Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post says that although the engagement policy with Iran hasn’t been declared officially dead yet, it’s being measured by the undertaker. He argues that in all probability, the administration’s efforts to negotiate with Iran will fail — leaving Plan B — containment, as the only hope. However Diehl predicts that the administration will continue to whistle past the graveyard until the zombies are too numerous and insistent to ignore.
Let’s take Diehl’s main points one by one. Point one: Epic Fail? He writes:
The Obama administration’s positive tone following its first diplomatic encounter with Iran covers a deep and growing gloom in Washington and European capitals. Seven hours of palaver in Geneva haven’t altered an emerging conclusion: None of the steps the West is considering to stop the Iranian nuclear program is likely to work.
Point number two: incurable fail.
Not talks. Not sanctions, even of the “crippling” variety the Obama administration has spoken of. Not military strikes. And probably not support for regime change through the still-vibrant opposition.
Point number three: it is still possible to bolt the stable door after the horse has run off.
What then? Pollack, a former Clinton administration official, says there is one obvious Plan B: “containment,” a policy that got its name during the Cold War. The point would be to limit Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons or exercise its influence through the region by every means possible short of war — and to be prepared to sustain the effort over years, maybe decades. It’s an option that has been lurking at the back of the debate about Iran for years. “In their heart of hearts I think the Obama administration knows that this is where this is going,” Pollack says.
Point number four: you don’t have to worry. They’ll break it to you gently.
I also don’t expect Obama and his aides to begin talking about a policy shift anytime soon. For the next few months we’ll keep hearing about negotiations, sanctions and possibly Israeli military action as ways to stop an Iranian bomb. By far the best chance for a breakthrough, as I see it, lies in a victory by the Iranian opposition over the current regime. If that doesn’t happen, it may soon get harder to disguise the hollowness of Western policy.
There is something ironic in hoping that the Iranian opposition the administration disdained may yet pull their chestnuts out of the fire. It would be as if Marguerite, after being betrayed by Faust; having witnessed the death of her brother at his hands, suddenly intervened from heaven at the very hour Mephistopheles comes to claim the Doctor’s soul by interposing a curtain of petals between him and and the devil. It would be as if Neda Soltani, the woman who was the martyred symbol of the Iranian opposition, rose in spirit to save the men who who were so eager make a deal with her killers.
The worst of it was that the politicians should have known better. If Iran arms up, what becomes of a “world without nuclear weapons”? What will Israel do, faced with an existential threat? Will the adminstration fund sea-based missile defense if Iran is now unstoppably a nuclear weapons power? What happens to Iraq, which the administration is determined to “responsibly” quit? What happens to Afghanistan, that war of necessity which is now optional? How complicated a world in which the can is kicked down the road eventually becomes. Which of Shakespeare shall we have? Julius Caesar?
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Or Macbeth?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
This has all been so predictable, from so long ago. Not just Iran, but Obama.
The short course is this, Bush/Cheney and the neocons were right while Obama/Biden and the tranzis were wrong.
The problem with Containment is that it worked in the cases of the Soviet Union and China because, for all their bluster, they were rational actors who would not start a suicidal nuclear war. Is that an assumption that we can make about Iran under these, I am not saying under any, mullahs? Containment as elucidated by Kennan always included regime change as an eventual goal to be achieved through external pressure leading to internal reforms.
Why does the Diehl discount a priori the use of targeted unconventional operations in support of opposition groups to effectuate regime change? Is it because doing to Iran exactly what Iran has attempted to do to the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan confirms the wisdom of the policies of the prior administration that Obama and the Washington Post repudiated?
Diehl is making a prediction based on his sources, plus his analysis. Suppose he turns out to be right? My guess is that the advocates of negotiating with the Islamic Republic will say the failure was for lack of trying hard enough. It will go on. If people were simple and logical there wouldn’t be any drunks. But they’re not logical.
So supposing the current approach to Iran were wrong, it is nevertheless likely to continue until events and reality finally convince its adherents of its error. It’s flattering to think that they’ll listen to their ideological opponents, harkening to the voice of sweet reason, but in practice opponents rarely listen to each other. People, bless them, mostly listen to themselves. A change of heart is unlikely until their own experience convinces them of the futility of their former course.
Because democracies are ruled by whoever has the current majority, each side gets to try out its formula. However until final, irretrievable and undeniable consequences ensue the results will be ambiguous and no side will win the debate. The postwar legacy made it possible to avoid stark catastrophes and thus avoid clear endings to the debate; it gave two whole generations enough of a margin to philosophically consider the most blatant nonsense and insulate themselves from the immediate effects of their follies. Now that the design margin has worn thin, the “learning moment” nears.
What will we learn when we turn the page? What will we find when we stick our fingers into an electric socket. Some may already guess; but others must discover it for themselves. They’re going to do it, no matter what.
Paradoxically what conservatives must hope for is that the Left still retains a measure of common sense. They cannot be saved by others; they can only save themselves. They are too many to lift. Ultimately our faith in democracy is founded on the rationality of man: the idea that everyone can learn, late but not too late; that man can be stupid and yet not be crazy.
Why doesn’t Obama invite the Iranians to the White House for a couple beers?
…conservatives must hope for is that the Left still retains a measure of common sense. They cannot be saved by others; they can only save themselves.
I’m not sure the hard-core Left will ever “learn,” but the soft-core can. In 1976, I was an idealistic young college student, already intending to join the Peace Corps and campaigning for Jimmy Carter. By 1980, my political philosophy matched Ron Reagan’s, a change caused by observing what happened to Carter’s policies in a real-world laboratory.
I just realized while reading this that speeches by Barack and Mahmoud are interchangeable. They both hate America and spew forth endless amounts of nonsense that resist translation.
We’ll probably have a major military conflict with Iran in the Spring. Call it an unintended consequence of the peace process. Also, if Jackson Diehl isn’t wrong, then who is?
The Obama Administration’s plan was peace and appeasement abroad while they grabbed power at home. The plan was to have health care and “Cap and Trade” done by the fall, while the stimulus got the economy going again. Then they’d have 70 percent popularity when turning to the Mideast to strong arm Israel and negotiate from a position of strength with Iran. Success at home would help success abroad which would then reinforce success at home. That was the plan, they’ve stuck to it and it hasn’t worked. I didn’t think it would. You can’t run the world like a political campaign.
The stolen election in Iran offered the perfect opportunity to have a confrontation with the regime there, using their secret nuke program as a trigger for sanctions until new — and fair — elections were held and the weapons programs abandoned. But instead Obama focused on a power grab back in the US. At that time they thought the fast freight train of Socialized Medicine was building an unstoppable momentum. Then Sarah Palin derailed it with two words on her Face Book page: Death Panels. Oh, well.
Now they face Iran from a position of weakness and Ahmadinejad needs a confrontation abroad to help him deal with rebellion at home. So he blow it up at his convenience. If President Obama gives in then Ahmadinejad’s prestige goes up. If the US pushes back then the regime is threatened and will unite behind him. Of course everything in the Obama message says the push-back will be weak.
Problem is, by spring the unemployment rate will be ten percent and stuck there, the health care bill that passes won’t please everyone — in fact it won’t please anyone. Bibi will be chomping at the bit to take out Iran’s nukes and Obama will not be in a position politically to shoot down Israel’s bombers. The Democrat’s might look at losing 60 seats in the house in 2010 and four or five in the Senate. So, Obama joins Israel in the attack. The heart of the Democrats won’t be in it but their political calculations will be.
What will Russia do? Nothing. Because Bibi would have “hinted” to Putin that if the Iranians nuke Israel, then Israel will nuke Russia (along with Iran and Syria and selected other enablers).
Of course, I may have this wrong. Obama could be curled up in a ball, sucking his thumb, by spring. Or the rest of the world might take matters into their own hands with less than disastrous results. Or both.
W: “Ultimately our faith in democracy is founded on the rationality of man: the idea that everyone can learn, late but not too late; that man can be stupid and yet not be crazy.”
This same hope in humanity is what made containment work in the cold war with mutually assured destruction, but I am not as confident that containment will work with Iran. Amadinacrazyman has spent his whole “presidency” convincing the world how irrational he is. I for one take him at his word that he is crazy and would use nucs on Israel.
#3 wretchard
When negotiations go nowhere(and they will) ,i would expect Obama to double down again(to think historians criticize WW1 generals for being unimaginative).i’m surprised at how limited he seems to be,the Olympic fiasco reveals a lack of understanding of how the world really works.i’ve been wondering for a long time about Obama-does he have a hidden nefarious plan or is he incompetent?Apparently ” the fellow’s a mere pounder after all”
the next 3 years are going to be very interesting(unfortunately).
“Obama could be curled up in a ball, sucking his thumb, by spring.”
Isn’t this ultimately what happened to Carter?
Knowing that, how will the Dems try to prevent it from happening again with Carter II?
No Mo Uro’s comment echoes a thought has been running through the back of my mind since yesterday. What happens when a pathological narcissist runs into unyielding, stone cold rejection? Especially when it comes in the forms of undeniable humiliation and open ridicule. Does he lash out, or does he collapse inward? Until now, The One has never been denied anything in his life except a parent’s love…something he has worked mightily to overcome by gaining the approval of every adult figure in his life ever since. But now, he’s an adult, too, and he finally faces other adults who refuse to be tricked, manipulated or evaded. What next?
“i’m surprised at how limited he seems to be”
Barack Obama is a shallow and poorly read man. His Harvard law degree is something of a joke. It merely means he should be able to pass a state board exam. Harvard’s standards continue to decline. A soft science credential from this overrated academic university is often not worthy of respect. Its graduates should be considered idiots until proven otherwise. Our host is probably the exception to the general rule.
“Obama could be curled up in a ball, sucking his thumb, by spring.”
That’s what I have been saying for awhile. The odds are at least 50/50 that Barack Obama will experience a mental breakdown. He will unlikely finish his term in office. Joe Biden will have to take over the duties of the presidency.
Obama will do exactly as his mommy (Michelle) tells him to do. If he collapses it will be in private and there will be no public (MSM) coverage. She will be the puppet master as she has been since she was introduced to him in Chicago.
So, we must look at this from Michelle’s worldview.
And we all know what happens when America decides to quit policing the playground. SWHTF and will do so by April or in April of 2010 I believe.
As for “a tide in the affairs of men”, this administration seems determined to catch the tide that Kipling wrote of:
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken any way you please, is bad,
And strands them in forsaken guts and creeks
No decent soul would think of visiting.
The stranding seems very close.
Anyone with brains could see this coming on Nov.4 2008
The democratic administration under Barack Hussain Obama (PBUH) was always going to pull out of Iraq and afstan, allow Israel to be nuked and allow Iran to possess the nukes to do the deed.
It’s not that The Obama (PBUH) white house is anti jewish, they are, but this is not the reason. I believe the real reason is to empower the Gov. of Iran and raise muslim honor and allow the muslims to win, all to save islamic face in the wake of being beaten.
It’s all about saving Islamic face and destroying the American military which the democrats hate.
Out damn spot! he cried in rage
And kicked the dogcan down the road
He reckoned not the Stratford sage
Had long ago those words bestrode
How had he failed, this wondrous tongue?
Had he not the beaming smile?
Had he not the welkin rung
With words that sang to God the while
He humbly asked for guidance from
Assembled potentates from lands
That altogether made the sum
Of feudal tribes and wand’ring bands?
True I talk of idle dreams
Which are the children of an idle brain
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy
And yet I hear the muted screams
Of those who are beset by pain
Who look to me to bring some sanity
To this cruel world of sticks and stones
And hidden meanings in their eyes
It may be that no man atones
For pain with wringing hands and sighs
We shall not stay our hand or will
We shall prevail and save the world
From all who wish us well or ill
We’ll leave no oyster yet unpearled
Adrift my policy doth swell
That I could change it with a wand
They say I love myself too well
In truth, fair Montague, I am too fond
“He will unlikely finish his term in office. Joe Biden will have to take over the duties of the presidency.”
Michelle will prop him up like a cardboard cut-out, and will take over behind the scenes. The issue will then become whether Pelosi, Reid and Hillary — those in the know behind the scenese — will allow that to happen. My guess is yes, if they’re allowed a place at the feeding trough, because NO one wants to deal with Biden’s whacked-out space cadet-ry.
(The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush was a straight-shooting cowboy, while Obama is a space cadet without the talent or strength to channel The Force.)
I think it’s wishful thinking to believe that the Big O will curl up in a ball and his administration will collapse. This is the end of the first act in a three act play anyone with as big an ego as the one has much fight left in him. He hasn’t yet begun to blame the hillbilly racists that are AmeriKa yet. 90% of 12% of the ethnic population have been raised on paranoia and determined hatred against the 60% and the determined leftists, 10% of the population along with 60% of the media will gladly fan the flames of racist hatred. Blagojevich’s hand picked senator, Roland Burris (brought in like Gerald Ford after Blago’s attempt to sell the seat was found out) said that the reason Chicago didn’t win the Olympics is because the Big O did not have enough time to make up for the hatred caused by GW Bush. Do not underestimate the effect of 30-40 years of government sponsored hate policies and racist dogma. The first to raise their hand in violence will be the Left. Look for the Obama citizen corps to start to be formed. Obama has every intention of being a president for life. Hell, who ever elected Jesse Jackson? Obama is bigger than MLK, and Jesus, you know that Jewish guy. Obama ain’t going no place
“Pathological Narcissism” It is not just an Obama thing. The shock, the denial, the thrashing about, when things don’t work the way they believe they should, is becoming more prevalent on the left.
#7 hdgreene
So, Obama joins Israel in the attack. The heart of the Democrats won’t be in it but their political calculations will be.
Neither one of us can prove what will happen till it happens. I agree with most of your analysis until the point above. As I have been saying, people follow their pattern unless something forces them out of it. It is the anomaly that investigators look for. So far, as discussed in the previous thread, Obama is the ideal satrap; oppressing those under his authority and grovelling to those he views as being above him. So far, we have a 100% correlation that anyone that opposes him overseas, he grovels to. Iran is well included as multiple points in that data set. Israel, and those aligned previously with the US are 100% included in the submissive data set.
Joining with Israel would be to the benefit of both the US and Israel. Name one encounter with the outer world where America’s interests have been the goal of our actions since January 20, 2009. Further, consider his base and those who govern with him. In the last generation or two, how many of them have considered the survival of Israel in any form to be a good thing, and how many would rejoice if all Jews worldwide [except for those among them who are American Jews who somehow think they are outside the forces of history] were to disappear.
Finally, there is the detail that he would have to overcome his distaste, distrust, and hatred of the concept of the use of American military force. I will leave to others to ponder whether its use on Muslims is a major component in those feelings. So far, over 40 Americans have died in Afghanistan while we wait weeks for him to read the report submitted by the Commanding General of our forces there asking for strategic guidance and resources. That to him is a feature and not a bug.
I do not argue that your projection of events into next year is not highly probable up to that point. But if he stays with the pattern that has guided his life, especially his time in the White House; his response to those events will be different after this point:
The Democrat’s might look at losing 60 seats in the house in 2010 and four or five in the Senate. .
One can make a strong case that we have not controlled the makeup of our government for a long time. Still and all, and looking at patterns once again, there is a glaring anomaly. The Left, especially the Democrats, are acting totally outside their normal pattern. Up until now, any Federally elected politician was known for an absolute terror of taking an open position on a vote or in debate for fear of not being able to waffle their way out of having offended a chunk of their constitutuents who would decide to vote against them. They combine their public linguini spines, with a far more subdued form of arrogance because they know eventually they have to face the voters and they cannot appeal losing [well, before ACORN destroyed the electoral system and magically appearing boxes full of ballots became the norm].
Since this regime came to power, the Democrat majority and their Leftist fellow travellers have been overwhelmingly arrogant. We have had our elected officials recommend to us the processes of coprophagia and lycanthropy time and again. Whether is it is the “leadership” of Congress insulting and threatening us, obvious corruption [They are not even trying to hide it anymore. That is why only the 'little people' pay taxes anymore.], or physical threats against their constituents; they do not care how they appear. That last data point is most telling, I think.
Say that you are immoral and debased enough to be a member of Congress [that description covers 95%+ of both parties, if we are being generous to them]. You are having a Town Hall. And it is surrounded by SEIU, ACORN, and Democratic Party thugs, uniformed and identifiable as such; acting as “security” trying to block out parts of your constituents from entering or speaking. This is not done without your knowledge. Hell, your office arranged it and you are watching it. The efforts are being openly coordinated and encouraged by the White House.
Somewhere along the line the thugs, covertly in your employ, start physically beating some of your constituents. What is your response? And what is the response of other Congress-critters in the same boat with you, whose thugs have not beaten anybody ‘this time’?
Do you try to distance yourself from the event; publicly mouthing platitudes against political violence by anyone? Trying in effect, to keep your constituents from identifying you with the thugs come election day?
Or do you keep totally silent about the event, and keep on using the thugs knowing what happened?
We got silence. They do not fear losing in an election. They believe that they cannot be called to account by voters. It is a “Hound of the Baskervilles” moment, the dog that did not bark. What have they known since at least January that gives them such confidence that they did not have before?
