No offense, but how do you know what or what not Israeli or even US intelligence knows?

Israel's got nukes too. Why can't/won't they launch a first strike. Then they can clam Iran for themselves, but eventually donate it to the UN, after renaming it "Savedyourassistan"

As to what I know about what intelligence knows:

I know there's no such thing as perfect intelligence. Further, I know that Iran's program was concealed from IAEA inspectors for a decade or more.

I doubt we've found it all, and I doubt the identified sites haven't been relocated.

And I know US Intelligence has been wrong on the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, and Iraq.

For those of you counting on Israel to end this problem for us-- forget it. The comparison to Iraq's reactor is inapposite. That was a big identifiable target. The Iranian sites are largely unknown, even by the vaunted Israeli intelligence organizations.

I think you're wrong here, Ace. The Israelis have been on this problem like a duck on a June bug since day one. I understand that they are actively planning in case diplomacy does not work. There is no way in hell that Israel will let Iran have a nuke, even if they have to have a full all out war.

What about all those bunker buster bombs that we sold Israel?

It will definitly be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

I guess I just prefer to keep my fear level down by having faith in Israel.

It's time to send Joe Wilson to Iran.

Re: Israel

Certainly being the nation most threatened by Iran -- this threat made clear by Iran's hostage-taking terrorist president -- they're a lot more likely to launch a first strike than we are.

But conventional airstrikes won't solve the problem. Only nukes will, and only a LOT of nukes.

Would they dare? They might. But I wouldn't count on it.

Would they dare? They might. But I wouldn't count on it.

I would count less on Israel rolling over.

Can anyone see the possibility of Teddy Kennedy and his alk having the balls to actually back the United States against our enemies?

Iran is a major threat to Israel and the United States, and these Bastards can't even agree to back the US against Bin Ladin?

Ace,
Ledeen over at the corner just posted that there has been an assassination attempt on the Iranian President. Driver and two body guards killed, President wounded.

Maybe some internal workings are happening.

And I know US Intelligence has been wrong on the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India, and Iraq

The problem with a statement like this is you don't know what they've been *right* about. You have no basis for comparison. Having 'been there, done that' I have a lot more faith in the intelligence community, I suppose. They're not perfect but they know a lot more then you and I and not everything they now has been or will be leaked.

Ace, I agree.
There is something almost refreshing about having an enemy that is a nation state. While it wouldn't have made sense to turn Afganistan into glass to punish the Taliban, a policy of "your assured destruction" (has a better ring than "mutual assured destruction") toward Iran does make sense. With as much time as the people of Iran have had to influence their leadership, I don't think they can be dissociated from the Mullah's as was the case with the Taliban and the people of Afganistan or Al Qaida and the people of Pakistan, Sudan. or Indonesia.
We should put them on notice that they will be held responsible for any nuclear detonation in the world that can't be linked to current members of the nuclear club.
Preemptive first strike by Israel is the wild card here. As is potential Chinese collaboration with Iran

in the last sentence, now = know. loose sh*t.

I agree that it is past time for President Bush to make clear the US policy for rogue nations aspiring for nuclear weaponry. Mr. Bush addressed the UN in '02 with a lot less, arguably, justification for regime change in Iraq. I'm not saying the Iraq invasion wasn't justified -- it was.

Iran's government has, in no uncertain terms, declared war on the United States of America and Isreal. So, the question is: Why hasn't Mr. Bush addressed the UN with a proposal for a resolution on Iran's nuclear capabilities?

In Ace's defense, maybe faith is not always good enough --- whether it be in the intelligence community or Israel. Not when our lives are depending on it.

Perhaps because the UN is as useless as tits on a boar.

Ace,

Your analysis is dead on as usual. This policy is little different from the policy we followed with the Soviet Union for over 40 years. Despite detente and SALT talks, we maintained a credible mutually assured destruction (MAD) posture against the Soviet Union for the entire period of the Cold War. Once Iran goes nuclear, this policy can perform the same function against Iran and will probably serve just as well as the Soviet Cold War policy.

There is less certainty that the Iranian government will follow rational processes and refrain from attacking Israel or the US, but at times there were similar crises between the USSR and USA and we survived those. I feel less good about the Iranians acquiring nukes than I did about the Russians keeping up with us, but Cold Wars are a patient man's game. There need to be well thought out provocations of the Iranians to feel out their plans and to identify their weaknesses. And there are ways to do this short of nuclear strikes. Proxies, exercises in their areas of the world, and overt and covert events inside their own country to test their response capabilities are possible.

An announcement of a return to the MAD policies of the 70s and 80s might renew an antiwar movement here in the US. But with their current state of treasonous subversion, is there any doubt we would have to fight them even if Israel was annihilated by the Iranians? Anti War pussies care only when their lives are on the line, not when anyone else's lives are forfeit.

The people who need a credible deterrent are the Israelis. If they could prove they had the capability for massive retaliation even after an Iranian first strike, then Tehran might think twice. That requires a Trident submarine and MIRV warheads placed at her disposal or sold to her, or for her to build one on her own in 3 months -- none of which is going to happen. If the Israelis had the ability to annihilate Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and some of the Gulf Emirates, and could demonstrate it, then the others might force Tehran to shut up and keep their nukes in their pockets.

I believe a first strike by the Iranians will certainly lead to massive nuclear strike by both the USA and maybe even the Russians. They can ill afford to have Tehran take their place as the only credible nuclear threat to the US, and thus be annihilated by us as the Russians proxy. If the citizens of Iran can hear these words (via Voice of Iran type operations or blogging or some kind of credible news organizations -- maybe Iraqi news or TV can be our mouthpiece -- another good reason for invading them), then maybe they will overthrow their government in the interests of their own self preservation. Either way, there are still lots of things which have to happen before we cross this bridge, and lots of forks in the road to get there.

The assasination attempt, if proven effective, might be the harbinger of this and may bode well for our future with Iran. If not, there are still a lot of arrows in the quiver, and a lot of warheads on US Trident submarines ready, willing and able to eliminate Iran as an entity from the Middle Eastern problem, should the provocation be severe enough.

We used to believe the Russians were ten feet tall and bulletproof. We trained and operated that way for 40 years. When they collapsed, we found out WE were ten feet tall and bulletproof. And we still are, son.

Subsunk

PS, I like Kent's title of Your Assured Destruction better than MAD, also.

Subsunk

This is a very sticky issue. If we pressure Iran, it'll only build support for the Islamist regime. The Iranis have gone through decades of propaganda on how Western powers (US, UK, Israel) tried to enslave the Iranis, how the Revolution saved Iran, how the aforementioned Western powers have been trying to undermine Iran since the Revolution for their own anti-Irani and anti-Islamic interests, etc. They just might think, "Better to side with our own than with the West." Culturally, of course, many Iranis will support us, but if pushed to declare their allegiance, they may just side with their own. Having the added deterrence of a nuclear weapon would only swell their pride.

In the same line of thought, if we don't add any pressure, the regime may implode, destroyed by its own internal factions. This could either bring a reformist to power or overthrow the entire regime. Unfortunately, to bring such a thing about on the popular level, something very large and very bad has to happen. Threatening Israel won't rattle the Iranis (unless they fear they'll be further isolated or even attacked); action against Iranis (massacring a protest or something) might do it.

The world's leaders know for a fact that Iran will get the bomb: it's just a matter of time. This is one reason why they've been so lax: they don't want to rattle the cage of a lion about to awake. Perhaps they figure if they're not stern now the Iranis might be more moderate once they get the bomb rather than all defiant and up in arms (literally and figuratively).

Iran has a lot of opposition. Arab states don't want Iran to have the bomb. Nor do its neighbors. Nor does Europe (except Russia). Nor does Israel. Nor does the US. Yet, how this will be resolved is so up in the air, especially because the regime is irrational, unpredictable, and from what we have seen, likely to do and say anything.

The problem with striking Iran is that if it is struck, one has to get everything at one time. It goes down to the whole reason why MAD is possible: if attacked, one must counterattack. If an attack is launched, might as well launch all of one's arsenal since it may be wiped out otherwise. If someone strikes Iran and misses even a few nukes, Iran will likely launch those.

What to do? What to do?

Yes, the "pressure" policy won't work. We simply have to draw the line and stand by our words.

The policy can be called -
"Leave No Mushroom-Cloud Behind"

Your comments were very enlightening and hope-inspiring, Subsunk. Thanks!

Of course, if the dems get in, the official policy will be Kiss Your Ass Goodbye.

Differences between the Soviet Union and Iran:
1) USSR=Godless heathens whos ultimate reward was world domination and worldwide acceptance of communism/socialism
2) Islamofascists=likes the world domination bit but also motivated by virgin cooch.

For this reason things may happpen a lot faster with Iran than with the USSR.

I think if Israel preempts we will condemn them rhetorically but defend them against a retaliatory strike. Just hope the anti-war left hasn't deballed us too much!

"What to do? What to do?" Well, wring ones hands and loosing sleep is not one of the things to do. At some point you have to trust that the people in our government have got it covered although they certainly didn't show it on 9/11 but at that time there was a lot of complacents in this country that doesn't exist today. Regardless, a nuclear attack possibility does exist but not necessarily from Iran as there is a lot of countries with shakey governments other than Iran e.g. Russia, Pakistan, etc. that have nuclear capability and at least one, China, that likes to rattle its sabers.

Wanna see something amazingly depressing?

Iran's Nuremberg-style rally where they act out simultaneous ICBM attacks on both the US and Israel

(from w3.castup.net/mfa/anti_american_incitement.htm)

You have to see it to believe it. This is what we have to deal with, people. Iran had this rally a couple of years ago. Did you see it on the network news? You might think a country on the verge of acquiring nukes having a Hitler rally might be of interest to people, but I guess not.

I showed this to people at work (NYC). They first said that the the mullahs just do this stuff to rile up the people. I asked what kind of country is it then where this stuff is politically effective. My coworkers then moved the goalposts and said they had no way of knowing if the video is real.

We have big problems.

It is monstrous to contemplate....

We have a face-off between people whose god tells them to convert or kill the infidels and people whose god tells them to "resist not." Thankfully, the latter have very often chosen to "sin" rather than let themselves be trampled. But now the lame believers and the even lamer atheists are in a race to the bottom, each trying to prove one is more pure than the other. I said the U.S.'s citizens are restrained by fear. One of their fears is the fear being being less pacifist or less decent in the cont

Never walk away while a child is playing near the keyboard. As I was about to conclude:

One of their fears is the fear of being seen as less pacifist or less decent in war than their contraries.

The Israelis have been on this problem like a duck on a June bug since day one. I understand that they are actively planning in case diplomacy does not work. There is no way in hell that Israel will let Iran have a nuke, even if they have to have a full all out war.

They probably don't have the capability.

The link in that piece to the US Army War College assessment of Israel - from deterrence policy to air capability to covert action capability to intelligence capability - all point to Israel's hands being tied without overt support from the United States, and even then, it doesn't look good, because it's dicey whether they have the intelligence or resources to put the Iranian nuke program out of commission. The assessment in this post is probably right, though there is a definited wild card to Israel's intelligence capability and willingness to do aggressive, risky stuff.

Bill--

Those were good pieces (read them the other day when you first linked it), but they did neglect one option the Israelis retain: massive preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran.

After all, if Ace is correct and it makes sense for the United States, it makes *more* sense for Israel to "contemplate the unthinkable," especially since one bomb gets through, the nation is gone.

Unfortunately, such a preemptive strike basically means the end of Israel as well, as no one will let the Jews live that down.

I really do not envy the Israelis here. They have to *something*, but all of their options are bad.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Ace-- are your trackbacks working? I posted on this subject a little while ago myself, used trackbacks to this post and your assassination posting, and bupkus shows up.

Dunno if it's Typepad or if it's Mu.

With respect to the posters here - very good.

Now...We, in the civilian world, don't know. A lot of diplomacy does not hit the front page. Iran may have been warned about certain actions. Likely, it has, through diplomatic channels. The problem the Iranian government has is the same as the Argentinian government had in the early 1980's. You can make a threat, begin to carry it out, but if you aren't successful - then what?

Mobs do not like losers. And they do not like unsuccessful foreign adventures being brought home.

You all come across a smart children playing with dangerous toys. Get a grip, boys and girls.

Hey Ace,

You may have meant exactly what I'm about to say, but I wasn't too clear and I'd like everyone to think about what, I think, our publically stated policy should be regarding a nuclear Iran.

Iran will most likely not hold a nuclear weapons test, nor declare that they have nuclear weapons. That would be politically disastrous for them, and would almost certainly invite world condemnation and Israeli attacks.

Therefore, if we can not in fact stop the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, I think we should make it abundantly clear, that if any Western nation or Israel is struck by a nuclear weapon, whether that be as a first strike directly from Iran, or from a terrorist group, Iran will face overwhelming nuclear annihilation.

Maybe this is what you meant. I think Iran must know, that even if we can't prove that the nuke came from Iran, they will still be attacked. If al Qaeda or another terrorist group nukes the US or Israel, Iran is going to pay the price.

I don't see any other way of deterring Iran from engaging in nuclear proliferation.

I think your analogy is a bit off, mysterious stranger.

Iran doesn't come across as "smart children playing with dangerous toys", but rather as a mildly retarded bully full of swagger and insecurity. He's spent the last year threating the actual smart kid and his big brother, who showed him up a coule of years ago, and now the bully's proudly announced that he's found his daddy's gun and will kill his rival and his rival's big brother too.

So what do you do? The local "cop" is a bribe taking, serial rapist, kleptocrat who has no love for the smarties and will do nothing until it's too late.
Do you wait till the bully actually shoots someone before acting, or do you beat him up now and take the gun away before several people (including the bully) end up dead?

So to restate you proposition (And clean up your spelling, though I certainly can't complain too much about spelling today):

You all come across a threatening bully playing with dangerous weapons. Get a grip, boys and girls, what do you do?

You all come across a smart children playing with dangerous toys.

You come across as a castrato troll. Fuck off and die.

i don't think we'd turn iran into a sheet of glass.
targetted tactical nuke strikes on every troop concentration and military site followed by invasion and regime change seems more likely

Those were good pieces (read them the other day when you first linked it), but they did neglect one option the Israelis retain: massive preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran.

Ah, the "Giselle Bundchen Scenario."

As in, theoretically it's possible, but so unlikely as to be rationally considered impossible.

Just like my odds of banging Giselle Bundchen.

it doesn't look good, because it's dicey whether they have the intelligence or resources to put the Iranian nuke program out of commission

You're not the first to underestimate Israel, Bill. Fortunately for you, the price is a lot lower then it is for Iran.

Should we nuke TERRAN or HOLLYWOOD?

I'm pretty sure we don't wanna nuke Terra.

I've hit the point where I no longer want to accept the possibilty that spurwing is a real person.

The fundamentalist religious crazies thuggishly ruling Iran may have little fear of that. They will consider giving up their own lives to strike a mighty nuclear blow for Allah a small sacrifice for greater Islamist glory.

I'm surprised that you believe this. In my experience, the thugs at the top aren't usually real big on self-sacrifice. That stuff is for the little people.

In fact, I doubt many of them believe in the 72 virgins and all that other nonsense. It's all about power. Religion is just a tool to manipulate the masses.

Yeah, totally unlike Communism.

The U.S. does not need to use nuclear weapons to achieve a military wipe out of Iran. Because of the topography, Iran is a sitting duck, just as Iraq is. We are bogged down in Iraq because we're trying not to kill the Iraq civilian population. i think that the Iranians will use nuclear blackmail to try wo eliminate U.S. support for Isreal. The problem with actually using nuclear weapons is that the user has no defense and no further capability. So short of total nuclear annihilation of the enemy, the retaliation would defeat the intentof the first user. I do not doubt that Iran would be willing to annihilate Isreal and the U.S., but it is easier said than done. Therefore nuclear blackmail with be the most likely Iranian policy choice. The U.S. response will be a huge question mark because so many of the elite in this country are cowards, light weights or both. I hate to think what will happen when Bush and Cheney leave office and we have the touchy feely crowd running things.

