Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?

Recommend (3) Comments (0)

In view of Teheran's ideological goal and its long running jihad against the West, it is absurd to expect that diplomatic pressure can eliminate the threat from Iran. Such measures constitute impotent finger-wagging that serves only to encourage Iranian aggression.

Perhaps three decades ago, when Iran first emerged as a threat to the West, it was plausible that a total, air-tight international embargo could have caused the regime to collapse and cease being a menace. But years of Western inaction and appeasement of Iran's aggression have allowed the regime to become a powerful, confident enemy. The diplomatic solutions commonly endorsed today are a continuation of that passive, meek approach.

One proposal calls for the U.S. to push for more UN sanctions against Iran. But scrounging for votes at the UN to admonish Iran will only buy it more time to advance its nuclear and militant goals. Russia and China, friends of Iran, have repeatedly blocked and neutered (already toothless) resolutions. Nor is there any reason to think that UN sanctions, even if tough ones ever materialize, could derail Teheran's zealous ambition.

International economic sanctions--another common proposal--were tried during the Clinton administration, and proved to be a farce. The latest push for such economic sanctions by President Bush has done little more than inconvenience Iran. For example, one gambit was to prohibit the Iranian Bank Sepah from completing transactions in U.S. dollars. That bank is “the financial linchpin of Iran’s missile procurement network,” according to a Treasury Department official. The ban means Bank Sepah can no longer facilitate sales of oil in dollars--but Teheran has announced that it is now selling oil in euros.

What's needed today is a resolute, principled stand against Iran. That means a military solution.

The U.S. has the military power to eliminate the Iranian threat, but it lacks the self-confidence and moral confidence to pursue its own self-defense by military force. For all the hype about President Bush's supposedly "moralistic" rhetoric and commitment that "all options are on the table," the administration proved itself unprincipled and timid. After 9/11, Washington cordially invited Iran (the acknowledged leader in sponsoring Islamist terrorism) into an anti-terrorism coalition; later, Bush denounced Iran as part of an “axis of evil”; now, he embraces diplomatic talks, i.e., appeasement of Iran.

How could such feeble gestures fail to encourage Iran's belief that it is free to pursue its hostile goals with impunity?

What's truly horrifying is the prospect of the Iranian regime remaining in power, with or without nukes, and continuing its proxy war on America and the West. The only moral and practical solution is to eliminate the regime using whatever military force is necessary. That does not mean fighting another Iraq-like crusade to bring the people of Iran welfare goods; it means a war to defeat a longstanding enemy.