Redstate

el-Baradei announced today that there's no way the IAEA can light a fire under itself and speed up its next Iran report, basically in defiance of the EU3 proposed resolution demanding more rapid action.  This means we can expect nothing out of the UN until March 2 at the earliest.  In my opinion, this decision abdicates any lingering shred of authority that the U.N. might have maintained, and it's time for us to "surge," as Secretary Harvey put it Wednesday, on our own or with the countries who understand the urgency of this situation.  

If we started building up an invasion force today, we'd be ready to go around Labor Day. I don't think we have that much time.

Holsinger's projection is based on a big "what if": "What if Iran already has some nuclear weapons?" He believes they do. Does the CIA? And even if the CIA believes it's true, do you think anybody in Washington will go to war on the basis of the CIA's opinion again?

Go to mapquest and look up Natanz (that's where one of the big nuke facilities is, right?). It is nearly the geographical center of an extremely mountainous country, about 360 miles as the crow flies from the Iraqi border.

As the crow flies is the way to attack it. Fly there, destroy it, fly back. Buy time. Repeat as necessary.

One more thing to consider is that since any muclear arms will be well protected it will take some pretty heavy ordinance to reach them. Furthermore, what are the effects of conventional weapons on a nuclear weapon - detonation, equivalent of a `dirty bomb`? We`d have to have some solid intel here but assuming we confirmed the presence of nukes your conclusion is inescapable.  

It looks as though we have missed our opportunity to deal with Iran.  If they do indeed have nukes already, nothing we do will have a good outcome.  Invasion is out, as the American people are not going to support it in wake of the Iraq war and it would be too costly in terms of men/money.  Bombing is also out, as we could not risk them actually setting off a nuke or shutting off (especially if a few sympathetic nations join them) their oil.  "Diplomacy" may be all we have left to hope for at this time, and since the Iranians are not to be trusted that probably won't work either.  Unfortunately, once someone joins the nuke club, the rules change and we have to be much more careful (especially if they can also cripple our economy).

Natanz is buried 75 feet underground.  But it seems we have a new bunker buster for just this purpose--I agree, fly in, drop it, fly away, at least for the moment.

long overdue...can we do it?..i think yes, and we should.  my biggest question mark in the whole thing is Israel....no moves in the ME are made without that consideration. hopefully, we have dialouge going now..

this one would do the trick GBU-28 this bomb can penetrate over 20 feet of concrete and more than 100 feet of earth.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons- I think Bill Kristol made that point on FNS last Sunday, and in thinking about the post 9-11 criteria (Our enemies are willing to commit mass murder in America and we need someone who will not allow it to happen again), I have to agree.

Iran, who time and time again has consorted terrorists, supported and facilitated their attacks against us, and in fact has a disturbing reationship with Al Qaeda simply can not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

I still have confidence that Bush believes in the mission to defend America that he campaigned on and the courage to do what it takes to accoplish that mission, even if its risky and unpopular.

But if he/we won't do what's necessary to stop Iran from getting the A-Bomb, and it winds up in Al Qaeda hands detonating on our soil, then in a sad way we kind of will have deserved it- not in the liberal self-loathing, America's always the real bad guy way- but because we've known since 9/11 what are enemies want to accomplish and what they are capable of, and if we decide to forget or ignore it, we are doing so at our own peril.

Good.  Someone run round to the Pentagon and tell Rumsfeld to dust a couple off.

I think some people seem to forget basic strategic concerns when it comes to achieving political goals.

Iran has twice as many people as Iraq.   It is 4 TIMES the size of Iraq.   The terrain of Iran is far more rugged than Iraq, much more comparable to Afghanistan than to Iraq.  

Their infrastructure is completely intact.  They are almost certainly well entrenched in their positions and without significant softening of those positions it is unrealistic to expect us to simply overrun them.  

But all of that is the saving grace of this idea because this is a HORRIBLE political choice. First off we begin with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT we made about Iraq, an argument that turned out to be completely WRONG.  Even worse we don't have a laundry list of UN violations to point to.  We don't have clear examples of Iranian aggression. We don't have evidence of the Iranian government being WILLING to use WMDs.

OK so we would have virtually no justification in the International community for this invasion and it would be immediately following invading a Muslim nation in which our primary justifications turned out to be incorrect.

But let's assume that we are completely indifferent to the opinions of hte International community.   How are the other Muslim nations going to feel about this?  How is nuclear armed Pakistan going to react to our invading Iran because they are looking to build nukes?  What would a Iranian government in the mountains act?  Would they approve a nuclear attack on the US with  any potential nukes they have?  

But I think that the horse has left the barn on this one.  We had our shot post-9/11 but I think we floundered it going after Iraq.

So now we have two choices.  Containment or a carrot and stick approach.  Neither choice is particularly easy.  The problem with containment is that Iran is a wealthy commodity market.  No matter how much we try to close the spigot there will be people that will buy from them, people who don't find them a threat.  

The carrot and stick method is far more complicated but would yield the best results. I guess that the best way to describe what I am saying is how we have dealt with China.  Bring them into western capitalism.  Accept that Iran is a nuclear power.  There isn't anything we can do to stop that.  But if we have negotiations with Iran and let them know that we will not interfere with their domestic politics but that they will need to divest from all relations with terrorist organizations.

Iran is or will soon be a nuclear power.  If we were to try to prevent this from happening we would likely cause ourselves far greater problems than simply allowing them to have nuclear weapons.  Let's not forget that no two nuclear nations have ever fought a war against each other.  Certainly proxy wars have occurred but nuclear nations are wont to give our their most prized possession to their proxies, lest those proxies use those weapons against them.

Contaninment is not doable. Negotiating with the mullahs is a joke. Europe is starting to come around and I think they see another Holocaust aproaching. Here's what might work. Issue the ultimatum. Give them forthyeight hours to comply and if they don't meet the demand to get rid of their nuclear materials we give 'em the "Shock and Awe" treatment until our ground forces are ready to go in. Take out the Mullahs and do the whole democracy building thing again. We've been practicing over in Iraq, so we aught to be preyty good at it by now.

I didn't like it.  

I think containment is a decidedly pre-9/11 option and MAD is an approach that only works when one of the parties is not suicidal.

What amazes me about some on the left is their continual reliance on fantasy in the name of realism.  I mean no disrespect, flyer, but negotiating with the mullahs is fantasy.  They don't desire anything we could give them.  They want nuclear weapons.  Period.  You might say we should accept that and move on, but I would say that, in a post-9/11 world, there is no way we could accept such a proven hostile regime possessing nuclear weapons.  If we were talking about Egypt, Jordan, or even Indonesia, I might be willing to accept it.  But not Iran.

Now, I know what you are thinking, what about North Korea.  The Norks have always been a special case.  First of all they are a client state, not just friendly with, China, a rather large and menacing nuclear power itself.  Secondly, their nuclear program reached the level where Iran is now many years ago.  Third, they are within spitting distance of two of the US's greatest allies and two of the world's biggest economies.  Unfortunately, realism dictates that we probably can't do much beyond containment and carrot and stick with the Norks.

Like you, I don't want to invade Iran.  I just don't see any realistic way we could allow or accept that they have gone nuclear in a post-9/11 world.  Holsinger's article has some pretty dire "domino theory" predictions about what may happen if they do.  Personally, I prefer Katzman's solution.  No nation building, just roll up the mullahs, clean up the nukes, and move out.  That's realistic to me.

Why some refuse to accept reality simply because they don't like it.  

Please explain to me why the Iranian Mullahs are "suicidal".  What actions of theirs suggests this.  I would like to know. I'm not talking about rhetoric.  Actual actions that suggest that they are suicidal.  

I remember as a child believe told that we couldn't trust the Russians because they were crazy and didn't care about their people.  Turns out they felt the same way about us.

I notice when you mentions Egypt, Jordan, and Indonesia you didn't mention Pakistan.  Pakistan is, at best, a friend of convenience with us.  Unlike Iran a large segment of their people really really hate America.  They have supported terrorists both against India AND the Taliban.  

It amazes me that the domino theory still has traction with people.  It has never actually happened so why do people still talk about it?

Iran wants nuclear weapons for national security.  They their neighbor Iraq get invaded for what they perceive to be dubious reasons and they want to make sure that doesnt to them.  They also want to be the preeminent regional power.  They want to be treated as equals in the Middle East to the US.  Whether that will ever happen is questionable but that is their objective.  

Invasion is not a realistic option.  We played the card once in the region and we were wrong.  To do it again would, against a nation that has not shown any ACTIVE aggression towards the US or anyone else, would create a MASSIVE uprising in the Muslim community.  Think Afghanistan 1980.

Not that we couldn't defeat them militarily (in time), but our economy would be so totally wiped out that a victory would be meaningless.  Iran is not stupid, if we invade, they WILL destroy their oil facilities and likely those of the Saudis/Kuwaitis as well (even without nukes their short range missles easily accomplish this task).  Oil goes to $150 a barrel with gas at $6+ a gallon and we go into depression mode.  Also, if they already have the nukes we are really screwed becasue in an invasion scenario they will get used and the American people are not going to put up with 10,000+ casualties from a single attack (especially after the Iraq situation), let alone if out of revenge they turn a bomb or 2 over to Al-Queda and some city gets wiped out.  This situation is why Iraq was a bad policy move/failure.  W picked the lowest hanging fruit and has left us unable to react to the real threat of Iran.

Re: I think containment is a decidedly pre-9/11 option and MAD is an approach that only works when one of the parties is not suicidal.

I do not think the Iranian leadership is suicidal. Why do they cling so hard to their positions if not to enjoy the rewards of power? They have long since passed the heady flush of revolutionary fervor and have settled down to become the sort of corrupt nomenklatura that ruled the Soviet Union after Lenin. Still able to trot out all the old tub-thumping slogans, but addicted to power and its perks and determined to keep it.

And let's rememnber that even Chairman Mao, no one's idea of a sane and sensible ruler, kept his nukes under wraps.

Re: Iran is not stupid, if we invade, they WILL destroy their oil facilities and likely those of the Saudis/Kuwaitis as well (even without nukes their short range missles easily accomplish this task).

I keep hearing this scenario, but I have to wonder if they could do that, especially if we took out their missiles first. We heard similar fears about Saddam Hussein (he would blanket the Saudi oil fields with poison gas, etc.) but it never happened. Why would Iran get away with this when saddam couldn;t.

I don't think there is any chance they have some nuclear devices right now. If they had operational nukes, they would announce it to the world. If they thought they had enough to afford it, they would test one to prove it. There is really no point in their pretending they don't have nukes.

The Sodomy is an imperative right: National Security is not: crowd has W's hands tied. Do you remember the brouaha over the missing WMDs? The Mullahs have already stated that Iran has a religious duty, when they attain nuclear capacity, to use it to destroy Israel. The argument being that they would then have the ability to destroy Israel entirely while only suffering (minor) damage in return. Politically, George, like FDR, has to wait for the first strike, although it probably won't take much more than a pin-prick to elicit it when the Iranians are ready. You have to go back to Munich, September 1938, to find a similar political situation. Chamberlain gave Hitler and Von Ribbentropp everything they demanded in a desperate, last ditch attempt to avoid war, seeking peace at any price. The World would learn later, after the death of fifty million people had occurred, that Hitler and Von Ribbentropp were incensed that Chamberlain had deprived them of their war by acceding to their every demand. The Iranians are probably worse, more like the Japanese in their negotiations with the United States prior to Pearl Harbor. If the United States agreed to the Japanese demands in 1941, the Japanese had a new list of demands to submit on top of the old ones making negotiations never ending. Today, we can probably exceed WWII's death toll in the first 30 minutes of the next conflict. Condy Rice could send the Iranians a note, via an intermediary, stating that 'The earth's moon still vibrates like a bell after being struck as a result of a cosmic collision in the late 10th or early 11th century. What will the seismologists be discussing, at the beginning of the fourth millenia, about the consequences of what you are planning?' The certainty bequeathed by their religious beliefs will preclude a rational response.

Okay, flyer, I'm willing to conceed that I don't have any direct evidence that the mullahs are suicidal, although Ahmadenijad's statements about Israel tend to make me think he is.  But, in return, I would like you to conceed that they are more unstable than the Soviets were and the Chinese are, and therefore, worthy of less trust.

I mentioned Egypt, Jordan, and Indonesia as examples of muslim nations that are not now nuclear, but that I might accept as nuclear powers.  Now that I think of it, Turkey might have been a better choice than Indonesia.  I didn't mention Pakistan because they are already nuclear and have been for a long time.

Did you read Holsinger's analysis of the "doiminoes" that might fall if Iran declares itself a nuclear power?  Let me reproduce it here:

If the United States does not forcibly prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, every country in the area will know to a moral certainty that they cannot rely on the United States for protection against Iranian nuclear attack, or Iranian nuclear blackmail in support of domestic opposition to the generally shaky regimes of the Middle East. American prestige and influence there will collapse. If we won't protect ourselves by pre-emption, we can't be relied on to protect anyone else.

So every country within reach of Iranian nuclear weapons will have enormous strategic pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons to deter Iranian nuclear threats. As a recent strategic survey noted, Syria has many times the per capita and absolute GDP of North Korea, and Egypt several times the per capita and absolute GDP of Pakistan. If North Korea and Pakistan can develop nuclear weapons, so can Syria and Egypt, and also Saudi Arabia, all three of whose regimes are shaky. And they won't be the only countries to develop nuclear weapons after Iran does - many more will join the nuclear "club" within a few years, some within months.

All of those countries having nuclear weapons will create a security nightmare - at some point terrorists will be able to buy or steal some (assuming that Iran doesn't first give a few to favored terrorist groups). It is likely that at least some will use their nuclear weapons on each other, or in a domestic coup or factional fight. The latter might first happen in Iran.

I'd be interested in where you disagree with that.  I disagree that Syria would have to develop nuclear weapons after Iran gets them.  It would be much easier for Assad to buy them from Iran.

Lastly, I really don't care about Iran's national security.  I'm concerned with ours.  It troubles me not one bit that Iran feels intimidated by our presence, or Israel's, or the new Iraq's.  If Iran wants to be recognized as a regional power, it can stop its support for terrorist groups, recognize and sign a peace deal with Israel, and make moves towards democratizing its government.  It worked wonders for Egypt.  Oh, and by the way, they can give up bin Laden and the other senior leaders of al Qaeda that I believe are living comfortably in Iran.  Only then will I consider thinking about treating them as equals.  Forget about being the preeminent regional power.  That title has to go to a country with a much longer history of good behavior and adherence to democratic principles.

Unfortunately, and this is where we may just have to agree to disagree, military action is the only realistic option to prevent the mullahs from acquiring nukes.  Again, I don't say invasion, and it may be hair-splitting, but I don't counsel occupying the country for any significant ength of time, so I don't think invasion is the right word.  As far as the "arab street" they were supposed to rise up when we invaded Iraq, too.  That didn't happen.  Somehow, I just don't see too many muslim governments, and for that matter their populaces, shedding too many tears over action against Iran.

Accept that Iran is a nuclear power.

You're proposing that we accept a fundamental change in our understanding of the world. Your world resembles not so much the terror-balanced world of the mid-Fifties, but rather the late 19th Century: a multipolar, power-balanced world. Except with nuclear weapons as the great equalizer.

Apart from the the fact that you may be right (and in my nightmares I am near to conceding that), I'm not willing to just let it go at that. I think we are on our way to your world primarily because Americans lack faith in the global vision of our leadership, and will not support strong countermeasures. And after President Bush leaves office, we will probably have leadership that agrees more with you.

Channeling Cassandra is an old bad habit of mine, but if you're right, then world war lays ahead.

that the Iranian government is much less stable that either the Soviet Union or China.  However I would say it is MORE stable than the Pakistani government in which Musharraf is under constant attack from funadmentalists trying to seize power.

Ahmadenijad's statement is no more suicidal than Kruschev's "We will crush you" or Reagan's Evil Empire or Bush II's "Axis of Evil" comment.  All of these statements had a desired effect. We can talk about whether they ACHIEVED that effect but they are calculated statements.

I read Holsinger's comments but he doesn't explain why these nations would be anymore worried about Iran having nukes than they are worried about Iran now.  Iran has almost no ability to project force and regardless Nukes are not an offensive weapon.

Egypt only came to the table after 4 wars with Egypt and an American President who was willing to actually GIVE the Egyptians something for coming to the table.   Of course that President is roundly condemned as being a terrible President.  

Why do you believe that Osama is in Iran?  Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab.  Iran is comprised of Shia Persians.  They consider each other heretics and there is no way that Bin Laden would respect the Ayatollahs and vice versa.

Somehow, I just don't see too many muslim governments, and for that matter their populaces, shedding too many tears over action against Iran

Then I suspect you don't know many Arabs or Muslims.  I think that too many Americans have a tendency to assign their views of the world to people who live in the Middle East.  Why do ALL Muslims hate Israel?  Why are the Iranians, who have no cultural ties to Palestine, helping the Palestines? And I'm not talking about the leadership of Iran.  I'm talking about the Ahmed on the Street.  The same is true of Pakistanis, who have even less in common, or North Africans.  

Muslims have  close affinity with other Muslims when they are fighting with non-Muslims.

Re: But, in return, I would like you to conceed that they are more unstable than the Soviets were and the Chinese are, and therefore, worthy of less trust.

The Soviets, post-Stalin, yes: Old Uncle Joe made a desert and called it peace. But not the Chinese, at least not while Mao was alive. The Great Helmsman was nothing if not unpredictable.

to that world because the barriers to attaining nuclear technology are becoming easier as time moves forward.  Nuclear technology is no different than any other, and as time goes by more and more people/countries will be able to access regardless of our actions.  We simply do not have the money to attack Iran.  The resulting oil shock (to say nothing of the increased deficits it would create) would result in a severe recession at best.  I would also like to state that a nuclear iran is much more stable than is Pakistan, who is one coup or fair open election away from turing the nukes over to people that hate the US (or at least people who may attack India).  The only worry from a nuclear Iran is that they give the nukes to terrorists (which would not likely happen, as they would know we would irradiate thier country in response).  Our best response to Iran is to pump in as much of our culture as possible and to wait for the hardliners to die.

for the spelling check, a silly error. But here`s an ordnance question for any weaponeers out there - How much conventional ordnance would be necessary to force two hemispheres of fissionable uranium together, assuming the correct geometry has been observed, at sufficient compression to achieve implosion and detonate the device?

 You know, if I was an Iranian hell bent for war, here`s what I`d do. I`d get all the enriched uranium I had, 20% enrichment might be enough, and I`d place it in a densely populated area, with lots of schools, hospitals, maybe even a religious shrine. Then, being a wily Iranian - and let`s not forget that the Persians have survived a very long time, outlasting even Alexander and Mohammed - I`d make that location known to certain intelligence agencies whose recent record on identifying and locating WMD has not been so hot. Then I`d give a call to my pals at Al Jazeera and advise them that something might happen, and tell them to back off, say, 4,000 meters and wait for a fuzing device in the form of an American airstrike. If that nuclear material detonates, and you don`t have to be Oppenheimer to set it up correctly, what`s that going to look like on TV?

 Two points. The first is there is some dangerous linearity in assuming that Iran`s hostile posturing indicates that they already have a weapon. Saddam postured plenty, too. IMO, it is more likely they are trying to provoke a strike. They want to achieve hegemony amongst the Moslems, not conquer the world. The best way to do that is by provoking the US into a premptive strike that may very well be tantamount to a nuclear attack - again, this will be the perception in much of the world if there is any fissionable material that ends up detonated. Of course if there is isn`t, the same scenario holds up - an unwarranted attack on an Islamic country.

 Am I minimalizing the threat? No. In fact, IMO we owe the Iranians one for the hostages - a debt unpaid as far as I`m concerned. But I do think we`d better start thinking like them a little bit more.  

You argue that a multipolar, nuclear-armed world may not be avoided for basic technical reasons. I think on the contrary that it's in our power to keep the world from hurtling down that path, but it's not in our national character to police the world. And our internal politics is so divided that such a bold plan will not be tolerated.

Pax Americana may be ending.

I found it totally fascinating that God bless America became our de facto national anthem after 9/11. I'm not sure how well-known the story of this song is. It was written by Irving Berlin in 1939. What you usually hear is only the second verse. There is a first verse, oddly set to very different music, which speaks of a dark storm gathering slowly across the seas. God bless America is a war anthem. We may be singing it a lot more in the coming years.

