This morning, for the first time to my knowledge, the New York Times — which as everyone knows is, alas, America’s most influential newspaper — has agreed to run an article explicitly calling for the American bombing of Iran’s nuclear program (and the “sooner the better” it says).
The article is dry and academic and long (it runs to two pages online) and there are much better arguments to be made for such a move, but it is significant nonetheless as it might finally open up liberal public opinion in America to this possibility.
The last paragraph of the article reads:
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.
(On a previous occasion when I advocated the possibility of such an airstrike, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann named me the “world’s worst person,” although Olbermann misunderstood and misrepresented my argument.)
For a more substantive case on why military action to prevent Iran going nuclear is (at least in my opinion) more preferable by far than allowing Iran to go nuclear, please see: “Obama, and the world, in 2012, after he fails to deal with Iran”.