I hate to link-whore here (honest!) but I already touched on this in today's blog entry.

I'm a devout pessimist and misanthrope, so bear that in mind. Even so, I see little hope here for anything other than a major military intervention by the U.S. (and I mean invasion folks; this is regime-change time). Mid-February to mid-March is my guess: if Iran actually tests a nuke (or looks like they might), it may happen sooner.

Buy gas while it's still cheap, and stock up on non-perishable groceries. Prices are gonna skyrocket when the balloon goes up.

I would fill up your tank this week instead of next. The writing is on the wall.

I'm suprized no one mentioned the NYT editorial against Alito today. The DUummies are having a field day.

That thread from my last Iran post is so large, I must have missed it, if that is where you put it.

Yeah, I know it is a bit redundant, but something is about to happen. The Left will blame Bush, but the truth is, it was going to happen whether or not Bush was in office.

Lately, all I can think about are my two young sons and Iran. I really want them to live in peace, but everyday that passes makes that dream fainter and fainter.

Have you seen Lileks' screed today?

I wonder two things:

1. Does George W. Bush have the will to do this thing? It's obvious to me that it must be done, but if the Iranians are a few years away from a workable weapon, there would be a huge temptation to kick the can down the road and let the next president deal with it.

2. Will the Democrats authorize military action beyond the 60 days permitted under the War Powers act? If we do attack, I'd expect the initial stages (including the invasion) to take about five weeks. But the situation will persist for far longer, escecially if Iran exports the conflict to southern Iraq and to Syrian and Lebanon.

If either of these questions is "No", then we may just have to live with the prospect of a nuclear Iranian state. Whether the Israelis will conent to live with it is another question entirely.

Forget about Europe. The diplomatic gambit between Iran and the EU3 never had a prayer of succeeding, nor does any substantial action by the Security Council of the UN. America will again have to rely on a "coalition of the willing" to solve the problem. (Oddly, France might actually sign on this time.)

shawn, I just read the NYT editorial on Alito.

Someone's certainly got a case of the vapors, don't they? And the same old cliches, it's like reading Ted Kennedy's notes from the hearings, sheesh.

He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.

When did this paper decide it no longer wanted to be relevant?

I've read in more than one place that even the pro-democracy Iranian dissidents want Iran to have the bomb, too. It's a matter of national pride and honor to them. Being "just as good as other nations" and all. So, help is not going to come from within.

It's surely not going to come from ossified Europe. I really don't see the US doing anything unless the whole rest of the world lines up behind us and asks nicely, which isn't going to happen.

If I were forced to make a prediction, I would guess we're all going to take a step backward and let Israel take care of the mess. Again. After which everyone will point fingers and tut and the usual guests at the dinner party will waggle their eyebrows every time Israel takes a casualty because, "really, they brought it on themselves, didn't they?"

I'm actually surprised to see as much agitation and concern in the press as we have. I sometimes think most people in the West operate on the premise that "nothing interesting ever happens here."

Dems have made us too weak to invade. I thing we should just bomb from the air till the government changes, like Clinton did in Kosovo. I really don't believe that anything is immune from American bombing power, so we don't necessarily need boots on the ground.

Bombing gives us less control over the outcome, of course, and it will cost far more in civilian casualties, but that's the reality we have to live with as long as we are crippled by chicken doves in Congress.

I would guess we're all going to take a step backward and let Israel take care of the mess

The Israeli's can't do it alone -- and they may not be able to do it at all. Israel has no heavy bomber force, and only limited tanking abilities. The terrain and dispersal of Iranian sites means that the Israelis would have to attack from from home, using fighter/bombers (F15I/E Strike Eages) operating at the very limit of their range. And this assumes that Israel can overfly Turkey or Iraq -- not a given. Even if Israel uses their missile subs to perform an attack, all they can do is delay the Iranian program, not stop it...and would guarantee a reprisal attack against them for very little gain.

Nope, if Israel has their backs to the wall or gets attacked with a nuke, they may go for the Samson Option. And then...God help us all. America is the only power on earth that can stop this outcome if the Iranians truly are as insane as they seem to be.

We didn't nuke the soviets, who were a real threat now we're going to nuke a country over 100 dollar oil and terrorism in Israel?

Why don't you people start thinking about the United States and get the crap out of your pants?

<sigh> They don't make trolls like they useta.

