 |
May 09, 2006To Engage or Not to Engage.......that is the question. I'm leaning engagement, as are thinking Republicans like Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel (I'd take these guys policy prescriptions on Iran over, say, Mark Steyns--any day of the week, and then some). The Iranian position in the Middle East has been greatly strengthened these past years, not least because of U.S. interventions in Iraq and (less noticed) Afghanistan. From Herat to Basra, Baghdad to Beirut, Najaf to Gaza City--greater Iranian influence is being felt. That's not to say there is some inexorable Shi'a crescent that is about to imperil the governing classes in places like Amman or Beirut. That's not to say that Iran has become the indisputable regional hegemon (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and, of course, Israel (as Shimon Peres appropriately reminded recently), all have many cards to play too). That's not to say that Bush needs to leap to attention and pen a ditty in reponse to his new disingenuous pen-pal (who appears even wordier than BD!). But, at a time of our choosing and in a fashion and forum we devise in our own time, we very likely need to start talking to the Iranians. Whether we begin via a limited, strictly demarcated set of issues, or put all major strategic matters on the table, we can think about and debate and finesse in the coming weeks and months. But at some point I'm hard-pressed to see how we avoid talking with the Iranians period. Bottom line: the Iranians have become players, and chiming on about just bombing them into submission isn't going to get us anywhere, save maybe on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Put simply, this is another major foreign policy issue crying out for adult attention, fresh thinking, and less knee-jerk posturing. Are we up to it? Or are we just going to continue to let the rhetoric hot up, go the fictitious UN route (who seriously believes the Chinese and Russians will sign-on to use of force against Iran?), and continue to pretend the Euro-3 have a compelling action plan on Iran? Sanctions, of course, are another matter. I prefer sanctions that are specifically targeted at the regime leadership, such as freezing regime-specific assets and restricting travel of Ahmadi-Nejad and his closest conspirators. This smarts in a personal manner, while wider sanctions will likely create a feeling of solidarity among the Iranian public, and cause oil prices to go to (increasingly) unacceptable levels to boot. That said, sanctions could well strengthen the so-called conservative pragmatists like Rafsanjani (a relatively positive development), and so it's no great leap of imagination to suspect Ahmadi-Nejad would start sounding less pugnacious if a cohesive UNSC sanctions regime were put in place. He'd be under more pressure, to be sure. But would this really further our aim of ensuring Iran (especially one led by this radical regime) did not got its hands on nuclear weapons? I'm not so sure. Which gets us back to the need to probably talk, if even sanctions likely won't do the trick and realistic military options are, to say the least, elusive (and even if they work, they probably only set back Iranian aspirations for several years, rather than permanently scuttle them). Look, this isn't some plea to plop down on couches in Geneva for feel-good Bush-Ahmadi-Nejad summitry. We're not there yet, to say the least. But, at some point, we are going to need to talk to the Iranians, directly. No, not in some chimerical quest for some rosy 'Grand Bargain'. But to begin to sketch forth a sober, serious strategic dialogue on key issues. Maybe down the road a bit James Baker and Richard Holbrooke could go on a joint mission to Teheran, as empowered special envoys, to feel out the terrain (I'm being a tad facetious, but...). Well, here's dreaming. In the meantime, don't miss Chuck Hagel in the FT recently (click through the CFR link at the top of this post). He's making sense. For instance, he makes the too infrequently heard cautionary note that we should be careful not to alienate the next generation of Iranians. The 'bombs away' crowd loves to tell us how 70% or such of Iranians are under 30 (the message is: they're hip, they're young, they're like us, they dig hip-hop, and so on). But how would they react when the bombs start dropping? I suspect the Westernized youth of Teheran would get mighty nationalistic in quite a hurry, to say the least. Nor is 70MM of democracy promotion cash (a piddling sum, is this some small condo development in Ft. Lauderdale?) going to change the tides of history. So, yes, we need fresh thinking. Likely, we need to work towards defining a "package of issues" on Iran, as Hagel puts it. Would that more party elders had the balls, brains and mojo to speak up along such lines too. Sadly, most of them are dim wannabes like Frist and Allen. They're mostly clueless about foreign policy (Republican John Edwardses, if you will), and have a hugely simplistic, cartoonified response to whatever crisis of the day. This might earn them plaudits in VDH/Krauthammer land, but it's not serious, and it's not going to solve the Iran crisis. Posted by Gregory at May 9, 2006 12:30 PM | TrackBack (0)Comments
So, Greg, what do you want out of talks with Tehran? What is your set of objectives? What do you think the Iranians want? Are you prepared to end the talks you wish to start now if each side's objectives prove incompatible, or is keeping them going in itself an important objective? Are you prepared to insist on strict reciprocity from the Iranians, or do you anticipate making concessions in the hope that this will make the Tehran government feel less insecure and hostile? It seems to me that responsible, "adult" diplomacy starts by having an answer to all of these questions. Iran, for better or worse, is not some small backwater country where we can open a risk-free dialog because there are no pressing issues or critical disagreements to be dealt with. You've called for fresh thinking; how about it? Posted by: Zathras at May 9, 2006 02:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
Z: Our store of information about Iran is abysmal. We have had no diplomatic relations with them since 1979. If we talk, we'll at least get some information on what they are thinking, what they really want, and perhaps a little bit of what they are willing to do to get it. So, for that matter, will Tehran. Talks will give Iran a victory. No question. The Axis of Evil will have forced the Great Satan to the bargaining table. But, right now, the Bush admin is functioning at even more than their usual level of utter cluelessness. How can that not be dangerous? It does strike me that Iran, with it's rampaging leader and mullah veto power, is probably not that far distant from the old Soviet Union on how things really operate. That means they are long on the revolutionary rhetoric, but probably less concerned about formenting revolution abroad (or making Tel Aviv radioactive) than is generally assumed. But that's a guess. Talks need not reach conclusion. (See Palestinian talks.) Particularly if they are maintained at a low level. But it may be time to think about diplomatic relations. Not for them, but for us. And that, perhaps, is a good, harmless "goal" for any talks we have. Posted by: Appalled Moderate at May 9, 2006 03:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
Engage or not? Is there really a choice? Does any sane person anywhere favor putting Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush in charge of another war? Unfortunately, Bush is the decider so the entire world is pretty much screwed. Posted by: Shalimar at May 9, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink to this comment
Talks play into Tehran hands as the master of stall tactics. More time to make a bomb while continuing to paint the U.S. as the bad guys. Europe recently threw in the towel on talks. Now it is our turn? The real question is what do we do when Iran gets the bomb, or gets to the edge? Will Israel allow it? Can they stop it? With out us? This is going to get real nasty. No matter who is President. Blaming Bush and Rummy is naïve. Islamist are the problem, you better stay focused.
