IDF chief: We can do it.

It's time to consider the lesser of two evils

Give me a minute.

Ok so I didn't need a minute.

I had that Guardian link within ten minutes of it being posted at their website -- and Drudge still beat me.

How the fuck does he do it?

Here's how it might play out:

Israel has missile-capable subs. My bet is that the first strike will be Israeli, and will be sub-launched. It will not be nuclear and consequently will probably fail to achieve the desired end. The Iranians will go bonkers and do something stupid at that point -- probably launch conventionally-armed Shahhab missiles at Tel Aviv and/or Haifa. (Let us all pray that Iran has not yet got nuclear weapons, because if they do, Tel Aviv may be the recipient of the first nuclear weapon since Nagasaki.) Israel will use this as a jump-off to conduct air attacks.

The US role in all of this is less certain. Iran has to know that if they even cut a loud fart in our direction, our navy and air forces will kick the shit out of them and then blockade them until they cry uncle. If the Israelis attack, the US is going to be blamed for helping them whether we do or not, so the US might support Israel's initial sub-attack with some firepower of our own. But overt support of this kind is bound to affect our Iraq adventure very badly, as the majority of the population there is Shi'ite. Plus Iran will go all out to piss in Iraq's cornflakes if we bomb their nuclear sites -- I wouldn't even rule out an Iranian military incursions across the border. And I'd expect a major terrorism upsurge not just in Iraq, but also in Lebanon and the West Bank/Gaza. Probably Jordan, too.

In short -- a total conventional regional war. The Saudis are wild cards here, as are the Jordanians. And don't discount the Russians -- Iran is a major client state, and really the only place left in the Middle East where Russia holds any influence. We don't have the kind of boots on the ground we'd need for ground operations in Syria, Iran, and Iraq -- so sea and air power are going to play pivotal roles. (Watch to see how many carrier groups get re-routed to the Med and the Persial Gulf.)

anybody care to deliberate on the ramifications of a joint US-Israeli military action, i.e. the "we knew you were in cahoots before but NOW we gots da proof" crazy?

Actually it almost makes me wish I could catch Air America.

"iranian.ws" sounds like horseshit. But, we'll see.

interesting why same people so sure about wmd in iraq, are just as sure iran has or wants the bomb.

but wait! I forgot, we'll "free" the Iranian people.

make it up as we go.

Dave -- Won't happen. No way would the U.S. risk alienating Arabs with a joint operation. Remember how hard Bush I pressured Israel not to respond when Saddam hit them with Scuds in '91?

Israel is "us."

U.S. risk alienating Arabs

no way? you mean, they love "us"? right?

nobody in the region trusts the u.s.

I mean, if you were an arab, persian, would you?

of course not.

ergastularius -- Iranian.ws is a legit site. I've been reading it for ages. Here's the same news story as reported today by Reuters.

Yeah, I was nyuk nyuking about the Air America thing. I don't see any way we'd pull a joint op with the Israelis... and yeah, I do remember GHWB talking them out of a strike in GWI, for the same reasons you and I are pointing to.

but, yes. "we" will bomb iran.

thanks for the cite

get rid of the mullahs

Won't happen. No way would the U.S. risk alienating Arabs with a joint operation.

Times have changed, homie. We're going to get blamed for cooperating with Israel whether we actually do or not. We're gonna have to eat the shit sandwich no matter what, so we might as well get our licks in up front.

And frankly, the Administration is being a little too coy about this whole thing. They know for a fact that Israel will not tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon, especially in light of the "wipe them off the face of the earth" stuff coming from Ahmadinejad. The Israelis really have no choice...and the US knows this. It gives us the advantage of knowing that a showdown is inevitable -- there'll be no pissing around with the UN as there was with Iraq.

Syria is going to be part of the strike package, and Lebanon is going to be in chaos as well (Hezbollah will make sure of that). The West Bank and Gaza will go nuts just on general "we hate Israel" principles. Doing nothing will simply not be an option; the US really has the only military force capable of making sure that Iran's nuclear sites are fully destroyed. Israel can start the process, but they simply don't have the wherewithal to finish it.

Iran needs nukes to enact revenge for American Indian oppression.

