The discussion over what to do concerning the Iranian Islamist rule actually bent on obtaining nuclear artillery has been on our front burner for 6 years, and is today practically an established feature of the policy scenery. There is a common agreement in our country on 2 major points. First, Iranian nuclear arms ability is “unacceptable” during Obama administration; and second, we prefer getting to the satisfactory result without utilizing military force. The discussion gets irritable when we think that means short of power, for instance, sanctions and concealed technical sabotage, may not work.
Struggle with Iran
What would the straggle with Iran look like? For Smith, a mere definition of war is the waging of the military conflict against the enemy, but this is too incomplete concept in the current century. War today comprises immediate conflict in the economic, diplomatic, social and military domains on four levels: political, operational, strategic and tactical (Smith, 13).Whilst the conflict with Iran might start in a military domain, it would probably expand to others, and whilst it might start at the tactical or operational level it would soon include political and strategic levels as well.
Many things irritated Islamic Extremism, though it had already been there to begin with, strong as never before. The alteration of face by Saddam's control did little to draw support from the numerous Islamics groups. Nevertheless, Wright claims it united with the Saudi Arabian alliance with the USA and Saudi Arabia being seen as being on one side of Israel radically eroded the regime's authority. Activity of Islamics groups against the Saudi regime augmented noticeably. The presence of the US troops in Saudi Arabia, the invasion of Iraq, and the following blockade were some of the complaints claimed by Osama bin Laden in the 1998 Fatwa (Wright, 137).
Meanwhile, Smith concludes that the U.S.-Iranian conflict would most likely not to be fought by the two countries alone. Every nation would have allies, willing and not-willing. Pre-war commitments, longstanding relations, the course of actions and some other factors would put the USA and Iran at the core of more or less prearranged coalitions of marginally willing (Smith, 13).
The Two Opposing Coalitions
It is a common believe that Coalition conflict would present lots of troubles to the American administration. In general, it would lend authority to an action, and it would also narrow American freedom of action, probably by restricting the scope and strength of military actions. There would, therefore, be nervousness between the wish for a little coalition of the able for security and operational and security aims and a wider coalition, which would comprise marginally helpful allies to maximize authority.
To make an example, coalition forces succeeded in releasing Kuwait from Iraq. However, it is obvious that Coalition forces did not succeed in devastating Iraq's military capability, or in removing Hussein from authority. Thus, realists see the battle as necessary. The victors will have a huge say in prospect pacifying moves in the area. The Palestine Liberation Organization will have less impact as its accepted support is destabilized. The USA seeks to reinstate the area to its pre-war circumstances, but with the not threatening Iraq. Additional collective deeds in the area will concentrate on restricting Iraq military abilities.
Needless to mention, populist and pluralist theorists express anxiety that worsening social and economic circumstances will tend to further weaken governments in the area. Religious and ethnic identities will carry on to be foundations for organization. The deterioration may provide chances to hearten democratization and larger ethnic independence, and to develop more complex political and social arrangements that better reproduce realism in the Middle East.
Conflict resolution approaches assert a negotiated resolution might have accomplished the same general aims, but at a far lower cost in environmental damage, lives and the standard of existing for human beings in the area. They point to the finale of the Cold War as an instance of such a success. Conflict solution approach emphasizes a wider account of domestic security that comprises economic interests, the standard of existing, social, personal and cultural autonomy, and individual safety in addition to the military protection of borders. This broader line of matters allows for larger trade-offs, and a better opportunity of reaching mutually satisfactory agreements. Kriesberg asserts conflicts are intrinsically “disorganized”. Conflicts do not have any clear limits, and besides, their long term results are extremely hard to predict (Kriesberg, 88-96).
Interesting to mention that, according to Kriesberg, there are some vital issues in making the parties, which are conflicting, negotiate. Such issues are the following: leadership, peace support, adversaries’ attitudes quality as well as the existence of the conceptual framework, supporting the necessary resolution (Kriesberg, 125-130). Finally, Kriesberg states that a number of disagreements in the conflict resolution field origin from various value differences, including such important issues as economic well-being, freedom, justice and fairness. Hence, it is obvious that the field is not likely to solve such moral differences itself, and as a result, what is most valued influences the approach of conflict resolution. But, Kriesberg concludes that the field is likely to present a number of methods and issues from which people can choose (Kriesberg, 88-96).
Meanwhile, Wright (138) claims that our administration will not welcome Israeli involvement. However, if Israel were openly attacked by Iran or one of its allies, Obama’s administration would find it hard to keep Israel out - as it happened during the 1991 Gulf War. During this war, following the uprisings in the north and south, Iraqi no-fly zones were created to protect the Shi'ite and Kurdish groups in South and North Iraq. The no-fly zones were monitored by the USA and the United Kingdom, although France also participated. United, they flew more sorties over the nation in the 11 years following the battle than were flown during the war. Widespread infrastructure devastation during the war hurt the Iraqi populace badly. For instance, years after the struggle, electricity production was less than a quarter of the initial level. The devastation of water facilities caused dirt to flow directly into the Tigris River, from which civilians obtained drinking water, resulting in many diseases. Economic sanctions appeared following the battle, pending the arms inspection with which Iraq never fully cooperated as it accused the UN representatives of spying. Iraq was later allowed to import some goods under the Oil for Food program. A 1998 UNICEF report discovered the sanctions resulted in the growth of deaths – up to 90,000 deaths per year (Wright, 138). Many people assert the sanctions on Iraq and the US military presence in Saudi Arabia contributed to the negative image of the USA in the Arab world. Today it would complicate the American capability to manage the coalition, though it would not automatically break it. Iranian international relations and information operations would attempt to exploit Israeli involvement to the fullest.
Short of imposing an entire conquer on Iran, the result that appears barely believable, exiting the fight could be difficult if Iran prefers to struggle on in some type of the uneven conflict. We might then have to force Iran to give up, and that could possibly require the usage of force beyond what was initially agreed upon among the USA or the coalition allies. If the Iranian system survives, it is likely to announce triumph, and many of the supporters would trust it. How and when a struggle with Iran would really stop is, thus, no easy theme to nail down. Any assault on Iran of enough scale to considerably harm the nuclear program would have continuing results in the long and short term. After the final bomb falls down there will be a novel realism in the area and beyond.
Short-term and Long-term Consequences
In a short term, Walt claims that we will see the results in the economic, military, diplomatic and social spheres. The strength and concentration of these results would depend on the result of an assault, but there definitely would be “struggle damage” in all spheres. Short-term results would likely comprise an anxious and unbalanced military situation that would need the pledge of forces for observing and responding to developing threats; and a possible political crisis in the area pushed by unsteadiness and hesitation concerning the future, counting remaining Iranian abilities to strike back indirectly or directly (Walt, 14-33). The oil sphere would stay in shock for a certain period of time after the conflict. Naval mines, damage to amenities would see to that. Social disorder would be likely as a variety of population groups respond to the assault and following conflict. In brief, there would be no clear line finishing the conflict in the diplomatic, economic and social realities.
To turn to long-term results, according to Wright, Iran would definitely remain the main player in the area. The adjustment to struggle and the results would have a huge role in forming local realities. A compressed, shamed but still disobedient Iran with fundamentally the similar political approach to the area and the globe would be long-term, rising hazard similar to Iraq following the Gulf War (or Germany after the First World War). It would expand beyond the armed forces to comprise dangers in some other domains (Wright, 135).
The initial conclusion we have to make is that the American administration should be ready for a long and hard clash if it eventually decides it must assault Iran. An assault might end rapidly with few difficulties if Iran behaves “realistically.” We may dislike what it means, nevertheless: One “rational” finale for the populace of Iran would be to admit their losses, announce “victory” since the system survived, lick the wounds, get ready for indirect revenge, and start again nuclear actions on a concealed foundation. But the conflict might not finish cleanly, and the American government could discover itself in the chaotic and prolonged conflict. This offers the requirement for an open approach to net evaluation and broad training not merely of the armed forces but also of a “home front” and the nations’ economy, for Iran may opt to fight.
Another conclusion we have to make is that, in assaulting Iran, we would be changing a part of risks for another one. As hard as it is to realize the results of military conflict, it is just as hard as to acknowledge the results of a decision to study to exist with the nuclear equipped Iran. Both courses are burdened and reasonably open-ended. Therefore, the fear of possibly negative results from a battle should not automatically rule one out. Churchill talking on English policy before the Second World War, asserted: “If the situation is such as to necessitate it, strength may be utilized. If this is so, it should be utilized under the circumstances that are most favorable. There is no value in putting off a battle for a year if, when it happens, it is a far worse battle or harder to win,” (Churchill, 287–288).
Whatever happens, if our country makes a decision to assault Iran it should definitely get ready for the hard landing. In particular, the American President should not undervalue the scope or misinterpret the wide nature of military conflict and should, thus, organize the American administration in advance to act against it comprehensibly. Considering how we have fared with administration approaches and also unity-of-command matters in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is obviously an issue we require to take critically.
Buy custom Iran essay
- Free plagiarism report (on request)
- Free formating
- Free title page
- Free title bibliography
- Free outline (on request)
- Free mail delivery
- Free revision (with 2 days)
- BA, MA, and Phd degree writers
- No hidden charges
- Quality research and writing
- 100% confidentiality
- Never resold works
- 24/7/265 Customer Support
- 100% authenticity
- Up-to-date sources
- Any citation style
- 12 pt. Times New Roman
- Double-spaces/single- spaced
- 1 inch margins
- Fully referenced papers
|← International Legal and Ethical Issues Simulation||Why Technology and Science go Hand-in-Hand →|