USA Today.
The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way
for America and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities.
Although the U.S., the European Union and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.
It should not. In fact, a nuclear-armed Iran
would probably be the best possible result of the standoff and the one
most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.
The
crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three ways. First,
diplomacy coupled with sanctions could persuade Iran to abandon
pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But that's unlikely: The historical record
indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be
dissuaded. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons
despite countless rounds of sanctions and U.N. Security Council
resolutions. If Tehran decides that its security depends on possessing
nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind.
The
second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear
weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and
test one quite quickly. Such a capability might satisfy the domestic
political needs of Iran's rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can
enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security)
without the downsides (such as international isolation and
condemnation).
