It is hardly a surprise that a New York Times opinion writer has thought long and deeply about the matter and worries more about efforts to stop Iran than he does the impact of living with a nuclear bomb under the control of the mullahs. We can contain them:
At the end of this theoretical exercise, we have two awful choices with unpredictable consequences. After immersing myself in the expert thinking on both sides, I think that, forced to choose, I would swallow hard and take the risks of a nuclear Iran over the gamble of a pre-emptive war. My view may be colored by a bit of post-Iraq syndrome.
Iraq colors his judgment? Why? What on Earth does Iraq have to do with the Iran question? Is he confused by the N versus Q? If that war colors his judgment, what exactly was his immersion in? Bush Derangement Syndrome koolaid?
Amazingly, Keller insists that there is a third option of an agreement with Iran that limits their path to nuclear weapons. Seriously? If we could enforce such a deal, we'd have one by now. Indeed, Iran's current agreement for peaceful nuclear developments under the IAEA would make that our current reality.
Keller essentially assumes that Iran doesn't want a nuclear bomb capability. Why would Iran agree to anything that hinders them? And if they do, why would we expect them not to cheat? Keller will not support anything to punish Iran even if we have proof that Iran is cheating on his glorious Plan C. You think Iraq won't color his judgment when our CIA tells the president that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons with a medium to high level of confidence?
Iran's mullah regime can't be trusted without nukes. What will they be like with them?
I'd also like to comment on his reassuring lullaby that since Pakistan went nuclear, there have been no wars between India and Pakistan, while before they went nuclear there were three. Therefore nuclear weapons are actually good (not that Keller thinks there's any proof Iran wants them, of course!).
Let's see: wars in 1947-48, 1965, and 1971.
Pakistan lit off their nukes in 1998.
And then there was the Kargil War between India and Pakistan in--wait for it! 1999.
And Pakistan continues to send jihadis into India to kill Indians in Kashmir or in Indian cities, as in Mumbai in 2008 or the attack on India's parliament in 2001.
Even if you don't want to count the Kargil War because combined casualties were less than 1,000 KIA (So do we not count the Persian Gulf War as a war because our casualties were so low? Does the Falklands War not count as a war because combined casualties were also below 1,000 KIA?), we've gone 14 years without a full-scale war between India and Pakistan.
Yet between the last big war in 1971 and Pakistan going nuclear, there was a span of 17 years of no wars--without nukes to "keep the peace."
The reason there has been no big war has far more to do with the fact that the military balance between India and Pakistan has tilted so far in India's favor that Pakistan knows it is suicidal to fight a conventional war with India. Good grief, India doesn't want to attack Pakistan. One, India would win and doesn't want the responsibility of running Pakistan. And two, India is far more worried about China.
Pakistan's nukes don't deter India from invading Pakistan. Pakistan's poverty and mismanagement deter India from invading Pakistan.
Yes, liberals are learning to love containment. And when that gets too troublesome, they'll learn to love some other point on their retreat from confronting and defeating enemies. At some point, if necessary, I'm sure they'd say it is only "fair" that we accept nuclear parity with Iran.
After a thoughtful period of nuanced immersion in the issues, of course.
