U.S.

Policy Toward Iran In recent years, Iran's nuclear program has aroused increasing concern from the international community. Iran says that it is merely developing nuclear technology to provide electricity to its citizens. Iran has continued to develop its nuclear program, and speculation has grown that Israel may launch a military strike to halt the Iranian nuclear program. If that happens, observers say, the U.S. could be drawn into a military conflict with Iran in support of Israel.

Many of the sanctions against Iran have been targeted at its oil exports. Iran is one of the largest oil exporters in the world, with approximately 80 percent of its export revenue coming from oil sales, mostly to India and China. However, the EU buys a large percentage of Iranian oil as well. In early 2012, the EU announced that it would stop buying Iranian oil as of July; in response, Iran pre-emptively halted oil sales to Europe. There have thus been increasing calls from some foreign policy analysts for either a U.S. military strike against Iran or support of Israel should it decide to attack Iran. Others, however, argue that war should always be a last resort; there are a variety of peaceful approaches, they say to the situation with Iran. How should the U.S. approach Iran?

Critics of a military strike against Iran argue that such an action could result in a long, expensive, drawn-out war similar to the one against Iraq, which started in 2003. Iran simply does not pose enough of a threat to justify military action, opponents say. Critics also assert that the suspected

Israeli-sponsored assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists constitutes terrorism, and that the U.S. should not support any further actions taken by Israel.

Supporters of a military strike, meanwhile, argue that the time for diplomacy and sanctions has ended. Iran is a uniquely dangerous enemy, proponents of military action say, since it is bent on destroying what it calls the "great Satan" at all costs. If the U.S. and Israel do not act soon, Iran will develop a powerful nuclear arsenal that it could use to terrorize the entire world, supporters say. U.S. Tries to Keep Iran's Nuclear Ambitions in Check

The U.S. has been directly involved in Iranian politics for decades. In the first year of his presidency, Dwight Eisenhower (R, 195361) secretly authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to aid a coup to overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, who the U.S. feared might have ties to communists, replacing him with Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi. Pahlevi had previously held the position of a figurehead ruler, but assumed total control of Iran as a result of the 1953 coup. Under Pahlevi's rule, Iran adopted a decidedly proU.S. stance. Pahlevi, however, was unpopular with many Iranians, who accused him of using harsh tactics to suppress political opposition. Pahlevi ruled Iran until he was overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979. The leader of the revolution, the Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, had amassed a passionate following that supported his fundamentalist religious beliefs and antiU.S. stance. (When Khomeini died in 1989, the title of supreme leader was

assumed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been a largely a symbolic leader in Iran. Much of the political power in the country is held by its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.) The administration of President Jimmy Carter (D, 197781) took a stern line against Iran and attempted an operation to rescue the hostages. The rescue attempt failed, but the hostages were released minutes after Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan (R, 198189), was sworn in. During much of the 1980s, when Iran was engaged in a long war with neighboring Iraq, the U.S. provided financial and military support to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Later, during the presidency of George W. Bush (R, 200109), the U.S. invaded Iraq to remove Hussein (as a result of claims, which were later discredited, that Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction). Some journalists and foreign policy analysts speculated that the U.S. would launch a similar attack on Iran, though no such invasion occurred during Bush's tenure. [See The Reagan Legacy]

In early 2011, U.S. and Iranian diplomats were scheduled to begin mediated discussions about Iran's nuclear program in Istanbul, Turkey, but the talks dissolved before they even began because the two sides could not agree to certain diplomatic preconditions. Enriched uranium has many potential uses, but some analysts say that Iran has begun the enrichment process with one goal in mind: to build nuclear weapons. Israeli intelligence officials say that Iran's nuclear program is now so advanced that, unless it is bombed within the next few months, Iran could develop a nuclear bomb by the end of 2012.

Citing the need to control Iran's nuclear growth, President Obama (D) stepped up U.S. economic pressure on Iran. On the last day of 2011, he signed into law a wide-ranging defense budget bill called the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Part of the NDAA states that the U.S. will officially sever economic ties with any financial institution that conducts business with Iran's central bank, which handles sales of Iranian oil and natural gas and is considered to be the backbone of the country's economy. The NDAA established a grace period of up to six months to allow institutions that deal with Iran to re-evaluate their financial strategy. However, in February 2012, Obama announced an early and abrupt halt to that grace perioda move that underscored the importance of the sanction, observers say.

