Today is my first day of classes at school, but I don't have class til 3pm, so I was reading the globe when I came across Jeff Jacoby's opinion piece. Jacoby is the resident Republican on the Globe's opinion page. I like reading Jeff Jacoby, especially in the morning. Usually its like he slaps me in the face with his total lack of logical reasoning, and wakes me up quicker than Dunkin Donuts. Today, Jeff Jacoby tells us all that he thinks the U.S. should be prepared to invade Iran, in a piece called
Don't go wobbly on Iran.
Jacoby opens up with the standard "Europeans are wimps who like soccer" meme. I happen to love
the beautiful game, so right away I was in a fightin' mood.
Apparently British MP Michael Ancram has called for Iran to be kicked out of the World Cup this summer. Jeff Jacoby seems to think that nobody in Iran would care; I disagree. Passion over soccer is one of the few things the Iranian government can't control: check out
this picture of Teheran after Iran qualified for the World Cup. Think that many people would be allowed to congregate for a political rally? Furthermore, UEFA (the European soccer governing body) kicked out Yugoslavia from the European championships (prestigious tournement, second only to the World Cup) in 1990 (UEFA gave their berth to my favorite Danes, the only year they won the Euro championships). Thus, there's even precedent for kicking Iran out of arguably the most prestigious athletic event in the world as a response to diplomatic no-nos.
So, I would say that kicking Iran out of the World Cup would be pretty serious indeed, and would not exactly be "going wobbly". In fact I bet more people might care about that than if the U.N. threatened mild economic sanctions.
Jeff Jacoby prefers Israel's approach to the Iran situation over Western Europe's approach. Jacoby states that
As the Jewish state has good reason to know, dictators who publicly vow to commit mass murder generally mean what they say -- and are generally not deterred by threats of ''diplomatic solutions."
What's wrong with that quotation? First of all, Ahmadinejad is a President, not a dictator, and can be removed from office the same way he ascended to office - democratically. As Ahmadinejad was not elected to office based on an anti-Israel platform, but mainly on a "I'll give the common man some oil money" platform, it's pretty unlikely that Iran would attack Israel unprovoked. Furthermore, Iranians are not Arabs, and don't really feel any sort of kinship to Palestinians, as Saudis might, for example.
Basically, Jacoby is trying to compare Admadinejad to Hitler. This comparison is becoming pretty common; just google Ahmadinejad and Hitler and you'll see what I mean. But I don't think it's really valid. First off, how the hell could Iran ever accomplish wiping out Israel? If they attack Israel with nuclear weapons, everyone knows that both Israel and America would retaliate massively, and the Iranian state would be destroyed in the first-ever all-out nuclear war. Second, it's not like Iran borders on Israel, so unless Egypt, Jordan or Syria start mirroring Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, Israel doesn't have that much to worry about. As bobdevo argues in
his diary, Iran really isn't a threat to Israel.
Jacoby next goes on to say that since Israel can't destroy Iran's nuclear program, as it is dispersed and protected, it will be up to the United States if diplomacy fails. Jacoby acknowledges the dificulty of eliminating multiple hardened targets, which is why he proposes the much-easier method of destroying Iran's nuclear program: regime change!
The best solution of all would be regime change, brought about by Iran's restive population of dissidents and democrats (aided by clandestine American support of the kind that helped dissidents behind the Iron Curtain in the 1980s).
Because, ya know, this has worked so well in all the other places we've tried it, like neighboring Iraq.
Jacoby ends his piece by using examples of Iranian rhetoric and assuming that they represent Iran's plans for the future.
What is not stressed enough is that Iran is not just a potential menace -- it is a clear and present danger right now... They declare that their goals are ''a world without Zionism or America" and ''the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Iran's goals are a world without Israel, just like President Bush's goals are spreading liberty throughout the world, especially Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and China.
In the end, invading Iran would be a disaster. Iran is a huge country, and would stretch from Carolina to Minnesota if superimposed on the U.S. The U.S. Army is already stretched to the breaking point, and we absolutely can not fund another invasion, as our children will already be paying for invading Iraq. Invading Iran would inflame the Shia miltias in Iraq, killing more of our soldiers in Iraq. Iran could also close the Straits of Hormuz and cut off its oil supply, crippling the world economy.
I'm not sure what planet Jeff Jacoby lives on, but apparently it is one in which the United States has unlimited power, and one in which disobediance to American wishes can only be explained by blind irrational hatred of freedom. I believe Iran will behave rationally, as it has so far (it still hasn't broken any international treaties, with all of its nuclear business being dual use). Iran knows that it has the U.S. in a bind - between the oil and their ability to further destabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that invading Iran will simply never happen, regardless of what token conservatives like Jacoby write.