Pre-emptive Military Action on Nuclear Infrastructure - Essay Example

Does pre-emptive military action on nuclear infrastructure offer stability or instability to the region? Introduction Israel views the existence of nuclear weapon as an existing threat, which does not come as a surprise that the IAF (Israel Air Force) attached the nuclear reactor generated by Saddam Hussein in 1981(Shipley 17). In 2007, Israel also demolished a site suspected to house nuclear reactors in Syria. Given that Iran’s attitude towards Jewish states remains negative; there is a chance that Israel may disrupt Iran’s capabilities of nuclear strength. The Persian Gulf War in 1991 gave the U.S. and alliance forces challenges in facing nuclear weapons (Shipley 17). The invasion continued when Israel invaded Iraq in 1981 terming it as “Operation Opera” attach saw Israel destroy nuclear reactors (Shipley 17). Failures from the diplomatic setup and unsuccessful consultations from the military led Israel to attack the Iraqi reactor. The nuclear program setup in Iraq commenced in 1960s, but it did not grow because of the lacing plutonium production (Shipley 17). It was to purchase it from France; but France turned down the purchase offer, settling for the building of laboratories and reactors used for research. Iran’s capability of creating nuclear weapon increased with the support from France. Iraq, given a nuclear weapon, gives other security structures threats of increasing security measures in the Middle East. The Middle East provides a nuclearized political environment that is molded with intricate influences. “Operation Opera” structured by Israel triggered increased political temperatures in the Middle East. Countries such as Syria increased their capabilities of securing nuclear weapons. Pre-emptive military action on nuclear infrastructure offers instability in a region. The incursion of “Operation Opera” The results of the “Operation Opera” grew years after its incursion. In 2003, the pre-emptive military action launched a military incursion against the controversial, but stable regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (Shipley 17). After some resistance, the Israelites troops managed to beat the Iraqi troops and to oust the president. In the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein, many things that show that the attack should not have happened came out. America invaded Iraq with a primary aim of establishing its hegemony over the Middle East, but this has not been achieved; rather the invasion led to the destruction of Iraq as a unitary state, the growth of terrorism, loss of taxpayers’ money, loss of lives, and loss of its credibility in international affairs. The invasion on Iraq by the United States has become a reference point of modern day hegemony. The government’s reasons behind its invasion are appalling. Hinnebusch reports that the Bush administration was acting in pursuit of the National Security Strategy that was initiated in 2002 in response to 9/11 attacks, where the government purposed to engage in preventive wars that were unilaterally sanctioned to establish a full spectrum of dominance (Hinnebusch 9). Diplomacy was completely ignored as the decision makers were bent on using the nation’s military might to enhance its interests. Remarkably, diplomacy was an available option for the US government to pursue. Through multilateral consultation and the facilitation of international institutions such as the United Nations diplomacy remained controversial to making changes. Markedly, the UN had been involved in the search of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which Iraq was purported to possess before 2003 attack by the US troops (Hinnebusch 27). It follows that the UN declared the confrontation on Iraq criminal, as it was launched against the advice of the institution. The defiance of the UN and subsequent disregard of the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners and occupation of foreign territory shows that the US was acting in self-interest (Hinnebusch 27). Stability of the region after pre-emptive Military Action Establishment of hegemony in the Middle East is diligently allied to the control over oil. Incidentally, the dollar faced stiff competition from the euro, as the preferred currency for oil transactions, hence, the battle to control nuclear operation programs (Shipley 8). According to the annual report of the International Monetary Fund in 2005, the euro had been favored as the currency used in global foreign reserves at the expense of the dollar, since it was first introduced in 1999; the euro gained 7 percent, while the dollar lost 5 percent (Shipley 17). The US saw control over Iraq as a solution to the potential threat of fall from dominance of the oil markets. Since Iraq has the second largest oil reserves, controlling it would cushion the US against the power of oil producers (Hinnebusch 12). Apparently, the success of the US as a hegemony in the Middle East depends on the absence of power of the nations in the regions, which would open avenues for it to intimidate them into cooperation (Lind Para. 8). Consequently, reasons for George W. Bush authorization of the Iraq invasion in 2003 was to secure the position of the dollar as the reserve currency, leading to maintenance of the US hegemony, not only in the middle east, but also worldwide. However, the battle to keep the US dollar as the most dominant currency was going to cost a lot of lives and monetary expenses. Israel bid to destroy nuclear reactors continued in 2007 when an airstrike demolished a nuclear reactor on Syria under the “Operation Orchard” (Lind Para. 15). American leaders betrayed the trust of the citizens regarding the reason for attacking Iraq. A case of this was the prospect that Iraq had WMD. To hide the political motivations of foreign invasions, American presidents usually mislead the public behind rationales, such as fight against terrorists, rogue states, genocide, and WMD (Lind Para. 15). The leaders should have sought the support of the American public using facts, and not lies. Though the US was able to overthrow Saddam Hussein very fast, it has been unable to establish a friendly nation, as it had envisioned. An insurgency that resembles a civil war rocked Iraq soon after the fall of Saddam. The guerilla war pitting Iraqi insurgents against the government police and the US military has made the affairs murkier as there are no signs of any clear victory (Shipley 21). In the end, the money meant for reconstruction of Iraq was used to fund the military and the police rather than rehabilitating the infrastructure that was destroyed during the war to oust Saddam (Coelho Para. 3). Evidently, the invasion led to the creation of a failed state, where atrocities would be committed