Seems Sarkozy believes in bombing Iran if they don't stop their nuclear program. I can only assume he thinks France is a post-oil country and won't be effected by a huge spike in oil prices when Iran shuts down the Gulf and that the chaos that will envelope the entire region won't come back to haunt France, with its huge and unhappy Muslim immigrant community.

President Sarkozy called Iran's nuclear ambition the world's most dangerous problem yesterday and raised the possibility that the country could be bombed if it persisted in building an atomic weapon...

...A nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and the world must continue to tighten sanctions while offering incentives to Tehran to halt weapons development, he said. "This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran," he said.

Well, he does say it'd be catastrophic either way at least. I have to say that his alarmism is tiresome compared to the world-weary realism of Chirac, who noted that if Iran had the bomb it was no big deal, because if they ever used it Iran would be glassed over immediately.

More After the Jump

And then there's this beauty:

The biggest challenge to the world was the avoidance of conflict between Islam and the West, President Sarkozy told the annual gathering of French ambassadors. Iran was the crossroads of the Middle East's troubles and its nuclear aims "are without doubt the most serious crisis that weighs today on the international scene", he said.

Right... Avoidance of a conflict between Islam and the West is the biggest priority but you're saying you'll bomb Iran for having the same nuclear capability Pakistan, India, North Korea and, most importantly, Israel have? And this crisis is greater than, oh, the disintegration of Iraq and the massive refugee flow from it which threatens to destabilize Syria and Jordan?

Enough, already. A war with Iran would be disastrous and this naive and juvenille idea that bombing would be something the Iranians would just sit there and take needs to be staked out in the sun like some revenant. It would take either the use of tactical nuclear weapons, or sustained bombardment going on for at least a couple weeks to have any realistic chance of setting back (and it would only be a setback, not a cessation) the Iranian nuclear program. Iran's missiles are more than capable of closing the Gulf (they only have to hit a few freighters before insurance premiums would mean no freighters travelling through it at all); the US Air Force (or France's Air Force) is full of it if they say they can shut down the missile threat (anyone remember the Israeli success against Hezbollah's missiles. Oh, right, they had no noticeable success against them, in a much, much smaller region where they have better intelligence.) And, frankly, if the US Navy is stupid enough to stay in brown water to attempt to protect shipping they risk losing some high prestige ships. Maybe even an aircraft carrier (the world's most expensive military albatrosses).

None of this is to say that Iran wouldn't come out much the worse for wear. But given the losses in the Iran/Iraq war anyone who thinks this would necessarily lead to regime change is likely quite mistaken. The natural response of a people when attacked is to rally around (Americans, of all people, fresh from the "patriotism" of 9/11 with its rally 'round the incompetent, lying, venal President, should understand this. One hopes the French also do.)

Let's go through the likely effects of bombing Iran. A huge economic crisis. The potential loss of high prestige American (and French, if they're foolish enough to participate) ships. The activation of Iran's terrorism network overseas, which is probably the best in the world (and far better than Al-Qaeda's). The US being forced to retreat out of Iraq in what could easily turn into a bloody fiasco with thousands or tens of thousands of casualties (look at a map and calculate the retreat and supply lines. Ask yourself how hard it would be for Iran to cut them, especially with Iraqi Shia aid). It would also, almost certainly, lead to an open Iranian nuclear bomb project since it would have proved that Iran definitely needed nukes as a deterrent.

Sometimes "all options" aren't on the table, because sometimes the consequences of using force are too high.