Onto Iran
Ahmadinejad: Dressing Like Tom Wolfe, Preparing to Sink the U.S.S. MaineGlaivester (saving Spider-Girl and Western Civilization) has an insightful post on Byron York's crie de coeur at NRO. Byron York in italics, Glaivester not.
If a nuclear Iran took out Jerusalem and London, to name a city or two, wouldn't that be really bad -- even if the U.S. was capable of devastating retaliation? Wouldn't it be better to prevent such an outcome, even if it involved a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?
Would such an attack end there, or would we be forced into actually conquering Iran in order to have any long-term victory? Byron York conveniently ignores all of the unintended but likely consequences of an attack on Iran.
Second, Byron York trots out the old "[Insert eeeeevil country here] is just crazy, and will gladly let itself be blow to nothingness by the U.S. in order to destroy a city" canard.
In addition, there was a certain rationality that underlay the Cold War system of mutually assured destruction. Does anyone know whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would display that rationality?
I'd like to add that this notion that the Soviets were rational and Iran is not is bunk. If Ahmadinejad had fits of paranoia and party cleansing like Stalin did - then THAT would be cited as the reason Ahmadinejad is so crazy he can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
Post a Comment
|
2 References
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (2)
-
Source: York and Iran -
Reader Comments