Supporting evidence. Needs a story. Before we were married, my wife acquired a large, older German Shepard. It had developed the hip displasia that older purebred Shepards get, and could not be shown anymore. His previous owner wanted to have him put down for that [inability to show, dog still could move around but just was not pretty enough for the AKC].
Augie was actually a gentle tempered, bloody huge, critter. Somewhere in his past, a previous owner had apparently abused him. I never raised a hand to the dog, liked him [he twice saved our house from being broken into when we lived in Denver, and when we had kids he was protective of them], and treated him with affection. Yet, if I spoke or laughed too loud, my deeper voice apparently reminded him of past abuse; and he would reflexively cringe and sometimes squat and pee as a gesture of submission.
Throughout the abuses and insults we have been enduring as a country, where has the Republican party been? When political competency would seem to demand that they take what has been happening as a wedge issue to fight back, what are they doing? They are cringing and peeing on the carpet. Something has scared them, deeply. What do they know that we don’t? Another dog that is not barking.
Going back to patterns. Buraq Hussein has, as noted in this thread and the previous one, been consistent in grovelling to America’s enemies and grinding his boot in the face of Americans domestically. It is a pattern that has been followed since the election.
Apparently, by their actions, it seems that neither he nor his party has any fear of future elections calling them to account, and the sogannante “opposition” is crouching and peeing on the carpet, if not rolling over and exposing their bellies [think RINO's].
We have a check list to look at.
1) Does the rule of law seem to apply to Democrats and the Left? NO.
2) Do they ignore the Constitution at will? YES.
3) Have they called out extra-legal forces to physically threaten opponents? YES.
4) Do they have a functionally state-controlled media that reports what they want reported and suppresses anything they want suppressed? YES.
5) Do they act as if they are immune from the normal political processes that have governed our Republic for over two centuries? YES.
6) Has this pattern been seen before elsewhere in the world? YES.
I respectfully submit that the most likely response to the concatenation of crises you lay out is not going to war at the side of Israel against Iran [or anybody], but rather a domestic crackdown to suppress any opposition to the regime. The existence and honest counting of votes in the 2010 elections are not certainties. What was the realm of the 3% has over the last 9 months moved well into double digits. Whether the odds are past even of such occurring I leave to all to contemplate.
I will add another marker to watch for. I do not know what Sarah Palin intends to do. I hope that she will spend her time supporting and helping elect Conservative candidates regardless of the wishes of the expanding puddle that is the RNC; if we have elections in 2010. And just to clarify my position, I hope she will choose to run in 2012, if we are having elections in that year. And regardless of the party that she uses as a vehicle; I will support her. I see no one on the Republican horizon who will effectively oppose the regime, or who would be possibly willing to try to roll back the worst of what has been, and will be done to us. That may change, depending on future events, but that is where I am now.
That said, watch Sarah Palin. I hope that she has a private security detail made up of bloody-minded, retired SEALS who have access to any arsenal and equipment that they want. [When you care enough to send the very best!] Keep in mind the mind-numbing hatred that the Democrats and the Left have for her. And the terror she inspires in those who are laying in the aforementioned puddle.
I do not believe in politically convenient “accidents” that benefit a regime in power, anywhere. If Sarah has a “tragic accident”, the dark times are here whether we want them or not.
YMMV
Subotai Bahadur
Unfortunately it seems that as we become more affluent we feel we can afford more illusions. This may not end well.
It looks as though the administration will continue to live inside its own head until a city is vaporized. I believe that BHO & Co. couldn’t care less about Iran. Someone in a previous thread was right to say that Obama just wants to do the “fun things.” Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, etc… these are the obsessions of the neocons, and the neocons can go back to handling them when they recapture power. How much mental energy do you really think Obama lends to the GWOT? Near zero, I suspect.
As the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein apparently dedicates very little thought & attention to the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. On FOX News Sunday, Feinstein gives the world a reason to cringe…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWB7jt3qsYc
She seems quite at ease about the situation at hand; the cognitive dissonance of these people is beyond belief.
Whatever passes as ‘epic’ these days, I guess?
Meanwhile, political shifts, which toss out one party and bring in another, still needs to deal with both parties only allowing their own turkeys through the gate.
I’m actually wondering how Sarah Palin puts real fears into the old ‘gaming plans?’ With Death Panels, she cut right through the BS. But so far she doesn’t get recognized as owning TWO WORD SALUTES that work. And, since both parties need to get ‘fixed’ … it should be interesting to see ‘new rules’ approaching the old ways … as people no longer get elected and then have to be seated in the back rows?
Maybe, there’s hope? There’s certainly an open pathway right to the hearts of the middle. And, yes. I’m waiting to see what Sarah Palin does with her voice. And, her new book! “Hope. And, change.” Isn’t just for the bamster, anymore.
There’s also “room at the top!” The one spot reserved for the general who knows how to strategize this one. All the rest of us are merely in the audience. As the MSM will try to pull some old horses in the ring. (I think condi will be among them, too. While I wouldn’t hitch her up to anyone’s wagon.)
walt if you get any more shakesperian i’m calling spiritwriting
Subotai @20 – Very interesting points. I too have begun to wonder whether Obama and company will refuse to concede power when the time comes. The authorization of a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA under Bush’s watch definitely raises the possibility that the peaceful transfer of power we take for granted as the norm in this country may become a casualty of unintended consequences. After all, this administration is looking pretty paranoid already. One can only assume the pile of bones in the closet is growing.
“There is something ironic in hoping that the Iranian opposition the administration disdained may yet pull their chestnuts out of the fire.”
As “Ironic” as if in 1944 the Allies had decided to wait and see of the Vichy French would drive the Nazis out of the country and obviate the need for the Normandy Invasion.
Subotai Bahadur, I was simply applying the “doctrine of unintended Consequences” to the Obama administration’s Middle East policy. According to that doctrine, President Obama’s peace process and peaceful engagement with Iran should produce additional violent conflict and, likely, a war.
