David Kay is urging caution and ex-President, Jimmy Carter is warning that a limited strike would certainly fail to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Except that Carter can’t know that, and his predictions are not exactly the sort of thing on which to base our foreign policy. James Fallows has argued here about the limitations of a pre-emptive military strike. I tend to agree with Fallow’s overall assessment, except that it short-shrifts the full range of military options. Additionally, Fallow’s contention that precision strikes would be of only limited effectiveness is based on a murky reading of Iran’s actual capability.
Whatever options now remain on the table, it’s becoming clear that their reluctant use may be required sooner rather than later. Though Rice claimed that there is no timeline for Iran’s negotiations with Europe, she hinted that US patience may be wearing thin:
"I think the message is there," Rice said at a news conference at NATO headquarters. "The Iranians need to get that message," she said, adding that Tehran should know that "there are other steps" the international community can take.
Similarly, Bush indicated a growing exasperation:
"The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: Don't develop a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "And the reason we're sending that message is because Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a very destabilizing force in the world," he said during a meeting with Poland's president.
As I’ve argued here, the range of options available to the US is indeed limited, but a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. For those of us who have given up hope of an effective or significant student rebellion anytime soon, our only hope may now reside with Europe and their ability to reign in the ambitions of the Mullahs.
How depressing. How hopeless.
Comments