Sorry to rain on your "let's go kill a bunch of bearded people" parade, but I sure as hell hope the government has more sense than the Washington Times or the commenters on this blog.

Just because you are scared doesn't mean your faux policy suggestions are good for the country. It just means you are scared.

Just let Israel do it. Of course the US will get the blame, but who cares? We are already blamed for everything else. The backlash from American strikes on Iran would be much worse than the backlash from an Israeli attack.

Israel might have a tough time completing the job. I believe though, they are willing to put the requisite effort into completing it. They are willing to take casualties, and cause them.

As long as Iran does not retaliate across its borders (eg. invading Iraq or attacking Israel), the Israelis should be able to keep bombing until the job is done. And if Iran DOES decide to escalate the war outside its borders, we will shut them down HARD, and we won't have to invade Iran at all.

If Iran wants to try to reach Israel, they'll have to go through Turkey or Iraq, which would make Iran the aggressor against those nations. Turkey would let us defend their territory, I hope.

We won't have to invade Iran. We will just prevent them from attacking Iraq or Israel, which is what our military is best at doing anyway... fighting conventional wars.

This puts the US in a good position. Fuck the international outrage... at least it wasn't Bush and the United States that carried out the actual attack. We will have much more legitimacy in a defensive war against Iran, instead of a pre-emptive war.

searp - this isn't a "let's kill a bunch of bearded people" parade, and to state such a thing is to grossly misrepresent our perspective and agenda.

Believe it or not, many of us actually like Iranis and, for their sake and for the stability of the world, desire a stable, democratic, principled government in Iran.

There has been much comparison between Iran and the Soviet Union, and the differences are startling. The Soviet Union, as far as I can recall, never called for the total eradiction of any state. Their nuclear infrastructure was more sophistocated (compared to Iran's) and they understood the consequences. As a matter of fact, the US and the USSR went out of their way to prevent an escalation: there was much they could have done that they did not do because it would have caused an escalation that could have easily led to nuclear war, which both sides wanted to prevent. They picked their battles carefully.

And that's the key point: both wanted to prevent nuclear war. There is no indication Iran wants to prevent nuclear war. The fact that states are seriously considering the possibility that Iran would launch a nuclear warhead against another state underlines how Iran is far more of a threat than the USSR ever was. Everyone knew that neither the US nor the USSR would randomly, unnecessarily, or capriciously launch a nuclear warhead. Again, the same cannot be said about Iran.

You read the Moonie Times at lunch?

Doesn't that make you lose your appetite?

Once, I looked forward to leftists in these threads. I dreamed of engaging in witty debates, sparring with eloquent sentences. Then retire for, um, well, tea, if I drank it, but since I don't, my witty and erudite worthy opponent would sip tea whilst I enjoy a nice glass of l'eau de la chateau. Now, I sigh at them. I sigh, wishing upon wish, hoping upon hope, praying upon prayer that they will hit puberty - or attain maturity, whichever comes first, so as to be able to conduct an actual rational, decent, civil debate.

DNFTT - wise words, indeed.

That's a pretty tall order, Muslihoon.

The simple fact is, Iran has already declared war on the US! At the same conference where Iran's president has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, he also vowed death to America and openly declared that the US could be destroyed by attacking 29 or so strategic targets (no, he didn't list them at the conference, AFAIK). You can read all about it at MEMRI.com.

We in the US have two choices, and only two. We can launch a preemptive strike with nuclear weapons, or we can wait to be attacked by Iranians, lose millions of civilian dead, and then retaliate. There are no other choices.

There is another big difference between the Soviet Union and Iran: the Soviets were a serious threat.

It is hard to engage in a civil debate when the topic is so outlandish. Consider the costs of the war advocated here:

-- If you are afraid of terrorism now, you will have a lot more to worry about, since it will be used as a weapon of war, and far more effectively than Al Qaeda used it. We will take real losses.
-- Iranian oil would probably go the way of Iraqi oil. The economic impact of $100+ a barrel oil isn't fun to contemplate.
-- Because the war is unprovoked, regardless of what is said here, the rest of the world would think we're crazy.
-- If we use nuclear weapons, there will be global revulsion for all things American. This will have real costs in the short, medium and long term. Our leadership would get indicted in Europe for war crimes, guaranteed. We'd be the Serbian superpower.

The list goes on. All of this, all of this, because of hysteria about Iran.

Iran has a lousy government and a lousy attitude towards the US and they want nukes. OK, it isn't alone. Our fair weather friend Pakistan has a rabidly anti-American population and nukes, I don't see anyone advocating invading Pakistan. Ditto for North Korea. Believe it or not, Russia is our big friend at the moment, but over a ten year period, who knows, and they have more military potential than Iran will ever have. The list goes on.

Wars of aggression don't solve these problems, they only multiply them. The fantasy that our brave soldiers are the solution is just that, a hollow, destructive fantasy spun by intellectually bereft echo chambers.

Well, lookee there! Our new troll can string sentences together into whole paragraphs.

In case you haven't noticed, searp, the 'rest of the world' whose opinion you value above that of half your countrymen is quite concerned about the threat of Iran. As well they should, with the mullahs on their doorstep and having let matters get to this point on their own watch.

Why, France has threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike if it merely feels threatened. France. Not that France isn't inclined to be very heavy in its dealings abroad, but it usually doesn't make with the saber-rattling first.

As a point of information, who came up with the brilliant new tactic of reacting to world events by calling your political opponents 'fraidy cats? I mean, do the memos have names on the letterhead or anything?

searp -

Giving the Iranians the ability to deter the United States from attacking them is not in the best interest of your nation (which is a Western country I assume). So, you'll just have to learn to thank God that your nation acts in its best interest.

Welcome to the power politics of international relations.

That should read, NOT in the best interest of your nation.

Oh, that IS what it reads, ha! Sorry.

Pointing out a fact is not the same as gloating. Whether I approve of the fact that the rest of the world thinks we're crazy or not is completely irrelevant.

As for the theme of being scared to the point where we invade a country pre-emptively, I figured that out all by myself. As you know, the Republicans are much better at staying on-message than non-Republicans; we don't get the memos. I guess the Washington Times is a primary distributor.

This invasion talk is crap being spewed by a bunch of scared people who feed on a steady diet of the Washington Times.

Pointing out a fact is not the same as gloating.

it is if it's not a fact. see France: pre-emptive nuclear strike threat

I am one of the few here not advocating a preemptive strike against Iran, but please don't judge my case by the weak shit the troll's peddling. We're supposed to watch Iran nuke up so oil doesn't break a buck? That's your case? Fuck oil prices and you in the process. We'll drill ANWR and laugh in your face about it.

And Americans indicted for war crimes? Have you lost your mind? This would never happen and you obviously aren't paying any attention to the discourse worldwide and what's more, who gives a shit? You actually think any American would ever have to sit for trial under those circumstances? I'd like to see them try to serve the papers is what.

Last troll food I'll be serving. That was some weak shit, searp.

My case is simple: there is no need to go to war with Iran, and nobody should want a war unless it is necessary.

I don't care about ANWR, drill away. I doubt that has anything to do with me getting fucked, but I take it you simply don't like the fact that I think you are all scared of phantoms. Well, go ahead and be scared, just don't try to pretend it is logical or smart. Stop reading the memos for a while and be happy.

You are not alone in your opinion Searp, you have Hamas on your side.

My case is simple: there is no need to go to war with Iran, and nobody should want a war unless it is necessary.

What case? All you've done is come in here and essentially say, "nuh uhhhhh, fraidycats!"

Define "necessary," then spell out what you think we ought to do to prevent it from becoming necessary.

Doesn't change a thing, troll. Your case is weak-ass shit. You obviously know nothing of this subject and haven't bothered to put together anything even remotely convincing.

You have been shown that the concern here is not just among Americans yet you persist in claiming we're scared of ghosts. Why don't you discuss the real issue and what you would do about it?

You're not really selling your side of it by calling others cowards from your basement. Now you have every opportunity to school up and discuss the real issue and how you would deal with it. Anything else is trollery. So what's it going to be?

Our strategic quarrel with Iran is over control of oil. We can either make that a rationale for an invasion and occupation of the Middle East, or we can... buy the stuff from them. Like we do with our "friends" the Saudis. Like we do with our "friends" the Venezuelans.

In the mean time, we might worry a little more about the fact that our foreign policy in the Middle East has been driven for the last 60 years by an unquenchable thirst for its oil, and try to change that equation.

If we actually didn't need oil from that part of the world, then we could have the best foreign policy for them: indifference.

