USC Annenberg's Center on Public Diplomacy hosted Ambassador William Luers, Ambassador Frank Wisner and Admiral Eric Olson on Sept. 19 to discuss The Iran Project’s report on the potential benefits and costs of the United States attacking Iran. The discussion came during the CPD Conversations in Public Diplomacy series (find upcoming CPD events here). The Iran Project wrote “Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran” as a reality check for people irresponsibly discussing war with Iran, Luers said. It is not advocating war, but attempting to predict its outcomes. To Luers, the benefits of military involvement are that it would destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons (if they in fact have any), damage the Iranian military, show support for Israel and countries surrounding Iran and show the rest of the world how seriously the U.S. government considers Iran’s threat to the region. The cost is a possible escalation after a military strike that could lead to a war in the Middle East. Violence, Luers said, the region does not need more of. Despite the report’s focus on military implications, the panelists advocated for diplomacy between the United States and Iran. “The U.S. and Iran have common interests in the region and must find a way to respect each other’s legitimacy,” said Wisner. “We cannot change Iran, so we need to learn to live with each other and form a basis of respect." The members of The Iran Project called for the countries to communicate and have a real exchange on the issues. “There is a space between classic public policy and military action that needs to be pursued,” said Olson.