Realistically speaking, the point of this multilateral exercise cannot be to stop Iran's nuclear program by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military means.This died-in-the-wool neoconservative goes on to at least pay lipservice to the consequences of such an attack on Iran.
There would be terrible consequences from an attack. These must be weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership to acquire weapons of genocide.Yes, there would be terrible consequences. Are those consequences worth paying to stop Iran from getting closer to acquiring a bomb? A bomb that experts say is years away? And do we really think that the self-avowed holy men of Iran would commit national suicide by attacking - or enabling an attack on - Israel?
I know that difficult decisions are sometimes called for, and the consequences of those decisions must be borne by the American people. I, personally, am immensely attached to being able to drive to work, buy my food in a grocery store, and generally not be forced into what is now thought of as poverty to prevent Iran from getting a bomb before the turn of the next decade.
In response to General Kristol's question of "why wait," I would say that getting off our dependence on foreign oil is a good reason to wait. Give me 5 years of Manhattan-Project grade investment in alternative energy and efficiency, then I'll be able to seriously consider an attack on Iran to protect Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment