Friday, April 21, 2006

The tragedy that followed Hillary Clinton's bombing of Iran in 2009

There's a kind of creepy future history/speculation in the Guardian.

"In retaliation, suicide bombers trained by Tehran massacred civilians in Tel Aviv, London and New York… Total casualties were estimated at around 10,000 dead and many more wounded. The attacks, which included the explosion of a so-called dirty bomb in London, were orchestrated by a Tehran-based organisation for "martyrdom-seeking operations" established in 2004.

Dr Patrick Smith of the Washington-based Committee for a Better World, which had long advocated bombing Iran, demanded of the critics: "What was your alternative?"

1 comment:

MdH said...

This is the context in which some of my more conservative impulses show up. I should first say that I think we should use carrots, sticks, international pressure, airdropped candies & anything else that comes to hand in order to try & dissuade Iran in a weaponization of their nuclear program. Which by most accounts is 10 years out…so we have LOTS of time.

They’re a couple of schools of thought. 1st – Iran is filled with crazy religious zealots & would drop bombs on the US (or more likely Israel) on basic principle without thought to the outcomes. 2nd – A nuclear armed Iraq would be no more “irrational” that the Soviets were & could be deterred by a clear policy.

I’m in the second camp. I think they’re rational actors & wouldn’t launch any kind of “nuclear jihad”. I’m afraid, (even if it bothers me a bit) that I would articulate a very clear “proportional nuclear response” doctrine & make it public. In the (very unlikely) event that Iran used a nuclear weapon on an American city, or an American military base or battle ship. We would target (with theater nuclear weapons) an Iranian target that was “proportional” & if I were the C&C would launch a retaliatory nuclear strike.

The truly scary scenario is Iran gives terrorists a nuclear bomb. The smuggle it into the US & blow up New York or DC, & we can’t prove who provided the weapon. This is a more difficult one. But there have been discussions of a “nuclear negligence” doctrine that would outline a policy of retaliation in kind for states who are most likely to have contributed to such an undertaking. I’m just hopeful we’ll pull our head out & approach this issue diplomatically (meaning actual talks rather than rhetorical flame wars) before we come to such a pass.