3 reasons not to attack Iran

As tensions over a defiant Iran and its nuclear program escalate, the debate in Washington over preemptive military strikes heats up. Israel has warned US officials concerned about war with Iran: Stay to the side, and let us do it. 

Meanwhile, the United States continues to seek harsh diplomatic and economic sanctions against Tehran, while insisting “all options” for thwarting a nuclear-armed Iran remain on the table. 

Here, Edward Haley, professor of international strategic studies at Claremont McKenna College, gives three reasons not to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities:

1. Economic consequences are huge

Carolyn Kaster/AP
President Obama pauses as he addresses thousands at the opening session of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) annual policy conference March 4. The president said the US will not hesitate to attack Iran with military force to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but he cautioned that 'too much loose talk of war' has only helped Tehran and driven up the price of oil.

The negative economic consequences – for the United States and the international community – are huge. Attacks on Iran and Iran’s reprisals would likely cause oil prices to spike and investors’ confidence to collapse. Such repercussions would doom worldwide hopes for ongoing economic recovery from the Great Recession. Unemployment in the US remains high, industrial production is struggling, the housing market continues to suffer.

If recovery is fragile in the US, it is in even more peril in Europe. The euro crisis remains unresolved, and not enough has been done to overcome the problems that followed the collapse of confidence in financial markets. Hundreds of billions in bad debts remain unpaid. Although the Greek government has accepted the latest draconian terms for remaining in the European Union, the near universal rejection of the austerity measures by the Greek people hardly assures that the agreements will stick.

1 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.