Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Hmmmm?

Three Reasons Not to Bomb Iran--yet

H/T Quicknews

Longish, but worth the read.

Luttwak is a smart and erudite man, but I've read the piece twice and find myself confused a bit.

And that brings us back to the beginning. What gives great significance to the factor of time is the advanced stage of the regime’s degeneration. High oil prices and the handouts they fund now help to sustain the regime—but then it might last even without them, simply because of the power of any dictatorship undefeated in war. There is thus no indication that the regime will fall before it acquires nuclear weapons. Yet, because there is still time, it is not irresponsible to hope that it will.

By the same token, however, it is irresponsible to argue for coexistence with a future nuclear-armed Iran on the basis of a shared faith in mutual deterrence. How indeed could deterrence work against those who believe in the return of the twelfth imam and the end of life on earth, and who additionally believe that this redeemer may be forced to reveal himself by provoking a nuclear catastrophe?


The history and cultural lessons are wonderful, but it seems he builds a powerful case suggesting that Iran is filled with internal strife and yet that the regime needs to be feared?

A preamture raid would boost Ahmadinejad's standing in Iran, and around the region, while too long a delay would have them with a nuclear shield.

I was kinda hoping for a practical solution rather than a restatement of the facts?

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

site stats