"(I'd take these guys policy prescriptions on Iran over, say, Mark Steyns--any day of the week, and then some). " I've never understood the urge of many on the right to take foreign policy advise from a film critic. I'd add in Rod Dreher to that mix. It just doesn't make sense. Perhaps it's just a matter of the right hating hollywood and therefore any critic of hollywood must be some kind of Mensa. Posted by: Davebo at May 9, 2006 05:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sure Greg. Talks for the sake of talks. Hand the Iranians a huge victory. Sure worked with Kim Jong Il, now, didn't it? That "Agreed Framework" sure kept the Bomb out of the Chia Pet's hands, eh? All the time the DPRK used that period as cover to build calutrons, accelerators, and perfect their own homegrown uranium bombs. Ooops. And Greg, now you think the Iranians just want to sit down and talk? Not when they get us in the bazaar.... I thought you had at lest that much figured out. "Adult diplomacy" my ass. You're just caving to the Iranian "bad mojo" act. Jesus wept. Posted by: section9 at May 9, 2006 06:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
"the message is: they're hip, they're young, they're like us, they dig hip-hop, and so on" Not just hip-hop, but also good ol' country. I recall, several years ago, a BBC World Service weekly pop music show where a teen girl from Iran wrote in and requested a Shania Twain song. Posted by: Jon H at May 9, 2006 06:24 PM | Permalink to this comment
extremely weak and feckless take, more like a MoveOn.org press release than a thoughtful look at this issue of what to do with Iran. Listen to Chuck Hagel? Bad idea. he's all over the map on any given day and is fundamentally untrustworthy on nearly every vital issue being debated today. the country is much better off with Chuck Hagel nowhere near a position of responsibility. He is an embarrassment to the Cornhusker state, though it pains me to say that coz all the Nebraskans I know are solid citizens. Sitting around Teheran sipping green tea with Imajihadwhackjob Richard Holbrooke and Kofi Annan talking about how the USA has failed to implement Kyoto, while the centrifuges spin and spin and spin?? Uh.... Yet another blanket assertion that people who want to make sure that Iran lives up to its promises to stop enriching uranium are "bombs away" descendents of Curtis LeMay and therefore free to be dismissed as "dim wannabes"??? Yawn. show me ONE Democrat on the national secene who has yet said ONE constructive thing about how to deal with Iran in the REAL WORLD. And, no, calling Bush a thecon puppet warmonger who lives to throw megatons around like bales of hay doesnt count as constructive. Posted by: CWB at May 9, 2006 06:31 PM | Permalink to this comment
Yeah, yeah, the Agreed Framework didn't work out. The other option was WHAT, exactly? Millions dead from artillery fire in Seoul when we attacked? Essentially, Belgravia is making a serious point and you're all responding with "B-But... that's not a perfect solution! It's not neat and tidy!" No shit? That's what Belgravia meant, I think, by "Foreign Policy Grownups" - or at least, what I mean by it. People who recognize that THERE IS NO PERFECT SOLUTION. That, among other things, we may not be able to stop Iran from getting nukes. The Soviets had a shitload of nukes. So does China. The world marched onward. Grownups deal with the world as it is, not the world as they'd like it to be. Prattling on about how "Islamofascists are the real enemy" - Gee, as if we'd forgotten! - is technically accurate but does nothing of any use. War with Iran is a losing proposition. If you really want to fight Islamofascism through your contributions to blogosphere comment sections, come up with some good and novel plans on Iran that involve exactly 0 bombs being used. Hint: Whatever you can come up with, someone else has probably already considered it. There are no great options. Posted by: Joe at May 9, 2006 06:34 PM | Permalink to this comment
Talks play into Tehran hands as the master of stall tactics. More time to make a bomb while continuing to paint the U.S. as the bad guys. Every estimate says there is no way Iran has a bomb until several years after Bush is out of office. Stalling is probably the only option available other than letting Bush do something stupid, which he inevitably will if his administration takes the lead on this. Posted by: Shalimar at May 9, 2006 06:49 PM | Permalink to this comment
Yes, those simpletons VDH and Krauthammer. Those children. Look there's a reasonable argument why the Hagel approach is a better way forward for our Iran policy. I'm skeptical, as I think that Hagel vastly underestimates the fecklessness of some of our European allies. Still...I must say that BD has sort of degenerated into condescension as a foreign policy philosophy. Posted by: Tim Schultz at May 9, 2006 06:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
To change course slightly, I think the letter from Ahmadinejad suggests that there is in fact an opening for dialogue. Posted by: Guy at May 9, 2006 07:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
The question here, in a rational world, would be, what use we could have for the Iranian "approach" as hostile as it is. Kennedy chose what to read into Khruchev letters during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But of course, as we are either hoping for a conflict or measuring our penises, we can safely reject whatever will come out of Teheran, forget Kennedy and Truman or Eisenhower and Reagan for that matter. Let the "decider" to "decide". Posted by: llwyd at May 9, 2006 07:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
The world isn't a Hollywood movie and anyone who claims to have studied history (as Bush has) should know that discussion/methods of communication between nations and political players has been, on the whole, more productive than non-discussion. Sheesh, to read some of the commentators here, you'd think we're asking Bush to negotiate with the Devil or something.... My main caveat is considering Bush and his entourage don't understand the benefits of diplomacy and are absolutely lousy at it, they'll manage to screw this one up as well. But what is the alternative? Message communication through declarative proclamation with a few bomb attacks on Tehran thrown in? Yeah, that'll be a great way of winning hearts and minds. And anyone who wants to bomb-and-not-negotiate, please answer the following questions: Why do I get a funny feeling of a replay up to WWI..... Posted by: tzs at May 9, 2006 07:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
Less than 30 years ago brazil wanted their own steel plant. They had coal and lime and iron ore, and they sold the iron ore to get shipped to the USA to be turned into steel. They wanted to do it themselves. There was an element of national pride in it. But nobody would sell them a steel mill, or help them build one. Their pride was hurt. They wanted a 10 mtd plant, and after years of looking they finally found a german company that would build them a 2 mtd plant. They started making their own steel along with the koreans etc, and the bottom fell out of the market, and probably the nations that make steel now tend to subsidise it for their national pride or something. Now iran has uranium ore and they want to make their own reactors etc. National pride. We want to be absolutely sure they don't make nukes, and any method that would make us absolutely sure about that will hurt their national pride. In the long run we have to either accept a chance that they'll make nukes, or else go to war. Going to war anytime soon to stop iran from getting nukes is a lot like starting a war with brazil back then to stop them from getting steel plants and wrecking our steel industry. Nonproliferation is dead regardless if we pick off a couple of early adapters. We're going to face multiple new nuclear powers whatever we do about iran. Spending a trillion dollars or so to delay iran's nuclear problem is probably not a good investment. Apart from any issues of international law and issues of sanity etc. But if we don't start a war over it, what can we do with negotiation? What can we offer iran that they would want more than the pride of processing their own uranium? The only way we can stop iran from processing their own uranium is to invade iran and occupy it for as long as we want to stay in control. That would cost a lot of money and it would almost certainly require a draft that would be maintained as long as we occupy iran, that is, for the indefinite future. Alternatively, we could occupy iraq for the foreseeable future, and occasionally bomb anything in iran that looks like it might be a nuclear site, whenever we choose to, until we make a mistake in the wrong direction and iran gets some nukes. Once we attack them for trying to process uranium, they're definitely going to try to get nukes. Wouldn't you, if the tables were turned? Meanwhile, while we're pinned down in iraq and iran (and afghanistan), brazil and argentina will be getting nukes. They might nuke each other. If they don't, they're going to be hard to intimidate. Would mexico build nukes? Would we invade mexico to stop them? If we didn't, how would we feel about three new nuclear powers in the western hemisphere, all ready to throw their weight around? While we squeeze our economy to put armies halfway around the world to stop nukes there? The idea is just insane. Nonproliferation is dead and we're stuck with that. Of course, the Bush administration could again be using the possibility of nukes to justify another invasion when that isn't what they care about. But it doesn't really matter why they do things, the important thing is that there are a lot of crazy people in the USA who are so insistent that iran not get nukes that they're ready to support a senseless war. There might be some kind of possibility from negotiations. Bush could gain by it, he could claim later that he did everything he possibly could to avoid war before the attack. Like last time. And if somehow the whole thing could be stretched out until Bush and Cheney are out of office, then we might avoid this particular war. But if we somehow keep them from their war, the crazies will blame us for it. Some of them want this war more than anything.
Iran is run by Islamo-Hitlers. You must destroy Hitlers or you are Chamberlain. Is that what you are? Chamberlain?
Iran is run by Islamo-Hitlers. You must destroy Hitlers or you are Chamberlain. Is that what you are? Chamberlain?
I was vehemently against the Iraq misadventure from the start, but with Iran and NK I have always felt we should take a stronger hand. The biggest problem with Iraq was precisely this: it weakened our position considerably with respect to much bigger threats which we should have kept under control: NK and Iranian nuclear ambitions. The Clinton strategy, while it didn't completely stop NK from continuing their program, did slow it down considerably. Clinton threatened to bomb the NK nuclear facility if they didn't comply --- something Bush didn't have the balls to do because he was worried it might distract us from his idiotic Iraq invasion. So, lo and behold --- NK has the bomb, and Iran isn't afraid of us. I think we may eventually have no choice but to threaten to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities --- but we could have threatened it from a position of strength, but instead we are in a situation where we have no good options. Talks with Iran without significant meaningful threats would be pointless --- they would achieve little or nothing without the credible threat of force, because Iran is currently being run by fanatics. The one reason to avoid military confrontation with Iran is that they're not yet close to having a bomb --- but they may be in a matter of years, and we need to take that threat seriously. Unfortunately, given how ineptly Bush has handled everything ... we may actually have to bomb Iran before they take the threat seriously. But we also would need to be prepared for blowback of an immense, long-term sort. Makes you want to tear your hair out, how horrible a situation we've gotten ourselves into over 4 short years of utterly inept policy. Posted by: Mitsu at May 9, 2006 08:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
One thing the neos are *sort of right* about is that nukes per se are not a problem. Israel has nukes. India has nukes. The United States doesn't worry because we have good relations with Israel and India. (Iran and Pakistan, respectively, worry, because they have bad relations with those countries.) Russia has nukes and China has nukes. We worry, but minimally, because Russia and China are enmeshed in an international order they'd be loath to upend by starting a nuclear war. The problem is bad US-Iranian relations. Nuke anxiety is a symptom of the problem. *Actually talking with the Iranians* offers the prospect of improving relations to the point where it essentially doesn't matter whether they biuld nuclear weapons or "maintain nuclear capability" or what have you. The reason that US-Iranian talks hold a promise that European-Iranian talks don't is that it's the US that can offer Iran things it doesn't already have - an end to sanctions; a security guarantee; influence on the Israeli side of Iranian-Israeli relations. The Europeans already have no enthusiasm for sanctions and no appetite for attacking Iran, and for various reasons no ability to intercede between Iran and Israel. So talks are a great thing. We talked to Stalin as the Iron Curtain fell. We talked to Kruschev as he banged his shoe. We talked to Mao at the height of the Cultural Revolution. We talked to Brezhnev during the 1973 crisis and we talked to Gorbachev as the Black Berets stormed parliaments along the Baltic. And here we are, none of us nuked. Bonus! Posted by: Jim Henley at May 9, 2006 09:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Iron curtain fell" as in Churchill's original formulation. "Ringing down" as it were. Not the later fall that was the Iron Curtain *crumbling*. Posted by: Jim Henley at May 9, 2006 09:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
Bombing them will only delay the inevitable. Talking to them over a period of years could lead to vastly improved relations.
