December 05, 2007

The NIE Report as a Vindication of the Iraq Invasion

No one is saying this--at least no one that I've read--but isn't the NIE report a vindication of the Iraq invasion?

Iran, the report says, halted its nuclear weapons program when?

2003

That would be the same year we invaded Iraq.

While the foreign policy 'realists' have been claiming that the Iraq invasion is what caused Iran to more vigorously seek nuclear weapons to deter a possible U.S. attack, it seems that the real story may have been Iran dropping its near-term nuclear ambitions out of fear of a preemptive U.S. invasion prior to acquisition.

This popular strain of 'realist' narrative blames the U.S. invasion for Iran's nuclear ambitions. The new NIE report seems to suggest that the invasion has deterred Iran's nuclear ambitions.

So, will they now thank us for invading Iraq? Not likely.

Just thinking out loud and trying to start a conversation. Maybe others are saying the same thing? I dunno. What do you think?

UPDATE: Joe Gringo points me to this from VDH:

After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war — aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region — might have been the elimination, for some time, of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

War is unpredictable and instead of "no blood for oil" (oil went from $20 something to $90 something a barrel after the war, enriching Iraq and the Arab Gulf region at our expense), perhaps the cry, post facto, should have been "no blood for the elimination of nukes."

I'm in good company.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 10:01 AM | |