City, UT - 9/10/08 - In a Sunday article in the Jordan Times, author Musa
Keilani posits that in the wake of an impending Israeli attack on Iran, the U.S.
might as well "do it the right way" and launch an attack on Iran that would not
rely on the Israelis.
Keilani asserts that a U.S. attack may be perceived as "the
lesser of two evils" as compared to an Israeli attack that may rally the Muslim
world's support behind Iran. Regardless of who attacks Iran, both measures would
prove disastrous to America and Israel but beneficial to the Islamic Republic of
While the United States has convinced the UN Security Council that Iran is
pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the administration has not revealed any
evidence to the public that justifies this position. What the American public
was made aware of is that 16 different intelligence agencies confirmed the
findings of the National Intelligence Estimate report in 2007. This report
determined with "high confidence" that Iran ceased nuclear weaponization work in
The crux of the administration's crusade to end the nuclear proliferation regime
relies on circumstantial evidence provided by the CIA sponsored Mujahadeen-e
Khalk (MEK), an Iranian opposition group, considered by the U.S., EU, and until
recently the UK, to be a terrorist organization. According to Jeffery Lewis,
director of the non-proliferation Initiative at the Washington based New America
Foundation think tank, the MEK purportedly obtained a laptop from an Iranian
engineer in mid 2004 that led the U.S. intelligence community to believe Iran is
pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Despite the dubious reliability behind the sources that condemn Iran's alleged
nuclear weapons program, Israel rightfully remains concerned that a nuclear
armed Iran would be as the popular phrase goes, "a game changer." Indeed, a
nuclear armed Iran would transform the political landscape of the Middle East as
Israel would no longer possess the ability to single-handedly leverage its
undeclared nuclear status in the region. Iran with a nuclear weapon may
strengthen Hamas and Hezbollah, which would draw considerable international
attention to Israel's territorial disputes. Nonetheless, in the absence of
credible evidence, the United States must not do Israel's dirty work by
attacking Iran and eliminating the regime's nuclear facilities.
An attack against Iran will produce many devastating unintended consequences for
the U.S. The Islamic republic could retaliate by undermining U.S. efforts in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of American interest in the Persian Gulf.
Regardless of Persian vs. Arab historical tensions, another U.S. attack on a
Muslim nation would weaken America's credibility among its oil producing allies.
The RAND Corporation contends, "A raid that successfully destroys the [Iranian]
nuclear facilities but inflames nationalist passions, engenders bitter
anti-Americanism among ordinary Iranians, and consolidates popular support for
an otherwise unpopular regime would come at a very high price," for America.
The U.S. must not exacerbate the nuclear impasse by attacking Iran, a move that
would empower Iran's hardliners. Iranians will receive the brunt of the military
conflict since the brutal fundamentalist regime would use an attack as a pretext
to eliminate dissenting voices that threaten its unpopular domestic and foreign
policies. An attack would also draw Iranian moderates behind the morally
bankrupt regime. Worst of all, according to the Institute for Science and
International Security's president and former U.N. weapons inspector David
Albright, "An attack would likely leave Iran angry, more nationalistic, fed up
with international inspectors and nonproliferation treaties, and more determined
than ever to obtain nuclear weapons."
The American public must reclaim this debate and consider the facts at hand. No
evidence exists to indicate Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. A
military conflict would kill Iran's democratic movement and close the door on
the Iranian people, America and Israel's best ally to combat Islamic
fundamentalism in Iran. America cannot afford to alienate the most pro-American
and pro-democratic people in the region by blindly attacking Iran based on less
than credible circumstantial pretenses. Even Israel's President Shimon Peres
warned Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday that, "The military way will not
solve the problem... Such an attack can trigger a bigger war."
Some may consider a U.S. attack, rather than an Israeli attack, to be the lesser
of the two evils, but nonetheless, it would still be evil. According to a report
released by Physicians for Social Responsibility that was based on models from
the Department of Defense's simulators, 2.6 million people would die as a result
of radioactive exposure released from a blast on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Using the lessons we learned from Iraq, we cannot repeat our same mistakes twice
with less than credible evidence presented to us while so much more hangs in the
U.S.-Iran Alliance seeks to prevent a U.S. or Israeli war with Iran and to
Principles in Iran: respect for the U.N.'s Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, free press on par with internationally recognized democratic
standards, and free elections on par with internationally recognized democratic
standards & monitored by international observers.
... Payvand News - 09/11/08 ... --
© Copyright 2008 NetNative
(All Rights Reserved)