonesty and failure. Iran could easily never satisfy any of its promises, or the talks could be simply abandoned for lack of progress. Tactical strikes is a gradual step-up from diplomacy towards full-scale war, but at a median stage. Iran would be shown the military might of the United States and have its nuclear capabilities crippled without massive loss of American lives. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980’s, Iraq successfully bombed the nuclear reactor at Bushehr – a move that would be repeated under this proposed solution. A modern air strike would occur under a joint US-Israeli task force flying under radar out of Iraq and Kuwait carrying precision munitions. Possible targets include the complex of light water reactors at Bushehr, an underground nuclear facility at Natanz, two heavy water reactors at Arak, and other key military targets. A highly coordinated strike could cripple the Iranian nuclear program and nearly destroy its ability to militarily threaten the United States – all within 24 hours and with zero casualties. The main supporters of this plan are high-ranking military generals who tout the capability of their armed forces. Unfortunately, a preemptive strike against Iran would most certainly prompt a backlash from the international community and could even possibly prompt Iran to launch military strikes against neighboring countries. The final solution proposed to deal with Iran is demanding and cruel – all-out invasion. United States military forces would be mobilized to take over Iran much in the same manner as occurred with Iraq. Naval forces would be launched in force to the Persian Gulf to provide tactical support and cruise missiles launched upon key targets. A massive air campaign whose aims would be the total decimation of Iranian military and power facilities would pulverize the ground, allowing for extensive penetration of ground forces into the western portion of Iran. The military campaign could take anywhere from months to a year, with the capture of Tehran the western provinces its final goal. Total invasion is the most viable solution as it has one key factor – it is the only plan which has a 100% effectiveness rate, as Iran would be incapable of continuing its nuclear facilities and supporting terrorism, let alone remain as a sovereign nation. Key supporters of a declaration of war are right-wing conservatives and extreme military activists. Support may be wider than just war hawks, however, as a recent resolutions passed within the democratic congress classify Iran’s army as a terrorist organization and allows for the United States to take any force necessary to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. However, war does have its downside – namely the loss of American lives, taxpayer money, and trust within the international community. RECOMMENDATION There is no doubt within the international community that Iran does pose a serious threat to general peace and security. With its growing nuclear program and ties to terrorist organizations, Iran is a country that must be dealt with immediately. However, violence on any scale, from all-out war to tactical strikes should not be the first action of a democratic nation such as the United States. As always, diplomacy must be attempted first. The best course of action is the establishment of multilateral talks between the United States, Iran, and any other country involved in order to solve the dispute in a rational, humane manner. As long as all sides are willing to practice empathy and able to compromise, peace is attainable. Public Law 107-40 - Library of Congress 2002 State of the Union Address - White House Press Agency Iran’s Nuclear Program: Recent Developments – Sharon Squassoni Iranian Conventional Forces – MILNET Shahab-5/IRSL-X-3, KOSAR/IRIS – Charles Vick Understanding the Iran-Hezbollah Connection – Andrew Mandelbaum Iran: Current Developments and U.S. Policy – Kenneth Katzman Iran: Current Developments and U.S. Policy – Kenneth Katzman Iran’s Iraq Strategy – Steven Simon Iraq Destroys Iran’s BushehrReactor – Institute for National Strategic Studies A Prememptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences – Sammy Salama Annexing Khuzestan; Battle-plans for Iran – Michael Whitney Parties War Over Condemning Iran – Martin Kady II