Pages

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Angering the Iranians

I don't understand why the prospect of angering Iranians by attacking Iran's nuclear facilities should stay our hand since the alternative could well be really pro-American Iranians horrified that their government nuked Charleston. As I've written before (like here):


I don't know why we should draw any consolation from the fact that 90% of the Iranian people will be really sad for us if their mullah crazies detonate a nuke in Charleston harbor. Lighting candles just won't cut it for me.

And like I also wrote, I don't assume Iranians would rally around their mullahs if we attack. That would be strange behavior indeed for groups of people extremely hostile to their government. Historically, such committed opponents exploit foreign intervention to seize power rather than rally to the hated government. Does anybody think MoveOn.org would have rallied to the President if the recently busted airline plot had struck our planes as planned?

Protect our people, first. Iran must not get nuclear weapons. Period. I'm willing to risk angering Iranians to keep them from getting nukes. If we let Iran go nuclea, who can say that they won't just get angry at us over something else later on--and have nukes, too.

Worry about our popularity standings in Tehran later. I'm not so sure we'd even need to do much on the latter issue if we defeat the mullahs.