Let Opposition Groups Do the Hindering

By + More

"All options are on the table!" This phrase epitomizes strategic ambiguity and should continue to guide U.S. policy toward Iran. But what does the expression mean? Consider the children's game, "Where's Waldo?" Kids search for Waldo's picture hidden among hundreds of others. In this regard, regime change is the missing face in this strategically ambiguous phrase, which implies threat of force, engagement, and sanctions.

Economic sanctions have failed to coerce the Iranian regime from its quest for the bomb. Negotiations with Iran have stalemated; and as the UN nuclear watchdog agency determined, Iran conducts "…activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device..."

[See a collection of political cartoons on Iran.]

Humongous obstacles and risks make it difficult to attack Iran's nuclear facilities successfully.

The United States Air Force no longer controls Iraqi airspace, making it less likely for Washington or Jerusalem to launch airstrikes over a direct central route to Iran, e.g., from bases in Israel. Strikes via a northern (near Syria and Turkey or southern (near or across Jordan and Saudi Arabia) route consumes more fuel, loses the element of surprise, and attracts antiaircraft fire even before reaching Iran. Attacks from carrier-based aircraft in the Gulf or land bases in Afghanistan are also problematic.

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

Since the Iraq War of 2003-2011, regime change is off the table because it implies external force to change a regime. But tearing a page from the Arab revolt playbook, U.S. options could include regime change from within. Such a policy would require allowing an alliance of oppositionists to coalesce without American interference. Washington hinders coalition formation among Iranian dissidents by placing the main Iranian opposition on the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list maintained by the State Department.

Washington designated the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK) as a terrorist organization and continues its listing for mainly diplomatic rather than for counterterrorism reasons. So long as the MeK is on the terrorist list despite absence of terrorism, terrorist activities, as well as lack of capability and intent to commit such actions, the designation is unwarranted. More to the point, the listing is unwise: Placing the MeK on the FTO list jeopardizes the lives of MeK members under siege in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, restrains a coalition from changing the regime from within, and ironically makes use of military action against Iran more likely despite the risks.

Raymond Tanter

About Raymond Tanter Founder of the Iran Policy Committee

Tags
nuclear weapons
Iran

Other Arguments

#1
209 Pts
Incite Change From Within Iran

No – Incite Change From Within Iran

Alireza Jafarzadeh Author of 'The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis'

#3
34 Pts
Only Threat of Military Action Will Stop Iran

Yes – Only Threat of Military Action Will Stop Iran

Michael Eisenstadt Director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

#4
12 Pts
Military Action Might Be The Only Option With Iran

Yes – Military Action Might Be The Only Option With Iran

Jamie M. Fly Former Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council

#5
-3 Pts
Diplomacy Best Option in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Aims

No – Diplomacy Best Option in Dealing with Iran's Nuclear Aims

Matthew Duss Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress

#6
-14 Pts
Learn the Lessons from Iraq

No – Learn the Lessons from Iraq

Justin Logan Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute

#7
-64 Pts
An Attack Would Only Strengthen Iran's Influence

No – An Attack Would Only Strengthen Iran's Influence

James Dobbins Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation

You Might Also Like


See More