Bomb Iran?

National Journal's national security forum is currently pondering what a U.S. strike against Iran would entail. The initial respondents don't seem quite sanguine on the matter. Meanwhile, Matt Duss concludes that there is a growing consensus that containing a nuclear Iran is the preferred policy option. That sounds right to me, but I think we need to be very careful about such a course of action.

To the extent that America and Israel already possess an overwhelming nuclear deterrent and an overwhelming superiority in conventional firepower, Iran is already contained. Bolstering the defenses of our Arab allies strikes me as wrong-headed, for reasons I wrote here:

Indeed, the rise of al Qaeda points to the singular danger of any Iranian containment regime: it could stir up a Sunni jihadist whirlwind. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, would not only need arms to keep Iran in check militarily, but would step up an ideological campaign to undermine the legitimacy of its Shiite theocracy in the eyes of the Muslim world. This ideological conflict would put the U.S. in the absurd position of supporting the same theological forces which have propelled al Qaeda terrorism.

What’s more, given the recent protests in Iran, does Washington want itself associated with anti-Persian, anti-Shiite demagoguery if Iran’s "Green Revolution" eventually prevails? To date, Iran is one of the few nations in the Middle East, outside of Israel, whose population is not anti-American. That is not the case with the citizens of the countries Washington is scrambling to defend. A 2008 Pew Research poll, for instance, found that a mere 22 percent of Egyptians had a favorable view of the United States.