without a central power to enforce the rule of law. Iran experienced the Stuxnet virus that disrupted the Natanz nuclear facility. The virus became extremely dangerous in comparison to the cyber weapon imagined by the public. Israel is behind the Stuxnet project, which destroyed a fifth of nuclear centrifuges in Iran. The people of Iraq never saw the US and Israelites invaders as liberators considering the authorizations that the powers had imposed on their country before, and their expatriate practice. The US did everything to provoke more distrust from the Iraq people in the aftermath. Besides taking over the oil sales, the US used brutal means to suppress perceived enemies, including firing and bombing densely populated areas, exercising food blockades, demolishing homes, and using force against civilians indiscriminately (Hinnebusch 20). In response, the Iraqis rejected the puppet government that the United States imposed on them and resorted to sectarianism. Evidently, the powerful Baath Party of Saddam Hussein had been destroyed during the invasion, leaving a vacuum, which ethnic and sectarian leaders began to exploit. Moreover, the US policy of using Kurds against Arabs and Shia against the Sunnis strengthened the sectarian divisions (Hinnebusch 19). As a consequence, many of the prominent political actors in the post 2003 era are likely to have been sectarian lobbyists as opposed to national politicians (Haddad 2). One glaring consequence that arose out of the invasion and later activities of the US in Iraq is the creation of the ‘Shiite Axis’, which poses a threat to the interest of the United States in the Middle East. The axis is comprised of Shiite from Iran, some Iran Shia devotees from Iraq, Hezbollah, Syrian extremists, Hamas, among other anti-US groups in the Middle East (Hinnebusch 22). According to Haddad, the fire of sectarianism was started in 2003 and it has since gained unprecedented levels of political and social relevance in the whole Arab world (4). Moreover, the invasion into Iran has undone the position of the United States as a deterrent against extremism. When it became clear that the US military intervention in Iraq was failing, Iran became more emboldened to defy the United States wishes (Shipley 22). Apparently, Iraq has become the training ground for terrorists, leading to the rise of a new generation of fighters, who pose a great threat to the US interests as they are taught according to Bin Laden’s ideology and are equipped with skills of asymmetric warfare (Hinnebusch 23). For instance, there was a dramatic increase of terrorism in Iraq following the occupation and the acquired tactics and fighters were exported to neighboring countries such as Syria (Coelho Para. 3). Effects of the radicalization came to the limelight in earnest after the US pulled out of Iraq in 2001. The US had used military and monetary power to suppress the sectarian conflicts between the Shiites and the Sunnis that rocked Iraq in 2006 and 2007, but the sectarian tensions remained and developed alongside the lines of jihadist ideology, which is a central philosophy of terrorism (Knight Par. 1). The US taxpayer suffered immensely due to the war on Iraq, with little returns to show for it. The whole operation has been characterized by excessive military spending. Over $2.2 trillion was spent in the first ten years of the war, far above the government estimate of $60 billion (Coelho Para. 1). This cost is inclusive of 190,000 people killed, among whom are male and female soldiers, civilians, and contractors. The outcome in Iraq is a dishonor to the soldiers who were sent there on an ostensibly noble mission. The American government beguiled the soldiers that they were fighting in defense of freedoms, democracy, human rights, and the protection of Americans from dangerous terrorists while the reality is that they were being used to consolidate the hegemonic power of the dollar (Shipley 17). The US has lost respect among other nations due to its untoward arrogance and militarism. For instance, a poll conducted by the time magazine yielded results to the effect that 84% of Europeans saw the US as a threat to world peace (Hinnebusch 26). Clearly, the exposure of intelligence failure on the part of the US, and the revelation of its manipulation to achieve political gains have diminished the nation’s reliability as a leader in pre-emptive wars (Hinnebusch 24). By deciding to act unilaterally in the purported war against terror in Iraq and other nations like Afghanistan, the US showed disrespect to international law and institutions. Remarkably, international law and attendant institutions are meant to arbitrate in international disputes amicably, where diplomacy is given precedence to force. Conclusion Pre-emptive military action on nuclear infrastructure offers instability in a region. The invasion into Iraq has led to many consequences that negatively influence the United States. The US failed to establish a vibrant hegemony over the Middle East, but its invasion facilitated the current instability in Iraq and the unprecedented growth of terrorism, besides causing losses in terms of high military expenditure, loss of lives, and injury to reputation. The government was in a quest to control the oil rich nation, but it cheated its citizens that the invasion was meant to rid Iraq from WMDs. The post Saddam Iraq is deeply divided alongside sectarian divisions due to US meddling. In addition, the occupation in Iraq provoked resistance tendencies among the people from the region, leading to growth of terrorism. High expenses in the Iraq war, and lose of respect from other nations are also things to worry about. The US troops may be out of Iraq, but the effect of the war will haunt the nation for a long period of time. Works Cited Coelho, Courtney. Iraq War: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion. Brown University. March 14, 2013. Web. 2, Sep. 2014. Haddad, Fanar. “Sunni-Shia Relations after the Iraq War.” Peacebrief. 5 Nov. 2013. Web. 2, Sep. 2014. . Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences.” Perceptions. 2007: 9-27. Web. 2, Sep. 2014. Knight, Ben. “US Failures In Iraq Seeded Al Qaeda Resurgence.” Deutsche Welle. 7 Jan. 2014. Web. 2, Sep. 2014. . Lind, Michael. “Beyond American Hegemony.” New America Foundation. June 2007. Web. 2, Apr. 2014. Shipley, Tyler. “Currency Wars: Oil, Iraq, And the Future of US Hegemony.” Studies in Political Economy, 79, 2007. 7-34. Web. 2, Sep. 2014. Taylor, Peter. “Iraq War: The Greatest Intelligence Failure in Living Memory.” The Telegraph. 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 2, Sep. 2014. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ middleeast/iraq/9937516/Iraq-war-the- greatest-intelligence-failure-in-living-memory.html Read More