Well, of course, the question is, will our superior military strength in fact be sufficient to contain a maniacal, suicidal atomic Iran? General Abazaid's four stars do not necessarily give him any greater insight into this question then I enjoy, or any reader possesses for that matter. He says they will not use the bomb against us and we all pray he is right, but how does he know? If he is wrong with the downside is intolerable, therefore, why should we base our foreign policy on his opinion?
The whole problem with Iran coming in to possession of the bomb is that they may not be deterable because they are fanatic and even suicidal in their lust for Armageddon. We cannot rely on general Abazaid and we cannot rely on the CIA because they have gotten everything wrong so far. We have to err on the side of prudence.
If we are having difficulty waging a asymmetrical warfare against a ragtag guerrilla in Iraq because we have not yet demonstrated, even with the surge, that we can defeat such an insurgency at a price Americans are willing to pay, why in the world would you believe that we could successfully wage a cold war with Iran? One suitcase bomb in one American city spells defeat for us. That is the very nature of asymmetrical warfare and we are simply not prepared to slug it out with atomic weapons.
If general Abazaid wants to lecture me about the strategic implications to, for example, the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz, or potential civil wars spreading to neighboring countries, in the event of an American strike to interdict Iran's nuclear program, I will listen with a thirsty ear. But I would also expect him to devote an equal time in his lecture to the strategic implications for upsetting the precarious balance of power in the Gulf region should the Iranians achieve the bomb.
