There is no doubt that a nuclear Iran would be a danger to the United States and its allies. But would the costs of going to war outweigh the costs of tolerating a nuclear Iran? And is diplomacy without the threat of military force ineffective?
- In the interest of self-preservation, Iran is unlikely to engage in unprovoked nuclear warfare against the West; thus efforts to subvert a nuclear Iran are more dangerous than tolerating one.
- Imposing nuclear sanctions on Iran would foster nationalistic sentiment and further challenge diplomatic relations between the Iranian government and the West.
- The U.S. does not have the global political capital to force Iran to comply with its demands, and attempts to do so would harm America’s reputation abroad.
- Iran has declared its intent to use nuclear weapons for military purposes and poses an immediate threat to its enemies; the U.S. should act before Iran develops a nuclear arsenal and cannot be diplomatically contained.
- Once developed, Iran’s nuclear program will likely extend to its allies and may lead to a global arms race.
- Many countries, including Brazil, South Africa and South Korea, have voluntarily given up nuclear weapons development in pursuit of global stability; Iran should do the same.