Iran Invasion Watch, pt. 2

Steve Forbes, normally known more for his commentary on economic matters rather than foreign policy matters, is nonetheless weighing in on the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons.

"The implications of a nuclearized Iran are appalling. Fanatics in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere will be emboldened to undermine existing governments. Israel may well feel the need to strike, just as it did against Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981."

I'm not so sure about the first half of that statement. I don't quite understand how Forbes sees a nuclear Iran as "emboldening" fanatics who seek to depose existing governments in the Middle East. Regardless, it's interesting that Forbes has chosen to make a public stand on this issue. I don't think a foreign policy commentary coming from Steve Forbes can be taken with the same authority as one by say, John McCain, but it does show the diversity of conservatives who've taken an interest in overthrowing the Iranian regime. And what does Forbes have to say about North Korea?

"Why wouldn't Iran go nuclear? Our ten-year dawdle over North Korea (news - web sites)'s nuclear adventurism hammers home to Tehran's corrupt, totalitarian-minded thugs this inescapable conclusion: Nukes mean respect, mean security--and they grant blackmail power to shake down billions in booty from the U.S. and other Western moneybags."

He's right...sort of. I wouldn't say we've been dawdling over North Korea for ten years. The agreement with N. Korea under Clinton was the right response at the right time. I would say our dawdling has taken place more over the past two years, as the Bush administration has struggled to find either the ability or the interest to deal with the issue. As for the second half of that statement; buying off the North Koreans was not "blackmail." It was the carrot half of a carrot and stick policy...the stick being the threat of military action if North Korea continued their efforts to build nuclear weapons. The carrot and stick approach is tried and true in foreign policy, especially when the receiver of the carrot needs economic or development aid more than it needs nuclear weapons, as both North Korea and Iran do. And it should be the approach we take with Iran, and should continue to follow with North Korea. An offer of aid in return for the cessation of efforts to build nuclear weapons, backed by a credible threat of force.

Incidentally, you'll notice how Forbes speaks of North Korea in the past tense, as if it were a done deal. It's not, but conservative hawks don't want to remind you that North Korea actually has nuclear weapons, whereas Iran does not, or you the reader may be left wondering why Iran should be the next target of "pre-emptive" invasion. It's something I'm wondering too as I read the columns by Frobes, Krauthammer and their ilk, and it's something they have so far failed to answer.