07 August 2015
Conflict Later Isn’t
Necessarily More Cataclysmic
David Brooks stated in his OpEd article in the August 7,
2015 NYT that the Iran nuclear deal only makes more likely a cataclysmic
conflict between the Western powers and Iran in the future. Wouldn’t a military confrontation with Iran
today be just as cataclysmic? If so, the
alternative made possible by the deal is that that event would not have to take
place for at least another ten years. The delay offers the prospect that something
might change the attitude of the Iranian regime in the meantime.
Given the history of popular rule in Persia over the
millennia that prospect does seem to be unlikely. Nevertheless, as long as we devote the
vigilance that successful fulfillment of the accord demands from the U.S. and
its allies, Iran should not have a stronger nuclear arsenal after the minimum
ten-year delay than it has right now.
Therefore, conflict in ten years to prevent resumption of Iran’s nuclear
build-up would not be any more difficult then than now, and our ability to
combat a nuclear-armed foe should have improved during that period.
Life is like that.
Postponing the inevitable is the only rational choice, whether it be
drought in California or cataclysmic conflict in the Middle East.
Comments:
Post a Comment
