|
Threatening Iran with force can help avoid the need for force |
Claim:
Threatening Iran with force can help avoid the need for force. moreSee, Chuck Wald, “ Opinion: There Is a Military Option on Iran,” wsj.com, August 7, 2009. ("Publicly signaling serious preparation for a military strike might obviate the need for one if deployments force Tehran to recognize the costs of its nuclear defiance.")
Response:
This is nonsense that betrays a complete ignorance of the Iranian psyche and the relevant facts on the ground. The Bush Administration not-so-subtly threatened Iran with force for years with no positive effect. Iran's leaders may have feared a U.S. attack in 2003, when U.S. forces momentarily seemed invincible. They are not afraid of an attack now, because they know that an invasion and occupation is out of the question. They also know that a U.S. or Israeli bombing of Iran would be one of the best things, politically, that ever happened to hardliners in Tehran. It would end all opposition to their rule overnight and would entrench hardliners in power indefinitely as Iranians of all stripes rally round the flag (just as Americans would do in their shoes). Threats of attack will not scare Iran's leadership into submission. They will merely poison the waters of diplomacy; convince Iran's leaders and much of the rest of the world that President Obama is ultimately no different from Bush; and squander what could be an historic opportunity for change.
|