Op-Ed - Military Action Against Iran is Wrong Choice

Op-Ed

Barbara Lee
San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, March 21, 2010

As the Obama administration continues its push for U.N. Security Council acquiescence to new sanctions over Iran's nuclear program, an overwhelming majority of Congress has expressed support for imposing broad, unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran.

In December, the House voted in support of mandatory, economy-wide sanctions. In January, the Senate unanimously supported similarly harsh measures. As the bill moves toward conference, the administration is actively seeking needed changes in the form of increased flexibility and exemptions for international partners.

As the United States and its international allies consider their next move in the face of Iranian obstinacy toward negotiations and toward compliance with Iran's Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, the darkening clouds surrounding Iran's nuclear program are troubling. Also troubling is the drumbeat from some quarters urging a military strike in Iran - an unwise option with far-reaching negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy and security interests in the region.

During a recent official visit to Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, our bipartisan congressional delegation discussed the views of the region's leaders about Iran's nuclear program, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and other issues vital to U.S. national security interests and security in the region.

Although each country's leaders differed in their approach, all were extremely concerned about what a nuclear weapons capability in Iran would do to the region and the world. Some countries emphasized tougher sanctions; others believed sanctions would further hurt the Iranians and increase Iran's hostility. Most troubling to them were suggestions from some quarters that targeted military strikes would be the best option.

A Feb. 19 editorial in the Wall Street Journal stated that "finally the option of a military strike will have to be put more squarely on the table. ... After a year of lost time, Mr. Obama needs to put aside the diplomatic illusions of his campaign to make the hard decisions that a president is elected to make."

To the contrary, the Obama administration's commitment to diplomatic engagement has finally opened the door to a coordinated, international response to the Iranian regime's intransigence. President Obama has made the hard decision in Iran, pursuing the difficult path of negotiations and fracturing hard-line elements within the country's ruling regime. It is the counterproductive push for a military strike in Iran that represents an illusion of progress toward resolving Iran's flagrancy in its nuclear program.

After visiting the region, I am even more convinced that military action would further destabilize the region, increase the threat of terrorism and dash any hope for meaningful negotiations toward a just and lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Targeted, and preferably, multilateral sanctions can be effective in the right circumstances, but they should never be viewed as a step on the path to war.

While there was disagreement over the justification for war with Iraq, which I strongly opposed, it is a fact that Iran has more influence in Iraq now than before the invasion. Hard-line elements inside and outside Iran have consistently taken advantage of conflict and crisis to increase their influence and undermine moderate voices in the region. As the United States remains embroiled in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and works to provide the space for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, our actions in Iran cannot be viewed in isolation. Every action, every decision has a consequence, and these consequences must be factored into our overall approach to Iran and to the region.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, is a seven-term congresswoman.

Source