A 'Preventive' Attack That Would Prevent Nothing

The U.S. should not make threats when it would be folly to follow through on them.

Eric Brewer and Nicholas Miller consider what would be a “redline” for military action against Iran. They open the article with this line:

Iran’s expanding nuclear program and foot-dragging at the negotiating table have imperiled U.S. plans to revive the Iran nuclear deal, forcing Washington to consider alternatives to diplomacy.

We should challenge the assumption that the U.S. is being forced to consider alternatives. If the U.S. opts for more sanctions or military action or both, it will not have been forced into doing any of this. As the world’s leading power, the U.S. is rarely, if ever, forced to do anything. Deciding to pursue these “alternatives” means that our government is choosing to give up on a diplomatic solution and is relying once again only on coercion in one form or another. It is important to get that right at the start so there is no confusion about who will be responsible for the collapse of the talks to salvage the nuclear deal. If there is an “escalating crisis” as a result of that collapse, the U.S. will bear the lion’s share of responsibility for it.