Steve Sailer wonders why the neocons were so intent that invading Iraq was the only way to get rid of Saddam's supposed WMDs, but in Iran, airstrikes are supposed to be enough.
But now that the American public has g[r]own wary of invading countries that begin with I-R-A, the neocons are telling us that no invasion of Iran would be [necessary] to root out Iran's entire nuclear infrastructure. We could just do it all push-button style from the air.
Perhaps it's because the neocons think that they have a better chance of convincing the Americans to attack Iran in a way that they could not have gotten us to attack Iraq.
I think that Mr. Sailer has overlooked a possible American response that the neocons may be planning.
Two words: Tactical nukes.
More specifically, any airstrikes will likely be aimed not at destroying missile installations but at devastating Iran so that it will collapse. The Bush administration nuking Teheran and killing much of Iran's government is not, in my opinion, an impossible-to-imagine scenario.
On the other hand, a lot of neocons are convinced that all we need to do is prod the Iranian populace and they will overthrow the mullahs; so if they are willing too have that much wishful thinking, why not a smaller bit of wishful thinking like thinking we can get rid of their installations from the air?
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment