A war between the United States and Iran Essay

Preparations for a massive military strike on Iran are in full swing by the United States of America. But will these preparations convert to actual bombing on the ground? Are the two countries going to be embroiled in a war soon? These are the questions that are being asked everywhere, in hushed tones if it is the Pentagon corridors and terrified glances if it is the streets of Tehran. With Iran defying the UN’s call for restraint in its nuclear programme openly, it has only become successful in intensifying the speculations about the war. The issue here is â€Å"Is it inevitable? † Before we get in to the nitty-gritty of the Iranian crisis, let us look into the different causes of the wars that have been raged in the recent future. The twentieth century started with World War I in 1914 and since then, it is interesting to note that the wars have a particular pattern. The causes have always been dependent on three factors: Systemic factors, domestic politics and the role of the Decision maker. Hence, we would also try to view the US-Iran issue through this prism. However, comparing the pre-nuclear wars in a pre-nuclear age with wars in post-nuclear age would be a waste of space. Instead, it would do well if we look into the causes that can trigger a war in the present times where possessing nuclear power is not only a stark reality but also the bone of contention in this particular case. It is the claim by the Iranian government that they are ready to start developing nuclear weapons is what has triggered the whole issue. And ironically, it is the very reason that is playing a deterrent in the war. Remarkable is the fact that it is only America that is concerned with Iran trying to possess the deadly weapon. The first and foremost question that would help us in determining the fate of this discussion would be: Why is America so bothered? America, the self-declared big brother of all the nations on this planet, takes up the â€Å"burden† of maintaining peace on earth. To quote Eisenhower, â€Å"Freedom is indivisible.. †. America takes it as its personal duty to ensure that â€Å"Freedom† is maintained all over the world. If it was â€Å"Communism† that was a threat against â€Å"Freedom† during the cold war, today it is the irresponsible rulers of nations that possess or aspire to possess nuclear weapons that are threatening the â€Å"Freedom† in the world. And when Truman declared that â€Å"We cannot hope to maintain our freedom, if freedom elsewhere is wiped out†, he meant it. However, the reasons why Israeli attack on Palestine killing hundreds of civilians is not wiping out â€Å"Freedom† but North Korea developing nuclear capability is has interesting reasons. History has been witness to this characteristic of America where it deems it is her right to attack any country it wills to protect the attacked country’s â€Å"freedom†. According to Jutta Welders (Pg 37, culture of insecurity), the compelling reason for America to act in this fashion is to maintain its supremacy in the world. An act of aggression under the cloak of â€Å"Freedom fighters† becomes a necessity to project itself as a strong nation which can not only defend itself but protect other countries as well. A bright example would be the Cuban missile crisis. When this â€Å"crisis† occurred, many were of the view that it was quite unnecessary for America to take up such a strong and aggressive tone. However, it did do that and according to Jutta Weldes, it is the compelling reason to showcase its power that led it to act strong. In fact, Jutta Weldes considers the Cuban missile crisis as not a crisis at all. To quote her, â€Å".. crises are social constructions that are forged by state officials in the course of producing and reproducing state identity†. She is of the view that it depends on the social construction that makes us define a situation as â€Å"Crisis†. It depends on how we view a nation that determines whether it is a crisis or not. For example, Iran possessing nukes is such a big issue and is immediately converted into a â€Å"Crisis† whereas an equally notorious state like Pakistan possessing the deadly weapons is not. It has been time and again proved that large number of terrorist activities has their funds traced back to Pakistan. However, Pakistan escaped the whip but Iraq was destroyed in the name of WMDs! The only explanation for this is the prism that US uses to define its foreign policies. Attack the nations that would give it a chance to maintain her supremacy in the world. Attacking Pakistan would back fire as it has the capability to strike back. And attacking Iraq or Iran will definitely be easier as these countries have a notorious reputation which required some policing and also are comparative weaklings. Hence, the systemic reasons for US to wage a war against Iran are quite obvious: a chance to police a nation that has a history of supporting the biggest threat world faces today, that is, terrorism and simultaneously reaffirm its image as the superpower which it seems to be losing to China. If attacking Iran salvages some pride for US, the role of domestic politics in the whole affair plays another important role. US, the strongest nation in the world today, are also the most vulnerable to attacks by various terrorist outfits. After 9/11, it has taken its goal of fighting terrorism quite seriously. However, the path it has chosen to fight it is not very often appreciated. The aftermath of 9/11 saw it attacking Afghanistan and driving out the Taliban ruthlessly. Afghanistan was the target because it sheltered the most dangerous terrorist outfit in the world, Al-Qaeda. Their slogan was a regime change is essential for to â€Å"smoke out† the terrorist and the whole war was essentially to capture one man – Osama Bin Laden. The attack resulted in the killings of thousands of innocent Afghanistan who were already tired by the war torn politics of Taliban. America could never capture the villain. However, it overthrew Taliban and today, a â€Å"democratically† elected government exists in place of it. Is Afghanistan a changed country today? Has America finally left its shores after the war? Both the answers are No! Terrorism has been controlled and yes, America is still â€Å"guarding† Afghanistan with its air raids on civilians. The failure of capturing Osama in Laden was quite frustrating for the Bush administration and it was in search for a new scapegoat. And they found the perfect one in the form of Saddam Hussain. Suddenly, Iraq, the starving nation which was already bogged down by various sanctions and its citizens further troubled by the tyrannic rule of Saddam Hussain finds itself in the line of fire. The reasons given are quite fishy. America is suddenly in possession of confidential information that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussain should be relieved of his responsibility of taking care of them! The reasons were uttered in the same chilling tone of how Iraq, which can’t survive without taking aid from UN, poses the danger of destroying the whole world. The solution that is needed is again a â€Å"Regime Change†. America reasoned introduction of democracy in the country will solve the problem. Thus, despite the worldwide protests that marked the growing contempt against America and the UN Security Council voting against a military attack, America