By Katie RessmeyerThe Daily Northwestern
Christopher Preble once heard a simple explanation for the U.S.’s fear of a nuclear Iran.
“‘It would cramp our style,'” he quoted to a packed room in University Hall on Wednesday. The event was sponsored by Americans for Informed Democracy.
“They would have the capacity to deter us from overthrowing their government,” said Preble, who is the director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C., public policy research organization.
However, Preble said abolishing Iran’s nuclear weapons program may not be the solution. Instead, he proposed “a grand bargain” that would allow for the inspection of the nuclear program in exchange for a normalization of economic and diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran.
“Many countries have a nuclear power program,” Preble said. “The one thing we should not do is start another war in the Middle East.”
Preble said the distrust the U.S. has of the Iranian nuclear weapons program can be attributed to the belief that Iran’s leaders are irrational.
This distrust has led the U.S. to explore three policy positions toward Iran, each of which Preble said would be unsuccessful.
The first policy option, to impose economic sanctions, is currently practiced by the U.S. with little effect, Preble said.
“Economic sanctions don’t work,” Preble said, citing as evidence the failure of sanctions to topple Fidel Castro’s regime in Cuba.
The second option, to subvert the regime from within by supporting reformist groups, would also be unsuccessful, Preble said.
The U.S. used a similar tactic in Iraq with the clerical regime. Preble said the U.S. cannot adopt this tactic because of its position as a world power.
“My institute is active in trying to promote political liberalism,” Preble said. “It is different when the U.S. government does it.”
However, Preble said replacing the Iranian regime with a democratic government would not even necessarily lead to the destruction of its nuclear weapons program.
“Iran is in a dangerous neighborhood,” Preble said. “It is entirely possible a democratic Iran would choose to go the nuclear route as well.”
The presence of nuclear weapons is not the issue, Preble said. Instead, the trustworthiness of the government that controls the weapons should raise U.S. concern.
A preemptive strike, the third option, would similarly fail to bring an end to the nuclear weapons program, Preble said.
He believes the U.S. lacks the intelligence or weapon capacity to specifically target attacks on nuclear weapons facilities. However, according to Preble, the main issue is the likelihood that a limited attack may turn into a war.
“The real danger is war engulfing the entire region,” Preble said. “I encourage everyone to think about the implications of military action.”
Weinberg freshman Afsaneh Talai said she found Preble’s speech interesting but too idealistic.
“We need real solutions,” Talai said. “He didn’t say how we could go about (bargaining with Iran).”
However, other students, such as Sheida Elmi, a Weinberg sophomore, found Preble’s peaceful solution to be a welcome change from military action.
“It’s good to know there are people thinking there may be another way out,” Elmi said.
Reach Katie Ressmeyer at [email protected].
