Stanley Kurtz at The Corner:
Suppose that upon entering Iraq, our troops had uncovered a nuclear facility in which Saddam had 1,000 working centrifuges, another 2,000 about to come on line, and manufacturing capacity to produce yet more centrifuges? Would anyone have argued at that point that the invasion had been unnecessary? Do any Democrats deny that Iran does in fact have all of this capacity right now?
Look closely, Stan, and you’ll note that the Democrats as a rule, have not said thing one on the topic, being totally reactive. So, it depends…. Is George Bush saying they have the capacity? If so, we can be assured the Democrats will argue that they do not. Otherwise….
In the debate to come over Iran’s nuclear capacity, there will be constant references to our intelligence failure in Iraq. The dispute will be about exactly how close Iran is to a bomb. But let no one forget that Iran is already at a point that would easily have justified the overthrow of Saddam. This fact, by itself, does not decide the issue of what to do about Iran. An attack on Iran would be militarily tougher than the invasion of Iraq. Occupation of Iran seems out of the question. There are also questions about how far an attack would actually set back Iran’s nuclear program. Yet all of these difficulties and considerations notwithstanding, the fact is, we are under a threat of exactly the sort that everyone agreed would justify action in Iraq.
All true.
Yet, can you imagine taking on Iran with Iraq still being controlled by Saddam?
Tags: BitsBlog, Middle East Affairs
