Wars for Israel

James Fallows makes a good case that congress should put more effort into trying to stop the next Bush/Cheney debacle, Iran, than trying to stop the current debacle, Iraq.

By comparison, Iran is easy: on the merits, in the politics. War with Iran would be a catastrophe that would make us look back fondly on the minor inconvenience of being bogged down in Iraq. While the Congress flounders about what, exactly, it can do about Iraq, it can do something useful, while it still matters, in making clear that it will authorize no money and provide no endorsement for military action against Iran.

As Steve Soto points out it's a good idea that's not going to happen because too many of the Democrats who are running for President, hello Hillary and John Edwards, are spending too much time pandering to the powerful Israeli lobby. Both Republicans and Democrats are intimidated by the hammer of anti-semitism which will be used on them if the question one crazy thing the Israelis want or do. For the sake of the United States, the world and even Israel itself this must stop.

As Fallows points out the world would be a better place if Iran did not have a nuke but the same can be said for Israel, Pakistan and India. There are things that would be nice that simply can't be done, the cure is worse than the disease. Iran's nuclear program is one.

Would it be better if Iran did not acquire nuclear weapons? Of course. But there are certain important goals that cannot realistically be attained by war. This is one of them. Analogy: it would be far better if North Korea did not build a full nuclear arsenal. The United States should do all it can to keep that from happening — but no sane person thinks that attacking North Korea, and provoking an instant assault on Seoul and neighboring cities, is the way to go.