Panelists advocated avoiding U.S. military attacks on Iran in order to stabilize the Middle East, during a discussion Thursday night hosted by the UCLA Coalition for Peace.
Stephen Kinzer, an author and former New York Times foreign correspondent, and Brig. Gen. John Johns, retired from the office of the Army Chief of Staff, touched on subjects ranging from Iran’s political history to debates on the country’s current nuclear capabilities.
The event, called “The Folly of Attacking Iran,” focused on the possibility that a military attack on Iran could occur in the near future, and that such an attack would be detrimental to the Middle East and the United States as it would sever diplomatic ties between the two countries.
Calling a potential attack “a huge mistake,” Kinzer said he believed an American attack on Iran would “destabilize the Middle East and undermine the security interests of the U.S.”
Michael Dukakis, a former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate, attended the event, as well as students, professors and members of the Westwood community.
Los Angeles is the second stop of a national tour, and Kinzer and several other speakers will travel to 22 cities across the United States, concluding in Washington, D.C. They will discuss the ways increased diplomacy could prevent future military action against Iran.
“There needs to be an alternative policy to bombing,” Kinzer said. “Iran needs to be brought back into the world community, and the U.S. has the possibility to do this.”
Kinzer argued that the troubled relations between the U.S. and Iran can be resolved only by viewing Iran through a historical perspective, beginning with the American overthrow of Iran’s first and only democratic government in 1953.
He said this overthrow led Iranians to be “dubious” in the face of American democracy, and he cited it as an example of the potentially negative long-term effects of any American actions in Iran.
Sarah Jafari, a third-year political science student at UC San Diego, drove up from San Diego just to hear Kinzer speak. A fan of his written work, she brought two books for Kinzer to sign.
Jafari said she thought many of the historical issues Kinzer discussed are important to understanding the relationship between the U.S. and Iran, especially since “a lot of Americans aren’t aware of them.”
As an alternative to future military actions, Kinzer and Johns discussed the importance of diplomatic negotiations with Iran.
“We have got to get rid of the militaristic climate that thinks the primary element in foreign policy and international relations is military power,” Johns said.
“Military should be the last resort, not the first,” he said.
Johns argued that America needs support from the international community, and that military actions prohibit such support.
While much of the discussion focused on previous American foreign policy, some audience members said they would have enjoyed discussion on the U.S.’s future policies.
“I did expect them to talk a little more about what America is actually going to do,” said Humza Husain, a third-year political science student, though he said he thought the historical context of the discussion was appropriate for those who are not familiar with U.S.-Iran relations.
Reza Aslan, a religious author and scholar who moderated the event, said he thought the speakers presented well-balanced arguments that “brought forth issues on everyone’s mind.”
Aslan said he thinks “the next president will have to handle a real mess” if the U.S. takes military action in Iran.