*  Why do you believe that Osama is in Iran?  Bin Laden is a Sunni Arab.  Iran is comprised of Shia Persians.  They consider each other heretics and there is no way that Bin Laden would respect the Ayatollahs and vice versa.

*  Why do ALL Muslims hate Israel?  Why are the Iranians, who have no cultural ties to Palestine, helping the Palestines?

Now square those with this:

Muslims have  close affinity with other Muslims when they are fighting with non-Muslims.

By your own account, it is at least possible that bin Laden is in Iran or that Iran is harboring/sponsoring al Qaeda.  But that wasn't the point of mentioning bin Laden.  It was just to show how far Iran has to go before they should be given any consideration as a regional power worthy of respect.

I suspect "ALL" Muslims hate Israel for reasons far more complicated than we can explore here.  Not the least of which is the fact that Arab and Muslim governments have spent the past 49 years focusing their people's anger at the Jewish state for all of their own internal ills.

What is your fascination with Pakistan?  Is this the new line we can expect out of the left to counter the rationale for action against Iran?  Before Iraq, the left postulated that if the US was really concerned about WMD, it should attack North Korea.  Is this how the left is going to attack the Iran discussion?  "If Bush is really concerned about getting al Qaeda and stopping a Muslim A-bomb, he should attack Pakistan."

As I said, Pakistan already has nukes (many more than Iran may already have), has had them for awhile,  and is officially non-hostile toward us.  They even have something of a democratic tradition of their own, which, by the way, includes a military coup every so often.  Pakistan is a different case.  We may one day be faced with a radical Islamic government in Pakistan.  In that event, we have a big insurance policy called India.

Also, I think it's a bit over the top to compare Kruschev's "we will crush you" statement to Reagan and Bush's.  Also, the former's statement was in the active voice and thus was a threat whereas the latter's were not.  Reagan and Bush were calling those regimes what they were/are.  Kruschev and Ahmadenijad were/are actively trying to bring their statements to fruition.  I really think you should consider retracting that comparison.

Iran is saber-rattling with Israel more than us.  Let Israel fight it--but we ought to give them everything they need to win decisively.  Arab perception of Israel cannot get any worse anyway and we are already thought to be in cahoots with Israel.  

 Consider Ahmadinejad's stated intent to restore a certain mosque in preparation for the Mahdi's coming for one. Consider the statements regarding wiping Israel off the map as number two. Consider the 'hell for leather' determination to finish developing in spite of the threat of UN sanctions and worldwide admonition for number three. How many nukes can he build? How will he deliver them? There's an old saying around in the city I grew up in, that you don't pull out a gun unless you darn well intend to use it. Does he think that he can nuke a city, anyone's city, without serious retribution raining down on him almost effortlessly a thousand fold, or ten thousand fold?

Beg pardon? Since when? He's Wahhabi Sunni. (or Salafi, or whatever your favorite label is...)

He is Shia as is much of Al Quaeda.  He grew up in Saudi Arabia which is also Shia.  Which is why we had so much help from Saudi Arabia when we were fighting the first gulf war against Saddam's mildly Sunni government.  Al Quaeda in Iraq is also almost entirely Shia.

but this is just incorrect

Saudi Arabia is not "Shia". There is a Shi'ite minority in the country (22%), who are subject to "official political and economic discrimination". Bin Laden is not one of them; he was raised in a Wahhabi (Sunni) family, that being the predominant religion in Saudi Arabia.

Quite a few comments have tried to distinguish when MAD does/does not work.

MAD never works. Reagan found it unacceptable, and rightly so. You might note that one of the reasons the cold war ended so 'quickly' was because we changed the status quo.

First, if Iran is nuke ready, then they haven't tested yet because Isreal would wipe Tehran off the map. Which leaves one of two options a) they aren't nuclear yet, b) they are but haven't built a sufficeint arsenal to launch a counter strike on Isreal. Looking at the stated goal of "wiping Isreal off the Map". It is easy to see why they are waiting. They test Isreal launches, Iran counters, no more Isreal. I doubt that the mullahs would have any great concern over being vaporized by the balance of Isreal's bombs. In fact I can almost hear the broadcast: "We will be welcomed into Paradise, for the courage we have shown..." basically they will make themselves into a nation of "martyrs".

A posibility that no one has mentioned directly would be to irradicate Iran's progress thus far through non-traditional warfare. I'd wager that some of our folks at the NSA or elsewhere could probably hack into Iran's computer network and blast through the nastiest computer virus we could imagine. I'd grant that it unlikely that the Nuke project is operating on an unsecure network, but it would be a place to start.

An additional option worthy of consideration is to use an "E-bomb". An EMP orginating within a significant proximity to a Nuke site would fry all of the hardware. While, I don't know the status, the eggheads have been working on a non-nuke EMP device since the first documentation of this side effect of high altitude Nuke detonation.

I have to say this is a great diary, and the two stories you linked to on WindsofChange are the most frightening things I have read in years.

I'm afraid that I agree with the gentlemen at WindsofChange... but I'm even more pessimistic than Katzman.  The reason has nothing to do with Iranian insanity, but with American insanity.

I have come to believe that the Left in this country is so far gone, so delusionally hateful of Bush and Republicans, that it will never support military action of any kind against Iran.  Look at Flyerhawk's comment, and he's one of the more rational members of the Left.

No, I don't see an invasion; I don't even see the sort of sustained bombing necessary to slow the Iranian nuclear program.  Seems to me that Europe is ready to simply "accept reality" and will surrender to Islamists in the next few years.  Russia and China have enough problems internally that they won't be involved one way or another until far too late; plus, both of them would love to see the U.S. taken down a notch or two.

And America?  I can only think of two developments that would lead to us taking the firm military action necessary.

1.  GW Bush and his entire government simply resigns tomorrow and hands power to a Democrat like Hillary, thereby eliminating the Fifth Column in our media.  In today's America, only a Democrat can go to war without being stabbed in the back.  Republicans and Conservatives are still patriotic enough that most would back a Democratic war against Iran for the sake of national security; the same simply cannot be said for Democrats and Liberals.
   
2.  Mushroom cloud over a major American city.  Perhaps after that, we will finally wake up to the reality that we live in, instead of the Reality-Based Community fantasy half of us live in.

Nuclear strikes against Israel won't do it.

Oh, and one thing... even if we do go the Euro-surrender route and try some silly "carrot and stick" thing, once Iran goes nuclear, I completely, 100% buy in to the idea that the entire Middle East goes nuclear within a few years.  And then, even if we've left the region, they've killed all the Jews, the internecine war amongst the Sunni/Shia/Kurds will kill a few dozen million people over there with all of the consequences that brings.

Man, what a gloomy prognostication....  I wish I could say all of it is simply wrong.

-TS

What "stick" do you bring exactly when Iran has nukes?

The carrot and stick method is far more complicated but would yield the best results. I guess that the best way to describe what I am saying is how we have dealt with China.  Bring them into western capitalism.  Accept that Iran is a nuclear power.  There isn't anything we can do to stop that.  But if we have negotiations with Iran and let them know that we will not interfere with their domestic politics but that they will need to divest from all relations with terrorist organizations.

And if they tell us to go take a flying leap off one of our infidel buildings?  What do you propose we do then?  A really, really strong UN condemnation?  Pre-emptive thermonuclear strikes?

Our China policy worked because of tension between the Soviet Union and China.  Who do we play Iran off against?  To what end?

-TS

This diary needs to be promoted. Its excellent, and it is precisely the single most important issue the American public needs to be faced with and informed about immediately.

So please, promote this excellent diary to the front page.

1 - It won't be "our" economy that's destroyed, it will be the rest of the worlds. Remember the whole "oil is fungible" "when GM sneezes" issues.

2 - Nuclear weapons are the "cheap" strategic weapons. God forbid the use, but we've certainly clarified our policy to Iran about this. So,

3 - What will happen in the next few months - probably more of what you're seeing, unusual moves from unexpected places - Strong French defense policy statements (sure, they talk, but when's the last time they discussed nuclear policy?), I suspect additional moves by others with more to worry about, and Israel is pretty far down the list. Namely, all Israel's neighbors, as well as KSA and Turkey cannot be thrilled. I wonder what the Armenians think?

4 - Syria's present status is likely to change dramatically and soon. To many deals in too many places are putting too much pressure on them.

5 - India - I wonder if they're about to make a policy shift of some kind. We likely won't see it immediately, since it doesn't serve their purpose to be blatant, but it will appear in due course.

6 - And China has the same energy demands as India - would they want to wait for American action, or rely on it? Maybe, but if so, they'll probably want a say in it, if not their asking for even more uncontrollable results.

Finally, Iraq wasn't the lowest hanging fruit - Libya and Lebanon seem to be chasing that title, even though it didn't appear to be so. Sudan, Yemen and Somalia also seem pretty ripe. Iraq was a necessary fight unlike these others, and Iran may NOT turn out that way. Iraq has created options all over the place, and may not need to be repeated.

Exactly how, in your view, would we be in a better situation now vis-a-vis Iran had we not undertaken the mission in Iraq? What would or could we now be doing that we can't do as things stand?

I take it that you don't care whether Israel gets wiped off the map, then?  Given that Iran has threatened to do just that, that's the only conclusion I can draw from your willingness to accept Iran as a nuclear power.

Also, you suggest a 'carrot and stick' approach.  What exactly can we offer that they want, given that they reject our culture and economy?   What exactly can would you have us do if they don't cooperate, given that you've already ruled out force?

You're treading close to Nancy Pelosi territory here...

I'm fascinated by the idea that we cannot afford to deal with Iran

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed;

if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly;

you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

... Winston Churchill

No matter how you cut it, it comes down to that. You only need about 4-6 kilos of enriched uranium to make a 25 kiloton device, and that`s only if it`s been enriched to something like 93%. Let`s say the Iranians already have that much, they`d still have to mount a weapon and deliver it. But they don`t need missiles to do that. All they need to do is ship it to Lattakia and within 2 hours it`s in the Yarmouk or Bekaa Valley - it takes one hour to drive from Damascus to Beirut. So if this speculation is correct, if they already have a weapon, what guarantee is there that it`s not already within striking distance of Israel?

 Our strategy in the region is to implement democracy. Bombing away at suspected centrifuge sites may or may not work but the underlying problem of a despised regime remains. We can and should do everything possible to destabilize that regime - beginning with actively and openly assisting the 10% Kurdish population, already victimized by Khomeini and seething against said regime. IMO, a free Kurdistan is in the best interests of the United States - the fact that it has not been pursued with vigor resides with the leaden linear thinking of the State department and its kow-towing to Euro-diplomatic sacred cows - how`s that for a mixed metaphor?

 This is a time for redrawing of maps and restructuring alliances. A little bit of finesse is in order. That the Iranians, surprisingly, have shown none doesn`t mean that we have to follow their lead.

I assume that you're thinking about fomenting or wishing for or somehow causing a "soft" revolution in Iran, in which the Iranian people would throw off their theocratic yoke and align with us. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Holsinger says that such an effort would take perhaps a year, and in that time the mullahs would have nuclear weapons. So even if we depose the regime, the dominoes will start falling and the damage is done.

How do you answer him?

Atomic weaponry is now 60 year old technology. Any country that wasn't to have weapons atomic weapons can get it. Threats of sanctions or even war should they get such weapons will only make matters worse once they do have them.

Iran's only real economy deals with a commodity that the world wants. Threatening not to buy their oil is a pretty empty threat as it will find its way to the market. Even threats of blockade will have only a minimal effect.

The only way to deal with such countries is engagement. That's where I think a number of administrations have fallen down over they years. Iranians are adults, and when we talk of not letting them do this or have that then we're not treating them like adults.

President Ahmadinejad has been pitching a fit like a troubled teen, but he has little power. The power is and since 1979 has been in the council of guardians. Ahmadinejad can say lots of interesting things, but his leash is no longer than the previous (supposed) reformer.

The way to deal with Iran is to express dismay at their quest for nuclear weaponry, but do nothing to stop them. Condemnation is fine, as is reassuring the neighborhood that we will respond in a devastating fashion if the weaponry is used. The key is engagement and making them look silly for needing a larger set of weaponry.

Time is on our side in this. The goal is that they will eventually lose interest in this petulant fit and put the weaponry out of easy reach. However talk of bombing various locations or stopping the flow of oil just gives the leadership a reason to scream against the foreign devil.

Iran has lots of problems. They have raised a huge generation of youth that has little interest in the revolution and no economy to support them. This generation is both the biggest threat to the world but also the greatest hope. If they are radicalized by a perceived threat from outside then the region will not be stable for another 50 years. If they turn against the revolution anything can happen.

...to threaten massive retaliation against "Iran" in case they shoot off a nuclear weapon.

First question: how do you achieve credibility for the threat? I suppose a plausible answer here is: "everyone knows those dastardly Republicans will nuke anyone that crosses them." But what about when Hillary becomes President?

Second question: what if they nuke Tel Aviv or New York? Our response will be to retaliate in full force with nuclear weapons, correct? Now (and this is why I put Iran in quotes above): who do you go after? Do you wipe out all of Iran's major cities and kill tens of millions of people? If not, then do you target the "Guardians" that you mentioned? What does the response look like? And is this outcome a desirable state of affairs?

Third question: what if someone nukes Tel Aviv or New York? The Left will argue that there's no clear evidence of Iranian complicity so now you can't retaliate against anyone.

You're essentially proposing that we accept a nuclear-armed power-balanced world in which "security" comes from MAD. Others have pointed out that MAD only works if your opponent is rational. (I do happen to think the Iranians are rational.) The bigger problem is that the retaliatory response must indeed be assured.

I guess I need to hear you say in so many words that you are able, willing and ready to vaporize 20 million Iranian civilians in return for 100,000 dead New Yorkers.

"Does the United States have the collective will to undertake either of these options, or perhaps a third as yet unnamed one?"

At present moment, no.  When the support for Iraq is as tepid as it currently is, combined with the perception of failure-to-find-WMDs,  the US will not be able to muster the internal support necessary for an Iranian strike right now.

It will take a nuclear test, an attack on Israel, or something equally dire before Joe Average goes back into post-9/11 mode.  Until we SEE the bomb, there's not going to be any real action.

The previous comments regarding logistics, terrain, population, etc. should be strongly considered.  We can't waltz in like we did Iraq, and airstrikes are not going to be enough.

We have to work on the knowledge that the Iranians don't support their governors.  Undercover ops and quiet support to foment the internal revolution will help to bring to power the people who like listening to western music and seeing their girls in nice dresses.

The Iranian youth can be westernized and be brought closer to the Ally side of the equation, and they are the majority of that country's population.

Iran either has the bomb or is darn close to getting it.  The genie is out of the bottle; now it is a question of gets to ask for its wishes.

Like many others, I believe this is a frightening topic that is rapidly becoming a case of "too little, too late" and the West is poised once again to look back and wonder why we/they didn't do something earlier.

is an act of war, as are alternatives like blockade, fomenting insurrection amongst the Kurds and sabotage. We`ve discussed this on another thread. The question to me is which line would be more effective in achieving regime change. A strike within Iran would have the effect of consolidating the power of the Mullahs amongst the population, however effective it might be in removing the immediate threat, whereas the alternatives I suggest would be an attack on the regime.

 I don`t know Holsinger`s qualifications but his claim that a revolution would take a year seems a bit self-serving. I mean, why not 10 years - who`s to say it would even be possible? The point however, is that regime change is the only real solution to the problem in the long run and the only solution compatible with our long term strategy in the region. Besides, pressuring the mullahs from within adds a new dynamic to the situation. It disrupts things, creates movement and opportunities. The situation is static, which favors them - movement favors us.

 They either have a weapon already or they don`t. If they do, I`d bet money it`s already close to Israel - wouldn`t they do the same thing that Saddam did with his WMD? If they don`t, then shaking things up inside the country, using any means available, is to our advantage. Yes, we`d be committed to a war, but one that does not automatically array the Iranian people against us. What we need is a Kermit Roosevelt, not a Bomber Harris.

 

Concur with everyone else that we don't have enough troops for a conventional invasion.  We're also probably pretty short on SOF, given our committments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we have to fight now (or soon), we'll probably have to do it with the forces we have available, not the ones we wished we had.  (Or wished we still had, before Congress and the President in the 1990s downsized 1/3 of the military away).

We don't have the forces to pacify Iran, or ensure it's free of nuclear materials.  From what I can see, we do have the military forces to:

• Seriously damage their nuclear facilities.  We may not be able to stop their nuclear activities 100%, but we should be able to set them back a bit. At least, that would give us some breathing space.
  
• Blockade Iranian ports and strike its export capabilities.  Of course, I doubt the rest of the world would agree to this.  China, for one, might not think too kindly of our cutting into their already-dear oil supply.  But, we have the naval and air forces to do it.  
  
• Use CIA and whomever else we can to forment revolt inside Iran.  But, we'd have to be ready for the Revolutionary Guards to kill thousands of pro-democracy Iranian protesters.  These hardliners will not simply slip away.
  
• Okay; here's the really hard part.  We'd likely have to fully mobilize our Reserves and National Guard.  Once we set this fuze, it could explode in any number of ways.  Example--full-scale civil war, an ongoing and nasty insurgency that threatens to prevent Iran from ever becoming stable.  The rest of the world will expect us to clean up the mess we "made."  And, I submit that sheer human decency would demand that we not plunge Iran into chaos and then walk away, leaving millions of innocent Iranians to an uncertain fate.  Unless we really want to become outcasts in the world community, America would have to build up sufficient ground forces so it could, within a few months, go in and establish an acceptable level of order in the country.  Let's not fool ourselves--the Revolutionary Guards should be expected to trash the country, before letting anyone else have it.

If we do Parts 1, 2 and 3 only, we can damage Iran, but it would be left a mess.  A mess with which the entire Middle East would have to contend, along with us.  And, I question whether our nation has the will, or our military the stamina, to implement Part 4, and also complete its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm hoping that the President is bending the ears of as many world leaders as he can, to convince them to either support, or at the very least not obstruct, whatever "last-ditch" plan the US (and probably the UK) implement.  IF the mullahs sense there's a real likelihood that the international community wouldn't try to stop the US from bombing, blockading and serious subversion attempts, that should make them pause (if the mullahs are indeed rational) or go over the edge (if they're not).

This affair makes Normandy seem like a simple field exercise.

Churchill must have been one of the best, if not the best orator ever.  I'm glad you found that one.

mission initially, but in hindsight, it has crippled us from acting on Iran.  One, we would be able to get support of the American people with the WMD argument and the evil Iranians argument (won't work now).  Two, we would be much better able to afford (financially) an attack on Iran (both in terms of our deficit and in oil prices, which are already inflated from an iraq risk standpoint [unjustified]).  Three, we would be much better able to garner international support had we not gone into Iraq (we still may get some support, but it won't be as great or willing had we not gone into Iraq).  Finally, we would have a fresh military should we actually need to put troops on the ground in Iran (I really doubt we could do that now).

...but you may have looked past Holsinger's issue. He says that a soft revolution (which of course might come even if we did nothing to encourage it) still has little chance of occurring before Iran has usable nuclear weapons. In that case, the nukes will be loose across the region, because we will have proved to all that we won't stop anyone from acquiring them. Even the emergence of a pro-Western Iranian regime does nothing to help matters.

Sounds like you basically disagree with his scenario. My next comment is not to you, Joe, but to those who have said on this thread that countries will inevitably acquire nuclear weapons, because the technology is available. I think the fear of a reaction from the US has kept and is keeping a lot of bad guys from going all the way. If nothing else, our adventure in Iraq bolstered that credential.

Your point was that attacking Iran will wreck our economy with $150/bbl crude oil and create 10,000 or so unacceptable casualties. Neither of those potential outcomes would be different if we hadn't attacked Iraq. If you're saying we should have wiped out Iran instead of Iraq back in 2003, then we'd still have had to deal with these consequences of the attack then rather than now. Your argument is against striking Iran, not against having struck Iraq first.

Far more important that the amount of explosives necessary is the timing. The major problem with an implosion device, the type you describe, is bringing the sphere to compression at "exactly" the right speed --- too fast or too slow and it won't fission. There are others such as geometry and initiation, but the critical element is timing.

So just assembling the sphere and letting it be exposed to a high energy explosion will not do it :-)

is useless, actually worse than useless. It has been my view for years that he wants Islam to have, and use, the bomb.

and the dirty bomb scenario? Say 6 kilos of undetonated weapons grade uranium subjected to conventional munitions?

