Ever since the mid-1980's I've been hearing the same crap: "Oh, the young people in Iran hate the mullahs! They'll gain control and throw out the hardheads! You just wait and see!"

Well, twenty years later, nothing has changed. Nothing. The young people may hate the government, but not enough to actually do anything. And the peaceniks are mistaken if they think that a dislike of the government translates into pro-Western sentiment -- it doesn't. There's every indication that the Iranian people are in large part on board with the nuclear program; it's a cultural pride thing to them now.

I wish I could see a way other than war, but I just don't. Diplomacy is just going to delay the inevitable, and just maybe get Israel destroyed in the process. We dare not delay that long.

piece.

Fascinating speculation thread at Rantburg yesterday on how a Bush-called confab of past and present bigs may be setting up action on Iran.

People forget that the Soviet Union fell because their modern leadership lacked the balls to simply massacre everyone who rebelled like they did in the old days, not because "people power" can stop tanks and machine guns.

These are religious nuts. They think Allah wants them to slaughter the apostate rebels. They have zero qualms about doing so, and peaceful opposition has zero chance of succeeding.

What we need to do is change "pro-democracy student protestor" to "heavily armed pro-democracy student militia, backed by U.S. air power."

Honestly, Monty, I have given this a great deal of thought and I don't see why. Iran is a far greater threat to Europe than to the U.S.. We can eradicate any delivery system they employ at our leisure excepting the "terrorist with a suitcase nuke" which I find vastly overrated as a threat.

We discuss this as if the actors were not rational enough to understand deterrence but I don't believe it and I suspect not many do.

Let's incentivize the Europeans to Spartan up here by just throwing it right back in their laps. Does anybody not believe they expect us to take care of this? Well screw 'em. If they need some reason to go on living, how about busting some Persian ass for a reason?

Spartan up, Euroweenies, and save the West. We'll be pulling for you from our Bassmasters and our tractor pulls.

I'm begining to think that the mullahs are even smarter at internal control than we've feared. They allow just enough freedom in reality to keep the young middle-class from actually taking up arms, while cracking down hard enough from time to time to keep them scared, and the more idealistic ones (and Michael Ledeen) certain that _this time_ the people will rise up.

And the vice squads provide an outlet to the natural thugs, who just wanna hit someone. Any revolution needs a bunch of these guys to do the dirty work the students won't do, but in Iran, they're working for the mullahs (In fact, I'd bet there's massive amounts of sex, drug and alcohol-related hypocracy among these guys.)

I think Iran's promised revolution is about as likely to happen as the Weather Underground's was.

We've been trying to throw the Iran thing in the Euroweenies laps now for a while. Note that its the Euroweenies who are supposed to be in the lead in "negotiating" with the Mullahs. The old pay 'em to shut up technique just can't cool the Mullah's woody to nuke Israel.

It'd be nice if we'd start to use our military's proximity to Iran, in Iraq to start some subtle support of Iranian dissidents.

To be fair, I don’t think this is exclusively a lefitie delusion. Iran has a decent-sized, decently educated, cosmopolitan middle class, and they would very much favor one of those colorful revolutions like we’ve seen in Georgia and Ukraine. Unfortunately, the Iranian intelligentsia doesn’t enjoy broad enough support to lead that kind of action. Moreover, judging from some Iranian expats I’ve talked to, they’re reluctant to believe that quite a few of their fellow citizens actually support the mullahocracy. In the 1970s, the same people never thought “people power” could expel the Shah and then kneel to Khomeini.

Unfortunately, I don’t see an alternative here to some sort of military intervention. I suspect Spongeworthy is a little optimistic about the mullah’s common sense—not to invoke Godwin’s Law, but Hitler and the Nazis were quite intelligent, even rational, in their pursuit of some profoundly crazy goals. And the Europeans are just hopeless. After three years and 200,000 deaths, even Clinton recognized that they weren’t up to coping with Milosevic and Serbia, a smaller, weaker country that was acting out right in their own living room. The notion that they would be any more effective at dealing with the mullahs seems a little roseate.

Well of course it is but you can't beat it for laugh potential.

Seriously, the Euros aren't going to be able to muscle up in time, that's certain. Yet while the mullahs want a bomb yesterday, I suspect they want more than one and they want to use it for some leverage, not just pick a shtetl and vaporize it. Meantime, it's now or never for the Euros. They can join in defense of the West or they can join the other team. Time to decide.

spongeworthy:

You need to ask yourself why the Iranians want a nuclear bomb if they don't plan to use it against Israel. I suspect that the reasons are manifold: to be able to quell internal dissent without fear of external retaliation; to continue to support Hezbollah in Lebanon while being immune to Israeli countermeasures; to be able to interfere in Iraqi politics once the Americans scram. In short, Iran wants to be the regional power.

If we allow this to happen (even if Ahmadinejad doesn't follow through on his threat to wipe Israel out), how does that benefit us? In no way. All of a sudden, Iran is in control of about 90% of the oil reserves of the world -- Iraq and Saudi Arabia will be in thrall to them.

Iran with a nuclear weapon is about ten times worse than North Korea with a nuke. The Norks are China's problem; the Pakis are India's problem. Iran is our problem, and we have to deal with it.

spongeworthy: Simple, it's all about the oil.

Excellent analysis by Monty: he's said much of what I have heard and read on this issue.

