Yes, bomb Iran
The debate in America now is if Trump should bomb Iran. I think he should.
One reason is that we should have done it long ago, back when they took our diplomats hostage, and then when they murdered our Marines and took still more diplomats hostage. We did nothing.
More recently, Iran worked hard to cause Oslo to fail and make a Two State Solution in Israel impossible, via Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It has been wreaking havoc in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. It has been bombarding Israel via its proxies for decades.
But most importantly, two things are true: 1. Iran can’t be allowed to get nuclear weapons, and 2. Israel already has largely neutralized Iran’s ability to resist and no doubt has done real damage to Iran’s nuclear program. All I propose is that the U.S. help finish that job.
One of the things people are debating is whether Israel needs American help to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities, especially the deeply Fordow facility. Some argue that only the huge 30,000 pound GBU-57 bunker-busting bomb the U.S. possess can do the job, unless one uses nuclear weapons. (Apparently, only the U.S. B-2 bomber can drop the GBU-57 because of its heft, so the U.S. can’t just hand some to Israel.) I’m inclined to think that the Israelis have figured out other ways of dealing with Fordow, if for no other reason that they could have attacked Iran assuming the U.S. would help. But whatever alternatives Israel cooked up, these monster U.S. bombs no doubt would help ensure success. Israel already crossed the Rubicon of attacking Iran and began attacking the nuclear facilities. We’d just be giving them a hand.
The GBU-57 “Massive Ordnance Penetrator”
I’ve heard several objections. One is that after our Afghan and Iraq adventures, it would insane to get involved in another costly war. This is understandable, but silly. No one—and I mean no one—is proposing an invasion and occupation, or really anything more than air strikes. That’s it.
Another objection is that Israel is destabilizing the region, and even the possibility that Iran’s regime might fall is seen as a dangerous risk. I’m not impressed. Iran’s been destabilizing the region through its proxies and its interventions in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. And if the regime falls…so what? Is that really a more dangerous risk than the possibility of Iran getting nuclear weapons? Besides, to cite Little Finger, chaos can be an opportunity. The end of the Iranian regime would open all sorts of new possibilities. Some bad…but worse than what’s already there? And some good.
Why is an Iranian bomb dangerous? It makes Iran untouchable. It gives Iran the means to destroy Israel, which it’s consistently said it wants to do. It gives Iran the means to commit acts of terrorism at an unprecedented scale. It also almost certainly would spur other countries to seek nuclear weapons, foremost among them Saudi Arabia. Would that make the world safer?
Most of the people who argue for more negotiations assume there’s something one can negotiate. I don’t see it that way. Iran wants the bomb and will stop at nothing to get it. Iran—and this is important—should not be considered a rational actor. The country is run by theocrats who belong to a death cult. That makes them far scarier than any Soviet Politburo.
Iran’s mullahs hate Israel. They hate Israel not because of anything Israel does (anyone who thinks this is about Palestine is a fool), but because it exists. Hatred is something many Westerners, especially liberals, have trouble grasping. Hatred is not rational. And it’s not remedied by trade or diplomatic niceties. It won’t go away unless the people cultivating it are destroyed, or at least defanged. I’m all for that.
Am I arguing for regime change? No. First of all, that requires doing things neither the U.S. nor Israel appears prepared to do, or better yet, appears to have prepared to do. Bombing Iran won’t topple the regime: That takes ground action, either direct or through proxies. That requires creating a civil war. Or arming rebels. That isn’t happening. It could be done, but I’ve seen no evidence that anyone has laid the ground work for such a thing. If the regime fell, that would be icing on the cake. But for now, the aim must be simply destroying Iran’s nuclear program and weakening it severely.
Will that only fuel Iranian resentment and spur it to work all the harder on nuclear weapons? I suppose. But one can’t always refrain from acting now for fear of what might happen sometime in the future. History is long. Iran’s future, like its past, will be long. All sorts of things might happen in ten, twenty, or two hundred years. For now, there’s an opportunity to do something that, for now, will make the world safer. Besides, what precisely is the alternative? Letting Iran get the bomb? How is that a good idea. Iran’s mullahs will seethe. But that’s what they do, and we cannot stop them. What we can do is let them seethe without nuclear weapons.