At least that is what I read somewhere today.

Another point: Iranians are (mostly) not Arab. They are Persian. Also, they are Shi'a, whereas most Arabs are Sunni.

Fuckit. Its us or them. Do what has to be done.

ergastularius. I have no idea how to pronounce your fuckin name. I dont like it.

C'mon ergastularius, step it up a notch. You're giving us the Berkeley parade slogan treatment here - if you've got something to say, put your back into it.

Why don't they trust us? Some reasons are:
1) that people like you told them that we had imperialist intentions;
2) that people like you told them that we wanted to steal their oil;
3) that people like you told them that we were targetting and/or wantonly killing civilians;
4) that people like you paraded Abu Ghraib around as if it was the most important story of the past decade;
5) that the Bush adminstration has the most enfeebled communications apparatus of recent presidential history;
6) that the New York Times seems devoted to undermining our propaganda efforts, as if war-time propaganda is somehow a violation of ethics; and finally,
7) because the inconstancy of our foreign policy has left Iraqis hanging out to dry.

Ace:

What took you so long to come around to agreeing that we have to use our military to keep Iran from getting a bomb?

You weren't thinking the EU was going to accomplish it via diplomacy, were you?

more interesting to me is how the u.s. prepares arab shia in sw iran and s. iraq for longterm conflict. also, it seems likely to me, u.s. must continue to drive a wedge between shia and sunni. one can imagine sunnis soon supplied by americans to destabilize emergent pro-iranian sciri led government.

again, partition is most logical for the u.s., is it not?

what a mess.

FYI, it's the "Revolutionary Guards" in Iran.

Oh, and again: we're going to war. Sooner or later, but it's all but inevitable this year, I fear.

Shit. . . this stuff just doesn't get any easier, does it?

On to more serious matters. Does anybody remember that old pic of Dick Cheney and his package that Wonkette talked about for 2 months?

Why didnt anybody post this pic in any of the Cheneys cock threads?

yes, geoff. apologies. my horror response pegged.

just terrifying stupidity on the part of iranian leadership, combined w/malevolent bush doctrine=nightmare.

and the saudis, too. they are in a very tight place. they want to check iranian "ambition." but doing so further deligitimizes royals leadership. this could be harbinger of regional war. wow.

ergastularius

We'll see?

Ahmadnejad quotes:

“Israel must be wiped off the map.”
“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

Rafsanjani:
"If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world."

In their annual Shahab missile parade the missles are painted with and the crowd chants the slogans: “Israel should be wiped off the map” and “We will trample America under our feet,” “Death to America,” and “Death to Israel.” Or http://news.b b c.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/269906.stm, if you don't like that link. (Get rid of the spaces in b b c, the filter doesn't like them.)

Sheikh Ala A-Shanawi in the highest ranking Sunni Council:
"The Islamic nation has to recognize the enemy, and to prepare itself accordingly. ... Allah's messenger [the prophet Muhammed] would have prepared himself with all the resources possible in order to deal with the enemy. Therefore, if the Islamic nation is not equipped with the desired weaponry needed, it will be forced to suffer the consequences, and will be blamed for negligence. ... All Islamic nations are required to seize nuclear weaponry, giving the nation the utmost respect"

And you ask where people might get the idea that the Iranian regime might want to acquire nukes and might think of using them? From the words of their highest ranking leaders! We'll see? Yeah, let's wait around and see what happens.

Here's something that'll send our mouth-breathing friend ergastularius* up a wall: a strike on Iran will not be a tactical strike to take out the nuclear facilities only. If the US gets involved, it'll be a decapitation strike. And this means an attack in force, with multiple assets: air and naval bombardment for sure, as well as a blockade; SOG groups surely (who are probably already placed in Iran, or shortly will be); possibly even backing up an internal coup. Regime change is the official policy of the US now -- a tactical strike wouldn't make much sense in that context, especially if we can't absolutely confirm destruction of the nuclear sites via post-strike BDA.

*ergastularius is a species of fish (a type of sea bass). Link. I'm sure it has some deep significance to the moonbat who chose it for his nick; all I know is that sea bass is good eatin' with lemon and some horseradish.

