Bombing Iran
James argues over at The American Scene that John Bolton’s suggesting the U.S. bomb Iranian military camps responsible for sending terrorist squads into Iraq with the intention of killing Americans is wildly irresponsible and over the top. I tend to disagree.
Now, James admits that Iranians are killing Americans (albeit in Iraq) and suggests leafletting the Iranian camps, telling them to knock it off or face the consequences. Makes sense, except for the fact that we’ve been telling the Iranians to knock it off for some time now, going so far as to capture Iranian actors in Iraq to get the point across. Nothing has come of these attempts to get Iran to stop. As far as I can tell, this leaves Bush and the DOD with three options, none of them good.
- Do nothing, and allow Iranians to keep killing American soldiers and Iraqi allies.
- Continue to tell Iran to knock it off, drop leaflets on Iranian soldiers, and hope for the best. (Functionally this seems to me to be identical to option one.)
- Bomb Iranian training camps in the hopes it will deter further incursions.
For the record, I don’t think the third option will accomplish its stated goal, and could backfire by rallying the Iranian people behind Ahmadinejad, emboldening him to strike the U.S. more openly. But option one and option two haven’t really worked either, now have they? Is it really so outlandish to suggest a show of force? Furthermore, isn’t an action like Bolton is suggesting at the heart of the post-9/11 mindset…that we will neither tolerate terrorism nor the states that house and train and support terrorists? Plus, what do we have to gain by taking military strikes off the table? Why not rattle the sabers a little in the hopes that bold talk will bluff them into folding?*
P.S.–Where does this post fall under the rubric of blogger collegiality?
*Mixing metaphors is fun.