The U.S.'s Plan against Iran - Essay Example

Response Essay: Iran Plans Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker, Iran Plans, examines the causes and implications of a potential military strikeagainst the Iran. While the Bush administration has publicly promoted diplomacy, the article illustrates the multitude of ways that the Bush administration has prepared for military action, including massive air strikes. It argues that the underlining concern the American regime holds is to prevent the Iranians from developing a pilot uranium program that they could convert into nuclear weapons. While the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) supports the West’s claim that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons, there are discrepancies as to how long such an operation would take. The article equally links American intentions in Iran to concern with defending Israel from a perceived Iranian threat, to the desire to stabilize the region because of its large amount of oil reserves. One of the major theses of the essay is that the Bush administration’s intentions can be more closely linked to a desire to overthrow Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the current Iranian regime. It seems that the Bush administration believes that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” However, the article explores a number of scenarios where such an action could potentially have the opposite effect. Another key thematic element is the comparison the essay makes between Bush’s desire to invade Iran, and his past actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. While national perceptions are that his major concern is Saddam Hussein, Washington insiders have linked Bush’s preoccupation with Iran as an element he believes could define his legacy. One military planner went as far as to claim, ““People think Bush has been focused on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” Another area of contention concerning the potential military campaign is the type and extent of force that would have to be implemented to attain military objectives in the region. Intelligence analysts have identified a number of underground bunker targets that would need to be eliminated if the nuclear threat were to properly taken exterminated. It’s believed that Iran’s main centrifuge plant in Natanz has enough underground floor space to house fifty-thousand centrifuges that could be used for uranium production. In response to these bunkers, one solution the pentagon has developed is to use “bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.” Ironically, it seems that the lack of intelligence material concerning the actual whereabouts and extent of Iranian centrifuges is one of the primary reasons such an all-encompassing attack is required, as only then can it be certain that the threat has been eliminated. Obviously, the discussion of the United State’s potential use of nuclear force has raised a number of concerns among administrative officials. The article claims that inside the office of Joint Chiefs of Staff there has been displeasure and “some officers have talked about resigning.” However, others such as William Schneider, Jr, the chairman of the Defense Science Board, have supported the use of nuclear weapons “for those occasions when the certain and prompt destruction of high priority targets is essential and beyond the promise of conventional weapons.” In developing a comparison between the current administration’s desire to attack Iran and their past efforts in Iraq the article claims that Bush’s position has been compromised by the lack of WMDs found during the Iraq invasion, and discusses similar elements of potentially misleading intelligence reports. The article discusses reports that the United States military has received from A.Q. Khan, “the so-called father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb”, who claims to have made secret visits to Tehran during the 1980s. However, Khan’s reliability is questioned by ex-CIA officials who think his information sounds too good to be true. There was more evidence -- this time a laptop computer was obtained from family members of a man who had been taken into custody by Iranian counter-intelligence forces. The computer had drawings and material within it that detailed the construction of nuclear weapons. Upon receiving this computer the Bush administration brought it to the attention of the I.A.E.A.; however European officials are in-debate as to the validity of the information and stop short of calling it the “smoking gun” that would prove Iran is developing nuclear weapons. The article goes on the discuss areas of tension the Bush administration and European officials have with the I.A.E.A., as they claim they have treated the Iranians as equal partners in the equation, when they should be castigated as evil. They have also considered the option of allowing the Iranians to have a small nuclear enrichment program, to which their opposition is vehemently opposed. There are also areas of disagreement between the Bush administration and the European officials who have become apprehensive that the United States will go ahead with its military campaign. While the Bush administration and the European officials agree that the nuclear enrichment program needs to be stopped, the major area of contention is the United States desire to enact a regime change. It seems that the Europeans believe that Iran is much farther away from actually developing a nuclear weapon than the Americans think and that a military campaign will not solve the problem. While the Bush administration contends that attacking Iran would cause the Iranian people to revolt against Ahmadinejad, the Europeans believe that option would be catastrophic. Quoting a European intelligence official the article says, “’He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.’ An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S.” The article concludes with a discussion on the potential effects of the potential attack. It considers the possibility that Iranians could enact oil restrictions, and debates the possibility that the attack could further reduce the United States international standing and set-off a series of terrorist campaigns within Iraq. Even as the Bush administration seems justified in attempting to restrict the Iranian’s attempt at developing a nuclear arsenal, the moral ramifications of such a policy seem to stem from hegemonic and imperialistic impulses. It seems that the administration has attempted to position the United States as the morally superior nation and out to spread goodness and freedom to the world, when such claims lack any substantiality. For instance, what right do Americans and Europeans have in determining which countries are allowed to develop nuclear weapons and which aren’t? It seems that the only determining factors are the threat financial security through oil reserves, or through America’s allegiance to Israel over their Middle Eastern adversaries. While the European solution of increased diplomacy may ultimately result in a lack of results, as history has shown the errors of pacification in the face of increasing threats, supporting Bush’s policy of an uncompromising military campaign against Iran is a solution that could potentially lead the United States down a road of perpetual war and occupation. The efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the extreme difficulty and time required to enact permanent regime change. A potential attack on Iran would not end with a series of military strikes, but would carry on in the hearts and minds of all the Iranians who would be adversely affected by the bombings, potentially increasing future threats of terror. Ultimately, it seems that a diplomatic solution needs to be enacted that carries with it the swift force of a military campaign. Only through improved Middle Eastern relations will the west overcome the threat of terror. Read More