I'm surprised he finds it useless. Usually, kofi is kissing Iran's ass for all he's worth. When kofi isn't covering for Iran any longer, you know things have gone beyond beyond.

For the record, I'm the one who posted at 10:49. Damn filter.

Or, Iran will build a nuke so they'll immediately be immune to any and all bullying, real or perceived. And they won't actually use it or anything, or give it away to random loons in beards, because then they're basically writing their own death warrant.

I'm not entirely sanguine about a nuclear Iran, but I have just enough faith in the human love for non-death that the Big Show won't come to the Middle East.

(If it does, then IMHO, it's time to brush up on your eschatology.)

Put in another way, it's just as likely that a nuclear Iran will start to move towards a more civilized society as it will move towards a screetching sociopathic death-bringer. Since we do not have the national will to launch a pre-emptive attack--and we'll do everything in our power to prevent our Israeli allies from doing it--I'll be hoping for the best.

I'm aware the rhetoric used on all sides to mobilize public opinion to favor the madness of despots, including our own.

the u.s. has zero hope winning legitimacy from significant publics anywhere in the region. no way.

but I agree u.s. may have cake anbd eat it too, merely by the assertion of military power and by exacerbating factionalism/"sectarianism" among the principals.

Like I said. By this point, the "strategery" is fascinating. and horrible.

Want to hear some more very interesting (but as yet unconfirmed) WoT news?

According to Debka, the head of Syrian intelligence has escaped/defected to London.

Monty:

egastularius is also the head slave of a group of slaves in Roman times. As a marxist, that's probably what he's getting at. The fish version is called epinephelus egastularius, which I think makes for a cool first name.

But he's not a bad sort, and certainly brings a wildly different perspective than we normally get.

I figure we'll have the status quo a little longer, with the UN dick-dancing around until Israel launches a strike on its own. The US will avoid participating in the initial strike to avoid as much Arab rage as it can. Granted, there will be a large chunk of the population that will blame the US regardless, but if the US and Israel deny US involvement, there won't be quite the backlash against the US.

Play will pass, simultaneously, to the UN and Iran. The UN will talk a great deal, effectively taking a pass. The big deciding factor will be what Iran does.

The leadership can't be seen as weak after an event like that, but launching missiles at Israel immediately (non-nuke) would get them in a lot of hot water. I wonder if they could appeal to the Muslim world to strike at Israel immediately through terrorist acts? If enough terrorists strike Israel quickly enough, it could be seen by the Iranians as a legitimate counter, while not being as overt as a direct attack.

Of course, if they have nukes and can launch 'em....well, they probably would have by now. And I'm pretty sure the Israelies have several they'd be more than willing to launch back.

but I agree u.s. may have cake anbd eat it too, merely by the assertion of military power and by exacerbating factionalism/"sectarianism" among the principals.

So presuming that the Irani's intentions are as they have stated, and that nuclear weapons capability is forthcoming, what policy would you advocate? Mind you, we have the sense here that we are fighting not for the security of the US, but for the survival of Western culture. We'd rather confront it before Europe caves - they are, in a sense, our cultural buffer. So what to do?

kathie: we can't get rid of the mullahs. The entire system of Iran's theocratic regime is based on the mullahs. Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came out with his "brilliant" system during the Revolution: "Velaayat-e Faqeh," which means, roughly, "Government by the Senior Jurisprudent." In this system, there would be a nominal democracy. As we have seen with Khatami, there's a limited amount of democracy possible. But as we have seen with the recent elections, this democracy goes only as far as the non-democratic forces will allow it.

Under this regime, all of the government is under a supreme leader (vali-ye faqeh in Persian), the senior-most religious jurisprudent (mullah, ayatollah, etc.). The first one was, no surprise here, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. The second one, who continues to rule today, is Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamene'i. Under the Vali-ye Faqeh is the Guardian Council who has the power to approve or reject any law or policy of the government. The list of candidates for elections is screened by the Guardian Council: as we saw in the last elections, they can throw out whomever they are not pleased with. And as we have seen in the last election, the election result can very well be predetermined by the Guardian Council. Ahmedinezhad won because Khamene'i wanted him to. (This deeply disappointed Rafsanjani, who used to be the mullahs' favorite.)

(In contrast to most Irani marja'aan (ayatollahs), Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Husseini as-Sistani of Iraq does not accept the theory of Velaayat-e Faqeh. This is because he belongs to the quietist school. Muqtada as-Sadr does believe in Velaayat-e Faqeh because he is part of the activist school, which Khomeini belonged to.)

Another important aspect is the almost universal Shiite belief in taqleed, meaning to follow, without opposition, a religious leader. In Shiism, this is mandatory. One chooses a religious leader and follows him (his rulings, teachings, etc.) for all of one's life. If the mojtahed (one authorized to issue rulings in Shiite Islam) dies, one must transfer to another mojtahed. (Usually, each mojtahed has a successor to whom the mojtahed's moqalledoon (followers) transfer. Example: Khomeini's successor was Khamene'i.) Even if the clerics were not part of the government, they would still play a very large role in Irani politics. This was true during the Shah's time. For today, look how important and influential Grand Ayatollah as-Sistani is.

The only answer would be to institute a thoroughly democratic and secular regime in Iran.

rho:

You're assuming in your hypothesis that Ahmadinejad and his clique are rational actors in all this. I am not convinced this is the case; they give every indication of being religious nutcases. (See: cult of the Mahdi.) My advice: take him at his word.

I've heard it said that Iran wants a nuclear weapon not to project power outward, but to project inward without threat of interference. In other words, they can use troops and tanks to crush protesters and political opponents with no fear of reprisals from outside, because they have the threat of nuclear retaliation. I'd find this argument more credible were it not for the contiuing rhetoric against Israel. There is a poison about these utterances that goes beyond the usual jew-hatred so prevalent in the Middle East. In short, Ahmadinejad seems serious, which makes his possession of a nuclear weapon completely intolerable. Consider, rho: if you were an Israeli, would you want to trust your nation's well-being to such an obvious loon?

rho,

"Since we do not have the national will to launch a pre-emptive attack--and we'll do everything in our power to prevent our Israeli allies from doing it--I'll be hoping for the best."

Hope for the best, expect the worse.

And no, we do not have the national will to take on Iran. Hell, we barely have the national will for interdiction of Al Qaeda operatives or their interrogation.

But the Israelis, well, they're a different story.

It is hard for any sensate and honest person to believe that the Israelis will tolerate a nuclear Iran.

And yes, it is a terrible calculus, but it is a rapidly approaching and inescapable one.

Is there any conceivable diplomatic sway that the US will have over Israel when Iran is nuclear armed?

Not lilkely.

Nor do I agree that Iran will somehow, magically, transform to a peace-loving nation once they gone nuclear. No way. Never gonna' happen.

Once armed, there is every indication that they will try to annihilate the Israelis. They have said openly and repeatedly that this is their ambition. Why suddenly should we think they weren't serious.

Nope, this is gonna' hurt.

Bad.

It amazes me that sixty years after Hitler, we still have people in this country who don't believe Iran is a threat.

But he's (egastularius) not a bad sort, and certainly brings a wildly different perspective than we normally get.
Posted by geoff at January 3, 2006 11:04 PM

I have to disagree, geoff. I find egastularius tiresome. His posts (at least tonight) seem nothing more than poorly typed anti-Bush talking points.

I'm tired of the sickness coming from the Middle-East, and I'm even more tired of leftist pro-fascism apologists in this country. I never wanted a war in Iran, nobody did, but we need to wake up and stop placating those who want to kill us.

... and I'm even more tired of leftist pro-fascism apologists in this country.

Seconded, quoted and bolded.

As for Iran, I'm holding out for a miracle. I really hope we don't need to strike them, but it does not look good.

egastularius is also the head slave of a group of slaves in Roman times. As a marxist, that's probably what he's getting at.

That's a rather candid description of Marxism, isn't it? Some slaves are more equal than others!

I had a solution to the Middle East problems once. Deport all the people to Australia and nuke the Middle East to outer space. Problem solved!

Of course, then we'd have to deal with an Ethniklashistan in the Australian deserts, but at least it won't hurt us.

Of course, I jest. But pleasant solutions are not close at hand.

