Should the United States Consider Military Action to Hinder Iran's Nuclear Program? >
Let Opposition Groups Do the Hindering
U.S. should stop calling Mujahedeen-e-Khalq a terrorist group, and allow it to fight Iran regime
November 16, 2011
About Raymond Tanter:
Raymond Tanter is an adjunct scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and founder of the Iran Policy Committee, which was established in January 2005 to promote regime-change strategies in Iran. Tanter's experience also includes serving on the National Security Council during the first Ronald Reagan administration and as a Pentagon arms control adviser.
"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.
- 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
-
#126144
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'
-
#38459
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
-
#47062
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
-
#58786
No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits
MATTHEW DUSS, Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress
-
#65972
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
-
#743106
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
