I think the way to put is whether we err on the side of caution by taking out their nukes, or at least slowing their progress substantially, or do we accept a very dangerous future status quo which will inevitably result in the wholesale nuclearization of the ME because Sunni Saudi Arabia will acquire them (as will perhaps others) in response to Shia Iran's acquisition.
Can we accept the nuclearization of the Muslim ME in view of the nature of its leadership and Iran's professed goal of destroying Israel? That is the real question, in my view. It is not limited solely to Iran though it is the most immediate problem.
What will happen to oil supplies in the event of a nuclearized ME?
Is the economic policy against Iran which Bush is pursuing prompting the MadMullahs into a more difficult negotiating posture vis-a-vis nukes? Have Ahmadinejad's provocations put the Iranians in a collision course with the US and Israel from which they cannot retreat?
I'm asking all these questions, which are incredibly difficult to answer, to point out that there are no easy answers.
Bush, however, is a fan of simple and direct responses. My guess, nonetheless, is that his penchant for simple and direct responses has been tempered by the Iraq experience and by the difficulties presented by Iran's pending nuclearization.
My guess, therefore, FWIW, is that the most seriously threatened state, Israel, will take the lead in attacking Iran's nukes as they present a threat it cannot ignore. We'll probably follow and assist.
All hell will break loose. But not now and probably not within the next six months.
In the meantime, the economic impact of cheaper oil will be felt in a resurgent stock market, lower interest rates, etc. |
