Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

SixthSense

(829 posts)
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 01:28 AM Jan 2012

Time to Attack Iran [View all]

In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon -- particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.

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.

...and more of this garbage behind a registration wall at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran


------------

Matthew Kroenig is a professor at Georgetown. Anyone else interested in organizing a protest to get him fired?


26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Time to Attack Iran [View all] SixthSense Jan 2012 OP
Ironic, is it not . . . markpkessinger Jan 2012 #1
Aren't they signatories to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty that also mahina Jan 2012 #2
Why do you want him fired? nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #3
because he's trying to get us in a war SixthSense Jan 2012 #5
I don't want brussels sprouts - should I have the grocery store closed? nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #15
What if the brussel sprouts were forced down your throat by the grocer? superpatriotman Jan 2012 #23
I'd find another grocer. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #24
A regional ME war is coming in 2012. roamer65 Jan 2012 #4
screw US interests in the Middle East and beyond Motown_Johnny Jan 2012 #6
and the Iranis are going to be in for a rude awakening when the UAE and KSA ship their oil through JCMach1 Jan 2012 #7
Kroenig can be the first one in. He can live in that world, I won't. leveymg Jan 2012 #8
+9000! Zalatix Jan 2012 #26
I wouldn't worry, Obama is afraid to even posture overmuch in that direction. Umbral Jan 2012 #9
Really? SixthSense Jan 2012 #10
Naw, I'll stand by it. All we'll see toward Iran, untill after elections will be bluff and bluster. Umbral Jan 2012 #11
Election/campaign rheortic have been known to sway opinions. sad sally Jan 2012 #17
The source for this piece is commonaffairs . com which is published by the Council on Foreign peacetalksforall Jan 2012 #12
No Bilderberger CT nonsense, please. MineralMan Jan 2012 #13
the war drums pounding are not CT SixthSense Jan 2012 #16
That's not what I'm talking about. MineralMan Jan 2012 #18
well SixthSense Jan 2012 #20
I'm not going to discuss the Bilderberger Group with you. MineralMan Jan 2012 #21
that's your prerogative SixthSense Jan 2012 #22
I'm more worried about the Pentaverate, anyway Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #25
Did you hear Panetta on Face the Nation yesterday? Sounded like he's itching to bomb Iran. sad sally Jan 2012 #19
I, for one, can't wait for the daily "Iran Liberation!" updates. Or Syria. Or whatever. As long Romulox Jan 2012 #14
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Time to Attack Iran