… is not that new, at least as articulated by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley this morning:
Iran should not take comfort in the Bush administration’s softened stance against its suspected nuclear program, national security adviser Stephen Hadley said Sunday in his first television interview since taking the job.
The United States agreed last week to drop opposition to Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization and to allow some sales of spare parts for civilian aircraft as part of a European plan that offers economic incentives for the Tehran government to give up any weapons ambitions.
But Hadley insisted the United States is not offering concessions to Iran or engaging the regime that President Bush has described as “the world’s primary state sponsor of terror.”
“What we are doing is removing some objections to something the Europeans are doing,” Hadley said on “Fox News Sunday.” “But I do not think that the Iranian regime can take much comfort in this because as part of this arrangement, the Europeans now for the first time are talking about Iranian support to terror and the need for this Iranian regime to listen to their people and to give them a greater role in the political process.”
Regime Change Iran, as usual, has a roundup, but I suspect what none of us know on this issue is far more important than what is in print or on the air or even (I hate to say it!) on line at the moment. The action for now is behind the scenes… and possibly also in the hands of special ops.
I think Iran needs a bit more time to simmer and saturate. At some point an odd incident will set things off and the opposition will crystalize. I expect change will happen fast when it happens.
Michael Ledeen’s current NRO piece posits some practical revolutionary activities in Iran:
I agree that the most important aspects of our efforts regarding the entire Iran/Hezbollah/Syria nexus are rightly hidden from view. I can’t even figure out whether we are watching the second act or the third act anymore and hopefully, they can’t either. What I do know is that all the opposing parties are just as militarily hollow as Iraq was. The question is ‘Who will oversee the aftermath?’ – will the Axis of Weasels come through this time? If so, at what price?
I think this is the last act and that Israel is playing the lead. The desperate Iranian revolutionaries are trying to change the story line, and the rest of us are merely supers.
Roger,
Sorry for being repititious but for those interested in the Iranian situation a must read is Dr. Zin’s, Regime Change Iran. Dr. Zin also has a free daily email update (available by subscription).
For those sipping their Sunday morning coffee amblivious to what’s transpiring here, the strategic consequences of the Mad Mullahs of Iran going nuclear are unimaginable.
We have a window of opportunity to see that doesn’t happen. We need to hang tough with President Bush whom I don’t believe for a minute will blink. I also agree there is much going on we are not hearing about.
Read more here in a recent comment on Dr. Zin’s site:
I know this is going to sound simplistic, but I really don’t feel the need to invest a lot of angst in the day-to-day machinations of the Iranians, their Euro enablers, or the breathless punditry or editorial column miles that are thereby generated.
President Bush is on record as saying that Iran will not be permitted to become a nuclear armed power.
Now how that state of affairs is achieved can take many, many forms. We are seeing only the latest iteration of hoop- jumping in the grand tradition of the default diplomatic mode of pre-9/11 politics, combined with the standard breathless comment and critique that always attends Western commentary when the subject is diplomacy with despots.
It would be nice if a piece of paper could end the threat. Just because the strategy didn’t work – at Munich, or Yalta, or even as late as the Agreed Framework (Norks used the savings from fuel and food grants we provided to subsidize their N-weapons program) or the Camp David accords – matter of fact, anywhere treaties have been signed with criminal, dictatorial regimes they have never amounted to more than a doorway through which monsters walk in order to continue their odious agendas, and cover for western politicians desperate to avoid conflict at any cost.
Those days are gone. This president is on record that Iran will NOT become a nuclear power. Our current SecState, Ms. Rice, is a wonder to watch as she makes the social circuit visits incumbent on a newly-appointed chief diplomat. Her rhetoric is wholly non-threatening, her demeanor and outlook always positive. She fields the great and not-so-great questions with aplomb; it’s easy to do when the tough decisions have been made.
The Iranians can dance with the pre- 9/11 people and the press all they want. I believe that they, just like the moribund class of diplomats they so strive to cultivate, are missing the whole point. The hard decisions have been made, and there is a line in the sand that they alone will be held responsible for if they choose to cross.
I don’t doubt that there are stacks of plans in Israel and the Pentagon for taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. It would be a criminal dereliction of duty if such contingencies were not prepared for. Israel flat cannot afford even a limited nuclear exchange with any of her neighbors; they don’t have the geography or population to survive. We enjoy strategic advantages of distance and depth, and the uncontested certainty of be able to retaliate with overwhelming force if attacked, but what luxury is there in giving up millions of lives just to say the rest of the nation will survive?
Iran will not become a nuclear power, precisely so we won’t ever have to suffer that situation.
I HOPE there are special ops busy in iran, doing tom clancy and jason bourne type things to undermine the mullahs and blunt their efforts. i’d like us to win a secret war that makes a public and political war unnecessary. then make a great movie about it so we can enjoy what we missed seeing.
We’re just a couple of bars into the overture. Sadly, a generation of Salafists need to demonstrate the disastrous consequences of their philosophy before the final curtain falls.
Indeed, all we know is that we know nothing about what’s really happening. The mullacracy will collapse when the people of Iran take to the streets in protests and the army backs them over the mullahs. When that will happen is unknown, but it could be before the end of 2005.
Dare we hope that tmjUtah is a professor of political science and he/she is teaching these basic truths to students.
The question of nukes in Iran has been answered. Bush said no nukes and only a fool would doubt him.
TmjUtah,
It would be nice if a piece of paper could end the threat. Just because the strategy didn’t work – at Munich, or Yalta, or even as late as the Agreed Framework (Norks used the savings from fuel and food grants we provided to subsidize their N-weapons program) or the Camp David accords – matter of fact, anywhere treaties have been signed with criminal, dictatorial regimes they have never amounted to more than a doorway through which monsters walk in order to continue their odious agendas, and cover for western politicians desperate to avoid conflict at any cost.
We don’t see too much of Catherine these days, so allow me to say it for her: Wow! I’m writing that down.
I’m trying to figure out what is Bush’s game plan, but since he thinks outside the box, it’s almost impossible to figure out.
Another thing that comes to my mind is, why do severe earthquakes keep happening in Iran? Yes, I know the area is prone to earthquakes, but it seems there’s been an awful lot happening lately.
I’m just a high school grad with a chunk of travel and a lot of reading behind me – too narrow, too late, but there it is.
And as of tomorrow, I’m back in the field to survey for the next little bit. The nature of the project is such that as the snow recedes and the ground dries out I will probably spend about six days out of the high summer weeks an hour and a half east of here.
I will miss the luxury of picking my times to check out the world, and to add my two cents at will.
As far as Iran (and I mean the mullahs, of course)and its nuclear ambitions are concerned I don’t think there is any ambiguity in the policy of this country on that matter. The word has come directly from the president, both in speeches and in answer to direct questions at news conferences.
The Iranians are murderers posing as a government. We tend to be unconscoius in our perceptions about people, governments, and events based on our own experience. The fact that the actual situation in places like Iran is so wholly alien to us actually works in favor of the mullahs. We couldn’t empathize with the Norks even if we tried, so they restrict their interaction with western media to soundbites and bluster.
IN MY OPINION: The difference in our policies toward Iran and North Korea are based on some pretty ugly calculus.
The Norks claim to have weapons, and have demonstrated an ability to fire a missile in the general direction of the U.S., with range in hand to strike Japan or South Korea. Bad, bad news – but in a big picture perspective the aftermath of a Nork attack will add up one way: no more North Korea. If we detect an attack we will certainly level the country with one SSBN, and there will be missiles left over. Millions will die – but the actual destruction cannot encompass more than a handful of cities or regions (excepting North Korea) and the aftermath will include many, many challenges – but there won’t be any North Korea left to deal with.
The Iranian formula is much, much more dangerous. Not because of their weapons – but because of the only possible response available to Israel in response to a WMD attack.
Imagine a poker table with five people seated. You are Charlie Whitehat, and the other four guys are the Blackhat Gang. Pop Blackhat is the most dangerous of the crew, and he sits directly across the table. Any of his boys, though, would kill you in a second if only given a chance.
And then the lights go out.
