LobeLog on Facebook   LobeLog on Facebook

Poll: Three Quarters of Americans Support the Iran Deal

by Derek Davison If Donald Trump succeeds in pulling the U.S. out of the Iran...

Message no image

Published on January 23rd, 2012 | by Jasmin Ramsey


Bill Keller on the Bomb Iran Debate

The former executive editor of the New York Times, Bill Keller, has seriously entered the to bomb or not to bomb Iran debate that was invigorated by Foreign Affairs after its publication of Matthew Kroenig’s hotly contested “Time to Attack Iran“.

Keller, now an op-ed columnist for the newspaper, supported the U.S.’s war on Iraq and expressed regret over his actions years later (whether it was enough is debatable). But his article and accompanying blog post are important additions to a discussion about Iran that has been dominated by militaristic agitators in prominent news publications for too long.

Keller’s pointed sarcasm in the beginning of “Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?” echoes arguments (which are not referenced) by analysts like Paul Pillar and Stephen Walt about the absurdity of Kroenig’s pro-war case. He also counters alarmism by pro-war hawks, especially neoconservatives, by acknowledging that the Iranian leadership is “not suicidal”, and defies claims that the administration has been soft on Iran by reminding us that President Obama’s policy has in fact been “consistent” with George W. Bush’s and “promises to be tougher”. Keller excludes discussion about the role of the Israel lobby in pushing punitive measures in Congress and fails to consider how crippling sanctions could result in a cornered and hopeless Iran acting out on its threats, but he ends his article by highlighting a central flaw of all bomb Iran arguments:

That short-term paradox comes wrapped up in a long-term paradox: an attack on Iran is almost certain to unify the Iranian people around the mullahs and provoke the supreme leader to redouble Iran’s nuclear pursuits, only deeper underground this time, and without international inspectors around. Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Responses to Bill Keller on the Bomb Iran Debate

Show Comments >

  1. avatar Eric Petersen says:

    Iran’s uranium hexafluoride – the feedstock for the centrifuges at Natanz and Fordor – is so contaminated with vanadium and other impurities that the country’s inventory of LEU could never be upgraded to bomb-grade HEU, a minor technical point missing in the hysteria about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The UF6 facility at Isfahan was built by the Chinese; in 1997 Clinton convinced the Chinese to withdraw their technical support and the Iranians have failed in their attempts to produce pure UF6. Based on UF6 samples taken by the IAEA one nuclear scientist made a pithy assessment – “It’s garbage.”

  2. avatar scottindallas says:

    A deft and diplomatic argument from Mr. Keller

  3. avatar scottindallas says:

    Eric, any sources/links for that information?

  4. avatar Eric Petersen says:

    Scott: Paper by Carnegie Endowment, Nucleonics Week, and the magazine Science. The first I’ve read and it references the other two that seem to be behind a paywall as I recollect. NB: Articles a few years old so I don’t know the current status of Iran’s UF6 purity, not something IAEA reports go into. Just making the point this might be something to clarify; IF they are still having this problem all the hysteria about Iranian nukes it totally misplaced.

About the Author


Jasmin Ramsey is an Iranian-born journalist based in Washington, DC.

Back to Top ↑
  • Named after veteran journalist Jim Lobe, LobeLog provides daily expert perspectives on US foreign policy toward the Middle East through investigative reports and analyses from Washington to Tehran and beyond. It became the first weblog to receive the Arthur Ross Award for Distinguished Reporting and Analysis of Foreign Affairs from the American Academy of Diplomacy in 2015.

  • Categories

  • Subscribe

    Enter your email address to subscribe to our site and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Popular Posts

  • Comments Policy

    We value your opinion and encourage you to comment on our postings. To ensure a safe environment we will not publish comments that involve ad hominem attacks, racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory language, or anything that is written solely for the purpose of slandering a person or subject.

    Excessively long comments may not be published due to their length. All comments are moderated. LobeLog does not publish comments with links.

    Thanks for reading and we look forward to hearing from you!