Richard Nephew
For two decades, hawkish voices in Washington have called for the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear program. And for two decades their calls have been rejected. That is because for most of that time, the argument against military action was compelling and straightforward. Iran’s nuclear capabilities were immature. The international community was united on the need for Tehran to prove that its nuclear intentions were entirely peaceful and thus was reasonably united in sanctioning the country when it became clear that they weren’t. These sanctions imposed high costs that pushed the Islamic Republic into negotiations.
There are still many good reasons to not bomb Iran. Striking the country would inject more chaos and instability into the Middle East. It would consume substantial American resources at a time when Washington wants to focus on other regions. It could undermine U.S. credibility if the attacks don’t succeed. And the odds of failure are high: even the most accurate strikes might only delay Iranian nuclearization. The best, most durable solution to the issue remains a diplomatic agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment