In the Arena

Bomb Iran

It’s interesting that neoconservative wingnuts like Bill Kristol have now taken the flying leap and are publicly supporting war against Iran. Criticizing statements made by Mike Mullen, Kristol says flat out:

Even assuming the degree and kind of “destabilization” would be the same in both the cases of attack and appeasement (which I don’t think would be so), one scenario–attack–leaves Iran without nuclear weapons, at least for now; the other–appeasement–means Iran would have nuclear weapons going forward. Which unstable outcome is less damaging to U.S. interests? I think the answer is pretty clear: An attacked Iran that does not have nukes.

Several problems with this. First, the U.S. military has told both Presidents Bush and Obama that it has no confidence it can find, or destroy, all of Iran’s nuclear sites. So the “Iran without nuclear weapons” option doesn’t exist. (It should be noted that Kristol is exaggerating for effect here–Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons.) Second, the U.S. military has told both Presidents Bush and Obama that it is unanimously opposed to bombing Iran for the reasons that ADmiral Mullen suggests–it would further destabilize the region, including potential attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland, plus another round of Hizballah aggression against Israel.

Finally, I love the way Kristol–who is, as always, more propagandist than thinker–lays out the choices as “attack”  or “appeasement.” The real options here are war or “containment and deterrence.” The latter would seek to isolate Iran in the region, contain any Iranian aggression against its neighbors, and construct a strong anti-Iranian alliance of neighboring states who would be provided with nuclear protection by the United States. This strategy is not new: it won the cold war.

In any case, this latest warmongering represents another major step away from reality by Kristol and Company. It would be dangerous if these folks hadn’t scurried so far away from the mainstream of national security theory.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Image: Mark Halperin interviews Mitt Romney

    Romney Defends Bain Record, Hits Obama on Economy: ‘He Just Doesn’t Have a Clue’

    Mitt Romney lashed President Obama’s economic stewardship in an interview with TIME’s Mark Halperin on Wednesday, deflecting attacks on his years as a private equity executive and laying out how he hopes to take control of the economy as soon as he’s sworn in, should he defeat Obama in November.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Image: Presidential candidate Mitt Romney

    Mother of Mitt: How Lenore Romney’s Failed Campaign Shaped the Presumptive Republican Nominee

    This week’s TIME cover story, “The Mother of the Mitt Campaign,” tells the tale of how Lenore Romney’s 1970 run for U.S. Senate may have made a bigger impression on the Republican presidential candidate than his years spent as the son of a governor. Mitt’s father lost his own presidential bid, but it was the lessons from his mother’s loss that are more instructive as Romney enters the campaign stretch.

  • themaverickformerlyknownasbasilbrush

    It would be dangerous if these folks hadn’t scurried so far away from the mainstream of national security theory.

    I suggest a change:

    It is dangerous precisely because far too many “reporters” and “analysts” in the media allow these partisan extremists to pretend that they represent a realistic and mainstream position, without, in fact, subjecting what they have to say to thorough, critical and informed analysis.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Well…..when you care more about having a fight on TV about whether Tea Parties are bringing about sedition than you do about the guys fighting and dieing in Afghanistan, “thorough”, “critical”, “informed” and “analysis” are rarely words you care about.

  • nonagendaeyes

    If Iran invaded Canada and Mexico and parked 200,000 well armed, well equipped soldiers on our borders and had our sea lanes jam packed full of nuclear submarines and carrier task forces, and media sources from top publications in Iran were publicly calling for an invasion to topple our government, I’d probably want nuclear weapons to deter that threat too.

    What Billy Kristol would never admit to, and would never want anyone to know is that he and is ilk are directly responsible for Ahmadinejad coming to power. If we had not invaded Iraq, he would probably still be mayor of Tehran or some mid-level bureaucrat today.

  • themaverickformerlyknownasbasilbrush

    Forgottenlord, when you try to use American servicemen and their sacrifice as a distraction from the real issue in question, you are behaving in a despicable and unpatriotic way.

  • queencersei

    There is always option B. The U.S. can try to infiltrate Iran and use its permissive culture to corrupt the youth of Iran. Particularly young Iranian females with such insidious means as western music, art, fashion and literature. This will likely lead to a loosening of morals among Iranian women, which naturally will lead to a cataclysmic earthquake, causing the destruction of Tehran and the destabilization of the Iranian theocracy. It has to be at least as easy as going to war, will be much cheaper and a lot more fun for the west to watch on television!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_earthquakes_promiscuity

    (and yes my post is meant as sarcasm)

  • themaverickformerlyknownasbasilbrush

    Couldn’t we just send over Jaime and Tyrion Lannister? I imagine between them they could corrupt a good chunk of the impressionable young Iranian female demographic.

