For the past two decades, the United States has sought to contain the strategic threat posed by Iran. A Bush Administration national security strategy document released March 16, 2006, states that the United States faces no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran, based on Iran’s growing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program, its expanding ability to project power in its immediate region, and its support for radical Islamist movements. U.S. policy, as stated repeatedly by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other senior officials is that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable and that U.S. policy is to prevent that outcome.

Throughout 2007, Iran and the international community appeared to be approaching a crisis over Iran's nuclear program, as many governments asserted their belief that Iran is attempting to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. Despite intensified inspections and other means of investigation since late 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) could not verify that Iran's current program is purely peaceful, and several of its reports (January 31, 2006, and February 27, 2006) say it found documents that show a possible "military nuclear dimension" to Iran's program.

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), released on December 3, 2007, cast doubt on this view, however, saying Iran had -- but in late 2003 halted -- a covert nuclear weapons program as a result of increased international scrutiny and pressure.

In a press conference on December 4, 2007, President Bush argued against a change in U.S. policy, stating that a key concern is that Iran could, at any time, decide to revive those covert activities. President Bush has also repeatedly maintained that "all options are on the table" regarding possible military options against Iran's nuclear facilities -- a position he reiterated after the release of the NIE, even though most observers see the NIE as lessening the chance of U.S. conflict with Iran.

A U.S. ground invasion to remove Iran's regime has not, however, at any time appeared to be under serious consideration; most experts believe U.S. forces are spread too thin to undertake such action, including about 160,000 deployed in Iraq, and that U.S. forces would be greeted with hostility. In addition, most U.S. allies in Europe, not to mention Russia, China, and some U.S. experts, have expressed opposition to any military action. Opponents believe any benefits would be minor, or only temporary, and that the costs of a strike are too high. I share their views.

While it is essential to world peace that we prevent the development of nuclear weapons by Iran, I do not believe that threats of unilateral nuclear attack from the United States are an effective means of achieving this goal. Worldwide economic sanctions, such as a ban on capital investment in Iran, could be useful, due to Iran’s heavy dependence on foreign investment. Foreign investment, increased trade and security guarantees -- coupled with rigorous, transparent inspections -- could be useful levers to induce Iran to discontinue its nuclear weapons development program.

A unilateral act of war by the United States against Iran would likely compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, precipitate new violence by terrorists at other sites in the Middle East and elsewhere, and entangle our country in a lengthy battle with a country containing 70 million people. Oil prices likely would rise steeply and the world’s economy severely damaged, if the Iranians cut their production or attempt to disrupt the flow of oil from nearby Saudi Arabia.

Keeping in mind the long term potential prospects for Iran’s political and social development, I believe the U.S. should pursue direct negotiations with Iran, working with the major European powers, Russia and China, rather than threatening a military attack.