So we’re back to the Sarkozy dilemma: Iran with the bomb, or bomb Iran. And if you doubted him, you’ve got Norman Podhoretz (who has been predicting the bombing of Iran since I was very young) and John Bolton (who every now and then remembers there are other, maybe even better, options) and now Ephraim Inbar.
I don’t get it, have never gotten it, and refuse to accept it. It’s a regression to the pre-John Paul II days, when nobody thought you could bring down the Soviet Empire without great violence. When the implosion destroyed it, lots of people concluded that military force was now irrelevant, and other “factors” could produce the end of tyrannies. And here we are, Obama et al taking this to its embarrassing extreme.
All these years I have argued that the Iranian regime is hollow and that most Iranians, if supported by the free world, could and would bring it down. Hardly anyone has time for this idea, even though those of us who used it against the Kremlin can explain how it works and can succeed.
The Israelis either don’t believe it (certainly the Intelligence Community does not believe it) or don’t think it is a suitable strategy for them. Maybe America could pull it off, but certainly not little Israel. I think they’re wrong, and I cringe at the thought of that “half a night’s work” that Barack talks about.
Sadly, this “debate” is destined to remain in the realm of pure theory, since I don’t see any leader who is willing/able to test it. You’d have thought the Saudis would have supported the Iranian opposition, but no. Last time I was able to check, the major opposition leaders inside Iran hadn’t even been contacted …
Categories: Chatham House Rules