US attack on Iran would alienate Muslims worldwide — NPR

Paul Pillar

In the last week or so, Robert Siegel at National Public Radio has raised American blood pressure with three interviews of hawks on Iran: American-Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, Atlantic correspondent and former Israeli soldier Jeffrey “Point of No Return” Goldberg, and Israeli security analyst Amos Yadlin. Not a lot of bandwidth, huh.

Well, NPR hosts have also interviewed two American realists who disparage the idea of war. One of them, Steve Walt, even stated the heretical belief that Israel can live with a nuclear Iran. 

Steve Inskeep interviewed Paul Pillar on Morning Edition a couple days ago:

PILLAR: As my friend Richard Bass of Columbia puts it: Anyone who talks about a surgical strike ought to get a second opinion. That’s a euphemism for war with Iran. No one knows exactly what the consequences of such a war would be, whether it was started by Israel or by the United States. Iran would find ways to strike back. The economic consequences are literally incalculable, but no doubt would be immense.

And then there are hosts of other consequences. Internally, in Iran, this would no doubt lead the Iranians to make that decision they don’t seem to have made yet, which is to move full speed ahead and try to make a bomb. It would also further color views of the United States throughout the Muslim world, and this would be referred to again and again as yet another instance in which the United States is against the interests of Muslims worldwide and, if anything, is out to kill them.

You know, I’m thinking as you’re talking, President Obama has warned of the costs of war, but has also said all options are on the table. Republican presidential candidates have not specifically called for war, but have certainly said they would be very, very tough on Iran. Why do you think that there are so many people across the political spectrum who are willing to entertain the thought of military action here?

Guy Raz spoke with Stephen Walt yesterday:

Though it is still unknown whether the Iranians plan to develop a nuclear weapon, Walt says the question that should be considered is just how significant it would be if they did.

“People who are opposing military action now would argue that even if Iran did get a nuclear weapon, it is not a very militarily powerful state,” he says. “Israel has a sizeable nuclear arsenal and could retaliate if it were attacked.”

Walt doesn’t believe the drumbeat of war with Iran in the media will lead to any sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy” and says that ultimately the decision for war is a conscious choice.

“We are talking about a preventive war, an unprovoked war,” he says. “That’s not a decision you get driven to by articles and op-eds. Ultimately, leaders in question have to make that choice and that means they always have the option of deciding to pursue a different course.”