Rather than war, gasoline sanctions on Iran are “the true alternative” to current Iran policy, says David Frum. It is strange that Frum spends no time laying out what the enforcement of such a sanctions regime would require. He discussed very thoroughly how military strikes might escalate into a wider war and have many adverse consequences for U.S. interests, and then concludes with a call for gasoline sanctions, as if arbitrarily embargoing another country would not have just as many dangerous, foreseeable consequences.

Amid the back-and-forth over whether Sarah Palin can comprehend complex arguments, an important point in Pat Buchanan’s recent column on Iran was lost. Gasoline sanctions would mean that U.S. and other military forces would be involved in enforcing an embargo on Iran of economically vital supplies, and this would set the U.S. on a path to war. An attempted gasoline embargo would be and would be perceived as an act of war, and it could provoke a response every bit as deadly and significant as military action. People who are calling for gasoline sanctions either don’t understand the consequences of what they’re demanding, or they wish to provoke a war with Iran. Presenting gasoline sanctions as a viable alternative to launching military strikes is at best misleading. The main difference between the two is that gasoline sanctions may put Iran in the position of firing first, which will allow Washington to pretend that its own aggressive policies were not responsible for causing the conflict that follows.