On the same page as it publishes Nick Kristof’s list of worthy charities, the New York Times publishes this lengthy and shoddy bit of warmongering by Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas. Why? Balance, I suppose. Almost every non-neoconservative observer, including, unanimously, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would be (a) ineffective and (b) ridiculously dangerous, given that Iran has many effective ways to strike back–not only at U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also utilizing its international Hizballah network to mount terror attacks at home.
Kuperman doesn’t mention any of this in the op-ed. He doesn’t even posit that U.S. air strikes will be effective. And he doesn’t explore the possibilities of sanctions. I imagine that someone can make a plausible case for war with Iran–I’m always interested in listening to smart arguments that I disagree with–but this isn’t even remotely credible.