Meanwhile, the EU has also taken steps to weaken Iran's economy out of concern over alleged Iranian attempts to develop a nuclear weapon. Unlike the U.S., many EU nations have been faithfully importing Iranian oil for yearsapproximately 20% of Iranian oil exports go to EU countries, with Spain, Greece and Italy the biggest buyers. (The three biggest EU economies Germany, France and Great Britaindo not trade with Iran, however.) During a January 2012 meeting of European leaders in Brussels, Belgium, representatives from the 27 EU nations voted to impose an EU-wide embargo on Iranian oil, scheduled to take full effect by July 2012. According to the EU, the embargo will continue until Iran agrees to engage in diplomatic talks about its nuclear program.

The EU's embargo, combined with the U.S.'s recent economic sanctions, could have enough of an immediate negative effect on Iran's economy to persuade the Middle Eastern nation to be

more forthcoming about its nuclear program, observers say. Iran, however, is "not concerned at all" with the recent moves by the EU and U.S., according to its foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi. "Iran, with divine assistance, has always been ready to counter [the] hostile actions" of the EU and U.S., Salehi added. Deaths Heighten Tensions Between Iran and the West

Iran says that those assassinations are not coincidences or isolated incidents. Rather, the country sees them as a coordinated effort by Israel and the U.S. to disrupt its nuclear program. For its part, the U.S. has categorically denied any involvement in the murders. Israel, meanwhile, has declined to comment on the matter. The closest Israel has come to making a public statement on the murders was when Israeli military spokesperson Yoav Mordechai posted to his Facebook wall, "I don't know who settled the score with the Iranian scientist [killed in January 2012], but I certainly am not shedding a tear." In the days following the January 2012 murder, U.S. intelligence agents and diplomats were quoted anonymously in news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine saying that the U.S. strongly believes that Israel is, indeed, behind the attacks.

In response to both the apparent campaign of violence against their nuclear scientists and the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and EU, Iran made an announcement in the final days of 2011 that received attention from the entire world. The strait facilitates an estimated 2035% of the world's oil trade; each day, 28 massive tanker ships loaded with a combined 16 million barrels of oil sail

in and out of the strait. (Approximately 2 million barrels of liquefied natural gas are also transported through the strait daily.) Because the Strait of Hormuz is so crucial to the global economy, yet so narrow and vulnerable to a blockage or an attack, it is under constant, intense scrutiny from world leaders. [See Oil Pipeline Could Undermine Iran's Strait of Hormuz Threat]

Iran first made its threat to close the strait on December 27, 2011, alarming government officials and business leaders across the globe. Indeed, experts predict that closing the strait could set off a global panic around oil, causing the price of a barrel of oil to increase by at least 50%. Gasoline prices would subsequently shoot up to well above $4.50 a gallon, analysts predict, putting the fragile global economy at further risk of falling into a depression.

The U.S. and its allies maintain a strong military presence in the Middle East, making a war against Iran a relatively simple proposition. They tried to prevent us by issuing sanctions and resolutions but failed." Iran also pre-emptively cut off oil sales to France and Britain. (Those countries seldom purchased Iranian oil before the ban, thus the move was largely symbolic.)

Critics Say There Are Many Alternatives to War Opponents of military action against Iran say that the U.S. needs to give diplomacy another chance before rushing into a potential war. "We must redouble our diplomatic efforts to achieve robust transparency measures that can verify Iran's nuclear program is strictly a civilian one,"

wrote Representative Keith Ellison (D, Minnesota) in a February 2012 letter to President Obama. "While we acknowledge that progress will be difficult, we believe that robust, sustained diplomacy is the best option to resolve our serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program, and to prevent a costly war that would be devastating for the United States and our allies in the region," Ellison's letter continued.

Critics argue that the U.S. would do well to heed the example provided by its war against Iraq, which began in 2003. That conflict was met with widespread opposition from the international community. Criticism of the Iraq war intensified when it became clear that Iraq had not been hiding weapons of mass destruction, leading opponents of the war to claim that the military operation in Iraq, which lasted for almost a decade, was fought over almost nothing. Without solid proof of an Iranian nuclear program, the U.S. risks entering another unpopular, expensive and potentially illegal war in a Middle Eastern country, critics say. Some opponents have further criticized the ways by which the West has been approaching its apparent march to war with Iran. They argue that the systematic killing of the Iranian nuclear scientists, which appears to be the work of Israel, is essentially state-sponsored murder and should be halted immediately. The U.S. has also failed to sufficiently condemn the murders, opponents say. "Imagine the response of our politicians and pundits to a campaign of assassinations against western scientists conducted by, say, Iran or North Korea," writes Mehdi Hasan, a columnist for the British newspaper the Guardian. The U.S. and other Western nations must "condemn state-sponsored, extrajudicial killings as acts of pure terror, no matter where in the world, or on whose orders, they occur," Hasan adds.

