"In September 2012, the Senate voted 90 to 1 for a nonbinding resolution 'ruling out any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.' The implication was that containment is a tepid and passive policy. But it was not such during the 45 years the United States contained the Soviet Union.
. . . .
Pollack believes that, were it not for Israel 'repeatedly sounding the alarm,” Iran “probably would have crossed the nuclear threshold long ago.' But if a nuclear Iran is for Israel unthinkable because it is uncontainable, Israel’s only self-reliant recourse — a nuclear attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — is unthinkable. And, Pollack thinks, unnecessary. The existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal is a sufficient deterrent: The Iranian leadership is 'aggressive, anti-American, anti-status quo, anti-Semitic, duplicitous, and murderous, but it is not irrational, and overall, it is not imprudent.'
. . . .
The logic of nuclear deterrence has not yet failed in the 64 years since the world acquired its second nuclear power. This logic does not guarantee certainty, but, says Pollack, 'the small residual doubt cannot be allowed to be determinative.' His basic point is: 'Our choices are awful, but choose we must.' Containment is the least awful response to Iran’s coming nuclear capability."
Observe that Will's argument is based upon Pollack's belief that Iran is "not imprudent" and that containment, i.e. mutually assured destruction, can prevent an Iranian nuclear attack. Well, I would ask both Will and Pollack if they have ever witnessed a suicide bombing perpetrated by a Shiite (or Sunni) Muslim. I would then ask if they have ever witnessed a suicide bombing perpetrated by a Russian (not a Chechen Muslim) over the "64 years since the world acquired its second nuclear power." Whereas there have been thousands of Muslim suicide bombings, I don't recall any such bombings perpetrated by Russians.
The readiness of a radical theocratic regime, i.e. Iran, to ask its citizens to commit suicide on behalf of the state should not cause us concern whether Iran itself would be willing to commit national suicide in a future nuclear war?
Have Pollack and Will ever witnessed the stoning to death of a woman for adultery in Iran or the hanging of a homosexual from a crane in the center of Tehran? Perhaps they would argue that such acts are "mere" evidence of Iran's "duplicitous" and "murderous" tendencies.
But I would then ask them if Russia ever threatened Israel with annihilation. We should regard Iranian threats against Israel as mere blather? After all, Iran is "not imprudent" (akin to Roger Cohen's claim that Iran is "not totalitarian"). Yeah, right.
It is worth noting that in 2002, so-called Middle East expert Pollack wrote a book entitled The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. I think it is more than fair to say that the premise of this book proved mistaken. The Second Gulf War in 2003 did not discover Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the Iraq/Iran equilibrium in the Middle East, and cost the US the lives of more than 4,400 soldiers at a price of hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, when all know, including Wendy Sherman, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, Pollack advocates "containment"?
Rely on containment of a nuclear Iran? Sorry, George, you're dead wrong this time.