Exposing 6 kilos of highly enriched uranium to a close proximity high energy explosion would certainly spread "some badness" around the immediate area but it would not spread very far.

That being said, I don't see dirty bombs as much of a real threat anyway, the real danger from a dirty bomb is the uninformed perception of the dnager and the panic that would be spread by the press.

....unfortunately, I don't see it going any other way.

Like Hitler before him, Ahmadhi-Nejad and the men around him cannot be counted on to change their nature. Scorpion and the frog, you know.

 Consider the Iranian leadership. Not simply the "puppet", Ahmadhi-Nejad. I am convinced that A-N is gathering more power into his own hands, much like Stalin. The Council of Guardians is probably unaware of his power. If Iran detonates a Trinity-sized nuke, A-N will get the credit, not the Council.

Now within his circle, A-N and his people are convinced that the West is weak and in retreat. A firm stand and an agressive policy will bring victory to Iran and a reborn Persian Empire. The Jews will one day be exterminated and the Arab League brought under the yoke of Tehran's atomic arsenal. At least that is the plan. A-N is deliberately following Hitler's European crisis diplomacy of the mid-thirties. Convinced that the West will do nothing, A-N will keep pushing until he reaches a brick wall.

 They are closer to the bomb than we think. Paul Tibbets' Atomic Strike Force dropped the world's only uranium bomb, Little Boy,  on Hiroshima. Everything else produced since then has been based on Fat Man, a plutionium implosion device. Yet the genius behind Little Boy was its simplicity. It was basically a big rifle with two enriched uranium slugs in it. Such technology, including the ARCHIE units and the radar proximity fuses, is easily adaptable to modern warhead design without the heavy jacketing of the original bomb. All the Persians need to do is field detonate a version of Little Boy and one of two things will happen:

1. The world will back off.
   
2. Israel and the U.S. will attack jointly while the Iranians have only one device.

BTW, yes, I know, the TRINITY test was a field test of Fat Man. They knew Little Boy would work. The physics package was foolproof. It was arming the dadgum thing in flight that was the problem....

I suspect, strongly, that we will wait until the first Iranian test. They must make the first overt act. The attack, when made by us, will include units such as the IDF's Unit 69 and, strangely enough, the 509th Composite Group, which carried out the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions. However, there will be no Enola Gay and Bock's Car this time around. Instead, we'll use rather lethal B-2's with new F-22 Raptor escorts. The 509th is still our lead atomic unit.

The Iranians have a decent defense system but they don't know what we have (neither do most of us on this board, btw). And they need that reactor, plus the underground facilities next to it.

 The other enrichment and cyclotron facilities are located in or near civilian areas. They'll have to go.

We'll try to get away without using atomics, and then only in a retaliatory capacity. A lot depends on whether or not the Chia Pet (aka, Kim Jong Il) sold the Iranians weaponized devices. I don't think he would be that stupid, but Kim is Kim, so one never knows. But I think we will see an Iranian detonation, and that will galvanize the West and silence our Fifth Column. We will have our casus belli. And, by the way, we will go to general war. There will be no half-measures. The program will simply have to be frozen in place after the first detonation by constant strategic bombardment and SOF operations until the U.S. and Israel can assemble an invasion force.

That regime will not be allowed to survive. Period.

This is what I see coming. It follows from that Churchill statement above. Democracies are not suicide pacts. When even the French start butching up and talking nuclear, one can tell that things are beginning to rouse among the men of the West.

Finally, comment on our Fifth Columnists. It is amazing that the Kossacks say that 41% hate Bush more than bin Laden. That is appalling, and it is a reflection of the defeatisme that is rampant in the Democratic Party's activist base. I posted a response months ago comparing the Democratic activists the the French of the late Third Republic before von Paulus' Sixth Army marched into Paris.

They literally do not have the will to defend themselves now, so filled with loathing are they for George Bush and Republicans. They would literally have preferred that Saddam Hussein have remained in power, slaughtering tens of thousands of people, rather than have George Bush liberate them. They will not admit this, but it is the logical conclusion of their beliefs. They just don't have the guts to come out and admit it. Bin Laden has changed their world in ways that fill them with fear, and they react with hate, which is born of fear. But they hate the wrong guy, because they know deep down that what they believe cannot solve the problem of Islamic Fascism.

It will take the Iranian Bomb, and the rise of a Persian Fuhrer, to shock them out of their fantasy world, their "reality based community". The prospect of a Second Holocaust is something that Democrats have not seriously grappled with. No, not even Hillary; her crack about "outsourcing diplomacy" was childish focus-grouped sound biting aimed at Condi Rice and 2008 when a more serious approach to the problem was needed.

The military guys are right. We will need to be shocked into action. The Persian Bomb will be Ahmadhi-Nejad's Danzig. After that, the Whirlwind.

Section 9, I only wonder about the 41% over at Kos, probably higher then that but there's a pro forma reluctance to put all their cards on the table.

Re: Then I`d give a call to my pals at Al Jazeera and advise them that something might happen, and tell them to back off, say, 4,000 meters and wait for a fuzing device in the form of an American airstrike.

I don't think the force from a nearby airstrike would be sufficient to do the job in the exact manner needed to achieve detonation.

Re: Third question: what if someone nukes Tel Aviv or New York?

I believe that there are technical ways to determine the source of such a weapon by analysis of its fission fragments.

I agree. the MSM has paralized us. Also, the dems will never back ANY type of military action. Their base won't let them.

Re: Like Hitler before him, Ahmadhi-Nejad and the men around him cannot be counted on to change their nature.

However the Iranians do not have anything remotely like the German Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe. What made Hitler dangerous was the fact that he had a first-class military to back up his rhetoric. Without that, even the most rancid rhetoric is just stale air.

Re: Now within his circle, A-N and his people are convinced that the West is weak and in retreat.

If so, they are idiots who have been paying no attention for the last four years--and I doubt that. How could they interpret the events on either side of their nation (Iraq and Afghanistan) as any sort of "retreat"? Rather, their atomic ambitions are fueled by their knowledge that the West (at least America and the UK) have finally gotten serious about cleaning up the Augean stables of the Middle East. One member of the Axis of Evil is down--and they know darn well they could be next.

Re: And, by the way, we will go to general war.

I disagree. The Arab world is famous for standing idly by and doing nothing except tut-tutting, and Iran is not even Arab, or Sunni Muslim--there is no love lost between the Iranians and the Arabs. If the Arab masses did not rise for Saddam Hussein, they will not lift a finger for the Iranians.

Do you also believe the Left would accept it if you announced that you had just obliterated Teheran because fission fragments from the nuke that went off in New York one hour earlier have "technical markers" indicating a high probability that it came from Iran?

My point in all this is that we may find it very difficult to retaliate in force against an Iranian nuclear strike. And I think the Iranians are betting we won't have the nerve to.

This is completely classic nuclear strategy. Books were written in the Fifties about this.

New Yorkers or TelAvivers are you willing to sacrifice when Tehran's first nuke test is an operational test?  That is, their first bomb is "tested" by detonation over/under/in a big Western city?

Oh, and when that happens, who will the American Left blame?  Do you really think they'll say, "Oh, well, sorry bout that -- the neoconservatives were right all along about these emerging threats. So, what was it you guys wanted to do?"

Heck no.  It'll be "Cowboy BushHalliburtonHitler's reckless warmongering forced the Iranians to do this.  Robert Fisk was right all along -- we deserved it.  Impeach Bush!"

And in that eventuality, I'm not entirely convinced that the I-word will be inappropriate.  The Left's motivation for it would be opposite of mine: Bush's failure to act to the extent necessary, and his "Global War on Some Terror" -- but we musn't upset the terrorist-financing Saudis, and our State Dept should refer to Iran as "democratic", our 14-month "rush to war" in Iraq, our 2-year deference to the EU3's "diplomacy", our continued support of PLA terrorists, playing pattycake with Wahiris in Pakistan, NOT trumpeting oil-for-food as the proof of French, German, and Russian perfidy and corruption in their opposition to the Iraq invasion, etc etc etc ad nauseum.  AAgggghh.  And these failures are going to lead to the death of millions.  !@#^@!@$#@!#$!#$

Because I believe that a previous poster had it correct: we won't act until #2 occurs: a major western city goes up in nuclear smoke.  But even then, the Left won't let President Bush be the one to act -- only his successor.

This is a time for redrawing of maps and restructuring alliances. A little
bit of finesse is in order. That the Iranians, surprisingly, have shown none
does`t mean that we have to follow their lead.

I strongly agree with you. George Will would probably agree as well. He gave
an interview this week to Laura Ingraham and pointed out the merits of Bush's
approach. He thinks the Administration is smart to let the UN and EU take a
first swipe at the crisis in Iran.

1. It shows how feckless the UN is controlling WMDs.
2. It shows how impotent the EU is in dealing with rogue nations.

I think it also shows how reckless the Democrats are as demonstrated by Mrs. Clinton's
characterization of Bush's approach as "out sourcing" the Iran crisis
to the EU and the UN. What happened to the screams of "unilateralism"
from Democrats before Iraq? I think it further shows how important it is to
have John Bolton at the UN.

Will points out the "un-intended consequences" of the military option.

1. If Israel went in and attacked Iran it would need flyover rights from Turkey
   and Iraq. It would probably need to refuel in Iraq. We would openly be a party
   to the action even if it said "Made in Israel" on the bombs.
2. They would need to hit more than 300 targets some of which are more than
   100 feet under ground.
3. Iran could make it much more difficult for us in Iran.
4. Iran could use Hesbula to make life very difficult for Israel.
5. Iran could double the price of oil over night by closing off the Straights
   of Hormuz.
6. We have our hands full with Iraq. Iran is much bigger with almost 70 million
   people.

Regime change is the answer. People like Jerome Corsi believe it can be done
peacefully. Depending on the polls you look at, more than 80% of Iranians are
pro-western or pro-democracy. There would be a long insurgency no doubt, but
the military option would lead to far more bloodshed.

That's the winner of the Nobel Peas Prize you're talking about.  You know the successor to Jimmy Arafat and Yasser Carter as whirled peas maker.

...visualize whirled peas...

bunker buster.  That would put all the guilty parties, with respect to the hostage situation, behind us.

related to a nuke war in the region is that the Iranian rulers are OK with being nuked themselves.  They consider this their "end times" and view being killed as martyrdom.  Bottom line, there is no MAD strategy available that will work with these folks.  Unlike the Russians, they hope we do nuke them.

Realistically, our only reasonable option is a first strike - not necessarily a nuclear strike - to take out as much of their nuclear capability as possible AND all of their government.

The Gathering Storm, American Edition, page 348

[So your answer is basically...  ]

...to threaten massive retaliation against "Iran" in case they shoot off a nuclear weapon.

First question: how do you achieve credibility for the threat? I suppose a plausible answer here is: "everyone knows those dastardly Republicans will nuke anyone that crosses them." But what about when Hillary becomes President?

The US had credibility on that question for 45 years during the cold war. Everybody knew that a nuclear attack on Western Europe or Taiwan would bring a response from the US. Hence there was no attack. Both Democrats and Republicans served as president during that time, and for virtually the entire period at least 1 house of congress was controlled by Democrats. Indeed the performance of past Democrats has allowed the current crop to drift towards the peacenik fringe. A little responsibility would do them good.

Second question: what if they nuke Tel Aviv or New York? Our response will be to retaliate in full force with nuclear weapons, correct? Now (and this is why I put Iran in quotes above): who do you go after? Do you wipe out all of Iran's major cities and kill tens of millions of people? If not, then do you target the "Guardians" that you mentioned? What does the response look like? And is this outcome a desirable state of affairs?

Indeed, a blast in NY or Tel Aviv would bring massive retaliation. The rockets would be directed at various targets -- any leadership, any facility used in the attack, and all armed forces. However nuclear weapons aren't made for precise targeting. In the words of Denzel Washington anybody who profited from it, anybody who knew about it, anybody who raises their eyes to me. I'll kill 'em all.

Massive retaliation is a crude weapon. However anything less if a nuclear weapon is used against New York or Tel Aviv is way too light.

Third question: what if someone nukes Tel Aviv or New York? The Left will argue that there's no clear evidence of Iranian complicity so now you can't retaliate against anyone.

I have no doubt that many on the left will want protection of rights like in a US courtroom. However no president will allow such an arguement to carry the day. Especially a Democrat will fear looking too weak in the face of such an act.

Indeed I posed a hypothetical question concerning the use of nuclear weapons against a US city as far back as last March. Large scale operations can be traced, and a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv would be traced quickly. If it came from the Council of Guardians then the country would pay. No doubt about it.

You state well the major of disagreement that I have with most people here:

Others have pointed out that MAD only works if your opponent is rational. (I do happen to think the Iranians are rational.)

I think the Iranians are indeed rational. Since the revolution in 1979 they have had only a single major conflict with their neighbors -- and that was initiated by Iraq. Iran is a country that is seeking to enlarge their world presence and see nuclear weapons as a way to do it.

The revolution has calmed somewhat over the years. Gone are the days when Kurds were slaughtered wholesale. Gone are the bloody purges of the 1980's. Khatami served as a reformer for 8 years, one predessor was nearly executed for much less radical reform proposals. The elections are tightly controlled, but elections are possible today.

The Iran of today is much different than the Iran of 1979, and it will continue to change. They have a huge generation coming of age that looks westward much more than the Council likes. TV and the internet will continue to moderate the regime. The key for us is to treat them like adults until a future generation is able to steer the ship of state to more moderate waters. This will be done by engagement over the very long term.

Struggles like this take many years. The US cold war lasted roughly 70 years. The struggle against Islamic extremism will take at least that long. We will defeat them the same way we defeated the Soviet Union -- with engagement, with a growing economy, and with our cultural appeal to the next generation. A very effective combination, but not a mission that will be completed in a single year, a single decade, or possibly even in a single century.

is wonderful to see, but I need to be convinced a bit more, I think.

We'll try to get away without using atomics, and then only in a retaliatory capacity. A lot depends on whether or not the Chia Pet (aka, Kim Jong Il) sold the Iranians weaponized devices. I don't think he would be that stupid, but Kim is Kim, so one never knows. But I think we will see an Iranian detonation, and that will galvanize the West and silence our Fifth Column. We will have our casus belli. And, by the way, we will go to general war. There will be no half-measures. The program will simply have to be frozen in place after the first detonation by constant strategic bombardment and SOF operations until the U.S. and Israel can assemble an invasion force.

That regime will not be allowed to survive. Period.

I really think you misunderstand our Fifth Column, and you underestimate the spinelessness of the West.

An Iranian nuclear test will indeed galvanize the West... into a paroxysm of surrender in the name of "reality".  France and Germany are just about there in any case, and are preparing to become Islamic Republics in a few decades through demographic changes.  Spain installed an appeasement government because of one terror attack, and they're going to step up when confronted with NUKES?  Sorry, but I just don't see it.

Our Fifth Column doesn't view Iran as a threat; it views BUSH as the threat.  Iran, they figure, can be "contained" or dealt with using "carrots and sticks".  The carrots are obvious -- surrender -- but the sticks are not named.

Following the lead of the "more enlightened" French and German diplomats, our Left will call loudly for surrender in the name of "reality".  General war?  And risk losing 200,000 Americans when tactical nukes get introduced?  No way.  Strategic bombings?  And risk nuclear exchange?  No way.  Blockades?  And what do we do when Iran threatens to nuke?

No, sorry.  The Left will be calling for surrender with the Iranians, but immediate impeachment of their actual enemy the Bush regime for allowing the situation to deteriorate to this point.  Various people will be screaming and shouting that because of Bush's illegal war in Iraq, we couldn't do anything to stop Iran.  That they did everything in their power to help the Islamists snatch victory from the jaws of defeat will not be mentioned.

It will take the Iranian Bomb, and the rise of a Persian Fuhrer, to shock them out of their fantasy world, their "reality based community".

I agree that the Iranian Bomb will shock them out of their fantasy world; I just don't agree that their response will be resistance instead of acquiescence.

-TS

So that would be the late Forties. I'd love to know what response he'd have gotten if he'd said it in 1935 or 6!

By your own account, it is at least possible that bin Laden is in Iran or that Iran is harboring/sponsoring al Qaeda.  But that wasn't the point of mentioning bin Laden.  It was just to show how far Iran has to go before they should be given any consideration as a regional power worthy of respect

Anything is possible but since Bin Laden has only show a general interest in Israel.  The point of mentioning Bin Laden is the same point when the Bush Administration mentioned Bin Laden when talking about Iraq.  Guilt by assumed association.

What is your fascination with Pakistan?  Is this the new line we can expect out of the left to counter the rationale for action against Iran?  Before Iraq, the left postulated that if the US was really concerned about WMD, it should attack North Korea.  Is this how the left is going to attack the Iran discussion?  "If Bush is really concerned about getting al Qaeda and stopping a Muslim A-bomb, he should attack Pakistan."

My "facsination" with Pakistan is to illustrate to you that a Muslim already has nukes, an unstable Muslim nation.   I most certainly do not advocate invading Pakistan, although we have already attacked Pakistant recently.  

Also, I think it's a bit over the top to compare Kruschev's "we will crush you" statement to Reagan and Bush's.  Also, the former's statement was in the active voice and thus was a threat whereas the latter's were not.  Reagan and Bush were calling those regimes what they were/are.  Kruschev and Ahmadenijad were/are actively trying to bring their statements to fruition.  I really think you should consider retracting that comparison.

I suspect you don't know what Kruschev was referring to when he said his "We will crush you" comment.  And I would like to know how you know that Ahmadenijad is actively trying to obliterate the Israeli nation.  Please point to examples of this happening.  

Regardless you are trying to parse the comments based on your biases.  The Axis of Evil comment offended a LOT of Iranians.   They felt it was unneccessary and wrong.  But you feel it was completely appropriate.  That's fine.  But Ahmadenijad feels that his comments are acceptable because of what HE IS TRYING TO DO.

Here's what I got from your response:

If the Iranian mullahs were to detonate, or to cause their agents to detonate a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US or Israel, we would massively retaliate with nuclear force against their territory and people. Our retaliation would be swift, immediate, and total, and it would be undertaken with full confidence in the support of the American people. But we need not worry about any of this because the regime will moderate over time.

I have to tell you that I think this is wishful thinking in the extreme. The whole point of the exercise is to deter nuclear action by Iran, not to gloat over the ashes after we hit them back. And Iran has a very reasonable expectation that we will do nothing. Remember, they despise us because their think our very culture makes us weak and unable to resist their superior moral force. They may well see fit to take our measure. The rational strategy for them is to use their nuclear power to test their limits in ever-more provocative ways and thus to become a global heavyweight. Your proposal accepts this potential outcome.

To your point about a new "twilight struggle": it took Ronald Reagan to knock the Soviet Union over. They didn't fall by themselves. As great a blessing it would for all of us to get a new Reagan, I don't think you can plan a geopolitical strategy on the expectation that he will indeed appear. And besides, Holsinger's point at the top of this thread was that an Iranian nuke will open the floodgates and result in rampant proliferation, precisely because we allowed Iran to have theirs. Now what do you do?

...Redstate management for promoting this diary. One of the best I've read in awhile, and that's saying something given the usual quality of postings on this site.

prognostication from the inexpert below.

My own pessimism on what will be done about Iran is hard to overcome, and stated already on this thread.  But your response, I feel, leaves out something incredibly important to the whole discussion.

I think the Iranians are indeed rational. Since the revolution in 1979 they have had only a single major conflict with their neighbors -- and that was initiated by Iraq. Iran is a country that is seeking to enlarge their world presence and see nuclear weapons as a way to do it.

...

Struggles like this take many years. The US cold war lasted roughly 70 years. The struggle against Islamic extremism will take at least that long. We will defeat them the same way we defeated the Soviet Union -- with engagement, with a growing economy, and with our cultural appeal to the next generation. A very effective combination, but not a mission that will be completed in a single year, a single decade, or possibly even in a single century.

Let's agree for sake of discussion that everything you say is true.  Iranians are rational, they are not the Taliban crazed for self-immolation in the name of Allah, and can be contained using doctrines from the Cold War.  So in the end, even if Iran has dozens of nuclear weapons, they'll never use it because they know that the response would be overwhelming.  Fine.

Thing is, you need to focus on that phrase I highlighted above: "enlarge their world presence".  What exactly does that entail, do you think?  What does it mean for Iran to enlarge its world presence?

