D12HW2 Large Scale Revisions

For the most part I was pretty happy with the introduction, conclusion, point sentences, and the structure of my argument. What I found that I didn't like I changed but for the most part it was just some awry sentence structure. I also caught a few more gramatical errors this time around. The major revisions were that I added a new point to a part of my argument complete with evidence and such, and I added a sentence to my conclusion to cover a point I had wanted to add there.


For many years the Middle East has been a dangerous part of the world. For the most part American’s ignored it. The Middle East was the Middle East’s problem. We were safe over here so who cared what happened in a ragged patch of dirt across the ocean. September 11 was a wake up call. In one horrible day we were made aware of the threat posed by fanatics based in the Middle East. The American people called out for action and the government obliged them. Thus, today we find ourselves embroiled in a conflict in the Middle East. Though our focus is on Iraq there are more threats looming just over the horizon waiting to complicate an already complicated situation. Iran is one of those threats. Not only are there wide spread reports from our military that Iranian weapons and training are being used to support insurgents in Iraq and around the world but Iran has also begun a nuclear development program which many fear is aimed at the creation of nuclear weapons. The question which needs to asked is, based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people.
The situation with Iran, like any other crisis, will result in one of two things; military conflict or a peaceful resolution. Now there are many levels of armed conflict such as military strikes, special operations, or war. The worst of these is obviously war as it will cost the most in resources, international relations with the Middle East, and human lives. It is on this possibility that we will focus on in terms of results of the current crisis. Some things that must be considered are likely causes for war, likely occurrences, and the probable outcomes of such a conflict.
There are three likely occurrences, which could lead to large-scale conflict with Iran. The first is if hard evidence of Iranian foul play is found. Specifically either evidence of the Iranian government developing nuclear weapons or intelligence linking top Iranian officials to support of terrorist groups around the world, especially in Iraq. The U.S. and its allies are attempting to rally support against Iran in the United Nations as well as other international organizations (Katel). Hard evidence of the type described would give them the proof needed to gather large amounts of support from the international community for their case against Iran. As with Iraq, evidence of foul play would result in conflict if international demands on Iran by the international community were not quickly met. Second, a lack of communication between the U.S., and it’s allies, with the Iranian government would likely result in a rapid disintegration of relations with that Persian country. Currently, the U.S. and many of its allies are refusing to enter into negotiations with Iran until the Iranians cease Uranium enrichment (Bahgat). In response the Iranian government has stated their refusal to bow to this demand from the “arrogant powers." As this lack of communication continues both sides become more resolved to resist the other and the farther we come from a peaceful resolution. A prime example was Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statement at the U.N. where he said that the issue of his country’s nuclear programs was closed (Hoge). Third, in the event that the U.S. and it’s allies initiate military strikes against Iran it is possible that the situation could spin out of control into a full scale war. Coalition forces have already begun building up their military presence in northern Iraq and the Persian Gulf to prepare for the possibility of conflict (Scott). At the same time Iran has stated that it is prepared to retaliate on Coalition targets in the event they are attacked (Guards: Length and Breadth). A Coalition strike on an Iranian target could result in Iranian retaliation, which in turn would likely result in another Coalition strike. As with a schoolyard fight, a few shoves could result in punches being thrown, and those punches could result in an all out brawl.
Several occurrences are likely to occur during a large-scale conflict with Iran, which are very important to consider. First, the U.N. and most Arabic nations will likely stay out of the conflict unless hard evidence of Iranian foul play is produced. Many Arabic nations, specifically the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), are wary of Iran’s aggressive foreign policy (Baghat). However, they are more wary of taking sides in a large-scale conflict, which would likely destabilize the entire region. In the event of a war they will probably do what they have done with Iraq; stay out of it and look to their own countries. The U.N. too, will likely steer clear as there are current divisions in opinion of how to handle Iran, specifically coming from China and Russia who are major economic partners with Iran (Katel). Such divisions have, in the past, essentially paralyzed the U.N. in terms of military action and this pattern would likely repeat itself in Iran (Masci). However, the flipside is that the finding of hard evidence of Iranian foul play could unite the U.N. enough to substantially support military operations against Iran.
