3 reasons not to attack Iran

As tensions over a defiant Iran and its nuclear program escalate, the debate in Washington over preemptive military strikes heats up, even as Israel warns the US it may attack Tehran's nuclear facilities. Edward Haley, professor of international strategic studies at Claremont McKenna College, gives three reasons not to attack Iran:

2. An attack would galvanize the Iranian people around the regime

An attack would bury the Iranian opposition in a landslide of Iranian patriotic fervor. Not only would the attacks merely postpone the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, they would unite the Iranian people around a regime that is increasingly detested. Tehran has painted opposition to the regime as identical with abandoning Iran to foreign invaders. 

The US, Israel, and their allies should seek to encourage exactly the opposite sentiment among the Iranian people, through measures that divide the people from the regime. That is the promise of diplomatic isolation and economic sanctions, which have finally begun to bite.

Iran’s economic relations with the outside world have been hit hard by US-led sanctions, including a number of key sectors, such as banking, trade, energy, insurance, and commodities. Joint US-European Union prohibitions have also crippled Iran’s financing of high volume exports and imports. Despite high prices for Iran’s oil exports, the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, has fallen sharply.

Prices are rising, and even the most basic goods are disappearing from stores, partly because of import problems and partly because Iranian citizens and businesses have resorted to hoarding as a way of escaping the effects of inflation and the rial’s depreciation, adding to economic uncertainty and turmoil.

Iranians in and out of government cannot avoid asking whether the isolation and punishment imposed on Iran as a result of the regime’s nuclear policies are worth the increasing costs that they have to bear.

2 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.