The Soviet Union, let's say, was about spreading communism to all corners of the world.  It was their stated goal, at least, even if one takes a cynical view of the Soviet Empire.  What are Iran's stated goals?

Well, we have (1) wipe Israel of the map; (2) wipe U.S. off the map; and (3) spread the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East.  Suppose we put on super-optimistic glasses and say that #1 and 2 are mere saber-rattling rhetoric.  What of #3?  As far as any of us knows, Iran has actually backed up #3 both internally and through long-established support for terrorist organizations.

The Cold War took 70 years, as you've pointed out.  We eventually won that without nuclear exchange.  That's true.  But how many proxy wars have the US and the USSR fought during that period?  How many millions of lives were lost in Vietnam, in Korea, in Cambodia, in Eastern Europe, and how many thousands of American lives in all of those proxy wars?  It isn't as if the US and the USSR simply sat glaring at each other; with nukes eliminating the possibility of open general warfare between the two, the proxy wars raged on in a sort of "equilibrium".

Is that the state we want to see for the next 70 years while we wait for the Long Victory?  Would the Islamists follow the same script as did the Soviet Union?

Bottomline is this: Iranian nukes take military action of every kind except the most extreme out of the equation, period.  So we go into fighting proxy wars, as we once did with the Soviets.

Our proxies are UN condemnations, strongly worded letters of protest, feeble economic sanction attempts, and... uh, exporting Beyonce, Eminem, and Brokeback Mountain to Tehran.

Their proxies are the Hamas, Hezbollah, and any other terror organization that will now have 100% secure safe-haven within Iran, and have proven the willingness and the ability to use suicide bombings against soft targets as a tactic of war.

Who would win that proxy war do you think?  Especially when the Islamic world is out-reproducing the West by 3:1, and have shown time and again the willingness to utterly crush any internal dissent?

Assuming Iran to be rational, as you do, they wouldn't give nukes to Hamas et. al.  No, instead, they would just set up the Ahmedinejad University of Terrorism in downtown Tehran and openly invite all jihadis there.  What can we do about it?  Nothing short of all-out war, which means nuclear annihilation.  They arm Hamas with all manner of anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down El Al airliners, start openly supporting anti-American guerillas in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  What are we going to do about it?

What the Iranian situation represents is nothing short of the single greatest challenge to the Bush Doctrine since it was formulated in 2001.  Those states that harbor terorrists are to be treated as terrorists... unless you are Iran, and have nukes, in which case, our hands are tied.

At that point, the only thing we can do is to turn to defense.  No more staying on the offense against terrorists -- Iranian nuke puts a stop to that.  Fortress America has to become reality, with all of the attendant loss of civil liberties and freedoms that make us Americans.  The Left is screaming about fascism and Nazis in the White House now because Bush tapped Al Qaeda's phone calls?  Wait until President Hillary uses her suddenly-rediscovered inherent Constitutional Authority as Commander-in-Chief to "do what is necessary to protect the American people from Hezbollah dirty bombs".

In other words, what all this theorizing about nuclear deterrence needs to take into account is what happens after we achieve some sort of balance with Iran.  "Iran is rational, so they'll never use the Bomb" is fine and good.  But since we are also rational, so we'll never use the Bomb either, and what does that then free Iran up to do short of the Bomb?  How would they use that power, and how would we respond?

Finally, if little Iran can call America's bluff and survive, and show that it can achieve a nuclear balance with the "mighty" United States... what signal does that send?  Well, for one thing, if I were China, I would immediately invade Taiwan, and call the American bluff.  We backed down from Iran; there's no way we're standing up to China.

This got long, but I have to stop, before I get utterly depressed for the world my son will inherit.

-TS

Your comments are much appreciated.

Didn't mean to type "Democrats."  It's an auto fill in feature on this Mac that gets me in trouble if I'm not looking at the screen.  Thanks again.

Re: My point in all this is that we may find it very difficult to retaliate in force against an Iranian nuclear strike. And I think the Iranians are betting we won't have the nerve to.

Picture this: Some American city has just been incinerated by a 10 kiloton blast, with gruesome pictures all over the media and the internet.

Now picture the public mood.

Any leftist who even publicly voiced the sentiment that we shouldn't retaliate would be torn limb from limb (perhaps quite literally). Even abroad I doubt we'd find very many people (other than outright enemies of course) seriously suggesting the US shouldn't respond to such an attack. If the Iranians think otherwise they would soon be as undeceived as Al Qaida and the Taliban were after 9-11, or Hitler and Tojo after Pearl Harbor.

This is probably the most realistic scenario.

Gloating over the ashes isn't the goal. The goal is to make sure that the weapons aren't used by making sure all understand the predictable consequence of use.

It's the best of a set of bad choices. Splitting the atom to make bombs is 60 year old technology. Nothing short of occupation of any country can keep them from it should they desire it. Indeed the initial capabilities were made by a group of scientists using slide rules and notepads. Iranians with computers are more than capable.

Indeed this scenario will be played out over the next decades with other large, somewhat violent countries. The key is to make it a silly security blanket. Overt aggression will only make countries more likely to obtain, and indeed use the capability. Egypt and Nigeria are dominant countries of their corners of the world. They will probably be looking into nuclear capabilities in the coming decades. Other possibilities are the Saudi Arabia (to balance Iran) and possibly Venezuela. The only way to deal with these guys is to treat them like adults with engagement towards the end of getting them to 1> take good care of the bombs and then 2> get rid of them.

To your point about a new "twilight struggle": it took Ronald Reagan to knock the Soviet Union over.

No, Reagan didn't knock the Soviet union over. The Soviets were destroyed by a series of leaders. Roosevelt used their machinery to help destroy the Nazi's. Truman and Eisenhower confronted them in Korea; Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon in Vietnam. All contributed to isolating Cuba, as well as fighting the spread of communism in S. America. Even Carter held the line in Afghanistan.

In addition strong leaders from other countries aided the struggle. Turkish soldiers served in Korea, and Aussies in Vietnam. General Zia in Pakistan gave the US supply lines to aid the fighters in Afghanistan and even the French helped in Africa.

And that doesn't even get to the leaders of congress that saw the importance of the struggle.

President GHW Bush was the beneficiary of a long line of patient warriors that defeated the Soviet Union. Indeed Reagan was one of the leading lights of that struggle, but far from the only name.

A number of people responded to my comments with basically the same response so I figured it would be  easier to have a generic response.

You can tell me that I'm a Leftist defeatist if you like.  Your choice.  But reality is reality.  I'm not against invading Iran because it's morally wrong or because George Bush is bad or any other silly reason like that.

I'm against it because I think even if we COULD invade Iran it would be very touch and go whether we would ultimately win or not.   I'm against because I feel that the more we convince Muslims that we will attack and kill Muslims whenever we want the more we convince them that killing innocent Western civilians is justifiable.  

I'm tired of being told that Regime X is evil/suicidal/crazy/etc in an attempt to justify our foreign policy decisions.  The Iranian leadership is NOT crazy or suicidal and it is no more evil than dozens of other regimes.

Seems that some here are unwilling to accept the political reality of the situation and wish to instead do a lot of sabre-rattling. If that makes you feel better that's fine but it won't solve any problems.  

Well, we have (1) wipe Israel of the map; (2) wipe U.S. off the map; and (3) spread the Islamic Revolution throughout the Middle East.  Suppose we put on super-optimistic glasses and say that #1 and 2 are mere saber-rattling rhetoric.  What of #3?  As far as any of us knows, Iran has actually backed up #3 both internally and through long-established support for terrorist organizations.

Don't confuse statements for public consumption with policy. Statements about wiping out Israel or the US are harder to carry out than say. However it does play well to some of the locals. As for the Islamic Revolution, it really hasn't done that well over the 25 years of its existence. Sure, it's radicalized politics in Lebanon and the Gaza, but hasn't really done much in the region. The Saudis are still in power, as are all of the Sheikdoms in the Gulf.

Next door in Iraq a parlimentary democracy is taking faltering steps. Neighbors such as Pakistan and Afghanistan are much more democratic than they were 25 years ago (although neither is perfect). Azerbaijan on the northern border has a fairly functioning democracy. Even Trukmenistan, another northern neighbor, while under autocratic rule, has shown no desire to accept any of the Iranian style Revolution.

So I would argue that that Iran is a problem to be dealt with, not a crisis. They have a huge generation that is much less radical than their leaders. This generation will either moderate the regime, or be radicalized against it. Either way within decades they will have their hands too full of internal issues to worry about exporting revolution. We must then be in a position to deal with what comes next, and neither bombing, blockading, nor invading get us in a position to influence that day.

an idiot. To say that the Iranian regime is not crazy, is just plain wrong. If they weren't crazy, they would live in peace, sell their oil and raise the standard of living for their people.

Re: The most difficult part of the equation related to a nuke war in the region is that the Iranian rulers are OK with being nuked themselves.  

I very much doubt that. Sure there are a few (very few actually) suicidal fanatics out there. But you don't claw your way to the top of a vicious thugocarcy by being a suicidal nutcase. Yes, they don't care if they waste the lives of their grunts: they preach paradise and 72 virgins to them. But they are very protective of their own skin. Even Osama bin laden skulks in some rathole rather than going out in a blaze of glory. The Mullahs have a good thing going: wealth and power and all the perks thereof. They aren't going to throw that away foolishly.

Re: However nuclear weapons aren't made for precise targeting.

Actually today's American nukes can be targeted as well as our other munitions, one big reason we got rid of most of the big "city busters" and have much smaller warheads today. Of course one or two kiltotons is still a very big kaboom, but it isn't the sort of armageddonal weapon like the old multi-megaton bombs.

Re: Our proxies are UN condemnations, strongly worded letters of protest, feeble economic sanction attempts, and... uh, exporting Beyonce, Eminem, and Brokeback Mountain to Tehran.

Why do you have such a pesimisstic view of American power? America doesn't have proxies? I'm pressed for time, but I'll name one right now:  Israel.

Re: I really think you misunderstand our Fifth Column, and you underestimate the spinelessness of the West.

Your pessimism is bizarre. As I posted upthread, imagine a nuke has just detonated in NYC (or London or Rome for that matter). Now imagine the public mood. Not just here, but also abroad.  Other than a very small handful of truly religious pacifists everyone will be screaming for blood and fire. There will be no "left" or "right" here or abroad on that day.

Picture this: a nuke goes off in New York and kills 10,000 people. It was smuggled in in a cargo container. No one takes credit for the attack. There is rejoicing in every mosque in the world (including the ones in Dearborn, Michigan).

18 hours after the attack (flight time from Whiteman AFB), 10 million Iranians have died in a comprehensive retaliatory strike on military targets (which are largely in or near populated areas).

Is this likely? I don't think so. What is more likely is that we will launch a large and costly conventional military operation against the Iranian homeland. Almost immediately, cries will be raised on the Left and in the media to withdraw and end the slaughter.

If I'm Iran, I like these odds, and I'll keep poking the US in the eye until I get something in return for a (mendacious) promise to stand down.

chastised.

My lack of respect for a Nobel Peas Prize winner is unconscionable and I beg the forgiveness of the gods political correctness.

:-)

he could provide terminal guidance --- no wait that's not a good idea, we'd miss the target for certain then.

I need to hear you say in so many words that you are able, willing and ready to vaporize 20 million Iranian civilians in return for 100,000 dead New Yorkers. Until then I can't believe that you are serious about meeting nuclear force with nuclear force.

If your response to this is that we don't have to worry about it because the Iranians will moderate after the next 60 years of enlightened leadership in the White House, Congress and abroad, then you have to remember: the other guy will sense your hesitation, and capitalize on it.

What you (and flyerhawk) are saying is quite precisely that we should take our place among a rather large rank of newly nuclear nations, all competing on an equal geopolitical footing. You may even think of yourself as a realist, but you are dancing on the bared swords of world war. You might be exactly right but I'm not that fatalistic. Yet.

were I making the decision, I would not take the chance.  Putting nukes in the hands of deranged people has no upside.

Several people on this thread aren't willing to see that the US can keep a lot of bad people under control as long as we are willing to do whatever it takes to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating. Someone suggested that we have to treat the Iranians as adults.

No. We have to treat them as playground bullies. If they think they can tweak our nose at will, they'll be shaking down lunch money for a long time to come.

You couldn't be more right about China. They and everyone are watching with great interest to see just how far we let Iran, with its stated hegemonic ambitions, go.

Hitler's Speech in Wilhelmshaven, 1 April, 1939

"Only when this Jewish bacillus infecting the life of peoples has been removed can one hope to establish a co-operation amongst the nations which shall be built up on a lasting understanding."

for a reference to gun control. While the stakes are far higher where nukes are concerned, there is a common theme. There are no bad weapons, only bad people. The French have nukes and we don't fear them because they are...well French! We can measure the sanity of the remaining leaders of Iran, once a number of them wake up on the wrong side of the sand. This may be the option being considered by Israel. Targeting hundreds of sites is difficult. Targeting a few limos is a simple matter with the right intel. The remainder may think martyrdom is over-rated. If the shooting gallery has an endless supply of ducks, then more robust measures may be in order.

the really scary rhetoric.

Still leaves #3, spreading the Islamic Revolution, which goal Iran has done a lot more than simply talk about.

Could the reason why they failed in the past 25 years have something to do with why they're seeking the Persian Bomb today?  And does that lead to some speculation about what might happen post-nuclearization?

-TS

Shrieks, wails, accusations of war mongering, etc.

Many wise people of the day, such as flyerhawk did today, would have said to get used to it and started learning German.

can become an aerosol in an explosion and fire and can be spread by high altitude winds and cover a significant area if the winds are right.  After this, our concern for radioactivity, (even a little bit) will lead us to declare the area uninhabitable.  Whole cities could be thus tainted, or more depending on the wind.

I need to hear you say in so many words that you are able, willing and ready to vaporize 20 million Iranian civilians in return for 100,000 dead New Yorkers. Until then I can't believe that you are serious about meeting nuclear force with nuclear force.

That is the definition of deterrent.

Indeed on the ready, willing, and able...I have no position in government so the able part escapes me as the ability to launch is put within the grasp of only a select number of government employees. However only a credible deterrent has kept the nuclear genie in the bottle for 60 years, and the same equation is in play going forward.

I think you probably underestimate the destruction that would be wrought on NY (100k) and overestimate the destruction in Iran (20 MM). However, yes, in the case of a nuclear blast in an American city the perpetrator should be destroyed and immediately.

Those calculations aren't new. Back in my Air Force days I used to do weather modeling for the missile guys that would be firing toward the Soviet Union. They needed to understand how the fallout clouds would form under different weather conditions. Discussing the probabilities and conditions for a retalitory strike is nothing new, and the fact that it's slightly South of the targets of the 1980's should be no obstacle.

the fact it that the fear is unfounded, its the public panic fed by the idiots in the press and the enviro groups that will cause the problem, not the radioactive materials.

Israel is difficult to describe as an American proxy -- despite what the Arabs/Leftists might say -- first, because it is a sovereign nation that does not take marching orders from Washington.  I think the Israelis have shown that independence time and again, most recently in building the Security Wall and in things like carrying out targeted assassinations.  Second, the point of a proxy is that it allows you to carry out warfare without reaching the principals, and without requiring the principals to have to intervene.  If Hamas blows up an American embassy somewhere, and we respond with missile attacks on Hamas HQ, Iran doesn't have to step in.  With Israel, the minute that it takes military action, not only will Iran and all of its proxies respond, but there's a good possibility that the conflict spreads to the entire region, and guess what?  We have to intervene or our alliance with Israel is worthless.  That isn't a proxy; we might as well do it ourselves then.

So what proxies do we have?  Saudi Arabia is more of an enemy than a proxy; Iraq, if it gets established, could possibly serve as a proxy, but it isn't anywhere near there.  Same goes for Afghanistan.  Turkey?  Egypt?  UAE?  Jordan?  Any non-sovereign actors we can use the way that Iran uses the militias?  I just can't see any.

-TS

I wonder if the Mullahs' equivalent of the SA would have thugs ready to take over in a crisis, though.

I asked specific questions about your proposal.

You called for a 'carrot' and a 'stick.'  What can we offer that they want to give them if they cooperate, and what punishment can we mete out to give them if they don't cooperate?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but a combination of reward and deterrent is the usual meaning of 'carrot and stick approach.'  I do remember the press using that cliche over and over again back when President Clinton dealt with North Korea.

He's not nearly that smart, nor is he nearly that powerful.

Ahmadinejad is a loudmouth with little power in Iran. He serves as the frowning face of the Council of Guardians after nearly a decade of putting forward the smiling face of Khatami. Neither are more than a facade for the real power. Many were too trusting the the facade of a reformer and are now too rattled at the facade of a lunatic. However neither was true. The power is still with the clerics that have held it since Khomeini died.

Yes we bomb their nuclear facilities.  But at the same time we MUST take out their political leadership including the Mullahs.

Remove the head, the people will more likely revolt.  Remove the facilities, leaving the head, and you've got an even bigger mess.

...and thank you.

Now, the problem I have is that there are an awful lot of noisy people in the US that will be very hesitant to do a full retaliatory strike even if we lose New York, Tel Aviv, or any other city. For your view of deterrence to work, there must be no doubt.

Or is it jawohl?

Again, we need to send Jimmy Carter to Iran so he can mimic the success he enjoyed negotiating with the North Koreans.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.  Kumbya, my lord, kumbya...

As a matter of fact, the Iranian regime and the North Korean regime, along with several in Africa are evil.  And in several cases the guys at the top are crazy.  Kim & Robert Mugabe top that list.

First of all, it's important to understand just what "sabre-rattling" is.  Me getting in Mike Tyson's face is sabre-rattling because it's an empty threat.  He's better equipped, better trained and (sadly) in better shape.  Saddam railing on about the "mother of all battles" or his press stooge talking about anything fits the bill as well.

The US government being willing to take military action in Iran is definitely not sabre-rattling.  There is no military organization on earth that can "beat" us.  Even as we are stretched by Iraq in terms of manpower.  We don't necessarily need to "invade" Iran, in the Iraq model, if we are willing to kill some civilians.  OK, lots of civilians.  I'm not going to walk thru a tactical exercise here, but combined air power, SpOps, CIAish exercise would have have an extraordinarily high probability of success.  The reason is the Iranian people and their desire to rid themselves of the Mullahs.

Don't get me wrong, any solution with regard to Iran is going to be really messy and take a long time.  That includes a "negotiated" solution.  The zillion dollar question keeps working down to whether we believe the Iranian political/Islamic leadership will contain themselves to the "peaceful" use of nuclear energy.

Remember as you ponder the question, it's really more like the 100 million life question because it's not about money.  If they start they won't stop with Israel, their missiles will reach southern Europe and you shouldn't think that Chirac wasn't serious.  The French, for all the hooting (rightly so) about their military are absolutely and totally ruthless when pushed into a corner they can't surrender out of.  Ask the Algerians or the folks in the Ivory Coast.

Leftists who have claimed that the victims of 9-11 were Little Eichmans who deserved it have not been torn apart limb from limb, punched in the face, or even smacked down verbally much, and is in fact a celebrated "figure of resistance against the Bush Theocracy", I have quite a different picture in my mind.

Boston is vaporized by a 10 kT blast; public is furious and demands a response.

Bin Laden takes responsibility, while Ahmadinejad issues expressions of sorrow over this tragedy caused by American meddling in the holy lands of Islam, and condemns Al Qaeda.  No fool he, or the mullahs, they deflect responsibility to the shadowy network of mujahideen.

Leftists quickly accuse the Bush Administration of falling asleep on the job; of not doing enough to protect the homeland because of its ill-conceived and illegal venture in Iraq; Iran is suspect #1, but there's no proof.  Meanwhile, Bin Laden is trumpeting Al Qaeda's triumphant blow against the Great Satan.  Michael Moore laments once again that Al Qaeda attacked blue state Americans who are not responsible, instead of those rednecks who voted for Bush.  

Who are we nuking?  Who are we responding to?  How are we responding?  With 9-11, we knew where Bin Laden was, and we knew that the Taliban was sheltering him.  Do we know where he is today?  Nope.  Do we know that Iran was behind the attack?  Nope.

Will some President launch a nuclear strike without 100%, ironclad, indubitable proof?  After the way Bush has been pilloried for going to war in Iraq on "slam-dunk" evidence and opinion shared by the world's intelligence services?

