Iran, Nukes, & Anne Applebaum

Anne Applebaum is an exceptional columnist whose work I usually admire. But she has completely lost the plot in today's column. It is being kind to suggest that she even went to the trouble of mailing this one in.

Ms. Applebaum believes that Iraq has caused our nation “collateral damage.” According to Ms. Applebaum, things are getting better in Iraq, but any optimism "is totally unwarranted." Ms. Appelbaum postulates that the war in Iraq, irrespective of whether Iraq becomes a functioning Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East, has not been worth the “price we have paid.” She defines the "price" to be that our conduct of the war in Iraq has “invigorated anti-Americanism” and that “our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence.”

Those sound similar to talking points right out of John Kerry’s Presidential campaign. The problem with such moral preening is that it just doesn’t hold water. Anti-Americanism has been rampant throughout Europe for decades. It was not created by our actions in Iraq, nor exacerbated by it. The anti-American leaders of Europe, specifically Chirac in France and Schroeder in Germany, predated President Bush and 9-11. And they did not get reelected. Germany's Der Spiegel and Britain's BBC have been pumping out grossly anti-American screed for as far back as I can remember. Regardless, whatever may have been the case, today, our standing internationally is stronger than it has been in years. Pro-American leaders have been elected the France, Germany and Britain and the EU is moving closer to us as a whole. And that is just a part of the story. Charles Krauthammer tells us the facts.

And as to military incompetence – where in God’s name is Ms. Applebaum getting that. Our military has performed brilliantly throughout the Iraq and Afghan operations. In terms of the mantle of incompetence, perhaps Ms. Applebaum should consider nominating Generals Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, along with the rest of the Congressional Democrats who have done all they can to hamstring the military for the past year, including trying to strangle the surge before it even began. The only place they would have led us to is certain defeat. As to whether we should have adopted a counterinsurgency strategy earlier, there was no push to do so until after the bombing of the Mosque of the Golden Dome in 2006. Iraq was well on its way to being pacified before that terrorist attack changed everything. Ms. Apllebaum is attempting to rewrite history with a very broad and wholly inaccurate brush.

Ms. Applebaum then amazingly asserts that, because we invaded Iraq and Iraq turned out not to have WMD, America cannot possibly be believed in its assertion that Iran is seeking a nuclear arsenal. She suggests that no one in the EU-3, the troika of Britain, Germany and France who are currently negotiating with Iran over Iran’s nuclear program, nor for that matter the nations of greater Europe believe that Iran is seeking a nuclear arsenal:

Certainly no expert committee in existence could convince Europeans (or anyone else) that Iran really does have nuclear weapons or even that Iran intends to build them.

So fresh are the memories of American claims about the extent of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so vast, therefore, is the skepticism about any assessments of anybody's nuclear program, that even a report bearing any United Nations or European Union label would fail to convince, even if Iranian nukes were on display in downtown Tehran. All analysis coming out of the United States is, of course, automatically discounted.

That sounds like the mating cry of the Kos Kids. I did not expect ever to see that from Ms. Applebaum. One, I am not aware of a single nation whose intelligence services were not convinced that Iraq had WMD’s. And as Sadaam Hussein has admitted, he even bluffed on this issue for the benefit of Iran, believing that IAEA inspectors would go away and that France would keep the US from invading. As to Ms. Applebaum’s suggestion that if the US intelligence services were wrong once, they can never be trusted again, that is one, suicidal, and two, completely ignoring reality on two key points.

The first is that the difference between Iraq’s alleged WMD’s and Iran’s nuclear program could not be greater. We know Iran has a nuclear program. And there is enough information in the public record that any objective observer would reasonably conclude that Iran is seeking a nuclear arsenal. Perhaps Ms. Applebaum does not discuss this information with her friends in the chattering classes of Europe. Assuming that is the case, I have laid out the information in the public record in the post below.

Two, every member of the EU 3 firmly believes that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Again, we are not talking about the chattering classes who inhaled anti-Americanism during their schooling in multiculturalism as toddlers, but the leaders of the EU 3. President Sarkozy has clearly stated his belief that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Gordon Brown, Britain’s PM, stated that he is not ruling out war with Iran and is calling for sanctions to stop the development of Iran’s heart, it’s oil and gas industry, in its tracks. Angela Merkel of Germany has said “We are determined to prevent the threat posed by an "Iranian military nuclear program."

The one valid point Ms. Applebaum makes in this horrendous article is that there are a lot of people worried that striking Iran might not destroy their nuclear program and that it might lead to an explosion of terrorism. Fair enough. I do not think that there is a person alive who would prefer that this whole matter be concluded diplomatically. So what is Ms. Applebaum’s solution?

If you guessed that it is to bury her head as deep in the sand as it can possibly go, you’re right:

[We must keep our] [f]ingers crossed, that those who say Iran's nuclear bomb is years away are right. Fingers crossed, that maybe Iran really does just want a civilian nuclear program. Fingers crossed, that if Iran gets nukes, its government will behave responsibly.

That is craven and suicidaly unrealistic, given what we know of Iran’s theocracy and Middle East radicalism. As outlined here, Iran’s theocracy does not operate according to Western logic, and there is every reason to fear nuclear attack, nuclear terrorism, and nuclear blackmail from the bellicose terrorists that currently govern Iran if they are allowed to create a nuclear arsenal.

Of equal consideration is that of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. Iran’s Khomeinist Shia theocracy presents a mortal threat not just to the West, but to the Sunni countries of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, all of whom are now beginning nuclear programs. If we acquiesce in Iran’s nuclear program, then we will see it replicated throughout the Middle East. And the chances of nuclear terrorism or an apocolyptic exchange grows exponentially with such proliferation. The mortal threat posed by Iran having a nuclear arsenal almost pales in comparison to thoughts of a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia.

While I share Ms. Applebaum’s concern’s with attacking Iran to stop their nuclear program, the thought of allowing it to mature has far greater downsides. And as to this particular column by Ms. Applebaum, it is the nadir of her journalistic career.

Update: McQ is similarly unimpressed.