The problems in this region are undeniable proof that we, humanity, are naturally prone to violence and that pluralists/neo-liberals' belief that through complex interdependence, institution-building, and mutual agreements we can put an end to war is utterly ridiculous.

My (ideal) response to all issues relating to the Middle East? This: *shrug and throw hands in air* (But, no. I have a big mouth and will continue to blab on.)

Last point: I think it is infuriating that we don't have the national will to strike Iran. It is absolutely effing ridiculous! What will it take to get people to wake up? Have Iran lob a nuke at us? Oy. Even cats are easier to herd.

ergastularius

I'm aware the rhetoric used on all sides to mobilize public opinion to favor the madness of despots, including our own.

Yeah, I'm sure you're aware of the "rhetoric." The fact that you call it "rhetoric" evinces that you have not considered the possibility that the Iranian quotes are not mere rhetoric, but are in fact statements of intent.

My commentary was in response to your dreamy epistomological digression, "Well how can we be so sure Iran has or wants the bomb?" Answer: they say they want the bomb. You: "that's just rhetoric". Well, then. In addition they are building nuclear reactors to realize the vision they have articulated and are shopping for ballistic missile parts, according to one of the articles under discussion. "Yeah, Dude. But how can we be sure that Iran, like, even exists?" Bah!

Show me a video of our Congress chanting "Death to Iran!" repeatedly in unison. Show me government sponsored Western parades with crowds chanting "Death to Persians! Death to Muslims!" or the infelicitous, "We will trample Arabia under our feet!" Show me an administration official engaging in rank Holocaust denial, or explaining how he was radiating spiritual light when delivering a speech at the UN. I am talking about government officials publicly behaving this way in the West today. Because if you can't, all your moral equivalence is crap.

Our political rhetoric is anodyne statements like "Islam is a religion of peace" or "We all know the peace that is at the heart of Islam." Iran's is "Death to America!" The difference of what is considered effective political rhetoric speaks volumes about the difference in the underlying values of these societies. You refuse to see these differences, but this is an act of will, not of intellect, on your part.

or explaining how he was radiating spiritual light when delivering a speech at the UN.

Well, to be fair, that sounds a lot like Dennis Kucinich...

Good one!

After establishing the Department of Peace, Dennis Kucinich could create a cabinet level position for Secretary of Spiritual Energy.

So Iran is now calling its dialogue with the EU "useless". Most of us have been saying the same thing all along...

All right, all right. I thought that since the Right always get criticized for "resorting to violence," we should here what someone from the Left's plan is. I.e., how do you deal with someone who says negotiation is out of the question, and who is at least a regional threat? Here we are faced with the same intelligence challenges we had going into Iraq, and a reasonably similar threat situation. And I'm sure that beyond the threat of Iran itself, it has no compunctions about supporting terrorism.

So it would be nice to hear the Left's thinking when we're in this position, rather than hearing their holier-than-thou hindsight. If they've got a viable, non-military, alternative to dealing with an intransigent, saber-rattling security threat like Iran, I'd like to hear it now. Hell, I'd like to try it now.

But I sure don't want to hear after it's over that "Iran was never a threat" or "you didn't give diplomacy enough of a chance" or "you should have let the UN deal with it." Because from where we're sitting today, we've got a serious problem and the UN, sanctions, and/or diplomacy aren't going to solve it.

O/T: Drudge reports Coal Miners are Alive!

I blame Bush.

Jack M.

Me too, then.

Good one, though!

!!!

...

geoff:

Yes, in the affirmative: What to do?

Whether interdiction, detention, rendition, punishment, etc...

There is no there there.

And this is the reason why I cannot go back to the Democratic Party. Apart from incessant and disproportionate baying at the POTUS for everything and nothing, their is nary a plan.

What to do?

At least W. is trying to win the war.

At least W. recognizes we are at war.

No, things are bad and they are going to get a hell of a lot worse.

Sigh.

Yes, Jack, 12 of the 13 alive.
It's being called a miracle.
As in the thread below it was mentioned how the blame Bush crowd was, indeed, blaming Bush when it looked like the worst...yes, this is a Bush miracle.
12?
As in Christ's 12 apostles?
With the 13th being the fire boss, charged with going in first to ensure the safety for his team, potentially giving his life for the other 12?
Is there nothing that Bush can't do??!!

geoff-- Half of those nitwits tried to point out Iran as being nastier than Iraq by way of saying we had no business in Iraq.

