With Iran, No Action Might Be the Best Approach
For people in Washington who focus on Iran and can tune out the rest of the Trump-induced chaos, the city feels kind of like it did a decade ago when then-President Barack Obama’s administration was negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The players are different, of course, but the same binary arguments—whether diplomacy or military action is the best way to deal with Iran’s nuclear program—are dominating the debate within the foreign-policy community.
Like in 2015, each side of the debate believes it is offering a morally and strategically superior alternative to the other. In reality, both options are suboptimal.
For people in Washington who focus on Iran and can tune out the rest of the Trump-induced chaos, the city feels kind of like it did a decade ago when then-President Barack Obama’s administration was negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The players are different, of course, but the same binary arguments—whether diplomacy or military action is the best way to deal with Iran’s nuclear program—are dominating the debate within the foreign-policy community.
Like in 2015, each side of the debate believes it is offering a morally and strategically superior alternative to the other. In reality, both options are suboptimal.
The two seemingly opposing policies—engaging in negotiations versus conducting military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities—are not actually opposites. Either one would likely have the same effect: providing a lifeline to leaders of a terrible regime at a moment when it seems most vulnerable.
It is important to understand that Iran’s nuclear program is a problem because of the nature of the Iranian regime, which is profoundly repressive at home and indefatigably aggressive abroad. The result is one of the worst........© Foreign Policy
