US Must do more to Combat Iran's Influence

President Bush revealed this week that he has authorized the American military in Iraq to capture or kill Iranian operatives who are engaged in activities that are killing US soldiers and Iraqi civilians or helping Iraqi militias in doing the same. It appears that along with fighting American and Iraqi government forces themselves, the Iranians have been providing terrorist groups and militias with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IED’s, which have accounted for approximately seventy percent of US military casualties.

President Bush has made the correct choice in deciding to take strong and decisive action against these Iranian operatives. Iran’s leaders, specifically President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, must be taught a lesson: Iran will not be allowed to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors by sowing chaos in an attempt to become the regional power. If executed correctly, this new policy in Iraq could have longer reaching effects than simply saving American and Iraqi lives; it will give the United States a stronger diplomatic hand in dealing with Iran in regards to its nuclear ambitions. This increased diplomatic weight will be especially important considering reports are now surfacing that Iran has authorized the installation of 3,00 centrifuges, which are necessary for enriching uranium for nuclear devices.

Iran has become increasingly brazen and ambitious with its nuclear plans and UN sanctions against it are set to expire in about a month, with no accomplishments to be seen. Although UN sanctions are hardly ever effective, some in the US have criticized Bush’s new policy. They contend that killing and capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq could provoke Iran to strike back against American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are two points that must be understood here.

First of all, Iran can not be provoked in this situation. Quite contrary, Iran has actually provoked the United States. By actively supporting terrorist groups and undermining the legitimate Iraqi government, Iran has forced the US to respond in this manner. Could anyone reasonably expect the US to stand by idly as its troops are killed and resources drained by an active but semi-clandestine aggressor?

Secondly, Iran can respond in one of at least two ways to this new policy. It can either increase the amount of operatives it has in Iraq or pursue a more open and militaristic campaign against the United States. Both are highly unlikely, however. The former is unlikely because it is within Iran’s interest to be undermining the US as much as possible. This means that Iran is most likely already utilizing the majority of its available resources to get this done in Iraq. It seems improbable that Iran would contribute many more troops or resources to its operations in Iraq, because it should already be doing so.

Iran’s second possible response seems even less likely than the first for several strategic reasons. Iran is bordered on two sides by Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US maintains large military garrisons. In the event that Iran did decide to take up open arms against the US, it would be facing an immediate two front war. Likewise, the US has increased its naval presence in the Persian Gulf in recent weeks. On top of this large and domineering American military presence, the majority of Middle Eastern nations are opposed to Iran’s ambitions. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and a number of other Sunni-dominated countries might not take up open arms against an Iranian aggressor, but they would certainly do everything else they could to aid in its defeat.

It appears then that Iran is in between a rock and a hard place. It does not have the military ability or allies to take up open arms against the US and it is perhaps one of the few nations in the world who have even less credibility on the world stage than the US. Despite these truths though, Iran still poses as one of the greatest threats to American and Middle Eastern interests in the world. Its very real and burgeoning nuclear ambitions and capabilities are a real trouble spot.

Because of this, the US should be doing even more to combat Iran’s influence. The US should be networking with dissident religious and political groups within Iran who are opposed to Ahmadinejad’s radical rule. If these groups can be provided with the knowledge and resources to either overthrow Ahmadinejad, weaken his power or defeat him in election, his ability to undermine the US in Iraq will be weakened. While UN sanctions will never amount to anything substantial, it is important to pursue as tough of sanctions as possible because as Iran refuses to follow them, it continues to lose credibility with member nations. As Iran loses credibility, it becomes easier for the US to mount a case against it.

President Bush has made the correct decision in capturing and killing Iranian operatives, but he should take this policy one step further, and actively undermine Iran. It is the only way to better the chances of American success in Iraq, create long-term stability in the region and lessen the chances of more conflict in the future.