"That's what Belgravia meant, I think, by "Foreign Policy Grownups" - or at least, what I mean by it. People who recognize that THERE IS NO PERFECT SOLUTION. That, among other things, we may not be able to stop Iran from getting nukes." I do not believe there is a "perfect solution", and I believe military action is the only responsible, adult if you will, alternative. The key question that has to be asked is: "if the Iranians get nukes, will they use them (or give to to someone to use) to kill millions?" It seems to me that if you believe the answer to that question is "yes", military action is the only responsible action. To be clear, if we take military action now, it will involve the deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands on both sides. Also, it may lead to economic turmoil due to a blockade of the straits, $100+ oil per barrel, etc. Again, if the answer to the above question is yes, military action is worth the cost. Better to suffer those evils, and lose only thousands now, then to do nothing and by our inaction permit millions to die in the future. Imagine if it were possible to calculate a mathematical equation that would give a "score" for taking or not taking military action. I agree, the "score" for taking military action may be negative, say -20 for example. Some would look at that and say "you see, there are too many negatives, we can't take action." But what it the score for not taking military action and permitting future use of nukes by Iran is -100. In that case, you take the lesser of two evils. To suggest that all those who support military action are not "grownups" or believe in "perfect solutions" is inaccurate. Equating "engage Iran" with responsible action assumes that Iran is run by classic state actors that can be deterred, and not fanatics who will use a nuclear umbrella to expand their power and influence over what they see as impotent enemies. That option seems pretty long on wishful thinking to me. As a final aside, this tact appears odd to me as it seems to harken back to the good old days of the Cold War. "See, we can coexist with a nuclear-armed enemy and not get involved in military action, they will eventually collapse under their own weight." This seems to gloss over too much history to me. The Cold War was not as stable as that suggests, nor was the collapse of the Soviet Union a certainty. To suggest that we follow that approach where success was not assured against a nation that may not be comparable to the Soviet Union in motivation and behavior does not seem wise to me. Posted by: Vizsla at May 10, 2006 12:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Yes, those simpletons VDH and Krauthammer. Those children. Look there's a reasonable argument why the Hagel approach is a better way forward for our Iran policy. I'm skeptical, as I think that Hagel vastly underestimates the fecklessness of some of our European allies."
Yes, the guys who urged us into Iraq, and talked about re-making the Middle East. They aren't chidren, that's true - they're delusional whackjobs. Posted by: Barry at May 10, 2006 01:20 AM | Permalink to this comment
Vizsla, you're taking as given a few points which are not, in fact, givens. Iran doesn't have The Bomb now, and no reputable estimate gives them one sooner than 3 years. Three years is a long time in politics; for one thing, we'll be rid of Bush in three years. Barring some electoral catastrophe that gives us a Bush-like Administration (George Allen, say), we'll have an Administration that isn't entirely feckless, mendacious, and incompetent. That alone is reason enough to wait before contemplating military action. It passes my understanding how anyone can entrust the Bush Admin with more military adventuring, in light of how thoroughly the Iraq pooch has been screwed. I'd really appreciate hearing how and why you expect Iran to go better than Iraq did - unless, of course, you don't see any problem with how the war/occupation/post-occupation played out, in which case you're probably just as sanguine about the same people and quality of planning being used against Iran. I also question your alternate scenarios, in which the death of tens of thousands (I think you're off by a factor of ten, BTW) and a global depression are prices worth paying to avoid a Nuclear Iran. In this, as with every other pro-military action scenario I've seen, you reckon without international reaction. Perhaps you believe Europe will just wring its collective hands; that China and Russia will content themselves with harsh rhetoric; and that there won't be any serious repercussions from other Arab/Muslim countries, one of which already has The Bomb. I'd be interested in knowing why you believe there won't be any international reaction worth worrying about. I'd also be interested in knowing how a global oil shock, with its economic repercussions, and their ripple effect on agriculture (food supply and prices), transport (of vital goods as well as people), and healthcare (as supplies and medicine become scarse - just as the world is worrying about avian flu) - works out to "not as bad as Iran having nukes" - esp. in view of the fact that Iran doesn't have nukes yet, and is likely years off from getting them. Posted by: CaseyL at May 10, 2006 02:35 AM | Permalink to this comment
Viszla, I can't see how you set your values. Care to share a line item breakdown? Posted by: avedis at May 10, 2006 03:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
The fact that none of you can see that Iraq is just like Germany and Japan after WW2 shows that your commie-islamo-fascist-french-relativist-liberal-reactionary-america-haters! Posted by: Known Unknowns at May 10, 2006 03:21 AM | Permalink to this comment
I think that Chuck Hagel is quite right about Iran. Engagement and a focus on the long term, especially given the current situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror, is the way to go. Posted by: Charlie at May 10, 2006 04:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Its a good post, but I still think it misses the point. Its quite plainly obvious that the US already has many issues that it wants the Iranians to address. Perhaps Greg is hoping that some elder and wiser heads would be the ones to represent the US position when it comes to diplomacy. But the actual goals, even to the Iranians, are so obvious that I myself can hazard a guess, in order of importance: 1/ Stop pursuing nuclear technology
This Tehran Times commentary emphasizes the idea of the letter being an opening. The commentary itself is interesting -- lends itself to the kind of close reading that Pravda and Ivestia used to get in the '70s -- 80s. Does anyone know if the letter has been published in Iran (in the local language)? The Iran English press is not running it, and the Iranian President is not disclosing its contents out of a sense of "Islamic courtesy". Posted by: Appalled Moderate at May 10, 2006 02:55 PM | Permalink to this comment
1/ Stop pursuing nuclear technology Posted by: Jono at May 10, 2006 04:46 AM | Permalink to this comment Jeez, you guys are so naive, that list could apply to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE and any number of Middle Eastern countries. Our alies pump more money into "terrorist" and "anti-semitic" rhetoric than Iran could ever hope to. 10% of Iran is still Jewish. Where have all the Jews gone from our allies, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Posted by: Known Unknowns at May 10, 2006 04:25 PM | Permalink to this comment
When unilateralism doesn't provide the answer you want, insist on multilateralism. When multilateralism isn't providing results, turn to unilateralism. And so turns the Chamberlain merry-go-round. IMHO, Iran has chosen a path that will not be deterred by any combination of diplomacy, sanctions or world denunciation. The mullahs envision benefits greater that any set of non-military actions - the mullahs think long-term. And while many decry our abysmal intelligence capabilities in Iran, they next comment confidently that an Iranian A-bomb is 3, 5 or 10 years away ??? Seems to me that in the nuclear weapons game, one has to assume a worst case scenario. Given that, I predict that the military strike will take place before Nov '08. The first comment on this list is one of the best & asks questions that have yet to be answered. BTW, the war in Iraq has been an incredible success, by any objective standard. Anybody want to guess how many lives were lost over a 3 year period in WWII? WWI? the American Civil War? Posted by: IcePilot at May 10, 2006 07:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this most virulent anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. While Jewish communities in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria have all but vanished, Iran is home to 25,000 - some here say 35,000 - Jews. The Jewish population is less than half the number that lived here before the Islamic revolution of 1979. But the Jews have tried to compensate for their diminishing numbers by adopting a new religious fervor.
The Soviets lost millions of lives in WW2 and won. The Soviets lost relatively less in Afghanistan and lost. American right-wingers believe the laws of logic have a liberal bias.
> BTW, the war in Iraq has been an incredible success, by any objective standard. I can't quite understand what you mean. The purported war was to take two years and a few divisions and cost only a few tens of billions, and set up a prosperous, pro-US democracy, with permanent US bases, and US hands in the oil production, and in the money pot. None of these things seem to have come true, except for US hands in the money pot -- but the idea was more that US hands would be in the Iraqi money pot, than what seems to have happened, which is US hands in the US treasury pot. The war became excruciatingly expensive in terms of both money and propaganda (considering the heavy propaganda losses of the torture scandal, and the apparently rising success in recruiting anti-US and anti-Western Islamic fighters). These various failures appear to consumed US energy so that the supposed war on terror was forgotten, and not much headway was made on actually securing Afghanistan, or making it into a pro-Western stable democracy, or finally cleaning up the al qaeda and Taleban influences in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So I have trouble thinking by what objective standards there has been success. I can imagine that if new standards are invented a posteriori, then these new subjective standards can be bent in appropriate places to call it "success" (this is what they mean by declare victory and give up, I think) -- but that is not quite the same thing.
There are unstated assumptions in what I say, true. I do focus on costs/consequences, true, but I do not believe it is possible to know what all the consequences are. What I tried to state was that, if it were possible to identify them all with perfect knowledge now, I think there would be 2 results: military action would have a number of negative consequences, but not taking military action would have more. As to some specifics mentioned, do I think Europe, Russia or China will decide to take some military action against us to defend Iran. No. No more so than any of those nations in response to our invasion of Iraq, and no more so than Russia did in response to our operations in Kosovo. I just don't see that as a realistic outcome. Its not in their best interests to go to war to stop action against Iran, especially when many of them would privately approve. As for the consequences of military action, I think any actions that Iran could take now in response to military action, while damaging, are far less worse and far preferrable to a nuclear exchange between Iran and Isreal/Europe/US (take you pick), or use of Iranian nuke by a terror organization. Seriously, what is preferrable, oil spiking at $100+ for a time or the annihilation of one or more cities in a nuclear fireball? As for comments about the competency of this administration vs. a hypothetical other, I do not think any amount of words will resolve that dispute. I accept that many believe this administration is incompetent on these matters. I do not share that belief. Moreover, kicking this down the road for someone else to handle seems unwise to me. Why give them more time to develop the weapons and long range delivery systems? The point I was trying to make is that there are no "great" or "magic" solutions here. There is only a choice of the lesser of two evils. My assessment is that military action now is the better path. Posted by: Vizsla at May 10, 2006 08:08 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, the first objective standard is indicated in my post - U.S. lives lost. "The purported war was to take two years and a few divisions and cost only a few tens of billions, and set up a prosperous, pro-US democracy, with permanent US bases, and US hands in the oil production, and in the money pot." I would concede that the war has not gone as predicted, but then, history proves that no group of prognosticators has less credibility than those who predict the outcome of wars in detail. But you lose me when you include US bases/oil production/money pot. I don't recall those particular predictions being made. And if we are to use predictions as a measure, it's only fair to include the predictions of those who opposed the war - hundreds of thousands of US lives lost, an ecological disaster, the Islamic street raising up throughout the Middle East in riots and disaster... Instead, very positive results have come about: And Iraq is slowly, slowly finding it's way towards it's unique brand of liberal democracy. But as slow as it is, it's moving much faster than the US did over 200 years ago. Finally, I think that Iraq IS the war on terror. Better to fight them in one place, thousands of miles from our shores, than here or in the dozen or so countries they've been pulled from around the middle east.
