Time to Attack Iran?
Opponents of military action against Iran assume a U.S. strike would be far more dangerous than simply letting Tehran build a bomb. Not so, argues this former Pentagon defense planner. With a carefully designed attack, could Washington mitigate the costs and spare the region and the world from an unacceptable threat? Read the full article.
Interesting article. I don’t think that the the response to a nuclear Iran is as one sided as this piece would like to depict, i.e. an inevitable militaristic confrontation with Iran. I think the article uses the terms “US interests” and “national security threats” too broadly and too generally to argue its points. It also assumes that those things it claims are “US interests” and “national security threats” are in fact critical or existential. I think it all boils down to the loss of the U.S.’s sphere of influence. Will a nuclear Iran, and the consequences of that, threaten our sphere of influence? To what degree should we tolerate that? Should the U.S. be the dominating world power? Dominate for fear of being dominated? But in a nuclear world with mutually assured destruction, don’t our nuclear weapons become moot? Aren’t they only useful when there is an uequal balance of power and one country is stronger than another? But in a world of alliances, isn’t every geopolitical country armed with a nuclear weapon by proxy? So does a nuclear Iran even matter?
Oh, by the way, you can find the whole article here: http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/2011122112316/Opinion/time-to-attack-iran-why-a-strike-is-the-least-bad-option.html
