Debate Club

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

Incite Change From Within Iran

Engagement has failed, but supporting Iran's internal opposition is a better option than U.S. military action

November 16, 2011

About Alireza Jafarzadeh:

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis. Jafarzadeh exposed the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002, which triggered, for the first time, the IAEA inspections of the Iranian nuclear sites.

Over the past three decades, Washington's Iran policy has acted like a pendulum, oscillating between engagement and threats of military action. Given the problematic nature of the latter, engagement has essentially held sway. This has provided the Iranian regime a golden opportunity to rapidly advance its quest for the bomb.

In other words, engagement has failed to halt Tehran's nuclear drive.

So, what needs to be done? Tough sanctions are of course necessary, but clearly not sufficient. It is time for the West, the United States in particular, to focus on the third option, i.e., change from within. How? By relying on the people of Iran and their organized opposition.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Iran.]

That opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), has been the source of much of the intelligence about the existence of multiple nuclear sites scattered in different parts of Iran, including the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, and the heavy water facility in Arak in 2002; Kala Electric, Lavizan-Shian, and Lashkar Abad in 2003; the Qom underground facility in 2005; and most recently the TABA site in 2011, where advanced centrifuge parts are manufactured.

Iran saw major uprisings in 2009 lasting several months before being brutally suppressed. Currently, Iran's economy is in shambles, the ruling elite are increasing fighting among themselves, and internal dissent has spread.

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

Nothing can convince the mullahs to halt their ambitious nuclear weapons program. The only and least costly option is to rely on Iranians and their organized opposition committed to replacing the regime with a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic. This option has widespread political support, signified by a large group of bipartisan members of Congress who are calling on the State Department to remove the shackles placed on the main Iranian opposition 14 years ago as a goodwill gesture to Tehran.

Make no mistake. Nothing can mobilize Iran's population behind its ruthless rulers, and nothing has been more destructive than the various forms of engagement. However, there is no need for foreign governments to allocate money, dispatch troops, or carry out any kind of military action against Tehran. The West must realize the power of Iran's people, arguably more deeply rooted even than what we saw in the Arab Spring. The time to act is now.

Tags:
Iran,
nuclear weapons
Other Arguments
#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

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

#5

No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits

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

#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

#7

No — A pre-emptive strike would make containing Iran's nuclear program harder, not easier

JAMES DOBBINS, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation

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
Organizations Masquerading as Tax-Exempt is the Real IRS Scandal

The real scandal at the IRS is electioneering groups getting tax-exempt status.

E.W. Jackson Proves the Tea Party Learned Nothing

By nominating E.W. Jackson, Virginia Republicans hope extremism will save them.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Are Not Obama Scandals

The word "scandal" doesn't appropriately describe anything going on in Washington these days.

Democrats Should Be Worried About Polls After Obama Scandals

Democrats should be more worried about President Obama's approval ratings.

Tea Party IRS Rally Should Wait Until After Moore Tornado Recovery

Tea party rallies against the IRS should wait until the tornado victims are taken care of.

God Bless America and the Boy Scouts

The Fund does the right thing by pushing the Boy Scouts to lift its ban on gay members.

IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Advertisement