Norman "what's a Kurd, anyway?" Podhoretz returns the the question of Iran in Commentary today. It's worth reading because NPod is nothing if not clear. His case for attacking/bombing Iran pre-emptively rests on a few notions that are worth at least recognizing. They are based fundamentally on the notion that deterrence is meaningless for the mullahs, that mutually assured destruction is a theory that only worked with communists bent on global domination and a vast land-mass:

Under the aegis of such a [theocratic] attitude, even in the less extreme variant that may have been held by some of Ahmadinejad’s colleagues among the regime’s rulers, mutual assured destruction would turn into a very weak reed. Understanding that, the Israelis would be presented with an irresistible incentive to preempt—and so, too, would the Iranians. Either way, a nuclear exchange would become inevitable.

Podhoretz also believes that tiny Israel would somehow do better in such a conflict:

In the grisly scenario Anthony Cordesman draws, tens of millions would indeed die, but Israel—despite the decimation of its civilian population and the destruction of its major cities—would survive, even if just barely, as a functioning society. Not so Iran, and not its “key Arab neighbors,” particularly Egypt and Syria, which Cordesman thinks Israel would also have to target in order “to ensure that no other power can capitalize on an Iranian strike.” Furthermore, Israel might be driven in desperation to go after the oil wells, refineries, and ports in the Gulf.

I'm not going to start figuring out how this scenario is supposed to work.

But the key premise of Podhoretz's argument is that there is total irrationality in the Iranian regime - even to the point of initiating an apocalyptic scenario in which the Jews actually end up with a grim advantage. Would such an Armaggedon reach the US and Western Europe? No one seems to argue as much, not even Podhoretz's chosen expert, Cordesman. Podhoretz's response:

To me it seems doubtful that it could be confined to the Middle East.

That's it. Persuaded much? Oh, and, yes, it's still 1938. Iran is Nazi Germany. Bush is Churchill (even though Churchill was in opposition in 1938 and Bush has been in office for seven years). Everyone else is Chamberlain.

I don't think that Iran's regime should be under-estimated. It is a highly religious, fundamentalist and dangerously fractured entity. But it seems much more likely that it would use nuclear weapons as leverage to extend its power in the region and world, to counter-balance Israel and the Sunni powers and to enhance its influence than that it would start an apocalyptic battle which it would lose. From the prism of American national interest, moreover, global Armageddon is not inevitable (although vast destruction in the Middle East would be an immense blow). For Israel, the calculations would be different. But even then, I cannot imagine sane Israelis would want to initiate an apocalyptic nuclear exchange, as Podhoretz implies is inevitable if Tehran gets nukes.

I think the best phrase for this kind of strategic thinking is "shrill hysteria". The risks are too great not to subject these nutty views to simple empirical skepticism.