Interesting CSIS report on Iran (.pdf). Two authors survey the range (and I mean the TOTAL range) of options we have, and conclude (p. 43) that the "live with it and deter" option may just be the least worst of those available:
The “ride out” option is one that many commentators need to consider in more depth. Unless the US does find evidence of an imminent Iranian threat -- which at this point might well require Iran to find some outside source of nuclear weapons or weapons-grade material -- the US may well simply choose to wait. Patience is not always a virtue, but it has never been labeled a mortal sin.
With the Iran rhetoric white-hot these days, I think a good starting point for the discussions of what to do would be "What is the worst thing we can think of actually happening as a result of Iran getting a bomb?" Iran's using a bomb is almost always considered to be extremely low-probability. (Robert Baer is a notable exception in the Sy Hersh article.)
If we were to conclude that Iran's actually using a bomb is exceedingly unlikely, then we have to talk in much less Armageddon-like terms, which tends to have a clarifying effect on what it is we're actually talking about. Yes, potential regional proliferation, yes, an emboldened Iran, yes, squirrelly Arab governments, but once you take "mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv/Riyadh/wherever" off the table, things look a whole lot different.
I had a good read of the document - there was, as ever, a mention of all options bar the one that is never on the table - direct negotiations between Iran and the US.
Maybe I'm just perverse, but my understanding of TOTAL range of options would actually include direct diplomacy involving the US in both multi-lateral and bilateral tracks; apparently this is such a bad idea for the US that it's not worth mentioning.
Posted by: dan | April 11, 2006 at 04:22 PM