When Hillary bombs Iran

Timothy Garton-Ash constructs an alarming counter-factual in The Guardian about the consequences of President Hillary’s air strikes on Iran in 2009. In his scenario, these air raids—supported by the British and the Israelis—lead to massive terrorist reprisals, including the explosion of a dirty bomb in London. The piece echoes Richard “Against all Enemies” Clarke’s warning that Iran would respond to U.S. military action with a set of terrorist attacks far worse than those that al Qaeda could muster. But this argument strikes me as a double-edged one.

If Iran has proxy terror groups then clearly the West must be aware of what these groups will do if Iran is bombed. But equally it means that we must do everything possible to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. There is the obvious fear that the Iranians might pass on nuclear materials to one of these terrorists organizations. But what appears far more likely to me, is that a nuclear armed Iran would increase its support to these groups fully aware that its possession of a bomb would render it immune from Western military pressure. For example, a nuclear-armed Iran could have Salman Rushdie assassinated in London confident that the Brits would not respond with military force.

Garton-Ash, though, is undoubtedly right on one thing: Europeans should not assume that a Democratic president would be any more likely to tolerate a nuclear Iran than Bush.