Confused Arguments....

Bill Kristol and Jamie Fly argue for the bombing of Iran, but there is a flaw in their logic.

Critics of military action against Iran argue that it would open up a third front for American forces in the Middle East. Our troops would be at risk from Iranian missiles. Iran would block the Strait of Hormuz (causing oil prices to skyrocket) and use its terrorist proxies Hamas and Hezbollah to carry out attacks well beyond the Middle East, including perhaps on the U.S. homeland.

Yet if we carried out a targeted campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, against sites used to train and equip militants killing American soldiers, and against certain targeted terror-supporting and nuclear-enabling regime elements, the effects are just as likely to be limited.

It’s unclear, for example, that Iran would want to risk broadening the conflict and creating the prospect of regime decapitation. Iran’s rulers have shown that their preeminent concern is maintaining their grip on power. If U.S. military action is narrowly targeted, and declared to be such, why would Iran’s leaders, already under pressure at home, want to escalate the conflict, as even one missile attack on a U.S. facility or ally or a blockade of the Strait would obviously do?

Let's assume that Kristol and Fly are right and that the Iranians wouldn't risk retaliation in case it brought about regime change.

So, why would they risk nuclear annihilation by ever using a nuclear bomb if they possessed one? If all they are concerned about is self preservation then Kristol and Fly have just undermined their own argument regarding why a nuclear Iran is such a big risk.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Fly, Kristol, Iran