I really don't see it.

Eventually, voices are raised first in blogs and then in mainstream media asking if it's worth losing Boston to keep protecting the fascist Israeli state, or to impose our democracy by force on those who do not want it.  Shouldn't we focus our attention instead on protecting our borders?  We've tried the Neocon Bush-Doctrine way; it's time to try the Fortress America way.

That's what I see.  But then, I'm pessimistic on this.

-TS

I've responded to your post above with my own vision of how things will play out.

Secondly, however, the detonation in question is not in an American city, but in the mountains of Iran.  A successful nuclear test that announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

You still think there would be no Left and Right simply because Iran tested a nuke?

I think we would have immediate calls for appeasement and surrender, disguised as "we must come to terms with reality", coupled with vicious attacks on the Bush Administration.

-TS

Ezeckiel, you have it backwards Iran has a vastly predominant Shi'ia population; Iraq has a vastly predominant Shi'ia population - although Saddam's ruling Baathist Party was comprised primarily of Sunnis (as is Saddam himself)

Saudi Arabia is SUNNI - as is Osama B.L. & 90% of the entire Muslim world. Unfortunately, S.A.'s national religion is the Wahabbi sect of Sunni Islam, an EXTREMELY fundamental Islamic sect.  

Osama Ben Laden, his 2d in command Zawahiri, Zarqawi in Iraq, the maniacs who are beheading 13 yr old Christian girls in Bali, the wacko Reid (the Brit of "exploding sneaker" fame) are ALL members of the Wahabbi Sect of SUNNI Islam.

His preposterous, cliche-ridden rantings, the obvious and insistent stage-managing of his appearances surely must be a political charade, a grotesquely over-exaggerated act designed to fascinate the ignorant and the stupid. Certainly his programme, with its blatant appeal to the worst prejudices in the German public, its obvious combination of incompatibles, and its evident attempt to be all things to almost all men, seemed to debar him from being regarded as a serious politician.-Karl Arnold of the Simplicissimus in a letter about Hitler

Clowns are funny.  A clown holding a gun to your head is not.

I want peace! I want to deny Iran the ability to give us a reason to retaliate.

Honestly, we don't need another 60 years of cold war. I believe that the US can and must exercise global leadership which forthrightly and robustly makes it a bad option for anyone to go nuclear.

I don't know how to do this. I wish I did. But I'm not about to "face reality" and just accept a world full of belligerent nuclear states.

Anything is possible but since Bin Laden has only show a general interest in Israel.  The point of mentioning Bin Laden is the same point when the Bush Administration mentioned Bin Laden when talking about Iraq.  Guilt by assumed association.

Again, I only mentioned bin Laden to you in my earlier comment to demonstrate how far I think the Mullahs need to go before they can be considered worthy of respect as a regional power.  If you are willing to give them that respect absent the other conditions I mentioned (peace w/Israel, drop support for terror, moves toward democracy) that's fine.  I am not.  Also, originally you stated that bin Laden could not be in Iran because the Sunnis and Shia consider each other heritics.  You then went on to sate that Muslims have great affinity for one another when they are fighting a common enemy.  You still haven't dealt with that contradiction.

My "facsination" with Pakistan is to illustrate to you that a Muslim already has nukes, an unstable Muslim nation.   I most certainly do not advocate invading Pakistan, although we have already attacked Pakistant recently.

The goal here is not to keep a Muslim nation from getting nukes, but to keep that Muslim nation from getting nukes.  I thought this would be clear from my mentioning some middle eastern Muslim nations that I might be more willing to see go nuclear than Iran.  Pakiatan already has nukes.  That genie is truly already out of the bottle.  This one needs to be kept in.

I suspect you don't know what Kruschev was referring to when he said his "We will crush you" comment.  And I would like to know how you know that Ahmadenijad is actively trying to obliterate the Israeli nation.  Please point to examples of this happening.

Wikipedia says Kruschev was probably trying to say "we will outlast you."  Indeed is quotes him as later saying that is what he meant.  I don't care.  As far as I am concerned, his statement and Ahmadenijad's bear no resemblance to Reagan and Bush's.  If you want to call that bias, I'll be proud to wear it.  As for Ahmadenijad, I can't recall when exactly he pledged to revoke his country's support for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Just read this article by Leanne Piggott on an Australian opinion site, and the situation described below seems mind-boggling foolish if true (i haven't done any further research than this article):

"...it is critical for all governments concerned to support those components of the Iranian opposition who want what we have, namely, a democratic political system that respects human rights and the rule of law. That means that the Australian Government, and the governments of other Western countries, including the EU and the US, need to reverse their current designation as "terrorist organisations" of the PMOI and the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI). The NCRI is an umbrella coalition of Iranian opposition groups to which the PMOI belongs, and which functions as a government-in-exile."

From http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4078.

You have denied the reality of what Ahmadhi-Nejad has said. The "plain meaning" of the text, as it were. There is a reason conservatives don't like people like you nominating Supreme Court justices. You treat the Constitution the way you treat what Ahmadhi-Nejad has said: you ignore the text.

He wishes to see Israel wiped off the map. Period.

Failing that, he wishes to move the Jews to Europe. Period.

His regime is researching the atomic bomb and the means to deliver it.

Why do you not give him credit for what he says?

If your opinion represents the Current Wisdom among Democrats, I only ask this: please do not argue that Democrats are willing to protect me and my family from Islamic Fascists with atomic bombs. That is a risible joke. With the rise of this new Persian Fuhrer, we are past jokes.

You give two reasons for not trying to deny nukes to Iran.

First, because we might not succeed.

Second, because Muslims will attack us more if we show willingness to fight them.

Your point of view is entirely coherent, well-considered and intelligent. I can counterargue your second point easily: like anyone else, Muslims despise weakness. They may hate us more if we are willing to confront them, but they will have no choice but to respect our moral strength, and they will back down from fighting. We do not need to be respecting the Muslims more. We need to respect ourselves more.

Your first point is its own counterargument.

The bottom line here is that, for you, "reality" amounts to accepting limitations. Limitations on our national prerogatives, our position in the world, and the rectitude of our convictions. I realize now that you can never accept what I will say next, but I'll say it anyway: we are right to demand that Iran abandon their nuclear ambitions, and the world will be better and more peaceful if we make it happen.

Targeting hundreds of sites is difficult. Targeting a few limos is a simple matter with the right intel.

I doubt that regime decapitation will be an effective strategy. Even "with the right intel," we could only knock off some of the leaders, maybe even Ahmadenijad if we got lucky, but the ruling faction has plenty of like minded idiots ready to replace them.

I agree targeting hundreds of sites is difficult, but assuming nasty notes from the Security Council doesn't accomplish much, I think that or invasion is the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms. I hope I'm wrong, and somebody in the government is carrying out an effective alternative, but I doubt it.

It won't be a neat and clean one shot deal. If we're not willing to invade (I lean against that option), massive air strikes will have to be repeated over and over as the Iranians attempt to recover their nukes program. Eventually the regime may decide that a futile attempt to acquire nukes isn't worth the grief (but only if we ensure it's futile), or the Iranians will replace the regime; but that might take many years of bombing.

We'll lose pilots, and unavoidably kill innocent civilians near legitimate targets. We'll also make mistakes, hitting hospitals or the like that aren't near any valid target; expect to see the bloody pictures rerun endlessly on TV. I suspect flyerhawk is right that it will spur an increase in terrorist activity against Americans.

Bombing Iran will be a costly venture. Those costs have to be weighed against the costs of a nuclear armed Iran ruled by mad mullahs, which I think are even higher.

If Iran was ever on the brink of acquiring the combination of missiles and warheads to nuke Israel, does anyone think Israel wouldn't attack Iran with nuclear weapons first? At that point, Israel's conventional military forces wouldn't be capable of effectively denying Iran that capability; launching nuclear war, killing millions of innocent civilians, would be their only viable military option at that point (unless their willing to accept a nuclear armed regime that's openly committed to Israel's destruction). That's what I see as our alternatives: costly conventional bombing of Iran over possibly many years, or a high liklihood of nuclear war in the Middle East in a decade or so.

I'm not sure that it will significantly increase oil prices over the long run. Iran would have to deprive itself of badly needed oil revenues, if it wants to increase the world price by cutting production. I don't favor attacking oil production related targets. Maybe we should give them more incentive to keep the oil money flowing into their pockets, by attacking expensive targets not directly related to nukes, which they have to purchase replacements for. Even if attacking Iran does increase oil prices, I think that's preferable to letting them acquire nuclear arms.

Where to start, many good points and some that appear erronious...  

First concerning Iran Nuking Isreal,

If Iran has the bomb and the delivery system It probably dosn't have many bombs...  Isreal is and has been working on an ABM system that has had severial successful tests.

Next Isreal has manys bombs and it has an operational delivery system (besides aircraft) to deliver them.  No one has any doubts Isreal will have the stomach to use them.  They don't need overflight rights, or refuling to return the favior many fold and make some Iranian Glass.

Also after being nuked no one would say a darn word if they retailated.   You also couldn't discount a retalitoiry strike from the US or Brits... Once Iran has open the bottle and let the Gennie out nobody will be pulling punches.  

Second, Iran hitting middle east oil termainials,

We have been working on a naval varaint of ABM that has had severial successful intercepts fired from Ageis capable ships, these ships are routinly deployed to the Persian Gulf.  Again IF Iran has any Nukes they don't have many, They won't waste them on an oil termainl... About 15-30 minutes after our satalittes (China, russias sats too) pick up the launch plume and confirm the target Irans launch facilities will become a large smoking hole in the ground, as will their Nuke production facilities... We don't need marthion flights from America. ONE D-4 Trident Missle from a sub will do the trick nicely. and no world power will say a peep.

Iran poping a Nuke in the US.  With GW,  Iran is largly a skating rink 15 minutes later. The policy of the united states is when hit by a WMD,  is to answer in Kind with overwelming force.  With the massive casulties involved any leftie who says a peep would be recalled in short order.    

Iran poping a Nuke in Europe...

Iran is a skating rink too,  Not just from US, I remind you the Brits have missles as do the Russians, and the French...

The point is Once Iran pops one nuke the Gennie is out of the bottle. NO decent leader will be pulling punches and wait to see if they are next. We may be the great satian but they don't like the Chinnese, Russians, Brits, Frogs, Indians any better, we are all infidals...  

The question of the day is are the Mullias crazy enough to do it.  The answer is maybe and I don't know.   That is the crux of the problem no one knows.  

What everyone with an once of common sense does know is that if Iran would use just one Nuke Iran will cease to be Iran very quickly.

As for preemptive action, that is a question of political will not a question of military ability...  We have a couple Heavy divisions in desert storage in Iraq, and airbases that can take heavy aircraft, it wouldn't take long to get the people in place.  As with Iraq I expect about the same result Vs Iran Armed forces. The question comes after, however, there is a sizabe portion of Iran that would like be free of the mulias...

JMHO

Jim

My Dad said it best when speaking of the Japannese in WWII...  They wanted to die for their emperior, and we wanted to help them...

I would advocate the same approach now.  If they want to meet Allah we should do everything in our power to arrange the meeting.    

I realize now that you can never accept what I will say next, but I'll say it anyway: we are right to demand that Iran abandon their nuclear ambitions, and the world will be better and more peaceful if we make it happen

I completely agree.  A nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing for the US.  At the VERY LEAST they significantly lessen our hegemony in the region.   At the most they could potentially use those nukes against or our allies.

The problem is that many of our military options against Iran would create more problems than they would solve.  And we would be FAR from certain to even solve the initial problem.

I am NOT advocating appeasement.  I am simply trying to point out the folly of a military attack on Iran.  There are diplomatic and economic forces we can use to influence Iran.  

The truth of the matter is that we haven't been the nicest nation to Iran.  We killed off their popular leader to install our preferred dictator and helped keep him in brutal power for decades.  We aided Saddam while he invaded Iran.  They have no reason to trust US.  

I think there is a tendency for people to view this situation with a Machiavellian perspective and view anything short of excessive might betrays weakness.  I disagree.   We need to figure how to bring them into the West not try and keep them cordoned off from the rest of the world.

We can offer the Iranians more access to our markets.  WE can offer the Iranians security.  We can offer to recognize their diplomats.  

And we can offer the stick of putting the full court economic blitz on them.  While a full boycott of Iranian oil may never happen we can make their lives FAR worse than they are today.

I'm not sure why North Korea is relevant to this discussion.

Giving you every benefit of the doubt, Flyerhawk, here's where I arrive at things.

• You are opposed to invading Iran because we may lose.
  
•  In addition, you are opposed because you believe that we should extend the hand of friendship to the Islamic world, instead of a fist.  I am assuming that you believe our actions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. and our support for Israel provoke Islamists to attack us and kill innocent Western civilians.
  
• Corollary: If we cease doing those things that the Islamists hate, they will cease attacking us and killing innocent Western civilians.  (They may kill innocent Arab/Muslim civilians, particularly if they are women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, etc., but that is none of our concern.)
  
• You believe that nations are not insane/suicidal/evil, etc.  Rhetoric calling nations or regimes crazy, suicidal, etc. is, you believe, counterproductive and quite possibly false/misleading.  Iranian regime is acting in rational self-interest, and therefore, can be reasoned with/bribed/intimidated without resorting to war.
  
• We Republicans and war conservatives should accept political reality, admit Iran to the nuclear club, and work with Iran, instead of against it.
  

Fine.  You win.  I fully support your policy platform.  But let's make sure what that is.  As far as I can tell, your policy prescriptions are contained in these passages:

The carrot and stick method is far more complicated but would yield the best results. I guess that the best way to describe what I am saying is how we have dealt with China.  Bring them into western capitalism.  Accept that Iran is a nuclear power.  There isn't anything we can do to stop that.  But if we have negotiations with Iran and let them know that we will not interfere with their domestic politics but that they will need to divest from all relations with terrorist organizations.

...

Iran wants nuclear weapons for national security.  They their neighbor Iraq get invaded for what they perceive to be dubious reasons and they want to make sure that doesnt to them.  They also want to be the preeminent regional power.  They want to be treated as equals in the Middle East to the US.  Whether that will ever happen is questionable but that is their objective.

Based on the above, here's what we should do.

1.  Accept Iran into the nuclear powers club.  Stop calling them crazy, insane, and so forth.  Treat them like they are rational nation-states with rational nation-state calculations affecting all other nation-states.  We need to remember this lesson for future nuclear proliferation issues, when states like North Korea, Lybia, Sudan, Nigeria, and others wish to acquire nuclear weapons.  They are all rational nation-states with rational nation-state calculations, and we ought to accept them all into the nuclear powers club.
   
2.  All nation-states want money and power; we can give Iran money and power as the carrot, and use some sort of unspecified sanctions as the stick.  We should bring Iran into Western capitalism; since the West already buys billions and billions of dollars worth of oil from Iran, and Iran doesn't have any other exports that I know of, and hasn't exactly done a lot of economic development to have other exports, it isn't really clear what this means, but we ought to do it. Of course, we need to do this gingerly since Islamic law forbids things like interest, but perhaps we can finance the creation of a Tehran Stock Exchange and make sure that our big banks invest in projects in Iran, except that they can't be paid an interest, so instead of loans, those banks will have to structure the investment in some other way.  It goes without saying that firms like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, with all those Jewish partners, are not to be included in such investments.
   
3.  We should of course insist that Iran cease all of its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and if they fail to comply, we'll put those unspecified sticks into play and punish them for noncompliance.
   
4.  We should also sign a non-aggression pact with Iran, to ensure its regime that we will do nothing to undermine its security.  Since our invasion of Iraq is the proximate cause for Iran's desire for nuclear weapons, by removing our troops from Iraq and signing a firm non-aggression treaty with Iran, we will put their minds at ease.
   
5.  As Iran wants to be the regional superpower, dominating the affairs of the Middle East, we should help them by establishing diplomatic relations (remember, no female ambassadors!) with Iran, sponsoring them for membership in the UN Security Council, and ensuring that their voice is heard within Iraq.
   
6.  As Iran's importance in the region is directly tied to the fate of Israel, we should pressure the government of Israel to leave the contested terrain of Palestine and resettle somewhere in Montana.  Or perhaps we can work with our allies, and find someplace in Canada or Australian outback for the new state of Israel.  Failing that, we should immediately cut off all aid to Israel and specifically declare that we will not lift a finger should Israel get attacked.

If we do these things, then we can probably contain Iran, and eventually bring them into our way of life.  Within fifty years or so, I'm sure American Idol Tehran will be #1 on Iranian TV.

Am I missing anything about the Flyerhawk Iran Policy?

-TS

Soph-we need to just hope like h*ll that the next president isn't a dem, or that's exactly what we will get.

but the fact remains that our culture is dominated by this fear of even low levels of radioactivity.  You can't sell your house if Radon is discovered in the crawl space.  Even the radiation in some electronic switches must be accounted for in industry.  I have no doubt that a dirty bomb would condemn property associated with contamination.  It might not kill people but it could render large sections of expensive real estate worthless. And yes, it is largely the environmental and press contingents that would drive the concern.  But the health manuals used in industry describe even small amounts of radioactivity (depending on the emissions) as cancer causing-long term hazards.  An area contaminated by radioactive plutonium or uranium will be fenced off and unusuable for a long time.  You can bet on it.

You are opposed to invading Iran because we may lose

No.  I'm concerned that we would lose.  Matter of fact I think that there are MANY losing situations with only one winning one.  Consider the challenges we are dealing with in Iraq.  Iran is 4 times larger and has twice the population of Iraq.  How do we control that nation, assuming that we take them over?

#   In addition, you are opposed because you believe that we should extend the hand of friendship to the Islamic world, instead of a fist.  I am assuming that you believe our actions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. and our support for Israel provoke Islamists to attack us and kill innocent Western civilians.

I believe that many Muslims view our actions in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, as an assault on Islam.  If we continue to invade Muslim nations with less and less justification they will surely distrust us more.  

If we cease doing those things that the Islamists hate, they will cease attacking us and killing innocent Western civilians.  (They may kill innocent Arab/Muslim civilians, particularly if they are women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, etc., but that is none of our concern.)

Nope.  The terrorists will still be terrorists.  But without public support the terrorists would wither away.

You believe that nations are not insane/suicidal/evil, etc.  Rhetoric calling nations or regimes crazy, suicidal, etc. is, you believe, counterproductive and quite possibly false/misleading.  Iranian regime is acting in rational self-interest, and therefore, can be reasoned with/bribed/intimidated without resorting to war.

I believe that calling every nation that ever opposes us insane or suicidal is nothing more than rhetoric and serves little purpose other than to convince people that the other side CANNOT be reasoned with.  

We Republicans and war conservatives should accept political reality, admit Iran to the nuclear club, and work with Iran, instead of against it.

Iran is almost certainly GOING to be a nuclear nation, if they aren't already.  We can continue to fight this and treat Iran as a pariah and as such have no influence on how they might use their new influence or we accept the reality and work to disincent the Iranians from building such weapons.

As for your points.

1.  Rhetoric is rhetoric.  I'm not suggesting that we should release a press statement saying that we think it is hunky dorry that the Iranians are building nukes.  But we must build our foreign policy on reality and what we can and cannot do.
   
2. I personally think that security is the Iranian leaderships biggest concern right now.   Not sure how much money will affect them but we should explore ways to pull the Iranians into the western markets.
   
3. Sounds good.  Course we have to figure out what the precise sticks are but that can be done.
   
4. I think there are ways to increase Iranian security with doing the rather extreme measures you propose.
   
5. I think that this is certainly a carrot that can be used.
   
6. While your other options were snarky this one is just downright insulting.  You and I may disagree about the proper policy I think I deserve a little more respect in a response than this.  I certainly wouldn't insult you by suggesting that your policy is nothing more than a nuke 'em till they glow policy.

Nothing is simple but I personally feel that our way of life will convince people that is the best to live purely on its own provided we let it. But I'm just an America hating leftist so what do I know?

I'm not sure that the comparison to the lessons of Chamberline prior to WWII aren't actually correct, but, won't the use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US actually lead to a far worse issue of global security after? (I'm interested to hear opinions on this)

Given a specific scenario a lot of sane people would agree that going to war would be the sane thing to do, however, woudldn't the use of tactical nuclear weapons set off a chain of global paranoia about the US?

Basically I'm saying that in the event of the aweful need to go to war over this, my opinion is to go with conventional weapons.

