Working at a foreign policy magazine/journal has, more than anything, taught me that I know far less about foreign policy than I thought I did. So this is more an idea I’m throwing out than a thesis.
Iran is claiming it’s almost nuclear. What does that say about our decision to go into Iraq?
Well, for starters, it might tell us we invaded the wrong country. There’s no way to tell if the Iranian president is being honest — I suspect the intelligence wars will step up in the coming weeks — but we now know for sure Iraq was pretty harmless.
On the other hand, the debate wasn’t really about invading Iraq, or invading Iran. It was about invading Iraq, or not invading Iraq. Assuming that, absent the Iraq invasion, Iran would still be making this announcement, it’s arguable the decision was a good one.
If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, both countries might now be claiming to have near-nuclear capabilities. That would make for an incredibly complicated situation, possibly even more so than the “messy Iraq/maybe near-nuclear Iran” issue we now face.
As an aside, there are reasons to believe the guy is lying. Some experts have contended it would be years before Iran would have nuclear weapons. It’s not hard to see how it’s in his best interests to claim this; the First World sometimes offers concessions to countries in return for ends to these programs.
For further reading, check out my coverage of an Iran policy conference.
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
Loading ...
No user commented in " Iran president: We’re near-nuclear "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackLeave A Reply