How many of those clowns do you think will stick to that assessment if we do have to do anything to Iran?

Random Thoughts:

World War 1V will go live this year.

I thought our presence in Iraq would have been a deterrent to Iran. Iran must be counting on Russia and possibly China to support it. For Russia a chance to become a world power again. (It would also explain why Russia flexed its muscles with the Ukraine and Europe this week - to show them who'se boss.) For China, Taiwan, and perhaps more while we're distracted. Chavez, Fidel and others will also try to take advantage of the situation, if only to distract us.

if the left weren't all cowards we would have a civil war on our hands as well. But they are cowards, so unless Soros et al hire some mercenaries, we won't have one. Once the war goes live, if the democrats and the media don't rally to the flag, their institutional existence will end.

I think Elagabalus is a more fitting name for ergastularius.

geoff: "And I'm sure that beyond the threat of Iran itself, it has no compunctions about supporting terrorism."

Indeed. Hizbollah is funded by Iran. Palestinian terrorists are supported by Iran. Iran is very involved in directly supporting terrorism. (I don't think they helped the Taliban or al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, if only because they were a bit too close to home.) Who knows whom else Iran is aiding. Terrorism is Iran's major export. Let us also not forget how Iranis whipped their own into a jihadi frenzy to go and fight the Great Satan in Iraq by becoming suicide bombers.

Iran is wrong and bad in so many ways. A certain suggestion by Ann Coulter that looks sooooo tempting right now.

Muslihoon:

I agree. I soft-peddled the Iran-terrorism link because I didn't have references at hand and didn't feel like hunting them up. the axis of evil has gone from a tricycle to a bicycle. Time to turn it into a unicycle.

...and if you're charitable, you'll ignore the last two sentences of the preceding comment. The moron rays struck.

Does Iran want the bomb? Of course! Why do they want it? For respect. Much of the rhetoric from Muslims, including Osama, focuses on the need for the Islamic countries to establish respect. Will they use it? I don’t think so. As crazy as Ahmadinejad sounds, the rest of the government is not going to let him do anything that will get the country completely annihilated – Israel has many more nuclear weapons than Iran will have for decades. Iran and Israel would have likely evolved into a “balance of terror” like the US and USSR.

Nevertheless, the recently “leaked” intelligence report makes me think we are being prepared for some sort of military action. Plus it has the political advantage of taking attention away from Abramhoff et al. I presume we will have attacks on nuclear facilities plus occupation of Iran around the Straits of Hormuz. Otherwise, Iran will be able to blockade 40% of the world's oil exports. Rather than occupying Hormuz, we may go all the way and try for a regime change but the success of this option seems doubtful. We’re a bit short of troops, and bombing is not effective for regime change, usually it just makes a people draw together regardless of what they think about their leader. And Ahmadinejad was just elected.

Iran, of course, knows they are a target and has been preparing. In March an Iranian official said: “An attack on Iran will be tantamount to endangering Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and, in a word, the entire Middle East oil” In addition, Iran is becoming a major supplier for China, Japan, and India. After the attack oil shipments from Iran will stop and unless we occupy Hormuz, most of the other Middle East oil will stop too. This lack of oil will cause economic chaos around the world unless somehow we are able to get Iranian facilities back into operation again or keep Hormuz secure. Our experience in Iraq against a relatively small group of Sunni insurgents is not hopeful. In the case of Iran we’d have an entire country trying to block the tanker lanes. What do we use for troops? Maybe move the troops in Iraq across the gulf?