By every objective measure, both countries are overwhelmingly stronger, wealthier, and more powerful than Iran, opponents note. "If a sensible Martian came down to Earth and looked at the saber-rattling about Iran, I suspect he/she/it would be completely flummoxed," writes Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some critics argue that there is no reason why Iran should not be able to develop a nuclear weaponafter all, both the U.S. and Israel possess such weaponry. "Israel may have to learn to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation by Iran, just as every Middle East nation has had to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation by Israel for the past four decades," writes Howard Morland in the left-wing magazine the Progressive.

Many critics, however, believe that Iran does pose a threat to the U.S., particularly if it acquires a nuclear weapon. Many even acknowledge that diplomatic talks with Iran over its nuclear program could very well fail. Even so, they argue, diplomacy is a far less risky course of action than a military strike. "There is no guarantee that diplomacy will succeed. But that is also true of war," write former U.S. diplomat William Luers and Thomas Pickering, an undersecretary of state during the administration of President Bill Clinton (D, 19932001). "Only diplomacy can offer Iran's current rulers a stake in building a secure future without a nuclear bomb," they continue. "Only diplomacy can achieve America's major objectives while avoiding the mistakes committed in Iraq or Vietnam." It Is Time to Strike Iran, Supporters Maintain

Proponents argue that it is long past time for the U.S. to launch a strike against Iran. Such action would reassert the U.S.'s military strength on a global stage and show that it is committed to preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands. Critics of a military strike "must recognize that time is no longer on the West's side," writes Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens. "Further temporizing in the face of our choice of evils inevitably means that Iran will get to make the choice for us. Another round of diplomacy or sanctions guarantees failure, signals weakness and emboldens the hardest of Iranian hardliners."

Supporters say that diplomacy would do nothing to prevent Iran from developing a dangerous nuclear weapon. The time for talk has long since passed, proponents maintain; decisive action is now the only correct course. "I want [the Obama] administration to get realistic and get tough about Iran," argues former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R). "Stop this nonsense about talking to them. [Obama] should say to them, in the toughest language he can come up with, 'There's no way on earth I'm going to let you become a nuclear power. It's just too darn dangerous.'"

A nuclear-armed Iran would hold the ultimate trump cardthe ability to wipe out entire cities and would use that leverage to terrorize the world, supporters of military action argue. "A nuclear Iran could threaten nuclear war to stop developments contrary to its interests, giving the world a nuclear scare every few years," writes Matthew Kroenig, a fellow at the internationalaffairs think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "With nuclear weapons, Tehran will

be emboldened by the confidence that it can engage in provocation and use its nuclear weapons to deter the worst forms of retaliation. A more aggressive Iran will increase its support to terrorists and engage in tougher coercive diplomacy."

Supporters say that an Israeli strike against Iran would be welcome, but one involving U.S. forces would send a stronger message to Iran and any other country attempting to build nuclear weapons. Additionally, the presence of U.S. forces would have a practical effect on the strike, proponents note. "An Israeli strike would only set back Iran's nuclear program by one to three years," Kroenig writes, while "the U.S., with its superior capabilities, would impose a greater delay of three to ten years." With Iran's nuclear program facing as much as a decade of stagnancy, the U.S. would have ample time to engage in diplomacy if it so chooses, proponents assert.

Many proponents argue that Iran is a uniquely dangerous enemy because of its government's adherence to fundamentalist Muslim beliefs. Iran's intentions in building a nuclear weapon go far beyond merely defending itself, supporters say. Rather, Iran wants to wipe the Jewish state of Israel off of the map completely in a religiously motivated act of genocide, proponents of U.S. military action claim. "Iranian religious leaders feel they have the right to re-make this world in their image, in the mold of their own world view," writes Michael Widlanski, a professor of communications and politics at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "The hard fact," he adds, "is that Iran is pursuing something that is not even just a 'world war,' but rather what novelist H.G.

Wells called a 'war of the worlds'a war between the people of Earth and invaders from another world"with Israel cast as the alien race that needs to be destroyed at all costs.

Indeed, some supporters maintain that any military strikes against Iran should target far more than its nuclear program. Israel and the U.S. should instead launch an all-out war against Iran in an attempt to topple its fundamentalist Muslim government, some proponents suggest. "The Islamic Republic means to destroy Israel," Stephens writes. "If Israel means to survive, it should commit itself similarly. Destroying Iran's nuclear sites will be a short-lived victory if it isn't matched to the broader goal of ending the regime." Israel Likely to Launch Attack on Iran in 2012, Experts Say

The brewing situation in Iran is poised to become a major focal point of the 2012 presidential campaign in the U.S. Another candidate vying for the nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, has sounded an apocalyptic tone while discussing Iran, arguing that unless the U.S. decisively strikes its nuclear program, Iran could launch a nuclear attack that would kill up to 300,000 Americans.

Bergman concluded his story by predicting that Israel will strike Iran before 2012 is over. Many observers say they believe an Israeli strike could happen as early as spring 2012, and that it will happen with or without the U.S.'s help. "Israel is calculating that in the next six months their window of opportunity for a strike will close," the CFR's Kroenig said in February 2012. "So it's

now or never." Such an attack, experts say, would likely draw the U.S. into the conflict. It is even possible, some observers speculate, that Iran could retaliate against an Israeli strike by attacking U.S. targets.

Experts remain divided, however, as to whether the nuclear program being developed by Iran is intended to create a weapon. On February 24, for example, the IAEA reported that, according to New York Times journalists David Sanger and William Broad, "Iran had tripled its production capacity for a more purified type of fuel that is far closer to what is needed to make the core of a nuclear weapon." U.S. officials have repeatedly stated, however, that they do not believe that the Iranian government has decided to forge ahead with the creation of a nuclear weapon.

For its part, Iran continues to insist its nuclear development is entirely peaceful. In February 2012, Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi said, "We do not see any glory, pride or power in the nuclear weaponsquite the opposite. the production, possession, or use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, futile, harmful, dangerous and prohibited as a great sin."

Update: U.S.-Iran Relations In the 1950s, the U.S. helped to overthrow a popular Iranian leader and impose an unpopular, authoritarian regime. In 1979, that regime was overthrown, and an aversion to the U.S. became part of the new government's foreign policy. The storming of the U.S. embassy by Iranian

militants that year, and subsequent kidnapping of dozens of U.S. citizens, further damaged ties between the two countries and led the U.S. to impose sanctions on Iran. In 1997, Iran elected a new president, Mohammed Khatami, who pledged to protect civil rights and civil liberties. After reforms were enacted, the U.S. expressed a desire for improved relations and eased sanctions. Some U.S. officials were wary of engagement with Iran, however, because conservative clerics continued to wield considerable power, and dissent was often stifled. Recent developments have compounded the debate. The U.S. and others have expressed concern over Iran's nuclear program, which Iran says is for energy purposes but which the U.S. characterizes as an attempt to develop nuclear weapons. In addition, the U.S. has accused Iran of harboring anti-American terrorists and of supporting dissent in Iraq, Iran's neighbor. In return, Iran has accused the U.S. of fomenting unrest within Iran by encouraging the large pro-reform demonstrations that have recently been held there. Some of those who advocate a more confrontational U.S. approach toward Iran favor making an effort to facilitate a change of regime. Citing reports that Iran has sponsored terrorist groups in the past, they argue that efforts against the government of Iran would be consistent with the broader U.S. campaign against terrorism. The Iranian people, they say, would also benefit from such a move and would generally support it. Other proponents of a confrontational policy are less concerned with regime change. Rather, they favor the threat of military force against Iranian nuclear facilities or against Iranian institutions that harbor terrorists. A tough U.S. stance is necessary in order to prove to the Iranian government that the U.S. will not tolerate its pursuit of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, they say.

