All Alone in the Night

The United States is executing a show of force mission off the Iranian coast, flying simulated attack missions off two U.S. carriers. While I have seen no formal declarations stating that the purpose of the mission is to demonstrate the U.S.'s ability to project force against Iran, that seems to be a clear basis for the mission. As Iran continues its quest to join the nuclear nations, the U.S. may be getting more desperate to stop them, placing the two nations on a dangerous course.

While I would prefer to see Iran refrain from developing nuclear weapons, I do not believe it is worth going to war to stop them. As has been seen in Iraq and North Korea, too many nations believe that they need to have nuclear weapons to forestall an American attack on them. American protestations that they have no intention of attacking any particular nation ring hollow because the United States has demonstrated its willingness to strike anywhere it feels its interests are threatened. To Americans, these attacks may appear judicious and justified, but to an outsider, the attacks underscore the risks other nations face if they do not have a method for deterring U.S. action against them. Hence the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons. While it is possible that Iran will follow through on its threats to strike at Israel with nuclear devices, I'm not at all convinced they're willing to commit suicide no matter how much they may dislike Israel and Jews in general.

This is not a problem that can be solved in the short term. The ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq and threats against Iran provide ample evidence for the rest of the world that the U.S. is capable and willing of attacking other nations when and where they so choose. Even were the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq and cease any belligerent moves against Iran, it would take at least five to ten years of no further bellicosity before the rest of the world might begin to feel comfortable with the U.S. While that comfort level was growing, Iran and nations like it would likely continue to maintain nuclear weapons programs to guard against the U.S. backsliding. Conversely, the problem will remain as long as the U.S. arrogates to itself the right to strike anywhere in the world whenever they consider it in their best interests.

I am not opposed to preemptive warfare akin to that practiced by Israel in 1967, when there was ample evidence the Arab world was going to strike at Israel, so they struck first. If the U.S. were to receive solid evidence of an impending attack against it, it would be within its rights to strike first. But preemptive warfare akin to Iraq is more likely to do harm than good. It forces other nations to seek means to prevent such attacks against themselves, which right now means nuclear weapons. Were the U.S. to renounce such tactics, it would go no small difference in reducing the perceived threat the U.S. poses to the rest of the world.

Readers may be offended by my assertion that the U.S. poses a threat to other nations. The U.S., after all, prides itself on only acting from the highest of motives, and I believe that it has done so more often than not over the past 20 years. But while the U.S. may claim purity of intent, the fact remains it has launched five wars of varying intensity during that time, only one of which could be claimed as justified in defense of the U.S. Regardless of the U.S.'s intentions, what the world sees is a behemoth that holds itself to a different standard than the rest of the world and that all too often lashes out as lesser powers. As long as the perception holds, the U.S. will face greater difficulties than it should. Given how easy it would be to reduce and eventually eliminate that perception, perhaps it's about time the U.S. began.

A good start would be ending shows of force like the one mentioned above.