Making a Decision on Iran

Townhall ^ | 9/16/06 | Charles Krauthammer

[Molly Pitcher]

WASHINGTON -- In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not ``leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.'' There's only one such current candidate: Iran.

The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: ``It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.''

``Before'' implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.

The costs will be terrible:

Economic. An attack on Iran will likely send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.

Iran could do this by attacking ships in the Strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.

The U.S. Navy will be forced to break the blockade. We will succeed but at considerable cost. And it will take time -- during which time the world economy will be in a deep spiral.

Military. Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.

Among the lesser military dangers, Iran might activate terrorist cells around the world, although without nuclear capability that threat is hardly strategic. It will also be very difficult to unleash its proxy Hezbollah, now chastened by the destruction it brought upon Lebanon in the latest round with Israel and deterred by the presence of Europeans in the south Lebanon buffer zone.

Diplomatic. There will be massive criticism of America from around the world. Much of it is to be discounted. The Muslim street will come out again for a few days, having replenished its supply of flammable American flags most recently exhausted during the cartoon riots. Their governments will express solidarity with a fellow Muslim state, but this will be entirely hypocritical. The Arabs are terrified about the rise of a nuclear Iran and would privately rejoice in its defanging.

The Europeans will be less hypocritical because their visceral anti-Americanism trumps rational calculation. We will have done them an enormous favor by sparing them the threat of Iranian nukes, but they will vilify us nonetheless.

These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing.

In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, non-nuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe.

Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?

These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.

[Miss Marple]

I feel we will have no choice. Time to save as much money as possible, stock up on canned goods, and figure out ways to get along during a recession.

Despite the hardship, I think we will have to do this. The alternative is Iran ruling the Middle East armed with nukes, and once they are in that position they will have the ability to destroy Israel and hold Europe hostage. That cannot happen (even if the Europeans don't want the help).

[livius]

Well, he certainly lays it all out. Correctly.

[Psalm 73]

"I feel we will have no choice...."

Yup - thanks to Jimmuh Carter.
Now that's a lasting legacy.

[CDHart]

Scary, but it sounds logical. Poor Pres. Bush! I wouldn't want to have to make his decisions.

Carolyn

[Dudoight]

It amazes me that these rabid dictator-types keep continue to manufacture themselves. They must have a slanted view of the world. It is so difficult for me to imagine the type of thinking that creates them after so many centuries of downfalls.

[Senator Goldwater]

"An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy"

Something Bush will not punt to his successors.

Unlike the mess his predecessor punted to him.

[AsYouAre]

George Bush will not have a nuclear armed Iran as part of his legacy. He will attack Iran before he leaves office, but not until right after the 2008 presidential election.

[ClaireSolt]

I think America and Europe are busy stockpiling petrol and ramping up alternatives in preparation.

[Graymatter]

Better to do it now than delay until Iran works out a defense pact with China.
That said, I don't think it's going to happen. Not before the elections, and probably not after. Republicans, generally speaking, don't have the courage of their convictions and they turn to jelly when Democrats howl and snarl. The UN doesn't even have to do that much, and we get squishy.
The days of Let's Roll are past. We are back to Let's Roll Over.

[Tolik]

Charles Krauthammer:

...These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing.

In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, non-nuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe.

Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?

These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.

Very Important!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately  on  my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.  

[Non-Sequitur]

He will attack Iran before he leaves office, but not until right after the 2008 presidential election.

And leave the fallout to his successor, along with the problem of finding troops and material to carry on the Iranian war. Some legacy.

[Iscool]

"An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy" Something Bush will not punt to his successors. Unlike the mess his predecessor punted to him.

I don't think that's a 'given'...The President may have no choice...I believe there's every possibility that Iran may pull out a nuke before we're ready to go after them...

They could display one tomorrow...The question is; will they explode one to show us, or just tell us about it...And either one of those scenarios is not a pleasant topic to think about...

[blam]

I got my Potassium Iodide here cheap and without problems.

These are anti-radiation pills.

[livius]

I hope so. I think the Europeans may be in denial, unfortunately, but there must be some sensible folk among them who see what's on the horizon.

I don't know when it's likely to happen. Bush doesn't have much longer in office, relatively speaking, and in any case, there is not much time before Iran has nuclear capacity (which it may already have, IMO, but not necessarily all of the technical support to employ it or perhaps to readily produce more). I guess we should all be stockpiling essentials, because it will probably be sooner rather than later.

[livius]

I don't think he'd do it after the 2008 election - he's too responsible to make a massive military strike (and it would have to be massive) and then simply walk out the door and hand the keys over to someone else.

I think it will either be before then or not at all, unless the press of events forces him to do something at a time not of his choosing. And I think he's trying to avoid being caught in that situation.

[Molly Pitcher]

Hey, blam...do you have a handy list of who would take over key chairmanships in both the House and Senate if the Dems win in Nov?

That would be an excellent reminder for us as we move along this bitter campaign season..

[blam]

"Hey, blam...do you have a handy list of who would take over key chairmanships in both the House and Senate if the Dems win in Nov?"

Sorry, no.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.

also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]

----------------------------

[weef]

He will attack Iran before he leaves office, but not until right after the 2008 presidential election.

2008 is way too late - by then Iran definitely has nuke capabilities. I'm thinking after the 2006 elections, sometime in '07.