However, critics of confrontation with Iran counter that an aggressive U.S. policy plays into the hands of hard-liners in the Iranian leadership by stoking fears of outside influence among the Iranian public. In addition, they say, such a policy reflects badly on the U.S. in the eyes of international observers. Opponents argue that U.S. relations with Iran in a variety of areas will be more productive if Iran does not feel antagonized. Critics insist that there is a legitimate reform movement under way in Iran. The U.S. should encourage that movement but allow it to evolve at its own pace, free of interference from outside forces, they maintain. History of U.S. Relations With Iran During World War II (1939-45), Allied forces consisting of British, Soviet and U.S. troops invaded Iran in an attempt to keep the country's territory and oil fields from falling under the control of the Germans, with whom Iran's rulers had been friendly. In the course of the war, Iran became a valuable supply route for the Soviet Union. As a condition of the occupation, the Allied powers endorsed an agreement to respect Iranian territorial integrity and withdraw forces as soon as possible. In 1945, Soviet forces supported an independence movement in the Iranian province of Azerbaijan. Increasingly at odds with the Soviet Union in the years after the war, U.S. officials worried about Soviet domination of the area. Pressure from the United Nations led the Soviet Union to withdraw its forces. Iran also rejected the formation of a joint oil venture with the Soviet Union and outlawed its own pro-Soviet political party. Within the country, however, pressure began to mount for Iran to take more complete control of its oil interests by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., which it co-owned with Britain.

In 1951, popular support for oil nationalization led to the passage of a law to that effect. When the government failed to carry out the nationalization, violent protests resulted in the appointment of parliamentary leader Mohammed Mossadegh as premier. Mossadegh nationalized Anglo-Iranian Oil, but in 1953 he was dismissed by Iran's ruler, Shah Mohammed Riza Pahlevi. Mossadegh refused to leave office, and the rioting that followed compelled the shah to flee the country. In the following days, forces loyal to the shah, backed covertly by the U.S. and Britain, managed to depose and arrest Mossadegh and reinstate the shah. The shah redistributed farmland to peasants, improved social services and education, and improved the overall standard of living in Iran. At the same time, however, he stifled dissent, dissolved the parliament, outlawed rival political parties and employed a repressive secret police service. In addition, his aggressive modernization policies alienated certain segments of the population, particularly religious conservatives. Although his popularity within his own country was strained, the shah enjoyed positive relations with the U.S. government. He allowed U.S. oil companies to invest in Iran and was generally friendly to U.S. interests. By the late 1970s, conservative Muslims were rioting against the regime of the shah. Many of the riots were directed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a leading Muslim cleric living in exile in France. In 1979, the country became so destabilized that the shah was forced to flee. Under the new constitution, the supreme leader controlled the military and the judiciary, and a clerical body called the Council of Guardians ensured that government policies adhered to Islamic principles. A democratically elected president and parliament were also part of the government. The new government was intolerant of dissent and executed supporters of the

former regime. The new Iranian leadership was also outspokenly anti-American in light of U.S. support for the shah. Meanwhile, disputes over islands in the Persian Gulf, water rights and demands for autonomy by Iran's Arab minority led to a military attack by Iran's Western neighbor, Iraq, in 1980. The war between the two countries lasted eight years and killed an estimated one million people. The U.S. provided arms to Iraq during the war, and was later revealed to have secretly sold arms to Iran at the same time. In the 1990s, U.S. sanctions on Iran were criticized as counterproductive by various parties, including business interests and some U.S. allies. Others, however, remained committed to putting economic pressure on Iran, and the sanctions continued to be expanded.

Chance for New Relations Seen In 1997, Khatami, a reformer who favored enhanced civil rights protections, a reduction of political censorship and improved relations with the U.S., was elected president of Iran. Reformists won seats in local councils and in the national legislature as well. At the same time, Iran's conservative clerics responded to Khatami's reforms by cracking down on newspapers and activists. Between 1997 and 2003, nearly 100 pro-reform newspapers and journals were closed down by the government. In addition, a 1999 anticensorship demonstration was harshly suppressed by police and conservative vigilante groups, resulting in the deaths of as many as nine students and the arrests of hundreds. In light of such developments, as well as allegations that the Iranian government continued to back terrorism and was attempting to

