News

Harvard Alumni Email Forwarding Services to Remain Unchanged Despite Student Protest

News

Democracy Center to Close, Leaving Progressive Cambridge Groups Scrambling

News

Harvard Student Government Approves PSC Petition for Referendum on Israel Divestment

News

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang ’05 Elected Co-Chair of Metropolitan Mayors Coalition

News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

Calm and Rational

DISSENTING OPINION

By Alan Cooperman

IN VIEWING President Carter's statements on the war between Iran and Iraq as a scary outgrowth of the "Carter doctrine", the majority opinion ignores the fact that Carter has actually responded calmly to the fighting. The opinion also undervalues the economic interests of the United States in the Persian Gulf, and overstates the belligerence of Carter's position.

Carter's statements have been twofold. First, he has made extensive efforts to assure all parties, including the Soviet Union, that the United States wishes to remain neutral. Second, he has said the United States "cannot rule out" the use of force to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.

The declaration of neutrality is a realistic acknowledgement that the fighting has not yet endangered vital American interests, and that the United States has little or nothing to gain by favoring either of two unstable, anti-American regimes.

The warning about the Strait of Hormuz is an attempt to prevent the fighting from escalating to the point where it would affect a vital international interest. Sixty percent of the world's oil flows through the strait, and its cutoff would leave homes without heating oil and factories without fuel throughout the western world. Oil supplies are not a mere "phantom" of national security. The United States has only a six-week emergency supply of oil, and it would certainly take much longer for alternative energy sources and conservation to eliminate the shortage that blockage of the Strait would entail.

Moreover, Carter's pledge to defend the strait is credible and does not mean, as the majority editorial asserts, that "Carter will send in the Navy, the Air Force, and--if necessary--the Army." According to a military analysis by the New York Times, keeping the gulf open would probably involve a naval mine-sweeping operation, and the United States naval force in the Indian Ocean has a "clear margin of superiority" over the Soviet, Iranian and Iraqi forces.

Carter's statements bring the United States no closer to military intervention in the Persian Gulf. They are not scary, but calm and rational.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags