February 1, 2007
French president Chirac’s stunning suggestion that a couple of nuclear bombs in Iran’s hands are not such big a deal show at least that he is thinking about consequences of nuclear-armed Iran.
It is hard to agree with Mr. Chirac’s conclusion that Iran will be deterred from using a bomb on Israel (which Mr. Chirac clearly sees as the limit of Iran’s ambitions, not explaining why Iran’s dream of eradicating the “little Devil” should not expand into hopes of taking care of the bigger ones too – France including) by the fear of Teheran being “razed” by a retaliatory strike – the fear which is probably absent, given the value attached to “martyrdom” by the ayatollahs; but we should at least applaud him for trying to rationally think this through.
I doubt that such thinking-it-through is done by the peace-loving people who want to avoid confrontation with Iran at all costs – even at a cost of nuclear-armed Iran. If they followed Mr. Chirac’s example and started thinking about the consequences, perhaps they would realize that peace at all costs is merely “peace for our times,” so famously – or infamously – achieved by Mr. Chamberlain at Munich. Such “peace now” is paid for by a far, far bloodier war in the future.
Senator McCain put the alternatives very succinctly when saying that the only thing worse than war with Iran, is nuclear Iran. But he did not allow himself to delve into scary details, the way French president Chirac did. Hopefully, Mr. Chirac’s comment will kick-starting a rational debate about matters, the very thought of which puts reasoning abilities of the average goody person into a deep, deep freeze.