John Bolton in his op-ed piece in The New York Times yesterday, correctly diagnosed the threat to regional security in the Middle East if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But his prescription about what the US and its allies should do to stop the threat, however, is the wrong one and, itĀ doesnāt make any sense. A strike on Iranās nuclear infrastructure would only hasten their efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.Ā Bolton correctlyĀ asserts that a strike could set Iranās program back 5 years.Ā But a strike could also make it possible for IraniansĀ to hastenĀ the pace of their program by creating more reactors, this time with the help of countries like Russia, who would certainly resent the use of force against Iran, and, unlike it has done in the past, would not support any new sanctions against Tehran. Moreover, a strike on that country would stoke up the most potent weapon Iran has, and that is Iranian nationalism. Most Iranians, as they have done in the past, would rally and show more support for the regime if they view their country is under attack from a foreign power. Iranians resent the regimeās repression of their civil liberties and rights, there is no love lost there. But Iranians have always resented foreign intervention in their internal affairs more, and a military strike againstĀ all known nuclear facilities would be seen by the people ofĀ Iran as the worst possible type of foreign intervention that there is, especially if the development of nuclear power is seen to be in the countryās best interest. Therefore, if America and its allies (Israel) strike Iran, it would only cause what they seek to prevent: a nuclear armed Iran. Oh yeah, and a strike would also kill off whatever is left of the Iranian reformist movement which is currentlyĀ on life support.
