Expert: Bomb Iran

In an op-ed in todays New York Times, Alan Kuperman, director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin, outlines the reasons that negotiations with Iran to thwart its nuclear program have not and will not work. Instead, he calls for precision, aerial strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. And instead of Israel leading the charge, he calls on the U.S. military to spearhead the military effort. Mainly, superior U.S. military capabilities would more successfully destroy and eventually deter Iran from launching counter-strikes and rebuilding nuclear capabilities. He writes:

“Israel has shown an eagerness to do so if Iran does not stop enriching uranium, and some hawks in Washington favor letting Israel do the dirty work to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.

But there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. 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.”