Seven Solid Reasons Not to Preemptively Strike Iran

To Strike or Not to Strike? That Is the Iranian Question

The US and Israel have been making a lot of noise lately about a possible preemptive strike against Iran. Some analysts and officials suspect Iran of trying to develop a nuclear weapon, particularly since Iran refused IAEA inspectors access to key sites and information. Though Iran insists that its nuclear program is strictly for the production of energy, it has developed a higher capacity for nuclear enrichment than necessary for civilian purposes, and experts agree that it is at least developing the technological capacity for nuclear weaponization even if it doesn't ultimately intend to build a bomb. Meanwhile, Israel worries that Iran is burying its nuclear facilities deeply enough to shield them from an Israeli airstrike (though not from an American bunker buster), meaning the window of opportunity for preemptive action may be closing. And the Sunni nations of the Middle East are nearly as nervous about Iranian intentions as Israel. The Saudis have openly urged the US to strike Iran, and only 16% of Egyptians say they'd be opposed to such an action.

The Case for a Preemptive Strike

Under such circumstances, there’s a plausible case to be made for a pre-emptive strike to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. The argument here is twofold.

1) If Iranian leaders got their hands on the bomb, they might be sorely tempted to use it. Iran's state ideology is scary on three levels. First, the regime accepts the apocalyptic theology of the Twelver Shi'a, according to which a messiah-figure called the Mahdi will soon return to destroy the enemies of Islam and inaugurate a global Islamic government. Apocalypticism is one of the more dangerous kinds of religion, because apocalyptic movements sometimes try to cleanse the world by violence and fire. Second, the Iranian Revolution is much like the Bolshevik and the American revolutions in the sense that it aspires to spread itself to other nations around the world. Territorial competition between the Bolshevik and American regimes brought them to the brink of nuclear war in 1962, so it seems ill-advised to let another, similar revolutionary movement acquire nuclear arms. And third, a number of top Iranian officials have expressed hostility toward Israel and even a determination to see it destroyed, a wish that a nuclear-armed Iran could conceivably achieve. Even if the chance of an actual nuclear attack on Israel is slim, no one wants to be the guy who played those odds and lost.

2) Our Middle Eastern allies are sufficiently skittish about a nuclear-armed Iran that they might make a mess of things without American support. A unilateral Israeli strike, for example, could provoke a devastating conventional war between the two nations. Alternatively, Sunni nations might seek to acquire their own nuclear bombs in order to deter the Iranian threat.

Seven Reasons Why a Strike is a Bad Idea

Although the case for a preemptive strike may seem compelling at first glance, the case against a trike is actually much more compelling. Here are seven reasons a preemptive strike would be a really bad idea.

1) We don't yet know for sure whether Iran will even build a nuclear weapon. Seriously, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. The Supreme Leader of Iran has explicitly declared on more than one occasion "that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons." The Supreme Leader's website explains, "An atomic bomb does not discriminate between good and bad people, and it is not something that the Islamic Republic would use." And if you think he's lying to save his skin, consider this: America's own top intelligence officials say that while Iran is clearly enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels, it has not resumed its efforts — discontinued in 2003 — to design a nuclear warhead. According to national intelligence director James Clapper, "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons." General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, agrees with Clapper's assessment.

If we learned anything from the Iraq War, it's that we need to heed the skepticism of the intelligence community and resist the temptation to leap to paranoid conclusions.

2) The regime's apocalyptic, revolutionary ideology isn't quite as dangerous and scary as it seems. Despite their apocalyptic beliefs, there's no reason to think the Iranian leaders have any plans to start a world-cleansing war. The apocalyptic groups that have turned violent historically have tended to come from the rootless poor, not from government elites. Elites have too much to lose to go around stirring up indiscriminate violence. And the Iranian Revolution differs from Russia's Bolshevik Revolution because its spread is limited by its smaller power base and the narrower appeal of its Shi'a theology. I don't deny that its expansionistic ambitions are a threat, especially to its near neighbors, but Iran cannot challenge the United States on the scale of the Soviet Union.