The only conclusion that I can come to as far as what an Israeli response will be to ANY attack that threatens their ability to conduct a defense is nothing short of a doomsday scenario. Dirty bombs delivered via one-way IDAF missions and missile strikes will target as many Arab population centers, religous sites, and critical infrastructure (water/agriculture/petroleum fields/desalinization plants) locations as possible, while Jordan and Syria get invaded and occupied. Oil supplies won’t be disrupted. They’ll be terminated. Can’t man rigs in a cobalt or strontium environment, you see.
They’ll hold back the worst weapons though – just in case.
I can’t see as how they have any other choice: they cannot depend on our administrations, much less other Western powers, to be consistent in honoring alliances or to stand behind agreements. If one day the lights do go out in that poker game, they’d be idiots to depend on anyone else but themselves.
If that sounds harsh, just remember that while we may be traumatized by the infrequent 9/11/embassy/Cole experiences we witness, in Israel, on any given day, they may well get to watch the chunks of meat that used to be their fellow citizens being scraped off the walls and streets.
Never again.
Iran under the mullahs will NOT become a nuclear power.
I don’t know if anyone noticed the picture at Power line but the Iranian mullahs just signed a bilateral agreement with Hugo Chavez in Caracus.
Oil must kill brain cells. Daniel Ortega tried going down this road and look where it got him.
Other than providing them with about 80% of their GDP I don’t know what we ever did to Venzuala. I don’t doubt if I asked Chavez would do some paranoid ranting for me, but I am an American and he can do that strutting elPresidente crap for someone outside this hemisphere. Crazy bastard.
Brother TmjUtah,
AMEN! You’re absolutely prescience.
Say what high school did you go to?
Perhaps there is another alternative – the Iranian people can succeed in a regime change with a little help from the Blogos.
See above.
TmjUtah
Sorry, but all I have to add to your posts is adulation. Clear thinking and clear writing. I love it.
Lines being drawn in the sand… I’ve been using that line (NPI) for the last two years or so with family and friends. Ninety-nine per-cent of whom have no idea of the ramifications of NOT drawing that line, and most of whom would never draw that line regardless of the consequences. Its weird I admit, but I sometimes think of “Clockwork Orange” and the character having his eyelids held open to be ‘indoctrinated’ as to his wrongs. I can almost imagine the validity of that technique. I mean, damn, can’t you people just open your minds and SEE that there are dangers in the world and that Liberty is at stake, perhaps a more nefarious threat/danger than any we have faced before.
One of the major problems as I see it, is that the MSM, or at least my little local rag of it, is not, and will not, prepare the citizens of this country for the possible hardships ahead of us. The head is so deep in the sand it could never draw that line. (PI) I think GWB has to forgo the the idea of a Republican legacy in 2008 and speak directly as to what we have to do as a country. He needs to put us on a war footing.
By the way, you beat me in the education department, so please forgive my incoherent ramble.
Also, thank you Roger, for providing this space.
Ron -
R.E. Lee ’79, Midland, Texas.
Luther -
“I mean, damn, can’t you people just open your minds and SEE that there are dangers in the world and that Liberty is at stake, perhaps a more nefarious threat/danger than any we have faced before.”
I used to get frustrated dealing with people who just don’t understand that if they decide they aren’t going to fight, it will have no bearing on the other side still attacking – except to enable them, of course. Then I took a page from Bush’s book: just get the job done.
We aren’t involved in an elective social exercise here.
I am at a loss for what it would take on Bush’s part to further mobilize the country; the lines on who’s in and who’s out are fairly well drawn.
If a citizen of this democracy lived through the events of 9/11 and still does not understand the stakes, and the nature of the threat, I haven’t a clue what it might take to convince them. I’m just grateful they are a diminishing minority and that we are wealthy enough to get the job done without them.
TmjUtah,
Amen to what you say. As to ìThe Iranians are murderers posing as a governmentî it seems to be typical for the mankind throughout the history, doesnít it?
BookTV had two hours on Iran yesterday from a radio talk show in the midwest somewhere. I couldn’t watch it all, but there were two people quite convinced that it didn’t matter that much if Iran went nuclear because of MAD.
Good grief.
The blogosphere had discussed that to death what seems like years ago already. I remember den Beste and Wretchard in their analytical way concluding that MAD wouldn’t work with the mullahs.
Religious zealotry, for one, negates the fear of retaliation because it would be nothing less than martyrdom. Besides, Iran, as a state sponsor of terrorism, could easily hand over technology and weapons to bin laden, or Hizbollah could do the dirty work.
I mean, bin laden is still desirous of hitting America with some type of nuclear-anything-he-can-get-his-hands-on so he, obviously, isn’t worried about retaliation. Same mindset.
If there is one holy warrior left standing, then they would deem themselves justified.
BTW, my kudos to TmjUtah as well!
——
OT but, speaking of BookTV, does anyone know what the music is they play between segments? I put it near Schubert in either time or style, but I simply do not recognize it.
It’s been bugging me for years.
First of all, I’ve had a bit too much wine to be commenting. But, anyway, TmjUtah, dammit I wish you had a name.
I think that is the problem – those post 9/11 folks who haven’t a clue. I realize of course that in all the wars this country has had that there have always been dissenters, there’s always a Chamberlain out there, go along and get along. I just feel that we have to have more than a 51% majority to do the things that need to be done.
I, as well, have no idea how to engage those who do not see the danger, other than simple truths. And yes, I do think GWB has been attempting same. But there are too many who will not accept reality, they will always prefer the cocoon of non-belief. They are stuck.
Our first problem is the press (MSM), our second problem is academia, those who teach our children. For this, I’m afraid, will be a long war, and the entire country needs to believe in the necessity of it.
TmjUtah :
I used to get frustrated dealing with people who just don’t understand that if they decide they aren’t going to fight, it will have no bearing on the other side still attacking
I blame Sesame Street. Oscar needs to get serious about what he does in that trash can.
Syl:
Religious zealotry, for one, negates the fear of retaliation because it would be nothing less than martyrdom.
But are the Mullahs religious zealots? They look more and more like a traditional dynastic thugocracy. Dictatorships tend that way.
Luther,
You can find out a bit more about Tmj over at Three Rounds Brisk .
I think Iran is ready to fall. The people are restless and the cold winter doesn’t help. A country with such large oil resources shouldn’t have people without power. It will fall faster and sooner than any of us think.
Just to let you know that I am one of those evil liberals and am reading this conservative blog for the first time, in order try to understand where the other side is coming from.
Wow, some of you guys are amazing. Of course I can’t stand George Bush and wish he wasn’t president, but you know what? Compared to a bunch of your posts, George Bush seems reasonable. I can’t believe I’m saying that, but on the whole Iran thing, there is no way he is going to invade, there is no way he is going to let Israel nuke their cities, just not gonna happen. Bush may be seriously seriously wrong about a lot of stuff, but fortunately he is not as wacko as some of you on the extreme right wing.
Katherine -
“Amen to what you say. As to ìThe Iranians are murderers posing as a governmentî it seems to be typical for the mankind throughout the history, doesnít it?”
I wouldn’t say typical, especially since at least the time of the Magna Carta. Most western peoples have suffered more at the hands of their governments’ inefficiencies than outright tyranny. Nations must adopt government of some sort; man is awfully adept at reaching for dreams and it’s just the luck of the draw that we only infrequently get Alexanders, Lenins, Napoleans, and Hitlers. Actual industrial scale murder as a tool of domestic governance seems limited to the ideologues least interested in the world they actually live in.
Hitler had his master race, Marx preached the godless religion of collectivism, and the Chinese… well, Mao envisioned a China ruled from one chair. He out- lorded the warlords.
We enjoy our liberties not because of the sterling qualities of our elected leadership, but as a result of the strengths inherent in our system of direct electoral control, followed by the restraints imposed by seperation of powers.
I am deeply, starkly, disturbed by the evolution of the courts into an unrestricted legislature and executive rolled into one.
cobbii -
I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that I’m the scariest right winger you read here over the last couple of days.
I don’t think liberals are evil. I know who the evil people are, at least in the struggle between western democracy and Islamic jihadism/ transnational terrorism, thank you very much. As far as liberals per classic contemporary definitions (you need to hang out here for awhile and find out how that argument is going, and contribute) are concerned, I believe that the party running as progressive liberals has proven incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the offices they seek.
They like the power. It’s that results thing that really trips them up.
Welcome, and feel free to grab an axe and join the discussion.
cobbiii,
Who here said anything about us “invading Iran” or “letting the Israelis nuke their cities”? Really, can you even read??
Bush is not seriously wrong about much of anything, and Roger and his commenters are “xxxtremely right” only in the sense of getting it correct so often.
Yes, I can read. Can you? Take a closer look at the posts above:
From ahem:
I think this is the last act and that Israel is playing the lead. (This links to article with title ‘Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran’).
From TmjUtah:
The only conclusion that I can come to as far as what an Israeli response will be to ANY attack that threatens their ability to conduct a defense is nothing short of a doomsday scenario. Dirty bombs delivered via one-way IDAF missions and missile strikes will target as many Arab population centers…
Note the words ‘ANY attack that threatens…’. This is pretty wide open, you can claim just about anything is a ‘threat’ to your ability to conduct a defense.
He also asserts emphatically that
Iran under the mullahs will NOT become a nuclear power
Well, given the fact that Iran has extensive, hardened underground facilities, including some near population centers, they just aren’t all going to be taken out with a few nice and neat surgical strikes. If the Iranians are determined to get the bomb, the only sure way to stop them is to invade. Fortunately, that’s just not gonna happen, because it would make an already bad situation a total nightmare.
TmjUtah:
Well thanks for the welcome, that is hospitable of you. Also, if you don’t think liberals are evil then you certainly aren’t as bad as some I’ve come across. I look forward to the discussion and honestly hope to gain some idea about why you conservatives think the way you do.
This links to article with title ‘Israel must be prepared for an air strike on Iran’
cobbiii,
Don’t you think you’re seriously confusing the calls for an air strike against Iran’s nuclear sites to stop/ slow down the Mullahs’ nuclearization program with some absurd notion that Israel would want to “nuke (Iranian) cities” to prevent same? Precise terminology matters, unless you believe that Israel or commenters here would like to murder millions of Iranians with whom we sympathize and tempt the end-times…
Invasion is one of the least desirable choices we’re faced with, so no worry.
charlotte:
Well I am glad to hear you voicing some concerns for the potentially horrific consequences of nuclear strikes in Iran. Now, I hope that you might acknowledge that in the posts above, there are numerous statements that clearly talking about war. In addition to the ones I listed above, here are some more:
Rick Ballard:
What I do know is that all the opposing parties are just as militarily hollow as Iraq was. The question is ‘Who will oversee the aftermath?’
Luther McLeod:
Lines being drawn in the sand…Liberty is at stake, perhaps a more nefarious threat/danger than any we have faced before…He needs to put us on a war footing
If that isn’t a whole lot of rhetoric for war with Iran, I don’t know what is. It sounds just like the buildup to the Iraq war.
cobbiii
So, you evidently have a problem with lines being drawn. I suppose you would prefer the lack of drawing lines of the last thirty years or so. Yes, that was quite successful wasn’t it.
I have reread the thread and have failed to find anyone advocating for the use of nuclear weapons, there was discussion of ‘possibilities’ in relation to responses to attacks, but no calls for ‘first strikes’.
You appear to be quite able at cherry picking quotes out of context, perhaps it would be useful if you were to take awhile to read and reflect on the ‘opinions’ written here before antagonizing and stereotyping.
cobbiii: If that isn’t a whole lot of rhetoric for war with Iran, I don’t know what is. It sounds just like the buildup to the Iraq war.
It’s supposed to.
The only thing you have to wrap your head around to figure out where most of the commenters here come from is something tmjutah (I think) mentioned early in the thread: your decision not to use violence does not necessarily affect the other person’s decision one way or the other. Clearly advertising yourself as unarmed, defenseless, and rich while strolling down the street does not protect you from muggers.
This leads to a basic principle when dealing with wars and the leadup to them (or not): never take anything off the table. If you have an enemy — an opponent who wishes you harm — saying that there is some tactic you will never use allows that enemy to divert resources from defending against the now-nonexistent threat and use them to support harming you more effectively. If they suspect that you may use some tactic to harm them (or defend yourself) they must use those resources to counter that.
The absolute ideal is the same as yours: not to go to war. Military people are as lazy as anyone else. It’s much better to lie about the barracks and tell stories than to actually get out there and get shot at in the midst of really heavy labor. But in the real world, if you have a real enemy — as we do in Iran; the reasons don’t matter any more, at this point — the best way to avoid a war is to convince that enemy that he cannot prosecute war successfully, that any attempt to do so will result in disaster for him. If you can convince your enemy of that, no war happens and the soldiers can go out drinking.
Note that that principle works whether you are attacking or defending. In this case, if you think GWB and his advisors genuinely want to go and kill people, you’ve been listening to Michael Moore for too long. Bush has told you, and the world, what he wants. Despite the “lie” criticism, a fair assessment of what he’s done matches what he says he wants. In case you’re confused, this is what the word “integrity” means.
As for the “lights out” analogy above, the mullahs have specifically, repeatedly, and pointedly stated that what they want nuclear weapons for is to destroy Israel with. You can whimper about why that is until the cows come home without affecting the situation, which is that Israel will defend itself; where you and I probably differ is that I consider that proper and appropriate, whereas you would probably be content to see the Jews driven into the sea.
So we want to sound convincingly bellicose, because that gives us the best chance of not having to fight. It worked with Khaddaffi.
Regards,
Ric
cobbii -
I have to get to bed – I’m back in the economy again – but if you feel up to heading over to a dyed- in- the- wool- never- been- anything- but- conservative blog, please check out one of today’s offerings by Kim DuToit and you’ll have a fair understanding of where I stand on the use of American power as it relates to the question of how to best protect democracy – not just our own security.
cobbii -
I missed this one -
“He also asserts emphatically that Iran under the mullahs will NOT become a nuclear power.”
I didn’t say that. The President of the United States did. On more than one occassion.
And I’ll tell you what would constitute an attack that might threaten Israel’s ability to defend itself: any WMD strike that results in a loss of communication between the political leadership and defense forces, or prevents the mobilization of the IDF reserve.
If LA or NYC was to get vaporized tomorrow I’d be horrified, sitting here in central Utah. Ditto for a dozen simultaneous outbreaks of smallpox scattered across major western cities. We would be horrified and hurt and angry but we’d still have enough redundant communication, transport, and emergency services to cope. We’d definitely be able to hit back; probably at our liesure, too, in order to make sure we had the right targets.
There are around nine (maybe eleven?) million people living in Israel. They are surrounded by over three hundred million Arabs who have spent the last half century trying to kill them. It is less than a half hour from Damscus to Tel Aviv via jet fighter. Ditto Cairo. Truck convoys can carry thousands of men the same distance in a matter of hours. Ditto Jordan. Saudi Arabia has a U.S. equipped air force. Pakistan is a nuclear power already. Egypt’s army has cross trained with ours, and has been equipped with some of our systems.
The Israelis must practice MAD at a level of ferocity that we can only have nightmares about. They have no defense of depth, unlike us. They depend on the ability to outfight a conventional attack by being able to concentrate and destroy threats in detail – by using interior lines to prevent their enemies from achieving penetration on any border. An attack that removes that capability via contamination/contagion/sheer obliteration of urban centers is not an event the Israelis will survive.
They will not go alone. Count on it.
Luther McLeod:
If in using those quotes I have misrepresented the opinions of those posters, then I apologize in advance. However, let’s be up front about what is really being talked about here. To the posters that I quoted above, are your supporting war against Iran or not? I have yet to hear a direct response to that. Specifically, if limited airstrikes on Iran weapons bunkers fail to eliminate their capability to get the bomb, what then? Would you support major military action to stop them from getting it or not?
