Pentagon preparing for 'military action' against Iran
Chris Davies, Daily Vidette Staff
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: News
Last Friday the nation's top military officer said that the United States Defense Department was preparing for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran.
These actions are in response to what Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained as Tehran government's increasingly lethal influence in Iraq.
According to Issam Nassar, ISU history professor, Iran has no plans to attack the U.S. and represents no imminent threat to national security. He explained that Iran has expressed its policy as simply to protect itself from U.S. intervention in the region.
"The current administration is faced with a nation that is questioning the Iraq war more than ever. The Iraq war was clearly a disaster for Iraq and for the U.S. role in the region. A war with Iran might, in the minds of some in Washington, weaken the influence of Iran in Iraq and might rally support behind the president at this time," Nassar said.
He added that plans for war on Iran are by no means new, however, were the U.S. to take action it could have widespread effects upon the Middle East as a whole.
"[If there were to be a conflict] I would imagine that the tensions would heighten in the region. Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq will be affected in various ways. The war in Iraq might get complicated and this might also complicate the situation in Lebanon," Nassar said. "It might encourage Israel to attack Iran. In fact, it might be the cover needed for Israel to do so. It signals a tough U.S. line on Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This comes at a time when Israel seems to want to break ranks with the U.S. by pursuing a peaceful track with Syria."
Shée Ashbrook, a junior mass communications major, does not believe it would be good for the U.S. to enter into another "preemptive war".
"We already have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, entering a third country would be too much for the people and the army," Ashbrook said.
Despite having troops currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mullen believes that a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces. He cited the reserve capabilities of the Navy and the Air Force as a possible way to manage another war.
However, Mullen made it clear that a diplomatic solution is preferred in this situation, saying "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the near future."
The recent statements from the Defense department suggest that Iran is providing weapons, training, and financing to Iraqi groups who are attacking and killing American soldiers.
Army General David Petraeus, who was recently named head of all forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing on Iranian involvement in Iraq. The briefing will cover the recent discovery of Iranian weapons in Iraq, among other things.
These actions are in response to what Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained as Tehran government's increasingly lethal influence in Iraq.
According to Issam Nassar, ISU history professor, Iran has no plans to attack the U.S. and represents no imminent threat to national security. He explained that Iran has expressed its policy as simply to protect itself from U.S. intervention in the region.
"The current administration is faced with a nation that is questioning the Iraq war more than ever. The Iraq war was clearly a disaster for Iraq and for the U.S. role in the region. A war with Iran might, in the minds of some in Washington, weaken the influence of Iran in Iraq and might rally support behind the president at this time," Nassar said.
He added that plans for war on Iran are by no means new, however, were the U.S. to take action it could have widespread effects upon the Middle East as a whole.
"[If there were to be a conflict] I would imagine that the tensions would heighten in the region. Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq will be affected in various ways. The war in Iraq might get complicated and this might also complicate the situation in Lebanon," Nassar said. "It might encourage Israel to attack Iran. In fact, it might be the cover needed for Israel to do so. It signals a tough U.S. line on Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. This comes at a time when Israel seems to want to break ranks with the U.S. by pursuing a peaceful track with Syria."
Shée Ashbrook, a junior mass communications major, does not believe it would be good for the U.S. to enter into another "preemptive war".
"We already have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, entering a third country would be too much for the people and the army," Ashbrook said.
Despite having troops currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mullen believes that a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces. He cited the reserve capabilities of the Navy and the Air Force as a possible way to manage another war.
However, Mullen made it clear that a diplomatic solution is preferred in this situation, saying "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the near future."
The recent statements from the Defense department suggest that Iran is providing weapons, training, and financing to Iraqi groups who are attacking and killing American soldiers.
Army General David Petraeus, who was recently named head of all forces in the Middle East, is preparing a briefing on Iranian involvement in Iraq. The briefing will cover the recent discovery of Iranian weapons in Iraq, among other things.
Be the first to comment on this story