Three years after the short-lived US-Iraq War of 2003, a new enemy of "world freedom" has sprung up: Iran. This neighbor to the debacle-that-is-Iraq has been working on its nuclear program in recent years, after some help from our current ally Pakistan's mad scientist Abdul Qameer Khan. This program, in the eyes of the U.S., threatens the security of the world, because Iran will (not may) choose to make nuclear weapons. Iran, however, claims that they seek merely to use the program for peaceful purposes, in accordance with the NPT. (The U.S. is currently undermining the same treaty by allowing one nation that has skirted it--India--to have access to its nukes.)
But Iran is not truly a new enemy. In fact, for the U.S., that nation is a relatively old one. Before the Reagan government sold it arms in exchange for hostages (and to finance the Contras), Iran was a menace--kidnapping US citizens and bolstering Hezbollah in Lebanon. In the early '80s, they were feared. But after the Iran-Iraq War, in which we essentially supported both countries, our gaze shifted mainly to Sadam Hussein. But with the former dictator downgraded to a contemptable court-room presence, we have set our sights on our older nemesis.
While we invaded Iraq, partially de-stabilized the region, and scared the nuclear-program out of Libya, Iran worried about its own security and intensified nuclear experimentation. U.S. troops are right next to their country, no kidding their frightened. Before the U.S. invasion/occupation of their neighbor, Iran was leaning toward increased democracy--its president of several years, Mohammed Khatami, was a moderating influence and the mullahs were being tamed as much as possible. For some unknown reason, however, the country began to experience problems in 2003. The mullahs began a crackdown on elections and many moderate officials resigned in protest. In the past three years, the situation has only grown worse. Now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes a provocative remark daily and the U.S. responds with condemnation. Relations between Iran and the West is the perhaps the worst it has been in 25 years.
Still, with all the controversy over Iran's nuclear ambitions, the U.S. government has refused to negotiate with the country. Instead, they have simply backed the efforts of Britain, France, and Germany. Now would be the time for U.S. to take some intiative. Furthermore, in the days following 9/11 (and in the report about the events), many spoke about the need for better human intelligence; now would be the time for that to come to fruition. In the case of Iraq, intelligence was manipulated and botched; we launched a preemptive strike, invaded a country without any clear and present danger to the U.S. Such an act is against international law. We do not want to repeat this mistake in Iran--a larger, more heavily armed and infuential state. Accurate intelligence is essential in gaging the intentions of Tehran.
No one is entirely sure what Iran is planning for their newly discovered ability to enrich uranium. Yet, according the Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker, the U.S. government is currently planning for the possibility of targeted nuclear attacks against Iran to destroy any potential weapons program. Such consideration is madness, while the emphasis on the military is premature. Diplomacy must prevail. The international community can ensure a peaceful resolution to this situation, if the U.S. will allow this happen.
