The IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program has prompted a fierce debate in the US about which policies should be adopted to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The debate has divided policymakers and experts into two camps - those who support a focus on intensified sanctions and diplomatic pressure to dissuade Iran, and those who believe that military action against Iran to try to destroy the infrastructure of its nuclear program is necessary.
While Obama has not taken military options "off the table," he appears to be pursuing a strategy more focused on sanctions, meeting with Chinese and Russian leaders over the weekend to try to build support for greater pressure on Iran. Obama defended this approach, saying "The sanctions have enormous bite and enormous scope." James Traub from Foreign Policy appears to agree with this approach, arguing that Obama's broader commitment to nonproliferation and his early attempts to negotiate with Iran have also contributed to his ability to build support for global pressure on Iran. Traub also dismisses the utility of military action, arguing that it would likely be ineffective while also prompting backlash and undermining American standing in the region.
Some GOP politicians appear more open to the possibility of military action. Romney and Gingrich both endorsed military action as a last resort if other strategies fail. Bret Stephens laid out the arguments in favor of military action in the Wall Street Journal, contending that sanctions and other measures short of attack have already been proven ineffective and that a strike against Iran is the only way to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. According to Stephens, failing to stop Iran would make many of the potential consequences of an attack inevitable, meaning we have little to lose by attacking before it is too late.
In reading about this debate, I was struck by the lack of good options: all potential policies seem to suffer from both limited effectiveness and the possibility of unintended consequences. As a result, I have some sympathy for the view that "everything should be on the table." It's possible that, given the uncertainty and difficulty of dealing with this situation, the best way to respond is to maintain the flexibility of all possible actions. That said, I think I'm persuaded by the objections to military action - the chances at success are far from clear, whereas the immediate backlash is certain. The best thing to do now may be to hope that sanctions and diplomatic pressure succeed before considering such measures becomes necessary.
