5 years later, it still makes sense
By Thoreau
Today at Hit and Run, they link to an article by Steve Chapman regarding McCain and Iran. I’ve had my issues with some of Chapman’s columns on economic matters, but on foreign policy he makes some points that are as salient now as they were in 2003.
Amid all the war hysteria, it was easy to forget containment worked against Stalin and Mao — both unbalanced dictators with nuclear weapons. They were far more formidable tyrants with dreams of world domination. Yet we managed to preserve our security without pre-emptive war.
For that matter, containment had worked against Saddam Hussein. In the 12 years after the first Gulf War, we kept him in a box, where he was no threat to us or his neighbors. In 2002, he even had to accept the return of United Nations weapons inspectors — who found no weapons of mass destruction because, thanks to our efforts, he had none.
…
The claim is that the Iranians are too crazy to be deterred from using nukes against Israel or giving them to terrorist groups to use against us. One common trait of governments and their leaders is an overriding desire to survive. If Iranian nukes are ever used for aggression, the regime can be sure Iran will be, as Hillary Clinton so vividly put it, “obliterated.”
I tried to raise all of these points in 2002 (no, I wasn’t in the blogosphere back then) and any hawk that I talked to just brushed them aside. They acted like there was something wrong with me, like I just wasn’t “getting it.” A lot of Americans have since come to their senses, but there’s a contingent that still doesn’t grasp these basic points, and I fear that they hold far too many of the cards.
Comment by Kevin B. O'Reilly —
May 8, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Steve Chapman is the best columnist in America, and I’ll stand on George Will’s dining room table and say that.
Comment by Grant Gould —
May 8, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
But, don’t you see, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud!
Or something like that.
Comment by Dave W. —
May 8, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Our, etc., etc.
Comment by Thoreau —
May 8, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Drop it, Dave.
Comment by Derek Copold —
May 8, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
For McCain and the neocons it’s not about limiting a threat to our country. It’s about the freedom to meddle in other lands’ affairs. You can’t risk meddling with nuclear powers. That’s why Iraq got regime change and North Korea gets negotiations. If Iran were to get the bomb (a big if, BTW), we wouldn’t be able to threaten and bluster her about Hezbollah, Iraq and other issues that are really none of our business.
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
May 8, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
Wright Uproar Boosts Clinton Confidence…
Hillary Clinton feels she’s back on top says, The Politico. Better fundraising and polls showing how…
Comment by absence of something —
May 9, 2008 @ 4:11 am
DC @ 5 nails it. Iran knows that as soon as it has a working, deliverable bomb then the policy will become containment. Until then, regime change stays on the table (is that the third or fourth Iranian regime change we’ve tried?). That’s why we’ve got to continue to poke and prod Iran, hell we’ve got them surrounded on three sides, we may never get another chance like this.
Comment by bill —
May 9, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
In your cowboy boots?
Comment by Kevin B. O'Reilly —
May 9, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
bill @ 8 - Yes, sir, exactly!