Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran

John McCain got himself in trouble earlier in the campaign for singing the Beach Boys adaptation with that line that came out of the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. It's hard to know if it was just his singing voice that got him in trouble, or if people are a lot more uptight today about the idea of bombing Iran. In 1979, no one really took seriously the idea that we might bomb Iran. The song was an opportunity to vent our frustrations, because we knew that saner heads prevailed and that bombing wouldn't happen until all alternatives had been exhausted. Today, 27 years later, talk of bombing Iran is taken a bit more seriously, as can be seen from the most recent Republican debate and comments in a Washington Post article or two. They assert that 9 of 10 Republican candidates advocated using nuclear weapons to keep Iran in line. Only Congressman Ron Paul opposed the use.

I listened to the debate, and I didn't hear quite that level of rhetoric, but there was a less than comforting level of aggressive intent expressed toward the Iranians. The typical line was that "all options should be left on the table," a line that is both sensible on its face and distressing upon deeper reflection.

Certainly, there's little point in having nuclear weapons if one is not prepared to use them, or to at least threaten to use them, if things get out of control. On the other hand, shouldn't we look to the future "leader of the free world" to be the one who is able to assess accurately when things are and are not "out of control"? Do we now talk about nuclear weapons every time there's a border skirmish? Is there some level of war talk that borders on the excessive? Is it ok to threaten nuclear attack if another country is sending weapons to rebel groups that are engaged with our soldiers? With that criteria, I'm curious how soon some of these guys will begin talking about bombing Paris.

Let's face it: Iran is no great friend of the United States. The Europeans will never understand, and youth of America may not either, but any of us who are over the age of 40 still have vivid memories of the American hostages being held in Iran. We also know that the Iranian government today is essentially the same government that held our citizens. Recent images of British sailors held in a similar way only serve to remind us of Iran's unchanging ways. So, perhaps all the talk about bombing Iran should be no surprise. Nor should discussions of moving the war effort over to Iran.

For some time, I've felt that this might be sensible - perhaps more sensible than going into Iraq in the first place. Recently, however, my views have changed markedly. As I've studied the situation, it appears that Iran is far less of a real threat than they let on, and it also seems that our talk of bombing and war only serve to strengthen the extremists within Iran.

Iran is a weak power today. They do have the ability to kidnap a random Westerner here and there. But their military strength was apparently such that Saddam was able to brutalize their army fairly regularly in past decades. Moreover, recent information seems to suggest that the country under Ahmedinejad has been practicing a type of Keynesian economics that is heading the economy into a brick wall, with inflation skyrocketing and jobs scarce. With economic collapse on the horizon, the erratic leader would seem to be on the way out.

Yet, if the U.S. continues to threaten Iran with nuclear attack and pre-emptive war, aren't we playing right into the hands of the most extreme elements of the Iranian society? The one who stands to benefit most from talk of a war is Ahmedinejad, who, in the absense of hostilities, is destined to play the role of a failed ex-leader. If he can get a war going before the next election, or at least hear enough sabre rattling from the "enemy", he can appeal to patriotism and unity to gloss over a failed administration, and hold on to power. I can't imagine that this is what we want.

In fact, reports suggest that President Bush, Secretary of State Rice, and Secretary of Defense Gates all agree with my assessment. Apparently, they recognize that war with Iran at this time is not only unpopular with Americans, but also counter-productive to American interests. Despite this fact, there remain some within the administration who continue to push for immediate war with Iran.

In light of our information about the state of Iran's economy, wouldn't it pay to engage the Iranians in much the same way Reagan did with the Soviets? If it is true that the system is falling apart, shouldn't we give the new "evil empire" a way out? Wouldn't that be preferable to a state of "permanent war"?

Let's hope sanity prevails. War is never a good thing. Sometimes it is necessary. But it is always costly. And in this case, it would be a strategic error, too.