Doyle McManus from the Los Angeles Times offers a casual, generally pro-Obama analysis of the administrations response to a possible nuclear Iran in his opinion piece,"What if Iran gets the bomb?".
Iran's progress towards developing a nuclear weapon has been slowed, but not stopped by the status quo of sanctions and negotiations - even internal unrest hasn't put a halt to it. McManus argues as "Most experts now estimate that Iran needs about 18 months to complete a nuclear device", the course of action for the United States is at a crossroads, and he proceeds to discuss our options.
McManus rejects the "hawks" opinion that military action remains the only remaining option, citing the line of reasoning that a military strike, while increasing (the already considerable) chaos in the country, would make the regime more hard-line and quite potentially result in another Afghanistan/Iraq type conflict, as well as open war between Israel and Iran. Although McManus doesn't cite much supporting this view, it seems plausible and is commonly held.
McManus suggests that the course of action should be to contain the threat, a policy the United States has quite some experience with. More sanctions, more defense to Israel and other countries threatened by Iran, and a more active role in the region. McManus suggests more of the same from the Obama administration, just in a stronger variant.
I agree with the general sentiment of the article, caution and indirect action should be strongly considered,especially given the current deployment of US military and intelligence resources: we cannot fight directly on all fronts.
McManus offers a passable, but simple analysis of the Iran situation, and his article offers an entry point to causal readers of the news to understanding the conflict and the policy options United States leaders face.
No comments:
Post a Comment