By BJ Bjornson
You do have to hand it to Chris Hitchens. Not many people could take the news that Iran�s nuclear program is less of a threat than thought (or more accurately, claimed) and turn it into a reason to start bombing.
At question is a report noted by David Ignatius noting that Iran�s low-enriched uranium probably contains impurities that would make it impossible to enrich any further, let alone to weapons grade.
Rational folk would probably conclude that the fact that Iran�s program is even more fraught with difficulties than previously noted would mean that you have even an even greater amount of time to pursue diplomatic solutions, but then Hitchens has never struck me as being entirely rational when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs.
No, for Hitch, the fact that Iran is even further from being a threat means that it should be even easier to bomb the hell out of them (for their own good, of course).
Thus, if it is true that Iran is not as close to "break-out" as we have sometimes feared, should that not make our deliberations more urgent rather than less? Might it not mean, in effect, that now is a better time to disarm the mullahs than later?
. . .
Against this, we are at least entitled to consider the idea that a decaying regime that is bluffing and buying (or rather stealing) time on weapons of mass destruction is in a condition that makes this the best moment to do at least something to raise the cost of the lawlessness and to slow down and sabotage the preparations. Or might it be better to wait and to fight later on more equal terms?
Yeah, and to think there are some people out there who figure that the whole reason Iran would actually want to get their hands on a nuclear arsenal is so they would have the deterrent capacity should the U.S. or Israel get the hankering to go all �regime change� on their ass. Can�t imagine how they could come to such a conclusion after reading Hitchens muse that the fact that they may be further than ever to a nuclear weapon is just a golden opportunity to move in and rearrange the place to his liking.
(I�m also trying to figure out how a country with a defence budget 1/100th of America�s and an economy that Hitchens himself notes is barely functional is ever going to get to �more equal terms�, but never mind that.)
Oh, and does any of this sound familiar to the �Iraq will be a cakewalk� rhetoric people like Hitchens were wont to spout not too long ago? I find it quite amusing that Hitchens opens his little diatribe by reeling off a bunch of extremely pessimistic Iraq War predictions in an attempt, I suppose, to discredit anybody who didn�t support that clusterfuck and may not be too willing to sign up for the new one he�s pushing in this column, all the while ignoring the disastrously optimistic assessments of the war�s supporters like himself. Most likely due to the fact that he�s trying to sell the exact same line in terms of Iran.
Hey! Their vaunted nuke program is a mess! They can�t even turn their oil into gasoline! They�re weak and tottering! We could so go in and clean up the place now, easy! Seriously, how can we afford to pass up on a such a bargain basement regime change! Act now before the price goes up!
Anybody feel like buying another war from this guy?
No comments:
Post a Comment