Illogical Argument 1: It would have happened anyway.

According to Bret Stephens in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, the fifth of seven incorrect beliefs about Iran is that "The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within." Although Bret Stephens argues against its validity, I find it a very powerful argument.  The most compelling part is its results.  The world or lets face it, the United States no longer has any need to waste resources on containing Iran.  Its current dangerous regime will be destroyed without one loss of life or one more penny being spent.

When I read that about Iran, I realized that I had recently read that about the Civil War.  According to Webb Garrison's book The Lincoln No One Knows, there were a couple similar arguments in the middle of the 19th century.  There was the theory that the South could not sustain itself and would eventually rejoin the union without the need for war and there was the theory that prevailed for most of the Civil War that slavery was a dying institution.  The idea that slavery would eventually end apparently goes back to before the Declaration of Independence.  It was wither Webb or Garry Wills in his book on James Madison that believes the founders wrote the Declaration envisioning that the country would one day be slave free.  Is this revisionist history?  I'm not sure, but now we now that slavery did not end until a war was fought.

I've heard the similar argument made in hindsight about World War II, Vietnam, Korea, and both Iraq wars.  It is an argument that can be made on just about any topic, big or small.  Is it ever true?  Maybe, but I'm having trouble giving it any credibility right now.  Even if it has some truth, it certainly delays the event in question.  That delay has to have some costs associated with them.