Ric Locke:
Sure, ‘never take anything off the table’ can make sense. What does not make sense is if the other guy feels that military action is your primary way of dealing with a conflict. If it is, then they are going to respond in kind. At that point, war, of one sort or another, may needlessly become a foregone conclusion.
As to you speculating that I would probably be content to see the Jews driven into the sea, where the heck do you get that? You know nothing about my attitude towards Jews, or Israelis, or Palestinians, for that matter. For the record, I would like both Israelis and Palestinians to coexist in peace.
TmjUtah:
Thanks for the suggestion. I may check out that blog at some point, but I don’t know how many conservative blogs I am up for at this time.
TmjUtah:
The Israelis must practice MAD at a level of ferocity that we can only have nightmares about
On this point, I am in total agreement with you. However, we probably differ in what one should conclude from this. Israel is tiny. Their back is against the wall. I agree that they need a powerful effective military to defend themselves.
Here is where we probably start disagreeing:
Relying on the military solution alone is not going to save Israel in the long run. I don’t care how many sophisticated early warning sensors, unmanned AI drones with high powered lasers, or dispersed clouds of self-replicating nanobots they develop, sooner or later, if they don’t find a way towards a peaceful resolution with their enemies, they are gonna get smoked by some kind of WMD with a 30 mile kill radius.
What is really really interesting is that the Israel nightmare security scenario is a possible destination that we in the USA could be heading towards. We don’t want or need to go down that path. But if your global political strategy is ‘use military power first and diplomacy second’, that’s exactly where we are going to end up. And in the long run, it won’t save us either.
TmjUtah – John W. North HS 1970 – Riverside, CA
R.E. Lee HS must be one extraordinary place or you’ve done some OJT courtesy of Uncle Sam.
cobbil – Ante up if you’re going play and not sit on the sidelines as a spectator.
Place your bets everyone. My money’s on the Iranian people to effect a Regime Change.
GAME ON – Let’s Rock!
TMJUtah -
In a book I read recently about the Yom Kippur war, it was said that Golda Meir and Co were at one time contemplating the Doomsday Defense before they managed to get things turned around. So I am sure you are right about their current thinking.
cobbiii
I realize this is a waste of pixels…but just for the record.
I fail to see how anything I said above was advocating for war, with Iran or any other nation.
You did see me advocate for seriousness in our posture. This would include, but not be limited to, drawing lines in the sand and having a populace and military that are willing and capable of acting as necessary to protect the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I don’t think I need to worry about the military. I don’t think I need to worry about GWB.
I do think I need to worry about a large segment of the population of this country that thinks/feels that there are no dangers confronting the U.S. The same segment of the population that feels diplomacy is the answer to all tensions in this world. Diplomacy, without a big stick behind it, will accomplish little or nothing against the dangers that we face.
TmjUtah and Ric Locke said it much better than I ever could. We have to be prepared and willing to take whatever actions are most appropriate for preserving the freedoms that we all enjoy.
And, also just for the record, if it were up to me we would be signing bi-lateral defense agreements with Israel and Taiwan tomorrow. An attack against them would be the same as an attack against us. No questions asked.
And please do understand, other than the vote, I have absolutely no power or influence to effect the course of events in this country. But I am certainly entitled to have an opinion and to express the same. Unless Roger kicks me off, of course.
Luther McLeod:
I hope that I’m beginning to understand where you are coming from. You are not advocating war with Iran, but you believe we must appear strong and be ready to fight a war if we or our allies are attacked. Correct me if I’m still getting this wrong.
This position, on the face of it, is not all that objectionable to most people, including some fraction of progressive liberals. But generalizations are one thing and specific decisions are quite another. You have still failed to answer my direct question above, which is:
Assuming that limited air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities fail to prevent them from getting the bomb, do you support going to war against Iran to stop them from getting the bomb?
I believe this is a fairly straightforward question. The bellicose nature of the posts above are precisley what motivated me to ask this question. After reading your posts, I was truly led to wonder whether you (and the others) would actually support a full war against Iran if it came down to it.
You have admirably gone on the record in support of defense agreements with Israel and Taiwan, why can’t you also offer a direct opinion to the question above? Don’t worry, I won’t tell the Iranians about your opinion, so you won’t be compromising our political strategy.
For the record, I would definitely be against going to war with Iran in that case. While it is a very bad thing for them to get the bomb, the consequences of going to war against them would simply be a whole lot worse.
While it is a very bad thing for them to get the bomb, the consequences of going to war against them would simply be a whole lot worse.
Cobbiii, How do you figure? The consequences of the Mullahs getting the bomb may mean intimidation of the oil producing Arab nations, intimidation of Europe (within range of their missiles), proliferation (for ex. Chavez has been awfully chummy with the bearded ones lately), an attack on Israel and ensuing conflagration, and terrorists striking the US (and Europe) with nuke tech supplied by the clerics of doom. What do you think the theo-fascists want the bomb for? And, once they have it, going to war with them would be “a whole lot worse”, if not impossible. Most/all of us would not advocate invading Iran, especially since other options are on the table, but the only gains Euro diplomacy has afforded anyone is time and cover for the Mullahs to keep developing their nuclear tech as fast as they can. They want to get the bomb before Bush can marshal the political will and military resources to stop or slow down their program.
We’re probably engaged in special ops, as we speak.
cobbiii
Why you should single out the most inarticulate and least skilled writer here to pursue your point is beyond me. Or, maybe I just answered my own question. Please do not judge this blog and its commenters based on anything I may write.
Before responding to your question let me clarify one thing. Pre 9/11 I would possibly have been raising the same questions as yourself. I am not alone here. You really should take the time to peruse the archives here at Roger’s place, there are many who may have had viewpoints similar to yours prior to that date.
We live and we learn.
First off, I see nothing inherently wrong about being bellicose on occasion. Its human.
Second, the stated national aspiration of the government of Iran is the annihilation of Israel. I take them at their word. Note, I did not say the people of Iran.
Third, in consideration of the goals of Iran and my stated preference for the continuation of Israel as a nation-state, then the answer to your question is rather obvious. Yes, I personally, would go to war to prevent the obliteration of Israel or major attacks to the U.S.A.
So, there you have it.
But I will ask you, how could the consequences of going to war with Iran be worse than the obliteration of Israel or the entirely feasible likelyhood of nuclear attacks on the major cities of Europe? Does the answer depend entirely on one’s political viewpoint?
charlotte:
How do you figure?
Well, here are some reasons why. First, Iran could make things a whole lot more unpleasant for our troops in Iraq. If you think Syrians and die-hard Baathists cause trouble, wait till you see what large numbers of Iranian agents working with Iraq Shiites could do. Iraq is enough of a mess already.
Second, Iran could indirectly cause trouble through Hezbollah, which is generally acknowledged to be more potentially more dangerous than Al Qaeda.
Third, China and Iran are heavily engaged in future deals for oil. China is already suspected of giving nuclear support to Iran. Do you want to take on China too?
Fourth, our invasion of Iraq has already caused many other regional powers to question us, with the result that they are forming stronger alliances with each other. If we invade Iran, you better believe that Russia, Europe, India and China and others will start to perceive the US as seriously out of control, and they will ramp up their own military power in response.
All of this hurts us a lot more than the ‘Mad Mullahs’ of Iran, who sooner or later are going to be removed from power by their own people. Going to war against Iran now would be insane.
By the way, don’t fool yourself into thinking that our special ops can somehow sneak into Iran and take out all of the underground weapons facilities. That is a Tom Clancy fantasy.
It always amazes me how conservatives tend to portray the latest ‘bad guys’ as the worst threat to civilization that we have ever faced. At one time, the same things were said about the fanatical brainwashed hordes of Red China. It sounds suspiciously like war-time propaganda to me.
cobbiii
Well I wish I had read your response to Charlotte before I responded to you. I knew better but did it anyway. It looks as if your solution is to do nothing and let the world run rampant and roughshod, let’s all quiver in our little holes. Screw that. We, if we wanted to and had national unity, could take them all on, and win. You really have no idea how reticent we are being.
Luther McLeod:
Luther, I had no intention of singling you out, I was merely responding to your post. Also, you shouldn’t consider yourself inarticulate, your writing seems perfectly capable to me.
Your most recent post is finally helping me to understand your position. I gather that you feel war with Iran is necessary because you believe that the moment they get the bomb, they will use it on Israel.
So this is the real question, isn’t it? I think we both can agree that the ‘Mad Mullahs’ will be perfectly aware that the inevitable response of Israel will be a horrific counterstrike against Iran, most likely destroying most of the Iranian population.
So then the next question is, are the Mad Mullahs a completely irrational and suicidal gang who will happily insure the destruction of all of their own people, nation and culture just to take out Israel? Let me ask you, do you really believe that? Saying you want to get rid of the state of Israel is one thing. Actually doing it, knowing full well that you will be insuring the destruction of your own people is quite another. Has it occurred to you that the ‘Mad Mullahs’ were just being ‘bellicose’ when they made that statement? As you have said, that is something humans do.
Not the worst threat we have ever faced. A real threat, not dissimilar to the nazis, Japanese, or communists, and one that must be confronted and defeated. Not accomadated. Not respected. Not appeased.
I want the killing to end. I understand that waiting until the Iranians no longer depend on anonymity in execution of their murders but instead warn, “we’ll NUKE you if you interfere with our agenda” is not an acceptable option.
As far as the heavy lifting of regime change actually may work out – I think that after Syria is chased out of Lebanon by the Lebanese and the Syrians begin to take a hard look at the Ba’athists the Iranians may end up following suit. And we will be there to help and support them.
We, if we wanted to and had national unity, could take them all on, and win
You really think that we could take on all of those regional powers that I listed? If you really believe that, you might want to consider more carefully what a real world war between the US and the other major powers in the world would entail.
I suppose we could mobilize the entire country for war, draft every male between the ages of 17 and 55, redirect our entire economy, just forget that most of our debt is financed by foreigners, and somehow ramp up our domestic energy production to make up for the disruptions in foreign oil, then fight the good fight against the rest of the world until we are victorious!
Yeah, let’s do that.
TmjUtah:
I am all for supporting the Iranian people to overthrow their current government and establish a democracy. The best way to sabotage that would be to engage in military attacks against Iran. The Iranian people, even though they hate their current government, are a proud and nationalistic people. If attacked, they would rally to their current government instead of overthrowing it.
Then the Iranians had better get moving, hadn’t they?
“Has it occurred to you that the ‘Mad Mullahs’ were just being ‘bellicose’ when they made that statement? As you have said, that is something humans do.”
First time I’ve ever heard a decades- long track record of domestic repression and exported murder characterized as “bellicose”.
They kill people, cobbii. They’ve been doing it as state policy since I was in high school, and they are hell bent on increasing their capability for murder by several score orders of magnitude.
They don’t kill for land. They don’t kill in pursuit of justice. They kill at home to ensure conformity, or at least to prevent organized resistance. They export the hatred and hopelessness that is the natural product of a system that denies individuals the basic rights we so take for granted.
They export that which they could not survive where it allowed to focus on the real purveyors of evil on the stage.
There can’t be a peaceful (reference your post about Israel’s burden, above) solution with people whose stated intent is to finish Hitler’s work. There is victory, or defeat. You might as well have run down to Atlanta and thrown your body across the door of the townhouse that the whackjob who did the courthouse shooting was hole up in, and demanded the police negotiate with him as an equal.
Some people you talk to. Others you just shoot.
The later is what needs to happen to the mullahs. Before they are able to kill millions at a blinding white pop.
There’s been a lot of talk about how Bush will be measured by history. Cobbii, if it were a matter of defeating the people of the entire region, and their allies of convenience or the moribund western states that might seek some political advantage by shafting us, we could have done that already. We are awfully good at killing people we need to kill, Cobbii, and if post 9/11 there had been just a little more anthrax, maybe a few spot blooms of smallpox, a dirty bomb in London… that is exactly what we would have done.
Bush recognised that the goats must be seperated from the sheep so we didn’t fight a good old war of annihalation against Islam. We took the fight to the men who held the power to create the hell that generated the terror. Have taken, are taking today, and will continue to hammer on tomorrow.
The Arab street isn’t that monolithic, homocidal mob we’ve been trained to expect, is it? Not in Afghanistan, or Iraq, and certainly not in Lebanon. Just people. Just people who deserve better than to be a sacrificial throng of pawns in front of a sickly thin rank of corrupt and evil dictators and homicidal mystics.
The world is changing. I think it’s a fabulous thing that you and I may disagree on such a fundamental issue. I can only speak for myself, but my opinions on this matter are deeply held – but the thought that I might have the right to prevent you from expressing yours – or worse, physically coerce or punish you to suppress your expression would never cross my mind.
We take so much for granted. Too much, oft times.
I believe that the number of people able to enjoy this same level of spirited debate will have grown by many millions before too many more years have passed, and will be proud that I supported the actions that enabled them to achieve that state of freedom.
A pleasure to disagree, of course.
TmjUtah:
First time I’ve ever heard a decades- long track record of domestic repression and exported murder characterized as “bellicose”.
I didn’t use the word “bellicose” to refer to a decades-long track record of domestic repression and exported murder. I used that word with regard to specific threats made by Iran against Israel.
Now, you have gone on at length about how the current Iranian government kills people, denies basic human rights and exports hatred and hopelessness. Unfortunately, they are by no means unique in this. Before you can claim that war against Iran is justified, you need to provide a little more justification than that.
Rational and honorable nations don’t go to war against others based upon general dangers posed by evil leaders. They undertake the horrific consequences of war based upon specific and imminent threats. That is what distinguishes such nations from the very evil that you speak of. You have yet to provide such specific justifications for a war against Iran.
As I have said previously, which you have conveniently ignored, a first strike by Iran against Israel will prove totally suicidal. I ask you directly, what specific evidence can you provide to demonstrate that Iran will engage in a first strike against Israel if they acquire the bomb?
cobbiii,
What “assurances” do you have that the Mullahs won’t strike Israel as they’ve promised in the past they’d do, won’t engage in regional political intimidation and also oil economic warfare against western interests, won’t target Europe with its long-range missiles for blank check concessions, and won’t give a few of the many terrorists they support nuke tech to take out an American/European/Israeli city or two? Why do you think they are risking us taking them out just to get the bomb?
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a “rational and honorable” regime. Is it your contention that for us to be rational and honorable, that we or Israel be sitting ducks for our avowed, terror-sponsoring enemies? Was the US rational and honorable in allowing North Korea to get nuclearized, despite/because of our “treaty” with them? Do we not bear responsibility for their proliferation under our “honorable” noses, and do we have any real options in how we diffuse the danger Kim Jong Il poses now that he is weaponized?
TmjUtah,
You scare me sometimes. It’s only a very few people that can see thru the haze, the dire strategic consequences of the Mad Mullahs going nuclear.
BTW if you want to chew on and help on something else more in the US that may effect us all (compromised domestic vaccines), check this link out:
Link Here
*****
cobbii
Don’t want to beleaguer the others who have heard this before from me ad nauseam, but do read these two essays:
FREEDOM – Thanks to the Greatest Generation for Perserving It
GEO-POLITICAL STRATEGIC ANALYSIS ON WAR ON TERROR
Link Here
In short, cobbii, Suck it up!.
If you have the time to engage in these esoteric discussions, how aboutto supporting a worthwhile effort. This can be done right from your keyboard. This just may cause the regime of the Mad Mullahs of Iran to collapse. We are at a “tipping point.”
Link Here
charlotte:
Since you have failed to provide any specific details of impending threats, or answered my question relating to the deterrence issue above, your argument boils down to “We are justified in going to war against Iran because they might threaten us and others”.
Fortunately, the United States is not going to act based on the arguments you have given, because you need a little more justification than such ‘generalities’ for starting a major war.
Ron Wrght:
I will check out those links.
charlotte:
To answer one of your questions,
Was the US rational and honorable in allowing North Korea to get nuclearized, despite/because of our “treaty” with them?