You do make good points.
As I have been saying, people follow their pattern unless something forces them out of it. It is the anomaly that investigators look for.
You are right that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. President Obama behaves like a liberal. The reason “unintended consequences” follow from liberal policy making is because they have a blinkered and ideologically limited world view. They simply do not “ingest” inconvenient data or think about the “downside” of their actions — in fact, they are in the habit of averting their eyes. Going to Denmark to be a pitchman for Chicago’s Olympic bid because you believe your own press clippings is an example. And the Obama advisors believing their economic plan would actually work as advertised is another (that is why they predicted 8 percent unemployment if their policies were adopted — and have averted their gaze from the failure).
I found it amazing that Jimmy Carter’s former national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, spoke of shooting down Israeli jets attacking Iran. Hmm. What if Ahmadinejad gets the idea that Allah will cause the US to knock down an Israeli retaliatory strike after he nukes Israel? Indeed, would it not make sense to save 24 million innocent Iranian lives and continue with engagement in the name of stability? After all, the Israelis are already dead.
It would also make sense for Israel to think the Iranians might think that. So that sea based anti-ballistic system that Obama wants in place is directed at who? All troublemakers, equally?
So far, we have a 100% correlation that anyone that opposes him overseas, he grovels to. Iran is well included as multiple points in that data set. Israel, and those aligned previously with the US are 100% included in the submissive data set.
The main driver of events, in my scenario, would be Israel, which will see the association with the US of Barack Obama as having rapidly decreasing utility. They have never been submissive to the US, but they have been a pragmatic ally and, for the most part, a good friend. In any case, it is a safe bet the Israelis ain’t going through a second Holocaust for Obama. Bibi may reason that setting Iran back four years will get them through the Obama Presidency, and they can “reset” with whoever takes over after him.
So a weakened Obama has been serially dissed by an Iranian regime, which thus picks up added influence in the Islamic world. He can stand by and stand down while Israel and Iran fight around him. He can interpose himself between them. Or he can join Israel. I think the last choice makes sense for the Democrats and has a good chance of bringing down the Theocracy while resupplying O with mojo. After all, if the action can be labeled a success, President Obama can take the credit.
Personally, I rather expect that next fall’s election will go off with the normal amount of larceny and chicanery. I think the desire to do what you describe may be there but fear of an extreme backlash will stop implementation. Regardless, action against Iran is not incompatible with establishing a dictatorship at home. In fact, it could be used to tie down the military. Why not regime change? Five thousand dead US Military to roll up a real and proven nuclear threat, as opposed to an “imaginary one,” would be a justifiable sacrifice. Why, it will even be a legal war because the left will say so. I could just about write the New York Times editorial myself. Plus, the military will get that victory parade on Labor Day they have so long deserved.
But you say Iran will have an insurgency? Who’ll notice?
OK. I’m kidding with the last bit. Or am I?
Obama WANTS a nuclear Iran, that nukes a few American cities into cinders, so he can surrender and become America’s Vizier. This has been his plan from the beginning, one broadly endorsed by the elites who find submission in a Vichy America the path to absolute domestic power the way Vichy France’s elites did.
This is Obama, this is Ayers, this is Wright, this is Farrakhan, this is Biden, this is Hillary, this is the entire Democratic Party and Liberal Elite. As in Polanski, in defense and security. This is who they are.
What is likely, is that a few dead American cities will prompt survival mode. As a practical matter the Constitution would not be in effect in a proposed surrender, the military is big and geographically dispersed, it would take control to prevent more cities from dying by starting the process of retaliation.
The danger of NYC being nuked is that it does not just magically stop there. Like a tribal coup counting. It demands more and more, nuclear attacks, for more and more concessions. Until those doing it are totally, completely, and absolutely wiped out. Every last man, woman, child. Anyone and everyone who even speaks the language.
Thus the death of NYC does not mean just the death of 3-6 million Americans. It inevitably means as a matter of survival for Denver, Dallas, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Ann Arbor, San Francisco, Portland, Topeka, St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Chicago, the death of all Pakistanis, all Iranians, all Egyptians, all Saudis, all Omanis, all Yemenis, all Syrians, all Jordanians, all Tunisians, all Turks, and so on. A difficult path, to be sure, but well within the capacity of America in a few years to construct enough nukes from SCRATCH after unilateral disarmament to simply kill all those nations and peoples.
This is the logic of the nuclear weapons systems. ONCE they are used on a great power, they will provoke a massive counter-response as a means of national survival. Speeches, mediation, etc. won’t do it. It’s down to the nasty business of killing, and killing before you are killed. Nuclear proliferation means deterrence through horror. Not the refined, out of sight kind of the Cold War, but the active horror of say the Thirty Years War.
hdgreene,
While there may be some who would like that ABM system to stop an Israeli attack, there is little chance it would succeed in stopping said strike. Israeli missiles share a lot in common with Pershing IIs (if the open source literature is correct), and those are problematic at best to be stopped by anything other than nuclear-tipped ABMs. As in, “not a chance” problematic.
#27 hdgreene
Actually, I don’t think we are that far apart. If we do not have a nuclear war or major conventional terrorist attack before November 2010, the Democrats are now facing not only a loss of seats, but there is now the possibility [not high probability mind you] of losing control of one or more houses. That means it will be theoretically possible to derail the Zimbabwe-fication of the country. Not an acceptable outcome for the regime. And once again, we have to account for the otherwise totally irrational behavior of the Democrats in Congress; when they have from their power-preserving perspective have been perfectly rational before January 2009. We differ as to expectations of 2010 and 2012. We will have to wait for the results.
I do not rule out war, or a successful nuclear attack on this country at all. I think we differ on timing, and on the mechanism. I do not see Buraq Hussein striking those who promise to strike us first until his hand is forced, and maybe not then. By that time, he may no longer be president, or have control of the football.
