Opinion

Five reasons to attack Iran

Iran continues to make steady progress on its nuclear program. The international community, led by the United States, is imposing increasingly tough sanctions on Tehran, including a European ban on oil imports from Iran. The world should hope that Iran will negotiate away its uranium enrichment program, but that's highly unlikely, says Matthew Kroenig, a Stanton Nuclear Security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

And so, in the coming months, Washington might be forced to choose between simply letting Iran have nuclear weapons or conducting a military strike designed to prevent that from happening. Mr. Kroenig believes the options are awful, but here gives five reasons why, if faced with that decision, the US should strike.

This article has been adapted from an essay in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

2. Deterrence is costly and might not work

In practice, deterring a nuclear Iran means extending the US nuclear umbrella and pledging to fight nuclear wars on behalf of America’s regional partners. But, is the US really willing to trade New York for Riyadh?

To make this inherently incredible threat credible, the US would have to station troops and forward-deployed nuclear weapons in the region, ensuring that the United States will be dragged into any future conflict. These and other costly measures would have to remain in place as long as Iran exists as a state and has nuclear weapons, which could be decades or longer.

OPINION: Would a nuclear-armed Iran really be so dangerous?

And, while the threat of US retaliation could deter Iran from intentionally launching a nuclear war, the threat to go to war with a nuclear-armed Iran – especially after America was unwilling to fight a nonnuclear Iran – would be irrelevant or incredible as a response to other Iranian challenges. That means the US would simply have to live with those other challenges.