  • sevenoaks07

    Joe: do you really think Bill Kristol has ANY credibility. The man is an arm chair warrior; his words? flatulent words: lots of wind. He will always have types like 5Deferments Dick on his side. Iran is a country with a depth in history and won’t roll over easily. The only people who can topple the Ayatollahs are the Iranians. As long as we interfere we unite them (which is where I why disagree with Andrew Sullivan).

    I know you are taking on the Kraut, the Kristol and assorted armchair and wheel chair warriors on the Right. But these guys are pretty discredited.

    Haaretz had an interesting piece: a letter to Bibi. Any comment on that?

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    I’m all for it. In fact, I authorize Pres. Obama to authorize Bill Kristol to form a private army – much like Teddy Roosevelt’s “Rough Riders” – and lead the charge on Iran, himself – as point man.
    .
    It’s beyond time that those Repug chicken-hawks put their own skin in the game. In other words, pick up a weapon and put your own asz on the line, rather than use our next generation as IED fodder.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    “I know you are taking on the Kraut, the Kristol and assorted armchair and wheel chair warriors on the Right. But these guys are pretty discredited.”
    .
    But if you limit the terms of debate between Joe’s center-right-status-quo position on fo-po and the widely discredited lunatics on the right, well, who comes out smelling like a sage?
    .
    “I don’t bother writing about Fox News. It is too easy. What I talk about are the liberal intellectuals, the ones who portray themselves and perceive themselves as challenging power, as courageous, as standing up for truth and justice. They are basically the guardians of the faith. They set the limits. They tell us how far we can go. They say, ‘Look how courageous I am.’ But do not go one millimeter beyond that. At least for the educated sectors, they are the most dangerous in supporting power.”
    .
    Noam Chomsky

  • shepherdwong

    “It would be dangerous if these folks hadn’t scurried so far away from the mainstream of national security theory.”
    .
    It’s still dangerous because they took major news organizations like The New York Times and The Washington Post with them. Tell us again, what’s “mainstream”?
    .
    http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=37370

  • husein11

    Joe, the ultimate self hating jew is still hoping for the next holocaust.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Another comment that should be deleted, Joe.

  • megatronrises

    Yea… as a Jew with immediate family still dreaming nightmares from that horrible time in history, I find your post extremely offensive.
    .
    Sigh… posts like this make me wish the TPers with their Obama-Hitler signs crying “fascism” really understood the extent to which their comparisons are absurd and hurtful to those who know the truth.

  • Ike Jakson

    Joe

    Isn’t this another example of “both sides” fighting with words when the real issue is what America and her allies are doing in that region in the first place?

    Read Time’s article of just a day ago on Britain:

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978680,00.html?xid=newsletter-daily

    Everybody has tired of that area; there is no solution to be found from outside. Let them sort it out or kill each other if they want to until they tire of it and learn how they want to live with each other.

    It’s just a thought.

  • abdullah69

    It is naive to believe the US can exist outside a state of armed conflict with someone, somewhere. The defence industry has too much control over Congress for that to happen.

  • husein11

    As a jew I find Joe’s demonization and hatred of Israel EXTREMELY offensive.

  • grape_crush

    Yes, Joe Klein ‘hates Jews and demonizes Israel’ because he thinks – like most of the sane US population – that starting another war in the Middle East would be a bad idea.
    .
    That’s waaay over the top, dontcha think?

  • jlbrumb

    Only a lunatic warmonger or a lunatic zionist could possibly utter such a proposal. The lunatic applies in either case!

  • husein11

    No I don’t think it’s waaay over the top. What I think is waay over the top are the self hating jews like Joe who contribute to, and hope for, far more harm against jews than any militia member or Islamic terrorist.

  • jbaustian

    Joe Klein writes: “the U.S. military has told both Presidents Bush and Obama that it is unanimously opposed to bombing Iran for the reasons that ADmiral Mullen suggests–it would further destabilize the region, including potential attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and terrorist attacks on the U.S. homeland.”
    .
    Two points wrong with this:
    1) The US military does not make US policy — it carries out US policy. The Joint Chiefs can advise, recommend, and offer options; but if the president wants something done, then it is up to the military to figure out how to do it — not to offer excuses why it cannot do it.
    .
    2) There are other options that do not involve direct attacks against Iran, but President Obama has not acted on any of these other options either. The longer he dilly-dallies around, the more likely there will be a genuine nuclear exchange in the Middle East. Thank you, Mr Nobel Peace Prize Winner — millions may die because you’d rather not be bothered to act like the leader of the free world.

blog comments powered by Disqus