No offense intended by this, but if Iran does provide Al Qaeda with nukes, where will they hit? New York City? Washington, DC? Chicago? El Lay? San Francisco? Seattle?

Ironically, the people most likely to be the victims of an al Waeda nuke are the same left-liberals who have done everything they could to undermine President Bush's efforts to stop them.

Everyone seems to think the Israelis are going after the nukes. What if, instead, they went after President Fuckmeat and the mad mullahs? Drop a couple of those bunker busters we sold them a while back on their place of repose? Cut of the head of the snake, as it were. Just saying.

What if, instead, they went after President Fuckmeat and the mad mullahs?

Or took a shot at his convoy ...

Dropping a daisy cutter on some fucker's head seems about right.

V the K - it will probably be Tel Aviv, NYC, DC, or Baghdad.

I've hit the point where I no longer want to accept the possibilty that spurwing is a real person.

I like to think of Spurwing as a savant of the nonsequitur. There is a beautiful, mad genius to his writing. And I find if I pop a couple vicodin and hit the valu-rite this effect is greatly magnified. Do try it sometime.

You got a point, doc. I wonder if he is aware of his genius?

Or maybe, like Van Gogh, he won't be appreciated until after he hacks off his own ear to give to his favorite hooker and then he dies or something.

I bet his tombstone will read something like:

all the little DEMOCRAPS sound like their reading a bad HOLLYWOOD script written by DINO DE LAURENTIIS who remade crap movies when we should have stick wtih the original japanese GODZILLA with RAMUND BUR

In the science fiction book "Dune" there is something known as The Great Convention. What this is, is an agreement between all the nuclear armed countries (planets/houses) that ALL of them are obligated to utterly destroy ANY first user of nuclear weapons.

I don't think it's possible to stop Iran from getting the bomb. It may even be that the various powers want Iran to nuclear armed as a check on the ambitions of the Sunni Islamists countries. The problem is stopping them from using it.

What we are really worried about is Iran, to pave the way for the 12th Imam, launches a first strike at Israel as soon as it can. Their justification would be Israel's own nuclear weapons, which they would never give up. Suppose the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, England, and France drew up something similar to "The Great Convention" concerning just Iran and Israel and North Korea?

On the perceived weakness of Israel:

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive;

If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

Israel will surprise everyone, most especially her enemies, just as she did in 1948, 1967, and 1973.

Those who think the mullahs won't want to die themselves don't understand religious belief.

Those who think the Iranian leaders cannot be easily replaced by people who think similarly haven't thought about how many mullahs there really are.

Iran has a population of 125 million while Iraq has a population of only 25 million . Iran is not open to easy conventional conquest.

Israel has the option of destroying Mecca.

No Mecca, No Islam. Therein lies the deterrence.

Ah, nuking Mecca would probably have the effect of galvanizing Islamic belief; I'm not saying we shouldn't be prepared to have this on the table.

But its an end-times type of proposition. For use AFTER Islamists have forced us to decimate them in so many other ways.

The cherry on top of the shit-sundae they make for themselves.

The event that rams them into 'persecuted minority religionist' status for another thousand years.

You can't start right out with it.

Iran may have 125 million people, but they are not all persian. There are kurds, arabs, etc.

Destroying Mecca would have a far bigger effect on other Arabs, say in the Kingdom of Saud or Iraq. And now that we are in the end game of Iraq with the US positioned as an Ally / benefactor / protector, I think that for all practical purposes that Mecca is off the table as a viable target.

Per Iran, I don't think that it would be all that significant, anyway. Again, the ruling class is Persian, and while they are devout, they also have an identity apart from Islam that would persist.

You're not the first to underestimate Israel, Bill. Fortunately for you, the price is a lot lower then it is for Iran.

A. I'm not so much underestimating Israel, as parroting the "underestimation" of the US Army War College, Brookings, Jane's, etc.

B. My underestimation leaves the door open for unknown information, a prerequisite of rational, practical analysis, especially with regards to intelligence. Especially especially with regards to intelligence analyzed in the public domain by amateurs.

Israel will surprise everyone, most especially her enemies, just as she did in 1948, 1967, and 1973.

The best part of this overconfident, analytically shallow, hubristic auto-hawk arm-chair chest-thumping is that we'll know within a year or two whether or not it was wrong. The worst part is the nuclear Iran part, of course.

I guess I'll take Sue and Brewfan's insufferable preening after a successful Israeli strike instead of a nuclear Iran.

But I'm not gonna lie, it's close.

A. I'm not so much underestimating Israel, as parroting the "underestimation" of the US Army War College, Brookings, Jane's, etc.

You know very well the link you gave is to a book that has a disclaimer at the beginning that refutes this very childish attempt to give your amateur opinions more credibility then anybody else's. Par for the course for a world class asshole like yourself. In fact, the section of this book you base your post on is the analysis and opinion of one person, and not the 'opinion' of the War College, or Jane's.

I guess I'll take Sue and Brewfan's insufferable preening blah blah blah

I doubt its insufferable to you as you're obviously an attention-starved, insecure little twit. I'm guessing your life is so hollow and meaningless you'll take any attention you can get.

B. My underestimation leaves the door open for unknown information, a prerequisite of rational, practical analysis, especially with regards to intelligence. Especially especially with regards to intelligence analyzed in the public domain by amateurs.

This is pretty convenient. If you're right, you're right. If you're wrong, you get to say you're right if only ...

Come on Bill, make a call.

In fact, most rational analysis fails with intelligence data, since there are usually holes. Experience plays a big part in filling in the gaps. Especially for experts.

The best part of this overconfident, analytically shallow, hubristic auto-hawk arm-chair chest-thumping

As opposed to your overconfident, analytically shallow, hubristic auto-hawk professional chest-thumping?

The truth of the matter is, that no-one knows what is going to happen. Some people are simply not assholes about it.

For the record, I'm not sure what is so hubristic about taking the stance that Israel will go it alone and make a play against Iran, much less analytically shallow. You probably would have made the same case in the '80s when they succeeded in taking out the Iraqi facility. There are, of course, substantive differences in an attempted strike into Iran, as many have pointed out.

But pre-1998, IDF showed a reckless / gutsy streak. We'll see if it returns. In my amateur opinion, the political climate certainly supports more aggressive IDF action, what with the creation of Sharon's new party.

The assessment in this post is probably right, though there is a definited wild card to Israel's intelligence capability and willingness to do aggressive, risky stuff.

So in other words, you don't know. Welcome to the club.

Just as a reminder, being an insufferable ass does not equate with intelligence.

Dunno if this has been said, but nuking Iran should be out of the question at the moment. Considering how much radioactive debres will be thrown into the atmoshpere, and the two countries to the east and west of Iran, a strong wind could produce alot of U.S. Causilites.

"No Mecca, No Islam. Therein lies the deterrence."

Islam is not the problem, mecca is not the problem, mohammidianism is.

Destroy Medina and you destroy the followers of mohammid.

I'm voting for Medina too. It's a long story, but I think PETN Sandwich gets it.

I doubt that destroying Mecca or Medina would result in the destruction of militant Islam (or Islam in general). It might make sense to you on a certain reading of Islam, but these are human beings we're talking about. Never underestimate the power of cognative dissonance. They'd just invent a theological reason for it, cling to it, and move on.

Bart:
Why hasn't Mr. Bush addressed the UN with a proposal for a resolution on Iran's nuclear capabilities?

I hate to say it, but it's probably because Bush figures that Iran would call his bluff.

We must communicate to the mullahs that their choice is as follows:

-Either give up the nukes, OR
-ANY use of any nuke by any terrorist group anywhere on Earth will automatically be blamed on Iran, and consequently they will be nuked off the face of the Earth...

The only question is, how do we make sure they take us seriously. Any ideas?

Iran Delenda Est!!!!!!!