|
Iran needs to hear firm no on nukes
by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Published in the Chicago Tribune June 29, 2008
The Bush administration's careful strategy of sanctions against Iran for its nuclear defiance has been on a glide slope of diminishing returns, and Iran has continued to plow ahead. By incrementally advancing its nuclear program while incrementally reducing its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran is creeping methodically toward a nuclear weapons capability.
Although the two presidential candidates sounded similarly tough on Iran during recent speeches, there is a crucial difference between how Republicans and Democrats view the value of American power.
Sen. Barack Obama thinks the cause of Iran's defiance is the invasion of Iraq, which he warned at the time would "fan the flames" of extremism. "Because of the Iraq war, Iran . . . is emboldened."
I see a different problem: American weariness of the Iraq war, and military overstretch, may give Iran an impression of American self-doubt and weakness. That is a much more realistic explanation for why Iran has been emboldened in its drive toward nuclear weapons.
An Iranian nuclear weapons capability will make an already unstable region and world much more dangerous. Iran will feel free to be far more aggressive, protected by the fearsome power of a nuclear deterrent. More dangerous still, rogue elements within the regime might pass nuclear materials to terrorists for attacks with no return address. The result could be nuclear proliferation spiraling out of control. In the face of these dangers, the international community must convince Iran that cooperating with the IAEA—not acquiring nuclear weapons—is the path to security. Economic sanctions and boycotts of oil exports can work, if supported by the countries of the free world. But if some of our friends and allies continue business and economic ties with Iran, stronger efforts may be necessary.
Those who think we have no feasible military option tend only to consider a doomsday scenario of massive air strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet far more limited military options, such as reconnaissance overflights, a blockade of Iran's crucial gasoline imports and limited strikes against regime assets, can still add enormous leverage to our cause.
By being unambiguous in our intentions we can maximize the chances that we may not have to use force at all.
A strategy of diplomacy and increasingly painful economic and military levers can work if we hold in reserve the threat of overwhelming force.
The people and governments of the free world, in a united front, should leave no doubt about where we stand. Our right to defend ourselves has already been triggered by the inherent aggression of Iran's nuclear advances. This right does not need UN Security Council authorization. It does not need to pass any global test. It is an inherent right.
The perceived lack of will in response to Iran's aggression and violations of international law and United Nations mandates is a dangerous enticement to the hard-liners in Tehran, reassuring them they have little to lose and much to gain from developing a nuclear weapons capability. If the international community wants to maintain peace and security, Iran must be convinced that it has more to lose from a showdown over its nuclear program than we do. However, America and our allies must be convinced first.
The next president of the U.S. should unite responsible global leaders to offer Iran the olive branch of an honorable and peaceful compromise. But as Winston Churchill observed at the start of the Cold War: "Any sign that we can be bluffed or pushed around will be deadly." There can be no peace without strength, nor freedom without sacrifice.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) is chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
Read more published articles >>
|
