Don't Forget the Magic Word!

The Oxford Research Group concludes that "military action against Iran should be ruled out as a means of responding to its possible nuclear weapons ambitions." Their reasons are ridiculous.

One, the fact that they don't believe there is any real evidence to support the idea that Iran wants nuclear weapons kind of calls into question their analysis.

Two, the fact that they tout their predictive abilities when they advised against overthrowing the Saddam regime by saying they predicted the insurgency and that it would spur recruiting of jihadis doesn't impress me. One, the pro-Saddam insurgency was pretty narrowly based and we did actually beat it. Two, jihadi recruiting took quite the hit once we beat the insurgencies and terrorist groups supported by Syria and Iran and bankrolled by massive amounts of oil-for-food money and pre-war stocks of weapons. And three, today Iraq has hopes of building a lasting democracy if we don't abandon them. ORG's claimed predictive prowess is akin to predicting that an operation to save one's life will result in a lot of bleeding and concluding that you should never have that operation. The prediction is right as far as it goes. The conclusion is, however, wrong.

Once in to the report, it actually gets amusing. After saying that there is no evidence Iran wants nuclear weapons, the report claims nuclear weapons are a defensive weapon for Iran's leaders. Just gliding over that little sleight of hand, how would nuclear weapons help defend Iran? Will it stop conventional attacks on Iran the way Israel's nuclear arsenal has stopped attacks on them? Or the way our nuclear arsenal has stopped enemies from fighting us? Will Iranian nukes deter a nuclear attack by Israel or America on Iran? What has stopped either of us up to now if nuclear deterrence is needed? No, it is far more likely that Iran wants nukes to nuke Israel. At best, Iran thinks nukes will be a shield for even more aggressive terrorism, breaking the sanctions, and perhaps covering conventional attacks.

Which brings us to the objection that a strike even by America will not end Iran's nuclear program and just encourage the Iranians to both strike back in the region and accelerate nuclear weapon work. The prospect of repeated strikes over years and decades seems too dangerous for ORG to think about.

One, our 4-day Desert Fox operation in 1998 seems to have ended progress in Iraq's nuclear program (although the infrastructure and people remained in place, our sanctions kept them from restarting it).

And two, if you don't think one strike by Israel (or one campaign, if by America) will halt their nuclear weapons ambitions, why not think of the strikes as buying time to overthrow the regime for good? Bombing the heck out of them is war-like enough, no? Why would attempts at regime change make it more war-like. We'd be at war. We'd expect retaliation. Why wouldn't we pursue regime change if for no other reason than to have leverage to convince Iran not to retaliate in exchange for not going for regime change? At worst, we've bought time. And I'd rather have time to stop the mullahs from getting nukes than let Iran get nukes.

Also, perhaps you'd like to contemplate who else in the region will get nukes to counter Iran, and what the balance of terror will look like under those circumstances? Are you really ready to rule out the use of force to stop Iran from going nuclear?

But what is really funny is ORG's alternative to strikes to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They have two brilliant options:

One, ask the Iranians not to develop nuclear weapons (diplomacy); or

Two, ask the Israelis to get rid of their nukes and so get Iran to stop pursuit of nuclear weapons (regional diplomacy).

Yeah. Good luck with those alternatives. Still, perhaps if we say "please" the mullahs' hearts will melt. And just maybe Israelis will learn to be as gullibly trusting of the Iranians as the ORG.

The ORG thinks that the possible reactions to a US and/or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities are too horrible to contemplate (Like Iraq's response to Israel in 1981 or to America in 1998; or like Syria's reaction to the 2007 raid by Israel?). They'd rather have the pretend peace and quiet of hoping that Iran doesn't do anything bad with nukes (and if they do use them, it is probably just a week's worth of horrible news of Tel Aviv's destruction and not anything Europeans need to worry about, they may reason, after which the Europeans can get back to normal).

I happen to think that Iran with nukes under the mullahs is a nightmare waiting to happen. And that nightmare doesn't even have to involve Iran using their nukes.