I thought that the difficulties, which we are facing in Iraq, would dissuade trigger-happy proponents of the use of force to advocate for the immediate bombing of Iran. I was wrong. In a op-ed yesterday in the LA times, Joshua Muravchik advocates for the use of force, by making the usual claims that diplomacy and negotiations are leading nowhere and that it is time for the US to bomb Iran to stop it from becoming a nuclear power. Money quote:
The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.
What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran persisted, we might have to do it again.
The logic behind this argument is so utterly devoid of sense and grounded on irrational ideology that it leaves me voiceless. I wonder in what world Muravchik lives in and whether he has noticed that all of the US’s blood and treasure are used in Iraq. Obviously, those who are now advocating force is the only way to solve the Iran issue, when a rational analysis of the situation shows that it would not solve the issue, but rather globalize it.
Comments