Another factor, thrown in by my father (who's been to Iran a few times - which doesn't make him an expert so take it for what it's worth). He drew parallels between Afghanistan under the Taliban and Iran under the theocracy. He said that before the Taliban gained control, Afghanistan was terribly unstable. At least under the Taliban there was some stability, albeit through quite oppressive means and standards. Similarly, the Iranis learn that Iran was being robbed left and right by Western states (mainly the US and the UK, the Shah being just a puppet) and that the Revolution restored Iran into Irani hands. Plus the Revolution was so violent and there was so much upheaval that the people just might settle down with the theocracy: better their own devils than another's, and better stability under oppression than instability under freedom.

TallDave's point is relevant here as well: the Soviet Union fell because Gorbachev was unwilling to preserve the Union through traditional means, which turns out to be the only means of keeping the Union together. Unlike Gorbachev, Ahmadinezhad is quite willing to forcefully put down any dissent he's faced with. Under Gorbachev, the people rose because there was no one to keep them down. Under Ahmadinezhad, the people dare not rise. Whipping thugs into a religious frenzy and setting them loose on "wayward" Muslims is far, far easier and effective than motivating security forces to quell dissent in the name of socialism, equality, and a communist future. Oh, and don't forget that these thugs (the basiji) were instrumental in Ahmadinezhad's electoral victory.

Muslihoon:

Here's another scary thing -- the Saudis are going to be really unhappy about an Iranian nuke, as is Iraq. I suspect that they would in turn do their damnedest to put their hands to a nuclear weapon (especially the Saudis, who have the most to lose from Iranian hegemony). The religious overtones make it more dangerous: most Arab muslims are Sunni, most Persian muslims are Shi'a. They cordially hate each other's guts. And they all hate Israel.

The US and the Soviet Union managed to keep from blowing each other up by using the MAD doctrine, but the MAD doctrine won't work when you're dealing with people who think that to die for Allah means an instant ticket to Paradise.

It still deeply worries me that Pakistan has nuclear weapons -- should India and Pakistan go to war again (which is all but certain, sooner or later), we may see a nuclear exchange there as well.

Jesus, I have just freaked myself out. Wasn't the end of the Cold War supposed to reduce the threat of nuclear holocaust? I'm gonna go and sit in a warm bath and think happy thoughts for awhile.

If I remember correctly, the appearsers, the self-serving French and the anti-war-at-all-cost crowd were never more optimistic about the potential for negotiations with Saddam to succeed than when we were on the verge of war.

All of a sudden, there is a great welling of pro-democracy grass-roots resistance in Iran. Why? Because Israel and the US would be murdering war-mongers to take action now that we are so close to a peaceful resolutions, right?

I respect your analysis but I'm not arriving at the same conclusions. For one thing, if a state has nukes other states don't just knuckle under for them. Israel has had nukes and you don't see anybody cutting them any breaks.

Sure, a nuked-up Iran does nothing for us, but it's not really our problem either. We are about as well protected from Iran as anybody in the world. Unlike, say, Turkey or Germany.

And controlling the oil isn't all it's cracked up to be either. They have to sell the shit or starve and an embargo only pops the price up some and puts them on everybody's shit list. We don't buy from them anyway.

Nah, let them nuke up and tell them if they so much as threaten to blast anybody we'll vaporize them for 1000 years. Persia will be a sad memory. I refuse to believe their religion encourages them to destroy their country by rewarding stupidity of that magnitude with virgins.

If only we had a few more years...

As Iraq stabilizes and matures, its influence in the region will grow quite large. Aside from being an economic center, they'll also be the center of Shia. Not to mention their free press, meaning that they'll be the forum for any major debates within Islam. In the future, Arabs and muslims will increasingly get their news and entertainment from Iraqi media sources. And when middle eastern nations commit atrocities, the light of truth and voices of condemnation will be loudest from Iraq. Dissident movements will be based in Iraq.

This will change everything. Iraq (especially Najaf) could be the fall of Tehran. But it'll take time. Time that we don't have.

Plus, SJKevin, except for Muqtada as-Sadr and his gang, the Shiites in Iraq are quietist rather than activist. The growing prominence of Iraq would equal the growing prominence of Iraqi Shiism, which would effectively replace the stridently anti-American activist paradigm -- originating from Iran-- now common among Shiites. Shiites would have someplace better to look up to: instead of stangnant Iran, they can follow vibrant Iraq. Instead of the firebrand Ayatollah Khomeini and his successor Ayatollah Khamene'i, they can follow Ayatollah as-Sistani and whoever follows him.

After all, the most holy Shiite sites -- Karbala and Najaf -- are in Iraq, not Iran. I doubt even Qom can rival Najaf's standing when it comes to Shiite education. So, indeed, Baghdad can overthrow Tehran, and Najaf can overthrow Qom. (Some hope at last!)

Excellent point, SJKevin. Thank you.

Keep in mind that Iran probably started these programs during the Iran-Iraq war. Seeing how worried we were about Iraq's WMD, can you blame Iran for wanting to deter any possible Iraqi programs with their own?

Recall the poison gas used on their troops, and the city buster missiles fired on Tehran and I think we have a legitimate case of Iranian need for a nuclear deterrent in the 80's and 90's.

This goes beyond Israel.

You ripped off my Allah hat-tip phrase.

Oh well. Not like he tips me.

But still, just the principle of the thing. Why do the little guys always take it up the squeak-hole?