A Goldblog reader writes:
I read your column today and I'm somewhat confused. You're saying now that an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear sites would be a bad idea, and you say this because you think it's not necessary, because President Obama is ready to handle the nuclear question himself, by force if necessary. You write that an American military strike isn't "desirable," but do you think it's worth doing?
There are no good options here. I think an American (or American + Britain + a broader coalition) strike on Iran could be disastrous, or it could neutralize the obvious threat Iran poses to its neighbors. In order to make a judgment about this issue, you have to ask yourself the following question: Do you think the world will be worse-off if Iran has the Bomb, or if it is suffering through the potential consequences of a preemptive missile strike on Iranian nuclear targets? Sometimes I think the former is worse, sometimes the latter.
What I believe is that an Israeli strike would be a bad idea, and that an American strike right now would be a bad idea as well. The best option at the moment is for the West to intensify the various subterfuge programs currently operating against the Iranian program, and for President Obama to reiterate in a credible way to the Iranians that all options are on the table. If the Iranians believe him, an attack could be avoided, and avoiding such an attack would be in America's best interest. But it's important to remember, again, that there are no pristine options here.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.