“I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.” — Abraham Lincoln



A different type of battle was waged this weekend in the international community. Before deploying fighter jets or dropping bombs, world leaders attacked their prospective airwaves to weigh in on the nuclear ambitions of Iran and the actions needed to stop the country from manufacturing weapons-grade uranium.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s estimate, that milestone could be only six months away.

On several U.S. Sunday talk shows, Netanyahu presented his view that a “red line” must be established; one, if Iran crossed, would precipitate military action. America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice opened up to the media as well and said that the U.S. will “do what it takes” to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. But, she also reiterated that this crisis point hasn’t arrived. In other words, no lines will be drawn in the Persian sand just yet.  

Meanwhile, over in the Middle East, an Iranian military official issued a warning. Maj. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, said in a press conference that “nothing will remain” of Israel if the country mounts an attack on Iran. He also went on to say that Iran would have to reevaluate their positions with other countries even if the military action was unilateral because of their failure to dissuade Israel.

So it would seem, if America can’t somehow talk Israel out of striking Iran, we will more than likely be a target, too, even if we have no direct involvement in the actual attacks.

Oh, yeah. And for the next 10 days, the U.S. will be leading one of the largest war game exercises of its kind ever in the Persian Gulf. Near the contentious Strait of Hormuz, more than 27 countries will be participating in the maneuvers that will practice mine-clearing operations. Iran has threatened to drop explosives into the strait, a waterway responsible for the transportation of 20 percent of the world’s oil, if assaulted.

Not to be outdone, Iran has announced plans to conduct their own massive air defense war game next month, the largest in the Islamic Republic’s history.  

Yes, some of this is posturing. All the countries involved are puffing out their chests and hoping that the other side will grow frightened and back down.

But what if no one relents?

A 56-page report entitled “Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action in Iran” may help answer this question. The paper, written by a bipartisan cross-section of foreign policy officials, aims to present an independent investigation of the conflict and the repercussions of military action against Iran.

These aren’t partisan hacks that are trying to sway your opinion. The report is straightforward and details the seriousness of this problem. If you want to learn about our most probable future military conflict and how it will affect the U.S., read this paper. You can check it out at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf.

Here’s what I learned from the report.

1. If the U.S. and Israel strike selected Iranian targets to defer their nuclear ambitions, the action could delay Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons by four years. If Israel acts unilaterally, the postponement would only last two years. (America possesses specific “bunker busting” bombs that can reach several of the facilities that Israel does not have the capability to destroy.)

2. Iran would most likely mine the Strait of Hormuz, which would send global shockwaves through our already fragile economy. In addition, energy disruptions would occur.

3. American soldiers would probably be killed in direct retaliations from Iran. Also, indirect attacks on U.S. interests abroad by Iran’s proxies, like Hezbollah, might lead to civilian casualties as well.

4. Any broader objectives other than postponement of Iranian nuclear program, such as regime change or “damage to Iran’s military and economic power so that it would be unable to pursue an aggressive policy in the region, particularly with regard to Israel” would take a prolonged military effort of at least several years.

Yes, we know that a nuclear armed Iran would not be in America’s best interests. But neither would a war. How do we weigh the options and decide between the better of two bad situations?

Know the facts.

As I’ve said before in my column about Syria, staying up-to-date on information coming from the region and learning about the conflict itself will better prepare us when that decision must be made. Education will broaden our understanding and make our voice stronger.

We won’t all agree. But, at the very least, we should have an opinion and make it known. After all, our sons and daughters, neighbors and friends, will be the ones fighting if this conflict spirals into a war.

Don’t we owe them that much?

— Amanda Beam is a Floyd County resident and Jeffersonville native. Contact her by email at hoosiermandyblog@gmail.com or visit her blog at HoosierMandy.com