Bipartisan Insanity on Iran
My latest for The National Interest, "Insanity on the Iran Question," posted last evening.
My latest for The National Interest, “Insanity on the Iran Question,” posted last evening. In excerpt:
In the midst of a boilerplate speech to the UN General Assembly on the virtues of democracy and freedom, President Obama tossed in some rhetoric on Iran that’s either empty or dangerous. Neither option is a good one.
[T]he president’s declaration at the UN is based on a bizarre premise: “Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained.”
Why on earth not? In the sixty-seven-year history of atomic and nuclear weapons, they have been deployed precisely twice. Both by the United States. Both in the context of a world where no other country possessed such weapons. Both in the first three days of the nuclear era. In the sixty-seven years and change since the dropping of Fat Man over Nagasaki, no bomb has been detonated other than for testing.
During that time, some truly evil and unstable governments have had nuclear weapons at their disposal and were successfully deterred from using them even when they used conventional weapons against their enemies. Joseph Stalin. Mao Zedong. Kim Il Sung. Kim Jong Il.
All this talk of using force comes despite the fact that it contradicts a near-universal consensus among the experts: no politically plausible military action will be able to do more than postpone Iran’s successful deployment of nuclear weapons and will simultaneously bolster the regime while weakening pro-Western sentiments among the Iranian people.
At least at the level of presidential rhetoric, insanity on the Iran question is a matter of bipartisan consensus.
Much more at the link.