The answer is emphatically YES. Nobody wanted North Korea to get the bomb, but think about the alternative. Our option was to bomb their facilities. In response, they would have unleashed a massive artillery assault on South Korean, killing who knows how many innocent civilians. Then we would have had a nasty little ground war for a while. If too many innocents were killed, people in China would start to get pissed. Who knows where it might lead from there.
The fact that we couldn’t just go in and bomb them proves my point about how even George Bush is not going to do the same in Iran. Mutual Assured Destruction works, even with evil paranoid dictators. And what most certainly doesn’t work is alienating and antagonizing other regional powers by engaging in wars without sufficient justification.
It’s not Iran but it’s in the neighbourhood:
http://www.free-lebanon.com/
“Coup d’ Etat took place in Damascus late last night. Intelligence reports coming from within the Syrian Military Command indicate the following:
“A rebellion split The Syrian Army in two factions .
“Since yesterday , Damascus is under the de facto control of the Syrian Army, under the command of Syrian Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan, and supported by Syrian Intelligence General Rustom Ghazaleh, Syrian military General Ali Safi, and Firas Tlass son of former Minister of Defence, Mustafa Tlass. The group rebelled against the decision of President Bashar el Assad to withdraw from Lebanon and seized the Damascus military yesterday.
“Around 3 am, Damascus time, the Syrian Air Force bombarded two military airfields around Damascus, the Air force base of Dumair, and the Air force base of Katana. Also, late night around 3 am, the Syrian Air force bombarded military positions of the Syrian Army west of the city of Homs.
“President Bachar el Assad retreated secretly to the city of Aleppo where he is temporarily holding ground. He is massing special forces troops loyal to him and preparing himself to take back Damascus by force .
“The Syrian President left in Damascus his brother in Law, Syrian Military Intelligence Chief General Assef Shawkat to negotiate a settlement with the dissidents. The situation within the Syrian military was very tense for a week and exploded yesterday. The dissident group took control of Damascus as they were very upset at the Lebanon withdrawal for they left behind a billion dollar industry…”
Apparently, if this is true and can be believed, there’s a complete blackout of communications about this from Damascus. And the army is returning posthaste!
If it’s true, Iran may have to send reinforcements to Damascus or if they’ve got they’re hands full at home in Tehran and elsewhere, Assad will be on his own. It doesn’t look good for him!
foreign devil,
Good/ scary news coming out of Syria. Do we have any idea who the rebelling faction of the army is supporting in Assad’s stead?
cobbiii,
Your logic is brilliant: we shouldn’t prevent the likes of North Korea or the Mullahs from becoming nuclearized because military strikes are so undesirable. We should just accept that brutal regimes and terror-sponsoring states will get the bomb with which to intimidate, proliferate, and kill en masse. Nothing else to do, but exclaim that all war is bad, bad, bad and know that MAD will forever protect us from suitcase nukes and Israel from one devastating strike. Sure thing.
Btw, where did I say we should start a major war with Iran, as you say I did? IF the Mullahs don’t back off from their nuke program and IF Iranians can’t/don’t remove the Mullahs from power soon and IF sabotage can’t effectively hamper their progress, then many here (not all) would see military strikes as a necessary and imperfect action to take against their nuke production facilities. If you characterize that as starting a major war with Iran, then I’ll call your objections to preventing the nuclearization of rogue regimes abject capitulation to whatever may come. You would surrender before even trying to bomb their facilities. You would be a useful victim.
charlotte:
You would surrender before even trying to bomb their facilities
Deciding not to initiate war is NOT the same thing as surrendering. That is ridiculous.
I said: “…then I’ll call your objections to preventing the nuclearization of rogue regimes abject capitulation to whatever may come. You would surrender before even trying to bomb their facilities.”
In other words, you would capitulate to whatever consequences would ensue from the wrong people having nuclear bombs and bad intentions, because you would not take the needed action to prevent their arming. If you don’t like the image of surrender, how about one of a sitting duck? Passive party, do-nothing, willing victim, dependent on the kindness of corrupt and sadistic Islamists, and more scared of bombing runs now than mushroom clouds later. Take your pick.
By the way, given the clear policy of both the US and Israel that the PRI not get the bomb, it’s the Mullahs who are starting something by proceeding pell-mell with their nuke program.
Charlotte:
Other than what was on that link, I have no more information. I went ont the FreeLebanon.org website message board and asked anyone on there to confirm. I’ll keep checking.
Thanks, foreign devil. Can you post what you find in a more recent thread?
cobbiii, I know you’ll forgive that I mistyped IRI above.
cobbiii
Yes, I made an absurd statement. But only because I can think of no conceivable situation that would enrage the US to the point of taking on most of the major countries of the world, and I am most certainly not even remotely suggesting such a thing. But if we were to do so, and do so with every weapon at our disposal, and do so with the fury with which we have on occasion engaged our past enemies, we could devastate a large portion of the civilized world and hold sway over the remainder. My statement was a rhetorical device with a grain of truth and written in a moment of emotion. Shame on me.
Frankly the reason I made that statement was due to your response to charlotte re: how insane it was to consider military action against Iran and your reasons for same. I disagree with your reasoning, strongly. The reason I disagree is not so much in the particulars as in the attitude. You just make a list of the negatives, which is usually a fairly simple thing to do. When engaged in complicated decisions with unknown and unpredictable results there is always the tendency to overemphasize the negatives and overlook the positives that will result. But there are times when one must work for the greater good and the end goal regardless of the possible negative consequences. I believe that we live in those times. We live in the time of drawing lines in the sand.
The US has spent the past 200+ years working out the difficulties involved in creating and fulfilling the possibilities of individual freedom and liberty. It has not been easy, and we are still working on it. And, ugly as it is at times, we are making progress.
I am just so tired of naysayers, I am tired of those who consider the US to be the most evil. We are not. I want the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Ukraine, China, N. Korea, all countries of the world, to enjoy the freedoms that we do. that’s my endgame. That’s my utopia.
I really intended to say much more, and perhaps say it better, but too much wine. Damn that American freedom.
charlotte:
If you don’t like the image of surrender, how about one of a sitting duck? Passive party, do-nothing, willing victim, dependent on the kindness of corrupt and sadistic Islamists…
Wrong again. If we chose not to initiate war against Iran and then were subsequently attacked by them, we would annihilate them. They would be utterly destroyed. That is not being a sitting duck, a passive party, a do-nothing, a willing victim, etc.
You are confusing a rational and justified basis for going to war with being helpless. We are anything but.
You said it perfectly, Luther.
cobbiii,
Are you saying we should wait for a nuclear attack on the US (as sitting ducks), tie it to Iran and then act against Iran? Wouldn’t we then have to kill many, many innocent Iranians in retaliation after many of our innocents were killed by the Mullahs? Why on earth do you not see preventive action against their nuclear production facilities as the more moral choice?
Luther McLeod:
But there are times when one must work for the greater good and the end goal regardless of the possible negative consequences. I believe that we live in those times. We live in the time of drawing lines in the sand.
I agree that we do need to draw a line in the sand at times. If we are attacked, we should fight. If our allies are attacked, we should fight. If helpless countries are invaded by aggressors, we should fight. If evil despots are threatening IMMINENT attack, we should fight.
But I draw the line the other way, too. If there are cruel dictatorships that we don’t like, that does not give us the right to attack first. If there are only general worries about WMD somewhere, that does not gives us the right to invade some country unilaterally. It is just as important to draw a line in the sand against unjustified pre-emptive attack as it is for self-defense.
Why on earth do you not see preventive action against their nuclear production facilities as the more moral choice?
If their nuclear facilities could be taken out with a clean surgical airstrike that didn’t cause significant civilian casualties or require a ground war, I don’t think that I would have a problem with that. The problem is that it’s not likely to be doable.
The Iranians are completely aware of the past Israeli attack on the Iraq nuclear facilities. They are not stupid. They have multiple hardened hidden underground facilities, some near population centers. You aren’t going to be able to take them out with a nice neat airstrike.
The preventative action that would be required involves a much larger war, and the horrific consequences of that are the reason why it would not be the moral choice.
No one said anything about a nice, neat airstrike that would extinguish the threat. Airstrikes in combo with ground sabotage would probably slow and not completely remove the Mullahs’ nuclear progress.
Still, slowing the program down to allow for internal regime change would be far better than waiting for the Mullahs to get the bomb with which to wreak all sorts of intimidation or terror havoc, doncha think? Appparently not. You think we’d be more moral to let them get the big one and do what they will. We can kill millions of them in retaliation, need be. Clean souls, ours.
Nuclear armament by rogue, despotic regimes constitutes “imminent threat”, but you’re stuck in a conventional warfare mindset. Once a power has the bomb to put on a long-range missile or to give to terrorists, there is no effective military answer at that point. There is no war one can wage without unspeakable mass slaughter.
Prevention, my friend, is the braver, more moral answer.
charlotte
“Prevention, my friend, is the braver, more moral answer.”
It took a long time for me to come to the conclusion you have just stated. Call me simple, but, growing up in the south oh so many years ago the appropriate response was to let ‘them’ strike the first blow. One never started a fight, but one always tried to end it. That is an outdated ‘gestalt’. Prevention is the cure. It is more efficient. It is more humane.
cobiii
“It is just as important to draw a line in the sand against unjustified pre-emptive attack as it is for self-defense.”
I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement. I do think it is a great deal more complicated than presented. I would guess that that statement is directed towards the policies of the US in the last few years, and on that point I would disagree most vociferously. Unless we are willing to take innumerable casualties, so that we have ‘honor’ on our side before striking back at the evil that threatens us, then preemption is the proper course of action.
We must not fear that which is right.
And on that insufficient note, I am going to bed.
Nuclear armament by rogue, despotic regimes constitutes “imminent threat”, but you’re stuck in a conventional warfare mindset.
I’ll dispute the ‘conventional warfare mindset’ part. I actually think a great deal about the current trajectory of technological development and its implications for warfare. I have training and experience as an engineer, computer programmer and molecular biologist. One of the major considerations in my political views is the belief that increasingly powerful technologies will become available to smaller and smaller nations and groups of people.
What this means is that in this next century, the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them will extend to larger and larger numbers of nations, corporations and other kinds of political and economic entities.
As this happens, I maintain that your ‘Post 9/11′ mindset of pre-emptive strike against those you consider to be rogue despotic nations in possession of WMD will have the following consequences:
It will require increasingly aggressive military action on the part of the United States against a growing array of potential enemies. By launching pre-emptive attacks against any and all groups that you claim to be rouge, despotic and in possession of WMD, even if they have not actually attacked the United States, you will actually create new and more determined enemies where they did not exist before. The unjustified use of force will make us less safe. It will make real the very threats that it is attempting destroy.
Refer to my previous post above about the nightmare security scenario of Israel. If the United States continues to act unilaterally to wage war in defiance of the rest of the world, we will ultimately be surrounded by enemies, and we will have guaranteed the destruction of our own security.
Luther McLeod:
I do think it is a great deal more complicated than presented.
Well, I agree with that. And on that note, I am going to be too.
Oh, cobbii gives us the “don’t stop them from nuclear arming because they might dislike us if we do, even though they already hate us when we haven’t” argument.
Sigh.
Of course, the situation is “complicated”. But choices cannot be avoided, even when they’re difficult.
cobbiii,
You are far too worried about other nations not liking us. Are you not sensing that our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq may have won us more friends than enemies on the “Arab street”, counter to what the Arabist and foreign policy “experts” told us? A show of strength and offering of better principles may win the day yet in the ME/ SW Asia. The idea that our projecting hard power and so-called hegemonic political values would be alienating to other populations is becoming as outdated as pacifism/ passivism and racism. Perhaps there are, indeed, some universals that appeal to the Middle Easterners, such as enjoying civil liberties and voting choice and freedom that are afforded as a result of war, revolution and sacrifice.
If much of Europe is off-put by our show of strength against terror-supporting regimes, it is only because they are embarrassed that they elect to do and can do nothing. Their social welfare programs take precedence over protecting against prickly external security threats, especially when they know the US will protect them in the end. And so they complain, because they know they’re shielded from the terrible consequences of their fecklessness. To listen to them is to buy into their foolishness and to promulgate their selfish bad policy. Two world wars on account of the Europeans is enough. We need to secure our interests (and those of the world) by taking care of business before situations slide into global conflagrations and hopelessness.
charlotte:
You are far too worried about other nations not liking us. Are you not sensing that our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq may have won us more friends than enemies on the “Arab street”
I am definitely NOT sensing much friendship towards us from the Arab street. I would be very curious to see any significant evidence to the contrary that you might have.
As far as being worried about other nations not liking us, that’s not a correct characterization of my concerns. We are currently the supreme military power on the planet, but that superiority masks some real vulnerabilities and dependencies that we have with respect to the rest of the world. Our debt is held by foreigners. Our economy is heavily dependent on foreign trade and foreign oil. That doesn’t mean others in the world can destroy us, but they can hurt us, directly and indirectly, if sufficiently motivated.
I think you seriously misjudge both the potential resolve and the growing power of Europeans. They may have complained with liberal indignation about our presumptive actions in Iraq, but they grudgingly acquiesced because Saddam was undeniably a monster who held his people in an inescapable grip of paralytic fear, and had demonstrated actual aggression towards his neighbors.
Iran is quite a different story. Opposition exists there, and the possibility for peaceful change towards freedom is real in a way that it was not in Iraq. If we poison that possibility with another presumptive military action, along with its inevitable consequence of chaos and destruction in Iran, the attitude of Europe and others will shift dramatically in a way that we have not seen before. Their superficial criticism will be replaced by true outrage and alarm at this excess use and consequence of US military power. This outrage will translate into collective determination to work against the United States. The good will of people in countries around the world is not something to be dismissed lightly, especially that of one’s previous allies.
Europe is not just sitting by helplessly. While we are squandering hundreds of billions of dollars waging war around the world, they quietly continue to strengthen their infrastructure and grow their economies. Military power ultimately derives from economic and technological power.
With regards to technology, antagonising other nations can also hurt us in another way. In pre-WWII Germany, antisemitism caused many jewish and non-jewish scientists to flee to other countries. Some of those scientists were instrumental in developing the Atomic bomb and other world-changing technologies of war. Today, scientific research in the US is the strongest in the world, due in no small part to the contributions of foreigners who come here to study. But that trend is in decline, partly due to foreign antipathy to our aggressive military policy.
So I am worried about the consequences of pre-emptive military force by the United States. But the concern goes far beyond not being ‘liked’.
cobbiii,
In the best of all worlds, Iran undergoes a regime change on account of internal pressures (and external support for the people). But, absent that happening before the Mullahs fully nuclearize, your insistence on doing nothing leaves the US (and Israel) completely vulnerable to whatever the Mullahs may wish to do with their damnable technology. It isn’t far-fetched to imagine that their big bombs would be used for political intimidation in the region, to consolidate their despotic power at home, and that smaller, more mobile versions would be handed off to terrorists in an unattributable way.
Perhaps you believe the Mullahs are desperate for the tech for peaceful purposes, or that a swift and terrible counter strike would avenge whatever mass-murdering misdeed they may do with their nukes. There would be too many dead, in such a case, and a risk you are willing to take to avoid preventive actions that the Europeans would complain about because their diplomacy is working sooooooo well… When you write, “I think you seriously misjudge both the potential resolve and the growing power of Europeans. They may have complained with liberal indignation about our presumptive actions in Iraq, but they grudgingly acquiesced because Saddam was undeniably a monster…”, you only highlight how disgusting European/ leftist immorality is.
Also, I disagree that strikes to take out nuke facilities in Iran would necessarily work against US interests by shoring up nationalistic support for the regime. It’s very possible that many Iranians disaffected by the regime would be heartened by the blow to the Mullahs’ prestige and policies. If you read news on the Internet, you can find more and more reports of Afghanis, Iraqis, Lebanese, Iranians and more who are HAPPY with Bush’s policies in the region. Seriously, are you not picking up on the that trend? At any rate, I would sleep better knowing that the Mullahs’ rush to get mass killing bombs has been slowed down, and I think a lot of Europeans would, too, despite their tiresome anti-American rhetoric.
