By Lt. General Robert G. Gard and Greg Terryn
Read the full story in The National Interest.
A majority of Americans, an even larger majority of Jewish Americans, the entirety of the United Nations Security Council, and a long list of former U.S. national security leaders and diplomats endorse the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as the best possible option for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. But regardless of the merits of the negotiated agreement, some critics, like former Ambassador John Bolton, who explained why in a recent article, are unshaken in their belief that military force is the only way to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This shortsighted and reckless approach would be counter-productive; as former director of the CIA Michael Hayden has explained, bombing Iran “will guarantee that which we are trying to prevent: an Iran that will stop at nothing to, in secret, develop a nuclear weapon.”
Unfortunately, this is hardly a surprise; Bolton, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), and others were calling for airstrikes on Iran even during negotiations. But to advocate for military action is to ignore the fact that a strike on Iran “would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve [any] long-term objectives,” as explained by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At best, an attack would delay Iran’s nuclear program “a couple of years;” and at worst, it would invite retaliation, eliminate opportunities for inspection and verification, and galvanize Iran to build a nuclear weapon.
With a comprehensive and verifiable deal on the table, the United States has nothing to gain by bombing Iran. A U.S.-led military operation would shatter the international coalition that is applying economic pressure on Iran and force the United States to confront Iran without international support. As President Obama exclaimed, “a military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.”
