Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addresses the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday, a day after strong condemnation of Iran's nuclear ambitions from President Obama and ongoing warnings from Israel's President Benjamin Netanyahu.
As the fourth installment of our One Minute Debate series for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on what the United States should do about Iran's nuclear program.
On one side, John Bolton, former US ambassador to the UN, says America should support an attack by Israel. On the other side, Daryl G. Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, argues for ongoing diplomacy and negotiations with Tehran. Edward Haley, professor at Claremont McKenna College, suggests a "middle way:" containment through deterrence and support for Iran's neighbors.
1. Support Israeli attack: That will break the nuclear-fuel cycle and buy time for regime change.
Theoretically, years ago, comprehensive economic sanctions ? swiftly and relentlessly applied, and rigorously policed with military force as necessary ? might have stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program. But such sanctions never existed and never will.
Russia, China, Venezuela, Iraq, and others delight in helping Tehran evade today's patchwork of haphazardly applied, often ignored, and poorly enforced measures. Iran has suffered economically from these Rube Goldberg efforts, but its progress toward nuclear weapons, as even the International Atomic Energy Agency's public information demonstrates, continues essentially unabated.
Tehran is perilously close to achieving nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles for worldwide delivery. It is far too advanced in its entire program for sanctions to stop it now. And because the world's intelligence on Iran is imperfect, Iran may be even closer to a nuclear bomb than we think, especially considering its longstanding cooperation with North Korea, about which we know far less.
OPINION: Five reasons to attack Iran
Diplomacy and sanctions have failed; believing otherwise objectively enables Iran. There are two possible outcomes.
The most likely is that Iran gets nuclear weapons, bringing the chilling prospect of nuclear holocaust for Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran would also dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East, prompting Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and others to acquire nuclear capabilities. And it would increase the risk of global nuclear terrorism.
The other possibility is that someone, now most likely Israel, uses force to break Iran's control over the nuclear-fuel cycle, not permanently, but long enough to buy time for the broader objective of finally overthrowing the Tehran regime.
The odds are long, time is short, and the choice is stark. But since a nuclear-armed Iran will change the world forever, America should support an Israeli attack as the least-worst option.
John Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as US ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06.
ALSO BY THIS WRITER: Israel is not the threat, Mr. Obama. Iran is.
Sign up for our free weekly Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Opinion and Commentary to your free daily Monitor newsletter.
2. Keep negotiating: With more creative diplomacy and cooperation from Iran, a deal is within reach.
A decade has elapsed since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that Iran had secretly built a uranium-enrichment facility. Since then, Iran and the Western powers have fumbled several opportunities to reach an agreement that reduces the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Nevertheless, with more creative, US-led diplomacy, and co-operation from Tehran, a deal that guards against a nuclear-armed Iran is still within reach.
Iran apparently has not made a strategic decision to build nuclear weapons and does not yet have the necessary ingredients for an effective nuclear arsenal. But its capabilities are improving. By the end of next year, Iran could install more-advanced centrifuges and significantly increase its enriched-uranium stockpile. The time available for diplomacy must not be wasted.
OPINION: 5 reasons US must avoid war with Iran
Tough international sanctions have slowed Iran's program and increased pressure on Tehran to negotiate. Yet sanctions alone won't stop Iran's dangerous nuclear pursuits.
The military option would be counterproductive and costly. As a new report from an American bipartisan group of 33 former diplomats and national security experts, including Gen. Anthony Zinni and Gen. Brent Scowcroft, says, a preventive strike would only temporarily set back Iran's program and prompt Iran to openly pursue the bomb.
The goal for US negotiators must be to restrict Iran's enrichment to normal reactor-grade levels and limit its stockpiles to actual nuclear power needs, while allowing more intrusive IAEA inspections to ensure that Iran has halted all weapons-related work.
OPINION: 4 ways US and Iran can make nuclear talks work
A revised proposal calling for a halt to Iran's accumulation of 20 percent-enriched uranium, which is closer to weapons grade, in exchange for relaxing some of the international oil and financial sanctions imposed on Iran, could buy time and build momentum.
Pursuing such a course is difficult, but it is the best option on the table.
Daryl G. Kimball is executive director of the independent Arms Control Association.
ALSO BY THIS WRITER: Iran nuclear talks: To keep global support, US must seize diplomatic opportunities
3. A middle way: Contain Iran through deterrence; help its neighbors gain peace and prosperity.
A military strike will delay but cannot stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It will increase support for the Iranian government at home and abroad. And it will cause catastrophic damage in a global economy barely past the worst financial crash since the Great Depression.
Sanctions and diplomacy promise little more. The Russians and Chinese refuse to stop supporting Tehran, and the Iranian government simply isn't interested in negotiating.
That leaves containing Iran, whether it has nuclear weapons or not. Containment denies external success to Iran through measures such as isolation, trade and financial embargoes, noncommunication, and nuclear deterrence.
OPINION: 6 factors that will determine concessions from Iran
One goal is to force the regime to abandon its dream of international dominance and, ultimately, to accept regime change at home. Critics object that this will take too long and argue that, in the process, Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran, they say, will then enjoy greater freedom of action in the region because of a mutual fear of nuclear escalation.
But that mutual fear can work both ways ? as it did for decades in the cold war with the Soviet Union. The greatest danger of a nuclear Iran ? that it will use its weapons, presumably against Israel ? can be negated through Iran's sure expectation of a catastrophic nuclear response from either Israel or the United States. Beyond deterrence and isolation, though, the US and its allies must foster a world outside embargoed Iran that is so dynamic, prosperous, and attractive that Tehran will be unable to take advantage of any psychological or political leverage it gains by going nuclear.
Protected by an American nuclear umbrella, friendly governments in the region can focus on economic and social development. That will give them the strength to resist Iran's leverage.
For starters, this means bringing real peace to Syria and Lebanon, Iran's proxy states. The solution to the Iranian nuclear problem lies not in Tehran but in the well-being of its neighbors.
Edward Haley is W.M. Keck Foundation professor of international strategic studies and director of the Center for Human Rights Leadership at Claremont McKenna College.
ALSO BY THIS WRITER: 3 reasons not to attack Iran
Sign up for our free weekly Commentary newsletter (every Thursday). You can also add Opinion and Commentary to your free daily Monitor newsletter.
Related stories
Read this story at csmonitor.com
Become a part of the Monitor community
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/3-views-us-irans-nuclear-program-150617423--politics.html
groundhogs day paula abdul cinnamon challenge lou dobbs rock salt david letterman march of dimes
![[ Back to EurekAlert! ]](http://www.eurekalert.org/images/back2e.gif){kind=small}
Public release date: 28-Sep-2012
Share ] 