single-handedly went about with its â€Å"war on terrorism†. After 3 years of war, a executed Saddam Hussain, uncountable civilian deaths and threats of civil war ( not to forget the daily suicide attacks by shiities), no one found alleged WMDs. Today, it has been almost accepted that the report on WMD was wrong! The flak US received for the irresponsible behavior is enormous and its image in the middle east has gone for a beating as today, many believe that US is waging war on Islam rather than Terrorists. Its belief that a regime change is the only solution that can solve the problems of the world is quite naive. It proposes the same thing when it comes to Iran. Seymour M. Hersh, in journal â€Å"Fact: Annals of national security† had mentioned his conversation with Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been supporter of President Bush, who clearly spoke of regime change the ultimate solution. He said, â€Å"So long as Iran has an Islamic Republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely. The key issue is therefore, how long will the present regime last? † This archaic view that regime change or toppling of government in another country and forcing them to â€Å"democracy† has never worked in bringing the much desired goal of the war – peace. In fact, statistics have shown that the transition period from any kind of rule to democracy has always been bloody and nations become quite war-prone (Democratization and war). The most recent examples are, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq, which are facing gruesome infighting among themselves. So why is America so bent upon making a regime change in those countries? Apart from the apparent reasons of dismantling the network of terrorism, experts are of the view that it is also the question of who controls the oil in the future that has been a major driving force behind the American policy. Middle East is the home for oil throughout the world and it is the control of oil that is US after. With its fast disappearance and soaring prices (reasons partly because the war that US is waging), the control of the oil fields will definitely be beneficial for America. In fact, the one who controls oil in the future is the undisputed king. This goes in line with the policy of US for whom displaying its authority is very important as it seems to be losing the crown to the exponential growth of China. Therefore, attacking Iran is also a desperate attempt by US to reiterate that it is America that is still calling the shots. However, attacking Iran has its own dangers. The most important and the immediate is the image of US in the Islamic world. Its continuous attacks on Islamic nations has made it poised against Islam and has become quite unpopular in the Middle East. If not anything else, America through these attacks is only getting successful in inviting the wrath of the people living there. In a conversation with Seymour M Hersh, Richard Armitrage was echoing the same sentiments – â€Å"What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally – that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China and the U. N Security Council? † Yet how many in Washington will consider these questions? According to Seymour, there are people out there who believe it is the way to operate! If domestic politics are reasons enough to wage war, the role of the decision maker is of paramount importance. It is the head who declares wars and in this case Bush has quite a penchant for declaring wars. It is widely believed that Bush will declare war against Iran before leaving the White house. In fact, President Bush believes that â€Å"He must do what no democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do, and that saving Iran is going to be his legacy†. The personal ambition of Bush also seems to make the fear of turning Teheran in to a sea of fire in to reality. Moreover, with the failure of Iraq where they achieved instant victory but not a decisive one, Bush administration is looking out for scapegoats in a large way. Iran with its close proximity with Iraq is believed to be a supplier of arms and ammunitions to the Shiite attackers in the troubled Iraq. Those attacks are not only killing innocent Iraqis but also resulting in the death of hundreds of American troops out there. In short, it is a personal failure for Bush as a president as he forced his military in to war for no reasons. It becomes very important for him to fathom some pride and Iran seems to be a ripe case. One House member told Seymour when speaking of Bush â€Å"The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision†. Therefore, you have President Bush waiting to bomb Iran at the slightest pretext. But how can attacking Iran solve the Iraq problem? The strategy that is being followed by the Americans is to start infighting in Iran and force it to take some irresponsible action like an up in the activities along the Iraqi border. The first response to any of American disturbance in Iran is believed to be given across the Iraq border which presently houses many American troops. The white house hopes to take advantage of that situation and make it an excuse to attack Iran. This reason is widely believed to work as the blame of first strike can always be switched to Iran and America will only be fighting for â€Å"Safeguarding† its citizens. Combining the above reasons, America declaring war on Iran seems to be a matter of time. The systemic, domestic politics and decision maker reasons a need for another war. The attack on Iran will accomplish three important factors for America. 1. America is believed to be the favorite target for the terrorists and its war on terrorism is necessary to protect itself as a nation. Moreover, this would give the image of the departing super power the much needed boost. An attack on Iran will give the masculine quality to the nation that it believes will spread â€Å"awe† across the world. 2. The second and more compelling reason for the attack is the role that domestic politics plays in this issue. Attack on Iran will bring about a regime change which will help America post â€Å"Freedom† there. This in other words means another puppet government that would act on the whims of US. This is quite beneficial as this gives it direct control over the oil fields of Iran along with Iraq’s, thanks to the WMD ghosts. So, that means with a single strike, not only do they believe that terrorism and nukes will be taken care of but also the oil fields. 3. The third reason is President Bush. His stint as President of America has mainly been marred by Wars. If in the past it was Afghanistan, now it is Iraq. Apparently, both have them have been failures as there have been no decisive victories. The victories have only been fast as is expected from a war between the super power and a starving nation. Iran war will give him the much needed boost to his image as this war can be a golden opportunity to pass the blame on Iran for the Iraq fiasco. Taking all these reasons into considerations, attack by America on Iran for possessing Nukes is quite imminent. Experts say Iran is still five to ten years away from developing any kind of weapon. However, America is bent upon going ahead with its plans. Therefore, nukes or no nukes, Iran is the golden opportunity to accomplish a lot many tasks. Nuclear disarmament is just one of the small ones.