Much of the justification for the preemptive invasion of Iraq hinged on the argument that the United States had reason to believe that the country had illegally produced weapons of mass destruction (or more familiarly, WMD's). At the time, there was really no way to tell whether Iraq did possess these instruments of apocalypse, let alone what their intentions might be if they did. Ultimately the Wolfowitz Doctrine prevailed, and troops swept through Iraq in a matter of months. Unfortunately for the current administration, the military was unsuccessful in producing any Iraqi WMD's. Given only this evidence, it is impossible for us to tell whether there ever were any such weapons or not, though many have speculated wildly on either side of the debate. We can only know that the administration isn't lying about having found them. As far as I'm concerned, it is an irrelevant matter of fact, a historic antiquity of certain irrelevance, whether Hussein's Baathist government really did have these weapons. What concerns me is whether, given the evidence that the US government had on this crucial issue, such action was justified. More plainly, if presented with the same scenario again, better aware of the woes that come with occupying an unstable, Middle Eastern country, would we recommend the same action once more?
A similar situation is developing in one of Iraq's bordering countries, Iran. Ignoring the situation regarding North Korea for the time being, the international community (primarily the US and her European allies) has considered Iran's atomic energy program to be little more than a facade before its impending nuclear arsenal. According to (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm), Iran's nuclear program has been public since 2003, but amidst a flurry of anti-Israel comments from their president, new concern has arisen about their real intentions.
It seems that there are many relevant parallels between the situations with Iran and pre-invasion Iraq. One might even go so far as to say that the United States has more reason to suspect Iran of WMD's than it did Iraq, and that Iran is more vocally hostile towards the United States' ally, Israel. After all, the US put Hussein into power so that he could oppose the more extremist Iran. Here, we have returned to the questions of early 2003 regarding the proper course of American foreign policy.
Just like Iraq, it is impossible to tell (at least for the average American) whether Iran does, in fact, have WMD's, let alone what it plans to do with them. Hopefully the Pentagon can be more certain than we armchair patriots, but as we must decide on a course of action regarding Iran, we demonstrate our reactions to the outcome in Iraq. Do we prescribe the same remedy to fight Islamic Extremism anew? Do we alter our policy slightly in response to a country where 40% of the population is below the poverty line? Or is it that we've learned our lesson about getting involved in the region? Whatever the administration does decide, it will be a sincere evaluation of the war in Iraq, and set a precedent that will define US policy in the region for years to come.
Here are some links that I found interesting if you care to research the issue a bit:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
- Facts on Iran
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051013/text/51013w07.htm
- List of nuclear capable (in terms of power) countries according to the British Parliament.
http://www.iaea.org
- International Atomic Energy Agency Homepage
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/
- Statements by Iranian President
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html
- Iranian response to threat of US action
Branden Stein is an undergraduate in Philosophy and German Literature at The Ohio State University. He can be contacted at: stein.179@osu.edu
