Has as, David Goldman, or Spengler, argues the time to let Israel bomb Iran finally arrived?
After years of predicting an Israeli or US strike against Iran using the powers of logic, Goldman seems exhausted. Wearily, he notes that the US establishment is perhaps at its most resistant to bombing Iran at this point, as both the government and the public is infinitely wary of the perpetual Middle Eastern quagmire we have found ourselves in in first Iraq and now Afghanistan.
Indeed, as Goldman details, an Israeli unilateral strike on Iran would produce untold short term pain:It would further radicalize the Middle East democracy movement, probably to a point of no return. It would unleash holly hell in Lebanon. It would the price of gas through the roof.
Understandably, Americans seem to see bombing Iran as more useless, avoidable war mongering. Sailer advances essentially this position, arguing that hostility toward Iran is a product of misplaced Israeli patriotism/agression combined with deep pockets: he seems sick of war waged seemingly for Israel's benefit alone.
And yet, I think that Sailer's view is naive.
Israel backers may be nationalistic, but, as Chieften of Seir pointed out in his essay "On the Fear of Matches" years ago, when the game they play involves a nuclear arsenal, nationalistic passions assert a higher claim to US attention, particularly when both players likely lack a second strike capability. College football this is not.
If Israel went on full nuclear alert during the first gulf war, I am guessing any credible Iranian nuclear threat will produce a similar response. And therefore I do not think Israel can reasonably be expected to hesitate in any potential stand-off, unless their second-strike capability is dramatically improved.
More likely, they will attempt to delay the Iranian by striking first, with or without US consent. The US will then be forced to destroy Iranian capabilities through air attacks, exactly what we don't want to do.
So, where does that leave us? Ironically, it seems that the Bush doctrine of preemption -- discredited by S. Hussein's lack of WMD's -- seems perhaps finally an appropriate response for minimizing the chance of long-run pain. While both future scenarios seem bleek, one involves a nuclear strike (likely Israel on Iran first), so I am guessing that is the worst option.
Thus, contra Sailer, this may be national game, but it the rules are more akin to Battle Royale than Oregon vs. Oklahoma State.
The question on everyone's mind: What will Obama tell Netanyaho in the coming months, as the issue is inevitably pressed?
No comments:
Post a Comment