I do expect a nuclear explosion either here or in Israel within two years. Perhaps more than one. If Israel goes it alone and tries to save Western civilization, it will be attacked in one way or another by the West. The United States will lead that effort if Buraq Hussein is still in power. Even if Israel takes out Iran, we can be sure that at that point either a North Korean, Pakistani, or Russian device will eventually fall into the hands of terrorists. And be used. If we are attacked, the Democrats WILL try to void the Constitution and impose a dictatorship for the duration. The duration will be defined as being as long as they can hold power. That might not be as long as they hope. And the “Three Conjectures” will be manifested in fact, not theory.
So while we differ, we do not differ by much and it is largely a matter of timing. One problem that afflicts our society is the TV induced belief that all problems can be solved in 26 minutes plus commercials, and that there is always a choice that will give a “good” result. In real life, if one is lucky; the problems one faces are such that there is a bad choice and a not so bad choice. And all too often, there are NO good alternatives. In either case, you do the best that you can. To be honest, our poor country is facing the choice between nuclear terrorism and civil war to preserve the Constitution in some form. And it may not be an either/or choice but a combination of the two.
The theoretical best case would be a turn over of both houses of Congress in 2010 with the new legislators a different sort than the loot and pillage political class that we have in both parties, followed by 2012 where an actual patriot that people can vote FOR is running. And if anyone believes that is at all likely; I have a large bridge I might be willing to sell my interest in for a reasonable sum.
Sometimes the best news, is the acceptance that there is NO good news; so you can deal with reality as it stands.
Mention was made, accurately, of this feeling like 1859. I would add 1775 and 69 AD. Keep thine codpieces buttoned, and thine sword hands free. For we are going to be somewhat occupied soon.
Subotai Bahadur
A. Nobody,
I am glad to hear that the US could not knock out an Israeli retaliatory strike should their nation be “offed” by Iran. I didn’t mean to say that we would, but that the Iranians might draw such a conclusion from talking to some of our more able negotiators — on the model of Z-ski — who would tell them of a wonderful world of mutual cooperation between our two countries if only Israel would disappear, and, by the way, ain’t those Zionists awful? Such talk might be misinterpreted. Hopefully, the Iranian twelvers (who want to hurry up the return of the Mahdi by unleashing Armageddon) are rational enough to understand that we could not stop Israel’s retaliation even if we tried. But then again, they might not care.
Subotai,
I think one cause for hope is that many Democrats are skeptical of D.C. and the National Democrat Party, they just fall for the “selfish rich” demagoguery of the Democrats and keep voting for them. I’ve noticed a marked “cooling” in the last few months toward their guy (at least among the ones who didn’t drink the Kool-Aid). I was at a large social gathering recently where the crowd was mostly Democrats, and nobody wanted to argue politics with me. It was not that way two years ago.
Rather than a sudden power grab, I think continued overt and semi-covert centralization is the threat. And it is working well for them now, despite a few bumps on the road.
Of course, if even one nuke goes off in a US city, all bets are off.
Funny you should mention 1859. I was going to say that a reason to be optimistic is that President Buchanan was followed by Abraham Lincoln. But then I remembered the Civil War…
Buddy/24
No point in calling them. You’d only get Banquo.
Whew! Subotai Bahadur. That is a very dark scenario. I personally think that has a very low probability. Not impossible. My analysis does not indicate that at all. The chances of the US being hit by a nuclear missile from NK, Iran are very remote. We do have missile defense both land based and sea base and missile command had the authority and more importantly the capability to defend without orders.
After all the land base is in Alaska and they are under a more conservative mindset up there. Neither Iran nor NK have the ballistic ability to hit the US with any accuracy. China does have the ability to hit the west coast. Russia has the ability to hit almost anywhere in the US but they do not have the accuracy we do. We have been perfecting smart weapons and no one else has. Plus our weapons are war tested.
Opposing forces generally use the doctrines that have been successful in the past to fight new wars and that is true in politics as in the military. The Democrats are used to manipulating fears, but this time the opposite is true since they are in power and it is the GOP that is playing on rational fears with the economy in the tank
So the use of fear mongering as a weapon has been turned against the Democrats. They are used to having the mainline newspapers and network TV to help spread their message. However their credibility is even worse than normal and that was low before.
The castration of Acorn has blunted the fraud voting schemes. But I am sure that the dead will still vote.
Obama won because the conservatives and GOP did not vote for McCain. More of the secular fiscal types that are Democrats, GOP or Independents are breaking toward the GOP as long as the GOP field decent men and women.
I agree with you about Sarah Palin as the one that is willing to fight and we need a fighter.
I do not expect that a full scale military attack on Palin, as that is too blatant. If an assassination would occur it would be an accident like a plane going down that is deniable.
Palin is very good about keeping secrets; she hid her pregnancy quite successfully and keeps her own counsel. I know the military loves her so, if there was a danger I am confident that volunteers would be willing to stand as security. But they are not professional unless she gets Black Hawk to do domestic security.
There is a well of anger and rage out among the voters and they will not stand for a coup or no elections in 2010. The intimidation my work at some polls but not with CCW holders carrying weapons to the polls. Many gun owners do that already. Please not that thug tactics by SEIU stopped once publicity about OC at rallies was done.
The Tea Parties at just a visible sign of the iceberg of public outrage at Obama and friends and their policies. I can hope that Obama may overplay his hand but I do not count on it.
I suggest you trust a little bit more on the American people. Most got fooled at the past election but the scales have been dropping from their eyes.
walt/32; LOL –”hello, spiritwriting? great! um, fellas, listen, Earth is having a little trouble shooting this script….”
hdgreene/31,
I think the guy who really needed the warning was Putin, and I think he was delivered it by Netanyahu. There are a lot of things in life we have to trust to luck, but will Putin trust his luck to the ABM system that defends Moscow? Israel is not stupid- they know who supplied those weapons and that nuclear material to Iran, along with diplomatic cover. If they ever needed to use their nuclear arsenal, several warheads would be arcing towards the Kremlin in a manner that makes them difficult to even track.
