“Air strikes agains are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.”Â
This is the studied opinion expressed in a New York Times Op-Ed piece written by Alan J. Kuperman, director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin.
He argues that incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. He agrees that Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway.
Kuperman’s summarizes his article with the following:
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement.
Â
We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Â
Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.
Â
