May 25, 2010
“Even assuming the degree and kind of ‘destabilization’ would be the same in both the cases of attack and appeasement (which I don't think would be so), one scenario—attack—leaves Iran without nuclear weapons, at least for now; the other—appeasement—means Iran would have nuclear weapons going forward. Which unstable outcome is less damaging to U.S. interests? I think the answer is pretty clear: An attacked Iran that does not have nukes.”—William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard, “Mullen's Myth of Geostrategic Equivalence,” April 19, 2010
—David Makovsky, director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2010 Soref Symposium, April 22, 2010

