A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

War with Iran: A Bad Idea

I realize I’m starting to sound like a Matthew Yglesias groupie, but this article on why war with Iran is a very, very bad idea is one of the best I’ve read. Even bracketing moral considerations, there just doesn’t seem to be a feasible military option that prevents Iran from getting nukes, rather than perhaps delaying it. Aerial bombing wouldn’t guarantee anything more than a setback, regime change-plus-occupation simply isn’t doable under current conditions, and a Mark Steyn-style “decapitation” (regime change without occupation) would just be plumb foolish.

P.S. See also this piece by Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld.

2 responses to “War with Iran: A Bad Idea”

  1. Lutheran Zephyr

    With all respect, the idea from Yglesias’ article that Iran will subject themselves to “rigorous inspections” if we just play nice with them is rediculous. Remember: we’re the “Great Satan” and they sponsor terrorism via Hezbollah. Holding hands, singing Kum-Bah-Yah, and opening an embassy will get us nowhere – except, perhaps, into some silly dilusional state in which we believe that Iran is a stable and friendly member of the international community.

    We need to play diplomatic hardball with them, but one weapon in the diplomatic quiver is the threat of military action (imperfect analogy, but remember our threat of force against Cuba during the missle crisis?). Another weapon is overwhelming, consistant, multilateral, international pressure – and perhaps a huge payoff, just like we bribed Egypt to recognize Israel.

    We need to get our “friends” on board – Europe, Russia, China, etc. – and we need to agree that a nuclear Iran is not a good idea (and Yglesias’ analogy to the nuclearization of Britian, Russia is also imperfect – the nuclearization of major powers is a very different thing than the nuclearization of a radical, terrorism-sponsoring state bordered by a war-torn Iraq).

    I’m as anti-war as the next guy, but we can’t look at Iran with rose-colored glasses.

    Reply
  2. Lee

    I don’t disagree with you that the likelihood of Iran giving into rigorous inspections may be wishful thinking. But I don’t think that affects the main point of Yglesias’ argument. As he says, “Maybe if we stopped trying to impoverish their country and overthrow their government while threatening to bomb them, they’d agree to rigorous inspections. If so, we should take the deal. If not, then we’ll live with it.” That doesn’t sound like misty-eyed optimism to me.

    Iran may be radical and sponsor terrorism, but I haven’t seen anything that has convinced me they’re suicidal. Which is what they’d have to be to deploy a first-strike on Israel or the U.S.A., assuming they had the capacity.

    I agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a bad thing and that continued diplomatic pressure is a good idea. But we should also be realistic about what we’re actually willing to do to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Does threatening military action imply being willing to actually undertake it? If so, I think we’re in trouble because I don’t really see a feasible military option.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply