By Brian Bohl
If the United States eventually initiates military action against Iran, it can be traced back to the actions of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). Three months ago Santorum introduced the Iran Freedom and Support Act, a bill that received little fanfare at the time but has the potential to spur the United States into an invasion in the near future. The bill, which is expected to pass, would be a victory for the neoconservatives who favor forced regime change over more diplomatic relations. The act calls for $10 million in funding for Iranian dissidents and a stipulation that would forbid any Iranian government officials from entering government buildings of the United States.
Both of the major clauses of this bill are troubling. The second provision would eliminate any possibility of future negotiations with Iranian leaders. This policy needlessly hinders any attempts at reaching a peaceful solution and shows that the United States would be acting in bad faith in any potential disarmament discussions.
The course of action President Bush’s administration should follow is one of diplomacy. After the mistakes of the Iraq war, every precaution should be taken to avoid another prolonged invasion into an area that already has a palatable dislike of the United States. Bush should ensure that the deployment of troops is the very last resort. With a sizeable military presence still stationed in Afghanistan and the unresolved issues of Iraq, the United States’ military wherewithal would be stretched too thin if a third front was added.
While the first provision of the bill appears to be of little importance, it would line the pockets of violent Iranian opposition groups. Ten million dollars seems like an inconsequential amount in the broader context of a national annual defense budget of $419.3 billion, but the allocation of the funds could prove to be troublesome. The hard line right wingers would like to see the money go to the opposition group Mujahhideen-e-Khalq (MEK), a 3,500 member group that have, according to one magazine, “dedicated their lives to fighting Tehran and collecting information on its abuses…”
From giving Osama Bin Laden weapons, training and ammunition during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, the United States has only suffered from giving capital to hard line foreign opposition groups. Bush has a chance not every public official gets: to learn from and correct past mistakes.
Besides, the poor conceptual idea of providing aid to extremists, there is a distinct probability that $10 million would only be the initial down payment of a much larger investment. Jerome Corsi, founder of the Iran Freedom Foundation, says the funds provided in the Freedom Act are just a “starting point,” with the actual cost excepted to grow exponentially should the bill come to fruition.
Recent investigations of the MEK provide sufficient evidence as to why the United States should not support their efforts. Two years ago, the New York Times reported that the leaders of MEK would incarcerate members who disagreed with them or disobeyed the demands complete celibacy and unquestioned loyalty to the founders of the group. Paying one extremist group to overthrow another is a situation that can produce no positive consequences for America.
Nearly 2,000 coalition soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians have lost their lives in Iraq. What is done there cannot be changed, but the lessons learned from it should be applied to current dealings with Iran. Perhaps military intervention is inevitable, but until every other possible avenue is explored, the hawks in Washington should keep an open mind with an eye turned towards recent history.