[Some articles are limited unless you have a subscription.]
Essay – Jan/Feb 2012
Time to Attack Iran
Opponents of military action against Iran assume a U.S. strike would be far more dangerous than simply letting Tehran build a bomb. Not so, argues this former Pentagon defense planner. With a carefully designed attack, Washington could mitigate the costs and spare the region and the world from an unacceptable threat. Read
Response
Not Time to Attack Iran
Matthew Kroenig’s recent article in this magazine argued that a military strike against Iran would be “the least bad option” for stopping its nuclear program. But the war Kroenig calls for would be far messier than he predicts, and Washington still has better options available. Read
Author Interview
Q&A With Colin H. Kahl on Dealing With Iran
As part of Foreign Affairs’ The Iran Debate: To Strike or Not to Strike, Georgetown Professor Colin H. Kahl took questions submitted to the conversation from Twitter. Read
Response
The Case For Regime Change in Iran
Bombing Iran’s nuclear program would only be a temporary fix. Instead, the United States should plan a larger military operation that also aims to destabilize the regime and, in turn, resolves the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all. Read
Response
The Flawed Logic of Striking Iran
Alexandre Debs and Nuno P. Monteiro
To suggest a nuclear Iran would result in a cascade of proliferation across the Middle East neglects the United States’ power to prevent clients from building their own bombs. Read
