Responding to dptrombly’s post, I would say the most interesting point is in the last sentence—“If an Iranian bomb is more tolerable than preventative strikes, then we should adjust our attitudes and rhetoric accordingly.” Given the consequences and uncertainties associated with a prolonged (and possibly futile) air campaign, learning to live with an Iranian bomb would indeed seem like the least bad option. I’m about 60% on board the “adjust American strategy to account for an atomic Iran until the reformers come to power” position for the following reasons:
- Iran is still just a poor country with unsavory people in control, fantasies of regional hegemony and powerful friends (China and Russia are not even friends, more like business associates who have no stomach for either seriously confronting or seriously supporting Tehran); so Iran can still be contained by the West and concerned Arab states
- The mullahs have a warped view of Islam and Persian history, and no qualms about supporting suicide bomber proxies when it appears to enhance their power in the region, but they don’t strap on vests themselves; in other words, the regime may be crazy, but it’s still rational enough not to bring about its own fiery death by atom-bombing its nuclear-armed enemies (there won’t be any nuclear-tipped Shahab missiles sailing toward Tel Aviv or American troops in Afghanistan/Iraq)
However, the remaining 40% is still a big 40% for the following reasons:
- To salvage what’s left of efforts against nuclear proliferation, America would have to prevent Iran’s nervous Arab neighbors from developing their own nuclear arsenals by guaranteeing these countries military protection. “Entangling alliances” are one thing if they are made with established democracies with whom America has longstanding friendly ties (and whose vital interests clearly overlap with our own), but who really wants to go to war (nuclear war, not first Gulf War) to make the world safe for Saudi Arabia?
- Thanks to the White House’s genuine efforts at multilateral diplomacy, military strikes of last resort (however long, bloody and potentially unsuccessful) would at least have more support from America’s allies; the US will have done everything it can to resolve the crises in good faith, right next to the Europeans at the negotiating table to spare us an Iraq-esque loss of political capital with our friends
- The mullahs know a direct nuclear strike by their own military would be suicide, since America and Israel would immediately know where to point and shoot with their own arsenals; but is the regime crazy enough to give nuclear devices to its terrorist proxies? How can America shape a deterrence policy when, if a suitcase bomb goes off in Times Square, we can’t know for certain if Iran sponsored the attack? Do we simply declare that any WMD terrorist attack against America or its allies will be assumed the work of Iran, and then potentially kill millions of innocents for something their rulers may or may not have done?
I certainly would not want to be President Obama, given the agony of the decisions that will have to come from the Oval Office sooner than later.
