Containing a Nuclear Iran

It is time to clarify the debate over Iran and its nuclear program. It's easy to criticize the current course adopted by the United States and its allies, to huff and puff about Iranian mendacity, to point out that Russia and China won't agree to tougher measures against Tehran, and to detail the leaks in the sanctions already in place. But what, then, should the United States do? The critics are eager to denounce the administration from the sidelines for ... Full Story »

Posted by Cynthia Gilbert
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Tweets: 79 (as of 2009-10-05)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Cynthia Gilbert - Oct 5, 2009 - 7:57 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Oct 5, 2009 - 8:38 AM PDT
Kaizar Campwala
4.2
by Kaizar Campwala - Oct. 5, 2009

I don’t actually believe Iran is all that powerful, but it does have its allies, and they will almost certainly destabilize parts of Afghanistan and Iraq, which will ... More »

See Full Review » (14 answers)
Cynthia Gilbert
4.6
by Cynthia Gilbert - Oct. 5, 2009
See Full Review » (5 answers)
Ben Ross
3.0
by Ben Ross - Oct. 12, 2009

Clear and sane....much better take that MSM norm.

Some ideas to improve conditions include attitude adjustment by US ....like being honest...for a change. And reducing military spending and observe international law.

See Full Review » (5 answers)
Manfred Ostrowski
4.5
by Manfred Ostrowski - Oct. 5, 2009

Fareed Zakaria wrote an intelligent and straightforward article concerning the question of which is the best strategy to deal with Iran and its nuclear program. He sees three basic options that the U.S. might take, and he favours "containment and deterrence".

Fareed Zakaria favours "containment and deterrence" as basic U.S. policy towards Iran because he expects Iran's leaders will oppose friendly relations or true partnership with the U.S. in order to maintain their rule, which is justified in part by anti-Americanism. He does not address anti-Iranian sentiment in the U.S., still I think both attitudes should give way to open-minded diplomacy and serious talks to work on improved relations. In my opinion the whole region would get ... More »

We can bomb Iran, engage it diplomatically, or contain and deter the threat it poses. Let me outline what each would entail and then explain why I favor containment and ... More »

See Full Review » (8 answers)
James Canning
4.5
by James Canning - Oct. 5, 2009

Good piece by Zakaria. I would ask why the US would even wish to injure Iran's nuclear program, provided it is strictly civil. Zakaria is quite right that an insane US or Israeli attack on Iran would entrench the government further, rather than weaken it. I think Iran seeks stability in the Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, so normal relations between Iran and the US would sderve the interests of both countries. Mao's China split from its alliance with the Soviet Union years before Nixon went there in 1972. Zakaria describes Iran's effort to help the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and the Shia community in Lebanon, as a "foray" by "thugs". A clear element of Iranophobia displays itself.

Iran has sought normal relations with the US for many years, in the same way Cuba has sought normal relations with the US. The inability of the US to carry out its foreign policy without the childishmess displayed toward Iran and Cuba, is seriously tiresome.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

Good
from 6 reviews (59% confidence)
Quality
4.1
Information
3.7
Insight
4.5
Style
4.5
Context
4.0
Expertise
2.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
3.9
Recommendation
4.3
Credibility
4.0
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!