I note the "you are a terrorist" card has come out. I wondered when it would appear. So I either have to want a pre-emptive war with Iran or I'm a terrorist? Sound logic there.

"Our strategic quarrel with Iran is over control of oil".

False, thank you for playing. See: mullahs, nut-job world-threatening President of Iran, commentary

...so you have no problem with the "Israel must be wiped off the map" thing? It has nothing to do with oil, it's about terrorists with nukes.

Nobody's playing the terrorist card. You have been served with the troll card.

Loon-centric, terror-supporting Iran wants a bomb. Buying oil elsewhere does nothing to change that. In fact, depriving them of oil revenue might even make them more desperate and dangerous.

You know fuck-all about this.

I asked our troll friend to do the following:

Define "necessary," then spell out what you think we ought to do to prevent it from becoming necessary.

His response? Blah blah blah oil and hypocricy and oil and fraidy cats.

Why can't these leftists put together a simple, logical, and coherent argument? All you ever get from these halfwits is a list of grievances.

Riddle me this, troll fucknut: If we somehow manage to reduce our own foreign dependence on oil TOMORROW, then how does that make Iran developing nukes and lobbing one over into Israel, possibly bringing about a regional nuclear holocaust, any less of a problem?

Better yet, how does this eliminate the threat of Iran giving a dirty bomb designed to be detonated in a major US city to a group of Islamic terrorists?

Plus there is the obvious Warden, we are already fighting two wars for oil, we should be all set for a while.

Let me see if I can boil the points down somewhat.

1. It's not (entirely) about oil for the U.S. We get some oil from Iran, but not that much. China, Russia, and Japan are *far* more dependant upon Iranian oil than we are.

2. The problem is that an Iranian nuclear "umbrella" will extend over about 90% of the oil-producing regions of the middle east. That gives the Iranians a bery Big Stick to threaten their neighbors with. The neighbors will in turn clamor for a Big Stick of their own.

3. Every Persian/Arab nation with a Big Stick hates Israel at least as much as they hate each other. Arab nations have waged war against Israel no fewer than four times, trying to "wipe them off the map". Iran is a huge supporter of terrorist groups, and is known to be behind several attacks against Israel and Lebanon. Thus, there is an extreme reason to think they will use their Big Sticks to do the job right this time.

4. Iran has the means to deliver their warheads over long ranges via the Shahhab-3 IRBM. With some modifications and further development, Iran will be able to reach European population centers with this missile or a derivative. (Or they can simply ship a bomb via a box-truck or shipping container.)

5. If America allows Iran to project power through their sphere of influence via their nuclear weapons, we can kiss off Iraq -- the southern Shi'a will be more likely to go with a strong (and nearby) Iran than a faraway United States. This will leave the Sunnis and Kurds in a pretty desperate situation.

Iran is our problem. North Korea is China's problem; Pakistan is India's problem (but may become America's problem if Musharraf falls). There is no counterweight to Iran in the region, and the country is by all appearances being run by a pack of apocalyptic cultists. The danger to U. S. strategic interests is extreme; so must our response be.

WunderKraut says:

"here's hoping the Iranian people wake up from their 25 year nightmare and toss these whack-jobs out of power."

YEAH, what's wrong with those people? Why do't they just up and "toss" these people out of office?

What could possibly be holding them back?

Duh.

I get a kick out the way the right wing nutcases always refer to anyone (searp / me) who doesn't toe the Bush line on literally everthing and anything the idiot wants to do, as "trolls."

Any form of realistic discourse is dismissed as being un-American or even treasonous...and why?

Because, to actually debate or explain their points in a logical or objective manner, would be impossible.

And, as for Iraq and Iran NOT having anything to do with our insatiable need of OIL...anybody who thinks we're in the Mideast because we LOVE people and just want to help out is...well, they're what I just said: NUTS.

The real "terrorists" are the neocons and their sycophant followers who are running our country right into the ground.

Monty:

I suppose that I don't really care whether the Shia of Iraq become good buddies with Iran, which is good since that strikes me as inevitable.

Your identification of the proliferation issue is a good one. I also see this as inevitable. The technology for a bomb is WWII vintage. Countries that want one badly enough will find a way to get it (I offer Pakistan as an example). Our nonproliferation efforts haven't been very effective, for this reason. We don't deal with the demand part, just the supply.

