York and Iran

Blow the Hell out of Iran now, says Byron York.

There are two problems with Mr. York's analysis of a post by Atrios.

First, he willfully misrepresents Atrios as suggesting that he wouldn't mind if nukes took out a city or two. Obviously, what Atrios is actually saying is (a) Iran is not an existentiaal threa to the U.S. and (b) it would by far be at a disadvantage in a nuclear exchange with the U.S., so it can easily be deterred from attacking us. Atrios is suggesting that taking out Iran's nuclear program is not necessary to prevent nuclear attacks, not that nuclear attacks would not be devastating.

If a nuclear Iran took out Jerusalem and London, to name a city or two, wouldn't that be really bad -- even if the U.S. was capable of devastating retaliation? Wouldn't it be better to prevent such an outcome, even if it involved a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities?

Would such an attack end there, or would we be forced into actually conquering Iran in order to have any long-term victory? Byron York coneniently ignores all of the unintended but likely consequences of an attack on Iran.

Second, Byron York trots out the old "[Insert eeeeevil country here] is just crazy, and will gladly let itself be blow to nothingness by the U.S. in order to destroy a city" canard.

In addition, there was a certain rationality that underlay the Cold War system of mutually assured destruction. Does anyone know whether Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would display that rationality?

York would do well to remember that (a) Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator; he can't choose to nuke something without other branches of government consenting, and (b) Ahmadinejad is a lot less crazy than people think.

I'll analyze (b) first. For one thing, even if his comment on the Holocaust were a denial - the term "myth" does not necessarily imply fiction, so he might have simply been saying that the Holocaust has become Israel's raison d'etre, and he thinks the implications of that are unfair (I would disagree with him) - that would be more playing to the crowds than an evidence of madness. Most of the Middle Eastern Muslims hate Jews, so it wouldn't be irrational for a Muslim leader to publicly speak nasty lies about them. For the second thing, the statements about taking Israel off the map are again, almost certainly just normal Iranian boilerplate to try and direct the people's anger outside fo the country.

Finally, back to the issue of (a) Ahmadinejad isn't a dictator: Steve Sailer has pointed out that the neocons always seem to assume that whatever branch of government in Iran contains the most belligerent people must be the one in charge, the better to wave the bloody shirt over; if Ahmadinejad were a moderate, like Khameini, they would assert that he had no power and that the crazed mullahs were really in charge. As it is, they claim, if not directly then by implication that Ahmadinejad is essentially a dictator.

Thanx and a tip o' that hat to Thrasymachus.

That is all.