“This time is different,” the interventionists argue. They may be right. But given the pattern of recent history—and the stakes of the decision—we should hold them to the highest standard of proof. So far, they are failing the test.
First, many of the people arguing for the United States to join offensive operations against Iran are exactly the same ones who dragged us into the Iraq war over 20 years ago. That alone should raise red flags.
Second, they haven’t even bothered to change their arguments. Once again, a country in the Middle East whose name starts with an “i” is apparently on the verge of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The leadership in this faraway land is evil and psychotic and has said mean things about America. The danger is imminent and there is no time to debate. We need to saddle up and take them down before it is too late. We will then sit back and wait as a friendly and democratic government takes shape.
We are all fond of fairy tales, but foreign policy should rest on a firmer foundation. Any serious argument for American military intervention must clearly address three key questions:
First, what danger does the Iranian regime actually pose to the United States? Not to Israel, not to vaguely defined American interests abroad—but to the physical security of the homeland. It is conceivable that the United States might decide to use military force to advance interests not directly related to its domestic security, but if that is the case, then it should be clearly stated that the safety of American citizens is not immediately at stake.
Second, if it could be established that Iran did pose a direct threat to the United States, then how, precisely, would American military intervention lead to greater U.S. security in the long term? Eliminating one danger only to face several more is not an effective algorithm. If you can’t kill the hydra, don’t start chopping off heads.
Finally, if we somehow agreed that the Iranian regime posed a real threat to the United States, and that American military intervention would decrease that danger by some degree, we would then need to consider how much the effort would cost. Factoring in worst-case scenarios, how much blood, money, and time might we have to expend to meet minimum objectives? It is a banality that benefits should outweigh costs. It is also a baseline requirement.
If an Iran interventionist fails to answer these three questions, change the channel. The fairy tales are better on Disney.
Read the full article here