develop weapons of mass destruction, many U.S. officials remained wary of engagement with Iran. After a series of terrorist attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, members of both the Iranian government and the public expressed sympathy for the U.S. And when the U.S. launched a military action against Afghanistan's Taliban regime, which it accused of harboring the Al Qaeda terrorist group believed to be behind the attacks, the Iranian government offered the use of its ports and transit points for supplies, and assistance in searching for downed U.S. pilots. Iran already had tense relations with the Taliban and was a supporter of the Northern Alliance, the Afghan rebel group with which the U.S. allied itself. Conservative Iranian clerics, however, made speeches denouncing the U.S. campaign. One issue of specific concern to U.S. officials is Iran's nuclear program. In August 2002, an Iranian exile group revealed the location of two secret nuclear processing facilities in Natanz and Arak. Although Iran maintained that its reactors were being used to produce nuclear energy, the U.S. argued that Iran's abundant oil and natural gas resources made that claim unlikely. The statement charged that Iran was not forthcoming about its nuclear facilities and that it had blocked inspectors from taking samples at another location. In August, Iran admitted to having received foreign help in building its facilities. Other sources of concern for the U.S. are reports that Al Qaeda leaders are living in Iran. Car bombings in Saudi Arabia in May 2003, in which 34 people, including eight Americans, were killed, brought more attention to the issue, since U.S. officials believed that the mastermind of the plot was in Iran.

The Iranian government maintained that it had been cooperating with international efforts against Al Qaeda, pointing out that it had handed over suspects in the past. Some officials in the U.S. said they believed that the Iranian government was allowing terrorists to stay in the country, while others said that Al Qaeda members could be in Iran without the knowledge of the government. The U.S. had invaded Iraq in March 2003 to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power on the grounds that he was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Some say that Iran, uncomfortable with a U.S. military presence on its border, has been supporting a guerrilla campaign against U.S. forces in Iraq and using its influence with Iraq's majority Shiite population to increase resentment against the U.S. Others say that Iranian animosity is due to the failure of the U.S. to eliminate the Mujaheddin al-Khalq, an Iranian exile group based in Iraq that has mounted attacks against Iran. Concurrent with those developments, antigovernment petitions and demonstrations have continued in Iran. Within the U.S. government, a debate has been ongoing over whether to actively support the Iranian reform movement. Tougher Policy Advocated Those who support a more confrontational approach for the U.S. in its dealings with Iran are divided between backers of a regime change and those who want to use direct military force to neutralize specific threats. Those who favor trying to bring about regime change through means such as backing the reform movement contend that a more moderate Iranian government is in the best interests of the U.S.

In particular, they say, reform in Iran would constitute a significant victory in the war against terrorism that the U.S. has been engaged in since Sept. 11. They point to numerous reports that Iran has financed terrorist groups that attack Israel. In addition, they say, the U.S. has long believed that Iran had backed attacks that killed U.S. peacekeepers and embassy staff in Lebanon in the 1980s, and U.S. soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s. It would be foolish to engage in dialogue with a state that sponsors terrorism. In addition to the strategic importance of backing the reform movement in Iran, proponents maintain that it would be inconsistent with U.S. ideals not to support freedom for the Iranian people. The U.S. should not compromise its own democratic values, they say. "Those who are fighting against support for the Iranian revolutionaries have it exactly backward," says Ledeen. "The silence they advocate would be a demoralizing blow to the Iranian people, and to our democratic soul." Supporters of a more aggressive approach charge that the Khatami government has not lived up to its pledges of reform. The U.S. policy of conciliatory behavior toward Iran in recent years has not had the desired effect, they argue. They note that demonstrators inside Iran have become disillusioned with Khatami and have begun calling for his resignation. The U.S. cannot afford to wait for long-delayed promises of internal reform, supporters say, but must more actively encourage it. "America must abandon any talk of engaging the self-proclaimed reformers [in Iran] who have not reformed the system in the seven years they have been in power," says Sen. Sam Brownback (R, Kan.), who has pushed for legislation committing the U.S. to backing Iranian reform.

Supporters point to recent large-scale demonstrations as proof that there is an appetite for change in Iran. They note that 65% of Iran's population is below the age of 30. Most of the younger Iranians, they say, do not remember life before the 1979 revolution, and are impatient for more freedom. For that reason, proponents say, there is less anti-U.S. sentiment among young Iranians than among their counterparts in other Middle Eastern countries. U.S. aid in overthrowing Iran's conservative regime would be welcomed by many within the country, they predict. Proponents contend that even modest efforts on the part of the U.S. could meet with success. In fact, they say, the means for the U.S. to induce reform in Iran are already in place. They cite the efforts of private satellite television stations run by Iranian exiles living in the U.S. By broadcasting inside Iran and informing citizens of the protest movement, those stations have helped enlarge recent pro-reform demonstrations, they say. Proponents support a bill, sponsored by Brownback, that would provide $50 million in funding for such efforts. "The weapons in this battle to topple the second member of the axis of evil are modems, [personal computers], fax machines and satellite dishes," states a June 18, 2003 Wall Street Journal editorial. "The U.S. should do everything in its power to help the Iranian people liberate themselves." Others are less fixated on the goal of regime change in Iran, but say that the U.S. should be prepared to take military action if reports of the Iranian government giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda members are proven true, or if Iran pursues a nuclear weapons program. "If the White House concludes that [Al Qaeda] is operationally active in Iran--and this couldn't have happened without the support of the ruling mullahs--then the administration tempts an ugly fate by not responding militarily to the clerical regime's blatant provocation," says Reuel Marc Gerecht, a

