Matthew Kroenig

Would Obama bomb Iran?

Yes, and here’s why, says a former adviser to his defence department

President Barack Obama talks with President Hassan Rouhani of Iran [Getty Images] 
issue 17 May 2014

What is worse: Iran with the Bomb or bombing Iran? This is a question we must reconsider as diplomats return to Vienna this week to discuss Iran’s nuclear programme.

Of course, we all hope that the negotiations will result in a lasting diplomatic accord that resolves the Iranian nuclear challenge once and for all. The election of a new and more pragmatic Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, last August and the successful conclusion of an ‘interim’ nuclear pact in November mean that the prospects for a ‘comprehensive’ settlement have never been brighter.

President Obama has called the Iranian nuclear issue ‘one of the leading security challenges of our time’, and a diplomatic bargain that prevents Iran from building nuclear weapons peacefully would be by far the best outcome to this crisis.

Yet we must also be realistic. Obama himself has estimated that the odds of a comprehensive deal are ‘no better than 50/50’. And his former weapons of mass destruction coordinator, Gary Samore, puts the chances closer to zero.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in