Ultimately, regime change is the only way to resolve the conflict with Iran. But that’s a long-term strategy not well suited to address our short-term reality: are we prepared to live with the potential consequences of Iran becoming a nuclear power in the near future under the control of a man like Ahmadinejad? Or must we do everything in our power to delay the mullahs in Iran from acquiring the capacity to kill millions of people despite the obvious political consequences of taking such action?
The answer to these questions largely turns on whether the West believes that Ahmadinejad will adhere to the traditional rationales of deterrence and whether he will abstain from providing nuclear assistance to terrorists. So far, there is precious little evidence to suggest he will do either, though we can always hope that a nuclear Iran will act rationally and responsibly. Then again, as history has repeatedly shown, hope isn’t a very effective strategy.
Let me speculate.
One, President Bush is serious about defending our nation from the leading nutball regime of the rump Axis of Evil. Psychotically Islamist and near a nuclear capability, Iran under the mullahs is a regime we've decided we cannot live with.
Two, the president does not have the option of regime change either because the CIA blew its Iran network a few years ago and hasn't rebuilt it or because the president doesn't trust the CIA to carry out this policy.
Three, a nuclear-armed Iran is not in the interests of the Turks, the Iraqis, the Gulf Arabs, the British, or the Indians, and so we may get the cooperation of these players.
Four, Israel cannot do the job alone and if we can it would be best to leave Israel out.
Five, our Strategic Petroleum Reserve is full.
Six, we will have a brigade combat team in Kuwait.
So with these assumptions, could we be preparing for a thorough strike campaign in the next couple months? We could strike out of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Afghanistan, India, and the Arabian Sea--hitting Iran from pretty close to 360 degrees. Iraq would not be a launching pad to reduce the chance that Iran would strike into Iraq in retaliation.
The American brigade in Kuwait provides a hedge against a desperate Iranian attack that might sweep into southern Iraq and turn left. The Britsh shield Basra. And the extra American brigades deployed for the elections in Iraq and preparing to pull out will be free to defend against any Iranian offensive into Iraq.
This isn't ideal. We really have no good assurance that we can root out all the Iranian nuclear facilities. But it beats letting Iran go nuclear and hoping that the nutjobs sitting in Tehran aren't as crazy as they appear.
And as I've noted before, I'm not persuaded that the Iranian people who hate the mullahs will automatically rally to the mullahs who oppress them if we strike. This article suggests that we should not strike because Iran's president wants us to attack him:
One veteran conservative observer, Arnaud de Borchgrave, suggested in a recent op-ed that Ahmadinejad actually wants the United States or Israel to attack his country as a way of cementing his standing with the dominant diehard-rejectionist faction.Look. Ahmadinejad is certifiably nuts. Are we really going to refrain from attacking because this guy thinks it would work out really great for him? The Taliban thought they'd ride out our attack, too, and they are enjoying the hospitality of caves as a result. Only an ineffective attack might play into Ahmadinejad's hands.
And if the Iranian people side with this nutball and we let Iran go nuclear out of fear the Iranian people will become pro-regime, I will not be comforted by the news that the Iranian people really disapprove of the nuclear explosion in Charleston harbor.
I hope we can overthrow the Iranian regime. I'll settle for knocking their nuclear program back a few years until we can overthrow the regime. It isn't a pretty option but just hoping for the best is no option at all.
