Iran going nuclear: don’t bomb, don’t ignore

One of the best professor’s I have ever had is Philip Gordon, who taught a class on French politics at Johns Hopkins SAIS in 2002 (same year as Le Pen made it to the 2nd round of the Presidential election in France). Recently professor Gordon, together with his colleague at Brookings Ivo Daalder, got a very interesting op-ed published in The Washington Post.

The subject is Iran, and their line of argument is that Iran’s nuclear facilities should not be bombed (of course), but that their recent behavior cannot be ignored:

"Given these bad options, what should the United States and Europe do instead? The answer is that they should do what they said they would do -- make Iran pay a real price if it refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment activities again. This means first making a concerted effort to win Russian and Chinese support for tough action at the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.N. Security Council next month."

The article is really worth reading if you have an interest in international relations, and think that a line must be found between the two bad options (bombs and doing nothing, respectively).