Washington Post makes case for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities

No, the Post isn’t advocating an attack on Iranian facilities. Of course, it isn’t. But this article in today’s edition makes the case for such an attack, nonetheless.

Indeed, the Post makes that case in the very title of the article (paper edition). It reads, “Analysts fear setbacks will push Iran toward the bomb.” In the internet version, the subtitle is, “Recent military setbacks are exactly the kind of development that could trigger a final dash to the bomb by Iran, officials and analysts say.”

The Post’s reasoning is found in this passage:

“If the axis of resistance isn’t working then the only deterrent might be a nuclear deterrent,” said David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington nonprofit. The weakening of Hamas and Hezbollah, combined with Iran’s failure to inflict significant damage on Israel with its missile strikes, means “there’s a better chance Iran could decide to build nuclear weapons,” he said.

I can’t help wondering whether the authors of the Post’s article and their sources would be happier if Iran hadn’t suffered what they describe as “one setback after another.” If only Hamas fighting forces weren’t being eliminated. If only the Hezbollah terrorist leaders were still with us. If only Iran’s missile attacks on Israel had been more deadly. Then, the mullahs would likely forbear from developing nukes.

But let’s put this dubious premise, and the authors’ apparent sympathy towards Iran, aside for the moment. The obvious conclusion from their article is that Israel needs to strike Iran before the regime builds nuclear weapons. And since the Post reports that Iran can develop these weapons very quickly, Israel needs to strike very soon.

More than that, the implication of the article is that the U.S. should assist Israel in such a strike. After all, Joe Biden and his team say they are committed to preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Biden, and Obama before him, claim they want to achieve this objective through diplomacy and treaties.

But if this quest was ever realistic, the Post’s reporting shows that it’s now too late. In the Post’s telling, the setbacks Iran has experienced and the demise or near demise of its proxies mean that the mullahs likely feel compelled to go nuclear quickly in order to protect their regime and regain their influence in the region.

Realizing the implications of its report, the Post cautions, correctly I suspect, that “even a successful Israeli strike might only delay Iran’s race to the bomb.” I have two responses.

First, this is why the U.S. should join Israel in striking Iran. A joint effort would be more likely to end, effectively, Iran’s quest to develop nukes.

Second, delaying Iran’s race to the bomb should be an imperative even if that’s all a strike would achieve. If Iran is as close to becoming a nuclear power as the Post suggests, Israel can’t afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Israel should set the nuclear program back even if only for a few years and then consider its options.

Finally, I want to take issue with a notion that runs as an undercurrent throughout the Post’s article. It appears in this passage, quoted above: “If the axis of resistance isn’t working then the only deterrent [against for Iran against Israel] might be a nuclear deterrent.” It also appears in this passage: “The degradation of Hezbollah leaves Iran more exposed, because it ‘gives Israel more freedom of action in the region,’ one expert said.”

The claim, which I’ve seen in other mainstream media outlets as well, is that Iran sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah not as a means of bringing death to Israel — its oft-stated goal — but rather as a defensive measure — a deterrent to Israeli aggression against it.

Iran, then, is not the Middle East aggressor. Rather, it’s a victim, or potential victim, of Israel’s aggressive designs. If only Israel were more pacific, maybe Iran would disband Hezbollah and Hamas.

To state this absurdity, rather than to leave it as an unspoken premise, is to refute it. Iran wants to destroy the Jewish state and says so constantly. It views Israel’s destruction as both a theological and a geopolitical imperative.

Israel has no designs on Iran. It doesn’t care who what happens there, as long as the regime doesn’t threaten it with deadly terrorist proxy groups and nuclear weapons.

That the Post views Hezbollah as a deterrent to hypothetical Israel aggression Iran, rather than as an instrument of actual Iranian-sponsored aggression against Israel, confirms the Post’s inability to recognize obvious evil. And it suggests a degree of sympathy with evil’s forces.