Foreign policy hawks frequently portray military action against Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program as a preferable alternative to the possible outcome of a nuclear weapons possessing Iran. While President Obama remains committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, telling an audience in March that, “Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment,” a report released yesterday by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) explores the policy implications of a nuclear armed Iran and the potential repercussions of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The report, whose authors include Colin Kahl, a former top Middle East policy official at the Pentagon, concurs with Israeli, U.S. and IAEA reports that Iran’s leadership has not yet committed to constructing a nuclear weapon. More importantly, “if Iran’s nuclear progress continues, the supreme leader could conceivably be satisfied with stopping at a ‘threshold’ capability just short of full-fledged weaponization,” reads the report.

And while a nuclear armed Iran would “be more aggressive and dangerous than an Iran without nuclear weapons,” Kahl and his coauthors Melissa Dalton and Matthew Irvine find that “Iran is unlikely to deliberately use a nuclear weapon or transfer a nuclear device to terrorists for use against Israel.”

Addressing policymakers, the CNAS report, “Risk And Rivalry: Iran, Israel And The Bomb,” advise that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon should remain a priority and that Israeli and U.S. policymakers should avoid drawing red-lines and taking “steps that limit diplomatic options.”

The CNAS authors find that an Israeli strike on Iran “would likely backfire, increasing the risks to Israeli security and regional stability” and a U.S. attack could, at best, produce “a significant delay in Iran’s nuclear program.”

While a nuclear armed Iran is, as the authors acknowledge, a dangerous outcome, they push-back at the notion that Iran’s leadership is suicidal and irrational, finding that “the actual behavior of the Islamic Republic over the past three decades indicates that the regime is not suicidal and is sufficiently rational for nuclear deterrence.”

According to a Government Accountability Office report that has yet to be made public, Pakistan is impeding American efforts to stop the flow of bomb-making materials from Pakistan to insurgents in Afghanistan. USA Today reports:

The report, which has not been officially released, focused on State Department efforts to measure efforts aimed at fighting improvised explosive devices in Pakistan. But the report quotes U.S. officials accusing the Pakistani government of delaying visas for American officers working on the problem.

“U.S. agencies have encountered ongoing challenges to their efforts to assist Pakistan, such as delays in obtaining visas and in the delivery of equipment,” the report says.

“This is outrageous,” said Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) who has asked the GAO to conduct a new study on the effect of denying visas to U.S. counter-IED officials. “The Pakistanis need to be held accountable. We can’t allow that to persist.”

USA Today also reported back in January that the number of IED attacks hit a record high in Afghanistan last year, with more than 16,000. And according to new report from the Army Surgeon General’s office, U.S. troops troops are suffering more extensive physical damage, including multiple amputations, because of IEDs in Afghanistan than ever before.