The more I see international politics, the more I think it’s about who can out-thug someone else, for good or for ill.
Subotai Bahadur/30,
The funny thing is that a lot of problems can be solved in 26 minutes plus time for commercials- it’s just that there is a terrible finality to that solution, and there are lots of bits and pieces of cities to sweep up afterwards. Note that I didn’t say it was a good solution, and I agree with you that the need for quick fixes is a major problem for us all.
Personally, I don’t believe that we’ll see nukes detonated in Western countries (other than perhaps Israel) any time soon. This is because while our enemies can be quite evil, they just plain aren’t that dumb. Or at the very least, they have patrons who aren’t that dumb and therefore won’t let them do it. The secret to defeating the West is to lull it into complacency and decadence, not prick it and make it really mad. I just don’t see our enemies (I live in America’s hat, but they’re my enemies, too) giving us such a golden opportunity to fix them forever.
Iran is playing a giant game of chicken, because they believe we will always blink first. I just don’t think they will give us anything that gives us a strong reason to deal with them decisively. It will always be bit by bit, until they have a fully functioning nuclear-tipped ICBM complex. Then we get to play the Findlandization-proxy war-UN negotiations dance.
This means Israel will have to take the world’s opprobrium when it strikes first, but I can’t see them being punished too severely, and especially not militarily. If no one is willing to deal with Iran, no one will touch Israel. They’ll just get tut-tutted for a while, maybe with a few targeted sanctions to go with it. Why the heck would the elite want to upset the applecart that badly? The faster things can get back to normal, the faster they can get back to sitting around Versailles and scheming behind the King’s back.
I recall seeing some theory on the Internet some time ago that Europe would pre-emptively strike Israel in order to prevent “the middle east going up in flames”. All I could think was, with *what*? They have no aircraft that can get there and back with any decent warload, and no way to get past Israel’s AD. That’s even assuming they have enough munitions suitable for the main task. No, the only way they could do it would be to use either France or Britain’s nuclear arsenal, which is so far out of reality that there’s no point even noting it.
The best way to characterize the modern elite is that they want to be in charge, but they just plain don’t feel like doing anything about it.
#33 RAH
A missile launch can be defended against, except perhaps with the SCUD-in-a-bucket scenario. An ICBM launch can be detected, tracked, and possibly [no guarantees, especially if Obama shuts it down as he wants] dealt with using what we have now.
However, keep in mind that a 1st year college physics student can design a Hiroshima yield device that will fit in a minivan, let alone a cargo plane or standard shipping container. The trick is to get the enriched U-235 [see Iran and Pakistan, and possibly North Korea] or Plutonium [North Korea] and both possibly from Russia. The specialized machining tools can be dispensed with if you consider your labor force expendable. We only check a fraction of the shipping containers coming into our ports, our southern border isn’t even a sieve, more like an open screen door, and the Canadian border not much better. The covert channels to smuggle ton lots of drugs in are already operational. About the only budget cuts announced to help balance the multi-trillions being wasted, are reductions in the control of the borders. We can and will be hit. And it will not be immediately determined by who.
#35 A Nobody
I recall seeing some theory on the Internet some time ago that Europe would pre-emptively strike Israel in order to prevent “the middle east going up in flames”. All I could think was, with *what*? They have no aircraft that can get there and back with any decent warload, and no way to get past Israel’s AD.
Don’t rule out a European strike.
As Marie Claude would point out if I did not:
France: 4 SSBN submarines carrying the bulk of the French nuclear deterrent on 16 multiple warhead missiles each. There are reports, not confirmed, that in August the French ceased carrying nuclear weapons on its carrier. If this is not true, there are more on the CHARLES DE GAULLE. Can Israel stop an ICBM warhead coming from any direction?
Britain: Britain also has 4 SSBN’s with 16 missiles each. Same problem for Israel.
I note that just moments ago it was announced that Ireland ratified the EU Constitution. That means that it goes into effect soon. At that point, Britain will no longer be an independent country, and have no control over its military or military policy.
France and Belgium control the EU. Both hate Israel [and us too, by they way].
I would not rule out the scenario completely.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai Bahadur/36,
You are correct to point out the French and British arsenals (as I noted in my post), but again, I don’t see a Euro nuke strike on Israel as even a remote possibility. I mean, “we stopped a nuclear strike on a middle-eastern nation by…um… making a nuclear strike on a middle eastern nation” is beyond even my allowances for the ignorance of the elite. The other point is that Britain wouldn’t launch- no order from EUtopia would cause them to. Brown wouldn’t allow it, and Cameron would probably order a strike on Brussels if they tried to (well, not really, but you get my drift). Regardless of any treaty, there are some things they won’t relinquish- but they have civil servants who can do a very good job of making it sound like they have done everything according to the letter of it.
France as currently constituted would not strike Israel, because there is no gain in doing so.
Now if in fifty years time the population of Britain and France had a substantially different make-up, and if they still had nuclear weapons that functioned, then it could be a possibility.
wretchard:
What if those who make the decisions and those who bear the consequences for those decisions are two different groups of people? What if the Obama administration makes catastrophic decisions that affect neither the Obama administration nor its core supporters, but do affect other groups of people who are accustomed to abuse?
What if entire groups of people do suffer because of Obama’s decisions yet support him anyway because their intense loyalty to him surpasses common sense?
Should we really assume that politicians can be held accountable, even in a democracy?
The consolidation of the European Union might not seem superficially to be such a threat to Israel, except that the Europeans really have not been much concerned with the fate of their own Jewish population, historically.
