« The Kristof Tax | Main | Hamas, Prone To Violence? Nah! »
April 17, 2006
Deterring Iran
Richard Clarke, the Left's favorite counterterrorist, co-authored an op-ed for the Sunday NY Times arguing against bombing Iran (link unavailable). The piece argued that in the mid-90s the Clinton Administration was faced with a decision of whether to bomb Iran because of its support for terrorism, but decided instead to act covertly. The article goes on to discuss how bombing Iran would be disastrous because it would lead to higher oil prices, increased Iranian-sponsored terrorism and worse trouble in Iraq.
Their are two main problems with the article. Firstly, it tries to draw parallels between Iran in the mid-1990s and the current situation in Iran, even though the current regime is far more radical and is pursuing nuclear weapons. Secondly, it discusses potential risks of an attack on Iran without addressing the consequences of letting Iran obtain nuclear weapons.
This article in The New Republic (free registration required) should make it clear that the world cannot live with a nuclear Iran. Most of those who argue that we can learn to live with it compare the situation to the Cold War, when we lived with a hostile and nuclear USSR. But the situation is completely different. However evil the Soviets were, they still had an interest in avoiding a nuclear retaliation by the U.S., whereas the Iranian leadership is suicidal.
According to the TNR piece by Matthias Küntzel:
Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable--only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a "worthwhile" outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?"
There are certainly risks to taking military action against Iran. But letting them obtain a nuclear bomb should not be an option.
Posted by Philip Klein at April 17, 2006 1:25 PM
Comments
No one rational wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon but for them to attack Israel would be to commit suicide. The US would retaliate and that would be the end of that. Reason #2546 to be against the Iraq War was that it would reinforce the perception in the world that the only way to deter a US attack is to have nuclear weapons. It doesn't help that Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons in the region. Having said that, lets hope diplomacy can somehow work. Some sort of attack on Iran would be crazy and just make the world more dangerous in the long run.
Posted by: Iran wants to commit suicide? at April 17, 2006 10:38 PM
Hey this is a great website! I look forward to stopping by this blog often.
Hope all is well.
Take care,
Mark
www.americanlegends.blogspot.com
Posted by: J. Mark English at April 17, 2006 11:37 PM
Terrific argumentation--you really lay out the situation, and highlight its precariousness. Your blog entry, with its quotations about how a nuclear attack on Israel "will destroy everything" while an Israeli strike in retaliation "will only harm the Islamic world" is indeed a horrifying window onto the warped consciousness of Iran's "leadership."
Until now, Israel-supporter though I am, I have somehow not been so frightened by the situation with Iran. Perhaps I've been in denial, but Ahmadinijad's threats always seemed like so much posing and acting to me. He's just so over the top; it seems as if he's tossing out these cartoonish threats to act formidable but that if he actually intended to act on them he wouldn't be shouting about it. Also, the Holocaust denial is so over-the-top it seems like he doesn't believe it himself and is just doing it to increase his stature in the Muslim world or something. But of course, Hitler stated his intentions, too. I guess we should be worried after all.
Posted by: heather robinson at April 18, 2006 10:01 PM
Be afraid, be very afraid.....
There is no logical reason I can think of for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons except to at best, use them as leverage to enforce their will on geopolitical events. Given the lack of any semblance of humanitarian values, and a religeous dogma that celebrates suicidal behavior, Iran and nuclear weapons would be extremely dangerous, and could easily lead to an outcome of a major global cataclysm.
The analogy of the crazy, spurned boyfriend who decides to kill his girlfriend and then kill himself because if he can't have her than nobody can have her comes to mind with respect to muslims and their inability to kick the jews out of Israel.
The world needs to respond to the Islamist problem, and address it soon, or the scenario outlined above is likely to be when and not if. It's unfortunate the U.S. and the rest of the world doesn't have the balls to do what needs to be done. Ms. Heather Robinson, we're going to have worse than the next Hitler, and he's going to have nuclear weapons. Sweet dreams.
Posted by: Reginald Perry III at April 19, 2006 11:08 PM