Kicking the Iran Can
The left seems united (bar one or two notable exceptions) in the view that the war should never have begun in the first place. And that’s a reasonable position to take, but only if one believes that the status quo is an eternal predicament.
Iran has been the largest sponsor of global terrorism for decades; it has wreaked havoc and bloodshed through proxies while the rest of the world has had to fend off attacks. Former British Minister for Security Dan Jarvis spoke in the House of Commons last year, detailing just how deadly the regime is to UK interests. He said that “the director general of MI5 recently stated that since the start of 2022, the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression.”
That’s 20 attacks within a few short years in one country. Iran is not a friendly nation.
And then consider the farcical attempts to explain away Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program. American commentators and politicians have spent the last month arguing that Iran posed “no imminent threat,” and that the Barack Obama deal restricted the enrichment of material to below dangerous levels.
Let’s be clear, this is as factually inaccurate as it is blind. If Iran were seeking to use nuclear material only for civilian aims (power stations), it would need to be at 3-5% enrichment. Even if the leadership wanted to go for the most cutting-edge facilities, that would require a rough maximum of 20%. Iran admits that it has enriched to 60%, which is not viable for use in power plants. It could be making nuclear submarines, but again, this is not the stated aim.
To argue that Iran is not a threat because it is using nuclear material only for civilian purposes is just not a realistic position. It was already a threat, and there’s a solid case to be made that it was indeed “imminent.”
The left seems united (bar one or two notable exceptions) in the view that the war should never have begun in the first place. And that’s a reasonable position to take, but only if one believes that the status quo is an eternal predicament.
Iran has been the largest sponsor of global terrorism for decades; it has wreaked havoc and bloodshed through proxies while the rest of the world has had to fend off attacks. Former British Minister for Security Dan Jarvis spoke in the House of Commons last year, detailing just how deadly the regime is to UK interests. He said that “the director general of MI5 recently stated that since the start of 2022, the UK has responded to 20 Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents. The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression.”
That’s 20 attacks within a few short years in one country. Iran is not a friendly nation.
And then consider the farcical attempts to explain away Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program. American commentators and politicians have spent the last month arguing that Iran posed “no imminent threat,” and that the Barack Obama deal restricted the enrichment of material to below dangerous levels.
Let’s be clear, this is as factually inaccurate as it is blind. If Iran were seeking to use nuclear material only for civilian aims (power stations), it would need to be at 3-5% enrichment. Even if the leadership wanted to go for the most cutting-edge facilities, that would require a rough maximum of 20%. Iran admits that it has enriched to 60%, which is not viable for use in power plants. It could be making nuclear submarines, but again, this is not the stated aim.
To argue that Iran is not a threat because it is using nuclear material only for civilian purposes is just not a realistic position. It was already a threat, and there’s a solid case to be made that it was indeed “imminent.”
A Reason for War?
Trump’s publicized objectives were to stop the threat that he believed was coming down the pipeline. To that end, the United States destroyed the Iranian navy and air force, took out top leadership, and set back munitions programs by years.
Some would argue that is a victory. Democratic Party leadership, however, was not so generous in its interpretation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) posted: “I’m glad Trump backed off and is desperately searching for any sort of exit ramp from his ridiculous bluster.” And fellow New Yorker, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, told CNN that “a two-week cease-fire is insufficient.” So, respectively, one wants the United States not to engage with Iran’s constant threats, and the other wants the war over regardless of conditions. Both of these positions ignore the fact that Iran was engaged in warfare through proxies long before Trump decided to act, and that the country was, without a doubt, developing nuclear weapons.
A Reality Check
Here are the things that could have happened.
Scenario one: Trump did not go to war with Iran. In this situation, Tehran would continue to aid, abet, and implement terror attacks around the world, killing countless civilians. The Middle Eastern country would continue its enrichment program and eventually have a nuclear weapon that, if its other actions were any indication, it would not hesitate to use.
Scenario two: Trump did not pull back from destroying Iran. Here, the world would publicly condemn the president (while secretly breathing a sigh of relief). Iran would no longer be a threat to the wider world for the foreseeable future. And other enemies who ponder harm to American life and interests would seriously begin to rethink their goals. Naturally, this scenario comes with a huge cost to lives.
Scenario three: Trump agrees to a ceasefire. This is, of course, the path we are on. Iran’s military capabilities are in tatters; it has little chance of resuming its nuclear program, and the world economy is on the path to recovery. The president still has the option to resume scenario two.
Which of these options do critics of the Trump strategy prefer? Because, as President Ronald Reagan famously noted, “Status quo, you know, is Latin for ‘the mess we’re in.’”
Mark Angelides is Editor-in-Chief of Liberty Nation. Having served as Managing Editor of Liberty Nation for four years, Mark is steeped in US Conservative policy and politics. This article was first published HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.