Op-Ed Columns

YES: U.S. would lose many allies

By John B. Quigley
McClatchey-Tribune News Wire

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The White House “Hate America” Department is at it again. The department is worried that we still have a few allies, and that a few people beyond our shores still like us and don’t want to do us in.

The department, which reportedly operates out of the vice president’s office, has come up with a scheme to drive away our few remaining well-wishers, and to generate more anti-American terrorists.

The scheme is simple. Drop bombs on Iran. Iran may be working toward getting nuclear weapons, so bombing Iran might also nip its nuclear ambitions in the bud. Anyway, Iran is already a charter member of the Axis of Evil. And its president constantly badmouths us.

What could be the downside? Our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are going swimmingly. Congress has plenty of spare cash for another supplemental appropriation. One more war in the Middle East will be icing on the cake.

And if a war against Iran drags on, not to worry. Let the next president, perhaps a Democrat, pick up the pieces. It will serve the Democrats right for criticizing the Iraq policy.

The scheme would be a logical sequel to the policy of prior administrations on Iran. Back in the 1950s, Iran had a parliamentary government, democratically elected. Iran was a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.

But when Iran moved — mildly to be sure — in the direction of taking control of its oil from Western oil companies, we overthrew the democratic government. When it came down to oil or democracy, our priority was clear.

The government we brought to power in Iran had its blemishes. No one accused it of being democratic. A backlash developed, which culminated in 1979 in the ascendance to power of clerics bent on getting rid of our influence.

The idea of being militantly anti-American soon caught the imagination of the youth throughout the Middle East. If America insisted on putting its stamp on the region, they would fight back.

Other countries understand the folly of an American attack on Iran. We should be listening to friendly governments on this one. Even the allies who sent troops into Iraq are getting them out while they can.

Iran has a younger generation now that is not enamored of clerical rule, a kind of counter-backlash. If we attack Iran, Iran’s youth may turn in their blue jeans for clerical robes.

Our allies are inclined to press for inspections, and to pressure Iran in other ways. Iran has not been deaf to these entreaties.

It is hard to foresee what an attack on Iran would produce in the long term. We have a knack for action that seems to make sense for a particular purpose, but then turns out badly. We gave weapons to a young fellow named Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to get the Soviets out of that country. He did a good job. But the aftermath was worse.

Whatever risk Iran may pose, and it is not clear that it does, a military attack is not the solution. The immediate consequences are easy to predict. We further inflame feelings against us in the Middle East, and beyond. The resulting anti-American sentiment makes it more difficult for our allies to support us. “Hate America” is the slogan of the day.

John B. Quigley is a professor of law at The Ohio State University. E-mail: Quigley.2@osu.edu.

NO: America would be praised and honored worldwide

By Peter R. Huessy
McClatchey-Tribune News Wire

WASHINGTON — In 1981, Israel did the civilized world a favor and destroyed the emerging Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak.

At the time, Israeli was condemned for the raid. But after the liberation of Kuwait from the clutches of Iraq in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered a nuclear program that was one to two years away from being operational, far more advanced than any previous intelligence estimates.

Thus, it was confirmed that the raid by the Israeli government of Menachem Begin a decade earlier had saved the world from a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear weapons. Many nations quietly — if not publicly — gave thanks for the Israeli raid.

From the beginning of the Bush administration, the United States has adopted a series of new policies that have sought to avoid having to commit to the use of pre-emptive military force on nuclear facilities such as those in Iran.

America has put into place a growing global and integrated missile defense that will reach 1,400 interceptors by 2014. Of the last 39 hit-to-kill tests, 31 have been successful.

We also concluded a nuclear arms agreement with Russia that will reduce U.S. nuclear forces to the levels of the Eisenhower administration. Funds implementing the Nunn-Lugar program to secure Russian nuclear material were increased to $2 billion. And sanctions and divestment are working to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons from abroad.

We have also brought 90 nations into the Proliferation Security Initiative, which had its genesis in the interdiction of a seaborne vessel seeking to deliver 13,000 centrifuges to Libya.

The subsequent discovery of a very advanced Libyan nuclear program stunned not only the United States but also the International Atomic Energy Administration, which is charged with monitoring nuclear energy programs of members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ability of the IAEA to detect illicit nuclear weapons programs was only as good as the agency’s knowledge of clandestine facilities that by their very nature are not disclosed by rogue states.

Thus, as President Bush has noted, we have a choice other than living with a nuclear-armed Iran or being forced to use military strikes to eliminate or degrade as much of Iran’s nuclear facilities as possible.

Unfortunately in the real world, diplomacy and sanctions, even when combined, are not always successful. That stark possibility is why the United States must have as part of its containment policy a contingency that strikes and destroys the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities.

Does Iran pose a credible nuclear threat? The former Iraqi president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, said that a couple of nuclear weapons launched at Israel would “kill all the Jews” but that a few nuclear weapons landing in Iran in retaliation would not “destroy the revolution.”

Prior to World War II, a young German patriot, Helmuth von Moltke, traveled to England to warn of Hitler’s rise to power. Most dismissed his warnings, arguing that the Nazis were “not serious.” When asked why he was worried, Moltke responded: “I have read Mein Kampf.”

That stark lesson remains: diplomacy divorced from power leaves power without direction and diplomacy deprived of incentives. Should the United States have to act to avoid a second Holocaust, it will be praised and honored.

Peter Huessy is president of GeoStrategic Analysis, a Maryland defense consulting firm.