What's happening at the
Tuesday 22 Aug 2017 | 10:02 | SYDNEY
Tuesday 22 Aug 2017 | 10:02 | SYDNEY

Iran: Disarmament we can't believe in



24 July 2009 09:46

I notice that nowhere in Raoul's two-part post on why an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is a good idea does he countenance the possibility that the US and Israel should just learn to live with an Iranian nuclear capability, if it ever emerges. Nor does he suggest that one way to dissuade Iran from its present course might be for the US and particularly Israel to make some real sacrifices in their own nuclear arsenals, as I have advocated previously.

Neither course of action is attractive, and they might be seen as rewarding proliferation. That's a risk and a cost, but risks and costs don't just run one way. The coolness of Raoul's logic disguises the fact that the use of military force is always tremendously risky and could have huge unintended consequences. It also ignores the elementary point that a preventive strike by anyone against Iran's nuclear facilities would be both a crime under international law and morally indefensible.

You may also be interested in...