John Abizaid, former general of the U.S.-led force in Iraq, said recently that the United States "could live with a nuclear Iran." He harkened back to the Cold War and the fact that we are living with a nuclear China and North Korea, and made the case that Iran, despite popular belief, is not a suicidal, idiot nation.
Abizaid, in his Sept. 12 remarks to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested that, shockingly enough, Iranians understand that United States has a far superior military and promoted the theory that Iran would not risk complete annihilation by developing and using nuclear weaponry. Abizaid further maintained that it is possible Iran does only want to develop civilian nuclear technology.
The general hit the nail on the head in his analysis, and he made a bold and brave move by suggesting that a nuclear Iran would not be the worst thing in the history of man.
Despite his comments, it is good to remember that nuclear proliferation is certainly a worthy and vital cause. When Jimmy Carter suggested in the 1980 presidential debate with Ronald Reagan that the spread of nuclear weapons was the single biggest issue facing the world, many rolled their eyes. But he was correct, especially when it comes to the Middle East. A nuclear Iran would give way to a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear Saudi Arabia and a nuclear Syria. This kind of spread has to be checked.
This being said, the United States simply cannot begin a second full-scale military engagement in that region. The results would be disastrous. After our bang-up job rebuilding Iraq, could you even imagine what would happen if we tried to topple Tehran? It would spread Islamo-fascism throughout the country, and we would drive the nuclear research laboratories underground, making them unstable and positioning them to be able to deliver low-grade nuclear weaponry to terrorist networks.
There are those who tout the benefits of an aerial war, a battle we could wage with Iran by just dropping bombs on Tehran. If this were not such a horrifyingly dangerous proposition, it would be comical. Bombs may be great if you are taking out a munitions dump, but you cannot wage a war from the air. If you cannot back up an air campaign with boots on the ground, it is useless. Also, with U.S. troops so close to Iran in Iraq, the worst thing to do would be to antagonize Iran into funding the Iraqi insurgency more or engage in a full-scale counter-invasion of Iraq.
However, this talk of invading Iran is not just dangerous in the sense of its foolhardiness and shaky grounding, but it is also a betrayal of United States' foreign policy legacy. In the past, United States has known when to use its military superiority and when to negotiate. President Reagan did not free East Germany by the use of guns, but rather by the use of hard-lined diplomacy. He did not isolate and abuse the Soviet Union, but rather engaged it in a way that held it accountable, yet kept them in a constant dialogue.
Under the current administration, we have bucked "Walk softly and carry a big stick" in favor of "Carry a big stick and swing it wildly around like a blindfolded child trying to get candy from a pi¤ata." We cannot simply demand that the world respect us; we must lead by example and lead with restraint. We must stop acting as if it is a mandate of history that we are the unilateral superpower, and instead recognize being a superpower for the burden that it is.
Militarily engaging Iran would be an irrational and probably fruitless endeavor. Let us put the big stick away for a minute, take some deep breaths and engage our ideological enemies with restraint and a cool-headed temperament worthy of our mature and stately nation.
Roddy Flynn is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a liberal columnist for The Eagle.
