HARVARD HISTORIAN NIALL FERGUSON ASKS, WHY WON'T USA BOMB IRAN?

Apropos to my question of yesterday, the great historian and author, Niall Ferguson poses the same query (albeit, more eloquently):

Of all the columns I've written for this newspaper over the last couple of
years, none has elicited a more heated response than the one published in
January 2006 about the Great War of 2007. Indeed, it still gets quoted back at
me more than a year and a half later.

The column was written in the style of a future historian looking back on a
war that I imagined breaking out this year. My point was that if a major war
were to break out in 2007, future historians would not have far to look to find
its origins.

My imaginary war began in the Middle East and lasted four years. With the
benefit of hindsight, the historian of the future would be able to list its
causes as (a) competition for the region's abundant reserves of fossil fuels,
(b) demographic pressures arising from the region's high birthrates, (c) the
growth of radical Islamism and (d) the determination of Iran to acquire nuclear
weapons.

My nightmare scenario involved a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel
in August. You may have noticed that this didn't happen.

My aim in writing the column was not to soothsay but to alert readers to
the seriousness of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program -- and to persuade
them that the United States should do something to stop it.

Washington's most reliable ally in the Middle East, Israel, recently
demonstrated the ease with which a modern air force can destroy a suspected
nuclear facility. Not only was last month's attack on a site in northeastern
Syria carried out without Israeli losses, there was no retaliation on the part
of Damascus.

Memo from Ehud Olmert to George W. Bush: You can do this, and do it with
impunity. The big question of 2007 therefore remains:

Will he do it?

In domestic politics, it's always a good idea to follow the money. When it
comes to grand strategy, however, you need to follow the navy -- to be precise,
the aircraft carriers that would be the launching platforms for any major air
offensive against Iran's nuclear facilities. To do this, you don't need to be
very skilled at espionage. The U.S. Navy makes the information freely available
at http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html or in the "Around the Navy" column published each week in the Navy Times.

The U.S. has 11 active aircraft carriers. Of these, the Kitty Hawk is in
port in Japan. The Nimitz and Reagan are in San Diego. The Washington is in
Norfolk, Va. The Lincoln and Stennis are in Washington state. And the
Eisenhower, Vinson, Roosevelt and Truman are undergoing various sorts of
refitting and maintenance checks in the vicinity of "WestLant" (Navy-speak for
the western Atlantic). Only one -- the Enterprise -- is in the Persian Gulf. At
present, then, talk of World War III seems to be mere saber-rattling, not
serious strategy. U.S. aircraft carriers can move fast, it's true. The Lincoln's
top speed is in excess of 30 knots (30 nautical miles per hour). And it, along
with the Truman, Eisenhower and Nimitz, are said to be "surge ready."

But take a look at the map. It's a very long way from San Diego to the
Strait of Hormuz. Even from Norfolk, it takes 17.5 days for an aircraft carrier
group to reach Bahrain. If you were Ahmadinejad, how worried would you be?

As for me, I am jumping ship. This is my last weekly column on these pages.
But remember when the Great Gulf War does finally come:

You read about it here first.

For about four years now, George Bush has been repeating the mantra, "All options are on the table." That seems to be the totality of his solution to the problem of Iran.

If Bill Gates, as Chairman and CEO of Microsoft kept repeating the same thing every annual report, while his company lost money, he would be fired.

What shall we do with George Bush?