Running Head: EVALUATION ESSAY

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran Trident University International Kevin S. Varner English Composition II ENG102 Case Study Module Number 3 Coordinator Professor: Dr. Mickey Shachar Core Faculty: Dr. Donald Simon January 13, 2011

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

ABSTRACT A recent article in the publication Foreign Affairs stated the case for preemptive strikes on Irans nuclear capabilities. The author, Matthew Kroenig, is a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and from July 2010 to July 2011 he was a Special Adviser in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense for defense strategy and policy on Iran (Kroenig 2012). Kroenig expresses his support for this action as a means to decrease future bloodshed and conflict that will be inevitable (in his opinion) upon the successful creation of a nuclear weapon by the current Iranian regime. However, despite his credentials and expertise I must disagree with his point of view. At no point should the United States ever consider preemptive strikes on a sovereign nation, let alone a nation such as Iran. The immediate potential gains are very heavily outweighed by the long-term consequences, and the act itself would have far ranging consequences Kroenig either discounts or finds acceptable. There are alternatives to beginning a War with Iran, and that is exactly what will occur in the event we launch multiple missile strikes throughout that country. The murder of a single Nuclear Scientist has sparked a huge outcry in Iran toward both Israel and the United States, despite the public condemnation of the act by the United States government (Anonymous 2012). This relatively small act comes on the heels of numerous other activities the U.S. and our allies have conducted to slow the completion of Irans nuclear weapon development and cannot go unanswered in the minds of the Iranian regime. There will be consequences, and likely soon. Imagine what the possible reaction would be to not just the murder of one scientist and his body guard, but the killing of hundreds as well as the very likely collateral damage that would accompany such an action. Would it truly be worth it?

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

The argument for In the Foreign Affairs article, from the January/February 2012 publication, Matthew Kroenig states his case very well, and goes in depth to explain that a preemptive strike against Iran will actually save lives in the long run. His stated view is one of an inevitable confrontation between Iran and the United States, or Iran and Israel (with the U.S. in the middle), backed up by Nuclear capabilities on both sides; the result would be full nuclear war in his estimation. From that perspective his case is understandable. Kroenig uses the indicators of expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, installation of advanced centrifuges in Qom, or 90% enrichment of the uranium stockpiles for when the last opening that would be available for a U.S. strike to be successful. Once this nuclear capability is achieved Kroenig sees Iran providing the capability to every terrorist organization and American enemy as an arms race is sparked in the Middle East. Once this begins, he continues, the United States would be forced to commit Naval and Ground forces to the region to contain the threat, as well as spending huge sums to upgrade our regional allies weapons and defense capabilities. All of this would come as the United States continues through an economic crisis, and attempts to shift its forces out of the region. To mitigate the Iranian nuclear threat, Kroenig recommends strategic missile strikes on a uranium-conversion plant in Isfahan, a heavy-water reactor in Arak, and various centrifugemanufacturing sites near Natanz and Tehran, as well as a below ground site that would require the newest bunker-busting bomb capable of destroying a target hidden below 200 feet of concrete. Civilian casualties would be limited since many of the high value targets are built

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

away from heavily populated areas. The majority of the victims of such a strike would be military personnel, engineers, scientists, and technicians working at the facilities. The reaction to this, according to Kroenig, would be mitigated by several factors. Among them is his belief the Iranian regime would not start a conflict that would potentially result in the destruction of its military, or end in the fall of the regime itself. Additionally, by making clear the United States has no further intent to strike within the country, Iran would be reassured there would be no attempt to overthrow the government. These two main factors, according to Kroenig, should prevent a full scale war in the region and keep casualties to a minimum on both sides. He also points out Iran would most certainly strike back, most likely against our allies such as Israel. By achieving promises from these regional allies to take the hit without responding we would prevent escalation and the entire thing would calm down relatively soon. The final outcome would hopefully be for Iran to quite the nuclear game altogether, but could be merely delaying the program for up to a decade. The argument against At no point should the United States conduct a first strike against any sovereign nation. Launching drone attacks within foreign nations borders to kill terrorists is a far cry from bombing major civilian and military facilities within a country. This is an overt act of War, and would only be legal with the full support of Congress and therefor, the American people. In order for the Commander in Chief to act unilaterally in such a manner he would have to prove beyond a doubt that Iran represented a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, for which he had no choice but to act immediately without the luxury of a declaration of war. This would not be the case, so would require enough evidence to sway Congress (both parties) to at least agree to actions in the country as they did for Iraq. After the

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

disastrous political results of that campaign it is unlikely enough Senators and Congressmen would be willing to jump into this action. Setting aside this legal aspect, look at the consequences of such an action. Kroenig even admits there would be Iranian civilian deaths (which he states would be limited), as well as casualties in the resulting retaliation (kept to a minimum according to his conjecture). Many of those casualties would be United States Naval personnel currently in the Persian Gulf, as well as Israeli and/or Saudi civilians. The Iranians would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz which would definitely spark a full blown confrontation between the US Navy and whatever Navy the Iranians could call up, as well as hundreds of missiles sent seaward from sites throughout the coast of Iran. The toll in human deaths on all sides would be significant, regardless of what Kroenig considers limited or minimal. As a Sailor in the Navy, I have transited this Strait numerous times on my way to our normal patrols in the region. The Navy has had a constant presence in the Gulf since the 1980s, led by an Aircraft Carrier and numerous support ships such as Destroyers and Frigates. We would not need to build up a presence in the region as Kroenig asserts we are already there. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most heavily armed regions of the Middle East, with dangerous things pointed at every ship transiting those waters. We have already heard the threat by Iran to close the Strait in the event any U.S. Carrier enters the area again. At this point it is most likely a hollow threat, as this could cause major economic repercussions to Iran itself. However, a full scale War with Iran would remove all reasons for hesitancy in such an action, and result in a layered defense and attack strategy that would end up with U.S. Sailors dying in those waters. Iran has been practicing multiple techniques for just such a conflict in the region,