I can’t believe you think we should allow the Mullahs to weaponize, so that foreign antipathy toward the US might be slightly lessened and maybe more foreign scientists would come to our shores… to be sitting ducks, I guess. Anyway, that’s the most interesting argument I’ve read to date for allowing the Mullahs to get their hands on nuke tech and bombs.
charlotte:
you only highlight how disgusting European/ leftist immorality is.
Our current secretary of defense was caught on film smiling and shaking hands with the monster during the time he was committing some of his worst crimes, so please spare me your moral condemnation with respect to the Europeans.
Also, I disagree that strikes to take out nuke facilities in Iran would necessarily work against US interests by shoring up nationalistic support for the regime. It’s very possible that many Iranians disaffected by the regime would be heartened by the blow
I have stated quite clearly in my position that I am opposed to a war against Iran, not limited air strikes. The threat of a larger war is the issue here, as limited airstrikes and ground sabotage will not prevent the Iranians from going nuclear, as I have repeatedly stated before.
Any significant military action on our part against the Iranians would definitely work against our interests by arousing hatred of the Iranian people toward us. I find it so very curious that you on the one hand are so disturbed by the possiblity of violent attack on our soil that you advocate pre-emptive attack on another country, while at the same time you seem utterly blind to the outrage that would be produced in the hearts of the Iranian people by an attack on their homeland.
Do you really think it is in the hearts of the Iranian people that their corrupt, theo-fascist dictator Mullahs become nuclearized and even bigger bullies/ terrorists than they already are? Leftists told us the Arab street would rise up against us if we invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban. If we invaded Iraq and took out Saddam & Sons. If we with Yankee hubris promoted the doctrine of liberty and democratic reform in the autocratic, Islamist Middle East, etc.
Didn’t happen, unless you count the holdover Baathist-jihadi killers in Iraq. In fact, good things are starting to happen. The end results may be better than expected, or they may be mixed, but by no means are the dire predictions that Arabs will hate the US worse coming to pass. Many Persians, by and large, are educated, savvy and really tired of their Arab style Islamist government founded 25 years ago. My best friend from years ago whose father helped arrange the Revolution with Khomeini and who was a part of his Cabinet is now one of the leading dissidents in Iran for democratic liberalization. Yazdi is of the generation that will always blame the US, no matter what. But, students and women and young business owners and artists are very pro-US and anti-mullah. Their opinions of us may not appreciably change were we or Israel to protect ourselves and Iranians from the Mullahs’ nuclear ambitions. Or they may. Should we allow, in any event, our avowed enemies and terrorists to get nuke technology is the more critical question.
My moral condemnation of the Europeans stems not from old history, old Rummy handshakes and old weapons supply deals (with Europe and Russia, chiefly) that turned out to be not so old in the run-up to the war, but from the Europeans’ opposition to us taking out who you say they knew was a monster. He’d still be in power, if it were up to them. “Sure, he’s a monster, but he’s our monster and he opposes our nemesis, the USA.” If Chirac decided to take out Fidel or Mugabe and institute free and sovereign governances in their countries, would we try to stop him out of some twisted sense of morality? We could say, but Chirac hugged Mugabe last spring in Paris— there’s a photo of it! Leave Mugabe in power, you hypocrite—
…not from old history, old Rummy handshakes and old weapons supply deals…
Old Rummy. That’s pretty good. I’ll bet he could use it, too.
===== Transcript from upcoming press conference:
REPORTER: Sir, about that latest report on Abu Ghraib…
RUMMY: Excuse me, but all that was in 2004, under the Old Rummy. We are now in 2005. (pause) Does anyone here have a question for the New Rummy?
REPORTER: Sir, about that latest report on Abu Ghraib…
RUMMY: Excuse me, but all that was in 2004, under the Old Rummy. We are now in 2005. (pause) Does anyone here have a question for the New Rummy?
And this is relevant to the Mullahs’ quest for the big bomb how?
Should we sneer and scoff at France’s objections to our Iraq War because Chirac is a corrupt old bastard?
Wait a minute- his multi-billion dollar biz with Saddam might actually be relevant to why we should disdain French attitudes toward our policy.
But Rumsfeld is not directly responsible for the seven or so sicko Reservists at Abu Ghraib who are being prosecuted.
cobbiii
I haven’t had time to reenter the fray, and perhaps it is just as well.
You make some good points and it is interesting as brain excerise for me to attempt to rejoin with responses to your opinions.
But I’ll tell you what, if you are going to bring up old handshakes and harrasment labeled as torture…well it tells me you are running out of ideas. So, I don’t think I will waste my time.
charlotte
Well argued and well written posts.
cobbiii
I haven’t had time to reenter the fray, and perhaps it is just as well.
You make some good points and it is interesting as brain exercise for me to attempt to rejoin with responses to your opinions.
But I’ll tell you what, if you are going to bring up old handshakes and harassment labeled as torture…well it tells me you are running out of ideas. So, I don’t think I will waste my time.
charlotte
Well argued and well written posts.
Sorry for the double. Oh wait now its a triple.
Luther McLeod:
No, I’m afraid you’ve mistaken my concluding disgust for what you consider to be a lack of ‘ideas’.
charlotte:
Spirited discussion at times, but ultimately I see little that has been gained by either side, here at the end.
I’m home. I’m here, and by the time you read this I’ll be asleep.
“Spirited discussion at times, but ultimately I see little that has been gained by either side, here at the end.”
That’s too rich. Thanks for letting everyone know that you make the call on what is substantive, bud.
(free clue: I knew I’d see something along these lines before the conversation was finished.)
Please forgive my self- link, Mr. Simon.
Luther,
You should have joined in! Didn’t get around to discussing the oil warfare implications of the Mullahs’ nuclear shadow cast over Arab producers, especially together with their Chavez relationship and Venezuelan oil upon which we also depend. Cobbiii is worried about our international economic prospects were we to have to tussle with the Atomic Ayatollahs. I think he has it backwards.
Of course, we all hope the Iranian people deal with their theocrat thugs before we have to, doing themselves and the world the biggest favor. Imagine how desperate and unpredictable the Mullahs’ behavior might be were they in danger of being ousted from power by their own people and had access to nuclear arms. Would they launch at Israel for a national diversion or give the word to terrorists in the States to set off a few bombs in retaliation for our support to the democracy-minded Iranians? I don’t see them accepting their lot with any grace or mercy, somehow. One could always hope that their high level military would act more responsibly and didn’t harbor jihadist longing for everyone to die– Are there examples of dictators being deposed, besides the implosion of the USSR, who had access to nuclear arsenals? North Korea may be one to come. And now we hear that stable, non-fanatical Egypt and Saudi Arabia are trying to join the nuclear club…
TmjUtah, wonderful commentary at your Three Rounds Brisk! This should end on your note there. I see you’re going to get the chance to discuss his “concluding disgust” and maybe even Rummy’s handshake some more with cobbiii!
charlotte
Thanks for the invite! Alas work and sleep conspired in making me a watcher instead. Besides you had the situation well in hand. I hope cobbiii will read Roger and the commenter’s here for a while, there is much to learn and reflect on here. I must admit to losing patience now and again with the same old arguments (handshakes, etc.) being debated. I certainly agree with you about “international economic prospects” and someone having it backa**wards. The US is the lynch-pin of the world economy, after all our trade deficit is larger that most countries GDP. If we go down the world goes down. I also agree in hoping that the Iranian people take care of the Mullahs themselves, that would be the best way of course. I’ll say again, I’m just thankful that GWB is in the WH and not JF’nK, at least now we have options, had it turned out the other way we would be at the mercy of the nuanced Euroweenie view. It would be a truly depressing situation. At least now I have hope that, given the right nudges, the world may be a better place to live in for more folks in the years hence. I also agree that discussion re: “concluding disgust” over at TmjUtah’s place will be fun. Tmj is a heckuva good thinker and writer.