Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Last night, intelligence ² hosted a debate on the motion "It's better to bomb Iran than risk Iran getting the bomb" in partnership with the Spectator (still a redoubt for neo-con perspectives). Listening to a recording of the debate (available here), I think the opponents of the motion convincingly established the following points:
- Iran is not the lunatic totalitarian state it is portrayed to be, but a complex pluralist country that hasn't launched an aggressive war in over 250 years.
- Threatening aggression strengthens the most reactionary elements in the Iranian regime: failing domestically, Ahmadinejad has become even more unpopular since the threat of war receded and is predicted to do "very badly" in the March elections.
- Even if Tehran does want a bomb, it is nowhere near getting one: the best hope is to keep the IAEA in business and entice Iran into the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the prospect of international recognition and legitimacy.
What was striking about the debate was that none of the proponents of the motion (Reuel Marc Gerecht, Emanuele Ottolenghi and Bruno Tertrais) were from the UK, whilst all of its opponents were (Richard Dalton, Ali Ansari and Simon Jenkins). It was left to a "leading American neo-conservative", Marc Gerecht, to bark on (totally without irony) about Iranian "interference" within the region and the "evil men" he knew of in Iran who'd dared call the US "Satan". Iran is genetically pre-disposed to evil he suggested, since "terrorism is in its DNA". But a good bit of bombing would soon flush out said terrorists and fanatics (presumably as we've done in Iraq since March 2003?). Marc Gerecht and his ilk are, one hopes, a fading breed. In Britain the Speccie is one of the few places that still gives prominence to their views, but I'm happy to report that those who attend their debates have more sense: only 154 voted for the motion and 606 against. Would this sanity prevail in a Cameron government that includes Michael Gove? Let's hope so.
