With Kudlow off tonight, I decided to check out Erin Burnett’s show on CNN. Among the topics discussed was an estimate of what a US war with Iran might cost us. It ranged from a reasonably small number of billions corresponding to a Libyan analog, and a trillion dollar Iraq-style invasion. The emphasis of discussion seemed to steer away from the lower estimate.
Not sure why though. Our desire for Iranian regime change should be a lot less ambiguous than our desire to see the same in Libya. Sure, Gaddafi was a murderous dictator, but he was a stable, self-interested dictator who saw fit to ditch some of his nasty weapons when he understood that Dubya was serious about draining the swamp. What might Gaddafi be replaced with? Al Qaeda types, perhaps. At the very least some folks who aren’t exactly going to plant a Jeffersonian democracy in north Africa.
With Iran, however, the equation is a little easier. Who might take over if we toppled the Mullahs? Who cares? The current regime is quite literally an apocalyptic cult that is trying to build a nuclear weapon, is a sponsor of international terrorism, and has been in an undeclared state of war with the United States since its inception. Does it get any worse than that?
What if religious fanatics got their hands on the nucl… oh wait. That’s what we have now.
Also the “Pottery Barn” rule doesn’t apply here. No “break it, you bought it”, stuff — Iran is already broken.
Iran is a much better candidate for Obama’s Libyan policy than Libya was.
Destroy their nuclear facilities. Take down the government. See what emerges. Rinse and repeat as necessary.