Skip to main content

New Book Argues Talk, Not Bombs, Best Way to Delay a Nuclear Iran

In their new book, authors Geoffrey Kemp and John Allen Gay warn that attacking Iran might actually speed up the Iranian nuclear program and cause a "multigenerational catastrophe" if the object is regime change.

Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltanieh writes notes as he attends the Board of Governors meeting at the UN atomic agency headquarters in Vienna, on March 6, 2013. Six world powers holding talks with Iran on its nuclear programme said Tuesday March 5, 2013 at a meeting of the UN atomic agency that they were "deeply concerned" by Tehran's recent atomic upgrades. AFP PHOTO / ALEXANDER KLEIN        (Photo credit should read ALEXANDER KLEIN/AFP/Getty Images)
Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Ali Asghar Soltanieh writes notes as he attends the Board of Governors meeting at the UN atomic agency headquarters in Vienna, on March 6, 2013. — ALEXANDER KLEIN/AFP/Getty Images

Conventional wisdom among some circles in Washington is that the longer the United States keeps negotiating with Iran, the more likely Iran is to develop nuclear weapons.

A new book, War With Iran: Political, Military and Economic Consequences, suggests that the opposite is true and that the negotiating process, with all its frustrations, could “produce a net delay comparable to that caused by a physical attack.”

Subscribe for unlimited access

All news, events, memos, reports, and analysis, and access all 10 of our newsletters. Learn more

$14 monthly or $100 annually ($8.33/month)
OR

Continue reading this article for free

All news, events, memos, reports, and analysis, and access all 10 of our newsletters. Learn more.

By signing up, you agree to Al-Monitor’s Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy. Already have an account? Log in