Although They're Close in the Alphabet, Iran is Not Iraq
As the Bush administration tries to come up with a solution to the monumental disaster that is Iran, the utopians, appeasers, and Europeans are already running the line that Bush's so-called lies about Iraq disqualify him from pressuring Iran. This line is as predictable as it is disingenuous:
(1) The relationship between WMD and preemption is fundamentally different when it comes to Iran than it was with Iraq. The justification in the case of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein already had (or more to the point, continued to have) WMDs, thus placing him in explicit violation of the UNSC resolutions that had guaranteed his regime's continued existence. But in the case of Iran, there is general agreement that the West must act before Iran acquires nuclear capability - no one seriously suggests that we should allow a suicidal, Islamofacist regime go nuclear before we impose international sanctions. To the extent that merely Iran's intent to have nuclear weapons is enough to justify preemption, the analogy with Iraq cuts the other way, since Hussein's intent to acquire WMD is well-documented.
(2) The alternative to preemption in Iraq was continued sanctions (at least it was when the Democrats were pretending to support anything but letting Hussein do whatever he wanted). But sanctions are already too late - Iran already has everything they need to go nuclear. And when they do, they'll blackmail the rest of the world into lifting whatever weak sanctions the nuclear peddlers in Russia would allow in the first place.
(3) Opposition to preempting Iraq consistently emphasized that we should give inspectors more time because there was no pressing concern of actual war - no one was under any immediate threat. However, the story with Iran is quite different. Years ago, Louis Rene Beres ran the old India/Pakistan war-game scenarios for Israel/Iran and came to some very uncomfortable conclusions: if Israel thought that Iran was about to go nuclear, they might preempt; but Iran, knowing that Israel might preempt, would have an incentive to preempt first; Israel, knowing that Iran wouldn't believe that they were really going to sit idly by while the Islamofacists went nuclear, might believe that they had to attack first. And indeed, that's exactly what's happening:
Admiral Shamkhani made his comments in an interview on Al Jazeera television... "We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said... A commander of Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards warned this week that Iran would strike Israel's reactor at Dimona if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear sites. "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about the Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons," said the commander, Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr.
What the article doesn't mention is that Israel would quite rightly treat an attack on an operating nuclear plant as an unconventional attack, the equivalent of Iran actually deploying nuclear weapons against the Jewish state. Israel has been crystal clear in the past that they, not their enemies, will be the ones to control the ladder of escalation - their response would be nuclear, and it would be massive. And with Iran getting increasingly nervous, and Israel getting increasingly nervous about Iran's nervousness, we may not have time to wait.
(1) The relationship between WMD and preemption is fundamentally different when it comes to Iran than it was with Iraq. The justification in the case of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein already had (or more to the point, continued to have) WMDs, thus placing him in explicit violation of the UNSC resolutions that had guaranteed his regime's continued existence. But in the case of Iran, there is general agreement that the West must act before Iran acquires nuclear capability - no one seriously suggests that we should allow a suicidal, Islamofacist regime go nuclear before we impose international sanctions. To the extent that merely Iran's intent to have nuclear weapons is enough to justify preemption, the analogy with Iraq cuts the other way, since Hussein's intent to acquire WMD is well-documented.
(2) The alternative to preemption in Iraq was continued sanctions (at least it was when the Democrats were pretending to support anything but letting Hussein do whatever he wanted). But sanctions are already too late - Iran already has everything they need to go nuclear. And when they do, they'll blackmail the rest of the world into lifting whatever weak sanctions the nuclear peddlers in Russia would allow in the first place.
(3) Opposition to preempting Iraq consistently emphasized that we should give inspectors more time because there was no pressing concern of actual war - no one was under any immediate threat. However, the story with Iran is quite different. Years ago, Louis Rene Beres ran the old India/Pakistan war-game scenarios for Israel/Iran and came to some very uncomfortable conclusions: if Israel thought that Iran was about to go nuclear, they might preempt; but Iran, knowing that Israel might preempt, would have an incentive to preempt first; Israel, knowing that Iran wouldn't believe that they were really going to sit idly by while the Islamofacists went nuclear, might believe that they had to attack first. And indeed, that's exactly what's happening:
Admiral Shamkhani made his comments in an interview on Al Jazeera television... "We will not sit to wait for what others will do to us," he said... A commander of Iran's hard-line Revolutionary Guards warned this week that Iran would strike Israel's reactor at Dimona if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear sites. "If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about the Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons," said the commander, Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr.
What the article doesn't mention is that Israel would quite rightly treat an attack on an operating nuclear plant as an unconventional attack, the equivalent of Iran actually deploying nuclear weapons against the Jewish state. Israel has been crystal clear in the past that they, not their enemies, will be the ones to control the ladder of escalation - their response would be nuclear, and it would be massive. And with Iran getting increasingly nervous, and Israel getting increasingly nervous about Iran's nervousness, we may not have time to wait.
