mahmoud ahmadinejadI AGREE with most of John Bolton's op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, where he argues that absent Israeli action, the world better get used to a nuclear Iran. Mr Bolton's piece is pegged to the global conference on the non-proliferation treaty that opens today in New York. "This meeting is all about Iran," a nameless White House official tells the Washington Post. "Because Iran poses the biggest threat to the survival of the treaty." To Mr Bolton, those words ring hollow.




I agree that there are only two options, and that sanctions are largely futile, but Mr Bolton's analysis is incomplete. Why is it that those wishing to see military action against Iran tend to end their analyses the moment the bombs strike the republic's nuclear facilities? This is somewhat reminiscent of the short-sighted planning that went into the Iraq war, which taught us that stuff happens as a result of our actions. The hawkishness of folks like Mr Bolton is based on the idea that Tehran is an evil, unpredictable force—for example, Mr Bolton dismisses the argument that a nuclear Iran could be deterred because "Iran's theocratic regime and the high value placed on life in the hereafter makes this an exceedingly dangerous assumption." What, then, should we assume about the mullahs' response to a direct attack on their country? To use the words of Mr Bolton, surely pre-emptive military force (whether carried out by America or Israel) would set up another "stark, unattractive reality"—the very real possibility of a regional war. Perhaps that does not tip the scale in favour of the largely-toothless alternative option. But it should certainly be part of the debate.

(Photo credit: AFP)