This Is What Advanced International Studies Teaches?

Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [told] Congress this month [...] that we could secure a “good deal” by calling Iran’s bluff and imposing tougher sanctions. [However, t]he Iranian regime that Netanyahu described so vividly — violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States — is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any “good deal” or by cheating.

[...]

National security adviser Susan Rice declared at an American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference before Netanyahu’s speech that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.” So if Iran will accept only a “bad deal,” what is President Obama’s alternative? War?

[...]

What if force is the only way to block Iran from gaining nuclear weapons? That, in fact, is probably the reality.

[...]

Sanctions may have induced Iran to enter negotiations, but they have not persuaded it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons. Nor would the stiffer sanctions that Netanyahu advocates bring a different result.

[...]

Sanctions have never stopped a nuclear drive anywhere.

Does this mean that our only option is war? Yes, although an air campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would entail less need for boots on the ground than the war Obama is waging against the Islamic State, which poses far smaller a threat than Iran does.

  WaPo – Joshua Muravchik

I have to stop here. This may be trivial, but the practice of asking oneself a question and then answering it is a pet peeve of mine. Actually, I hate it. Just say what you have to say. In my recollection, that practice came in vogue with Donald Rumsfeld. Does this mean there wasn’t anyone before him who did it? No.

See what I mean? I could have said, “This doesn’t mean there wasn’t anyone before him who did it.” And sounded a lot less infantile or condescending doing it. It’s done so often in political speech, it’s practically de riguer. And it’s bleeding over into other areas. Just stop it before it goes the way of Valley Girl inflection. Whatever. Like, you know. Everybody talks that way.

Okay. I’m done. Just don’t do it. You’re about to get a huuuuuuge dose here.

Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes.”

[...]

Wouldn’t destroying much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure merely delay its progress? Perhaps, but we can strike as often as necessary.

”As often as necessary”? Perhaps we should just calendar them in for an annual bombing.

Of course, Iran would try to conceal and defend the elements of its nuclear program, so we might have to find new ways to discover and attack them. Surely the United States could best Iran in such a technological race.

How old is the author, do you think?

Much the same may be said in reply to objections that airstrikes might not reach all the important facilities and that Iran would then proceed unconstrained by inspections and agreements. The United States would have to make clear that it will hit wherever and whenever necessary to stop Iran’s program.

So, okay, maybe we have to calendar biannual strikes.

And finally, wouldn’t Iran retaliate by using its own forces or proxies to attack Americans — as it has done in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia — with new ferocity? Probably.

"Probably."

Thank God for “finally”. And I’m sure we could do something as amazingly vague as simply “besting Iran in a technological race” to prevent retaliation.,,

We could attempt to deter this by warning that we would respond by targeting other military and infrastructure facilities.

Oh, we could “attempt” deterrence with a “warning”. That should work. I mean, considering Iran is “violent, rapacious, devious and redolent with hatred for Israel and the United States” and “is bound to continue its quest for nuclear weapons by refusing any ‘good deal’ or by cheating,” a warning sounds a little mild.  Iran cheats. Surely a warning would not be sufficient. I think perhaps we should just include all military and infrastructure facilities in our biannual bombing. In fact, why don’t we just carpet bomb the whole country twice a year – make it three times.

Nonetheless, we might absorb some strikes. Wrenchingly, that might be the price of averting the heavier losses that we and others would suffer in the larger Middle Eastern conflagration that is the likely outcome of Iran’s drive to the bomb.

Well, if we get on that tri-annual bombing campaign quickly enough, we shouldn’t have to worry about that.

Were Iran, which is already embroiled in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Gaza, further emboldened by becoming a “nuclear threshold state,” it would probably overreach, kindling bigger wars — with Israel, Arab states or both. The United States would probably be drawn in, just as we have been in many other wars from which we had hoped to remain aloof.

The “probably” just flies around here, and since all policy should be made according to what we imagine might be probable in our minds, clearly we need to do something, because God forbid we should be drawn into a war. We sure hate it when that happens. We're not in any now, and we don’t ever go looking for one ourselves. We are the most war-reticent country in the history of the world.

(P.S. I just looked. Joshua Muravchik is 67 years old. For the love of God, Joshua, pull your head out before it’s too late.)

 ...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE: