« Laws, Reasonableness And The Statistical Continuum | Main | Thursday Quick Picks »
January 18, 2006
Iran: Best Choice From A Bad Lot?
Stanley Kurtz highlights Charles Krauthammer's devastating piece on the Iran problem. In brief, Charles concludes that our choices are down to two options: 1) stay our present course of inaction and allow Iran to go nuclear; or 2) take action ranging from sanctions to a military strike.
The result of the first choice is that a psychopathic totalitarian regime will have weapons that can cause a thousand 9/11s in an instant. And I mean a thousand, literally. Anyone who's considered this situation at all must realize that this is self-evidently true.
What is not self-evident, and what Krauthammer points out, is that if any significant action is launched against Iran the mullahs have it in their power to drive oil to $100 a barrel. One observation that follows immediately is that $100 a barrel oil and the ensuing economic shock will separate out those Democrats who are honest when they say they can put national security ahead of partisan politics.
As far as military options go, (as Michael Ledeen points out) if we are concerned about collateral civilian deaths (yes, women and children) on a small scale, then we have our work cut out for us in dealing with Iran's large scale facilities, many of which are certainly buried deep under heavily populated areas. I think that at least some military strikes might be unavoidable, but they--and perhaps a blockade--need to be in concert with the only long-term solution: regime change.
We must lose our squeamishness about encouraging the overthrow of clearly psychotic governments. Ledeen:
There were three political revolutions in Iran in the last century, and another one is simmering today. There is a lot of fighting going on right now in the Arab regions, just across from southern Iraq. And interestingly enough, the regime is not using regular forces to quell the demonstrations, or even the shock troopers of the Revolutionary Guards, or even the fanatical Basiji. Instead, the mullahs have called in the killers from the Lebanese Hezbollah, and from the Badr Brigades in Iraq. [...] It is [...] confirmation that tyrants fear their own people above all others.
The mullahs know it, but the West seems not to. Our failure to support revolution in Iran is already a terrible embarrassment, and risks becoming an enormous catastrophe. Almost everyone who writes about the chances for revolution takes it for granted that it would take a long time to come to fruition. Why must that be so? The revolutions in countries like Georgia and the Ukraine seem to have erupted in an historical nanosecond. Nobody foresaw them, everyone was surprised. [...] The entire region is awash with revolutionary sentiment, and nowhere more than Iran. Why assume — because no one can possibly "know" such things — that it would take a long time?
And even if you believe that revolution cannot possibly succeed before the successful completion of the mullahs' nuclear project, is that a reason to abandon the policy altogether? On the contrary, it seems self-evident that it would be even more urgent to support revolution in a nuclear Iran than earlier, doesn't it? [...]
On the other hand, we do know what will happen if we continue to dither [...]. Terror against our troops and our friends will increase; nuclear blackmail will become a commonplace in the Middle East; the fanatics of Tehran may very well fulfill their promise to wipe Israel from the map.
Is that better than supporting democratic revolutionaries? Such a program has an additional benefit, one that is not subject to the doubts and uncertainties that attend the others: It is the right thing to do, and it would be even if Iran had no nuclear program, and was not the world's leading terrorist supporter. It is part and parcel of our national mission, and it is the ultimate example of doing well by doing good.
How about it?
Emphases mine. Most of the people in Iran are under thirty years of age--many are pro-American, and all of them are too young to have lived through the revolution. If the democratic process has taken root in the chaos of Iraq, a country whose political and physical infrastructure was ruined by Saddam, think of the possibilities in Iran, a country far more populous and advanced that its Arab neighbor.
It's past time to abandon mealy-mouthed half-commitment to policies that are doomed to fail. How about it, indeed?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/503
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran: Best Choice From A Bad Lot?:
» beach photographer wedding from beach photographer wedding
shit-happens 2946937 Fresh information about beach photographer wedding. [Read More]
Tracked on June 19, 2007 06:35 PM
Comments
We can start by striking Natanz and see how that sits with them.
Posted by: Academic Elephant at January 18, 2006 12:27 PM
I would love to hear a comprehensive liberal plan of action for Iran, but have been unable to do so, despite repeated attempts on my blog. However, the comments form liberals on the first post are amusing.
Posted by: K at January 19, 2006 03:23 PM
