There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran (NYTimes oped)

[pettypace]

There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran

PRESIDENT OBAMA should not lament but sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal.....

The risks of acquiescence are obvious. Iran supplies Islamist terrorist groups in violation of international embargoes. Even President Ahmadinejad’s domestic opponents support this weapons traffic. 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.....

Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway. Iran’s leaders are discouraged from taking more aggressive action against United States forces — and should continue to be — by the fear of provoking a stronger American counter-escalation. If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.

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.

But there are three compelling reasons that the United States 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. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.

By Alan J Kuperman

Cannot believe the sheer arrogance of these so-called experts in world affairs.

[RC]

1. Maybe if we stopped threating other countries with violence, maybe

they would not feel threatened and build up counter defenses? Ya think, huh, maybe?
Naa can't work, too much like socialism. Working together for peaceful goals is for weaklings.

For the reality impaired: :sarcasm:

[timeforpeace]

2. Send in John Kerry, that's how.

[Fearless]

6. +1

[soryang]

3. Go for it!

A lunatic approach like this will result in economic, political and military diaster for the US. We will finally be rid of lunatic neo con defense contractor political domination.

Iran does not support our "enemies" in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they did our casualities would be significantly higher. Anyone familiar with Iranian military technology knows this.

[Poll_Blind]

4. This is Kissenger/Nixon "Mad Dog" as standard policy, something I'd never thought...

...I'd see in my lifetime, until Bush and the definite lingering stench of it in Washington.

PB

[stilpist]

5. Is there ANY way?

ANY way for Iran to stop the United States from acquiring nuclear weapons?

[ShamelessHussy]

7. yes, start another war in the ME, that sounds like a BRILLIANT plan!

merry christmas, everyone!

[emald]

8. "oust in weeks"......

wow.

[yurbud]

9. that tells you right there the guy is either paid to lie or a delusional idiot

[bemildred]

10. Who is this tool?

Alan J. Kuperman is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.

Does this mean they are giving degrees in "Nuclear Proliferation Prevention", or what?

[pangaia]

11. HUH!

HUH! I'm moving to Pluto. :nuke:

[CLANG]

12. This guy is an Educator!

Alan J. Kuperman is the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.

I guess they are not all liberals!:rofl:

[tom_paine]

13. oh, that Liberal Media!

:rofl: