Should the United States Consider Military Action to Hinder Iran's Nuclear Program?
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, recently released a report detailing Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear bomb. Though the report did not specifically say that it had evidence of Iran building an atomic bomb, it did cite findings that Iran was testing nuclear-compatible detonators, adding, “The application of such studies to anything other than a nuclear explosive is unclear to the agency.” Iranian officials condemned the report, calling it “unbalanced, unprofessional, and prepared with political motivation and under political pressure by mostly the United States.” The report has revived the debate over how best to deal with the possibility of an Iranian atomic weapon. During the CBS/National Journal foreign policy debate, Republican candidates criticized Obama’s handling of Iran’s nuclear program. Former Gov. Mitt Romney and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich both promised to use military action if other methods failed to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. However, scarred by the memories of Iraq, others are wary of a war with Iran. “It’s not worthwhile to go to war,” said Rep. Ron Paul.
Here is the Debate Club’s take on whether the United States should consider using military action to hinder Iran’s nuclear program.
The Arguments
No — Engagement has failed, but supporting Iran's internal opposition is a better option than U.S. military action
ALIREZA JAFARZADEH, Author of 'The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis' Comment (25)
No — U.S. should stop calling Mujahedeen-e-Khalq a terrorist group, and allow it to fight Iran regime
RAYMOND TANTER, Founder of the Iran Policy Committee Comment (2)
Yes — Iran must believe that if it tries to build a nuclear bomb, the U.S. will undertake military action to disrupt it
MICHAEL EISENSTADT, Director of the Military and Security Studies Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Comment (1)
Yes — America cannot shirk its responsibility to stop Tehran's nuclear aims
JAMIE M. FLY, Former Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council Comment (5)
No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits
MATTHEW DUSS, Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress Comment
No — The last thing U.S. needs is another war in the Muslim world
JUSTIN LOGAN, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute Comment (4)
No — A pre-emptive strike would make containing Iran's nuclear program harder, not easier
JAMES DOBBINS, Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation Comment (2)
