Rethinking Striking Iran

Sometimes in certain circles - usually academic - there is a curiously uncrunk concept that military action is the ultimate evil. All events, conflicts and disagreements can be handled with friendly give and take, a committee meeting or ultimately - a pink slip. Military solutions are seen as the worst possible outcome of all.

Thankfully, daemoneoconic avatars like Jamie Fly at Shadow Gov and Director Krystol @ Foreign Policy Initiatives have double teamed that sad, silly meme staking it's hair to the floor so tight - it can't even blink and openly calling for robust dialogue about using military force as a diplomatic/management tool!

"...And one routinely hears how very, very dangerous any use of military force against Iran would be.

"...Would it be so dangerous? That is a debate the country needs to have, publicly and frankly, before it’s too late.

"...Critics of military action against Iran argue that it would open up a third front for American forces in the Middle East. Our troops would be at risk from Iranian missiles. Iran would block the Strait of Hormuz (causing oil prices to skyrocket) and use its terrorist proxies HAMAS and Hiz'B'Allah to carry out attacks well beyond the Middle East, including perhaps on the U.S. homeland.

"...A targeted campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, against sites used to train and equip militants killing American soldiers, and against certain targeted terror-supporting and nuclear-enabling regime elements, the effects are just as likely to be limited.

"...It’s unclear, for example, that Iran would want to risk broadening the conflict and creating the prospect of regime decapitation. Iran’s rulers have shown that their preeminent concern is maintaining their grip on power. If U.S. military action is narrowly targeted, and declared to be such, why would Iran’s leaders, already under pressure at home, want to escalate the conflict, as even one missile attack on a U.S. facility or ally or a blockade of the Strait would obviously do?

"...Some in Washington seem resigned to letting Israel take action. But a U.S. failure to act in response to what is perhaps the greatest threat to American interests in decades would be irresponsible. Israel, moreover, lacks our full capabilities to do the job.

"...Despite our global commitments and our engagement in two ongoing wars, the U.S. military is fully able to carry out such a mission. Indeed, the success of President Bush’s 2007 surge of forces into Iraq and of President Obama’s sending additional resources to Afghanistan means we are on better footing to deal with Iran’s nuclear program than we were a few years ago.

"...Obviously, the best alternative in Iran is regime change brought about by domestic opposition.

"...It’s now increasingly clear that the credible threat of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program is the only action that could convince the regime to curtail its ambitions.

Pic "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences"