Primer: Iran Missile Strike
In recent weeks, the United States has amassed significant military assets around Iran, marking one of the largest American force deployments in the Middle East since the Iraq War. This buildup comes amid rising tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s advancing nuclear program, a recent violent crackdown of nationwide protests, and stalled diplomatic talks. American officials have warned that Iran has only a limited window to accept stringent restrictions or face potential military consequences, but amid a mounting domestic economic and political crisis, Iranian leaders have rejected U.S. demands for expanded nuclear oversight and limits on missile development and regional activity, even as indirect negotiations continue.
Inside Iran, internal political and economic instability in recent months has intensified the broader crisis. The government has responded to recurring protests over inflation, unemployment, corruption, and political repression with sweeping crackdowns, including mass arrests, expanded surveillance, restrictions on public assembly and communication, and violent attacks on protestors, with some estimated death tolls as high as 32,000. Meanwhile, the Iranian economy remains under severe strain from sanctions, currency volatility, and declining real incomes. In addition, in recent months, Iran’s regional opponent Israel has conducted a series of strikes against Iranian-linked military infrastructure and personnel across the region. Some of these operations have resulted in civilian casualties, further heightening tensions and raising concerns about escalation between Israel and Iran.
The United States has responded to these developments with a substantial military buildup, including aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and surveillance aircraft, across the Middle East, significantly expanding Washington’s capacity to conduct sustained air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure if ordered.
Proponents of a strike argue that targeted military action could significantly degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, incentivize the Iranian government to pursue diplomatic action, and potentially contribute to the toppling of the current regime. They might argue that Iran, an avowed enemy of the United States, cannot be allowed to reach a nuclear threshold and that the best way to prevent such a state of affairs is through a missile strike. A limited but decisive strike may represent the least risky option for preventing a far more dangerous nuclear-armed confrontation in the future and certainly seems the more practicable alternative to a full-scale land invasion.
Opponents counter that a U.S. strike would carry profound risks and uncertain benefits. Strikes might only temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program while strengthening its incentive to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Moreover, escalation towards war with Iran, with millions of lives in the balance, seems to be an imprudent step given the wealth of peaceful alternatives to be explored. For these reasons, they contend that renewed diplomacy, economic pressure, and support for domestic movements for change remain preferable to military escalation.
Come join our debate this Monday at 7pm in Scott Hall!
"Iran's Missile Program" by Hamid Tavakoli is licensed under CC BY 4.0.