I’ll assume by now that everyone has read Sy Hersh’s rather grim evaluation on the likelihood of going nuclear in Iran. Or, at least, that we’ve all heard about it.
I bring this up now because of a truly nightmarish and plausible post by Billmon (via Digby). Too much and too good to excerpt – this one’s required reading, y’all. Though I must admit, I don’t think that Hersh makes as great a case for the inevitability of nukes as a lot of people seem to assume – no matter how little I think of the White House, I can’t imagine that they’re that stupid.
Still, there’s something horrifyingly rational about Billmon’s musing that a nuclear strike would result in basically no negative ramifications for America. If a nuke goes off in a hegemony, does anyone care…that sort of thing. I’m not totally convinced. I choose to believe that if the U.S. and U.S.S.R. both managed to avoid playing the nuclear card in the 60’s or the 80’s, Iran isn’t the place for it now.
Somewhere in the past couple days, I read something that I can’t find now (and so can’t correctly attribute) to the effect that this is all an elaborate ploy to reframe the debate to “nuclear vs. conventional,” and so effectively concede that war in Iran is inevitable. I am not entirely persuaded this was intentional, but it seems to have been the effect anyway. Thoughts?