Many argue that all this work still doesn't mean that the Iranian leaders have made the decision to put them together into a weapon.
Some can even note that of course Iran wants nuclear weapons--to protect themselves from potential American aggression (See? It's really America's fault!)--even as they demand iron-clad proof of what they assume.
Hey, maybe that American professor who opposed the Iraq War and wanted "a million Mogadishus" (Black Hawk Down events) to deter us will get his wish!
So the question is whether the lack of iron-clad, smoking gun proof means Iran isn't building nuclear weapons or whether they are just good at hiding what they are doing. I know which way I go on this.
Hey, what do you know?
Satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at the site, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger, diplomats told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
Recall that Syria did this after Israel bombed the nuclear site that North Koreans were working on, prior to saying the IAEA could inspect the site. It may be that this is a standard North Korean method. Which we should keep in mind as we seek to put inspectors back into North Korea.
Actually, I don't think a Facebook photo of Ahmadinejad standing next to a missile where he just wrote, in Farsi and English, "One missile for the one-bomb state" on the nose cone would be iron-clad proof for those who oppose stopping Iran. Any iron-clad proof is likely to come way too late.
I don't understand why opponents stress the bad things that could happen if we or Israel strikes Iran. Yes, bad things could happen. But the funny thing is, many of the bad things assume Iran is completely irrational by arguing Iran will--quite naturally--attack America and Arab countries if Israel attacks Iran. Or they assume Iran will choke off oil exports that will affect Iran just as badly if Hormuz is shut down for long.
But far worse things could happen if an Iran as irrational as even opponents of attacking Iran's nuclear program gets nuclear weapons. Even if Iran doesn't quickly use their nuclear capacity to attack Israel--who would then respond in kind--the resulting path of nuclear proliferation in the volatile Middle East would in time lead to an even worse nuclear exchange. I'm pretty confident about that. Is bombing Iran really madness?
My old friend Professor Sir Michael Howard, now 89 years old but still the repository of greater wisdom than any other British strategic thinker, said to me a while back: ‘The only thing worse than the prospect of an Iran with nuclear weapons would be the consequences of using force to stop them.’ This still seems a statesmanlike assessment.
We have learned to live with a world in which the Pakistanis, Indians and North Koreans have nuclear weapons — and, of course, the Israelis.
However reckless the fanatics in Tehran, it is hard to imagine them launching an unprovoked nuclear assault on Israel, amid the certainty of annihilatory retaliation.
Their failure of imagination shouldn't stay our hand. The British faced a madman before who they couldn't imagine would act in any way other than that of a properly trained British gentlemen when faced with reality and the horrors of war. But not a madman with nukes who might think taking one for the ummah is a beautiful idea with acceptable collateral damage (if they even think that "involuntary martyrs on a nuclear scale is damage at all).
You ain't seen nothin', yet, on that score if we let Iran get nuclear weapons.
I'd rather have regime change in Iran to stop them. But failure to spend the last decade working on that or using the last decade to squeeze Iran economically to increase unrest has made anything we might do on those fronts too little and too late.
Opponents of striking Iran say use of force should be the last resort only after all other options are exhausted? I dispute that but let's assume that is correct. Hey, guess what? All other options to prevent Iran from going nuclear are pretty much exhausted.
And guess what else? Waiting so long before striking is just giving Iran not just the chance to bury their program deeper, but to disperse it to places we don't see. Are we having fun yet?
So in the end, striking Iran doesn't "solve" the problem. I admit that freely. Few actions in the foreign affairs realm are silver bullets that solve a problem once and for all. In the end, a more enduring solution to nutballs in Iran wanting nukes isn't to keep the nutballs from getting nukes but to get rid of the nutballs. But for now, we must have more time--time with a non-nuclear Iran.
