Skip to footer

Five reasons to attack Iran

Sanctions against Iran are tightening, including Europe’s ban on oil imports. Tehran is highly unlikely to reach a negotiated agreement over its nuclear program, says Matthew Kroenig, a Stanton Nuclear Security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations believes. In the choice between Iran having nuclear weapons and a US military strike to prevent that, a strike is the least bad option. Here Mr. Kroenig gives five reasons the US should attack Iran.

5. A strike is the least bad option

  • By

Make no mistake about it, a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is an unattractive option. But it is better than the even worse option of allowing a nuclear-armed Iran to threaten international peace and security for decades to come.

Successive US presidents have declared that a nuclear-armed Iran is “unacceptable” and that “all options are on the table” to prevent that from happening. America is rapidly reaching the point where it must accept the unacceptable or exercise its  last remaining option.

Faced with this choice, the United States should destroy Iran’s nuclear program, step back and absorb an inevitable round of retaliation, and seek to quickly de-escalate the crisis. Dealing with the problem now will allow the US – and its friends and allies – to avoid an even greater threat in the future.

Matthew Kroenig is a Stanton Nuclear Security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. This article has been adapted from an essay in the January/February 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine.

5 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.