Max Boot – Brain not included

I have just read a stunning commentary in the LA Times, not stunning because of its luminosity or brilliance, but stunning because I was rendered speechless by its utter dislocation with the realpolitik.

Those who know Max Boot are aware of his neoconservative contextual view of the world; a contributing editor to the odious Weekly Standard, Boot is a proponent and supporter of direct and enforced American hegemony.

So enthused is Boot with the prospect of attacking Iran, he seems to have completely ignored the reality of such an attack. Boot writes: -

There are two major downsides cited by opponents of military action. First, they say, an attack might lead Iranians to rally around the current regime. Possibly. But it might instead expose the mullahs’ weakness and thus undermine their authority.

Well that’s a pretty big ‘might’. In reality there is little historical evidence to suggest that action would splinter support for the Mullahs. Iran is a proud nation, and while it does have differing ethnic groups, it is nowhere as fragmented as the now-chaotic Iraq. Since Bush’s Axis of Evil speech, one could logically conclude that Iran has rallied around the current authoritarian rulers, at least they have among the poor, which with 40% of the population below the poverty line remains a significant measure of the greater population.

As I have outlined before the policy towards Iran should be one of engagement, commerce, and soft power. Boot’s second downside to action is even more revealing: -

The second objection is more serious. Even if air strikes are carried out by Israel, the mullahs would almost certainly order terrorist retaliation against the United States and step up efforts to sabotage our activities in next-door Afghanistan and Iraq. These are real worries. But do they outweigh the consequences of letting Iran go nuclear?

I’m not sure Iran would retaliate using terrorist channels at all. Iran has a significant army (c.350,000) and commands the fanatical Revolutionary Guard, it’s quite possible that Iran could launch its Shahab missiles at Israel and launch incursions into the unstable Iraq. Talk about a hornet’s nest?

While on the subject of the Shahab missiles, Boot also claims that Iran is developing an ICBM (the Shahab-5) capable of hitting America: -

Within six to 12 months, Tehran might be able to finish the enrichment facilities that will make the Persian bomb a foregone conclusion. It already has Shahab-3 missiles that place Israel and U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan within easy range. In the works are a Shahab-4, which would be able to hit Western Europe, and a Shahab-5, which would reach North America.

Where have we heard all this before? Now I have no doubt that the Iranian regime and its military, are in better shape than Saddam’s sanction-starved rabble of white-flag waving misfits, but surely this military prowess and arsenal of strategic missiles suggests this will not be the cakewalk that was the removal of Saddam.

And what of the post-attack policy? Will we a la Iraq assume responsibility and undertake more nation building, or will we allow the Tehran regime to remain and fester in its humiliation, licking its wounds? Neither option sounds a constructive option, and both are likely to open a Pandora’s box of anger and retaliation.

With people like Max Boot whipping up anxiety and fear in the United States it’s increasingly likely that the hawks will get their way, and sanction yet another dangerous and foolish military adventure.

1 Comment(s)

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI