Bomb Iran?
Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute gets right to the point:
WE MUST bomb Iran.
Why now?
It has been four years since that country’s secret nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.
First, we agreed to our allies’ requests that we offer Tehran a string of concessions, which it spurned. Then, Britain, France and Germany wanted to impose a batch of extremely weak sanctions. For instance, Iranians known to be involved in nuclear activities would have been barred from foreign travel — except for humanitarian or religious reasons — and outside countries would have been required to refrain from aiding some, but not all, Iranian nuclear projects.
But even this was too much for the U.N. Security Council. Russia promptly announced that these sanctions were much too strong. “We cannot support measures … aimed at isolating Iran,” declared Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov.
It is now clear that neither Moscow nor Beijing will ever agree to tough sanctions. What’s more, even if they were to do so, it would not stop Iran, which is a country on a mission. As President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put it: “Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen…. The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes and tyranny and injustice has reached its end…. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.” There is simply no possibility that Iran’s clerical rulers will trade this ecstatic vision for a mess of Western pottage in the form of economic bribes or penalties.
So if sanctions won’t work, what’s left? The overthrow of the current Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet, but with hard-liners firmly in the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more remote today than it did a decade ago, when students were demonstrating and reformers were ascendant. Meanwhile, the completion of Iran’s bomb grows nearer every day.
Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it.
For the record, I believe every word of the above to be true. I also believe that the window has closed. Iran WILL get the bomb, unless one nation takes action: Israel. The United States has simply lost its nerve in the wake of Iraq – and thus, our foreign policy, as, I am forced to admit, many war opponents predicted, has unfortunately becomes the biggest casualty of the Iraq War…
Mark,
Success breeds success. As fickle as public opinion has been in regards to the prospects of an Iraq success, the public will be just as fickle in their woe over the “Iraq’s a failure” narrative. A simple glimmer of hope in Iraq, in combination with a small-scale military action elsewhere on the globe will give the United States all of the credibility it needs to deal forcefully with Iran. Look to Sudan and Somalia for the opportunities to use our “big stick” of air power and seaborne cruise missiles, and watch the despots, tyrants and terrorist enablers tremble in fear over the realization that we’ve doubled down in Iraq and still have an offensive military capability. In short, a show of force and resolve is all that’s needed right now. I think we’re moving in that direction in Iraq, at least with respect to the resolve issue. Sudan gives us an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the unparalleled military might we still have at our disposal.
Colin, I sure hope you’re right…I fnd it interesting, though, that defeatism on Iraq has spread to the point that very few people talk about ‘victory’ anymore…the debate seems to be how we can somewhat gracefully leave.
I even find myself sharing in the pessimism, as I’m sure you’ve all noted, not because of a lack of faith in American capabilities, but because Maliki is in the way and it seems there’s no way around him.
In any event, the clock is ticking, and I find myself more than ever wishing Sharon hadn’t slipped into that coma…
If you’re talking about the “clock ticking” in regards to Iran, then I agree with you. We need to strike out now, show that we can still use force, and then demand action by the world and the Iranians from a position of strength.
If you’re talking about Iraq, then I’m afraid I must disagree with you. The whole “clock is ticking” mindset is, to me, detrimental to our progress. If we stay, regardless of the fecklessness of the American people, then we cannot lose. Look at Central America, not Vietnam, as the model. A democratic tradition can grow amid horrific violence and corruption. Eventually, if the integrity of the state is protected, the violence will just stop. All the killers will have killed each other (and a lot of innocents too), and the country will leave them behind in a past to be forgotten. If Maliki falters much more, his government will fall. Another coalition government will form, and hopefully it will do a better job. In the meantime, the violence will continue. If that government fails, another will be elected and take its place. Eventually, and effective executive will be empowered. At that point the violence will stop. The only thing Iraq needs is time and patience in order to succeed. If El Salvador could establish a democratic tradition, under near constant assault from guerillas supported by the, at that time, most fearsome military power on the globe, the USSR, then Iraq can succeed, even in the face of Iranian and Syian intransigance. All Iraq needs is time. The problems facing Iraq are daunting, but illusory. I am convinced that all Iraq needs is time. If we keep our resolve, Iraq cannot fail. If we lose our resolve, Iraq cannot hope to succeed.
I was talking about Iran with the clock ticking…but there is a clock ticking in Iraq, though, and it’s measuring the nervousness of politicians who are itching to leave. While I agree with you that, objectively, we can wait it out and win, I don’t think the politicians will keep the current troop levels going into the 2008 election. Some troops, probably, but not as many as we have now…
The West does not have the will to do what is needed on any of these fronts: Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Lebanon, and the Israeli/Palistinian conflict. The well of resolve is exhausted. The people of the West, in general, and America, specifically, have lost their will to persevere. President Bush has no political capital that he could expend in order to take the recommended actions: either in Iraq or Iran. Look at how the West has responded and acted on the topic of Lebanon – the cease fire was brokered, in part, on condition that Hezbollah not re-arm (if not disarm), and, yet, they are acumulating a new and larger cache of weapons – with impuity.
It’s over. Iran will be nuclear. It is time to move on to planning for that reality.
The politicians may be nervous about Iraq, but they are just as nervous that Iraq might fail on their watch. No one wants to be held responsible for that. No, they’ll bitch and whine about the war in order to tarnish Bush, but won’t do anything to endanger the overall war effort. Bush is a lame duck, and I don’t think he really cares how tarnished he becomes in the next two years. As long as the winner in 2008 isn’t driven by a Dean-like anti-war mania, or poll-and-focus-group driven marketing policy, instead of an actual philosophy, the next Chief Exectuive will, likewise not be willing to have a loss happen on his or her watch.
Maybe I’m naive, but I just can’t share the pessimism, this sense of forboding, others have displayed. I just don’t think things are nearly as bad as they appear, and I don’t think our political class, across all levels of government, is nearly as irresponsible as they act some time.