I know there are plenty of people out there who believe that Obama would rather let Iran become a nuclear power than launch a military strike at its nuclear sites. I don't agree. I see no sign that Obama is moving toward a policy of containment -- which is to say, I don't think he's very interested in learning to live with an Iranian bomb. Things could change -- the advocates of containment (a not-very-effective policy idea, in my opinion) could make inroads at the White House. But I don't think so, for any number of reasons, which I outline in my Bloomberg View column this week:
...I believe, based on interviews inside and outside the White House, that (Obama) would consider using force -- missile strikes, mainly -- to stop the Iranians from crossing the nuclear threshold. Why? Four reasons:
First, Iran and the U.S. have been waging a three- decade war for domination of the Middle East. If Iran goes nuclear, it will have won this war. American power in the Middle East will have been eclipsed, and Obama will look toothless.
Second, every U.S. ally in the Middle East -- Israel, the Gulf countries and Turkey, especially -- fears a nuclear Iran. The president would have their complete support.
Third, the president is ideologically committed to a world without nuclear weapons. If Iran gets the bomb, it will set off an arms race in the world's most volatile region. At the very least, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will seek nuclear weapons. It would mark a bitter defeat for Obama to have inadvertently overseen the greatest expansion of the nuclear arms club in recent history.
Finally, the president has a deep understanding of Jewish history, and is repulsed by Iranian anti-Semitism. He doesn't want to be remembered as the president who failed to guarantee Israel's existence.
This article available online at: