Don't Bomb Iran, Contain It (Like the USSR)
Huffington Post / MJ Rosenberg

Forget for a minute that there is no clear evidence that Iran has decided to build nuclear weapons, let alone even the slightest indication that Iran is prepared to commit national suicide by using any possible weapon it develops. Focus only on the fact that these senators are seeking to rule out all options other than war in dealing with the eventuality that the Iranians succeed in developing a bomb.

Containment, of course, is how the United States responded to nuclear weapons in the hands of every other unfriendly regime that has developed them.

There is no alternative to containment.

After all, even if Israel and/or the United States attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, the attack would only set back the country's nuclear program by a few years. It would also probably end any debate inside Iran about developing a nuclear deterrent; having just been attacked, the regime would almost surely commit to building a bomb as soon as possible. And they would succeed. (Even Iranians opposed to the regime support Iran's nuclear program.)

Then what? Iran would have a bomb and we would have no choice but... containment.

So the only question is whether we adopt the policy of containment before a war or after. The answer should be obvious. Although, with neoconservatives pushing so hard for war, it isn't.

Of course, we might be able to avoid the question of containment altogether if we commenced comprehensive negotiations with Iran with a goal... >>>

recommended by Majid Zahrai