Blindly insisting against substantial contrary evidence that Iran's "leaders remain determined to acquire the capacity for nuclear weaponry--and perhaps to field an arsenal once they have done so," just as he once insisted in 2002 (on Oprah Winfrey's talk show) that Iraq's Saddam Hussein "has biological and chemical agents that he could employ" and "is building new capabilities as fast as he can," all of which of course turned out to be completely untrue even as it helped spur the march to a war that was disastrous for the United States and catastrophic for the people of Iraq, Pollack (a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution) nevertheless manages to display somewhat greater restraint than many of his neoconservative fellow travelers by dismissing the idea of an Iranian nuclear first strike or Iranian-facilitated nuclear terrorism, both of which he correctly notes would threaten the security of the Iranian regime. However he suggests a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to be emboldened in the non-nuclear arena and that therefore the United States should aim to prevent such an outcome by tweaking its ongoing "carrot-and-stick" strategy in a way that provides more attractive benefits to Iran for making meaningful concessions on its nuclear program (the carrot), while simultaneously and paradoxically supporting Iranian opposition groups seeking to reform or even overthrow Iran's government (which seems rather likely to harden Iranian resolve against concessions). If such an approach fails, he then urges a strategy of containment as preferable to war, even if the military option, in his view, does have strong arguments in its favor and is not at all stupid or reckless. Annotation ©2013 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) Read Less