Vizsla, In your original post you say the risk is that Iran will use the bomb against someone. You apparently view this as very likely, or at least sufficiently likely to outwiegh the costs of war. Many others (including myself) disagree, but fair enough. Yet later in the same comment you state that you believe that Iran "will use a nuclear umbrella to expand their power and influence over what they see as impotent enemies." This is a pretty huge shifting of the goalposts. So which is it? Would this extra freedom of movement gained by Iran be enough *all on it's own* to justify a war? Finally, you say that you are in favor of "military action". Why mince words here? This isn't going to go down as a 1-day bombing run. You're calling for war. Posted by: weichi at May 10, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Waiting for diplomacy to 'work' is like Waiting For Godot times two. As others have commented, the Iranians, regardless of whatever modernity they think they have or desire to have, are being dragged into the Caliphate delusion of the Mullahs. I hear no cry for Islamic reform from world wide 'rank and file' Islamic clerics and their congregations; in fact, thei silence is quite loud in this regard. Is this civilizational, national and populist as much as it is religious? Some observations: When reports from smart analysts describe the Egyptian 'Muslim Brotherhood' as 'Moderates', and it is to those moderates we must convince to embrace practical democracy; it's time to get some new smart guys. And, while the entire world chooses to ignore the billions of dollars in Chinese and Russian armament imports traded for oil futures held by Russia and China; we need more serious guys. Our current administration has been chastised for doing too much, not enough and irreparable damage to anything in between. We've witnessed the EU, the UN and IAEA fail time and again, and yet they continue to say more should be done and are once again critical of the US for not doing enough. Has there not been enough brilliant diplomacy practiced by all these wisened organizations? When does anyone intervene? When the rumbling of underground shock waves alert us of a nuclear test? What, then, Gregory? Posted by: Rick at May 10, 2006 11:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
Greg, Your post was not useful. You have no specific proposal to discuss except talking. We don't have all the time in the world on this issue. Iran's president has made it quite clear that they are going to bomb Israel with nuclear weapons when they have the capability. Israel will not wait for that to happen but will do something proactive. Once Israel and Iran are lobbing rockets at each other, the USA (having loads of troops stationed in between Israel and Iran in Iraq) will be sucked into the conflict because Iran will, at the bare minimum, unload as many stealth attacks as possible on our troops in Iraq. Oil prices will double immediately and the subsequent chaos will make the Iraq War look like the good old days. There are no good solutions, it is now time to pick the least worst solution. Iran wants to buy time by talking. Once they get their nuclear capability, our options are reduced tremendously. What we need is a debate over specific proposals. Let me throw out a few: I don't know what the best solution is or if it is even on the list above but I do know that talking with Iran (without proceeding with a much more proactive plan) is worse than useless because it buys time for the Iranians to finish their work on their nuclear weapons. BTW, Chuck Hegel has always seemed like a stupid blowhard to me and Mark Steyn seems like a really cool, smart guy who is, at the bare minimum, really funny. Mark is definitely smarter and more honest than the average USA senator. Posted by: Steve at May 11, 2006 12:13 AM | Permalink to this comment
Talks with Iran without significant meaningful threats would be pointless --- they would achieve little or nothing without the credible threat of force, because Iran is currently being run by fanatics. Mitsu, you have a point. And in precise symmetry, for iran talks with the USA are pointless because they have no credible threat of force against the USA which is also currently being run by fanatics. There's no point trying for negotiations until we can get some adults involved. Can we get somebody responsible involved in less than 3 years? Quite possibly. Assume that Republicans maintain control of the House and Senate in 2006. They will be looking ahead to 2008. To have a reasonable hope in 2008 they must dump Bush. They would prefer to avoid an acrimonious impeachment, but by persuading Bush and Cheney that they'll do that if they have to, they can force them to step down. A new President is appointed who will have a giant advaintage runnig in 2008. He pardons Bush and Cheney and all the aides who haven't provided evidence yet, and classifies the intermediate result of any investigations that might be in progress, and gets to work setting up a foreign policy that mainstream republicans and independents can support. We might get some progress by February 2007.
Greg, you talk as if the choice is between talking and bombing. I agree we should engage Iran, but the difference between the Krauthammer/VDH/Steyn group you lampoon and the Hagel/Djerejian group is the difference between those who believe that Iran's main goal is to get nukes, vs. those who believe that Iran is just using the nuclear issue to extract something else, like US engagement or other concessions.
"The very reason that people like Steyn (and me) are skeptical about the fruitfulness of talks, is because the history of the Iranian clerical regime is that they view the very purpose of their nation to spread radical Islamism....They view the nuclear weapon as a means top en end, but not any end that the West can accept." I actually don't disagree with you that Iran's top foreign policy priority is to "spread radical Islam" - they've said so themselves, after all. What I can't figure out is how getting a nuclear bomb accompishes that. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and that hasn't caused any countries to become more Islamic than they were, or more radical than they were. I also can't make the connection between Iran's using a nuclear bomb and exporting radical Islamism. Assume that Iran gets a nuke, and uses it: the consequences for nuking anyone would be swift and devastating to Iran, and hardly conducive to its being able to export anything, much less theocracy. (BTW: the consequences for anyone nuking anyone are bound to be swift and devastating. Using nukes is the only international taboo still standing. That's why the Bush Admin's suggestion that it might nuke Iran are completely insane.) Actually, there is one major event in the last few years that did transform what had been a secular state into an Islamic one. That major event happens to be the US invasion and occupation of Iraq - because the US had no plans on how to prevent Iraq from collapsing into chaos, and no plans on how to put the pieces together again, and allowed a power vacuum to result, in which the only stabilizing influences left to work with were Iraq's religious leaders. That the invasion of Iraq itself radicalized the Arab Muslim world is a point which cannot reasonably be argued. It is also very difficult to argue the point that the invasion of Iraq strengthened, rather than weakened, international terrorism. The Bush Admin claims that, in the aftermath of an attack on Iran, Iranians would "greet us as liberators," and spontaneously rise up against their Islamic overlords. The Bush Admin said the same thing about Iraq, and was wrong about that. I believe the Bush Admin will be wrong, again, in its assessment of Iran's reaction to a military attack - of any kind, much less an nuclear attack. I have seen and heard nothing that leads to me to believe an attack on Iran will be any more well thought out, any better planned, or any more successful than the war in Iraq has turned out to be. I have seen and heard nothing that leads me to believe the Bush Admin has spent any more time or effort on contemplating consequences (unintended or predictable), regional and international reactions, or worst-case scenarios, in its plans to attack Iran than it did in planning the war in Iraq. What do you see, or hear, that leads you to believe differently? Posted by: CaseyL at May 11, 2006 02:20 AM | Permalink to this comment
icepilot wrote: And Iraq is slowly, slowly finding it's way towards it's unique brand of liberal democracy. Odd that you put these comments back to back. Palestine is closer to liberal democracy than Iraq. And of course, the veil has been removed from the religiously fundamentalist face of Iraq's Shia leadership. Posted by: Guy at May 11, 2006 02:20 AM | Permalink to this comment
DFV wrote: Substitute "Soviet" for "Iranian" and "Communism" for "Islamism", and the question becomes whether we're in 1925 or 1955. So what happens if I'm right? Then talks with Iran will produce nothing because Iran will allow nothing to stop their nuclear program. Then what? Then we haven't lost anything at all. FWIW, Israel's National Security Advisor today said that Iran is unlikely to share nuclear weapons with Islamic terrorists. Posted by: Guy at May 11, 2006 02:30 AM | Permalink to this comment
Weichi, I am not trying to mince words, I am trying to be precise in my wording. I favor whatever military action will succeed in the goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Invasion, bombing, whatever. If you wish to substitute my "military action" for "war" I will bite. Whatever you want to call it, military action, bombing, war, invasion, that is what I am for. As for the other point, I may have been imprecise in the original post. The point I was trying to get across is what I see: If Iran develops nuclear weapons it will cost the world millions of dead. Likely from use of those weapons (either directly against say, Isreal, or indirectly by funnelling them to terror groups) that would take place based upon the perceived freedom of action it perceives due to its nuclear umbrella. Put it another way, a nuclear umbrella will, in my estimation, embolden Iran to take such action because it may believe it can either win a limited exchange (in the geographical sense) or that no one will or will want to trace the terror group's nuke to Iran and use nukes themselves. As for the idea of a nation thinking it can win an exchange of nuclear weapons, see, at least, thinking among some in the US military during the Cold War. Do I think Iran would survive in such an event? No. But do I think Iran believes it could? Yes. And that is precisely what makes them dangerous. Posted by: Vizsla at May 11, 2006 03:44 AM | Permalink to this comment
"if this were a poker game we haven't even got a pair". Yo, we're talking about the USA here, are we? And we don't even have a pair? Oh really? What kind of demential mind-warp would even begin to lead you to make this assertion? We have the largest, most powerful military on the planet, we have the strongest economy, and we have the most effective, just form of self-government in existence... and we don't even have a pair? Look, if you had said "we haven't even got a pair ... of balls", I'd agree with you. That might be the problem. Indeed, given our strengths, and our ability to flick Iran out of existence, like you might flick away navel lint, the fact that we find ourselves convinced that we're in a hard place, and the fact that anyone walking upright would seriously consider Chuck Hagel, well ... there you go. Defintely, we now live in a testicle-free zone. 444, dude. That's how many days these dispensable morons held us hostage... and that was light years before GWB was a blip on the political radar. We've been simpering and wimping in front of these monsters since Jimmy Carter. And, your solution, after all of this is to (wait for it) "talk to them"? For the record, you don't need a pair to win at poker. But, if you don't have "a pair" and you do want to win, you do need a big pair ... of balls. Unfortunately, pious pontificating tends to deflate them, not grow them. Oh, and finally ... if we follow your advice, and it turns out wrong, there are going to be an awful lot of dead jews as a result of it. Doesn't the possibility of that bother you in the least?
