Burning issue: Should US air strikes be used to stop Iran's nuclear programme?
« Previous
« Previous
Next »
Next »
View Gallery
By Zbigniew Brzezinski and Louis Rene Beres
NOZbigniew Brzezinski, former US national security adviser
There are compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.First, in the absence of an imminent threat (and the Iranians are at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war. If undertaken without a formal congressional declaration of war, an attack would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as (an) international outlaw(s).Second, likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing US difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the US in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.Third, oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians were to cut their production or seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oilfields. The world economy would be severely affected, and the United States would be blamed for it.In short, an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs.That certainly is the lesson taught by our experiences in Vietnam and Iraq
No comments:
Post a Comment