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.