Should the United States Consider Military Action to Hinder Iran's Nuclear Program? >
Military Action Might Be The Only Option With Iran
America cannot shirk its responsibility to stop Tehran's nuclear aims
November 16, 2011
About Jamie M. Fly:
Jamie Fly has served as the executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative since its founding in early 2009. Prior to joining FPI, Fly served in the Bush administration at the National Security Council and in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He was director for counterproliferation strategy at the National Security Council, where his portfolio included the Iranian nuclear program, Syria, missile defense, chemical weapons, proliferation finance, and other counterproliferation issues.
Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has made significant progress toward a nuclear weapons capability. International reaction to the report has been mixed. Several European countries have expressed concern and President Obama on Monday promised a new effort to isolate Iran. Despite the report's damning conclusions, Russia and China, long a focus of President Obama's efforts to obtain more stringent sanctions against Iran, appear reluctant to ramp up pressure on Tehran.
This muted reaction to reports that Iran has essentially done much of the work necessary to weaponize a nuclear device is just the latest evidence of the failed Iran policy of successive U.S. administrations. We are in a vicious cycle with Iran. The regime makes provocative advances in its nuclear program and the international community responds with the diplomatic equivalent of a collective shrug—sometimes expressing dismay, sometimes pursuing new sanctions. The message to the mullahs is clear—there are no serious penalties as they get closer and closer to their nuclear goal.
[See a collection of political cartoons on Iran.]
At this point, the only action that might dissuade Iran from taking the final step is the viable threat of military action. The IAEA report notes that Iran likely halted its program briefly in 2003 "owing to growing concerns about the international security situation in Iraq and neighboring countries at that time."
The problem now is that under the Obama administration, the military option has essentially been removed from the table. Press reports in recent weeks cite Obama administration efforts to dissuade Israel from conducting an attack and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta spoke of the "unintended consequences" of military action and the potential "serious impact" on the Middle East and U.S. forces in the region.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the turmoil in the Middle East.]
A military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be a significant undertaking and the costs should not be underestimated. But these costs must be weighed against the implications of a nuclear Iran to U.S. security and interests and to our allies. A nuclear Iran would lead to a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East as Iran's neighbors raced to get the bomb. Iran's terrorist proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, would likely be emboldened. Iran's efforts to influence developments in Iraq and Afghanistan would be strengthened.
Some Americans, fatigued by 10 years of the war on terror and continued economic problems at home, may be tempted to outsource this problem to Israel. But Israel lacks the military capabilities to carry out the sort of attack that would significantly set the program back.
America cannot shirk its responsibility when it comes to Iran. To so would be irresponsible and dangerous. Military action should be the last resort, but increasingly appears to be the only option that will prevent a nuclear Iran.
- See a slide show of 6 vulnerable potential terrorist targets.
- See a slide show of 15 post-Cold War uprisings.
- See an opinion slide show of 5 ways Arab governments resist democracy.
- Other Arguments
-
#125435
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'
-
#217539
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
-
#37054
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
-
#48178
No — Cost of military action outweighs its limited benefits
MATTHEW DUSS, Director of Middle East Progress at the Center for American Progress
-
#65166
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
-
#73998
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
Reader Comments Read all comments (5)
Mohamed 12:35PM January 31, 2012
Charles of OK 5:51PM November 19, 2011
Amir 9:42AM November 19, 2011