Probably the first clue was the massive and essentially unnecessary vicious sidebar on Palin. I think something worth noting is that Buchanan, who basically opposes just about ever war the US has gotten into the last few decades, very explicitly talked about how the administration might use this tactic. His written two articles on it recently, so has Pipes. I've reviewed Palin's interview and it could me a misquote, but she could just has easily have been referring to Buchan's article 'will Obama play the War Card', since both Pipes's and Buchanan's articles point out the potential political upside of that for the current administration. Considering the context of Palin's comment (video of which is linked below) I think Buchanan's "And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate." could just as easily be what Palin was referring to. So preface all of the author's commentary with the initial bit that he needless raised a mistake, then rubbed it all over the place in a vicious and cynical fashion, that could very well not have been a mistake.

Dan Pipes articles:
http://www.danielpipes.org/7921/bomb-iran-save-obama-presidency

http://www.danielpipes.org/7940/sarah-palin-endorses-bomb-iran

Pat Buchanan's articles:
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/04/will-obama-play-the-war-card/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35645

That's the one by Buchanan, note the jaded cynicism he displays toward the idea we might attack Iran, for those who don't know him very well, he frequently attacked Bush over Iraq (Both Bush's, both wars) and Clinton over Kosovo, Somalia, the various cruise missile strikes, etc. This does not mean he is unaware of the potential political advantages of it, since that is basically the source of his cynicism on american foreign policy to begin with.

Here's the Palin video clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca-oCxLd_Hc

Maybe she did mean Pipes, who knows, both wrote articles devoted to pointing out the potential political advantages to the current administration of bombing Iran, so I'm not sure why even in the worst light this would be a gaffe.

All right, moving along to his other points.



Considering the government of Iran has publicly espoused genocide and denied the holocaust, the best that might be said of them ethically is they might truly believe in such stuff. People who, in the name of ruthless pragmatism, are willing to rile people up on genocide are certainly just as likely as true believers to be willing to engage in it, I think not believing in such things and using it as a political tool is probably worse than actually believing it and doing so.



Bombing their installations would do more than delay it for a few years, and obviously a full-blown invasion would too. Making nuclear weapons is tricky, not because people don't know how to make them, the physics behind a nuclear bomb, the theory, is relatively simple and not a secret. Getting weapons grade Uranium or plutonium is not. They could rebuild centrifuges in a few years, they'd have to acquire new uranium, and they would also know that the even the most apparently anti-war POTUS the US is likely to have for some time is willing to bomb them again if they continue, or take more stern measures.



Probably because Egypt's leaders don't sit around calling for the obliteration of Israel constantly.



The majority of those govt's would be happy to make some nasty comments about us if we bombed Iran... then quietly sigh in relief that the problem had been dealt with. They don't like Iran, they regard the country with a mixture of fear and loathing.