Matthew Kroenig argues that it is time for the United States to use military force to disable Iran's nuclear capability.
But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease--that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran's nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.
Kroenig argues that if Iran were to become nuclear, it would impose many costs upon the U.S., and weaken its strategic position in the Middle East. He argues further that a preemptive attack could be effective, minimal, and that the fall out could be managed.
I'm not at all convinced. It seems to me that Kroenig vastely underestimates the risks and challenges of attacking Iran, and overstates the dangers of doing nothing at all. Stephen Walt makes this point also in a penetrating critique. Indeed, this type of miscalculation or "false optimism" is a fairly major cause of war, historically.
Kroenig assumes that Iranian leaders are committed to obtaining nuclear weapons, are close to obtaining nukes (with no actual discussion of its capabilities) and that negotiations have no chance of succeeding. Indeed, it is plausible that the threat of U.S. attack, as well as regime security, is a major driver of Iran's nuclear ambitions in the first place.
The essay is well argued but flawed. Let us hope it fails to convince.
Several countries, including wonderful North Korea, have nuclear arms. So what is the big deal if we add one more to our number. The rabbit is out of the hat, as the saying goes. Everyone can learn how to make a nuclear bomb. No longer can we expect any knowledge (and hence power) to be restricted to any one nation or 'side' (good versus bad, I suppose, depending on who you are talking to.). The things that may work to resolve differences - possibly - are diplomacy and negotiation. Attacking Iran will have possibly even worse consequenses than attacking Irag. Increased destabilization in the area, global shakiness, death and destruction in the area and so on and so on. Cannot be a good scene.
ReplyDeleteIn short, I believe a pre-emptive attack by the US on Iran would be a grave error. We seem to have returned to the awful era of The Crusades.