We acknowledge, of course, that containing a nuclear Iran would be costly and risky. The United States would need to be strong, resolute and even fearsome in demonstrating to Iran the costs of aggression and assuring U.S. allies that staying the course with Washington represents a prudent strategy. Yet attacking Iran means rallying ordinary Iranians to a regime they dislike and many despise, and it risks a wider war in the region. And it would alienate key international actors, such as Russia, whose support would be necessary to ensure that an effective sanctions policy could work over time. And an attack would do all this without even providing a reasonable and plausible answer to the ultimate question Americans want answered before the United States goes to war: How does this end? Stealthy air strikes and massive earth-penetrating bombs are only tools, not answers. The United States cannot responsibly attack Iran and leave it at that, simply hoping for the best. A firm and resolute containment may be costly and risky, but it is a lot better than that. It’s probably best not to start down a road that has no end in sight.
Elbridge Colby is a defense analyst who previously served in a number of U.S. Government positions, including as an expert advisor to the Congressional Strategic Posture, for which he prepared a study on the question of deterring a nuclear-armed Iran. Austin Long is an assistant professor at Columbia University and author of a detailed assessment of the merits and implications of an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
Comments
The authors write:"It’s probably best not to start down a road that has no end in sight."Ah but they miss the fact that some of those wanting to start down that road like that idea.
There is an assumption that we simply make a strike and destroy the nuclear infrastructure and the Iranians do nothing a la Reagan strikes on Ghadaffi in the 1980's.Well one Ghadaffi was still in power 30 years later and he actually increased his intention to get WMD after those strikes. He changed position after Saddam was overthrown which was full scale invasion and occupation. Iran is in a much better position to hit back with the narrowness of the Gulf as opposed to the Med. simply the threat of restricting oil through the gulf would put prices up which is bad for Europe and US and good for Iran.There is a nonsensical self belief among some that assumes, Iran is opposed to US, US is good, Iran people must oppose bad Government, bomb Iran is good, Iran people will thank us! It is nonsense but it makes a popular talking point amongst Republican politics in the US, some do not really actually want to bomb Iran, or care what happens the day after if someone else does, but they make money from talking about it. The issue is not Iran but internal US politics!
Yes, the issue is the internal U.S. politics to safeguard the freedom and security of U.S. and their allies but totally ignoring the saftey and human right abuses by Iran to the minority ethnic nations i.e. from Kurds to Ahwazis to Azeris to Baluchs. If you are dear to your own freedom, you have to respect the freedom of others and the political and military strategy should be based on the freedom of small ethnic minority nations of Iran and defeat the Persian Shia Shaunism. This is the only light in the end of the tunnel to curb Iranian adventurism who dream to become the rascist Hitler-Nazi regimes in 21st century. If the free states of Kurds, Ahwazis and Baluchs are created, Iran shall be pushed back from Strait of Hormuz about 300 Km away and the new independent States shall safeguard the flow of Hydrocarban in Baluch Gulf (Persian Gulf). The free state of Sistan-va-baluchistan shall be a bonus because of the safe communication from the port of Chahbahar to Afghanistan and to the Central Asian countries. In the long run, Persian shall be obliged to abandon their nuclear program.It`s so simple and easy solution to solve the problem of Iran.