3) The regime isn't as anti-Semitic as some have made it out to be. It's a little-known fact that Iran has a small but vibrant Jewish community within its borders, which is treated fairly well by the regime. The Jews (like Christians) are protected by an edict of the Ayatollah Khomenei, the great father of Iran's Islamic Revolution. They enjoy limited but real freedom of worship, and the community is guaranteed one parliamentary representative at all times. So how do these facts square with the images of Iranians chanting "death to Israel" in the streets? Well, Iranian Jews actually sympathize with Muslim grievances against Israel, and distance themselves politically from Israel's "Zionist" government. And that is the important distinction so many commentators have missed. Most of the anti-Israel statements made by Iran's leaders are directed specifically against Israel's "Zionist regime". Their problem is not with Judaism as such, but with the politicized form of Judaism which sees itself as ethnically and religiously entitled to Palestinian lands. When Iranians say Israel should be destroyed, they're generally talking about the destruction of an illegitimate occupying government, not an act of genocide against all Jews.

4) The danger of rash action by our allies has been greatly exaggerated. Few Israelis support a unilateral strike without US backing, making any such action by the Israeli government unlikely. (This, by the way, is incredibly cool.) As for the danger that Saudi Arabia or some other Sunni country might try to develop its own deterrent, this could be prevented through diplomacy and, anyway, wouldn't be the end of the world. Any such program would prima facie be defensively rather than offensively motivated.

5) Even if it gets the bomb, Iran won't nuke Israel because nukes would irradiate the Palestinian homeland and Israel would counterattack. Irradiating the Palestinian homeland would defeat the whole purpose of wiping out the occupiers. They want to liberate Palestine, not render it uninhabitable.So if Iran ever goes to war against Israel, I suspect it won't be with nukes. More importantly, it's a certainty that if Iran launched a nuclear strike against Israel (even through terrorist proxies), Israel and/or the US would respond in kind. Iran's leaders know this. They aren't stupid. They won't launch an attack that would guarantee their own country's destruction.

6) If Iran does build a bomb, it will not necessarily be with offensive intentions. Imagine how threatened Iran's leaders must be feeling right now. The US has intervened in Iran before, and propped up a puppet dictator there for nearly three decades. More recently, George W. Bush named Iran as part of an "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. Now that American interventionism has toppled Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan, American and Israeli hawks are rattling the sabers against Iran. Iran finds itself literally encircled by US military bases, and confronted with exactly the same accusations that were used to justify war against Saddam. In short, the Iranian regime is in an extremely precarious position politically and militarily. And meanwhile, no one is messing with the other surviving "axis of evil" state, North Korea, because the North Korean weapons are already built. Under the circumstances, it's understandable that the Iranian leaders should attempt to secure a similar immunity.

Consider also the popularity of the nuclear program as a point of Iranian national pride. Iranians consider the American and Israeli accusations to be hypocritical and dishonest, since the US possesses nearly 10,000 nuclear devices and is the only nation which has ever actually used nukes in warfare. Furthermore, the US has employed a double-standard in its enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, supporting the Israeli nuclear program while taking a hard line against nuclear programs in Islamic countries. It's easy to see why Iranians feel outraged by the US's interference with their nuclear sovereignty. Taking these issues into account, we need to ask ourselves not only whether a preemptive strike would really be warranted, but also whether our saber-rattling might only be making matters worse. The best way to avert the development of an Iranian bomb may be to redress their security concerns, not to aggravate them.

7) A strike against Iran would not work in the long term, and would be a significant setback for the US's budget, reputation, and strategic and moral objectives in the region. According to Marc Lynch of the Center for a New American Security, "There is no consensus on the prospects of success in even a limited mission. Most analysts worry that small strikes would have major negative effects, would not solve the fundamental problem and would risk escalation. Larger-scale operations, meanwhile, are unlikely given U.S. economic pressures and enduring commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the globe. Administration officials have frequently spoken out against striking Iran. Secretary of Defense Gates has said that a military strike on Iran would only delay and not prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and would unite the country behind the current regime. In short, there is no conceivable military option that would resolve the core problems at an acceptable price."

An op-ed in a recent issue of Newsweek magazine made similar argument. There is currently a power struggle within Iran between its Supreme Leader, who has been a brutal persecutor of the country's lively progressive reform movement, and its president, who despite his religious conservatism believes in democracy and greater diplomatic engagement with the West. At the moment, the Supreme Leader has been significantly weakened by Western economic sanctions, opening a window of opportunity for the president and other reformers within the country. An American preemptive strike, however, would rally the country around the Supreme Leader and strengthen the regime's resolve to acquire a nuclear weapon. Whatever the short-term security benefits of such an action, this would be a net loss for American and Israeli security in the long term. Lasting security can only come from turning our enemies into friends.

A Letter to My Congressman

Dear Congressman Lungren,

Decriminalization of mild recreational drugs is one of the most straightforward economic, foreign policy, and moral solutions available to the US today. This is a no-brainer that would have the following beneficial effects:

1) Reduce drug use. Countries that have legalized drugs and adopted a "tax, regulate, and educate" approach to controlling them have seen either no change or a decline in rates of drug use. The US saw a similar effect in the aftermath of Prohibition.

2) Stabilize Mexico. US drug policies have contributed to incredible instability in neighboring countries, which is spilling over onto US soil in the form of both violence and immigration. The best way to stop illegal immigration is to address the root causes, not to build an ineffectual fence. This is a practical as well as moral imperative.

3) Cut spending and raise revenue. Taxes on drugs would be an additional source of state and federal revenue, and legalization would allow us to reduce enforcement costs and resolve the overcrowding problem in our prisons. Drug criminalization is the quintessential example of wasteful government spending: a scandal far greater than Solyndra, costing taxpayers some $14 billion per year.

Given the clear benefits, I find it incredible that this is not at the top of every politician's policy agenda, Republican or Democrat.

For more information on the benefits of decriminalization, please review the following links: http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/marijuana-decriminalization-its-impact-on-use-2
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/

Thank you,

-Chris Smith

2012 Bushman Summer Seminar Announcement

It's time again to start applying to the Bushman Summer Seminar! I did this last year, and it was a total blast. This year's seminar will be picking up the investigation of "the gold plates as a cultural artifact" where we left off last year. If you're a graduate student or junior professor with an interest in Mormon Studies, I HIGHLY recommend applying. It's remarkably well-compensated; there's a $3000 stipend, plus research experience, invaluable memories, and friends for life!

Click here for the details.

New Short Story Published at Bewildering Stories

This is a little late, but better late than never. Recently my short story "Icarus" was published in Issue 443 of the science fiction e-zine Bewildering Stories. "Icarus" is a story about a boy who has his consciousness downloaded into the body of a hawk, and in so doing runs afoul of his family and the law. On the surface, the story is a humorous exploration of a fun sci-fi premise. But at bottom, it's really a meditation on what it means to be alive. Happy reading!

EDIT #1: Bewildering Stories just published its "editors' choices" for the quarter. "Icarus" was one of the 14 selected (out of 41 total). "Icarus" was also picked as the eighth "most controversial" work published this quarter (out of 93 total).

EDIT #2: "Icarus" was also selected for a Mariner Award in Bewildering Stories' year-end review.

Comparative Starbucks: A Case Study

For the past few weeks, I've been living in Provo, Utah. Obviously there's been a bit of culture shock, since Provo is so Mormon.

But actually, one of the weirdest things about living here has been the culture of the local Starbucks coffee shop.

Back home in Sacramento, the Starbucks employees are all very clean-cut, and the clientele are mostly senior citizens and cheery, fashionable young adults. 80% of the conversations I overhear at my local Starbucks there are evangelical Christians talking about religion. (I think there's probably a church that runs some kind of accountability ministry out of there.)

Here in Provo, because of the religious taboo against coffee, Starbucks becomes a kind of hub for rebellious youths. The employees are all sort of surly emo kids. People loiter outside the store drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. I almost never hear any religious conversation there. Today I was sitting and reading, and the people on one side of me were joking about murdering people and robbing banks, and the people on the other side of me were talking about stealing cars and doing acid. I felt like I should call the police or something. "Hello, officer? I'd like to report that my local Starbucks is a hotbed of organized crime..."

Symposium on the Cultural History of the Gold Plates

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

and the Mormon Scholars Foundation

Invite you to the Annual Summer Symposium on Mormon Culture

THE CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE GOLD PLATES

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Room B037 Joseph F. Smith Building

9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The program will feature the following papers:

Morning Session:

Stephen Taysom, “Worlds of Discourse, Plates of Gold: Joseph Smith’s Plates as Cultural Catalysts”

Ben Bascom, “Guard the Gold: Didactic Fiction and the Mainstreaming of Moroni”

Jared Halverson, “Fictionalizing Faith: Popular Polemics and the Golden Plates”

Julie Frederick, “Artistic Depictions of the Gold Plates and the Material Cultural Inheritance"

Tyler Gardner, “Possessing the Plates: The Presence and Absence of the Gold Plates”

Rachael Givens, “‘Wagonloads’: The Disappearance of the Book of Mormon's Sealed Portion”

Afternoon Session:

Sarah Reed, “Fantasy, Fraud and Freud: The Uncanny Gold Plates in 19th Century Newspaper Accounts”

Elizabeth Mott, “The Forbidden Gaze: The Veiling of the Gold Plates and Joseph Smith’s Redefintion of Sacred Space”

Michael Reed, “The Notion of Ancient Metal Records in Joseph Smith’s Day”

Caroline Sorensen, “The Metallurgical Plausibility of the Gold Plates”

Christopher Smith, “Rediscovering Joseph Smith’s ‘Discovery Narrative’ in Southern Utah”

Rachel Gostenhofer, “In Consequence of Their Wickedness: The Decline and Fall of Mormon Seership, 1838-1900”

Paul Cheesman and the Lambayeque Gold Plate

I've been going through the Paul R. Cheesman papers at BYU, including his research files on an inscribed golden plate supposedly discovered in Lambayeque, Peru. The files provide a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a mid-twentieth century Book of Mormon apologist.

Cheesman gathered information on the Lambayeque gold plate for at least twelve years, first as Director of Research for an organization called Theo-Science Amalgamated in Los Angeles, and later as Director of the Institute of Book of Mormon Projects at BYU. During this time, he corresponded with dozens of scholars and paid for metallurgical analyses from several different laboratories.

The scholars' replies to Cheesman's letters were not encouraging. Chemist Adon A. Gordon felt the metallurgical makeup of the plate was a little too close to commercial 22 carat gold. Dr. Junius Bird of the Museum of Natural History pronounced that it "definitely was not old as far as the workmanship was concerned," and was probably created by a well-known circle of forgers associated with one "Sr Bonamiche." He said that the patina had been brushed on, the lines were too straight, and the characters were only half authentic. Robert Sonin, who was present when Bird examined the plate, concurred with his analysis. John H. Rowe of UC Berkeley came independently to a similar conclusion, and Clifford Evans opined that the symbols were not pre-Columbian. One of the funniest replies was from an Egyptologist, who simply seemed bewildered to be asked about a plate that clearly had nothing to do with Egypt.

Cheesman was not to be dissuaded by such cynicism. He carefully compared the symbols on the plate to ancient Cypriot and the Anthon Transcript, and noted the similarities. He also seized upon the optimistic comments of diffusionist scholar Cyrus Gordon and local enthusiast Richard P. Anderson, who noted that characters on the plate bear similarities to a Jewish symbol, the Mason’s square, and Viking cryptograms. Cheesman's summary report describes these similarities at length and opines that the language of the plate may be Cypriot, while omitting the findings of Bird, et al without comment. Cheesman included a photograph of the plate in his book on Ancient Writing on Metal Plates.

Two days ago I walked through an exhibit on metal plates in the Joseph Smith building at BYU, where a replica of the Lambayeque plate still features prominently as an evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon.