Today I’m full of questions. My first question has to do with Iran. George Will says that containing Iran would be better than war with Iran:
The logic of nuclear deterrence has not yet failed in the 64 years since the world acquired its second nuclear power. This logic does not guarantee certainty, but, says Pollack, “the small residual doubt cannot be allowed to be determinative.” His basic point is: “Our choices are awful, but choose we must.” Containment is the least awful response to Iran’s coming nuclear capability.
I agree. How does he define containment and does the agreement being negotiated with Iran satisfy that definition?
Off-hand I would say that Iran’s influence is greater today than it was five years ago and was greater five years ago than it had been twenty years ago. North Korea is contained. It’s largely self-containing. Nobody is giving the “North Korean economic model” a try and North Korean troops aren’t propping up affiliated regimes. The North Koreans don’t appear to be fomenting terrorist attacks on four continents.
How contained is Iran and does the agreement further promote that containment?