"Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice," concluded the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, which was released on Thursday.
The potential for rolling back Iran's program, once it produces a nuclear weapon, "is lower than preventing it in the first place and the costs of rollback may be higher than the costs of deterring and containing a nuclear Iran," they said.
Live with a nuclear-armed Iran? Like they're some less annoying version of nuclear-armed France? This is truly a horrifying thought.
And the report takes a way too optimistic view of the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran:
However, the U.S. researchers warned that a U.S. or Israeli pre-emptive military strike likely would rally Iranians around a religious fundamentalist government in Tehran that they might otherwise want to replace, spur new attacks by Iran-allied groups like Hizbollah.
They also warned that if Washington sought to change the government in Tehran -- as it did in Iraq -- there is an "extremely high risk that the Iranian regime would use its nuclear weapon in a last-ditch effort to save itself."
On living with a nuclear-armed Iran, the analysts said Tehran was unlikely to use its nuclear capability unless facing an overwhelming threat and while it might become more assertive in the region, superior U.S. capabilities could probably deter significant mischief.
So let me get his straight. Why would we care if a disarming strike rallies Iranians around the government? What good is having a population that hates the government if the government will nuke us anyway? I'd rather have a nuclear-free Iran with a population that is ticked off at us for a while. I dare say the mullahs will make the people of Iran remember why they hated the mullahs after a while. And who says this would automatically rally the people to the mullah's side. How solid is that judgment anyway?
Second, we could deter "significant" Iranian mischief? Seizing our embassy wasn't significant, I guess. Or Khobar Towers. Or supplying the Idiot Sadr in Iraq. Or arming Hizbollah in Lebanon. Or any of the other terrorist tricks the mullahs have pulled in the last twenty-five years. Funny how we couldn't deter Iran from this crap when Iran didn't even have nukes. Just what are the authors of the study willing to accept as insignificant when the Iranians have a nuclear deterrent of their own? Is Topeka significant?
Still, there is hope. The report notes that the price of keeping Iran from having nukes will be much higher once Iran gets nukes. That is, it is better to stop Iran before it gets nukes than roll back a nuclear fact. Indeed, once Iran gets nukes they'll use them rather than lose power, the authors say.
So is this a head fake? Are we setting the stage to support an uprising in Iran while denying we had anything to do with it? (No way! We were prepared to live with Iran's nukes! Didn't you see the report?)
I have nothing to go on but faith that the administration is serious about protecting us from the mullahs who have given us no reason to trust their good intentions. So when I discount this report, I know I'm seeing what I want to see.
Good God, I hope I'm right.