It doesn’t matter what mutha’freakin’ hand you got. If you’re an idiot player, you are going to lose! If you don’t play it, you don’t win. You could brag and talk shit all you want about the great hand YOU COULD HAVE PLAYED IF ONLY YOU WEREN”T TO CHICKEN SHIT OR STUPID TO PLAY IT. Great nations with great militaries and oh so beautiful cultural artifacts were done in by a tribe of barbarians, because “the great culture” had idiot leadership. American right-wingers talk a gang of shit at the table with wonderful hands, but they just do not have the strategic sense to know when to play them.
Vizsla, Thanks for the reply. I still think your point is a little confused. You are saying that obtaining nuclear weapons will embolden Iran to ... use nuclear weapons? This is a strange way to put things. It's not like the lack of nuclear umbrella is preventing Iran from using nuclear weapons today; what's preventing them from using nuclear weapons today is that fact that they don't have any. If Iran develops nuclear weapons it will cost the world millions of dead. Likely from use of those weapons Why do you say "likely"? How could Iran possible kill millions of people *without* using nuclear weapons? Surely your point is that Iran *will* use those weapons. And of course that is exactly the point of contention. I think the chance of Iran using nuclear weapons, against Israel or anyone else, is vanishingly small, hence I think war is folly. You apparently think their use is *certain*; with that belief, I guess I would support war too. I'd probably even sign up myself. As for the idea of a nation thinking it can win an exchange of nuclear weapons, see, at least, thinking among some in the US military during the Cold War. There's a big different between someone with no actual authority or responsibility believing this, and between people with actual power believing it. There's also a big difference between believing that you can win a nuclear exchange, and between deciding that it is a good idea to initiate a nuclear exchange. I guess the question is who would have the power in Iran to launch a nuclear strike, and what do *they* believe? But do I think Iran believes it could? Yes. And that is precisely what makes them dangerous. I assume you're referring to this portion of the Rafsanjani speech from a few years ago: If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world. What do you think of the alternate interpretation of his remarks (offered by Jim Henley in comments here): that he was pointing out that an Iranian nuclear umbrella would have the effect of reducing *Israel's* (and the US's) freedom of movement? I find this argument persuasive. Why would he use the word "stalemate" to describe the destruction of Israel? Furthermore, he is saying that the "Muslim world" will survive, not Iran itself. I guess I should say that I do view the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran as a bad thing - in fact a very bad thing - in part because of the freedom of movement they will thus gain, and in part because of general proliferation concerns. But I don't think this outcome is bad enough to justify war; in my view the bad outcomes of war would be even worse. Posted by: weichi at May 11, 2006 05:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
One of the most difficult things for me is trying to figure out how to deal with the boy who cried wolf syndrome. Bush swore that he had unshakeable secret evidence that Iraq had/was building nuclear and chemical weapons, and that we had to trust him and invade as soon as possible. Then we found out he was lying deliberately. Now he says Iran is about to build nuclear weapons, and his sycophants (apologists? whatever you call them) say we must trust him and invade as soon as possible. How do you evaluate the credibility this time? I mean, just because he lied about this exact thing in this exact way last time, does NOT prove he is lying about it this time. But...
It's not particularly likely that talks with Iran are going to convince them to give up nuclear weapons. They want a guarantee of not being bombed, invaded, or bullied, and I doubt we could really offer them one they'd believe. Nor should they. Having said that, it's not impossible. The chance of the Iranian government using nuclear weapons, on the other hand, is essentially nil, until they come up with a way of not being annihilated in return, and they haven't. People who believe that the Iranians are as crazy as their PR releases are as naive as the fools in the Arab street who believe the Iranians might actually wipe Israel away. The Iranians know exactly what they want: survival and power. Just like every government in the region (and, I might add, the world): that's why no one has attempted to invade Israel recently - because they would gain nothing and suffer heavily. Crazy is a good tactic to rouse your base. Another name for it is demagoguery. It doesn't become real unless you have the power to implement it, and the Iranians don't, and they have no prospects of gaining it. Hitler didn't invade France in 1933, either, for rather similar reasons. Realpolitik enough for you? Attacking Iran plays directly into the hands of radical Islam and, prolongs, aggravates, and, to get to the point, loses the war on terror. If we had the power to control and end radical islam through the pure use of force without unacceptable costs to ourselves, we would already have done so. Enough said.
Glasnost, we agree again. But here is an additional take: In reviewing the above commentary, there is both a strong thread of all-or-nothing and a pervasive premise that unless talks promise a complete solution, they should be rejected. On top of those flaws, the extreme political polarity rears its head in every exchange. Let us cool our jets for a moment and consider that a multi-track approach could make a lot of sense even if we can’t identify all of the tracks at the moment. To demand that Greg provide a complete, all encompassing solution to the Iranian problem is simply asking too much of him, or for that matter anyone. Consider how sparse the public debate on this subject has been. Do we see the Dems and the GOP squaring off on this one? Hardly. So lets walk before we run. I am reminded from my youth of the pictures of Kruchev and I believe Kennedy with the red telephones – the hotlines of the day and I understand that they were used from time-to-time. One might say that was the first step that ultimately lead to the demise of the Soviet Union. We have lots of things to talk about. How about food? Medicine? Help for some sick Iranian children. Opening of airwaves. Allowing some American publications to be translated into Farsi and vice versa. How about some student exchanges? How about being quite public in proposing discussion of these kinds of non-controversial issues. I read that satellite dishes are sprouting all over Iran and that Iranians are listening to Western radio and watching Western TV. What about focusing the talks on areas that would appeal to the disenchanted Iranian youth (and adults) to reinforce the idea that America is not the Great Satan and being very public about these approaches. What a great negotiating strategy to talk about everything but the nukes. We have some time. And, if in the process, we win some hearts and minds, so much the better. That is not to say that the more pressing geo-political issues should not be on the table, but if we take the position that they are not urgent to us, we invite the response that expresses a greater urgency on the part of the Iranian powers that be. Diplomacy is an art and the art is to achieve indirectly what one cannot achieve directly. I would have responded to the letter a bit differently. “We welcome the communication. The misunderstandings that we have over its contents shows the damage that our estrangement has caused. Perhaps we do not trust each other to speak about the earth shattering issues, but let us start with some smaller items and see how we do.” The world would turn its collective head toward the Iranian end of the court for sure. A great power can afford to take some risks. Is it not possible that the world would see such a response as constructive and would be focused on what transpired? Would that not put the ball in the Iranian court? Step by step is the way great things are done. I don’t think the candidates suggested by Greg are the best, but there are surely persons who could carry the first waves of discussions without the baggage of prior administrations (or this one for that matter). Boys and girls, it is time to think outside of the box. Michael
Anyone who takes Lugar and Hagel seriously wouldn't know "fresh thinking" if it kicked him in the face. Posted by: andrew at May 11, 2006 06:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
"Essentially, Belgravia is making a serious point and you're all responding with "B-But... that's not a perfect solution! It's not neat and tidy!" No shit? That's what Belgravia meant, I think, by "Foreign Policy Grownups" - or at least, what I mean by it. People who recognize that THERE IS NO PERFECT SOLUTION."
There are unstated assumptions in what I say, true. I do focus on costs/consequences, true, but I do not believe it is possible to know what all the consequences are. What I tried to state was that, if it were possible to identify them all with perfect knowledge now, I think there would be 2 results: military action would have a number of negative consequences, but not taking military action would have more. Vizsla, I agree that we don't know the consequences. You imagine that the negative consequences of not starting a war of agression now would be worse than the consequences of becoming the aggressors now. But you don't know, you only suppose that. As to some specifics mentioned, do I think Europe, Russia or China will decide to take some military action against us to defend Iran. No. No more so than any of those nations in response to our invasion of Iraq, and no more so than Russia did in response to our operations in Kosovo. I just don't see that as a realistic outcome. Well, you're considering the worst case if we don't attack now. The worst case is that iran gets a fission bomb within (say) 3 years, and they bomb some city resulting in perhaps hundreds of thousands of casualties, and in response we nuke iran resulting in around 70 million iranian casualties plus around a million in iraq and 2 million in turkey and a few hundred million in afghanistan etc from edge effects and unintended side effects etc. This is not realistic. It's unreasonable to think iran would do that, and it's unreasonable to think we'd respond that way. But it's possible. You should consider the worst case if we do attack. Here it comes -- suppose that iran has been negotiating with russia and china for mutual defense pacts. They have things those countries want, at some price a deal might have been made by now. But not announced yet. And we go blustering about how we're about to attack, and russia or china (or both) warns us off, and we proceed anyway, and what with one blunder and another we wind up in a global thermonuclear exchange that kills everybody. This latter is not really a realistic outcome, but neither is yours. If we look at worst cases, the worst case of attacking now is far worse than not attacking.
In war, there's no substitute for victory. What's our victory plan for iran? We don't intend to win and occupy iran and establish a puppet government. We don't intend to do anything that would get the iranian government to surrender. Where's the victory? Here's the only plan I've heard about. We bomb the iranian air defenses, and then critical military installations and government centers, and we bomb the known nuclear sites (spreading radioactivity), and maybe we send in teams to try to assassinate iranian government leaders, and then we pull out. The iranians, angry at their government for making us attack, revolt. They invade themselves and their government surrenders to themselves and they set up their own puppet government for us. Does this plan seem at all plausible? Well, how about if we decide to just stop bombing them and declare the war is over? They can't do anything to us so that means the war is over. How's that for a plan? No, that's idiotic. That might work for, say, costa rica. We could do airstrikes on costa rica and after we're done all they can do is hope we don't come back for awhile. But that isn't a war, that's an exercise. After we attack iran we're going to be at war with them for the indefinite future. We have no credible victory plan. OK, how about if we send the kurds in to take the kurdish parts of iran away and add them to kurdistan. If we're lucky the iranians won't think about us, they'll be at war with kurdistan for the indefinite future, and we can sit back and supply arms to the kurds and watch the slaughter. We can do things to help like declare a no-fly zone over northern iran. We can say the iranians are attempting genocide against the kurds (which might become true) and we'll have an excuse to stay in kurdistan forever helping protect them. In fact it will be very hard to abandon the kurds no matter who's president, so we can keep our war on for decades. That isn't victory, but maybe it's an outcome we'd want? Try this one, maybe we could invade southwestern iran, where the oilfields are, and then stop and occupy just that part of iran until the oil is gone. We could easily win set-piece actions against the official iranian military, that's what we're good at. Our only concerns would be that we'd be at war for the indefinite future (but we'd have cut iran's income and their ability to buy weapons), and the iranian military would keep trying whatever attacks they could manage, and we'd have a very hostile occupation to run for the indefinite future. And of course iran would be trying to sabotage our oil extraction and transport. They might find ways to sabotage oil tankers heading to the USA from anywhere, which would have unforeseen affects on prices and insurance rates and such. And -- this was exactly Saddam's plan back when *he* invaded iran. Again, this isn't a victory plan. This is a war-for-the-indefinite-future plan. There is no substitute for victory. Don't start a war you don't have any idea how to finish.
Suppose we take such a hard line that the iranians feel they have to deal with russia or china. My guess is that china would give them a better deal because they have more to offer china. China needs their oil while russia exports oil and might benefit from a supply pinch. So the worse we threaten iran, the more concessions they give china. Long-term contracts for cheap oil. Chinese bases in iran. Chinese troops "guarding" the nuclear facilities. Chinese "advice" about UN votes etc. Then if we attack iran we're attacking china and serious consequences follow. This is a best-case outcome for the Bush administration. First, it gives them a chance to back down gracefully. They started a game of chicken with a bunch of fanatics who won't back down, and this is their best way to avoid a crash. Second, if they actually believe the iranians are insane then it's an improvement to have chinese control. Third, it gives them great propaganda points. China becomes an ally for muslim fanatics. An easy bridge between trying to prop up islamists as the enemy into making china the enemy. China stabbing us in the back. Ratchet up the fear about twelve notches and more money for military contractors. It's perfect. But we have to make a credible enough threat so the iranians give china enough concessions. And we have to delay the attack long enough for those negotiations to get completed, without making it look like we're stalling. You guys who actually want to start a war, as opposed to just supporting whatever the Bush/Cheney administration wants to do -- did you consider that Bush would sell out on you? Think about how many of his allies he's sold out, and how many he has left.
Guy,
American Right-Wingers think like Bin Laden...Killing is Liberating. Posted by: Known Unknowns at May 11, 2006 04:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
Guy, The Palestinians recently had a clean parliamentary election and quickly formed a government. OTOH, months after the Iraqi election a government still hasn't been formed. Unlike most liberal democracies, voting broke down along ethnic/religious lines. Which is closer to being a liberal democracy? And while there are certainly concerns regarding the influence (control?) of the majority Shia faction in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Sistani has been moderate and helpful in establishing a liberal democracy in Iraq. Only the boy-mullah al Sadr has been passing out burkas. Look for the new government, with Sistani's quiet approval, to squash him like a bug, in the near future. Go to Sistani's website (http://www.sistani.org) and peek at the Q&A section -- the guy may be a moderate in some respects, but is a religious fundamentalist by any reasonable interpretation. The biggest party in the UIA is SCIRI, a Shia fundamentalist party. Posted by: Guy at May 11, 2006 06:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
Iran wants nuclear weapons not to use them, but to have the bargaining power that a nation gets when they possess nukes. Iran looks at the world and says, "gee, why are Pakistan and India treated so well by the United States?" Iran looks at Pakistan and sees a military dictatorship that nearly came to nuclear blows with its neighbor India. Iran sees America's relation with Pakistan, i.e. Pakistan is America's "best friend" in the "War on Terror." Even though Pakistan is a military dictatorship owning nukes. Even though Pakistan is most likely where Bin Laden is hiding. Even though Pakistan is failing badly at capturing the 9/11 mastermind. Even though Pakistan is worse democratically than Iran is. After all in Iran, their leaders are actually elected, though the process is flawed. How many elections have there been in Pakistan since Musharraf caused his coup? Iran sees Dr. Kahn, the very kind of person who we are supposed to be prosecuting, the one who deals and sells nuclear technology to rogue states, get pardoned! Iran looks at India, a nation that nearly came to nuclear blows with its neighbor. Iran sees Bush visit India and sees Bush basically give up all America's nuclear cards to India, (a strategic move against China, making India a stronger flank to the south). Iran wonders why India gets such respect and preferential treatment.....nukes! Iran sees North Korea get away with their nuclear program while Bush just rattles his sabre. Iran sees that the United States will do absolutely nothing against North Korea militarily now that NK has nukes. Iran sees China get respect from communist-hating Bushies. Why? nukes! Iran sees Russia, a smaller player since their Soviet days, but still, they see Russia get invited into the G7....er...G8 even though Russia's economy has much to be desired, and even though Putin is pulling back from democracy. Why? nukes! Iran sees the power of nukes. They are not to be used. But they sure are effective at being listened to and being respected. In other words, nukes are power. Iran sees the mess the United States is in in Iraq. They see that America is really actually quite inept at taking over a country and reorganizing its structure. America has a sharp blade, but seem to be lacking the brains they once did. Iran sees this and they see an opening. Do you actually think that they will care what Bush says? Iran is in a position of strength right now vis a vis the United States. Iran controls the price of oil. Simply say disparaging remarks about Israel and the oil markets fly sky high. Simply threaten to destabilize Iraq and Western investors get jittery. America is stuck in Iraq. America is in debt, and running a deficit budget. Can America actually pay for an invasion of Iran? Iran sees America's relations with Western European countries still very weak from the debacle of Iraq. Iran can dismiss European countries. The bargaining power is not with them, but with the United States. Iran works closely and makes sure to keep the Russians and Chinese close to them, keeping business open to them, so as to keep their votes away from any resolution coming to the Security Council. The best option America has at this point is to accept a nuclear Iran. Perhaps what America should do is learn a little lesson from conservatives's favorite president, Ronald Reagan. Even though Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire," what did he do? He met with Gorbachev and worked out peace, rather than war. Peace actually works. Posted by: Daniel at May 11, 2006 09:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
The irony, of course, is that engaging in "talks" now sends precisely the wrong message ---- take an agressive stance against the US, and get concessions. The fact is that we blew it with Iran a decade ago --- the election of a "reformist" Iranian leader should have lead to talks (and the gradual lifing of sanctions) under the Clinton administration. Instead, the neo-cons blocked any such rapproachment with Iran, helping to ensure that the "reform" movement in Iran gained no traction, lost popular support, and resulted in the election of a "radical" Iranian President. My suggestion.... the US should just STFU on Iran for the time being. No talks (at least no official talks -- back channel would be advisable perhaps), but also an end to sabre-rattling and hostile rhetoric. IMHO, the bottom line on Iran is that its extremely unlikely that Iranian nukes would be used, even if it gets them ---- but an atttack on Iran could result in the destabilization/overthrow of the Mussharrif regime in Pakistan that would be replaced with a radical islamist regime that would possibly, provide "terrorists" with nuclear weapons -- or at least the materials to make highly effective "dirty bombs". Posted by: p.lukasiak at May 12, 2006 12:15 AM | Permalink to this comment
Mike, I agree that it wouldn't be a bad idea to practice "aggressive friendliness". To the extent that Iran's internal stability depends on anti-US sentiment, that sort of thing might be an offer they couldn't refuse ( after all, they need to stave off military action from us). I really believe that, even as far as things have gone, Iran will probably be fully democratic within two decades - assuming the Israel-Palestine issue continues to stagger towards a solution, as i think it (very slowly) is doing right now. At this point, the nukes are no longer a threat. Due to Iran's relative weakness compared to the USSR, and the relative openess of its political system, and the further advancement of the global democratic undercurrent, I'm sure we won't have to wait fifty years. Unless, of course, we run some bombing campaigns. There are indeed rosy scenarios where that wraps things up much faster, but I don't buy them. I say it locks us in to two decades of asymettric undeclared warfare, instead of thaw and Iran's gradual neutralization of its aggressive tendencies. I mean, would you rather see Mubarak and the modern Egyptian army fall to the Muslim Brotherhood in a time of US-Iran thaw, or at a time of seething anti-US sentiment? Posted by: glasnost at May 12, 2006 12:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
greg 1. Excluded middle - just because one doesnt agree with VDH, Steyn or Kraut doesnt have to push one over to Hagel. There still folks in between.
3. Talks - sure. But about what? We could talk about Iran dropping enrichment, in exchange for no santions. The EU tried that for years, and it hasnt worked. We could offer a guarantee, in exchange for Iran dropping enrichment AND support for terrorism, AND for Iran moving to a more non-belligerent stance toward Israel. That would be reasonable grand deal - do you think the current Iranian regime would bite? Unless they thought SERIOUS sanctions, or force, were headed there way? Or we could talk about a giving Iran a guarantee, purely in exchange for dropping enrichment. I dont think that would be a good result. Can we talk and avoid being pressed in that direction? 4. Talks arent always so good. Been there, done that. In summer of 2000 I spent plenty of time posting on jewish forums, explaining how Barak making a big proposal at Camp David couldnt possible hurt - either Arafat would accept, and wed have peace, or hed reject, and the world would see who was at fault, and rally around Israel. The idiotic, right wing, childish likudnik hawks told me thered be a war. and they were right. And I was wrong. Ive been burned Greg.
Guy, it's interesting that you believe that elected officials in Iraq talking to each other for months in an effort to form a government is somehow less democratic than events in Gaza, where Hamas and former security forces are squaring up to each other on a daily basis. Elections are part of the process of Democracy, not the entirety of Democracy, and compared to Iraq, Gaza is many times worse off. Posted by: Andrew Paterson at May 13, 2006 01:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
4. Talks arent always so good. Been there, done that. In summer of 2000 I spent plenty of time posting on jewish forums, explaining how Barak making a big proposal at Camp David couldnt possible hurt - either Arafat would accept, and wed have peace, or hed reject, and the world would see who was at fault, and rally around Israel. The idiotic, right wing, childish likudnik hawks told me thered be a war. Liberalhawk -- I'm not sure I see your point. What reason do you have to believe that the Intifada wouldn't have happened had Barak not made a big proposal at Camp David? Posted by: Guy at May 13, 2006 01:39 AM | Permalink to this comment
Guy, it's interesting that you believe that elected officials in Iraq talking to each other for months in an effort to form a government is somehow less democratic than events in Gaza, Liberal democracy is more than elections and coalition negotiations-- it also requires some minimally functional government with consent of the governed. We haven't seen that in Iraq. where Hamas and former security forces are squaring up to each other on a daily basis. Elections are part of the process of Democracy, not the entirety of Democracy, and compared to Iraq, Gaza is many times worse off. In Iraq, the Interior Ministry and militias associated with Iraq's Shia leaders are torturing and murdering Sunni citizens. I imagine that at least some Sunni politicians have similar connections with militias on their side. That is many orders of magnitude worse than anything we've seen in Gaza. Posted by: Guy at May 13, 2006 01:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
The current situation is nothing like 1939. After all the Iranians are reasonable and we can deal with them. Nothing like '39. Nothing at all. Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink to this comment
The current situation is nothing like 1939. After all the Iranians are reasonable and we can deal with them. Nothing like '39. Nothing at all. Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 12:43 PM | Permalink to this comment
M. Simon, No, the situation is not like 1939. Iran is not looking to expand and attack its neighbors. When was the last time that Iran actually attacked its neighbors, started a war with its neighbors? I honestly cannot remember. Yes they fought a war against Iraq from 1980-88, but if you recall, it was Saddam who started that war, thinking he could take advantage of a weakened Iran that just went through a revolution. Little did he know how foolish he was. Of course, America backed the aggressor and not defended the attacked. Iran does want to be the main broker in the region. i.e. it wants to be the United States of the Middle East. It knows that it cannot do that without obtaining nuclear weapons. Tell me, why is it worse for Iran to have nuclear weapons than Pakistan? Pakistan actually started wars with its neighbors and is a military dictatorship! Yeah, the current dictator is "friendly" with the US, but how long is that going to last? Don't forget also that it was a Pakistani scientist that sold nuclear technology on the black market. In reality Pakistan is the country we should be going after, not Iran. More importantly, it is in Pakistan that the 9/11 mastermind feels most comfortable. What does that say about Pakistan? Posted by: Daniel at May 13, 2006 01:06 PM | Permalink to this comment
What does the hidden imam say? What does the Iranian Constitution say about the hidden imam? What is Hojjatieh? Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 01:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
Daniel, Iran is fighting proxy wars around the world. The 12th imam is all about world domination. This of course is nothing like '39. The Austrian corporal only wanted to dominate Europe. Islamic Imperialism is not dead. Nothing at all like '39. The Austrian corporal was crazy. The leader of Iran is sane and his beliefs will lead us to peace. Provided the Jews don't screw it up. Again. Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 01:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
None of that willful blindness that was so evident in hind sight. We can see much more clearly now. Nothing like '39 at all. Your clarity Daniel is proof of that. Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 01:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Pakistan does not have a theory of world domination that it intends to practice and is currently practicing. Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 01:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
Why isn't any one taking military action on Brazilian steel mills? Banging a couple of 5 lb pieces of steel together sufficiently energetically will not make the neighborhood disappear. Along with surrounding neighborhoods.
Guy, The opening dialgue you want starts with Bush converting to Islam, 12th Imam branch. What is Bush's counter offer? Methodism? And we'll throw in that nice Methodist University not far from 60th and Lake Shore Drive in Chicago? Do you think there is a chance? I mean the University is an oil university so to speak. I know there is a problem with all the Jews there. Certainly something can be worked out. A gentleman's agreement perhaps. Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 02:16 PM | Permalink to this comment
J. Thomas, In 1941 everyone (including some top Japanese) thought it would be suicide for Japan to attack America. Events proved this correct. Yet the attack happened. To assume the other guy calculates the situation the same way you do can lead to huge miscalculation. Suppose Ahmanutjob truly believes with the 12th Imam on his side and a good plan he can't lose. What exactly will talks do in a case like that? Posted by: M. Simon at May 13, 2006 02:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
M. Simon, just what "proxy wars" is Iran fighting around the world? What "wars" are the Iranians involved in? and again, I remind you that Reagan may have thought the Soviet Union be the "evil empire," yet he still actually worked out peace with them. "supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." --Sun Tzu you say: "Nothing at all like '39. The Austrian corporal was crazy. The leader of Iran is sane and his beliefs will lead us to peace. Provided the Jews don't screw it up. Again." What if the Iranians see the Americans as crazy. After all, in just two years time, 2001-2003, the Americans attacked two separate nations. Not only that, but both nations sit right next to Iran! What do you think Iran thinks about the sanity of President Bush? Posted by: Daniel at May 13, 2006 04:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
M. Simon sounds like a suicidal fanatic. Posted by: NeoDude at May 13, 2006 08:04 PM | Permalink to this comment
I would like to see an English translation of M. Simon's argument, because I would be interested to read it -- but I found much of it above illegible, especially the obviously sarcastic parts. For example, this part
NeoDude, "M. Simon sounds like a suicidal fanatic." or in other words, he sounds like Cheney and Bush. Posted by: Daniel at May 14, 2006 03:04 AM | Permalink to this comment
Yeah, the Mullahs are the crazy agressive ones! What a world when I can "get" a right-wing nationalist like Bat B! However, he's labled this one: ------------------------------------------------------------ In the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing. We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo. After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia. Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11. Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one neighbor and fought but one war: an eight-year war with Iraq where she was the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran, we supported the aggressor. From:
M Simon, I considered actually following up to your post. I considered saying things like, "The situations were rather different. In WWII the germans intended world domination but didn't actually invade anybody outside europe and north africa. But the USA intending world domination has invaded nations on the other side of the world from us." And "The japanese started a war with the USA they didn't know how to end, they had to hope the USA would sue for peace or else they might as well surrender, because our industry could outproduce them. The USA is planning to start a war we don't know how to end, but iran has no particular resources apart from oil; after our attack they can't ramp up production of any war matieral except enriched uranium and plutonium. But this sort of thing is pointless. Making comparisons as silly as yours looks kind of fun but it gets no result worth having.
J Thomas, You say Iran can't ramp up much if the US attacks. But, can they start shooting at shipping in the Gulf? Posted by: frank wallace at May 14, 2006 06:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
I think Joe, way back at the top of the comments, has it right. THERE ARE NO PERFECT SOLUTIONS. It's either war, or they'll get the bomb, sooner or later. So what if they get the bomb? Does that mean they can "win" a nuclear war with the US? They might be able to hit a city in the US, which would be bad, but they're looking at total annihilation. So we have to get used to the idea that another country with which we don't have good relations will get the bomb. Somehow we managed to survive Soviets and Chinese. By containment? Perhaps we should act as if we cannot take the current administration in Tehran seriously. Posted by: michael at May 15, 2006 12:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
Frank, the USA had a tremendous industrial base available, that the japanese couldn't attack at all. We could ramp up production of planes and tanks and warships to build a military that japan couldn't possibly match -- if we chose to. Japan coujldn't win a long war with us, their only hope was that we'd be so upset at our losses in a short war that we'd do regime change and then sue for peace. We can hit iran's industrial base and keep hitting it as long as we want to. Their antiair defenses might make that expensive at first but they can't possibly stop it. We can attack their water works and power plants, we can destroy bridges and mine harbors, we can blockade their ports. They can't stop us, they can only increase the cost we pay. We can probably keep them from importing tanks and planes and warships, as long as we're willing to keep bombing them and keep our fleet and air force busy enforcing a blockade. So us attacking them is different from japan attacking us. On the other hand, our only victory strategy depends on the hope that they get so upset at their losses in a short war that they do regime change and sue for peace. Say they don't, say they declare war and we are officially at war with iran for the indefinite future. Iran then has every right to repudiate their NPT membership -- they would be in precisely the situation that justifies it, at war with an aggressive nuclear power. There would be all sorts of unforeseen oonsequences. One I can predict is that shipping to the USA would get more expensive because worldwide insurance companies would raise their rates on US cargoes, or refuse to insure them for various things. If a cargo is destroyed by terrorist action, is it an act of war? If US ordnance is stolen, would we know whether it's mere theft or an act of war, until the perps get captured? Similarly for sabotage. Or apparent incompetence. It might take only a few spectacular incidents to raise rates considerably. Meanwhile, we can do a lot to slow their re-armament with conventional weapons, but not that much to stop them rebuilding their nuclear assembly lines. Consider the case of iraq. Saddam had a nuclear program, he apparently didn't particularly believe in it but he was willing to give iraqi scientists a chance to show what they could do. Then israel bombed the Osirak reactor, a reactor which was not part of the weapons program at all. And then they published all sorts of analyses about how utterly vital it was to stop iraq from getting nukes, how amazingly powerful iraq would get if it had nukes, and how easiy it would be for them to do it if they had that single reactor working. Apparently Saddam took them seriously. He increased funding for the nuclear program by 20 times or so, and started a sincere effort to get nukes on a defined timescale. He successfully hid his nuclear program from all but an intensive search. If iran had a wartime consensus about building nukes, how would we get enough info to find out where to bomb the new stuff? Now to your point. They can disrupt shipping in the gulf with their air force, with their navy, with artillery near the coast, with missiles from the coast, with cruise missiles, and with mines. Possibly we can destroy their air force and navy, destroy any artillery close enough to the strait, bomb out the missile sites including portable launchers, bomb out the cruise missile sites including portable ones, and destroy every iranian fishing boat that might be carrying mines. I'm not really qualified to say how likely we could do all that before they could sink a tanker in the strait where it blocks things. We would of course have to stop iranian tankers from using the Gulf for fear they'd scuttle one in a bad spot. Our military appears to be confident they can do the job, or else they've written off getting tankers out for awhile and consider it an acceptable loss. And if iran blocks the strait, will the world blame us or iran? It might improve our relative international standing if it happens. Similarly, various people claim that the iranians could just flip a switch and millions of iraqi shias would rise up against us. This might be true but I think nobody really knows. Iraqi shias are not slaves to iran, there's a lot of hard feelings. They don't particularly like persians who try to take over their religion. We've tended to back off from occupying shia parts of the country with insulting US troops, but we've done enough they might be more offended for themselves than they would for bombstrikes on persians. On the other hand the iranians could give shias or sunnis superior antitank guns and superior anti-helicopter missiles, and the sunnis would surely use them while the shias might too. They could make it hard for us in iraq and nobody knows how hard. I'd hate to gamble that it would come out OK. I doubt they have many agents in the USA who'd do sabotage. There are something like 2 million iranian/americans, but those are people who chose to come here to avoid the shah or the post-shah government. Some of them are draft dodgers who're afraid to go home. Would they die to hit us back just because we're dropping bombs on their families back home? Hardly any would, and the more organised they got the more likely the groups would contain iranians who had second thoughts and turned them in. We could avoid the problem completely by interning our iranian/american citizens like we did the japanese in WWII. To my way of thinking if iran has, say, 4 nukes, then the obvious targets are our four biggest military bases in iraq. These are completely legitimate military targets -- no innocent civilians are allowed anywhere near our big iraqi military bases, not innocent iraqis or innocent americans. They are much closer than israel. We ought to hesitate to nuke iranian cities in response to their nuking our military bases, though likely we wouldn't -- it would be a war crime, for whatever that's worth. If I was an iranian choosing nuclear targets it's what I'd do (with a fifth bomb aimed at a US aircraft carrier, if there was a 5th that could be delivered secretly or with a lot of decoys). But the iranians might not think the way I do.
J Thomas, But how are WE going to afford paying for an attack on Iran? Where do we have the money for such an event? Or are we going to go further in debt and let our children pay for our war? Let's think more clearly about this, shall we? Posted by: Daniel at May 15, 2006 04:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
David, I don't want to argue for aggression against iran. I sa that both the people against and the idiots for it, are oversimplifying their arguments. This is inevitable because many (most) of the important factsl we'd need to make accurate predictions are missing. So they mike simplified arguments that fudge the missing data. The pro-aggression argument would say that it doesn't matter how much the war would cost. If we don't attack now we're likely to lose major american cities because we didn't attack. How much is New York City worth to us? It's silly to say we can't afford a few trillion dollars to keep NYC from being destroyed. They leave out the fact that we have essentially no evidence to judge how likely that we'll lose one or more US cities if we don't attack, versus how likely we'll lose one or more cities if we do atatck. The data is almost completely unavailable, but they simply assume that it *will* happen one way and it *won't* happen the other way, becaxuse that leads to the conclusion they want. Similarly for short-term consequences. There's no way to tell how much trouble they can start in iraq. They can give weapons to people but they can't make them fight. They can give antitank and antihelicopter weapons to sunnis and not worry much about them being used against shia tanks and helicopters -- the IDF has essentially none. Those could be used against iranian forces if they ever intervene, though. They acn give weapons to shias but would shias attack us with them? I can only answer mayhbe. Iran could block the Gulf, unopposed. It would take one tanker scuttled at a critical spot. We could clear it eventually, unopposed. Iran has various methods to block the gulf and I don't know how well we can counter them. No one will know unless it gets tested. Similarly with pretty much all of it. I think Tom Holsinger's argument is persuasive. We do a bombing run, it isn't conclusive, what with one thing and another we get stuck doing a full invasion. With what army? With what budget? I guess all that would have to be worked out somehow. I can't imagine that we'd wind up stronger than before we started. But if we did wind up able to cut off oil to the EU, china, and japan while maintaining deniability, then we'd at least be in position to blackmail them. It would be a great blow to support energy conservation and alternate energy.
Daniel, I wrote a long post yesterday responding to you, and the system ate it. I don't recommend an attack on iran this year. Barring unforeseen events I don't recommend it next year or the year after. But let me try to make the most reasonable answer I can, the answer that I'd expect a reasonable wingnut to make if there was such a thing. It goes like this: Suppose that city is NYC. How many trillions of dollars is NYC worth? Consider the income that all those new yorkers would have earned in their lifetimes if they weren't dead. Consider all the buildings, and the factories, the warehouses that must be rebuilt somewhere else, all of it. That's what we have to lose if iran gets one nuke. That's what we're guaranteed to lose if we don't attack. What kind of miser are you that you'd begrudge the cost to keep that from happening? See, once you believe that iran will inevitably use their first nuke or their first four nukes to destroy american cities, then everything else falls into place. There's no need to estimate the cost of the war because it's got to be smaller than the cost of peace. It's even easier if you are a zionist and you believe they'll use their first four nukes against israel. That is unthinkably unacceptable so you'll argue that the USA must not attempt to count the cost to prevent it. Spend whatever it takes, no questions asked.
J Thomas, "We know that if iran ever gets a single nuke they will nuke a US city. This is indisputable and anybody who isn't sure about it isn't living in the real world." why would Iran want to nuke a US city? what does it benefit them? they do understand that we could use our 7000 nukes and completely wipe their little nation off the face of the planet like 1000 times over! so what benefit do they get from nuking a US city? Posted by: Daniel at May 17, 2006 05:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Daniel, you are being rational. I can reproduce the argument why iran would nuke us (or israel) despite suffering far more massive losses themselves in response. The argumeng goes: ------------ It's simply not possible to reason with such people. The only possible approach is to kill them before they kill us. And this is one of the strongest arguments for regime change. Unless we keep these fanatics from getting nukes, we will lose one or more US (or israeli) cities and then we will be forced to kill all 75 million iranians. Call it 80 million deaths that we prevent by attacking now. This is the kindest approach. and the only reasonable thing to do. This argument is exactly parallel to the argument that some fundamentalist christians are willing to do anything to bring on the Second Coming of Christ including starting a nuclear war. It's exactly the same thing.
|
|
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