If we wanted to deal with demand, we'd worry about collective security. But of course when we arrogate to ourselves the right to fight pre-emptive wars, we end up looking like the security problem, so collective security work goes out the window.

I am unwilling to fight a pre-emptive war to protect Israel. I don't see that as our job, and I am sure no Israeli planner sees it as our job.

Oil is fungible.

However, I do agree that Iran is a problem, I just don't see a war as the solution. Iran is not just our problem, and in fact is a bigger problem for other states, so why do we feel that it is necessary to fight?

My offered explanation is hysteria, which is clearly not well received here, but of course I didn't expect it to be well received. As an example, I get the "regional nuclear holocaust" or suitcase nukes. REALLY SCARY things. Since we're scared, we have to fight a war. I don't see the logic.

I am unwilling to fight a pre-emptive war to protect Israel. I don't see that as our job, and I am sure no Israeli planner sees it as our job.

You know...this angers me. Prior to the liberation of Iraq, Israel was the only democratic government in the entire Middle East. They are the people most aligned with America both in government and in philosophy. Their aspirations are pretty much the same as ours. If we are willing to free the Iraqis from a tyrannical and murderous regime, we owe the Israelis no less.

And the Israelis don't expect us to do their fighting for them, but they have a right to expect help from an ally. To deny them that just because of anti-semitic hatred or some leftist delusion is just reprehensible.

And about your "hysteria" argument -- read up a little bit about the years after the Nazis took power in Germany, but before the Anschluss. The western powers used the same arguments you are: "Oh, those Germans, they're just building up their defensive systems. Let's not be hasty!" Twenty million human lives and a shattered continent later, they understood that their fear was well-founded. Had they acted upon their concerns rather than ignorning them, things might have turned out differently.

Ignoring our problems won't make them go away, searp. And whether you like it or not, America is the only power in the entire world right now with the means to do what must be done. Whether we have the will is another question entirely.

Sticking our nose into the Mideast (as in; Iraq, and supposedly related to beinging democracy to those poor people) will prove to be the biggest blunder in American history.

We're trapped like rats and more and more of our people will die...because the neocons just can't bring themselves to admit their miscalculations and mistakes.

Continuing to support this president and his policies is just plain dumb.

Monty: I didn't say anything about not supporting Israel, we do that now and I am for it. I am completely against letting Israeli security concerns drive my country into a war. I do not believe their aspirations are identical to ours, nor should their security concerns be the same as ours. Different countries.

The Nazis were actually threatening, but I don't want to do a history review with you. The analogy is ludicrous.

Inflating problems can make things worse, much worse. We re-discover that periodically.

Mike, searp, please watch this video of a little government rally in Tehran.

Why do you two support a fresh Holocaust? Do you hate Jews that much?

You are correct, searp... you do not see the logic. Do you Mike?

Have you ever formally studied International Relations? There is one theory, and some would argue only one, that has held true in every case in history. And that theory is that democratic nations do not go to war with one another.

The foreign policy of the United States, for the last sixty years, has been to promote democracy throughout the world. This will not change. This is why we support Israel. The only true democracy in the Middle East (until Iraq).

There is another theory that says nations will not escalate a war against another nuclear armed nation, because the threat of annihilation is too great. This is something called deterrence.

Now, realist theory states that nations act in their best interest. Right now, the United States can act freely in the Middle East because of its military superiority, among other things. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, the United States is deterred.

Example: Iran blockades the Straits of Hormuz. Now all oil travelling through that shipping route is Iranian controlled. The United States could easily put a stop to an Iranian blockade right now.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, the United States would be deterred from acting. We could not expel Iran from the Straits. Due to Iranian nuclear weapons, instability in the region is increased. That's right... nuclear weapons leads to permanent instability as regimes pursue conflict by other means, relying on their nuclear weapons to deter other nations.

Allowing Iran to develop this capability is not in the best interest of the United States, or any country of the free world.

If you want to ask the question, searp, "Why do we have to fight?", you should now understand why. That is, unless you can come up with an alternative that prevents Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I continue to be amazed that the liberal commenters have no problem with nuclear proliferation. The libs have severely hampered the use of nuclear power in the US, but are fine with Iran building plants and then perhaps using them to build weapons. You'd think that the threat of a new Cold War (at best) would at least have them organizing marches to protest Iran joining the nuclear club.

I mean, isn't this a fundamental tenet of the "progressive" platform?