Gabriel Schoenfeld is upset that senior leaders in the U.S. military are voicing their reluctance to start a war with Iran:
The West has three major pathways to stop Iran's nuclear program: sanctions, the threat of force, and the actual use of force. Time is fast running out on the first option. The second would be greatly preferable to the third. But every time Mullen wrings his hands about the "destabilizing" consequences of a strike against Iran, he diminishes the pressure on Tehran.
The trouble here is that you can't threaten force unless you're either genuinely committed to using force or don't mind looking feckless. If the Obama administration is not interested in launching military strikes to stop Iran, isn't it better not to make idle threats about force?
Consider the widely retailed incident in 2003 when the Iranians sent feelers to the Bush administration about engaging in comprehensive negotiations. The incident has been burnished by critics of America's approach to Iran as proof that the country would indeed engage the U.S., and simultaneously as proof that Iran will only make a move if it feels under immense threat.
I think the second interpretation sounds more plausible and underscores why threatening Iran without a genuine commitment to attacking them is foolish. It took an invasion of a neighboring country to make Iran feel threatened enough to talk. We have nothing approaching that kind of leverage today.
(AP Photo)
