Reza Aslan Explains the Consequences of a War With Iran
Ploughshares Fund board member Reza Aslan and Bernard Avishai discuss the devastating consequences of a pre-emptive attack on Iran in a op-ed in the International Herald Tribune. They argue that, instead of hyping discussions of attacking Iran, the best way to thwart Iran's ambitions is to make progress toward peace in the Middle East.
A recent article in The Atlantic sparked a broad debate in the media about the possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Aslan and Avashai argue that this debate has largely served to beat the drums for war with Iran. To counter this media narrative, the authors explain that an attack on Iran is not in America's interest and "would almost certainly precipitate a devastating regional war with unforeseeable global consequences."
The consequences would be severe. As Aslan and Avashai explain, Iran maintains a large military that can challenge Israeli and American interests. Iran extends its reach with proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas that can create multiple fronts for a regional conflict. Iran also maintains operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan that can do its bidding. Further, Iran can disrupt oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20-percent of the world's oil production must pass — all as the world struggles to recover from the economic recession.
Aslan and Avashai quote Mohamed ElBaradei, the former chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency and an Egyptian, who called a strike on Iran “completely insane.” It would “turn the region into one big fireball,” says ElBaradei, and the Iranians “would immediately start building the bomb — and they could count on the support of the entire Islamic world.”
Tempting these consequences is a risk that the U.S. and its allies and partners cannot afford to take. There are sensible ways of curtailing Iran's nuclear program and preventing it from acquiring the bomb. As Aslan and Avashai conclude:
Clearly, an Iranian bomb would cause irreparable damage to the global anti-proliferation regime, add a threat to Israel and complicate American foreign policy. All nonviolent diplomatic means should be used to prevent this.
But if a year from now we are confronted by an Iran crossing the nuclear threshold, that would be a lesser evil than what we will confront in the wake of an attack to prevent this.
If President Obama has the nerves for risk, he should rather gamble on rallying the international community to force through an Israeli-Palestinian deal within a year. That would not mean an end to the anti-Western leaders clinging to power in Tehran, but it would certainly do more to reduce their motivation to attack Israel than a temporary setback to their nuclear program would.