Second, a large-scale conflict with Iran would probably have a heavy reliance on U.S. resources and military forces. This is contingent on a lack of support from the international community. Without large scale support from other nations the Coalition would have no choice but to rely on the U.S. as in Iraq (Ricks). This might not be a huge problem if the conflict is resolved quickly. However, if it turns into a long-term conflict, as with Iraq, it could create problems. Third, this reliance would result in a major stretching of U.S. resources. We are already “feeling the pain” supporting our operations in Iraq, adding Iran to the equation would result in a major stretch of U.S. resources. The large bulk of the military would probably have to be put on deployment until the conflict is resolved because we would not have the reserves of troops available to maintain the troop rotation we use now. Another grim possibility is that a draft could be initiated to support the war effort. This conflict, if mismanaged like Iraq, could take years though there is the possibility that the learning we have been forced to do in Iraq would allow us to do well with a similar operation in Iran. The fourth likely occurrence would be a large influx of insurgents in Iran both from within and from other countries. Going into Iran could easily be seen by many Arabs as an imperialistic move by the U.S. Many Arabs could be pulled “off the bench” and convinced to resist a perceived “anti-Muslim Crusade” by the U.S. and other Western powers (Katel). Also a large portion of the Iranian military, specifically the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its militia protégé the Basij, would be ideal for use in an insurgency movement (Iranian Military Guide). Also, these insurgents would likely have access to leadership and training by experienced terrorists now battle hardened from their activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Based on these likely occurrences we arrive at some likely outcomes of a large-scale conflict, and unfortunately they don’t constitute a happy ending. The punch line is that operations in both Iran and Iraq would fail. It would probably go much like the Vietnam War. The stress on U.S. resources would result not only in the dwindling of those resources but would almost certainly negatively effect domestic support for operation’s in the Middle East, especially if success is not quickly seen in the new operations in Iran. This would be likely to eventually result in the decision to cut our losses and pull out, essentially admitting defeat and leave. Without U.S. support all other Coalition forces would undoubtedly pull out as well. A U.S. defeat of this scale would result, not only in the large cost of resources and human lives, but also in the severe diminishing of America’s image in the international community. This would have a very negative impact on our ability to influence foreign policy and decision-making in the international community. The big kid on campus would now be the large fool that everyone is increasingly sure they can push around. Second, this pullout would result in the freeing up of large amounts of reinforced and well-funded extremists who would then be able to turn their attention on the west. All the insurgents who will have been fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran would now be able to turn their hostilities towards attacks in Europe and the U.S. Though many would likely become caught up in a post withdrawal struggle, the amount of terrorist activity would still be likely to increase significantly. Third, as is feared by the GCC, the region would likely be destabilized. The withdrawal by the U.S. would create a power vacuum, unless the Iraqi and Afghani governments become substantially stronger at this point. As we’ve seen throughout history this vacuum would result in bloody conflicts and civil wars. This chaotic/ungoverned atmosphere would result in an environment in which terrorists and criminals would thrive. Some other important points are that extremists would see the withdrawal of the U.S. as an unprecedented victory, which would only encourage them to step up their efforts. Also, the bloody aftermath of the withdrawal would be seen as the U.S.’ fault and result in only more hostility against the U.S. Finally, the victory by the insurgencies in the Middle East would increase the conviction in similar groups around the world that such methods are effective. This could have disastrous consequences for all nations. Groups which may have, till then, been relatively peaceful in their methods (or at only passively violent) could turn to far more aggressive and deadly tactics when they see the success such strategies achieve in the Middle East. Groups, which had been bad enough to begin with, might increase their ferocity. Then to round it out, new groups could emerge to use this effective new tool or to simply capitalize on the chaos.
Finally we come to the second of the possible resolutions to the situation with Iran, a peaceful one. Now with a peaceful resolution it isn’t so much a question of what will happen, what it will result in, and so on. That’s pretty well self-explanatory. A peaceful agreement is reached, we all play nice, and everybody lives happily ever after… or do they? In any case the main issue, as this is the outcome we want, is what needs to happen so that we can reach a peaceful resolution.
