A nuclear Iran is more than likely but it's not the end of the world
The Age / The Age
23-Mar-2010

The ''let 'em have it'' calls for air strikes as an international response to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program may be losing ground to arguments there is another ''let 'em have it'' option the White House might consider, or is maybe already considering.

It requires an act of faith. Washington would press ahead at the United Nations Security Council for a fourth sanctions resolution against Tehran but it would do so knowing Iran will inevitably get a bomb and a contemporary application of a Cold War-style ''containment'' strategy is perhaps more astute than edging towards another war in the Middle East.

This alternative argument is based on glaring realities - Israel, Pakistan and India wanted a bomb, and each got one; sanctions are a slow, imperfect means of inducing character change in reluctant regimes. As its proponents pick apart the case for a military response, they detect in Washington's policy and posture a shift to long-term containment of a nuclear Iran.

It is worth remembering, after all the initial hand-wringing, that the world seems to have taken the emergence of successive nuclear powers in its stride. Why should Iran be deemed forever to be incapable of becoming a well-behaved member of the nuclear club?

This month, The New York Times reminded its readers that in the mid-1960s president Lyndon Johnson contemplated bombing China's nuclear sites. And after years of angst about North Korea going nuclear, the international co... >>>

recommended by IranMilitaryForum.net

Share/Save/Bookmark