The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama should consider a military option against Iran before the Ayatollahs regime will have nuclear weapons - they write the three experts of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on his website.
IAEA report on Iran's nuclear arms, which on Tuesday leaked to the press sparked a strong response, the West, Israel and the Tehran. Experts from prestigious research institutions, dealing with international relations Evan Braden Montgomery, Andrew F. Krepinevich and Eric S. Edelman believe that the U.S. should stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb at any cost, and until it is too late. Especially since - if the diagnosis is correct IAEA - Tehran may come into possession of nuclear weapons within months.
Until now, the U.S. relied on its policy towards Iran on the combination strategy of "carrot and stick", ie sanctions alternately with offers numerous benefits if Tehran give up its nuclear program. An alternative to the ineffective diplomacy before military action would be aimed at Iran's military installations, but that would be costly and do not guarantee to achieve objectives.
In addition, playing for time and prolonging the sanctions would allow the West looking forward to the change of regime in the Islamic republic - the authors analysis. But also note that so far the regime in Iran is doing well, despite the opposition street protests and conflicts between President
First of all, "The Obama administration should not exclude the possibility of nuclear conflict between Iran and Israel" - the authors of the text. Both sides have every reason to wish for emergency use the advantages offered by this first blow.
Indeed, news agencies reported that the IAEA report provoked strong reactions in Israel, which fears that it could be a target of nuclear attack from Iran. President even warned that the military strike on Iran is closer than a diplomatic solution.
According to Montgomery, Krepinevicha and Edelman, another risk factor is likely international reaction around the Middle East through Iran to produce nuclear weapons. Almost every observer of international politics, "noted that the U.S. is definitely different treat rogue regimes armed with nuclear weapons, and South Korea., Than countries without nuclear bombs as Iraq and Libya" - the authors write.
"If Iran became a nuclear power and the U.S. policy of isolating him responded, nuclear weapons would become even more desirable instrument of deterrence external interventionists" - Learn from the experts CFR. Tehran's regional rivals - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt - would also build the arsenal.
During the Cold War, the United States applied to Soviet policy of deterrence and isolation, so many analysts proposes to adopt the same strategy against Iran. But Montgomery, Krepinevich and Edelman calculate the difference: the times of these U.S. allies could count on, for which they were the guarantor of security and had hundreds of thousands of troops in bases in Europe and Asia. Now, America would not have such facilities.
The closer Iran will build nuclear arsenals, the smaller will be the selection of measures which could stop him - the authors conclude - United States face a difficult choice between the decision - rather urgently - a military action, and the life of a nuclear Iran and the consequences of this change in the whole region .
CFR Experts text appeared after the defense minister on Thursday, warned the U.S. against the "unintended consequences" attack on Iranian nuclear installations. Panetta argued that bombing Iranian nuclear facilities will delay the nuclear program by up to three years. In his opinion, could have completely "unintended" consequences for the region and U.S. troops stationed there.
Specializing in American politics news portal RealClearPolitics calculated the day before the reasons why Obama would not agree to an attack on Iran. Among other things, referred to the costs of the war, the scale of debt the U.S. after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and finally that the U.S. reluctant to resort to large-scale invasion, if you do not have a mandate from the international organization, preferably UN, which in the case of Iran would be impossible. Russia and China objected for sure. Well, it would be difficult to count on a coalition, which together with the United States would incur the costs of war.
Meanwhile, authorities in Tehran are threatening strong military retaliation for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.