Breeze Perspectives: Making much ado with the Iran issue
By Anthony Riedel, contributing writer
Posted on April 24, 2006

Some national issues are easy to figure out: build a wall on the border and kick the illegal immigrants out; abortion is not only bad law but immoral (unless the mother and the baby’s health is in danger, of course); and the Republican Congress needs to stop spending like a bunch of drunken sailors. There is only one issue in which I cannot make up my mind for more than two weeks. It is like I’m Hillary Clinton speaking recently at a pro-illegal immigration rally in New York City after proclaiming that she is “adamantly opposed to illegal immigration.” What is this complicated issue? Iran. Let me provide my current position on an easy two-step solution if things get out of hand.

Step 1: “Peace through Strength.” If we use history as our guide, getting involved in Iran’s internal affairs could make things worse. The 1953 CIA coup that installed the Shah of Iran incited the Islamic Revolution. However, the current Iranian president could not be any more extreme. Not many world leaders call for war and chaos in order to beckon the 12th prophet of Islam onto Earth within the next two years. In contrast, most Iranians embrace democratic reform. America should provide ample support to these democratic reformers.

Meanwhile, America should unilaterally work toward diplomacy with Iran. We can no longer outsource the job to the French or the United Nations because they are simply incapable to take on any polarizing issue. We cannot depend on supposed allies like Russia unless we like to say “Et tu, Vladimir?” Russia is currently providing missile and anti-aircraft technology to Iran. Providing aid to the democratic reformers doesn’t look so bad anymore.

Step 2: “Bomb Iran until it glows in the dark.” First disable any anti-aircraft and military sites. Then quickly move on to the nuclear sites. We may not have to use nuclear bombs to accomplish this mission after all. We are currently designing the largest conventional bunker-busting bomb in history. Finally, to appease the Democrats, we can finish up by bombing some tents, camels and an aspirin factory when Condoleezza Rice is testifying in front of the next House Judiciary Committee impeachment meeting.

I am not advocating a U.S. military ground operation. Air strikes would be great cover for the pro-democracy reformers. I am not talking about a JFK-Bay of Pigs campaign; I’m talking about actually having a backbone and following through. Henry Kissinger views precision bombing as an appropriate method of removing the problem of a country while not seeking fundamental change of the country. It is kind of like removing a tumor while leaving the rest of the body to heal. Additionally, I am not opposed to giving the country some medicine to make the scars heal faster.

Sure, the price of oil may go up, but I’m willing to pay a few more cents at the pump to prevent American casualties. Besides, I heard ANWAR is nice for drilling this time of year. As for public relations, we can handle more countries publicly hating us, because privately they already do (see Russia above). Regarding our troops in Iraq that could be threatened by Iranian suicide bombers; I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to let the medicine kick in and leave that body to heal itself.

We need to keep in mind that we are a republic and not an empire. We should therefore be patient and focus on peaceful yet firm unilateral diplomatic pressure. We should not preemptively strike until we can be absolutely sure it is the best course of action. If all else fails, rest assure there is an easy two-step solution. However, if you ask me for my opinion, by the time this has been printed I may have already changed my mind.

Anthony Riedel is a junior communications major.