I have already completely debunked most of the hawkish arguments on attacking Iran:
Far from plunging the middle east into the throes of war, an Iranian nuclear weapon would stabilise the region under the shadow of mutually-assured destruction — the same force that stabilised relations between the Soviet Union and America. A middle east totally dominated by a nuclear-armed Israel ensures that Israel can drag its heels in reaching a lasting peace agreement with the Muslims. If Iran gets the bomb, they would finally come to the negotiating table as equals.
The big difference, though is that with Iraq there was no threat that any “liberal” interventionism would spill over into a wider regional war.
Of course, that hasn’t stopped the slavering “liberal” hawks from dreaming up more ill-conceived military interventions.
From Matthew Koenig of the CFR:
Skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.
The truth is that Iran (and more explicitly a strong and united Eurasia) is only a threat to America if America chooses to continue the absurd and destructive path of a world-dominating petrodollar superpower, dependent on foreign oil and resources, and with a foreign policy designed to (essentially) extort these things from the rest of the world.
The nature of such a foreign policy is inherently aggressive. Let’s be honest — who is threatening who?
Close the bases, bring the troops home, invest successfully in energy independence and global diplomacy, and trade and share technology and ideas with the world, and we in the West would have the national security we crave. Continue on the path of the overstretched hyper-power and we — the people of the West, not just our leaders — will end up with our faces in the dirt.