Kathlyn Hotynski

Already stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, the United States now seems to be positioning itself for conflict with neighboring Iran.

On Jan. 3, the Pentagon announced that a second U.S. aircraft carrier would be sent to the Gulf as a warning against Iran and its meddling in Iraq.

On Jan. 10, President Bush announced a plan that not only increased U.S. forces in Iraq by over 20,000, but unveiled the official policy of taking out any Iranian operatives helping insurgents in Iraq. Shortly afterward, a special forces operation raid was launched against an Iranian consulate where several Iranians were detained.

Understandably, if Iranian agents are operating in Iraq helping the insurgency, the United States has the right and obligation to take them out. But is this recent bolstering against Iran simply to keep them out of Iraq or is it something more? Sadly, it seems the latter, which presents a troublesome scenario.

Although Bush, when asked directly about the claims of a military strike responded that it was meaningless speculation, his language seemed eerily similar to that during the march to the Iraq War in 2003. Additionally, shortly after his comments, an administration diplomat spoke bluntly about the possibility of conflict with Iran.

When asked about the growing tension with Iran, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns stated, “Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us.” However, with the moving of aircraft carriers and heated rhetoric coming from Washington, it seems both sides are guilty of confrontation. And with the growing possibility of conflict with Iran, the question asked is if the United States can handle taking on Iran – the answer is “no.”

The United States has tried and failed, largely due to mismanagement of the war by the administration, to secure Iraq for nearly four years. Having endured over 3,000 casualties and spending almost $500 billion, the United States seems unable to secure Iraq by itself, much less take on the power of Iran.

Above the mere logistics of trying to secure another country, one that is over twice the size of Iraq, is the military power of Iran.

With a standing force of approximately 350,000 troops, along with a significant number of aircraft and large number of (ironically) United States-supplied or funded missiles and other weapons, Iran is one of, if not the most, powerful militaries in the region.

The trouble Iran currently is causing in Iraq is minuscule compared to the damage it could inflict if it so desired. Above that, with their massive military just next door,

it seems unlikely the United States is prepared to take on Iran directly. With the current quagmire in Iraq continuing to occupy the majority of U.S. troops and military attention, a draft would be required to take on Iran and Iraq at this point in time.

Along with the massive casualties Iran would inflict and the problem of securing Iraq and Iran, the United States would risk the conflict spilling into a massive regional war involving Syria, Saudi Arabia and Israel. This could bring conflict not seen since the days of the second World War.

The hidden blessing in all of this is the possibility of a diplomatic solution, if we so choose. Some neoconservatives will be quick to compare Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the evils of Hitler, even though there is really no comparison whatsoever, just as the former President Bush declared Saddam Hussein “Hitler reborn” before the first Gulf War.

The conflict in the Middle East, by culture and nature, is extraordinarily different than the threat of Nazi Germany during the second World War and needs to be dealt with in a different manner.

Iranian president Ahmadinejad is a dictator that is challenging the will of the international community.

The knee-jerk reaction of flag-waving, blind patriotic military fervor, as seen with Iraq, is not always the best approach to growing threats. The U.S. military cannot take on the threat of Iran right now due to the current fiasco in Iraq. To engage them militarily would be a massive blunder. The United States and neighboring states in the region would both pay a heavy and regrettable price that needs not be paid.

Ruff is a junior print journalism major and columnist for The Spectator.