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.
- See a slide show of 6 vulnerable potential terrorist targets.
- See a slide show of 15 post-Cold War uprisings.
- See an opinion slide show of 5 ways Arab governments resist democracy.
- Other Arguments
-
#217539
No — U.S. should stop calling Mujahedeen-e-Khalq a terrorist group, and allow it to fight Iran regime
RAYMOND TANTER, Founder of the Iran Policy Committee
-
#37054
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
-
#48178
No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits
MATTHEW DUSS, Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress
-
#56059
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
-
#65166
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
-
#73998
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
Reader Comments Read all comments (25)
Dr. A. Rad of VA 10:16PM November 30, 2011
Saad of CA 1:29PM November 24, 2011
Sam of LA 3:05PM November 23, 2011