Fareed Zakaria (via RCP) says we need to face reality and accept Iran's bomb. We should "contain" them.
Writes Zakaria:
At best a strike would set back Iran's program by a few years. But it would inflame public opinion there and unify the nation in its determination to go nuclear. It is a substantial country—with three times the population of Iraq, for example—that has a powerful sense of national pride. And Iran would have many ways of retaliating, especially with 140,000 American troops next door in Iraq.
I happen to think that the nutballs of Iran want nukes to use them. They are not containable.
And I think that setting back Iran's nuclear program is preferable to accepting their nuclear ambitions and just getting used to them.
And most importantly, I deny that "reality" requires us to accept Iranian nukes. Who says the Iranians see 140,000 American troops next door in Iraq (and 20,000 more in Afghansistan) as a target rather than a threat? If we didn't have troops next door, we'd be told how realistically speaking we have no way to invade. And if we buy those few years by striking Iran's nuclear facilities, I bet our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will have some free time as the Iraqi and Afghan governments run more of their own security.
But back to the conventional wisdom being peddled. Who says the Iranians people will hate us for knocking out their nuclear weapons program? Why will they be more upset at us for eliminating a threat from a regime that those people hate as much as we do, and who are forging ahead with a program that is making them a target and isolating them?
Why won't our attack inspire Iran's regime opponents to question why we hate them?
Let's look at the history of inflaming enemies.
We smashed up the military of Japan, fire-bombed their cities, and then nuked two in 1945. Yet instead of a proud people hating us forever, the Japanese supported our war effort in Korea in 1950, and became a close ally.
Or take the Germans. Please. No seriously. We invaded them, bombed every above-ground structure they had, aided their hated communist Russian enemies, starved them, and also tried and executed their leaders in the post-war years. Yet by 1955 the proud German people joined NATO and became a primary Cold War ally.
Or take Iraq. We invaded them in 2003 to depose their regime but the Kurds and Shias managed to forgive us anyway. Do they lack pride?
Heck, the Iraqis even forgave us for taking out their nuclear programs in 1998 air strikes!
Let's get real. There may very well be a momentary reaction against us if we hit the regime's nuclear facilities, but the people's hatred of the regime and the people's fear of that regime will make sure that in the end, the people go back to hating the mullah regime and welcoming our aid to weaken the mullah regime. Don't let any mythical "rallying" effect stay our hand if we otherwise conclude we must attack to save ourselves.
And as I've written before, I will draw no comfort if we don't attack out of fear of alienating the Iranian opponents of the regime, and those people become really, really sad after the mullahs slip a nuke into Charleston harbor.
If you have any doubt about how people who hate their government react to an enemy attack, recall our own 9-11 experience. For about three weeks, even Leftist opponents of President Bush were all weepy with the "we are all Americans" sentiment. But by the time we went into Afghanistan, many recovered their wits to oppose our action. More defected during the Iraq debate and in the last year. And today we have our Left back to where they are most comfortable--opposing what our government does and forgiving our enemies for any transgressions. Short rally, eh?
I suppose you could argue that the Iranian people are less rational than our Left, but I don't want to go there. It might be both wrong and racist.
And if we want to demolish Zakaria's so-called realism, let's end with this assessment he makes in support of containment:
The United States should begin the construction of an alliance to contain Iran. Our goals should be to prevent or massively slow down the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, and to frustrate its meddling in the region, support for terrorism and opposition to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Wonderful ideas, each and every one of them. We've done so well on all these things up until now. But "realistically" he thinks now is the time all these things will fall into place bolstered by newly cooperative allies and a China and Russia chastened to realize what their obstruction has wrought!
Just who has a grip on reality here?
