Monday, 6 February 2012
Jerusalem—It probably felt a bit like this in the months before the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel launched its hugely successful preemptive strike against Egypt and its allies. Forty-five years later, the little country that is the most easterly outpost of Western civilization has Iran in its sights.
There are five reasons (I am told) why Israel should not attack Iran:
1. The Iranians would retaliate with great fury, closing the Strait of Hormuz and unleashing the dogs of terror in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iraq.
2. The entire region would be set ablaze by irate Muslims; the Arab Spring would turn into a frigid Islamist winter.
3. The world economy would be dealt a death blow in the form of higher oil prices.
4. The Iranian regime would be strengthened, having been attacked by the Zionists its propaganda so regularly vilifies.
5. A nuclear-armed Iran is nothing to worry about. States actually become more risk-averse once they acquire nuclear weapons.
I am here to tell you that these arguments are wrong.
Let’s take them one by one.
Yes, I know President Obama is a noble and saintly man of peace who uses unmanned drones only to assassinate America’s foes in unprecedented numbers after wrestling with his conscience for anything up to ... 10 seconds. But picture the scene once described to me by a four-star general. It is not the proverbial 3 a.m. but 11 p.m. in the White House (7 a.m. in Israel). The phone rings.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Mr. President, we have reliable intelligence that the Israeli Air Force is in the air and within an hour of striking suspected nuclear facilities in Iran.
POTUS: Damn. What should I do?
CJCS: Mr. President, I want to recommend that you provide the Israelis with all necessary support to limit the effectiveness of Iranian retaliation.
POTUS: But those [expletives deleted] never ran this past me. They went behind my back, goddammit.
CJCS: Yes, sir.
POTUS: Why the hell should I lift a finger to help them?
CJCS: Because if the Iranians close the Strait of Hormuz, we will see oil above $200 a barrel.
POTUS [after a pause]: Just a moment. [Whispers] How am I doing in Florida?
David Axelrod [also whispering]: Your numbers suck.
POTUS: OK, General, line up those bunker busters.
The eruption of the entire Muslim world. All the crocodiles of Africa could not equal the fake tears that will be shed by the Sunni powers of the region if Iran’s nuclear ambitions are checked.
The double-dip recession. Oil prices are on the way down thanks to concerted efforts of Europe’s leaders to reenact the Great Depression. An Israel-Iran war would push them up, but the Saudis stand ready to pump out additional supplies to limit the size of the spike.
The theocracy’s new legitimacy. Please send me a list of all the regimes of the past 60 years that have survived such military humiliation. Saddam Hussein’s survival of Gulf War I is the only case I can think of—and we got him the second time around.
The responsible nuclear Iran. Wait. We’re supposed to believe that a revolutionary Shiite theocracy is overnight going to become a sober, calculating disciple of the realist school of diplomacy ... because it has finally acquired weapons of mass destruction? Presumably this would be in the same way that, if German scientists had developed an atomic bomb as quickly as the Manhattan Project, the Second World War would have ended with a negotiated settlement brokered by the League of Nations.
The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran. It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever. We would have acquiesced in the creation of an empire of extortion.
War is an evil. But sometimes a preventive war can be a lesser evil than a policy of appeasement. The people who don’t yet know that are the ones still in denial about what a nuclear-armed Iran would end up costing us all.
It feels like the eve of some creative destruction.
Posted on 02/06/2012 10:14 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
6 Feb 2012
And why didn't this cross the American mind when Pakistan was developing the Sunni psychopath nuke? That is the biggest error in post war American history - being hoodwinked and taken for saps by Pakistan and looking away as they developed the bomb.
6 Feb 2012
One presumes that every single Iranian rocket and torpedo (esp. the supercavitators) will be accounted for before, or very soon after, the Israelis strike because those aircraft carriers are substantial targets.
The longer term issue is what next. The Sunni powers may rejoice but many of their Shia subjects will not. Iraq won't. And is Iran then expected to abandon forever its nuclear program? I don't think so, which means we would enter a more-or-less permanent war with Iran.
So Ferguson's analysis is incomplete but, more annpoying than that is the flippant tone.
7 Feb 2012
Niall Ferguson is, no doubt, both an operator and intolerably glib. The way he managed to wangle an apartment from New York University, then went off to Harvard to work his self-promoting magic, which he continues to do in all kinds of ways, is not something to forget. And the points he makes in that bullet-riddled account have been made, more or less, at greater length, and with more thought, by others -- but the Newsweek format requires this kind of simplification. You might look at, for example, at "Save Iran -- Bomb Iran" at this very site.
But the notion that if the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran is damaged sufficiently to buy time, that that time will mean nothing, will allow the humiliated regime to stay in place and simply resume its activities, the mixture as before, is passing strange. Wouldn't the first attack -- with the implied promise of there's-more-where-that-came-from and you-ain't-seen-nothin'yet -- and, after the initial rallying-around by Iranian nationalists (including those who hate the regime), second thoughts, as the sanctions are not taken off, and the regime is now, quite likely, teeter-tottering as it never has before.
It is not "regime change" that will end the Iranian nuclear project. The Shaw wanted Iran to be a nuclear power, and had he not been overturned, might -- even with Kissinger's naive help -- have had his desire fulfilled. And then Khomeni's regime would have inherited nuclear weapons. No state peopled with Muslims, and dominated by Islam, can be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, no matter what the present regime, because there is always a chance that the real Muslims, the ones who take Islam to heart (as the Shah, schooled at Le Rosey, never did), will take power.
That view may offend some Iranian nationalists. Tant pis. Those Iraniansecularists who keep refusing to recognize their own reality, the reality that the primitives among whom they live far outnumber them. The Egyptian liberals and those Copts -- see Sally Moore at this site -- who joined them thinking they would inherit Egypt have had another think coming.
A nuclear Iran would be even more of a nightmare than a nuclear Pakistan -- which, absent its weapons, could be consigned to the well-deserved hell of its own wretched making.