Containing a Nuclear Iran

Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria | Oct. 5, 2009 (Opinion)

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

See All Reviews »

View

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 benefit from improved U.S.-Iranian relations, especially Israel.

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 deterrence.