Helping would show U.S. is serious about preventing a nuclear-armed Iran

WASHINGTON — The United States faces a cold reality: even stepped-up U.S. and Western sanctions of recent weeks have not persuaded Iran’s radical regime, which is driving ever closer to nuclear weaponry, to shift course.

That’s largely because Washington has never mounted a credible threat of military action to derail Tehran’s efforts. While President Barack Obama and George W. Bush insisted “all options are on the table,” other officials undercut them by openly questioning whether military action would work and what Tehran would do in response.

Even as it squeezes Iran harder economically, the United States should finally establish that credible threat — and U.S. deliveries of advanced bunker-busting bombs and refueling tankers to Israel should be part of that effort.

The reasons are twofold.

• First, a nuclear Iran remains an unthinkable option. A nation that already kills U.S. troops in the region, mounts terror plots on U.S. soil, seeks greater influence throughout South America, and generally threatens U.S. interests around the world would — with nuclear weapons — be almost immune to pressure.

Tehran could better protect the terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, that it funds and equips; more aggressively de-stabilize its neighbors while pursuing regional hegemony; and disrupt oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz — all while knowing the United States and its allies would have to think twice before forcefully confronting a declared enemy with nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Tehran could go further and activate its leaders’ persistent threats to eliminate Israel or transfer nuclear weapons to terrorist groups that could target Jerusalem, Washington, London, or the capitals of other hated countries.

At the very least, a nuclear Iran would prompt a nuclear arms race across the region, where more than a dozen states vow to pursue nuclear weapons if Tehran develops them. That, in turn, would put the volatile Middle East within a hair trigger of catastrophe if tensions mounted and fighting ensued.

Nor can Washington count on “containing” a nuclear Iran, as it contained a nuclear Soviet Union. Facing a regime whose leaders espouse genocide, are pursuing nuclear weapons and longer-range ballistic missiles to carry it out, and despise “the Great Satan” (the United States) almost as much as “the Little Satan” (Israel), the prudent course for Washington is to presume Tehran means what it says.

• Second, only a credible threat of military action holds any promise of preventing Iran from completing its nuclear pursuit.

At this point, Tehran clearly does not take Washington’s “all options are on the table” mantra seriously. The United States has left Iraq, is leaving Afghanistan, is war weary, and is cutting its defense budget. Its top officials are pressuring Jerusalem to give sanctions more time before launching its own strike. Washington talks less about a military option and far more about pursuing alternatives.

By contrast, no one, including Iran’s leaders, doubts Jerusalem’s resolve. Israel bombed Iraq’s Osarik nuclear plant in 1981 and Syria’s undeclared Syrian nuclear site in 2007, making clear that it will not tolerate existential threats.

By giving Israel advanced bunker-busting bombs and refueling capacity — as a bipartisan, blue-ribbon panel of the Bipartisan Policy Center recently recommended — the United States will both restore some of its own credibility and give Israel the resources to cripple Iran’s scattered and well-protected facilities.

At worst, Israel could slow Iran’s nuclear pursuit, providing some additional time for Iranians to overthrow their hated regime, and hopefully replace it with a far less dangerous one, before it’s too late.

At best, a U.S. transfer of the higher-grade weaponry to Israel will convince Iranian leaders that, along with Tehran’s nuclear program, the regime’s own survival may be at stake and that it should finally change course.

If so, Washington’s action would fulfill the age-old Latin adage: “if you wish for peace, prepare for war.”

• Haas is a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the American Foreign Policy Council.


Mon, 02/27/2017 - 20:01

My Turn: Does Alaska have a spending problem? Benchmarking is the answer.

The governor, some in the Legislature and even some prominent Alaskans don’t believe Alaska has a spending problem. They say that Alaska has a revenue problem and argue that Alaska needs to implement more revenue options, i.e. taking your money to fuel big government. Their tired refrain is simply to argue, “you can’t cut your way to prosperity.” On the contrary, we all know that you can’t spend your way to prosperity!

Read more
Mon, 02/27/2017 - 20:01

Outside Editorial: If Trump really wants to ‘drain the swamp,’ here’s his chance

Ann Ravel, a Democratic member of the Federal Election Commission who resigned earlier this month, has given President Donald Trump a golden opportunity to prove he meant what he said on the campaign trail about the corrosive influence of big-money donors on elections.

Read more
Mon, 02/27/2017 - 20:01

My Turn: Mental health patients have rights

In the state’s ongoing effort to manage the rising costs of treating the disabled, it is the disabled who pay the price. In too many cases, there is no state standard of care for the disabled, even in regulations; when the state wants to save money, the first and easiest place is to encourage private facilities to reduce the quality of care and treatment for disabled psychiatric patients.

Read more
Mon, 02/27/2017 - 20:01

My Turn: Trump’s looming assault on the separation of church and state

The president’s recent spate of executive orders; the continuing debate surrounding his immigration ban; the fallout resulting from his contentious interactions with two of our most trusted allies (Australia and Mexico); and his shocking defense of Vladimir Putin, a criminal, dictator and human rights violator, succeeded in deflecting attention from his fiery pronouncement to “destroy” the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits churches from engaging in political activity at the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. What the distractions failed accomplish, however, was diminishing the importance of safeguarding the principle of the separation of church and state.

Read more


  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2230
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback