Iran and America's Failing Foreign Policy An Editorial by Ian Gibson In today's world of high-stakes foreign diplomacy, it seems as if war is the first and only resort when it comes to international relations. We saw it with the sudden invasion of Afghanistan, and in 2003 it was the supposedly nuclear nation of Iraq. Once again, the United States finds itself at odds with another Arab nation and the war hawks are already screaming for tactical strikes and “shock and awe”. The current administration, Neo-Conservative politicians, and the intelligence community are all building up for military attacks against Iran, but is Iran actually a threat? The playbook against Iran is filled with fear-inspiring words such as “nuclear” and actionable words like “suspicion” and “safety”, but when it comes down to hard intelligence and the rules of international diplomacy, the case against Iran falls apart. There can be no doubt that any action taken against Iran would be unjustified and would serve only to further tarnish the already haggard image of the once mighty United States of America. Seemingly the largest piece of evidence used in advocating anti-Iranian fascism is the suspicion of a nuclear weapons program. These claims lie in Iran's intensive uranium enrichment and their semi- operational nuclear reactors. In the past, Iran has violated the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by not disclosing all aspects of its nuclear program but President Ahmadinejad has responded by allowing full access to inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Uranium enrichment is not an illegal activity and is undertaken by many nations pursuing peaceful nuclear energy – an action allowed under the NPT. Warhawks have claimed Iran's uranium enrichment is an indication of a hidden nuclear weapons program, and this accusation appears valid at first glance – highly enriched uranium is a key component to building a nuclear weapon. However, a recent IAEA report released November 15th reveals that Iran's uranium is only enriched to 4%, well below the 85% required for nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this fact does not dispel all fears of interventionist practitioners – their rebuttal merely consists of suspicion surrounding Iran's nuclear reactors. Iran is in possession of several nuclear reactors, but these reactors were legally provided by nations such as Russia, China, and even the United States, who started Iran's nuclear program in 1957. These reactors are used only to produce nuclear energy for Iran's electrical grid, not for nuclear weapons research. The IAEA has inspected all of the Iranian nuclear complexes and has deemed them safe and under compliance with NPT regulations. Perhaps the most damning document to anti-Iranian claims is a recently revealed National Intelligence Estimate report. The classified document compiled by the nation's top intelligence agencies has deemed Iran's nuclear weapons program inoperative. It is clear that any claims of a nuclear Iran are based simply upon anti-Islamic prejudices and unchecked suspicions. If the United States is to go to war, let us pray to all that is divine that it be upon factual intelligence and not fearful inaccuracies. Unfortunately, the recent rash of military conflicts involving the United States is not due simply to flawed intelligence, but rather to a new foreign policy orchestrated by the Bush administration. It seems as if any nation that disagrees with the United States and is ruled by Islamic leaders is immediately deemed “un-American” and a threat to national security. Action, not thought, is pushed to the forefront and called for irrationally before diplomacy has been attempted. The most prominent and notorious example of this policy is the entire buildup to “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Weak intelligence was presented showing Iraq to possess nuclear weapons and unilateral military action was taken immediately. There was no attempt at diplomacy, no need for United Nations support – the Bush administration rushed to violent conflict to solve the issue. Suspicions of an Iraqi nuclear program could have easily been handled through multinational peace talks or United Nations Security Council resolutions. Instead, the US used violence in a situation that called for none. This policy of military intervention based upon unverifiable suspicions is not only bad for international relations, but is also against international law. The United Nations is setup as on organization for promoting peace through diplomacy between nations, and any rash military actions are in direct violations of both its purpose and its charter. Unfortunately, the only true evidence needed to prove the impracticality of America's aggressive foreign policy is the current Afghani and Iraqi quagmire. When action is taken impulsively, mistakes are made – specifically the use of incorrect foreign intelligence and the absence of an exit strategy. Iran stands as only another pit of quicksand which the United States is all to eager jump into. It is time for a new foreign policy initiative to be undertaken. The interventionist plan of action put into place by the Bush administration following 9/11 has proved too inefficient and too costly to the United States of America and must be replaced. Let us hope our next Commander in Chief bases their international relations on peaceful diplomacy and sound intelligence, not the prejudices and fearful accusations that have already caused too much turmoil.