"Everything indicates that the strategic costs of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by force far outweigh any direct increase in American security.."

Steven Metz, SSI/ US Army War College:

"... There is no reason to believe that a nuclear armed Iran cannot be deterred in the same way the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China were. Iran's despots are certainly no more paranoid and psychotic than Stalin or Mao. There is absolutely no evidence that a nuclear armed Iran would undertake conventional aggression. No state which has acquired nuclear weapons has then done so. The notion that a nuclear armed Iran would launch a "bolt out of the blue" strike against another state also defies reason. However repulsive the Iranian regime, there is no evidence that it is suicidal.

There is, though, good reason to believe that an American military strike on Iran, while setting back that nation's nuclear program for a few months or, in the best case, a few years, would do tremendous strategic damage to the United States. It would be a clear violation of international law and treaty obligations, making America a criminal state. It would generate sympathy for Iran across the world and increase hotility toward the United States. It would inspire more potential terrorists convinced that the United States hates Muslims. This would certainly make the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan more difficult, thus assisting al Qaeda. A military strike would probably cause Iran to support terrorism against American targets and possibly the United States itself (something it usually done in the past only when the U.S. military intervenes in predominantly Muslim countries). It would certainly shock the global economy and send oil prices spiraling, likely derailing the current recovery and destabilizing many fragile states (thus providing opportunities for extremists).

No American wants a nuclear armed Iran. It would be wonderful if sanctions and cooperative efforts could prevent it. But as the United States develops its approach, the the focus must remain on AMERICAN national interests (Are you listening, Senator Lieberman?)

The central question is whether the benefits of any given approach in terms of augmented American security justify the strategic costs. Everything indicates that the strategic costs of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by force far outweigh any direct increase in American security...."