How to Deal with Iran
Patrick Clawson, in The New Republic Online, correctly points out that economic sanctions against Iran won't work. Iran has money stashed, and high oil prices mean incentive for nations to violate sanctions. In addition (my addition), religious fanatics run the country, which means the material wealth of their subjects is not a top concern. Sometimes getting to Paradise requires a little belt-tightening on Earth.
Unfortunately, the suggested course of action in the article is a mess: isolation, which includes banning Iran from the World Cup, and containment and deterrence, much as we did with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. During the Cold War, didn't the USSR become a nuclear power, and hang around for decades as a monstrous threat while being in miserable economic shape? That one would look to that as a positive example is baffling. Of course, Mr. Clawson recommends that we be prepared to use military action of Iran if they did something "such as leaving the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and openly acknowledging pursuit of nuclear weapons." Apparently, clandestinely pursuing nukes will be fine.
We should skip all of the dancing around and go straight to the military action. Iran pines for America's destruction. They certainly must see nukes as one way of helping bring that about--another tool to add to the spawning and supporting terrorist organizations. The only sure way to stop them from getting nuclear weapons and continuing their support for the killing of Americans is to show them that the struggle is hopeless.
Death does not deter the suicide bombers and jihadis that Iran recruits, because they see it as part of a glorious struggle against the Great Satan. And given our weak, vacillating attitude, where our biggest threat is that we may talk about things in front of the Security Council, why shouldn't they think they can win?
If, however, we went out tomorrow and declared war on Iran, and bombed their nuclear facilities and cities until they surrendered or were blasted into the Stone Age, the glorious struggle would be a lot less glory, and a lot more struggle. Iran would have difficulty supplying terrorists, for one. Enthusiasm for risky terrorist ventures and suicide missions would wane, since there is a difference between dying for a cause and dying for nothing. Also, rather than guessing that Iran may have nuclear weapons in ten years, we would have a better estimate: never.
History abounds with examples of nations that talked big, like Iran does today, but surrendered or succumbed to superior force, relentlessly applied: Germany and Japan in WWII, Carthage in the Second Punic War, and Persia in their war against the Greeks come to mind immediately. Heck, it doesn't even have to be superior forces. We won our independence from Britain against considerable odds. The odds are in our favor in a war against Iran. Isn't it time we freed ourselves from worrying about them?
