Does the Bomb Iran! crowd have any credibility left?

It now appears that the Bomb Iran! crowd is just making it up as they go along. The latest case in point is Joshua Muravchik's column in this morning's USA Today. Let's take a look at Muravchik versus reality:

Muravchik:

Our choice is stark. Accept Iran with an atom bomb or cripple its nuclear program by force. Nothing else will stop Tehran. States rarely get talked out of instruments of power, especially not fanatic ones."

Reality: No nation in history has ever — ever — been forced to give up its nuclear weapons. Many, however, have been persuaded to do so. Ambitions and scientific know-how die equally hard. This includes North Korea, an Orwellian nightmare of a state where Kim Jong Il, a fanatical dictator if ever there was one, has spent the last couple decades starving millions of Koreans.

Muravchik:

The dangers an Iranian bomb would present are intolerable. Iran is the pre-eminent sponsor of terrorism. Iranian weapons are responsible for a large share of U.S. casualties in Iraq…. The list goes on."

Reality: Iran appears to be behind much of the reduction in violence in Iraq. According to Maj. Gen. James E. Simmons, deputy commander of the Multinational Corps-Iraq: "We have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq. We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up."

Muravchik:

Iran also might launch a nuclear missile at Israel, which Ahmadinejad wants 'wiped off the map.' Israel could strike back, but so what?"

Reality: As Blake noted earlier today, Israel has second-strike capability in its submarines. A nuclear strike by Iran would mean its complete destruction. So, please, someone in the Bomb Iran! crowd logically explain to me why Iran is the first nation in history to defy more than a half century of mutually assured destruction (MAD) theory? Give me a break. Rhetoric from politicians is one thing, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest ordinary Iranians are prepared to die by the millions in order to "wipe Israel off the map." Get real.

Muravchik:

Only strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities can forestall these terrible scenarios…. We would send no troops, conquer no land. Rather, we would act in pre-emptive self-defense."

Reality: I'll believe this when someone in the know tells me that our intelligence on Iran is far better than our intelligence was on Iraq. So far, I have yet to meet such a person from inside the U.S. government. I have met Israelis who say their intelligence on Iran is good, and it's not improbable they would share it. Still, what exactly will airstrikes accomplish? Setting Iran's program back another five years? Or does the Bomb Iran! crowd intend to send special ops in to assassinate Iran's scientists? That's what it would really take to "eliminate" their program. It's laughable that the same people who criticized Bill Clinton's cruise-missile approach to national defense now want to mimic it.

"Stark choices" make for good newspaper copy. But reality is far more complicated. Mao, Stalin, Kim — they were all far worse than the wanna-be dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We negotiated with all of them. And in the end, we won.