former member of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Gerecht says that the leaders of the hard-line military and governmental groups in Iran "need to know that any cooperation with Al Qaeda will lead to a ferocious American counterstrike against these institutions and the individuals who oversee them." Critics of Aggressive Approach Urge Restraint Critics of a more confrontational U.S. approach toward Iran argue that it would be counterproductive. If the U.S. favors diplomatic relations and friendly dialogue with Khatami's reformist government over sanctions and threats, they say, the Iranian government will feel less imperiled and will be less defensive. That would reduce the risk of Iran meddling in Iraq and continuing to try to develop nuclear weapons, they maintain. Critics charge that an antagonistic approach on the part of the U.S. damages the chances of reform occurring in Iran. Hostile rhetoric plays into the hands of the conservative Iranian clerics, they say. They point to the large street demonstrations after Bush's "axis of evil" speech. Similarly, critics assert that the use of military force to bring about regime change would alienate ordinary Iranians. While Iranian citizens may welcome dialogue with the U.S., many of them are opposed to the idea of a forceful overthrow of the current administration, whether directly undertaken by the U.S. or backed covertly, opponents say. "Reformmust be homegrown. Democracy cannot be imported, let alone imposed by tanks and missiles," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammed Jawad Zarif says. In addition to being detrimental to reform, a confrontational approach to Iran reflects badly on the U.S. in the eyes of the international community, critics say. They point out that despite U.S. sanctions, other countries appear eager to do business with Iran. "Our sanctions regime, far from

isolating the Islamic republic, seems to have isolated only us," Iranian-American scholar Cameron Kamran writes in the online magazine Salon. "It is seen as unfairly punishing everyday Iranians for the misdeeds of their government." Opponents are also skeptical of some of the claims made about the Iranian government harboring members of Al Qaeda. They cite reports from U.S. intelligence officials that members of the group might have entered the country through its porous borders without the knowledge of the government. In addition, the officials say, it is possible that certain conservative elements of the government and the military are giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda members, but that Khatami and others do not have control over them. Critics point to hitherto unverified claims made prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq that the Iraqi government was harboring Al Qaeda members. Critics stress that there already is a reform movement in Iran, both within the government and at the grass-roots level. With encouragement, but without undue interference, from the U.S., internal reformers can make progress toward a more open society, they say. The U.S. should have confidence in the ability of the Iranian people to enact reforms, critics argue. Critics charge that some U.S. officials mistakenly believe that Western-style democracy can be immediately imposed on Iran. The U.S. should give Iran as much time as it needs to change, and should recognize the gradual nature of the process, they say. "Indigenous models of reform and participation may not be as fully articulated as the systems of the West, which has had its own periods of trial and tribulation," Zarif says. "Reform efforts like that within Iran should be seen as a process rather than a project--with the attendant ups and downs, setbacks and victories." Future of Reform in Iran Uncertain

Some observers say that the reform movement in Iran has recently been gaining momentum. In June 2003, student demonstrations in Teheran expanded to include thousands of people of all ages in cities throughout the country. The protesters were attacked by conservative vigilantes, and many were arrested. Many of Iran's leading intellectuals issued a statement calling on the government to be accountable to the Iranian people. In the U.S., Bush spoke out in support of the protesters. "I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran," he said. "They need to know America stands squarely by their side. And I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect." Iran reacted angrily to Bush's comments, criticizing them as "flagrant interference in Iran's national affairs." Some in the U.S. have said that Iran could complicate U.S. efforts in Iraq by supporting popular uprisings there. They point to the example of Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s, when Iran was suspected of backing a Lebanese guerrilla resistance to the Israeli occupation. Iran could do the same in Iraq, they say, motivated by concerns over the presence of U.S. troops in a country bordering Iran. Whether such concerns will be borne out by events remains to be seen.