Tom Friedman writes another of his columns ($link) attacking the Bush administration. (I guess a writer who travels on private jets, consorts with Saudi klpetocrats, who has never served in the military or for the government, feels he well qualified to take pot shots from his skyscraper office on how to run things in the world.)

In this particular column he announces he is fine with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons —and does not even deign to mention the Holocaust—denying leader's boast that he intends to destroy Israel soon in  "one storm" (another Iranian leader had noted that Israel could be destroyed with one bomb). However, the most embarrassing and absurd part of Friedman's analysis is how he would respond if Iran passed nuclear weapons to terrorists or launched a nuclear attack itself.

Would he launch a war against Iran? No, of course not. Would he even attempt to take out the leadership or foment regime change? No, of course not. His response: issue a demarche:

Gentlemen, should you ever use a nuclear device, or dispense one to terrorists, we will destroy every one of your nuclear sites with tactical nuclear weapons. If there is any part of this sentence you don't understand, please contact us. Thank you.

So Israel is destroyed. Millions are killed. Or the Sixth Fleet is wiped out. Or Kuwait. Friedman's idea of defense or retaliation? We take out a few weapons sites. No decapitation strike against leaders, no Mutually Assured Destruction, no regime change. Just a couple of sites get knocked out (maybe) —and these could be rebuilt. A Holocaust occurs and Iran suffers some structural damage at a few sites.  A fair exchange?

Is Friedman, who fancies himself a seer and an international affairs expert, unaware that Iran has already boasted that it proudly accepts the risk of losing millions of people as long as it could destroy Israel? Does he think they will be intimidated by the risk of some structural damage to some of their dozens of weapon—making sites?

Ed Lasky   4 19 06