EDITORIAL: “Bad Options on Iran,” by Mortimer B. Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 23 April 2007, p. 76.
Zuckerman is nothing if not consistent: in column after column he explains patiently why Iran getting nukes is America’s problem first and foremost and will inevitably force our use of military power.
Israel’s 200 nuclear warheads find no mention. China’s and Russia’s implicit villainy are routinely stoked for imagery. America, we are told, is the only country that can deal with this.
It’s us versus them, I tell you!
We offered Iran multilateral diplomacy if only Tehran would first give up the only reason why we’d offer them multilateral diplomacy in the first place, and no, it did not work. Go figure.
Therefore, war is the only option.
Get used to this drumbeat from some writers. It will persist through the end of this administration, in ever-dimming hope Bush will pull the trigger. It will persist also to shape the presidential election, hoping to make a willingness to war with Iraq a litmus test on support to Israel and thus the money and the votes attached to that sentiment.
If you feel like all this is designed to prep America for the next war in the Middle East, one that will fail dramatically and leave us more isolated than before, then you’re paying attention.
| Permalink |
Comments (5)
Dramatic failure would be the propping up of the religious superstructure in Iran for another 2 decades past its sell by date.
The Iranians may have tired of the Mullahs, but they are and have been proud Persians for thousands of years, and the Mullahs would ride the tide of nationalism.
An invasion and occupation would be the adventure to end all adventures.An attack would just strengthen those that you wish to see 'gone'.
An attack would also allow the Mullahs to convincingly argue that seeming to be developing nukes is no longer useful.The Ayatollah Khomenei's prohibition on Nukes would be conviniently put aside without a murmur.
After an attack, they would be crazy not to try to develop nukes, rather than the mirrors and smokes routine that served Saddam so 'well'.
Posted by Javaid Akhtar | April 23, 2007 12:48 AM
Dr. Barnett,
How can a rational observer/decision-maker determine whether a state is governed by rational actors for whom a pleasure-pain calculus is feasible or if a state is subject to a government of madmen?
Or, from a different perspective, what circumstances dictate when it is time for the usual toolbox of diplomacy-trade-and everything else or when it is time to use the Leviathan?
Posted by Michael Zarkin | April 23, 2007 8:33 AM
The drumbeat is echoed in israel as well, an increase of talks about a "major" war involving syria and a wide front in lebanon that might take place this very summer. This comes from ashortsighted leadership that still believe that last summer's mini-war was inevitable and was merely conducted without talent. refusing to admit that a war with a major opponent like syria will still be asymetric in nature. Oh where oh where is the strategic vision?! lost in short sighted tactics i guess.
Posted by Doron | April 23, 2007 11:35 AM
The United States could never hope to invade and occupy Iran without a WW II type mobilization and that is simply not going to happen.
On the other hand, the US could liberate the Arabs across the river from Basra and the enclave at Bandar Abas. Little countries living next door to neighbors with a history of imperialist aggression and brutal occupation seem to like us somehow.
This would, no doubt, inflame the Persians with a burning hatred of the United States that would last for decades. The Iranians might well conduct a shadow war against the United States, arm, train and finance terrorist groups, blow up American embassies, kidnap, torture and murder Americans. Golly, it would be awful.
And, of course, it provides another opportunity to engage in cooperative ventures with the Turks and Russians. Too bad the Bush administration doesn't like to make deals.
Posted by Mark in Texas | April 23, 2007 11:38 PM
"We've lost the link between national security and international stability." (Dr. Barnett, Hugh Hewitt Show.)
Can you imagine anything that we could do that would be any more destabilizing than tactical nuclear strikes on Iran? We have no idea what's in that envelope.
Posted by Jarrod Myrick
|
April 25, 2007 8:50 AM