Look up the results of the current followup studies on the "devastating" results of Chernobyl, perhaps the penultimate dirty bomb --- almost none of the predicted health and environmental disasters have happened.

As I said, the problem is not the reality of the radioactive materials it is the idiocy and duplicity of the press and the environemntal groups  --- and in that I include government environmental extremist groups such as the EPA.

I tried to avoid it, but it was impossible at some of the points.

Sadly, #6 is where I was really trying not to be snarky, but I was overcome.  I apologize; you deserved better.

Nonetheless, you must answer the Jewish question if your position is to be taken even halfway seriously.  If you believe everything you assumed, that Iran wants to take leadership in the region, then you must recognize that elimination of Israel is Job #1.

How exactly do we cope with that?  Even assuming an engagement strategy of some kind, how do you get over this issue?

Again, sorry for some of the snark, and I respect much of your various points, but seriously, your positions are not exactly thought through, Flyer.  For example, you never addressed the issue of the "stick" in the "carrot and stick" approach, which seems to me to be a fatal flaw, since you propose that we step back from the madness of all-out war and pursue a "carrot and stick" policy.  Missing half of the policy equation isn't a good place to be, would you agree?

-TS

that the Israel "problem" is difficult to deal with.     But how is Iran more difficult to deal with in this regards than Egypt was in the 70s?  Egypt ATTACKED ISrael several times.  And yet a peace accord with made with Egypt that has lasted for 30 years.

I think it is too simplistic to say that any Middle Eastern Muslim nation that wants to take a leadership role in the region must try to eradicate Israel.  

Well I thought I did mention several "sticks" but anyway.  I think you are expecting me to flesh out an entire foreign policy strategy which is beyond both my abilities and scope of this thread.   Should I demand that those who propose war flesh out an entire strategic plan for an Iranian invasion, including dealing with the occupation of Iran?   So far the only "strategy" that has been mentioned is "Let's invade those suckas!", completely ignoring the challenges of actually doing that.

Those who have their minds made up should read no further.

Just like we've kept Castro an enemy for lifetimes, it seems, so have the US's historical hard-line foreign policy of trade and cultural embargoes helped to create the difficulties we now face with Iran going nuclear.  We need to engage the Iranians seriously, and nothing would work better than opening our arms to them.

The best option for dealing with Iranians, many of who personally love the west and the US, is to adopt a sunshine policy that would better integrate Iran into the world economy, lessen the security concerns that drive their nuclear ambitions, empower those who are working for change in Iran, and to take the wind out of the sails of the conservative hard-liners.

More carrots are is needed, rather than saying that beatings will continue until morale improves.

I'm no expert, but what those at the Council of Foreign Relations are saying makes alot of sense to me.  Here is Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh (http://www.cfr.org/bios/9599/ray_takeyh.html) says:

The castigation of Iran as an "axis of evil" or denigration of its political process, only provides ammunition to hardliners decrying Iran's democrats as unwitting agents of Western machination. ...

What is to be done? ... Iran will change, however, this will not be a change imposed or accelerated from abroad. The best manner of impacting Iran's internal struggles is to reconnect the two societies. Cultural exchanges, academic scholarships, and more relaxed visa policy can once more yield an interaction between two peoples that have long been estranged. Beyond that the United States would be wise to temper its rhetoric and relax its economic sanctions. For too long, we have relied on the hard stick of coercion, it is time to overwhelm Iran with America's more compelling soft power. By integrating Iran into the global economy, the US can generate internal pressures for transparency and decentralization that will press Iran toward a more responsible international conduct. Through a multifaceted approach, the Untied States can best deter Iran's provocative policies in the short-run and cultivate a democratic transition in the long-run. ...

Although both Iraq and Pakistan constitute long-term sources of concern, today the United States stands as Iran's foremost strategic challenge. US-Iranian relations have become even more strained in recent years. Under the auspices of the Bush Doctrine, the United States has granted itself the right to employ preemptive military intervention as a means of disarming radical states. The massive projection of American power on all of Iran's frontiers since September 11th has added credence to the Iranian claim of being encircled by the United States.

The remarkable success of Operation Iraqi Freedom in overthrowing Saddam cannot but have made a formidable impression on Iran's leadership. The fact remains that Iraq's anticipated chemical weapons did not deter Washington from military intervention. ... President Bush may loathe Kim Jong Il, but far from contemplating military action, the United States and its allies are considering an economic relief package and security guarantees to dissuade North Korea from its nuclear path. The contrasting fates of Iraq and North Korea certainly elevate the significance of nuclear weapons in the Iranian clerical cosmology. ...

Today, the Islamic Republic stands at crossroads. For the past two years, Iran has been involved in delicate negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, regarding the direction of its nuclear program. Ultimately, the course of Iran's nuclear policy maybe decided less by what Europeans say, than by what Americans do. The nature of Iran's relations with the United States and the type of security architecture that emerges in the Persian Gulf are likely to determine Iran's decisions. It is neither inevitable nor absolute that Iran will become the next member of the nuclear club, as its internal debates are real and its course of actions is still unsettled. The international community and the United States will have an immeasurable impact on Iran's nuclear future. A more imaginative US diplomacy can still prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold and assembling a bomb. ...

In the past two decades, states as varied as Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, eventually retreated from the nuclear precipice. ... [I]n all cases, lessened external threats have been critical to relinquishment of nuclear ambitions. In a similar vein, economic incentives such as favorable commercial ties and access to international lending organizations have been effective, as they provide palpable benefits to ruling elites. It is rare, however, for a state that views nuclear weapons as fundamental to its security interests to dispense with such weapons under relentless threats of military reprisal and economic strangulation. ... In the end, it appears that a clever mixture of incentives and penalties can accomplish more in the realm of counter-proliferation then can threats of military reprisal and economic coercion.

As Washington seeks to grapple with Iran's nuclear challenge, it must accept that its doctrine of preemption with its threats and its hostile rhetoric has limited utility in altering Iran's path. Indeed, such belligerent US posture only assists those within the theocracy that insist that the American danger can only be negated through the possession of the "strategic weapon." A more constructive American diplomacy can still go a long way to assure the success of its non-proliferation pledges. The fortunate aspect for the Bush administration is that a diplomatic process is already underway, as the Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for more than two years. It is inconceivable that such negotiations encompassing issues such as security and trade cooperation can succeed with an effective American participation. It is time for the United States to stop standing on the sidelines shouting invectives at both European diplomats and their Iranian counterparts and participate in the talks that can finally resolve Iran's nuclear imbroglio.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9263/iran.html?breadcrumb=default

Here are some other links:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9610/

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9610/feinstein.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8909/apply_korea_lessons_to_iran_stalemate.h
tml?breadcrumb=default

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9483/us_must_take_active_role_to_stop_nuclea
r_iran.html?breadcrumb=default

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/p09s02-coop.html

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9483/us_must_take_active_role_to_stop_nuclea
r_iran.html

There is nothing the Iranians would like more than a rapproachment with the US, and US investment in Iran to help their economy.

...regarding boost phase interceptors.  think The "suitcase nuke" is  not quite the threat it is made out to be, IMO. The Iranians need to know that their shots will be rejected, with the debris most likely raining down on their heads.  Also, I hope we're keeping a gimlet eye on their submarines.  If they are being used as terrorist ferries or are being made missile-capable, we should take any necessary action.  

That is essentially what I've been trying to say for several days in this thread.

You're arguing that military options are not the right response to Iran. I don't agree or disagree, because I don't know whether they are or not.

However, we disgree fundamentally on one key point: for you, a nuclear Iran is a reality which must be accepted. For me, it's never acceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. It begins and ends there.

You are expecting that non-military pressure can be brought to bear on Iran to gradually improve their behavior and "bring them into the West." I think the Iranian regime must be dealt with forcefully and soon, without taking any options off the table.

You think we need to be nice to the Muslim world. I think we need to be firm with them.

You think I'm a Macchiavellian. I think your goal is peace in our time.

that Chamberlain's quote is such a tired cliche.  Iran is not Nazi Germany by any stretch of the imagination.  I am NOT, in any way, suggesting we give Iran land or acquiesce to their demands.  How am I appeasing them by suggesting that an invasion is self-defeating?

What exactly do you propose we do?  Invade Iran?  Surgical strikes?  Constant bombing campaigns?  

Please tell me what you think we should do specifically.  As I said, Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq, has twice as many people, and is a FAR more rugged terrain.  

I don't think we have to be "nice" to the Muslim world.  But I also don't adhere to a scorched earth policy either.   You seem to think that we need to rule by fear.  How is this a viable strategy for a Democratic nation?

And I don't need fully detailed plan; just your ideas on what would serve as adequate "sticks" of a "carrot and stick" approach where military action is ruled out completely, thanks to the presence of nukes.

-TS

Well we are the most powerful economic, diplomatic, and military nation the planet.  

We can begin by getting the UN to pass a universal embargo on Iranian exports.  Certainly the Iranians would get oil out regardless but they would suffer considerably.  

We could start arming Iranian neigbors.  

But the truth of the matter is that the carrot and stick approach cannot work with our current posture regarding Iran.  We must open up relations to some degree in order for this policy to work.  

Egypt may not have had nukes but it DID have an army and willingess to use it against Israel.   The 73 war was pretty touch and go and a couple of things go differently and the Israelis would have been in real trouble.  

Re: Almost immediately, cries will be raised on the Left and in the media to withdraw and end the slaughter.

Nope. Or if so those cries would be drowned out by a tsunami of outrage over the nuking. And any administration that did not respond to such an atrocity would be committing electoral suicide, for itself and probably its party; such a president might even be at risk of impeachment. There is no way such an attack could not trigger a devastating response. I'd sooner believe that Osama bin Laden will be dancing in his undies at the next Miami White Party than accept any speculation that the American people (or their leaders) would be willing to shrug off your nightmare scenario as no big deal.

Who said anything about nuking 20 million civilians? Long-time American nuclear strategy does not call for the nuking of purely civilian targets. Rather, the first (and hopefully only) attack will be a counter-force attack: the nuking of military targets, especially those associated with nuclear weaponry themselves. Will there be civilian casualties? Of course --plenty enough to satisfy the cries for vengeance. But at that point the survival of the Iranian regime is highly unlikely.

Re: Israel is difficult to describe as an American proxy -- despite what the Arabs/Leftists might say -- first, because it is a sovereign nation that does not take marching orders from Washington.  

Then what do you define as a proxy? Were East Germany or North Vietnam Soviet proxies in the Cold War? Can an independent sovereign nation be a proxy of another more powerful nation?

North Vietnam was certainly a Soviet proxy; South Vietnam was our proxy.  Ultimately, however, we needed to intervene with troops on the ground in Vietnam, which suggests to me that South Vietnam was an awful proxy, but that's another matter.

A better example of our proxy -- and this is truly a sad historical fact -- is the mujahideen of Afghanistan (of which one Osama Bin Laden was a leader) after the Soviet invasion in 1980.

Israel as a proxy to me is more or less equivalent to using Japan as a proxy in Asia in the 60's and the 70's.  Both nations are so hated, so viewd with suspicion in their respective region (though Japan is starting to climb out of the WW2 hole), that we would be better off going in ourselves.  In addition, Israel in particular acts far too independently (and rightfully so) to be a truly good proxy for us in the region.

In the Iran situation, the perfect proxy for us would be Iraq.  Arm them, get them to invade Iran.  Because Iraq isn't a Jewish state, the rest of the Arab world wouldn't necessarily erupt in a paroxysm of violence.  One might argue that this is precisely what we did with Saddam Hussein in the 80's, and Iran didn't have nukes then.  Unfortunately, I'm not that confident in Iraq just yet.  Maybe in a few years, but Iraq isn't there yet -- and what do we do about a nuclear Iran in the meantime?

-TS

As best I understand, the mujahideen didn't have a unified "leader," and our direct funding was directed towards native Afghanis like Ahmed Shah Massood. That's concomitant with our viewing the Afghan war as one of national liberation from the Soviets. Now, some of that presumably found its way into the hands of future Taliban members, and the ISI, which had markedly different objectives, used funds we placed at its disposal to support OBL. But it's not quite the neat package people like to make it out to be.

The Muhajadeen were a proxy for the Pakistani ISI.  While we provided some arms and other supplies to the Muhajadeen we did this through the ISI, as we had no direct contact with the Muhajadeen during the Soviet occupation.

However we never directly funded the Muhajadeen and gave almost no money to Massoud because the ISI didn't want to give a Tajik any money and the US Dept of State thought he was nothing more than a drug lord.  

It seems that the US, including the leftists and the MSM, was pretty solidly behind the retaliatory strike against Afghanistan for 9/11.  I would imagine if Iran did the same or worse, there'd be no hesitancy on the part of most Americans in bombing them off the face of the earth.  

When blackhedd implies that half the country wouldn't support retaliating if we were attacked I think he is harming our interests and weakening the credibility of our threats to our enemies. Americans speak with one voice and what we say is "If you attack us we will BURY you."  And to imply that significant numbers of Americans think otherwise I think is both false and gives aid and comfort to our enemies.  

When the American people have been attacked, I don't believe we've ever been hesitant to attack back, and I can't imagine we ever would hesitate in such circumstances.  

It is apples and oranges to compare retaliating for an attach to a political decision to "pre-emptively" invade another country because a dictator is torturing his own people, or might have WMD or threatens Israel or because we need his land for bases or oil or as an incubator for democracy or whatever.  In the first case (an attack) you can have my first born (and my second born) and I'll be glad to go down fighting besides them.  If you want to go to war for one of the other reasons then you have to make your case - and make it well.  And I'll think about it.  I might even agree with you.  But it is apples and oranges compared to being attacked.

One of the best articles shows that the fears of cancer related illness was largely unfounded.  Other articles explain that the people exposed have moved and difficult to find, and when they eventually die they will not really know what killed them. Still 1800 deaths did occur as a result of the early exposure.  The predictions of much higher rates of cancer were not born out to be true.  However the economic damage of Chernobyl and the close down of the site are part of the costs.  A dirty bomb will entail this cost where ever it is detonated, and even if the fears are overrated, the public will still react and the bureaucrats will close off large areas of "contaminated" land.  

There is no way this line or reasoning would lead to allowing a rogue country like Iran to be generating highly radioactive material.

that's the best line I've heard in a long time.  I plan on using it at least daily.  

Democrat? Me???

Them's fightin' words!

j/k

You think that Ahmadinejad and Hitler are the same type of threat?

Hitler had a massively bigger army and economy.  However, he had no nukes.

But nukes are a politcal weapon, not a military weapon.  They cannot be used to project force, at least not in a situation where others have nukes as well.

the same type of threat, but I would say they are some glaring similarities.

*    Both came to power through dubious elections.

*    Both called for the elimination of the Jews.

*    Hitler spoke of the "thousand year reich" and

             Ahmadinejad called for the "revival of the Islamic civilization"

However, I would call the way many are calling Ahmadinejad's statements about destroying Israel as idle banter and suggesting that a diplomatic solution may still work after repeated failed attempts as the same type of threat as that the appeasers dealing with Hitler posed to the pre WWII world.

However, I would call the way many are calling Ahmadinejad's statements about destroying Israel as idle banter and suggesting that a diplomatic solution may still work after repeated failed attempts as the same type of threat as that the appeasers dealing with Hitler posed to the pre WWII world

No one has said that Ahmadinejad's are idle banter.  What they are is empty rhetoric intended to achieve a specific domestic goal.  The Iranians aren't going to launch nuclear attacks against Israel.  It would be completely suicidal and wouldn't achieve their objective.  

The appeasers of Hitler saw Hitler INVADE other countries and attempt to make a deal with him on the promise that he would not invade other countries.  And while everyone loves to talk about Chamberlain's actions what they don't seem to realize was that the English and French had no way of actually stopping the Germans in 1938.  Their militaries were in disrepair.  

After the Germans invaded Poland the French and English decided that this time they would declare war.  And then what did they do?  Absolutely nothing for nearly 9 months.  It was dubbed the phony war because the Allies did nothing to stop the Germans or help the Poles.  All the while the Germans continued on with their plans and eventually invaded the low countries.  

The appeasers attempted to make a deal because there was little else they could do.  The hawks were up in arms but they never offered a choice of what they could have done to the Germans.  

The Iranians, otoh, have no capability to project force.   They have a weak military that is used primarily for domestic control.  Obtaining nukes would not change that.  What it would do is protect Iran from invasion from an outside force.

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others.  What SPECIFICALLY would you propose we do against Iran?  Invade?  How would we occupy Iran?    Where do we get the troops to occupy a nation 4 times the times of Iraq?  

all dictatorial regimes want nothing more than rapproachment with the United States.  I know Kim Jong-il does, desperately so.  I wonder why that is.

As for US investment in Iran to help its economy... um... what am I missing here?  Iran is the world's fourth largest oil exporter, and crude is north of $66/barrel.  So at the 3.72 million barrels per day that Iran is said to have produced in 2000, assuming they're producing at least that much in 2006, we're looking at $90 billion or so in a year -- more if oil prices rise.

Plus, from same globalsecurity.org article:

On 29 October 2004 Iran and China announced the signing of a deal on Chinese investment in Iran's oil fields and the long-term sale of Iranian natural gas to China that could eventually be worth $100 billion. The gas deal entails the annual export of some 10 million tons of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for a 25-year period. The deal could eventually reach 15-20m tons a year, taking the total value to as much as $200bn. Delivery could not begin for at least five years, as Iran must first build the plants to liquefy the natural gas. This stunning development was widely considered a major blow to the Bush administration's sanctions on Iran.  The Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) penalizes companies investing more than $20 million in Iran's oil and gas sector. Iranian officials are hopeful the deal will lead to a fundamental rethinking of doing business with Iran on the part of European countries, India, Japan, and even Russia.

I'm thinking Iran isn't exactly lacking capital; why they're not focusing on building those LNG plants instead of nuclear power plants is something for others to answer, I guess.  Europe, Japan, India, and Russia are apparently pretty hot to trot to do deals with Iran.

There's just that big bad United States standing in the way.  Again, I wonder why that is.  Maybe it has something to do with our support for liberty, freedom, and democracy.

But in the final analysis, recommending that we undertake a sunshine policy vis-a-vis Iran is fine from a certain cold-hearted realpolitik standpoint.  Saying we ought not to call Iran a vile regime that supports terrorists is fine from a realpolitik standpoint; opening up to them and trying to bring them into the 'Western world' is all fine and good.  Sure, it condemns women, homosexuals, Jews, Christians, and anyone considered a 'heretic' in Iran to a miserable existence, but hey, we've done things like that before when we turned tail and ran in Vietnam or failed to take Saddam out in 1990 or supported brutal military dictatorships in S. Korea in the name of fighting communism.  We can do it again.

The thing is... such rapproachment is available post-nuke as it is pre-nuke, as long as Iran has 90 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, no?

Sure we can say to Iran, "If you develop nukes, then no sunshine for you ever pal".  Yeah, yeah, sure.  If I'm Ahmadinejad/Khameini, I'm going, "You've also said it is unacceptable for us to have nukes, and we've called that bluff too, and you've folded."  I'll have my nukes, thanks, and the sunshine as well -- if not from you, the US, then from Europe, China, India, Japan, and Russia.  If I'm Iran, why pay for something I'm going to get for free anyhow?

I do agree with the CFR in one respect:

As Washington seeks to grapple with Iran's nuclear challenge, it must accept that its doctrine of preemption with its threats and its hostile rhetoric has limited utility in altering Iran's path. Indeed, such belligerent US posture only assists those within the theocracy that insist that the American danger can only be negated through the possession of the "strategic weapon."

He's absolutely right on that.  Threats and rhetoric won't alter Iran's path one bit.  Force will, if we only had the guts to use it.

-TS

that you strongly oppose our current diplomatic posture in China since you abhor dealing with repressive autocrats?  Saudi Arabia as well, I would hope.

You seem to suggest that the only thing limiting our use of force in Iran is guts.  That is pretty far from the truth.

Flyer, in comment #137 you said this:

I think you are expecting me to flesh out an entire foreign policy strategy which is beyond both my abilities and scope of this thread. Should I demand that those who propose war flesh out an entire strategic plan for an Iranian invasion, including dealing with the occupation of Iran?

Now here you are sying this:

I'll ask you the same question I have asked others.  What SPECIFICALLY would you propose we do against Iran?  Invade?  How would we occupy Iran?    Where do we get the troops to occupy a nation 4 times the times of Iraq?

I guess you were against demanding specifics before you were for it?

