Our Options for Dealing With Iran In "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb, Bomb-Bomb-Iran?" (column, Jan. 23), Bill Keller mocks my proposal for a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, but the alternative policy options are even less attractive. In Mr. Keller's own words, "it's hard to imagine" the current diplomatic approach succeeding, and the associated sanctions might still provoke war with Iran, while simply acquiescing to a nuclear-armed Iran is "awful to contemplate," "scary" and could result in "Armageddon." Mr. Keller is wrong to claim that I aspire to be a "Strangelovian superhawk" or that my former Pentagon colleagues are "appalled" by my analysis. Rather, other strategists and I are doing our best to wrestle with the most vexing national security challenge facing the country. It is easy for critics to point out the downsides to the various options for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. Developing workable alternatives is much harder. MATTHEW KROENIG Nuclear Security Fellow Council on Foreign Relations Washington, Jan. 24, 2012 In Bill Keller's summary of the risks of military strikes on Iran, he and others miss the full implications of Israel's statement that all options are on the table. If Jerusalem really believes that a nuclear-armed Tehran poses an existential threat - and cannot be contained by a conventional military attack, sanctions, deterrence or regime change - there remains one option to end the threat that people fear to talk about: Israel's use of nuclear weapons. Far-fetched? Thinking the unthinkable remains embedded in the planning of all nuclear-armed nations. For an Israel that grew out of the Holocaust and beat back adversaries seeking its destruction without the bomb, the unthinkable option becomes more plausible when a nuclear-arming Iran repeatedly calls for the Jewish state's extinction. I hope that the mullahs will realize that nuclear weapons ill serve their survival. The writer served in the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs under President George H. W. Bush and is the author of "Destruction of Nuclear Energy Facilities in War." Bill Keller nicely explains the various options regarding a potentially nuclear-armed Iran. Although he portrays Ron Paul's position as "the let-Iran-be-Iran extreme," there is nothing extreme about it. In fact, Mr. Paul's policy is the only one that will avoid war. The United States" and European Union's harsh economic sanctions will force Iran either to accept a humbling defeat without a shot being fired or to close the Strait of Hormuz, an important oil route, which would surely bring war. The West has two excellent options that avoid both scenarios: an explicit policy of nuclear retaliation should Iran use its nuclear arsenal on either the United States or our allies, and/or a missile defense system to protect our forces and allies. Deterrence proved effective in the cold war, as well as in relation to North Korea now. There is every reason to expect it to be just as effective with Iran. It simply astonishes me that all but one of the Republican presidential hopefuls, obviously pandering to what they think their base wants, is willing to take this nation to war with Iran - yet another war that they will not raise their taxes to pay for and that their children will not fight.