The opinion, published on Friday, begins this way that the phrase “all options are on the table, which holds a special meaning that the use of military force is a possibility”, has been repeatedly used by American presidents against Iran more than any other country.
“We know Iran would retaliate to a US military strike because it has done so before, when in response to the killing of Islamic Revolution Guards Corps-Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, several dozen Iranian ballistic missiles were launched against two Iraqi bases hosting US forces,” the opinion said.
“If this is how Iran behaved after the death of a single individual, imagine what the response would be for the destruction of its prized nuclear enrichment program.”
The writer then refers to speculations in the West that Iran’s enriching uranium to 60 percent is aimed at making a nuclear bomb, and says that the US intelligence community has yet to come to a firm conclusion in this regard.
He also mentions two main reasons that Iran is not willing to attain nuclear weapons.
One reason, according to Depetris, is that “Iran's adversaries in the Middle East are already sufficiently deterred from attacking Iranian territory” thanks to non-state groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen, Shia groups in Iraq and Syria, as well as Palestinian groups.
The second reason is “a nuclear weapon wouldn't actually help Tehran project power in the region”, the opinion said, adding that developing such weapons, “let alone using them, would result in military action from stronger much powers and undermine the very purpose of the bomb, which is ensuring Iran's security and territorial integrity.”
4194**2050
Follow us on Twitter @IrnaEnglish