Hypothetical questions, hypothetical answers.

After the attacks on Pearl Harbour, over 100,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated and interned at “War Relocation Camps”. After an attack on American soil by an enemy power, enemy-nationals could no longer be trusted.

Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt testified to congress that people of Japanese ancestry “are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty… It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty…”

Military necessity was used as justification. Japan’s wartime spy program contributed to heightening American suspicions – the cases of Velvalee Dickinson, the Tachibana spy wing and the Nihau incident made Americans doubt their 1/18th ethnically Japanese neighbours. It became anti-American to have Japanese roots.

The historical analogy, of course has flaws. An Iranian-orchestrated sleeper cell attack on American soil would not equate to Pearl Harbour. Neither would an Israeli attack on Iran, followed by an Iranian sleeper cell attack on America, followed by an American war on Iran, amount to another world war. Yet, Iran’s belief in asymmetric warfare would be unwise to underestimate. It is in the Islamic Republic’s interest to exaggerate such information, and in the opposition’s interest to believe it. Nevertheless, a roused sleeper cell, whether in London or Washington would instill fear in the West.

But this would not be the end in this hypothetical chain of events. Iranian American’s would become distrusted and anti-American. There may not be lynching’s in Bel Air among the Persian Palaces, but the lessons of the Japanese internment camps are much more telling than the social prejudice and racial profiling that came as a consequence of September 11th. Iranian American’s will become not just potential terrorists from a radical group that transcends borders, but potential agents of a foreign enemy government on American soil, dangerous precisely because they would have already infiltrated American society.

Hypothetically speaking, if Seymour Hersh is right and George W. Bush does want a courageous legacy of saving Iran, or if Israel fears a liberal Obama will abandon them in their plight, and attacks Iran while Mr. Bush is still in office, McCain’s chances at the presidency skyrocket. And with another four years of Republican government with Iran as enemy number one, arguments such as those put forth by Michelle Malkin in In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in WWII and the War on Terror, will become a lot more acceptable.