Friday, January 06, 2006

Iranian atomic bellicosity

Chester is worried about Iran. (Ref'd by Instapundit.) What he says sounds plausible to me. I don't think the Iranian statements that we and Israel are the enemies to be destroyed are mere rhetoric. I think they mean it and I think they mean to use atomic bombs if they can get them. I don't think they mean for atomic weapons to be used as a mere bargaining chip.

If that is true -- I hope it isn't -- what to do?

If it is true that Iran means serious mischief then if Bush were to strike hard and decisively, he might just turn out to be the cause of the preservation of western civilization, no less. But he would also be vilified by all of our home-grown and European left as a greater monster than they think he is now. But if he doesn't strike and tries the diplomatic route towards security, I think the best that can happen is that Iran would only be slowed and will eventually attack Israel, and possibly our east coast, anyway.

That would leave no doubt that there is a war on, after all. We could say, "I told you so." But it isn't worth it.

No comments: