From the magnificent James Taranto:
A Washington Post story about Israel's recent strike on what appears to have been a Syrian nuclear facility ends as follows:
In an interview published yesterday, IAEA director and Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei expressed anger at the Syrians, Israelis and foreign intelligence agencies for not providing information about a suspected nuclear program.
"We have said, 'If any of you has the slightest information showing that there was anything linked to nuclear, we would of course be happy to investigate it,' " he told the French newspaper Le Monde. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns."
ElBaradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation.
"When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein's research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground," he said. "The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem."
And Saddam is still underground. But hang on a second! Everyone knows Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't ElBaradei remember how BUSH LIED!!!!? And because Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, it was wrong to invade Iraq based on the assumption that he did have them. That's just simple logic!
So now we have ElBaradei arguing, based on the totally discredited premise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that airstrikes on nuclear facilities in rogue states are a bad policy. Just as in the case of Iraq, logic dictates that because the premise is false, the conclusion must be wrong.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the civilized world is obliged to bomb Iran.