Norman Podhoretz, 1, Andrew Sullivan and The Economist, nothing, in the latters' attempts to minimize the danger of a nuclear mullahcracy.

Ouch! I suppose it would be asking too much for Sullivan to apologize ...

Eric

Wonder if Sullivan would even notice his unintentional support of MiniTru.

I regret Podhoretz's influence both with the current administration and with Giuliani's presidential bid. While I can see the potential need for military force, perhaps even limited nuclear force (on hardended targets) to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran, I protest his delusions to a "World War IV", or the skewed, hysterical parallels to the Cold War and religious wars of the past.

I agree there is conflict here, but it's not on the scale of a world war. Contrast that with the war in the Congo and neighboring areas. Including the Rwanda genocide, we're looking at around 5 million deaths in a ten year period, involving the military forces of 8 regional governments.

Even liberally counting every radical Islam based insurgency in the world, one cannot come up with those numbers over the time period that World War IV is supposed to have started (in mid 70's or so). I think it reasonable to reserve the label "world war" for wars that aren't just spatially global, but are similar in intensity to the well recognized World Wars.

That means, even though there is the potential for a world war (including such risks as widespread use of nuclear weapons), that I won't call it a world war until it has the intensity of one. In my view, if we are vigilent and continue to provide a superior alternative to radical Islamism, I see no reason that we can't skip this world war altogether.

Podhoretz continually asserts things like "Ahmadinejad is a revolutionary with unlimited aims and not a statesman with whom we can 'do business'" with no more proof than isolated quotes. He might recall both the US and the Soviets used to say the same sort of thing. Demonstrating willingness to fight and to use nuclear weapons was necessary (note that US officials have been doing this dance with respect to Iran in recent years). I gather sometimes it was deemed beneficial for leaders to make outrageous statements (for example, Kruschev's "we will bury you" speech or how Reagan's on air joke about launching nuclear weapons was used).

One has to take the comments of the Iranian leaders in this perspective. Maybe they are nuts, but maybe they are putting up the usual front. You can't tell merely from a few quotes.

So it makes sense to consider the actions of the leaders of Iran and similar countries. A good example is the aftermath of the Yom Kippur war between Israel and its neighbors in 1973. I gather shortly afterwards, Israel acquired several nuclear weapons. It has not been threatened with invasion since.

Looking at Iran in particular, it has been careful with how it engages US and allied military forces. Sure Iran basically acts as a wolf circling the campfire, but they have given no indications that they are suicidal. They work through proxies. They don't strike me as people who would die in order to harm the US a lot.

Finally, I think Podhoretz's lack of perspective combined with his influential role is a danger to the US. To be blunt, I think his ideas would cripple our most effective defenses against radical Islam, namely our free and just society and superior economy.

Ultimately, I think that our best defense is both to continue to be who we are, maintaining our perspective while not succombing to fear, and to punish firmly and consistently those who engage in terrorist acts and other crimes of that nature.

Karl, very interesting comments. I don't want to distract from your main point, but on a sidenote (I think): Israel had already acquired nuclear weapons by the Yom Kippur War. Obviously I don't *know* this, but this is the conventional wisdom on the matter. Just for entertainment, I'll digress further: A best-selling book by Seymore Hersh called The Sampson Option claimed that during the Yom Kippur war, Israel actually threatened the USSR with nuclear weapons via long range bombing if their Arab allies didn't back down, and that may have been part of the chain of events that saved them. (The US was pissed -- threatening the Soviets with nukes was its job!) The part about the Soviets is controversial. What is interesting but less controversial is that Israel was attacked and put into existential jeopardy after it had already acquired nukes. I don't think this detracts at all from the point you were making, but it might say something about how the Israelis and possibly the Iranians and others might manage their nuclear posture in the future.

To be blunt, I think his ideas would cripple our most effective defenses against radical Islam, namely our free and just society and superior economy.

Exactly.

Karl, I really liked your essay, and have been thinking about it. I would like to agree with you (and mostly do) but I worry about proliferation. As you point out, Iran works through proxies.

My understanding is that if Iran gave a terrorist group a nuclear weapon which was then used, we would be able to analyse the isotope ratios left over (or at least anaylse something) such that we could pin it on Iran, and since Iran knows this, they would be deterred from giving out a nuke. Does that sound right?

I have two technical questions, one about "fizzle weapons", and one about dirty bombs. 1) If Iran gave or helped terrorists acquire a relatively simple device that was going to fizzle rather than efficiently explode, would we be just as able to pin its use on Iran? I'm sure I'm displaying my ignorance, which is at the level of appreciating why "the curve of binding energy" is an interesting book, and why nuclear salt water rockets are a spectacularly funny idea. 2) Would Iran's work on nuclear bombs enable it to hand out better dirty bombs as well, or is it so easy to build a dirty bomb that would be effective as a weapon of terror that it isn't worth worrying about whether Iran has a nuclear program or not?

You know, the other problem, Karl, is that if Iran continues to export terror while secure behind the bulwark of nuclear deterrance, the USA won't have nearly as many ways to stop them. My thoughts continue to evolve.

A "fizzle" bomb isn't going to work for Iran. That gives a valid pretext for any nuclear power (that Iran uses the bomb on) to nuke Iran. I don't see any of the current nuclear powers letting an attack like that on themselves slide without a nuclear response with weapons that work right.

Dirty or radiological bombs are always a possibility. My take is that there isn't a radiological bomb out there (even plutonium based) that ultimately has the scare power of a nuclear bomb. There's a big difference between irradiating a bunch of city blocks and vaporizing them. Plus, IMHO the nuclear bomb will generate more dangerous fallout than a radiological bomb.