I don’t even know how I stumbled across this article but it is quite, illuminating, shall we say, regarding the state of denial regarding the Iranian Nuclear threat.  Take a recent article by M.J. Rosenberg in Talking Points Memo Cafe.  Here’s what he had to say:

Check out this interview Netanyahu gave the Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg today. Netanyahu says flatout that either the Obama administration deals with Iran’s nuclear development or Israel will have no choice but to act unilaterally (i.e, with bombs).

Pretty incredible. An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopadize [sic] a myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any regard for our interests. The fact is that, in the eyes of Iran (and the world), there is essentially no difference between an Israeli attack and one by us. Israel is viewed as our client…

President Obama needs to get on the phone and let Netanyahu know that Israel can take no action vis a vis Iran without full consultation with Washington. Obama is pursuing diplomacy which means, whether it lkes [sic] it or not, that Israel is too. And that, quite simply, means that Israel cannot act unilaterally as if it is a free agent. It isn’t. Like the Britain, Germany, Canada, or France, it cannot take unilateral actions that would endanger Americans.

Now, what is M.J. Rosenburg really saying?  Well, I would argue that his primary concern with the Iranian nuclear issue is not the inherent danger posed by Ahmadineijad, nor it it the lives of the Israeli people, nor is it the concern about unchecked poliferation or the future of the greater middle east.  On the contrary, his biggest concern is some vague, amorphous concept “American Interests”– a concept he thinks is IMPROVED by allowing Iran to continue nuclear development.  Forgetting for a moment that were Iran to actually USE a nuke would, American (and WORLD) interests would be irreperably harmed, what is concerning here is that his entire theory rests on the assumption that Ahmadineijad won’t use nukes!  One can justify almost any foreign policy so long as one adopts, a priori, certain favorable assumptions.

I fear this is nothing more than a resurgence of the worst aspects of the ‘realpolitic’ school of American political thought.  Unlike the realists of the last century, however, these modern thinkers are willing to tolerate what amounts to a russian roulette by even the most extreem regimes, regardless of the risks involved.

We will see how the Iranian threat plays out;  I for one am not optimistic anything good will come from a Nuclear Iran… on the contrary, I fear serious consequences will result.  Let us hope I am wrong.