Q&A
Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour, Robin Wright
{
"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": [
"Middle East",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Don't Rush to War with Iran
The challenge set by Iran’s nuclear program is a post-American challenge.
Published on Nov 13, 2011
Source: GPS with Fareed Zakaria. November 13
The International Atomic Energy Agency recently released a report on Iran’s nuclear program and expressed for the first time concerns about a military dimension to the program. The report has revived the debate as to whether or not Israel or the United States should employ military action. Karim Sadjadpour argues that “the case for military action is not compelling” because “it is a simple mathematical question. Bombing Iran’s nuclear sites would set the nuclear clock back two or three years, but would resuscitate a deeply unpopular, ideologically bankrupt regime, prolonging its shelf life.” Indeed, most Iranians, despite their profound disaffection with the regime, are opposed to military action. While there is no doubt that this regime is odious, “it has homicidal tendencies, but is not suicidal,” notes Sadjadpour.
The challenge set by Iranian’s nuclear program is really a “post-American challenge,” asserts Sadjadpour. There are two options, in terms of coercion, that the Obama administration can take. The first is to impose draconian sanctions with a weak coalition that does not include important states like China, India and Russia. Alternatively, the administration can pursue more mild sanctions with a robust international coalition. The second approach is much more likely to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear program.
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.
- What’s Keeping the Iranian Regime in Power—for Now
- How Washington and Tehran Are Assessing Their Next StepsQ&A
Aaron David Miller, David Petraeus, Karim Sadjadpour
Recent Work
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 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Iran Rewrites Its War StrategyCommentary
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
- The Iran War Is Making America Less SafeCommentary
A conflict launched in the name of American security is producing the opposite effect.
Sarah Yerkes
- Digital Dissent in Morocco: A Sociological Analysis of the Generation Z MovementCommentary
From anime heroes to online gaming communities, Morocco’s Gen Z is building a new protest culture. What does this digital imagination reveal about youth politics, and how should institutions respond?
Abdelilah Farah
- Taking the Pulse: Is it NATO’s Job to Support Trump’s War of Choice?Commentary
Donald Trump has demanded that European allies send ships to the Strait of Hormuz while his war of choice in Iran rages on. He has constantly berated NATO while the alliance’s secretary-general has emphatically supported him.
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
