Politicking Iran

By Owen Wirth

In dealing with the potential conflict in Iran there has clearly been a lot of discussion from political elites in America as to what the proper course of action should be. This being an election year this discussion has also come with a dose of pandering to the public. Republican candidates for president are pandering mostly to the base of the party, while trying to have general election appeal; meanwhile much of what is heard from President Obama has been talk of justification for his actions, mainly that he remains adamant that the effect of the sanctions has had an impact on the situation and it is not clear if more pressure, political or military, is necessary. 

President Obama warned the Republican party about the dangers "loose talk of war" while giving a speech to the AIPAC, the most influential Israeli lobby group in the country, saying that throwing around the idea of military conflict with Iran will only bolster their craving for an active nuclear program. In this address he says that both Israel and America are in agreement that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon, and that sanctions still have the possibility of working, but the option is ultimately on Iran to "choose a path that brings them back into the community of nations, or they can continue down a dead end." 

Republicans on the other hand have taken a more militarized approach to Iran. According to Mitt Romney's website, if he were president the option of military intervention would always be on the table (just as it is for Obama), but he would insist on shoring up the Arab alliances the U.S. has in the Middle East and also actively having aircraft carriers present in the region. Romney also supports sanctions on Iran but says they "are not ends in themselves." Rick Santorum's website lays out a plethora of options that he would carry out if elected, including treating nuclear scientists as enemy combatants in the Iranian regime and developing a military attack to have available if it becomes necessary. 

Michael Walzer's concept of sufficient threat becomes a thought provoking concept after discussing these three positions. According to Walzer, an attack is only justified as non-aggressive when three conditions have been satisfied by an outside sovereign nation: there must be a manifest intent to injure, there must be active preparation towards this action, and waiting must greatly magnify the risk. 

Looking at the situation from Iran's position, Barack Obama's position immediately does not satisfy the first prong because he has explicitly stated that military action, though on the table, is not something the U.S. should be actively preparing for. Under these policies an Iranian attack or aggressive action would be unjustified. 

If Mitt Romney were current leader, it would seem that America would have an intent to injure because it would be reassuring alliances and increasing military presence in the region while simultaneously stating stark opposition to the Iranian nation and its policies and constantly insisting that military action is the best option. Romney's position does not entail the third prong of waiting increasing the risk because the only thing that would increase the risk is continued preparatory nuclear acts by Iran. 

On the flip side, Iran's actions have not satisfied all three prongs of the Walzerian principle either, because exaggerated threats don't qualify as a manifest intent to injure, and although they have resisted any inspection so it is impossible to know for sure, we cannot assume they are actively preparing for attack. However, with the stake of nuclear weapons it could be argued that the third prong is more than satisfied because waiting can increase the risk tenfold by Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.