I am a Contributing Editor to the Atlantic Council’s expert’s blog, The New Atlanticist.  So it is perhaps bad form to criticize a fellow contributor.  And it is definitely probably a sign of my over-developed sense of self-regard to think that I know better than General Chuck Wald, a man with a 30+ year career that began as a combat pilot over Vietnam and culminated with his service as Deputy Commander of EUCOM.

But be that as it may, I have to take issue with his recent post:

There Is a Military Option on Iran | Atlantic Council

A peaceful resolution of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions would certainly be the best possible outcome. But should diplomacy and economic pressure fail, a U.S. military strike against Iran is a technically feasible and credible option.

Yes, but “technically feasible” but strategically absurd.  As Wald himself writes:

Of course, there are huge risks to military action: U.S. and allied casualties; rallying Iranians around an unstable and oppressive regime; Iranian reprisals be they direct or by proxy against us and our allies; and Iranian-instigated unrest in the Persian Gulf states, first and foremost in Iraq.

Furthermore, while a successful bombing campaign would set back Iranian nuclear development, Iran would undoubtedly retain its nuclear knowhow. An attack would also necessitate years of continued vigilance, both to retain the ability to strike previously undiscovered sites and to ensure that Iran does not revive its nuclear program.

But the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing.If the Iranian regime continues to advance its nuclear program despite the best efforts of Mr. Obama and other world leaders, we risk Iranian domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, threats to U.S.-allied Arab regimes, the emboldening of radicals in the region, the creation of an existential threat to Israel, the destabilization of Iraq, the shutdown of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, and a regional nuclear-arms race.

See, the problem is that negative consequences of an attack are near certainties, while his concerns about inaction are fundamentally unlikely.  How would Iran “dominate” the Persian gulf with nuclear weapons?  Under what plausible scenario does that occur?  They issue a nuclear threat to Saudi Arabia, we extend our nuclear umbrella.  Stalemate.

How do nuclear weapons constitute a larger threat to U.S.-allied regimes?  Again, will Iran nuke them?  Threaten to?  Again, the scenario is difficult to imagine.

Existential threat to Israel?  Yes, that is a legitimate concern, if we assume that the Iranian regime is suicidal.  And it may be.  But again this is tremendously unlikely.  Other than some heated rhetoric, there is little evidence that the Iranian leadership is so unalterably committed to the destruction of Israel that it is willing to cause the destruction of the Iranian nation.  We need to remember that authoritarian elites often like to trash talk.  Remember the horrifying things the Chinese used to say about us?  They’re now one of our biggest trading partners.  Or Khrushchev’s prediction that he would “bury us.”  But at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he’s the one who sent an emotional plea to avoid war.  Anyway, and I know this is isn’t popular… but the Israelis are big boys and they can take care of themselves.

Emboldening radicals in the region?  Radicals are inherently emboldened.  That’s what makes them, um, radicals.  Otherwise they’d be cautious moderates.  The notion that possession of nuclear weapons might cause people to flock to Iran’s side is just fear mongering.  Has anyone noticed people lining up to ally with the North Koreans since they blew off some nuclear devices in 2006?  How about India and Pakistan?  Any major changes there?

Destabilization of Iraq… I don’t want to be nasty, but Wald is really reaching here.  The notion that an Iranian nuclear capacity would be a greater threat to the stability of Iraq than would be the predictable consequences of an American strike is absurd.  The Iranian threat in Iraq has to do with ties to Shi’a groups and the risk of irregular conflict there. 

Shutdown of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process?   I can’t even fathom what Wald is talking about there?  What possible mechanism could exist to translate an Iranian nuke into that outcome?

So… the tradeoff is the possibility of a “regional arms race” which could likely be prevented by the extension of more explicit American security guarantees versus the near certainty of an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a massive expansion of Iranian sponsored terrorism against American targets, and a dramatic increase in the stability of the regime which is now unpopular and illegitimate among its own people.

This is not actually a close call on which reasonable people can disagree.  It is a debate between a serious and thoughtful assessment and empty fear-mongering.