There are several requirements that must be reached in order to ensure a peaceful resolution. The first requirement is that communications between the two sides are opened and kept open. The key to peaceful resolution is open, meaningful dialogue backed by a threat of violence. We can talk all day but unless Iran knows we have the ability to back up our side forcefully our argument holds no real significance to them. Now this isn’t just communication with Iran. This means communication between the U.S. and other countries as well as communication between the various agencies, and institutions within the U.S. This lack of communication occurred in Iraq and could repeat itself in Iran (Ricks) with disastrous consequences. Also, as previously stated, the current lack of communication is resulting in a deterioration of the situation, which could, at least for the most part, be adverted by meaningful negotiations. Second, better security operations are needed in the border regions of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan as well as on the Persian Gulf. Operations in these areas need to be stepped up to help crackdown on the traffic of insurgents and weapons coming out of Iran. If Iran is truly not involved in these activities then their help in these operations would be extremely beneficial. However, if they are engaged in activities supporting the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan then they would be useless and the resources for these stepped up operations would have to be made by the Coalition or, ideally, from the international community. Specifically, the local Iraqi and Afghani forces would do well for this work, as it would involve increased customs and security operations on the Iranian border. Perhaps a no man’s zone or security fence (border wall) in the border areas could achieve success. Third, stemming from the initial point of communication, the Iranian government would need to work closely with U.S. and Coalition leadership on resolving the outstanding issues between the two institutions. Sincere effort seen on both sides to solve these problems could do wonders. It would likely drastically improve relations between all the involved nations and do good for Operation Enduring Freedom as well as for the Iranian people. However, no observed effort on either side will result in the further deterioration of relations and increase the conviction that other, likely more violent, actions need to be taken.
Now we look at the importance of being prepared in case of military conflict. The better prepare for the possibility, the better it will go if it does happen. First, intelligence gathering on Iran needs to be stepped up. This is almost certainly already happening. However, there are some difficulties in gathering intelligence on Iran due to the fact that Americans generally don’t have access to the country as we have no embassy there, we don’t deal with them economically, and it’s not really a vacation hotspot (Bruno). It is critical that good intelligence be gathered so as not to repeat the failures of Iraq. Increased communications with Iran would make intelligence gathering easier while at the same time improving the chances for a peaceful resolution. It’s also important that intelligence gathering be a priority with Iran because if they are doing something nefarious it is critical that we catch it as that could have a huge effect on the outcome of the entire crisis. Second, the U.S. needs to make great efforts to gather resources and allies to not only back them politically, but with resources and military assistance in case of a conflict. To go in without enough support as was done in Iraq would invite disaster (Ricks). It is extremely important to be able to share the burden of military resources and manpower in case of a conflict to alleviate the stress on the already taxed U.S. Third, it would be good to focus everyone on doing what they do best. In terms of military and security operations the U.N. has not historically been effective. The U.S. and institutions such as NATO and the European Union have been more successful in these roles. The U.N. does, however, have the institutions in place and fair success in acting as a nuclear watchdog and forum for International disputes, at least more so than the U.S. and the Coalition. Letting everyone do what they do best, while maintaining good communication between, would be the most efficient and effective means of combating the threat presented by Iran. Finally, planning needs to be made for military operations against Iran with thought put into all the likely eventualities. We need to be prepared to act quickly and efficiently in case force is needed. This is especially critical if Iran is found to be producing nuclear weapons. An important note for this planning also, is to not just plan for the initial combat operations but for security and any reconstruction operations necessary as well. This lack of thought for post-major combat operations was the root of a great deal of the problems we are experiencing with Iraq and must not be allowed to repeat themselves should we enter into conflict with Iran (Ricks).
Based on the current situation in Iran, what are the likely outcomes and what steps can we take to ensure the best outcome for the American people. We have looked at the two possible methods of resolution to the situation with Iran; military conflict and peaceful resolution. We’ve looked at the factors involved with these two possibilities and some suggestions have been made as to how to secure the preferable resolution; peaceful.
The situation with Iran is an extremely complex situation, as is any international crisis. It is affected by a thousand different factors, and a change in any of such could drastically change the situation as we know it. When responding to it one needs to work from a wide variety of angles in order to achieve success. In addition to this wide range of approaches it is also important to keep in mind the other side, Iran. We can’t allow ourselves to be one-sided in our efforts and negotiations, as no peaceful resolution will be reached if we alienate the Iranian people. The key to a peaceful resolution is open, meaningful negotiations backed by a threat of violence.