Israel Matzav

Meaningful deterrence?

Here's an argument that claims that Iran could be deterred, but that Obama won't do it.

The only truly meaningful deterrence against an anonymous and deniable atomic attack on the U.S. would be an iron-clad pledge by a U.S. administration to automatically obliterate Iran and other suspect nations should a nuclear device of any kind ever be detonated on or above U.S. soil. Barack Obama will never make such a pledge; he has been committed to nuclear disarmament and arms control since his undergraduate student days at Columbia University. Among Obama's Republican opponents, Newt Gingrich is arguably most likely to adopt a policy of meaningful deterrence, and to enunciate it in a way that will cause Iran to refrain from even thinking about plotting the ultimate terrorist strike on "the Great Satan."

ENDNOTE: In sharp contrast with U.S. policy, there can be no doubt that Israel has put in place fail-safe systems for the automatic obliteration of its enemies in the event of an atomic attack of any kind--direct or indirect--against the Jewish State.

There's no such thing as meaningful deterrence against Iran. Meaningful deterrence assumes a rational actor on the other side. Iran is not rational.

And as far as Israel goes, I don't know whether he's correct, but we don't talk about that stuff.

Heh.

Labels: Iranian nuclear threat

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:05 AM