I must, I must, I must improve our chances of preventing Iran developing a nuclear bomb.

On the front page of the Guardian site there is a promo for Timothy Garton Ash’s new article. It reads:

We must stop Bush bombing Iran

I immediately thought to myself, no, this is wrong. Surely what we must do is stop Iran – that’s Iran – becoming a nuclear power. It goes without saying that we should work to achieve this without dropping a single bomb if at all possible, but this is not the same thing as agreeing that we must, at all costs, stop Bush bombing Iran.

After clicking the link to TGA’s article, I discovered I’d only be seeing half the picture. The full headline reads:

We must stop Bush bombing Iran, and stop Iran getting the bomb.

Both noble sentiments, yet I foresee a potential problem in wanting to stop both of these things happening. To be fair, so does TGA, it’s just that he believes the cure would be worse than the disease. That is, Iran getting the bomb is considered the lesser of two evils. Having read all of his article (and not just the headline), I understand why he believes this, although his acceptance that Iran with nuclear weapons probably means Saudi and Egypt get them at some point soon thereafter, does give me cause to wonder what TGA thinks bombing Iran would look like. I find it difficult to conceive how it could be quite that bad, but there you go.

What I strongly suspect, however, is that the chances of Iran developing nuclear weapons are inversely proportional to the likelihood that the US and anybody else bombs Iran. I would be surprised if even the most vehement opponent of bombing genuinely disputed this, in which case I cannot fathom why we would deny ourselves such an option.

Anyway, I must make my way to the kitchen to prepare dinner. I’m going to see if I can make an omelet without breaking any eggs.