...a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and a nuclear-armed China, we can surely survive a nuclear-armed Iran.
I agree with George Will: Of course Iran wants a nuclear weapon -- everyone in their neighborhood has one. And of course they're going to build one; it's just a matter of time. So what should the U. S. response be? Containment.
I bring this up after hearing some of the alarming talk about a war with Iran from the Republican candidates for president.
And then I read this on the front page of the Times this morning (my emphasis):
Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices.
The estimates, which have been largely adopted by the country’s most senior officials, conclude that the threat of Iranian retaliation is partly bluff. They are playing an important role in Israel's calculation of whether ultimately to strike Iran, or to try to persuade the United States to do so, even as Tehran faces tough new economic sanctions from the West.
“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.”
Just what we don't need -- another war in the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment