Iran: The Next Iraq?
-Mark Guadangi

Weapons of mass destruction, evil dictator, oil—sound familiar? Directly east to the nation of Iraq lies the oil-rich, controversial state of Iran . In the midst of  Iran’s President Mahomaud Ahmadinejad’s Borat-like trip to the United states, in which he brought along his anti-Semite beliefs, the debate over Iran has sky-rocketed into the limelight of geo-politics. At the crux of the debate is Iran ’s controversial nuclear program, resulting in the rise of conflicting theories.

It’s a given that if Iran obtained a nuclear bomb it would only make the volatile Middle East region even more volatile. Some argue that the only way to prevent this from happening is by a regime change; however we don’t have to look far to see how well and smoothly regime changes happen in the Middle East ( Iraq ). The main support for this radical idea comes from the neo-conservatives, who see Iran as an oil-rich opportunity to appease the aspersions of the big business corporations that, sadly, seem to drive our foreign policy today.

Looking back at in history, during the 1950s Iranian oil reserves were controlled by Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later known as BP, British Petroleum), until Prime Minister, Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, gaining him enormous popularity among his fell Iranians; however his action enraged Western interests and the CIA. The CIA decided to retaliate by staging a coup or “regime change”, known as Operation Ajax. This attempted regime change not only failed, but backfired, resulting in an Iran displeased and far from warm toward the Western powers. This is yet another example why a “regime change” is not a viable option in diffusing the situation in Iran – we’ve already tried.

So why don’t we just send the air force to destroy all their nuclear facilities? In theory this sounds like a viable option, however we can’t be certain that an air strike will destroy all nuclear facilities and scientists, and one still has to take into account the number of innocent civilians that could die in the cross fire. Those who remember Israel ’s air strike against Iraq ’s Osiraq reactor  in 1981, may try and use this as evidence, but Iran is not stupid. They will certainly have anticipated and prepared for such strikes, considering that plans of these attacks have been all over the news, not to mention the fate of Iraq ’s nuclear program.

In addition to this, an Oxford research group published a study, titled Would Air Strikes Work? This study clearly concludes that air strikes would in fact, not work. In the study, Hans Blix, the head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, states in the study “armed attacks on Iran would very likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid”. In the after math of a military attack, Iran would be more motivated to create nuclear arms because they would need them as a military deterrent. Considering our inadequate intelligence, well protected hidden facilities, possibility of high civilian casualties and number of targets, a successful military operation is highly unlikely.

Speaking of unlikely events, the Oxford study states “ Iran is unlikely even to begin producing the amount of HEU required for the production of a nuclear weapon for at least five years”. As complacent as it sounds, I believe that we should avert military actions with Iran until a solid case appears—not just speculation. We should be able to learn from the blunder with Iraq , and not repeat them again in Iran ; otherwise we will be doomed a similar fate.