Should the U.S. Go To Any Lengths To Prevent a Nuclear Iran?

{
  "authors": [
    "Karim Sadjadpour"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "MEP",
  "programs": [
    "Middle East"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Should the U.S. Go To Any Lengths To Prevent a Nuclear Iran?

In a debate over the resolution, "America cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran and must go to any lengths to prevent it," panelists discuss the options available to the U.S. in deterring Iranian nuclear aspirations.

By Karim Sadjadpour

Published on Mar 25, 2009

Source: Miller Center of Public Affairs

In a debate hosted by the Miller Center of Public Affairs and MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, the resolution that "America cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran and must go to any lengths to prevent it," is discussed. Karim Sadjadpour joins Brookings Institution's Martin Indyk in opposing the resolution, which is supported by the Council on Foreign Relations' Elliott Abrams and Johns Hopkins' Joshua Muravchik.

The participants debated the merits and drawbacks of using military force to destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities and the options of using diplomatic means and economic sanctions to prevent such actions.

Speaking against the resolution, Sadjadpour argued that the cost of military action against Iran would outweigh any potential benefits: first, it would prolong the shelf life of the current regime and entrench its most radical elements; second, it would complicate and exacerbate central challenges for U.S. foreign policy where Iran plays an important role, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Arab-Israel conflict, terrorism and energy security; third, any military action against Iran would justify its ambitions for a nuclear deterrent.

About the Author

Karim Sadjadpour

Senior Fellow, Middle East Program

Karim Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.

Recent Work

Q&A
Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?
- Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
Q&A
What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for Now
- Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright

Security Military Foreign Policy Nuclear Policy North America United States Middle East Iran

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

Commentary
Diwan
On AI, Cairo Plays China and the U.S. Off Against Each Other
Huawei pushed hard to enter the Egyptian data centers market, until the Americans made a better offer.
Angie Omar
Commentary
Diwan
Less of America is More
Middle Eastern states should welcome an accelerated U.S. disengagement from their region.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
A Strategic Disaster that Devalues U.S. Military Prowess
In an interview, former ambassador Charles Freeman assesses the Trump administration’s war against Iran.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
The Mecca Agreement Unpacked
The accord represents a pivotal moment in the region to avert a security vacuum in the Gulf.
Azeema Cheema, Mohanad Hage Ali
Commentary
Diwan
Years of Fire
In an interview, Jason Burke discusses his sweeping account of the “revolutionists” who so shaped the 1970s and early 1980s.
Michael Young

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center