OPINION: Is America on the Right Track in Iran?
A look at how America got to where we are in Iran, and what we might expect ahead.
By Jay Brock
GUEST COMMENTARY
To our readers: The war in Iran has generated considerable debate in the Fredericksburg region, and the Advance has received a number of pieces both for and against U.S. military involvement. Given the public interest in this topic, the Advance is today publishing the first of two articles about the Iran War. For an opposing view, see this afternoon’s edition.
For the past three weeks the United States, along with its ally Israel, has been engaged in an air campaign against the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Americans are divided about whether this is the right path to follow. Let’s look at how we got here, and what might come next.
The United States has been at war with Iran since 1979, when the conflict was started by Iran after elements under the newly installed Islamist Iranian leadership invaded the American Embassy—an act of war on the United States—and took Americans hostage. Ever since, the Islamist regime has labeled America “The Great Satan” and with constant cries of “Death to America” has called for its destruction.
The Islamic Republic has spent billions of dollars on developing a nuclear weapons program and a missile program to deliver such weapons to the U.S. During negotiations with the U.S. just prior to the start of this air campaign, Iran revealed it had enough nuclear material to build 11 bombs.
Iran, which under this government has been called the #1 terror-supporting nation in the world, has also established a number of terror proxies in the region: Hezbollah in Lebanon; Hamas in Gaza; and the Houthis in Yemen, which altogether have accounted for thousands of deaths of civilians in the region. Iran has been considered to be a threat to the peace and stability of the region by most nations in the Middle East.
There are several goals to this aerial campaign: 1. Ending the Islamic Republic’s program to enrich its nuclear materials, thus preventing it from developing a nuclear weapon: 2. Eliminating its missile and drone programs, thus ending the immediate military threat to the region and beyond; 3. Ending all support for its terror proxies, thereby increasing the peace and stability of the region; 4. After the slaughter of tens of thousands of Iranian demonstrators by the Islamist regime in early January—the number may be as high as 40,000 and has been labeled a genocide against its own people—stoping all killing and executions of Iranians by this government. 5. Although not an official U.S. goal, regime change to one more friendly to its neighbors and its own people would be a favorable outcome. Such a change would sit well with the large majority of Iranians who are very pro-American, despise their Islamist rulers, and want new leadership.
Critics of the war have made a great deal about Iran not being an “imminent” threat to the U.S. Is such an argument even relevant in a war? It seems to argue that you cannot attack your enemy until he is as powerful as you are. It’s as if a doctor tells a patient with a newly diagnosed high-grade cancer that since it is only Stage 1, it does not need treatment until death is imminent once the cancer becomes Stage 4.
Is the attack legal? The issue is whether Trump should have committed American firepower without authorization from Congress. This is not a new problem; Trump is not the only President to have done so. Democrats in particular should recall that President Clinton in 1999 conducted a 78-day aerial campaign in Kosovo, and President Obama in 2011 used American forces against Libya—both without approval from Congress. It’s up to Congress to resolve this.
As a result of the war, Iran has closed off the critical Straight of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. American allies have wavered about making any commitment to help open and keep open this important sea passage. This might be a major blunder: freedom of the seas is a key concept undergirding modern Free Trade, and permitting any bad actor to inhibit the free flow of goods is a disturbing precedent. The West’s major rivals, starting with China, are certainly paying attention.
Speaking of China: eliminating Iran as a major player in the region might have some major effects on China. It is no secret that China is determined to take possession of Taiwan, a key American ally. For it to do so, it would be helpful for China to use Iran as an anti-West proxy that would keep America and its allies occupied as it attacked Taiwan. Removing Iran from the equation, either by regime change or by drastically reducing its military power, will make any Chinese campaign against Taiwan that much more difficult.
Is America on the right course? Americans, as usual, are polarized. Each side thinks the other can never do the right thing. But when it comes to confronting the danger that Iran represents to the U.S., the Trump Administration in its current campaign against the radicals in charge might actually be doing the right thing.
Local Obituaries
To view local obituaries or to send a note to family and loved ones, please visit the link that follows.
