London, 26 Aug - As the US Congress reviews the Iran nuclear deal, it faces the hardest choice in foreign affairs: whether to threaten or appease an adversary. The proper choice, scholars agree, depends on the rival’s intent, Prof. Alan J. Kuperman wrote on Tuesday in The Hill.
"If the other country is 'status quo' – just wants to be left alone to prosper without dominating other countries or flouting international rules – we should concede its limited demands. Appeasement is not a dirty word in such a case, but the ideal foreign policy. However, if the other country is 'revisionist' – seeking to dominate others and overturn the global order – we must deter it through coercion including the threat of force", he wrote.