Debate Club

Should the United States Consider Military Action to Hinder Iran's Nuclear Program? >

An Attack Would Only Strengthen Iran's Influence

A pre-emptive strike would make containing Iran's nuclear program harder, not easier

November 16, 2011

About James Dobbins:

James Dobbins, a former U.S. assistant secretary of State, is director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decision-making through research and analysis.

The latest International Atomic Energy Agency revelations raise once again the possibility of an American or Israeli air strike to destroy known Iranian nuclear facilities. Whether or not such an effort would be wise requires two judgments: first as to the feasibility of such a crippling strike, and second as to its desirability.

American officials, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have said an American military attack on Iranian targets could only retard, but not halt Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapons capability. Some Iranian nuclear sites are deep underground, others are likely hidden entirely, and these would all be left undamaged. Similarly, much of the knowledge and expertise that Iran has already acquired would survive such an attack.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Iran.]

In the aftermath of an attack, Iran would likely move its program entirely into to clandestine or heavily protected sites. The global coalition the United States has built in opposition to the Iranian program would be seriously strained. Further international sanctions would be difficult, maybe impossible to achieve. Some nations could become more willing to assist the Iranian program, or at least less willing to police those who might.

The question of desirability revolves around whether it would become easier or harder to contain malign Iranian influence throughout the Middle East in the aftermath of a strike. Here it is important to recognize that it is not Iranian aggression that its neighbors principally fear, but Iranian subversion. It is Iran's ability to appeal to potentially dissident elements within neighboring societies—to the Shia populations of Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and to the more radical elements within Palestinian society—that is of most concern to these states. It is Iran's appeal throughout the Islamic Middle East as a bastion of anti-American and anti-Zionist activity that most disturbs other regional regimes.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the turmoil in the Middle East.]

This is true even of Israel, whose principal vulnerability is not to Iranian military pressure but to attacks by Iranian-supported Hamas and Hezbollah.

Containing this sort of influence would almost certainly become more difficult in the aftermath of an unprovoked American or Israeli military attack. Most neighboring regimes might quietly sympathize with such a preemptive strike, but few would openly support it. Reaction among neighboring populations would be almost uniformly hostile. The sympathy thereby aroused for Iran would make containment of Iranian influence much more difficult for Israel, for the United States, and for the Arab regimes currently allied with Washington. This would be particularly true in newly democratizing societies, like Egypt, were public opinion has become less fettered and more influential.

The Iranian leadership will need to be persuaded over the next year or two that actually building, testing and deploying nuclear weapons, as North Korea has done, will only increase their isolation, reduce their influence and ultimately increase the regime's vulnerability to internally driven change. Threats of military action, and even more its actual conduct, will only have the opposite effect: reducing Iran's isolation, increasing its influence, promoting domestic solidarity, and reinforcing the case for building and deploying nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

Tags:
nuclear weapons,
Iran
Other Arguments
#1

No — Engagement has failed, but supporting Iran's internal opposition is a better option than U.S. military action

ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, Author of 'The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis'

#2
#3

Yes — Iran must believe that if it tries to build a nuclear bomb, the U.S. will undertake military action to disrupt it

MICHAEL EISENSTADT, Director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

#4

No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits

MATTHEW DUSS, Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress

#5

Yes — America cannot shirk its responsibility to stop Tehran's nuclear aims

JAMIE M. FLY, Former Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council

#6

No — The last thing U.S. needs is another war in the Muslim world

JUSTIN LOGAN, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." -- Ron Paul

Only Ron Paul, of all the presidential candidates of both major parties, has repeatedly spoken out clearly and forcefully against the belligerent war propaganda and calculated lies in the bipartisan lead up to war with Iran, against the bipartisan campaign for punitive sanctions against Iran, and against further covert operations to destabilize the fragile geopolitical situation in the Mideast. He is not afraid to speak truth to power.

The principled constitutionalist and noninterventionist Paul was right from the start about our disastrous preemptive imperial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, right from the start about the destructive 'blowback' fomenting more hatred directed towards America, right from the start about the Federal Reserve's monetary policies creating the housing bubble which led to the 2008 financial meltdown, right from the start about the War on Drugs, the USA Patriot Act and the TSA imposing a fascist police state upon the American people.

Ron Paul 2012.

Right Then.

Right Now.

Right For America.

Charles of OK 12:42PM November 19, 2011

If the Elvis Presely Checkers Champs were to provoke military action they would soon become learned in the origins and rules of chess.

Surfbones of TX 7:23AM November 19, 2011

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.


Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.


You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Obama's Remarkable Silence on Latin American Press Abuses

President Obama's silence on press freedom in Latin America is troubling.

Why the Media Is Giving Romney a Pass on Trump's Birtherism

Why the media hasn't pressed Mitt Romney about Donald Trump's birther fantasies.

Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Advertisement