Ahmadinejad: All I’m saying
is give my nukes a chance
The Tundra Tabloids has read many articles, reports and analyses on the issue surrounding what-to-do with the Iranians’ quest for nuclear weapons. Bret Stephens, writing in Commentary Magazine, lays down both the pro’s and con’s regarding containment vs. a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuke weapons infrastructure.
It is one of the most well thought out articles on the subject as a whole, he simply nails the case shut for acting preemptively against the Iranian nuke weapon infrastructure.
Stephens’ article first presents the positions of those who support the policy of containment, and then follows up with his own reasons why such a policy is doomed to fail, and the presents the alternative. It’s a must read…four very long pages…but if you want a ready aresonal at your side for why the West should act against Iran… this is it. It’s a keeper.
“Finally, it cannot be stressed enough that a nuclear Iran would be unlike any nuclear power the world has known. It would be dangerous and unpredictable in moments of strength as well as in those of weakness. While it could well be that the regime would not consider using its arsenal if it believed it could get its way through other means, the calculus could change if it felt threatened from within. Indeed, the closer the regime got to its deathbed, the more tempted it would be to bring its enemies along with it. The mullahs will not go gentle into that good night.
Thus to the extent that American policymakers indulge the notion that containment is a difficult but ultimately workable policy option, they also lull themselves into thinking that a failure to prevent Iran from going nuclear is anything but “unacceptable.” In doing so, of course, they only further undercut whatever feeble will is left within the administration to confront Iran, now and in the future.”