Then there are the ramifications for the neighbors. Iran will force their Shia brethren in Iraq to send us packing, which they would have eventually done anyway. If we don’t go voluntarily we will face a Shia (60% of the pop) uprising in addition to the Sunnis (20%). Egastularius may be right, we might have to switch sides and make agreements with the Sunnis in order to stay in Iraq. I doubt the admin is that adept at real politic, however. Maybe we just move to Iran. The Saudis are Sunni and will be in a difficult position with their population riled up against us and their lack of oil revenues hurting. The govmt probably won’t really mind us stomping on non-Arabic Shia, however. Turkey might have problems with their populace – the people, not the government, stopped them from helping us in Iraq. Lebanon, Syria – who knows? Prognosis not good but both are relatively weak. China – hurting big time from the lack of oil – thinks maybe this is a good time to take Taiwan? And if we raise an objection they threaten to put their nearly 1 trillion worth of treasury bills and other debt on the market and blow our economy out.

Unless we can pull of a regime change, we can expect Iranians in their frustration, to revert terror attacks against us around the world. They may be more effective than the pissant Al Qaeda. Well, at least it takes your mind of the housing bubble, global warming, whether the Colds are even money to win the Super Bowl.

I'm going to make a prediction that the left's new talking point will be that Iran feels emboldened because Bush has overextended our troops by fighting the war in Iraq.

Diplomacy, you see, would be working right now if Bush hadn't screwed up and removed the credible threat of military action against Iran.

Once the war goes live, if the democrats and the media don't rally to the flag, their institutional existence will end.

No question about it!

Wanton:

It would be nice to believe that Ahmadinejad is just making noise, but that's taking quite a bit on faith, particularly when theres been no dissension from any other sources within Iran. That, coupled with the reports that they are acquiring/developing ballistic missile technology, leaves us in a very difficult position as far as trusting that wiser heads will prevail. Particularly when the diplomatic dance has been cut short - they're no longer even pretending to want to be bought off.

Inaction is long-term suicide, action is fraught with near-term perils. I don't agree with all the points of your analysis, but there is no question that it's a very delicate and difficult situation. But not so delicate or difficult that it shouldn't be faced.

Plus it has the political advantage of taking attention away from Abramhoff et al.

I'm calling bullshit on you here, Wanton. You really think that Bush is prepping the nation for war with Iran to take attention away from Abramoff???

That's pretty damn cynical. I mean, it's not like he's lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq on the day his grand jury testimony was being released. Or that he's staging multiple air strikes into Baghdad at the exact same moment Articles of Impeachment against him were being voted on.

But it's a nice talking point. I'm sure in the fever swamps of the left Abramoff is more important than the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a rogue state.

Which is ample proof, once again, of why the Left can not be trusted on issues of national security.

"I'm aware the rhetoric used on all sides to mobilize public opinion to favor the madness of despots, including our own."

You see, sea bass, once you throw wild remarks like that out onto the table, your credibility is shot. Could you please name for me which tyrannical leader with absolute power you are referring to? It couldn't possibly be Mr. Bush, could it? Because if he was truly a despot, many traitorous bastards would be hanging from lampposts around Washington D.C.

And I'm starting to think that they would deserve it.

The difference of what is considered effective political rhetoric speaks volumes about the difference in the underlying values of these societies.

Well, our "heartland" never suffered the ignominy of an foreign-sponsored coup deposing an elected government and replacing it w/ a venal monarch. Iranians have a deep distrust of american ambition. understandable, and resonates in all their rhetoric.

As for our rhetoric: everyone stands, baseball caps off pressed tightly against their hearts, to watch the f-16 stadium flyovers with president's voice in background: "we are a peaceful nation." The fact the contradictions regularly evade our notice, is just as creepy as "death to the usa."

As for the "what would you 'liberals' do"?

you'd have to ask one.

I do think the policy inertia of the past 25 years culminating in bush doctrine shows even if Iranians converted to quakers and exported nothing but girl scout cookies, they'd still be targeted by u.s.

the iranian leadership are merely digging their graves more quickly.

and, I think even ralph nader would bomb them.

log

all due respect. you're an idiot.

wanton and muslimoof

thanks for the insight.

also: someone here raised the interesting question about russian/chinese reactions to all this.

I'm not convinced u.s. necessarily unilaterally plays this geostrategic game in Iraq to benefit ostensibly "national interests." longterm security of resource exploitation in the region militates favorably to global capital, no? In which case, chinese bankers and russian financier-oligarchs have good reasons to back "oif."

right?

Wouldn't be nice if the US actually had the ability to deploy a nuke?

