Writing today in Slate, Christopher Hitchens notes the recent flurry of press speculation over the supposedly imminent Israeli military response to the ominous tick-tock of the Iranian nuclear program. Prime Minister Netanyahu and much of the rest of the country’s political-military elites are apparently agreed on the “existential” nature of the threat a bomb in Tehran poses to Tel Aviv (though perhaps not Jerusalem, as Hitchens points out). Hitchens then goes on to list “six more reasons” why Iran must be prevented from going nuclear at any cost. You can read them, and then read these reasons why Hitchens is full of (as they say in Tel Aviv) Harah.
1. The “stewardship” of the United Nations for actually preventing any conflict, anywhere in the world at any time in its 65 year history has been less than stellar; the UN usually does a decent job as a sort of multinational clean-up crew for after the wars have run their course (ceasefires, tents, aid packages, border monitors etc..). Now, it would be spectacular if preventative strikes against Iran were launched by a real multinational coalition (like this), but everyone knows that’s about as likely as, say, a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
2. Well, if the revolutionary guards are in control of Iran now anyway, what’s the difference?
3. So basically, Iranian proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah become untouchable, because Iran will resort to nuclear weapons every time Israeli planes strike rocket launchers in the Gaza strip or southern Lebanon. Because, you know, every time an American plane pounded the Vietcong, the Soviets and the Chinese hit us back with a nuclear weapon.
4. Certainly a nuclear-armed Iran might be inclined to act more aggressively toward America’s Arab allies in and around the Persian Gulf. In that case, the United States should increase its own military presence in the gulf (like we’re already doing) and help the gulf states bolster their own defenses (like we’re already doing) to shore up the entire region.
5. There will never be a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, but that’s what makes the rejectionists on both sides rejectionists. The whole process is rife with rejectionism already. That’s like saying if you shoot off a dead camel’s leg, then the poor thing won’t be able to walk.
6. Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons is certainly a setback for proliferation, but not a fatal one; there are still fortysome countries that could go nuclear with relative ease, but choose not to because they simply see no benefit (security or otherwise) to doing so.
