There seems to be general agreement - among the right and the center-left - that we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is too dangerous and has said things that might imply that they would attack Israel. Therefore, if Iran gets too close to having a weapon, we'll have to attack. This all suggests that the general policy is that anyone that threatens a neighbor cannot have nuclear weapons.
The problem is that this isn't our policy across the board. In fact, in North Korea, we have let that country have a nuclear weapon. That isn't to say we haven't tried to prevent it. But we haven't made a blanket statement that we will attack if they get too close to having a weapon. That isn't our policy because it is clear if we attacked North Korea, they would attack South Korea.
In other words, there is a country that has made statements that are far more clear about a desire to attack their neighbor and yet has acquired a nuclear weapon. We have chosen containment in that example because attacking is too risky.
I wish the debate over Iran was more honest about what our general policy is. We have chosen containment in another situation and we could do the same with Iran. Especially since Iran's threats are much fewer and more opaque.
That doesn't mean we should choose containment in all examples. Just that the debate should be clear that we can and we have when the situation warranted it. We might decide that the risk of attacking Iran isn't that great - threats to block the Straight of Hormuz are weak, threats to destabilize Iraq are weak, that their military is weak. But it should be a clear decision based on risks of each choice, instead of starting from a place where containment is unthinkable.
This also makes me think about the choice to invade Iraq. I was talking with a conservative years after the invasion - after it had gone bad - and asked if they still supported it. I also made the point that Saddam Hussein wasn't the biggest supporter of terrorism (if he was a supporter at all, which I think he was not) nor was he the worst dictator in how he treated his own people. If you were looking to attack a sponsor of terrorism, you might have looked to Iran, Syria, or better yet Saudi Arabia. If you were looking to topple a terrible dictator, you might have looked in the Sudan, Egypt, or better yet Saudi Arabia.
My conservative friend's response was that Iraq was low hanging fruit. That Saddam was a bad dictator and was somewhat dangerous but was easy to topple. He might not have been the worst, but he might have been the easiest. I think it is clear now that the fruit was harder to reach than originally thought. But worse, that wasn't what the Bush administration said. They said Saddam was dangerous - the most dangerous person. He wasn't. If it was low handing fruit, they should have made that argument - and seen whether the American people would support a major invasion to take out someone that isn't as dangerous as some other leaders.
My point with this whole diversion is that too often the arguments made are not objectively true. And that is clear by looking at other examples. But they make these arguments because if they leave room for an alternative, they might find they aren't allowed to take the course they want.
