Submit your comments on this article |
Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
The Bottom Line on Iran: The Costs and Benefits of Preventive War versus Deterrence |
2006-12-05 |
![]() Executive Summary: It appears increasingly likely that the Bush administration's diplomatic approach to Iran will fail to prevent Iran from going nuclear and that the United States will have to decide whether to use military force to attempt to delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. Some analysts have already been promoting air strikes against Iran, and the Bush administration has pointed out repeatedly that the military option is "on the table." This paper examines the options available to the United States in the face of a prospective final diplomatic collapse. ![]() A policy of acceptance and deterrence is also an unattractive prospect. Iran would likely be emboldened by the acquisition of a bomb and could destabilize the region and inject more problems into an already bleak prospect for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Still, given the costs of the military option, the only compelling rationale for starting a war with Iran would be if there were good reason to believe that the Iranian leadership is fundamentally undeterrable. But available evidence indicates that Iran is deterrable and would be particularly so if faced with the devastating repercussions that would result from the use of a nuclear weapon. Therefore, the United States should begin taking steps immediately to prepare for a policy of deterrence should an Iranian bomb come online in the future. As undesirable as such a situation would be, it appears less costly than striking Iran. Full Text of Policy Analysis (PDF) |
Posted by:DepotGuy |
#6 "Policy of deterrence" > IOW, LET ISRAEL BE DESTROYED + ALL WESTERN DEMOCRACY BE THREATENED OR PLACED AT RISK, so that US Cities don't get nuked + anti-Amer Americans have something left in CONUS, and only CONUS, to rule over. FIGHTING FOR THOSE FEW SPECIAL AMERIKANS ONLY-RESERVED SEATS ON THE FUTURE AMERIKAN POLITIBURO WHICH RUSSIA-CHINA NEVER PROMISED THE US LEFT.* "USSA, NOT USSR", ergo the future USSA is weirdly and mysteriously, but only co-incidentally randomly and PC/Deniably, the only one that has to surrender. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-12-05 23:42 |
#5 Perhaps the chief reason I no longer consider my self a Libertarian. |
Posted by: eLarson 2006-12-05 18:18 |
#4 How about killing the fuckers and taking the land, oil and women? Care to calculate the cost/benefit ratio of that vs. doing nothing? |
Posted by: ed 2006-12-05 16:25 |
#3 Look like when the Green Hornet died he left a nice piece of change to Cato. At least enough to start an Institute. |
Posted by: tu3031 2006-12-05 16:11 |
#2 Cato Claptrap. *flush* |
Posted by: .com 2006-12-05 16:05 |
#1 "If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?" - John von Neumann |
Posted by: Excalibur 2006-12-05 15:44 |