|
Trending Topics
|
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/opinion/24kuperman.html
There's Only One Way to Stop Iran
(New York Times) Alan J. Kuperman - President Obama should sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal. Had the deal gone through, Iran could have benefited from a head start toward making weapons-grade 90%-enriched uranium by starting with purified 20%-enriched uranium rather than its own weaker, contaminated stuff. If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb. Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran's bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate. There are three compelling reasons that the U.S. itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon's weapons are better than Israel's at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel's relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators. Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the U.S. takes action, the better. The writer is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.