Trump went with the Do Something option.

Sure. But sometimes the Something that you Do is the wrong Something. Sometimes it's better to not Do Something than Do Something, even if the status quo is bad. As you point out, if you attack them bad enough to scare them into desperation, they might do something catastrophic - which has been one of the strategic considerations against attacking them in the past.

One prong of non-proliferation has traditionally been trying to make Iran feel like it isn't facing an actual existential threat, so that you don't make them feel that they have no choice but to sprint for a nuke.

I'm open to the possibility that the attack was not a mistake. So far, the region hasn't caught any more on fire, and there is still the chance that we really set them back a fair ways. But there are very serious downsides to direct military action against Iran and making it clear that the U.S. "won't tolerate the status quo" in the region.

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.