The New York Times today has an editorial about the increasingly dangerous situation with Iran. They note the Iranian regimes desire for nuclear weapons and their immunity to American and world-wide pressure thus far. Somehow they manage to minimize recent monstrous rhetoric out of Iran threatening to use their bomb to destroy Israel but that is a common oversight at the Times. However, the shallowness and myopia of the Times is striking.
Fortunately, Iran is believed to still be several years away from being able to produce nuclear weapons. But it has now embarked on a course that can have no other plausible intent.
Considering how badly we missed the Indian and Pakistani nuclear programs (only discovered after they actually tested a nuclear device) and knew nothing about the AQ Khan network or that the Libyans were within 6 months of acquiring a bomb when they came in from the cold, such certainty on the part of the Times suggests wishful thinking more than knowledge. Then there is this:
There are no realistic military options, especially for Washington. Iran is more than three times as large and nearly three times as populous as Iraq. And it is worth recalling that the ill-fated invasion of Iraq was first sold to the American public as the most promising way to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and terrorist-friendly states.
And capped off with this fine idea:
China and Russia should join the United States, Britain, France and Germany in putting Iran's behavior before the Security Council and condemning it as a steadily growing threat. Plain talk and a united stand are never bad ideas, particularly when more conventional diplomacy has so far failed. [Emphasis mine-SW]
When someone addresses a problem and concludes with what someone else should do, especially when it is someone else over whom they have minimal authority or control, it is the hall mark of an immature, unserious mind. We see this in grade school children who complain about how things should be when they are unhappy with the way things are. So, when the Chinese, who depend on Iran and just signed a deal to import Iranian oil to keep their economy humming, veto sanctions in the UNSC, we can expect the New York Times to complain, in the time honored fashion of children who notice the world has not been arranged in accordance with their wishes, ITS NOT FAIR!
This is the cry of the passive victim.
If this is the best we can do, get ready for a nuclear Iran. Contrast this vapid approach with Victor Davis Hanson.
Hanson presents four plausible scenarios along with some prescriptions for how to handle a bad situation on its way to becoming a crisis situation. His scenarios include the use of American military force to buy time, with the hope that the Iranian people will seize the moment before such force becomes our only option.
John Noonan at The Officer's Club offers a brief description of a possible military approach:
We'll go the sanctions route first. If the UN fails (perish the thought) to bring the ruling elites to the table or to stimulate the pro-democracy Iranian underground, expect a mini-air campaign similiar to Operation Desert Fox. We'll hit suspected nuclear facilities, knock the Revolutionary Guards back to the stone age, incapacitate their ability to retaliate, and wreak some havoc amongst Iranian leadership and communications nodes.
Roger Simon suggests an alternative, though equally childish, explanation for why the Times might take their stance:
As for how to handle Iranian nukes, there are other options than mass military action a la Iraq. The folks at the NYT know that as much as the rest of us. They just prefer not to mention it so they can tut-tut after the fact. But again like the rest of us, they would probably breathe more easily.
Dr. Sanity shows how the Times would have approached this crisis if they were responsible parties offering support and advice, knowing that there are no painless options:
Is it to be war then?
If so, then I would suggest that, when economic sanctions fail to have an impact, and before we take the step of destroying the disseminated nuclear facilities, the primary targets of military action should be Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs themselves.
As long as they are in charge of decision-making in Iran, they will almost certainly not bend to any international sanctions or reprimands; nor are they likely to alter their planned course of action. This is their jihad and they are as serious about it as any suicide bomber. From their point of view, better that the whole world go up in flames than they disobey what they imagine their god wants them to do.
There is always the hope that the desires of the Iranian people do not march in lock-step with those of their irrational leaders, and that once the religious psychopaths are out of the picture, self-preservation--if not reason--will reassert itself.
Dr. Sanity agrees we must try sanctions first and she agrees with the Times that they are unlikely to work. However, instead of passive acceptance, she then presents an alternative that, while horrific, is better than the alternative horrors that would follow from such passivity.
Note the difference: The Times prescription would place our lives and well being in the hands of the Iranian Mullahs, while VDH, et al, would preserve our initiative to take action to try to shape events.
Message to the Times: We all hope things work out peacefully. We all agree that China and Russia should join "United States, Britain, France and Germany in putting Iran's behavior before the Security Council and condemning it as a steadily growing threat." The difference is that we all recognize that the world that should exist and the world that we wish for is not always the world we have to deal with.
Recent Comments