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

and has made no secret of what capabilities they have (Marcus 2012). Of course the United States would win any conflict of this nature, and we would most likely do it very quickly through the use of overwhelming force. There is no Maritime Force in the history of the world that could match that of our current Navy. However, there is no doubt in my mind many men and women would end up at the bottom of the ocean, without even the flagged draped coffin returning their remains to an outraged family at home. Alternative Actions With all of this in mind, there are other ways to act in order to work against the Iranian government and prevent a nuclear attack on the United States or her allies. A multilateral approach to the entire region would be the best scenario, and would have better likely outcomes when discussing American (and even Iranian) casualties. To begin, look to what has been our policy in the Pacific with regards to North Korea and China. We have been here in force since WWII. Though usually forgotten by the media, Yokosuka, Japan is home to the U.S. Navy 7th Fleet, including the carrier USS George Washington, all the shooting support ships, and command and control. Additionally, we have Air Force, Marine and Army bases in the region from Japan to Guam, and full capability to deliver ground forces anywhere we would need to. We have a Ballistic Missile Defense shield to prevent North Korea from striking any ally in the area as well as U.S. targets as far away as Alaska and Hawaii. With all of this capability we could have attacked North Korea at any time, destroying the sites they use to launch the Taepodong missiles that threaten the region. South Korea could even join in on the ground assault that would follow and within a few days be in control of the North. Yet, we do not take this action. Rather, we have been steadily building up good will throughout the Pacific and conducting training exercises with our allies in the region

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

The recruiting slogan A Global Force for Good is more than just a marketing technique. Over the last decade we have been winning over the collective conscious of the entire Pacific Rim through our peaceful actions in the region, including countless humanitarian missions of relief, as well as planned missions such as Pacific Partnership. This has even inspired China to adopt our methods. Rather than sabre rattling and shows of force as an outlet, China has built state of the art Hospital Ships and adopted a humanitarian pose throughout the same areas we visit regularly. The battle is less about who would win a conflict and more about which side the world would look to fall behind. We have been in the news recently for two acts of assistance to Iranian citizens. On the 5th of January the USS Kidd (a Destroyer) freed an Iranian fishing crew held hostage onboard their own vessel by pirates using it as a floating base to raid other vessels in the region (Jordan 2012). Then, this week the U.S. Coast Guard rescued a crew of Iranians from a vessel whose engine room was flooding (Martinez 2012). Both have garnered International attention and good will throughout the region. This could become a regular habit if we continue to focus on the Piracy issue as a priority for the Persian Gulf. Conducting regular Naval exercises with our allies such as the British, Australians, Germans, and even the French in the Gulf would be a significant show of force toward Iran. Most of these Nations have already expressed concern over Irans current path (Martinez 2012) so should be easily persuaded to this course. U.S. Ground forces already in Bahrain could begin further exercises with our regional allies in support of these naval exercises. This would act as a deterrent toward Iran, as well as enable better coordination between our forces and the European and Middle Eastern allies opposed to Iran in the event a full scale war ever develops. Any countries looking to ally themselves with Iran would be forced to see what type of force would be used against them during a conflict. The United Nations would be able to take a larger role in

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

any such action rather than just maintaining sanctions. This much international pressure from such a large coalition could force Russia and China to assume a different stance than what they have done publicly. Imposing any further sanctions has been stalled by the efforts of Russia and China. Forcing these two nations to back off somewhat in the light of such international pressure could allow further sanctions to be applied, and have other countries enforce them. Rather than a conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran, it would be the might of the entire West against Iran and any allies foolish enough to side with them. Such a scenario is much more likely to force Iran away from all-out War. Conclusion Although Kroenigs assertion of an eventual conflict with a Nuclear backed Iran may be inevitable, this should not be used as an excuse to violate our laws or principles. The use of torture has already tarnished our reputation throughout the world, unprovoked attacks would further erode any form of our moral high ground remaining. Adopting a different approach; relying on international support and pressure, strengthening the interoperability in the Gulf between the US Navy and our allies, and continuing to sway public opinion in the region; would accomplish much the same outcome of preventing or delaying a nuclear conflict with Iran. Yet my approach would allow the United States to actually follow our own dictates, foster good relations within the Persian Gulf and with our allies around the world, and paint Iran into a corner both politically and economically. Continuing to repeat the mistakes of the past such as we did in Iraq is the wrong course of action for our country. Only by approaching our actions abroad in different ways can we hope for a safer future for our nation and an end to constant conflict and death.

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

References Anonymous (2012) US condemns bomb attack on Iran nuclear scientist. BBC News January 11, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16519304 Jordan, Bryant (2012) Navy Frees Iranian Boat, Crew From Pirates. Military.com News, January 6, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.military.com/news/article/navy-freesiranian-boat-crew-from-pirates.html?ESRC=navy-a.nl Kroenig, Matthew (2012) Time to Attack Iran; Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option. Foreign Affairs January/February 2012; Vol. 91 Num. 1, pg. 76-86 Marcus, Jonathan (2012) Is a US-Iran maritime clash inevitable? BBC News January 10, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16485842 Martinez, Luis & Ferran, Lee (2012) US Military Rescues Iranian Sailors, Again. ABC World News January 10, 2012. Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-militaryrescues-iranian-sailors/story?id=15331425#.Tw40V7xXsr4

EVALUATION ESSAY: Position on a Preemptive Strike on Iran

10