(Los Angeles Times) Alan J. Kuperman - The Iranian regime is mostly rational most of the time. Its rhetoric is blustery, but its actions typically are moderated to avoid provoking retaliation. The problem is that Iran does not always act rationally. Repeatedly over the years, it has launched attacks for apparently little gain. Iran's targets have included the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina in the early 1990s, and the U.S. military's Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Just last year, the Iranians were behind a botched scheme to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the U.S. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, there is a nontrivial chance that it would utilize them in an aggressive fashion. If Israel or the U.S. launched surgical strikes on Iran's key nuclear facilities, Iran probably would act rationally by not retaliating broadly against U.S. interests, which would risk provoking a major U.S. military escalation that could end the Iranian regime. So which should President Obama choose? The small chance of an escalated conventional war against Iran, in which the U.S. would enjoy overwhelming military superiority? Or a similarly small, but significant, chance that Iran would use nuclear weapons aggressively, inflicting massive casualties? Is there really any question? The writer teaches military strategy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, where he also coordinates the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project.
2012-04-03 00:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive