My oh me isn’t this WaPo editorial burning up the internet:
The Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any “good deal” or by cheating.
This gives force to the Obama administration’s taunting rejoinder: What is Netanyahu’s alternative? War?
‘Netanyahu’s alternative’…as if. ‘War’ to Bibi is what ‘fresh carrots’ are to Bugs Bunny. You might remember him, the lovable screwball who walks around with a giant mallet in his pocket because he’s not much for playing nice. The rabbit is another deal.
This gives force to the Obama administration’s taunting rejoinder: What is Netanyahu’s alternative? War? But the administration’s position also contains a glaring contradiction.
Prepare for glaring, as to be outrageous.
National security adviser Susan Rice declared at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference before Netanyahu’s speech that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” So if Iran will accept only a “bad deal,” what is President Obama’s alternative? War?
‘Contradiction’ still can’t be found anywhere near ‘opinion’ in the dictionary, but OH NO! War is Obama’s only alternative. This turns us to the serious question: Should we avoid It? Taking into account the soon-to-be death of my neighbor, and his neighbor, and such, I say ‘yes.’ We should avoid It.
But of course I am a idiot. These people are but the really smart ones, and for not better – and for worse – they have perspicacious proposals they simply must propose. Like this one here: How about the other alternative? You know, as in…YOU’RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME.
Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes…
There you have it. Questions, anyone?
Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes…
Jeepers I wonder. What would happen if Russia attacked Oklahoma, perhaps? What about it? Would Americans rally behind the Obama regime, with their Marines and their tanks and stuff? Yeh I think, perhaps. Maybe, perhaps, some rednecks would also take out their rifles, and mortars and flamethrowers and Serbian long cannons, and fight back. But Over There, I’m sure it’s completely different. I’m betting the Iranians would just lay down and welcome dying. Because it’s America invading after all, and really who wouldn’t want that? Incidentally: In total war one country conquers the other, and then (tiptoeing between the corpses) the losers are forced to do the winners will. Just thought I’d flesh out the WaPo argument for you.
Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.
Post 9/11 America to the max! We’ll start a war every eighteen months, roughly whenever PBS airs a new episode of Downton Abbey. Will the forsaken Molesley rise above his lowly station? Will the acerbic dowager betray Edith’s awful secret? Wait – modern drama intervenes! It’s War In The Middle East XIV. Tell me: Does Iran have a nuclear bomb? Do they even want one? No one cares! Subtlety makes for crappy ratings!
Yes, there are risks to military action. But Iran’s nuclear program and vaunting ambitions have made the world a more dangerous place. Its achievement of a bomb would magnify that danger manyfold. Alas, sanctions and deals will not prevent this.
Daaanger. DAAANGER. Because nothing is worse than the threat of war, let’s have it.