Amir Taheri reports:
As Taheri notes, this leaves two options: try and stop the mullahs, or begin preparing for the consequences of a nuclear Iran. The president-elect has pledged to prevent Iran from going nuclear, but his administration has also indicated a willingness to adjust to what may be an inevitability. That strategy, as laid out by Hillary Clinton and quoted in Taheri’s piece, would involve extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella to our allies in the Middle East — not only Israel, but also the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia. The aim here would be to prevent what may be the worst outcome of a nuclear Iran: a new wave of proliferation in the most unstable region on the planet. But even if that were prevented by the guarantee of U.S. nuclear deterrence, the United States would be in the awkward position of making a commitment to wage nuclear war on behalf of despotic regimes that do not share our values. Would the American people tolerate the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for an Iranian attack on Egypt? The Egyptians would be foolish to count on such support, which means that proliferation is almost guaranteed. If North Korea going nuclear was a black mark on the Bush administration’s record, how will it play if Obama presides over the entry of Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia into the nuclear club? Or will that just be called the success of realism?
