If I had a dollar for every time an arch neocon made a stupid argument about Iran I’d personally be able to make a significant dent in the deficit or at least buy a lot of pizza and beer. The latest clown in the parade of the ill-informed and ill-intentioned is Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.  

More after the jump -->

In his February 2nd article Stephens cites seven alleged myths about Iran that negatively affect American strategy and proceeds to debunk them. Of course “myth” and “debunk” are relative terms. Most of the myths are actually clear statements of fact and the evidence Stephens cites in his rebuttals is barely evidence at all. Take, for example Myth #1: "Military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing." To which our erudite commentator responds "Maybe so, but what's wrong with buying time? Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam's nuclear programs underground.”

Bret, do you have even the slightest inclination of how complicated a unilateral American attack on Iran’s nuclear program would be? There is a good reason why the Israelis haven’t attacked Iran’s nuclear sites yet: Quite simply they can’t. Osirak was a single, above ground site, which had already been damaged by Iranian strikes in 1980 by the time the Israelis got to it in 1981. The Iranian nuclear program, as evidenced by recent revelations about Iran’s covert enrichment site outside Qom, is a defuse and complicated operation. Add the fact that the Iranians are pretty damn good at tunneling and you have one hell of a tactical and strategic nightmare.

Let’s jump down to Myth #3: "Sanctions don't work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people." And Stephens' take "...as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they (sanctions) can be "silver shrapnel," particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline.”

For the last time people sanctions, even “targeted sanctions,” won’t bring about regime change or inspire the Iranians to comply. Sanctions only work in countries that are heavily dependent on foreign assistance and have few international connections. For a recent example see Guinea. Needless to say, Iran is not Guinea. Iran can easily skirt unilateral sanctions and the likelihood of meaningful multilateral sanctions is next to nil (see the current state of Sino-American relations for details).

After reading Stephens' article I get the distinct feeling that I’ve heard these arguments before. Oh, that’s right, it's because they are SAME DAMN ARGUMENTS conservative pundits have been making for months now (here and here for examples). Some advice guys: stop embarrassing yourselves and your ideology and come up with some new ideas.

-Evan

P.S. Never trust anyone who sounds like they were named after a pro-wrestler.