A Question for Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias seems rather concerned about the possibility of Iranian retaliation should America attack its nuclear facilities, but putting aside whether or not there really is all that much Iran can do to America that it isn't already doing, one has to ask the following question: if Iranian retaliation is something to be feared now, when the regime has no nuclear missiles to protect itself with, wouldn't the United States be quivering in impotent fear were the mullahs to obtain warheads that could strike Los Angeles and New York? What possible restraint could there be on such a regime, if it decided to go all out in sponsoring terrorism across the globe? The Iranians could hardly take seriously threats from the United States to initiate a possible all-out nuclear war simply because 3,000 Americans died here or there, year in, year out, in terrorist outrages - especially not from an America that refrained from military action when the likely costs were so much lower.

Comments

[Kevin Donoghue]

Bomb Iran? A very effective way of persuading mankind that Americans are stark, staring mad.

“... all that much Iran can do to America that it isn't already doing....”

What are you on about?

[SqueakyRat]

You rather miss the point of Matthew Yglesias's point, which was about the weirdness of calling the possibility of Iranian retaliation for being bombed "blackmail."

[Factory]

"What possible restraint could there be on such a regime, if it decided to go all out in sponsoring terrorism across the globe?"
What possible restraint do Iranians have if the US decides to turn Iran into the massive screwup that Iraq is?
And as for sponsoring terrorism, I think this just a a bogeyman, what would Iran gain from terrorism? Why would they bother? 'Because they are insane and evil' I do not consider a convincing argument.

[captainblak]

Well, of course Iran is ruled by MAD MOOOLAHS that have no problem at all using their 3-5 nukes to bomb America and waiting for America to launch an undetermined number of its 13K warheads all over Iran. Makes sense!

[Abiola Lapite]

"You rather miss the point of Matthew Yglesias's point, which was about the weirdness of calling the possibility of Iranian retaliation for being bombed "blackmail.""

Actually, I understood the point of his post just fine, thanks. My intention was to address a long-time stance of his.

"And as for sponsoring terrorism, I think this just a a bogeyman, what would Iran gain from terrorism? Why would they bother?"

Explain that to the 200+ marines who died in Lebanon back in 1982, or the Argentinian Jews whose synagogue was blown up by Iranian agents ... Your ignorance of Iran's long history of sponsoring terrorism is amazing.