- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Posts
- 5,918
- Reactions
- 1,588
Experts Say Iran Attack Is Irrational, Yet Hawks Are Winning the Debate
by Peter Beinart Feb 21, 2012 4:45 AM EST
More on link above...
by Peter Beinart Feb 21, 2012 4:45 AM EST
The debate over whether Israel should attack Iran rests on three basic questions.
First, if Iran’s leaders got the bomb, would they use it or give it to people who might?
Second, would a strike substantially retard Iran’s nuclear program?
Third, if Israel attacks, what will Iran do in response?
The vast majority of people opining on these questions—myself very much included—lack the expertise to answer. We’ve never directed a bombing campaign; we have no secret sources in Tehran; we don’t spend our days studying the Iranian regime. So essentially, we decide which experts to trust.
As it happens, both the American and Israeli governments boast military and intelligence agencies charged with answering exactly these sorts of questions. And with striking consistency, the people who run, or ran, those agencies are warning—loudly—against an attack.
Start with the first question: whether Iran would be suicidal enough to use or transfer a nuke. In 2007, the U.S. intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate on Iran argued that the Iranian regime—loathsome as it is—is “guided by a cost-benefit approach.” In 2011, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress that “we continue to judge Iran’s nuclear decision-making is guided by a cost-benefit approach.” Last week, Gen. Ron Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress that “the agency assesses Iran is unlikely to initiate or provoke a conflict.” Last weekend, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: “We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor.”
More on link above...