After all, Vichy France was enthusiastic, not merely submissively cooperative with the NAZI occupation orders to round up and transport the French Jews to NAZI-designated concentration camps. (Of course, there were individuals who risked their lives to protect even strangers from the NAZI goons. But the Vichy Government was perfectly happy to cooperate with Hitler’s roundups.)
Come to think of it, it was primarily the Scandinavian countries, which used to be proudly Christian, that went to great lengths to protect the Jews among them.
But especially now that all the European countries have aggressively imported millions of Muslims to perform the scut work that European natives are much too sophisticated any more to do, they have to consider their own security should they do anything to support Israel. They might find their neighborhoods repeating the French “banlieue” excitement of a few years back, possibly on an even grander scale.
Subotai B’s analysis has the ring of authenticity. The world does not much give a crap about what despotic authoritarian regimes do to their own people, unless it begins to interfere with the flow of goodies.
Like we in the U.S. keep on buying the consumer goods manufactured by laborers in China working in conditions we would call slavery, if we actually could see’em. (Look up “Laogai” Chinese prison labor multi-tiered manufacturing system.)
Don’t expect any nation to come to the aid of the oppressed Americans should a Dictatorship toss out the constitution and start putting resistors in concentration camps or graves. It would mean less to European residents than the fines they face for voicing a disapproved opinion on a website, or for failure to file a 22-page monthly recycling compliance report to the EU commissioners of Green Enforcement.
We are ourselves alone.
Whether O is an idiot or a monster, the wolves pace at the edge of the light cast by our dying campfires. A wolf pack cooperates; our long-established adversaries will find increasing reasons for alliances as the Leftists continue their gleeful enfeeblement of the country.
Possibly they recognize the danger they are creating, and arrogantly believe that no one will attack the mighty USA. More likely, they cling to the enduring delusion of evil Amerikkka and the righteous, pure, and moral world outside our borders.
They expect to be applauded and aided in suppressing the bad people inside the US. After all, the people who oppose O are the same ones who have been raping and despoiling the whole world, so the whole world will be on their side in crushing them.
Good friend of mine tells of a time when he was managing a hotel, and one week two ladies who’d been working as bartenders for a couple of years had a big fight. Afterward, one of the two came in and revealed that together they had been skimming cash from the bar for over a year, and she was turning in her former friend because she’d been cheating her.
She just couldn’t understand why SHE was in trouble after revealing the scam. She had fully expected thanks and maybe even a reward.
I’m guessing this woman went on to a long and successful career in ACORN, or working as an assistant to a Democratic Congresscritter.
The nuke in the box or cargo container has been the big worry for 8 years. Bush took a lot of actions to try to diminish that. W we check cargo coming in at sea instead of in port. we do use equipment that supposedly can detect nuclear isotopes.
France as currently constituted would not strike Israel, because there is no gain in doing so.
Any gain would be had taking out the hardened nuclear facility in Qom. It lies within a military complex, so a penetrating nuclear warhead might (emphasis on ‘might’) be employed without undue civilian casualties. I don’t pretend to know if the French have the capability. Sarkozy seems to have the will and smarts to know a confrontation with the Islamists is inevitable. I doubt he wants to wait until the mullahs have both the warhead and missile capability to hit Paris. In any event, taking out the Qom facility would send a message the mullahs couldn’t ignore. And incidentally, just might work to awaken the rest of Europe from its slumber.
Slightly off-topic, but concerning France and its illegal immigrant muslim population–many of whom are refugees from the fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan waiting to go to England and potentially engage in who-knows-what mischief. What would be wrong with offering these driftless young men a term of foreign fighting service (French Legion, anyone?) in exchange for full citizenship after proving themselves worthy. Seems there is a potentially very valuable human resource going to waste; why not use it? And as a not entirely coincidental added consideration: men who risk their lives for an adoptive country would, one presumes, be afterwards less likely to betray it.
30. Subotai Bahadur,
I see your point and raise you a cap and trade that barely passed in the House and is going nowhere in the Senate.
On health care the reverse maneuver is going on. Tricks in the Senate. Low probability in the House.
And Pelosi who said that 2010 is going to be a very difficult environment for the Ds.
I could see what you predict coming to pass. I can also see other possibilities.
As in 1939 the ∅ has moved too soon in too big a way. Not content with 3 yards and a cloud of dust they have done a hail mary. Why? My guess is that they saw the correlation of forces going against them and had to risk it all.
Dark times. More darkness to come. But there are flickers of light.
I ♥ Sarah’cudda
RAH said @ 33:
“Subotai Bahadur. That is a very dark scenario. I personally think that has a very low probability. … Opposing forces generally use the doctrines that have been successful in the past…”
But, RAH, in your own words you do acknowledge that the bad guys will use their best methods. I think those best methods are sneaking an explosive device in surreptitiously. IOW, a container nuke on a ship in a major port or the same weapon trucked over one of the borders. Our borders are porous and our open society works against us naturally. I read a story via this innertube thing back when that was about Achmed the Soon-To-Be-Dead-Terrorist in a truck driving from Tijuana to San Diego. You can guess the ending.
Oh, and follow the link to: December 7, 2008
I want to draw your attention to the methods proposed. Cheap, stealthy, plausibly deniable.
36. Subotai Bahadur,
One of the reasons our southern border is open is the profitability of smuggling in ton lots of drugs. Prohibition has made organized border running profitable. But is is good for a lot of police overtime. So there is that.
And why isn’t the border being closed? Prohibition has made organized border running profitable. Not just for the smugglers.
But there are flickers of light
funny thing is, we are all sickened as the outlines of this whole thing begin to fill in, and we think, “oh this could NOT be worse”. but that’s wrong, it was worse just awhile back, when it was there but you hadn’t seen it yet. The sonzabitches are belled now and we have a front.
Of course we have to remember that a ‘moral victory’ is what the side that didn’t get the ‘victory’ victory might or might not have won.