La Bomba…

I’d like to clarify one point from James’s collegial reply, namely my own policy preference when it comes to Iran. This sentence–“Sonny seems to be arguing that because all three of our options suck, we might as well pick the suckiest one and hope it might trigger the least sucky consequences”–is not quite right, for two reasons. First, I never actually called for bombing Iran, specifically noting that “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.” I’m merely suggesting we leave the option open.

Secondly, I think that James’s formulation of the consequences is wrong. All three of our options do suck, and bombing Iran has the greatest chance of backfiring horribly. But it’s also the only chance we have of getting Iran to stop killing American citizens. I’d probably put it this way: “All three of our options suck, but if we decide that Iran training terrorists and sending them into Iraq to wreak havoc is unacceptable then option number three is our only choice at this point.”

It is unclear that Iran training terrorists and sending them into Iraq to wreak havoc IS unacceptable, however. For all intents and purposes, we have accepted it since the beginning of the insurgency. To be entirely honest with you, I think the Bush Administration has shown remarkable restraint in NOT bombing Iranian camps, if they have the proof of Tehran’s interference that they say they do.

Anyway, my initial post was merely one neocon’s plea to leave all the options on the table, even if we probably won’t (and probably shouldn’t) end up using them. There’s no reason to excoriate John Bolton for reminding Iran that there are consequences for killing American soldiers.