Is Iran Next?

Back in 2002, President Bush referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" harkening back to the Axis Powers of World War II. This was meant to rally support behind the belief that these three nations were openly supporting terrorism and working tirelessly to construct weapons of mass destruction. At the time, North Korea was really the only nation that was at the forefront of nuclear weapons. We know this because President Kim Jong-Il blatantly flaunted this technology to anyone who was willing to listen. However, there was a great deal of evidence being shown at the time that Iraq, who had suspected ties (at the time) to the attacks of 9/11, was developing a nuclear weapons program in secret that was meant to strike the United States.

This reasoning was enough to take the country to war against Iraq which had not really shown any outward signs of aggression towards the United States at that time. Be that as it may, eight years later, the fact remains that nuclear weapons were not found in the country and neither were ties to the attacks of 9/11. Still, some satisfaction can be taken from the fact that an evil regime was put down and attempts at establishing a democracy in that nation are proceeding albeit with baby steps. But now with efforts being undertaken by the Obama administration to affect the withdrawl of all US forces from Iraq, there are complaints by many of his opponents that he is showing weakness or deferrence to the 'enemy' by not taking stronger stances against other Middle East hot spots, namely Iran.

Opposition leaders, like television talking-head Sarah Palin, seek to offer advice to Obama by stating that if he were to "declare war" on Iran then perhaps those who don't support him would see that he is actually tougher on perceived enemies than his opponents think. Now taking advice from someone of Sarah Palin's standing can be a hit or miss thing and I would leave it up to the Obama administration to decide whether it is a logical decision or not but I would simply ask where we in the United States would choose to draw the line. Eight years and counting in Iraq have stretched US military forces thin and now the fact that efforts in Afghanistan (which were wrongly allowed to languish in favor of more support to Iraq) are picking up in intensity.

That being the case then should we really be focusing on Iran as our next target? Ask the average person, Palin included, and I'm sure they'd be hard pressed to locate Iran on a map let alone name the President of Iran. And even if they can, what's the point in attacking them? Sure they have spoken out in protest of the United States but then again so have many nations. France often thumbs its nose at us here in the US and it's a known fact that American tourists can often be insulted over there but I don't see any calls to invade France. And what about North Korea? They have clearly stated to anyone who will listen that they have nuclear weapons and have a willingness to use them. Why then are we ignoring that region in favor of looking at a nation that is full of more bluster at this point.

If the arguement is that it would be a pre-emptive strike meant to prove to the other Middle East nations that the US won't stand for nuclear weapons among any of the Muslim nations of the region then okay, but if it is supposed to be against nuclear weapons in general then why not plan to invade any nation with such weapons? For decades the US stood toe-to-toe against the Russians during the Cold War. At that time there was an enemy that we knew had nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them and we had the world's support if we had gone to war. But we didn't. Why? Because it wasn't the right thing to do. Before suggesting a course of action that will stretch our military even thinner and would reduce our standing among the other nations of the world even more, I think our leaders need to step back and re-evaluate what exactly they stand for; what do we have to gain; but most especially, what would we stand to lose?