With tension between Israel and Iran so heated that armed conflict seems inevitable, the U.S. military must decide on a plan of action should combat arise, and it must decide soon.
According to the Washington Post, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a "strong likelihood" that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June.
The conflict between the two nations stems largely from Iran's nuclear program. In short, Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear power.
The words "Iran" and "Israel" conjure up two images: one of a backward, malevolent country and one of a civil, peaceful country. How could it be otherwise when rocket attacks from one country are called terrorism but occupation and incursions by another are accepted or ignored?
Consider the U.S.'s hostility toward Iran. At the South Carolina Republican Presidential Debate, candidate Rick Santorum said, "There have been scientists turning up dead in Russia and in Iran. ... I hope that the United States has been involved with that."
According to Santorum, who needs trial by jury or even a criminal accusation? When U.S. presidential candidates support the assassination of unarmed, nonviolent scientists, it's easy to see why Iran would want to equip itself with nuclear weapons.
Indeed, the conflict surrounding Iran's nuclear program is difficult and can't be entirely attributed to one country. If anything, the aggressor, at the moment, is Israel. Israel likely has access to nuclear weaponry, and it is Israel that appears most likely to open warfare to stop Iran's nuclear program.
This weekend, during the celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the Iranian Revolution, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a major announcement: "In the coming days, the world will witness Iran's announcement of its very important and very major nuclear achievements."
These nuclear achievements, if real, are important, considering that Iran's nuclear ambitions have been the target of opposition from many nations. As Ahmadinejad put it, "All countries have put pressure on us for not obtaining nuclear know-how, but all these pressures are futile."
Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry may prove to be the greatest source of peace for the Middle East. Nuclear weapons are primarily facilitators of deterrence, not combat. If Israel and Iran both know that the other has nuclear power, they will avoid war at all costs. It is similar to the circumstance of the Cold War: Mutually assured destruction will prevent either side from taking action.
Although it may be too much to expect the U.S. not to blindly back Israel, our loyalty should lie with ourselves alone.
There is a horribly mistaken notion that there are certain civilities of war: that massacre is civil as long as the murderers and victims are wearing their country's uniforms, or that one death, 100 deaths or 1 million deaths are acceptable as long as they are the result of adherence to the protocol of the Geneva Conventions.
As absurd as this notion sounds, this is how war is practiced today. Warfare of any kind is the vilest, wickedest action humans can take on each other. There is no civil warfare.
Thus, the United States should not jump into any conflict with Iran. War has become a farce, with the U.S. seeming to involve itself in some new conflict every year. But war with Iran would be far from a farce, and the U.S.'s only goal for this conflict should be to establish peace between Israel and Iran.
Abdul Zalikha is a biology and English junior at UF. His column appears on Wednesdays.