I'm not asking for  detailed strategic plan.  

Just a generic idea of what you would do beyond "I would invade".

Regime change would require occupation.  I think that we all agree that we would need a large number of troops to occupy Iraq.  Where do we get them from?  I'm not asking for the specifics just a general idea.  

To your credit you have fleshed out what you would like to see.  I personally think it isn't extremely risky.  You want us to go in, disarm their nukes and then leave.  Seems like a pretty dangerous strategy.

No one has said that Ahmadinejad's are idle banter.  What they are is empty rhetoric intended to achieve a specific domestic goal

Empty rhetoric as compared to idle banter... you are splitting hairs here.  You are still saying to ignore these words because he doesn't really mean what he is saying.  

And I would be right about the appeasement comments.  Take Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, a violation of the Treaty of Versailles which could be viewed as similar to Iran's potential break of the non-proliferation treaty.  German generals had orders to back down if they faced military resistance during their march into the Rhineland because at this time their fledgling army would not have stood a chance against France.

"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even moderate resistance."

- Dr. Paul Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter

The appeasers attempted to make a deal because there was little else they could do.  The hawks were up in arms but they never offered a choice of what they could have done to the Germans.

At this point would it have been better for the French to attack and at least attempt to change their fate?  Would it have been better for Britain to rush to their aid before Poland was invaded?  Appeasement led to Hitler turning the continent into Fortress Europe instead.  Had the allies taken Hitler's threats and subsequent actions seriously could WWII and even the holocaust have been avoided?  Possibly. Will we wait this long?

If we act now maybe we can make sure that Ahmadinejad's words are just empty rhetoric, just like Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland was a test of the allies resolve.  If we don't, we risk a very good chance that our inaction will make these words factual and our task will become even more difficult.

The Iranians, otoh, have no capability to project force.   They have a weak military that is used primarily for domestic control.  Obtaining nukes would not change that.  What it would do is protect Iran from invasion from an outside force.

If a nuclear armed Iran becomes immune to invasion, then what are our options and how much will they cost when Iran does use it's military and attempts to exert control over the oil resources in the area?  What are our options if they do nuke Israel?

What SPECIFICALLY would you propose we do against Iran?

I propose to ask them nicely to stop.  I propose to try regime change.  I propose all out air assault on their nuclear capabilities regardless of collateral damage.  I propose combined forces invasion.

 I propose doing whatever possible to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

Empty rhetoric as compared to idle banter... you are splitting hairs here.  You are still saying to ignore these words because he doesn't really mean what he is saying.

I never said to ignore them.  But also understand their intended purpose.  If Iran really wanted to wipe Isreal off the map why not just do it?  Why even talk about your plans?

And I would be right about the appeasement comments.  Take Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, a violation of the Treaty of Versailles which could be viewed as similar to Iran's potential break of the non-proliferation treaty.  German generals had orders to back down if they faced military resistance during their march into the Rhineland because at this time their fledgling army would not have stood a chance against France

Except in 1936 few people considered Hitler a threat at all.   Certainly if the French had attacked in 1933 they would have easily have won and saved us from WWII. How were they to know that in 1933 or 1936?

At this point would it have been better for the French to attack and at least attempt to change their fate?  Would it have been better for Britain to rush to their aid before Poland was invaded?  Appeasement led to Hitler turning the continent into Fortress Europe instead.  Had the allies taken Hitler's threats and subsequent actions seriously could WWII and even the holocaust have been avoided?  Possibly. Will we wait this long

This is Monday Morning Quarterback stuff that ignores the realities of the time.  The French had a large but antiquated military in 1938.  They could do nothing to prevent the Germans capturing of the Sudatenland.   Sure if they could see the future they could have started mobilizing for war earlier and stopped the Germans but they were wholly unwilling to fight another war and thus were completely unprepared for war in 1938.  

If we act now maybe we can make sure that Ahmadinejad's words are just empty rhetoric, just like Germany's remilitarization of the Rhineland was a test of the allies resolve.  If we don't, we risk a very good chance that our inaction will make these words factual and our task will become even more difficult

So you propose that we begin a scorched earth policy in which we responded with overwhelming force everytime a foreign leader opens their mouth and says something stupid?

If a nuclear armed Iran becomes immune to invasion, then what are our options and how much will they cost when Iran does use it's military and attempts to exert control over the oil resources in the area?  What are our options if they do nuke Israel?

The Iranians are nowhere near being able to exert military control over oil resources outside their borders.  As for our options if they nuke Israel probably not much more than watching Israel obliterate Iran off the face of the map and killing 80-90% of the population of Iran.

I propose to ask them nicely to stop.  I propose to try regime change.  I propose all out air assault on their nuclear capabilities regardless of collateral damage.  I propose combined forces invasion.

 I propose doing whatever possible to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

That's a lot of different choices.  Where do we get the troops to invade Iran and occupy Iran?

I never said to ignore them.  But also understand their intended purpose.  If Iran really wanted to wipe Isreal off the map why not just do it?  Why even talk about your plans?

If Iran is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, they just might do it!

Except in 1936 few people considered Hitler a threat at all.   Certainly if the French had attacked in 1933 they would have easily have won and saved us from WWII. How were they to know that in 1933 or 1936?

This statement is historically false.  France viewed Germany as one of their greatest threats, they unfortunately had a defensive minded military and pacifist politicians.

So you propose that we begin a scorched earth policy in which we responded with overwhelming force everytime a foreign leader opens their mouth and says something stupid?

A Canadian politician calling George Bush ignorant is a stupid statement, genocidal comments by soon to be nuclear Islamic fundamentalists preparing for the Mahdi's return are to be taken seriously.

The Iranians are nowhere near being able to exert military control over oil resources outside their borders.  As for our options if they nuke Israel probably not much more than watching Israel obliterate Iran off the face of the map and killing 80-90% of the population of Iran.

So you are willing to wait for the nuclear destruction of two countries before you start to look at your options in how to resolve this crisis?

That's a lot of different choices.  Where do we get the troops to invade Iran and occupy Iran?

Try one, if it doesn't work, escalate.

This statement is historically false.  France viewed Germany as one of their greatest threats, they unfortunately had a defensive minded military and pacifist politicians

Just so I know what year do you think the French started considering Adolf Hitler a grave threat?

A Canadian politician calling George Bush ignorant is a stupid statement, genocidal comments by soon to be nuclear Islamic fundamentalists preparing for the Mahdi's return are to be taken seriously

IOW, when you understand the rhetoric because it is framed in western cultural norms it can be ignored.  When you don't understand the rhetoric because it is framed in Middle Eastern Muslim norms, we should treat it as literal.  Gotcha.

So you are willing to wait for the nuclear destruction of two countries before you start to look at your options in how to resolve this crisis?

I'm willing to look at all options.  I think that several options you mentioned are worth investigating, among others.  What I am not too keen on is invasion.

Try one, if it doesn't work, escalate.

You didn't answer the question.   Where do we get the troops for an invasion and occupation of Iran?

OBL's politics and how would they influence his use of nukes?

I don't see much difference between OBL's rants and the recent rhetoric spewing from Ahmdinejad.  Hopefully there are still some sane Iranians who will keep their President under control, but if not, I see Iran potentially using their nukes as a military weapon.

The more madmen that have access to nukes, the more likely it is that one will be used as a military or terrorist weapon.

What are the similarities between OBL and Ahmdinejad?  The only one I can see is that they like to use fiery rhetoric.  Other than that, and the fact that they are Muslim, they have little in common.

The President doesn't need to be kept under control.   He has almost no power, particularly when it comes to foreign policy.  He serves at the pleasure of the ruling council.  

I certainly agree that we need to limit access to nuclear weapons as much as possible but we simply can't stop nations that really really want them from getting them.  The only thing we can do is try to convince them that they shouldn't get them.  So far we've done a pretry poor job of that with Iran.  

FTR, I think that Ahmdinejad is actually trying to get Israel to react.  The best thing that can happen for the Iranians is for Israel to attack them.  

Should I assume that you feel our mistake in 1939 was not enough sunshine towards Tojo and Hitler?  We could have brought them all into the Western economy and provided more carrots for compliance instead of engaging in a ruinous war that killed millions of people, many of whom were innocent civilians.  

Shall I suppose that you were opposed to our action against the Taliban in 2001, as we could have tried a lot more sunshine and providing them with carrots, US investment, and rapproachment instead of bombings and invasion?

The only thing limiting our use of force in Iran is our national will, aka, guts.  We will tremble, quake, and ultimately back down from the challenge, and pay for it a hundredfold in years to come, because as a nation, we didn't have the resolve to confront Iran before it acquired nuclear weapons, and instead chose to follow the supposedly easy-way out, the carrot-and-sunshine way, the what-makes-us-popular with the U.N. crowd way.

-TS

the truth is that had the United States properly led the world after World War I, Nazi Germany likely would not have ever gained power.  But we ignored them and waited until it was a grave threat before we got involved.

Why would I have been against our involvement in Afghanistant post-9/11?  Once again you bring up situations in which our earlier inactions resulted in our being FORCED into a military option.  Had we supported Massoud and some other not as terrible choices in Afghanistan during the mid to late 90s, the Taliban would never have gained control.  

I'm sorry but this paragraph is nothing more than hollow rhetoric intended to make yourself feel superior.....

The only thing limiting our use of force in Iran is our national will, aka, guts.  We will tremble, quake, and ultimately back down from the challenge, and pay for it a hundredfold in years to come, because as a nation, we didn't have the resolve to confront Iran before it acquired nuclear weapons, and instead chose to follow the supposedly easy-way out, the carrot-and-sunshine way, the what-makes-us-popular with the U.N. crowd way

An invasion and occupation of Iran would require a doubling of our active duty force.  How do we do this?  You want to tell us about our lack of national will but you won't even accept that there  are costs associated with this that people will have to pay.  Real costs by real people.  Fine everyone who opposes an invasion of Iran is just a coward who isn't willing to make some sacrifices to secure what you feel is a necessary "victory".  Let's not even consider the possibility that invading Iran is the wrong choice.  Let's just act self-righteouss about the matter.  

FTR, the "easy" way is attacking Iran.  Airstrikes against targets in Iran would be the easy approach.  The HARD approach would be to use diplomacy and other non-military means to achieve victory.  That's why few countries do it when they don't have to.

Just so I know what year do you think the French started considering Adolf Hitler a grave threat?

France spending around 3 billion Francs on the Maginot Line between 1930 and 1935 would probably be a good historical reference and timeline for someone trying to figure out if France considered Germany a threat at this time.

IOW, when you understand the rhetoric because it is framed in western cultural norms it can be ignored.  When you don't understand the rhetoric because it is framed in Middle Eastern Muslim norms, we should treat it as literal.  Gotcha.

No, IOW when someone is rude to you you turn the other cheek, when someone threatens genocide, you act.

 

I'm willing to look at all options.  I think that several options you mentioned are worth investigating, among others.  What I am not too keen on is invasion.

This is the first time we have agreed on anything.  My first suggestion is to ask nicely and then tell them what will happen if they do not comply.  We should also make it apparent to all the world what will happen to Iran if they do not comply. I am not keen on the application of force at all, but I will stand firm on my opinion that we should avoid letting Iran join the nuclear club AT ALL COSTS.

You didn't answer the question.   Where do we get the troops for an invasion and occupation of Iran?

See statement above.  AT ALL COSTS.  If we can do it without troops, great. If we can do it with what troops we have available, great. If we can do the job with additional allies, great.  If we have to go on an all-out war footing and start the draft then so be it.

I have responded to your comments with legitimate historical facts and made plain my views and proposals on the subject.  

I am very curious about your views and suggestions in how YOU would deal with the situation.  Given the chance, what would you do?

France spending around 3 billion Francs on the Maginot Line between 1930 and 1935 would probably be a good historical reference and timeline for someone trying to figure out if France considered Germany a threat at this time.

They certainly didn't trust the Germans.  Why would they?  But that was a generaly distrust of them not a specific concern obout aggression.  Obviously they felt that all they had to do was defend themselves appropriately.  

No, IOW when someone is rude to you you turn the other cheek, when someone threatens genocide, you act.

Well first of all the US is not Israel and 2nd of all they aren't threatening genocide and 3rd of all this sort of rhetoric has been common in the Middle East for the last 50 years.  

So you are in favor of a draft.  Ok.  Fair enough.  Not sure how feasible that is but ok.

I am very curious about your views and suggestions in how YOU would deal with the situation.  Given the chance, what would you do?

Well I'm laid out the basic framework of what I would do in this thread.  It boils down to opening up relations with Iran.  I believe that Iran has a very large segment of their population that wants to be part of the worldwide community and that if we do it properly we can foment a bloodless coup without ever needing to step on Iranian soil.  

You are right that we need to limit access to nuclear weapons as much as possible.  We should try to convince nations that view us as their enemy that they shouldn't get them.

Ahmdinejad may in fact be trying to get Israel to react, or he may be planning to try and carry out the threats he is spouting.  We just don't know.

I hope the only similarity between OBL and Ahmdinejad remains their use of fiery rhetoric.  I am apparently more concerned than you that Ahmidinejad may escalate the situation beyond mere threats.  Particularly if he has nukes to back him up.

But the question you then raise is, if you're Israel and you have the ability to knock out the key nuke sites (a debatable assumption), what do you do?

If I'm Israel, I attack.

That also leaves the question: if you're Israel and you don't have the ability to knock out the nuke sites, then what do you do?

The answer I am coming up with on this one makes my uncomfortable, but honestly, I'd use whatever influence I have with the American govt. to goad them into attacking the nuke sites.

Never Again, right?

They certainly didn't trust the Germans.  Why would they?  But that was a generaly distrust of them not a specific concern obout aggression.  Obviously they felt that all they had to do was defend themselves appropriately.

You asked me when France would have considered Germany, a threat and I answered it.  Your reply once again is not factual.  The French had more than just a general distrust of the German, in fact they considered the German's so much their enemy that eventually the term "maginot mentality" was coined because they were "still fighting the last war".  People do not spend 3 billion Francs because of a general distrust.

Well first of all the US is not Israel and 2nd of all they aren't threatening genocide and 3rd of all this sort of rhetoric has been common in the Middle East for the last 50 years.

A nuclear armed Iran with terrorist ties is very much a threat to the US.  Ahmadinejad himself refers to genocide when he recently asked why else would the Europeans have created a Jewish state in the ME if they did not want the continuation of the genocide started by Hitler.  And the reason this type of rhetoric has not been taken seriously for the past fifty years is because they did not possess nuclear weapons or the means to carry out their threats.

Well I'm laid out the basic framework of what I would do in this thread.  It boils down to opening up relations with Iran.  I believe that Iran has a very large segment of their population that wants to be part of the worldwide community and that if we do it properly we can foment a bloodless coup without ever needing to step on Iranian soil

Over two years of talks between Iran and the EU3 have ended with Iran continuing with their nuclear plans.  They have no desire to negotiate, they are literally thumbing their nose at the world.  

I guess this is the point where we just have to agree to disagree.  You are content to live in a world in which you are willing to allow terrorists to have nuclear weapons, I am not.

Personally I am far more concerned about what these don't say than what they do say.

Isn't this exactly what the CIA gave them doctored plans for in a pathetic and illadvised attempt to stall their program?

They certainly will. If Osama could take out a million people with him and he was the only one that could do it, he certainly would. But he's not going to throw his life away blowing up a pizza place in Jerusalem when there are others, much less valuable to the cause, willing to do it.

But can you imagine the consequences of trying to secure an Iran with a totally intact Iraq under the control of Saddam next door?

just wasn't sure where best to jump in.  I should have noted your posts though, sorry.

The administration in question would have to at least have to take the time to administer "The Global Test" before responding.

I wasn't looking for credit.  

It's good to know that I'm not the only one here that see things along these lines.

It seems that the US, including the leftists and the MSM, was pretty solidly behind the retaliatory strike against Afghanistan for 9/11.

The Moveon.org / ANSWR / Michael Moore crowd was against action in Afghanistan. This is a not insignificant part of the population... I would guess somewhere in the 20-25% range... the hardcore moonbats.

TS, seems to me that you are really stuck in an adversarial mode here.  Do you not see how our hard line and disengagement has helped to make Iran our enemy, encouraged their irresponsiblity, undercut reformers and helped to push them towards developing nuclear weapons?  While a hard line to Iran may be emotionally satisfying, in the long run it is foolish and counterproductive.  

We are responsible for our own poliicies and for helping to paint ourselves and the rest of the world into a corner on Iran.  The articles at CFR and elsewhere indicate that there may still be ways out, but they will require the US to play a nuanced game involving cooperation from Europe, Russia and China, and to offer carrots as well as sticks.

Yes, there are others seeking Iran's energy resources; that undermines our leverage.  But Iran is a large and diverse country not run by a single dictator like North Korea.  A wise policy would play to a number of constituencies, and would address Iran's security concerns as well.  

Here is more:

The problem is that the incentives Iran would require in order to abandon a program it views as vital to its national security cannot be delivered by Europe. It is, after all, U.S. sanctions that prevent Iran from being fully integrated into the global economy and gaining access to international lending institutions.

Moreover, at a time when Iran is surrounded by U.S. military power in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is unrealistic to discuss security assurances that do not involve the United States.

The U.S. reliance on the IAEA and the potential referral of Iran to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions is equally misplaced. The IAEA Board of Governors can invoke the prospect of multilateral sanctions for documented violations. But IAEA prescriptions cannot ameliorate Iran's security concerns or economic vulnerabilities. It would be difficult for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program without corresponding benefits.

The most recent Russian offer to enrich uranium fuel for Iranian nuclear reactors also cannot be viewed as a panacea because Iran persistently has stressed its right to enrich its own nuclear fuel. Should Iran's clerical elite relinquish part of the nuclear infrastructure without garnering tangible concessions, it is likely to confront a popular backlash. ....

Along the North Korean model, Washington should establish a six-party contact group that would make a united approach to Iran. The United States could offer relief from sanctions, including U.S. investment in Iran's energy.

In exchange for such concessions, the U.S. and its allies could demand that Iran accept verifiable restraints on its nuclear capabilities, including a permanent cessation of its fuel enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used to make weapons-grade plutonium.

Given the nationalistic sensitivity surrounding this issue, it might not be necessary for Tehran to publicly declare its relinquishment of its fuel enrichment rights; instead, it could accept a suspension that in practice would be permanent. Indeed, if Iran were to reject such a generous offer, it would be much easier for Washington to craft a consensus behind a rigorous regime of multilateral sanctions enacted through the Untied Nations.

In the past 20 years, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa eventually retreated from the nuclear precipice. Although each state is different, in all cases, lessened external threats have been critical to abandonment of nuclear ambitions.

Similarly, economic incentives such as favorable commercial ties have been effective because they provide palpable benefits to ruling elites. It is rare, however, for a state that views the bomb as fundamental to its security interests to dispense with such a weapon under relentless threats of military reprisal and economic strangulation.

It appears that a clever mixture of incentives and penalties can accomplish more in counterproliferation than can warnings and coercion.

The Bush administration must accept that its doctrine of military pre-emption and its threats of Security Council referrals have a limited use in altering Iran's path. A concerted diplomatic effort led by the United States and its allies may go a long way toward ensuring the success of the international community's nonproliferation imperatives.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9483/us_must_take_active_role_to_stop_nuclea
r_iran.html

Wise leaders find ways to solve problems and bring people closer together; this is how Reagan helped to bring and end to our long, patient containment stragegy with the USSR, but of course rankles and runs against a very instinctive grain that makes us paint rivals in black and white terms.  I hope you recognize that that is at play in our relations with Iran, on both sides.  Is the way to win the game by playing to the stereotypes and making it a zero-sum game, or by moving to a cooperative game where all win?

misfit is loose ...

the media and the left were in a froth when we went into Afghanistan.  I have vivid memories of "quagmires", "a repeat of VietNam", a war against tribesmen who defeated both the English and the Russians, and on and on and on.

In today's world, we cannot live in denial waiting for someone to attack us first.  The stakes are too high.  My son is a Marine.  He understands the stakes and his first comment to me after 9-11 was to the effect that "We (his SpOps unit) have to get overseas NOW.  We need to kill these [folks - VERY rough translation of the USMC term he used] on their streets so they don't kill more of us on ours."

It is absolutely apples and apples.  Both groups of people desperately want to kill us.  It is imperative that we recognize that and do what is necessary to stop that from happening.

The question about Japan and Germany in WWII. We didn't have to go to war with either one of them. If we were friendly and willing to trade with Japan and look the other way while they took what territory they wanted, they would've left us alone. Germany didn't want any trouble from us.

Why do we have problems with NK today? Didn't the 1994 agreed framework resolve the issues?

Under the 1994 agreed framework with NK?

I would suggest that Iran is much more like Brazil, Argentina and South Africa, all of which gave up nuclear weapons programs.

An extremely hostile country that we've had no diplomatic relations with in decades? Yea, I think Iran is a lot more like NK than it is like Brazil, Argentina, or South Africa.

I live in one of the most Liberal areas of the country and I can't think of a single real person that was suggesting that we should not go into Afghanistan.  Perhaps Mother Jones and some really Lefty blogs may have been against it but you are waaayyyyy off in saying that the media was against Afghanistan, or the invasion of IRaq for that matter.

You seem to think by simply waving the specter of others wanting to kill us that entitles us to do whatever we want, no matter the consequences.

The answer to that question is: No, we didn't all win in 1994. NK won. We lost.

You are trying to say that the only choices are completely acquiesence to their desires or full on war.  

I have not, at any time, suggested that we should just wash our hands of Iran.  I wish you guys would stop suggesting that I am saying that.

Not all the libs were against it, I would say it was close to 50/50. There were anti-war protests organized. Michael Moore was strongly against it.

I remember the quagmire talk as well... how the Russians couldn't hack it and the English before them, so we were obviously doomed to suffer the same fate.

I know flyerhawk that your terminal ambivalence won't allow you to grasp that concept, but it is a true.

There are various degrees of military involvement. I'm not a proponent of full-on regime change at this point in the game.

I'm not suggesting that you want to wash your hands of Iran... you just believe that we can become great friends by offering them lots and lots of carrots and eventually talk them out of it. This was wrong with respect to WWII, wrong with respect to the USSR, and wrong with respect to NK. But this time it will really work!

Of course there are similarities between Iran and NK, but my point is that we really need to understand both of them, and just lumping them together may be gratifying but may not be helpful to actually crafting policy.

Yes, we have not had diplomatic relations with Iran in decades - I suppose our domestic politics had something to do with that, but more to the point, has it helped us in dealing with Iran or been counter-productive?

You seem to assume both countries are run by reasonable people that we can deal with. I don't think that is the case here.

Furthermore, if we were to suddenly reverse course and start handing out carrots... that sends a message to any other hostile state that might consider going down the same path in the future.

I took when it came to North Korea.  When NoKo first started its nuclear gambit in 1994, I argued strenuously that the Kim regime was not evil, not crazy, not a wacko, and was completely rational.  I argued then that what we needed was engagement, rapproachment, and sunshine policy.  Guess what?  Kim Dae-jung gave me that sunshine policy.  Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Madeleine Allbright gave us the sunshine policy, engagement, and rapproachment.

And then denouement.

But I argued even that wasn't so bad.  I argued that the hard line that the Bush Adminsitration took upon taking office, combined with our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, pushed Kim Jong-il into playing the nuclear card.  I argued that we should try engagement, try serious negotiations, try a multilateral diplomatic effort.  The good folks at CFR agreed with me:

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5972

The United States cannot establish a coalition without a serious negotiating package, and it cannot make a serious negotiating effort without a coalition. Neither U.S. allies nor China will support tougher action against North Korea unless the United States makes a real effort to negotiate a peaceful end to the nuclear issue. Washington should be willing to address both sides' concerns simultaneously. America's regional partners must agree to support tougher action in the event negotiations fail.

All this talk of war, calling Kim Jong-il a wacko, a rogue, a member of the Axis of Evil, and so on was painting ourselves into a corner.  Our hard line and disengagement has helped to make North Korea our enemy, encouraged their irresponsiblity, undercut reformers and helped to push them towards developing nuclear weapons.  While a hard line to North Korea may be emotionally satisfying, in the long run it is foolish and counterproductive.

I argued all these things.  I argued that we are responsible for our own poliicies and for helping to paint ourselves and the rest of the world into a corner on North Korea.  The articles at CFR and elsewhere indicated that there may still be ways out, but they will require the US to play a nuanced game involving cooperation from China, Japan, and South Korea, and to offer carrots as well as sticks.

But through it all, I never lost sight of the critical differences between North Korea and the Islamists: religious fanaticism, and desire for domination.

North Korea is a Stalinist-Monarchy, with a regime focused purely on survival at this point.  It is not a theocracy with an Islamist revolutionary ideology, with stated aims of wiping a neighbor off the face of the planet.  Kim seeks mere survival; the Mullahs seek to dominate the region.  There are no records of North Korean suicide bombers; its acts of terror, while real, are few and far in between, unlike say Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda.

I reasoned that North Korea isn't an Iran, and argued for diplomacy and negotiations.

Well guess what?  Iran is an Iran.  It doesn't need to use nuclear weapons to barter for survival as North Korea does; it has oil wealth Kim Jong-il only dreams about.  Foreigners are more than happy to pour investment dollars into Iran; not so with North Korea.  It is a religious theocracy with a revolutionary ideology, and its particular brand of religious zealotry glorifies suicide and death in the name of jihad.  Its people are not starving to death, or put on 1-bowl-of-rice-a-day diets.

You will forgive me if I find that I am stuck in an adversarial mode, that I don't find diplomatic solutions particularly attractive when it comes to Iran having nukes.

The good folks at CFR, far smarter than I am I suppose, make some head-scratching points:

Along the North Korean model, Washington should establish a six-party contact group that would make a united approach to Iran. The United States could offer relief from sanctions, including U.S. investment in Iran's energy.

I'm sorry, but are the people of Iran starving to death because of sanctions?  Are foreign nations unwilling to invest in Iran's energy resources?  Strange news, given Iran is taking in $90 billion a year in oil revenues.  Strange news, since at least China is willing to put down $100 billion, and Russia, Europe, and India are fairly chomping at the bits to invest in Iranian energy.  What's so special about dollars from the U.S., I wonder, as opposed to Euros or Yen or Rubles?

In exchange for such concessions, the U.S. and its allies could demand that Iran accept verifiable restraints on its nuclear capabilities, including a permanent cessation of its fuel enrichment. Enriched uranium can be used to make weapons-grade plutonium.

Sure, we could demand it -- as we have.  And they could refuse it -- as they have.  Then what?

Indeed, if Iran were to reject such a generous offer, it would be much easier for Washington to craft a consensus behind a rigorous regime of multilateral sanctions enacted through the Untied Nations.

Like the rigorous regime of multilateral sanctions enacted through the United Nations on Saddam Hussein's Iraq?  What is it that people say about... Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice....

In the past 20 years, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa eventually retreated from the nuclear precipice. Although each state is different, in all cases, lessened external threats have been critical to abandonment of nuclear ambitions.

Interesting how not one of those nations is either (a) Islamist theocracy, or (b) supporter of international terrorism.

Similarly, economic incentives such as favorable commercial ties have been effective because they provide palpable benefits to ruling elites. It is rare, however, for a state that views the bomb as fundamental to its security interests to dispense with such a weapon under relentless threats of military reprisal and economic strangulation.

Yes, because the mullahs and the elites of Iran, sitting on top of $90 billion in annual oil revenues and 9% of the world's proven oil reserves needs "palpable benefits" from favorable commercial ties, so their cousin's shoe factory can export to the United States.  Are we really to take this line of reasoning seriously?

One last thing.  You write:

Wise leaders find ways to solve problems and bring people closer together; this is how Reagan helped to bring and end to our long, patient containment stragegy with the USSR, but of course rankles and runs against a very instinctive grain that makes us paint rivals in black and white terms.  I hope you recognize that that is at play in our relations with Iran, on both sides.  Is the way to win the game by playing to the stereotypes and making it a zero-sum game, or by moving to a cooperative game where all win?

Excuse me, but are we talking about the same Ronald Reagan?  The man who gave a speech calling the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire"?  The same guy who walked out on a historic deal in Reykjavik, put Pershing II missiles in Germany over heated opposition, and was called everything from warmonger to deranged for it?  Are we talking about that Reagan?

I don't know about you, but if that Reagan were President today, I figure the 4th ID would be racing towards Tehran right about now.

-TS

is my point, so comparisons with NK should not drive our understanding of or polilcy re: Iran.

This is not a NK thread so I prefer to stick with Iran, but in any case it's clear that leadership changes farily frequently in Iran.  I had Iranian friends in college and more recently, but am no expert, but what I read at CFR makes me think that engagement would be the most productive course.  After all, what have been the fruits of our hard-line policy?

Assuming an adversary is crazy does not lead to any constructive strategy - how can you deter a crazy person?  A more effective strategy is likely to come from actually trying to understand Iran, its people and leaders and their goals and policies.  I think some of the resources at CFR are helpful in that regard, including showing that the Iranian leadership has motivations that we can understand and respond to:

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/111505Takeyh.pdf

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9479/behind_irans_hardline_on_israel.html

Instead of dismissing the claim as some sort of  scholarly cop-out, consider the following:

-Iran's President, whose sanity you seem willing to vouch for, subscribes to a radical school of Shiite thought that sees messianic return in an extremely proximate light. According to many of these fundamentalists (and I'd suggest Krauthammer's column on the matter for a more in depth dicussion), the return of the savior is not only inevitable, but no fewer than two years away.

-He's also viciously anti-semetic. And while these views aren't uncommon in the Middle East, few heads of state amplify them at the volume and intensity this guy does.

-These view might not make him crazy, but they certainly make him a liability.

Welcome to RS.  

Iran's President, whose sanity you seem willing to vouch for

Please don't ascribe arguments to me I haven't made; I simply stated that assuming an adversary is crazy does not lead to any constructive strategy.  On that vein, I suppose that dismissing Ahamdinejad as crazy is both an unscholarly cop-out and probably foolish to boot.  Of course if you can enlighten me and other readers here as to Ahamdinejad's sanity, I would be happy to be educated.  If indeed he is insane, that would be useful information.

I note that Ahamdinejad does not run Iran single-handedly and that his frothing about Israel is being checked:

There are already signs that the clerical system is re-balancing itself and seeking to restraint its impetuous new president. Mahmoud Ahamdinejad's inexperience and ideological stridency has cost Iran dearly. His inflammatory speech at the Untied Nations last September was largely responsible for fostering a coalition within the International Atomic Energy Agency for potential referral of Iran to the Security Council. And, his more recent call for "wiping Israel off the map," has led to Iran's condemnation by a wide range of international actors and leading powers. On the domestic front, Ahmadinejad's cabinet choices with their marked incompetence have received a poor reception even from the hard-line parliament that has refused to confirm many of his candidates. ... Given this record, in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has empowered Rafsanjani to "supervise" the workings of the office of the presidency, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. How this latest attempt to curb Ahmadinejad will work in actual reality is hard to tell, but there does appear a determination by the leadership of the state to check his excesses and impose limits on his expansive ideological vision.

hsgac.senate.gov/_files/111505Takeyh.pdf

Of course it is worth knowing his religious and ideological predilections, but then aren't you doing exactly what I suggested, and actually trying to understand Ahamdinejad?  If so, I commend you.  That he is anti-Israel I noticed ("anti-semitic" is the word, I think); his statements in this regard are having internal and external consequences that the US may be able to take advantage of.

However, it is not clear whether Iran actually intends to pose a threat to Israel:  

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8765/its_not_israel_thats_driving_tehran_to_
nukes.html

Nor is it clear that Israel views Iran as an existential threat:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=iran&itemNo=6
73900

As to Ahamdinejad's religious views, I would like to know more and will take a look at Krauthammer later.  I think it is fair to note that similar apocalyptical visions are not lacking in the US and may have influences on our foreign policy as well.  I imagine this is not news to you, but I refer to a couple of quick links just in case:

1. A senior writer at the National Catholic Reporter,  "Will fundamentalist Christians and Jews ignite apocalypse?", http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/101102/101102a.htm
   
2. Gene Lyons, commenting on the Left Behind series, http://www.harpers.org/TheApocalypseWillBeTelevised.html
   
3.  Muslims of course notice and have an opposing concern:  http://www.muhajabah.com/christianzion.htm

These view might not make him crazy, but they certainly make him a liability.

That he is a liability to Iran seems clear, but it also seems that they are trying to deal with it. Presumably you mean that he is a liability to the US ... and should be taken out.  Do you really think that such a policy would be effective?  Presumably you remember the US role in helping the UK in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadeq, to protect BP oil interests, for which we are still paying a price today?

Perhaps you can let me know if there any other religious fundamentalists that you see as "liabilities", and what do you propose to do about them?

If it were only that I were engaging in hollow rhetoric to make myself feel better, I would be so much happier than I am now.  Sadly, what you see as rhetoric, I see as mere forecasting.  You don't quite understand that I don't seek to convince you or anyone else of action on this here thread.  I differ from Mssrs Holsinger and Katzman in that both of them are more optimistic than I am: one thinks we ought to invade, the other thinks we ought to bomb Iran, and both think we might muster the national will to do so.

I do not.  I think too many Americans are like you, Flyer, and would like to find a "win-win" solution, some frail hope that a peaceful negotiated solution can be found, or some way of delaying, deferring, co-opting, containing, bribing, and "incentivizing" those that scare the living hell out of them.  Granted, I think you and most of those like you think and hope so out of good will, out of genuine belief that war can be avoided, and frankly, I respect that.

But then, I find it so ironic that you would talk about the U.S. failure of leadership after WW I that led to Hitler's rise to power, while at the same time, you talk of carrots and sticks and US investment in Iran.  Am I the only person hearing echoes of "Peace in our time"?

I won't accept that there are costs to be paid to carry out an invasion of Iran?  Did I somewhere urge pushing off our responsibilities to a Six-Party Invasion Force?  Or cynically using Israel to do what only one of the major powers can do?  I think you have me confused with someone else you've been arguing with.

FTR, a full-scale military invasion (although not occupation a la Iraq) is the HARD solution to this HARD problem.  I don't recall advocating airstrikes as the solution.  No, only boots on the ground, full-scale invasion and regime-toppling, combined with destruction of all nuclear facilities, will do.  Enormous sacrifices will have to be made; I don't have some idealistic view that we can do Iran with a couple of thousand US casualties as we have in Iraq.  The nation will need to be mobilized, and we will need to be serious about being at war.  That sound easy to you?

FTR, I do not believe we will do this HARD thing.  I believe we will dither and seek "negotiated solutions" and try to come to terms with a nuclear Iran.  And that will lead to full-scale military invasion ten, fifteen years from now, except with nuclear exchanges involved, and instead of me being the one bearing the burden, it will be my son bearing it.

-TS

surely opening up our arms and embracing Iran will work as well as it did with NK.

They may yet whip some life into those dead horses.

You seem to think by simply waving the specter of others wanting to kill us that entitles us to do whatever we want, no matter the consequences.

So, you're saying that when others want to kill us the consequence of that desire doesn't matter?

Let me put it this way.  I am a firm believer in what I will call "proportional response".  It works this way.  My response to a threat is proportional to my perception of the threat being carried out.  Example:  if the government of Canada were to threaten to declare war on us, I would raise the alert level along the northern border by mobilizing the Boy Scouts in Wisconsin.  Then I'd go to a movie and sleep well.  On the other hand, if a state that is a KNOWN sponsor of terrorism, like Iran, acquired the ability to produce a nuclear weapon and the delivery system to get it near US interests, I would absolutely take preemptive military action.  The very last thing I would count on is a combination of the UN Security Council and the EU bulldog negotiators to protect me.  I wouldn't be will to count on Iran's good will either.

I would make sure that their ability to manufacture and deliver a weapon was non-existent when I was done with my "first strike response".  I would also make sure that, in the case of Iran, the President and as many of his government as well as the ruling Mullahs were consorting with their assigned virgins.  If that means bombing mosques in downtown Tehran on Friday afternoon, that's fine with me.

I'm sure there would be hand wringing in Europe and at the DNC.  I'm good with that.  

With respect to your comment about people supporting the attack on Afghanistan go back and check comments from the D's in the Senate starting with Kennedy and Kerry.  It was your standard lefty argument, initially supporting taking down the Taliban and turning to immediate hand wringing and predictions of a quagmire as soon as the first shot was fired.

So we shouldn't attempt to learn from our mistakes at all? After all, how could we possibly apply any lessons learned to future policy. The same exact situation is never going to occur again. The same people got NK wrong in exactly the same way they are proposing we deal with Iran. That isn't relevant?

do you propose we do this?  After Iran do we go after Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?  

What if Turkey decides to get nuclear?

And since rhetoric should be taken as fact do you think that the Iranians have reason to feel threatened by the US given our bellicose rhetoric towards Iran?  

 And what happens if it turns out that the Iranians AREN'T building nuclear weapons?  While this may seem to be a remote chance right now we don't have a lot of cred when it comes to claims of nations having nuclear weapons.  

Let us assume that we do exactly as you wish.  Then what?  We pull another Iraq and starting implementing a government as we would like it?  More occupation for years and years?   Are you really willing to spend potentially trillions and tens of thousands of lives to make sure this set of mullahs don't get nukes?

I think there is a sense that we either act militarily or passively sit by and let them do what they wish.  This is a false dichotomy.  There are many more options available to us.  I think that a lot of Americans today see that the US can act whatever way they wish and feel that since we can we should.  I don't ascribe to that belief.

One other thing...

But then, I find it so ironic that you would talk about the U.S. failure of leadership after WW I that led to Hitler's rise to power, while at the same time, you talk of carrots and sticks and US investment in Iran.  Am I the only person hearing echoes of "Peace in our time"?

I've already responded to the Peace in our time canard.  But let me point out that the war ended in 1918.  Hitler didn't rise to power until 1933.  In between the US allowed the European Allies to exact brutal reparations against the Germans.  They pushed the Germans towards someone like Hitler by treating them as 2nd class citizens for a decade.  Thankfully we learned our lesson after World War II and made sure that wouldn't happen again.  The point here is that it was lack of interest in dealing with Europeans problems and our lack of leadership that caused even greater evil to occur.  You are now suggesting that we begin to act like a Colonial Empire in which any threat to the American crown should be dealt with in the most severe way.  I think that path leads to destruction for America the Republic.

Of course we should learn from our mistakes (from any roughly comparable situtation) and of course there may be useful lessons to apply from the NK situation.

See my first post, http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/1/20/115120/579/138#138, where I link to a CFR report on applying North Korea lessons.

I have simply been saying that the two are also quite different, so we have to bear the differences in mind in trying to come up with strategy and tactics to deal with Iran.

Sorry, I'm pressed for time to respond, except to note that your post is long on hand-wringing and very short on policy.  And I do think that, especially after 9/11, there is a tendency to let emotion get the better of cool judgment.  Interminable embargo of Cuba may be a case in point.

TT

I am finding myself the eternal pessimist.  Maybe in a few weeks, I'll think differently.

As I mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I'm not arguing for a particular course of action or attempting to persuade, so much as simply doing the streetcorner prophet thing of forecasting doom. :/

But the only course of action that seems to me would be effective is full scale military invasion, toppling the regime, fullbore search and rescue of all nuclear facilities for a couple of months, and then pulling out.  Not our job to set up a new government or provide for water and electricity and all that "win the hearts and minds" stuff.  If the Iranians install Hezbollah as their new government, fine -- we'll go right back in and smash them for a week or two.

As I've said, I do not believe we have the will to do this.

-TS

You have good points, but I do think that Iran can be understood and that there are other policies that can be fruitful besides sheer antagonism.  

The march of history is one of enemies realizing the waste of continued antagonism and sharing the benefits of increasing cooperation and integration.  Otherwise we would all still be running around in small hunter-gatherer tribes, killing and raiding each other all the time.  That kind of antagonism is still built into our nature, though, and it's the reason why we tend to see things in such black and white terms.

Zuiko, sorry for not responding to your question.  I don't profess to be an expert, but think things are not so simple, as noted in this Foreign Affairs article:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101faessay84109/selig-s-harrison/did-nor
th-korea-cheat.html

Perhaps I am naive, but I feel generally that we gain more leverage over some adversaries by trying to draw them closer to us and making it contrary to their own selfish interests to act in disruptive ways.  This does not mean that we should not also carry a big stick.

This seems to be the approach that we have decided to take with China, and I think, given the size of the US economy, that our influence over countries such as NK, Iran and Cuba would increase markedly if we were to trade with them and send cultural missions.