Dirty Little Secret: We don't.

The Navy's "Personal Reliability Program" (PRP) -- the security program which kept track of the personnel with the ability to actually launch nukes -- was scrapped over 10 years ago, because it was no longer needed. Surface ships and attack submarines haven't been loaded with nukes for longer than that. I do not have personal experience with SSBN's other than the fact that some of them have been converted to SSGN's, but the enlisted rating structures that supported nuclear weapons no longer exist in the navy.

Even if we have a cache of legacy nuclear weapons, we do not have personnel with the training to maintain and deploy them.

(In regards to SSGN's -- yeah, 150 Tomahawks in 15 minutes is pretty cool. But one MIRV can ruin an entire day.)

My experience is mostly Navy. I do not know what ballistic or tactical capibility the other branches of service still maintain. But you can buy old Minute Man missile silos on the internet for personal use.

Anyone wanna take a guess under which administration(s) these changes took place? Anyone willing to speculate if that administration recieving campaign contributions from the Chinese had any impact on its decision making?

Ronald Regean did not win the cold war. He came close, but his immediate successor balked and the guy following him had no business being there ever.

The communists changed their tactics when they saw how effective radical Islam was against the Russian army in Afghanistan. 5th column leftists in academia and the media worked harder at undermining our will to carry freedom to the world, while our 'leadership' undermined our ability to actually fight and the remanents of the Soviet Union regrouped and redirected Islam at us.

Wide-eyed Conspiracy Theory?

Maybe, I guess. But look around and you be the judge.

I agree with geoff, Jack M., and Log Cabin. Very important points.

Even if Ahmedinezhad is simply blowing hot air and the Irani government does not intend to use the Bomb, it would be foolish for us to assume it against other possibilities. No one ever thought Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot would engage in the acts they did. Rationality is not humanity's forte. We are quite capable of acting irrationally and against our best interests.

If we lived in a tyranny, no one would be able to express dissent so easily as so many do now. I have lived in countries where the freedom of speech was severely curtailed, so don't you dare accuse the US of the same. The freedom of speech and expression, and the acountability of our leaders here are astronomical compared to other countries.

Fretless: Boomers still carry nukes, on ship they're taken care of by missile techs (MT's), on shore they're taken care of by very humorless marines. (once heard a story of a guy who got his nose broken by a marine shotgun when he accidentally stepped over the line, the marine got in trouble because he was supposed to shoot)

Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear program. They have the political will. I don't think Bush has enough political will to start another war, at least not before the election, but I hope there's enough to manage the fallout of the inevitable Israeli strike.

I think the way this is going to work out is Israel will launch airstrikes against Iran. In response AHMADI-NEJAD will do something stupid, threatening oil flow through the Straights of Hormuz. The UNSC will authorize a multinational force under US command to secure the free flow of commerce into and out of (especially out of) the Persian Gulf. US marines will secure some of the Iranian islands in the straights to carry out the mandate, Iran will attempt to attack the "invasion" and there's your war.

That becuase the EU is run by hardline socialists and they are as impossible to talk to as sheetrock

Your commenters have made some interesting observations. My two cents:

It's highly unlikely the U.S. will attack Iran, even if that country proceeds with development of an atomic bomb. Several commenters above have cited the reasons--mainly that we can't count on being able to keep an Iranian resistance from throttling oil shipments thru the Straits of Hormuz.

Even if an attack on Iran didn't trigger a wider war or galvanize the Shia to work together, it would still plunge the world into an oil crisis--something no western political leader wants. So...we don't seem to have much leverage to prevent Iran from developing the bomb if they're bent on doing so.

But while we'd certainly prefer not to have Iran in the nuclear club, I'm not sure this would actually be destabilizing. Reason is that actual possession of the bomb seems to have a sobering effect on a nation's leaders, so that none of the newer member nations has used one. Instead, the bomb seems to be viewed as a sort of "doomsday weapon" that would be used only as a last resort to prevent an invasion.

Even Israel may find that it's possible to tolerate a mortal enemy armed with an atomic bomb--just as the U.S. coexisted with the USSR. It's unnerving business, but it need not lead to nuclear war.

--sf