Bombing Iran a ‘Bad Idea’? Probably. But It’s the ONLY Idea
But let us return to Prof. Kaye’s argument. She continues:
Such an attack could also backfire by fomenting nationalist sentiment within Iran (particularly if large numbers of civilians are killed) and boost support for more hard-line elements within the regime that current policies are attempting to marginalize. It could also increase Iranian incentives to obtain nuclear weapons to avoid such attacks in the future, while undermining painstaking U.S. efforts to bolster international and regional support for economic and diplomatic pressure against Iran. In short, there are serious risks associated with this option with little potential to actually solve the problem, and possibly making it harder to solve in the future.
No-one can make such assertions with assurance. Nothing succeeds like success. If Britain and France had drawn the line at the Sudetenland in 1938, the German generals likely would have overthrown Hitler. But Kaye misses the point. Yes, the nuclear facilities are deeply entrenched. No, a surgical strike is out of the question. To destroy nuclear weapons capability means to decapitate the regime and the military leadership, with a lot of collateral damage. Five years ago we could have done it cleanly, when cancer was easily operable. Now we will have to make a mess.
Kaye’s final objection is trivial if not disingenuous:
A military strike would be particularly damaging in a post Arab spring environment, in which public opinion is already hostile toward U.S. policies. Even if Arab governments may quietly welcome forceful U.S. actions, Arab publics are far more sympathetic to Iran’s anti-Western positions. Despite Iran’s waning regional influence as Arab revolts and Turkish activism have decreased its relevance in the resistance narrative, Arab publics would likely rally behind Iran in the face of an attack. Additionally, they could constrain their governments’ ability to support US-backed efforts to isolate Iran.
She neglects to mention that the Saudis, now by far the most important Arab power, have been screaming at America for years to take action against Iran. The Syrian opposition, whose people are dying in the streets at the hands of Iranian thugs, won’t particularly mind, one would think.
Above all, it’s critical to keep in mind that Iran is a dying nation. As I report in How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too), Iran is suffering the fastest fertility decline on record, any time, ever. The average Iranian has six or seven brothers and sisters, but will have one or two children. The population pyramid will invert: within a single generation, it will go from having 7 children to take care of elderly parents, to just 1.5. And in a country where the average person has $4000 to spend per year, that means starvation. The Iranian leadership knows it. They’ve been screaming about it in public for years. Like Hitler, they think they have one last chance at empire before the curtain comes down. If they’re not stopped, millions of Americans might die.
Mr. Goldman…
Your posting is full of typos!
e.g., “There’s nothing [new] about this danger.”
“Iran [Iraq??] has effectively deterred the United States, and has become Iran’s “key ally” in its campaign to acquire nuclear weapons.”
WTF?
Thanks, made the corrections. That’s what happens when I write when I’m mad.
I hope you mean “angry” not “mad”. Yeah I know, I’m a nitpicker, but so are a lot of the opposition. We have to be careful.
Just started reading this article and comments… something happened to one comment I read… it disappeared. Someone had joked about your use of word “mad” – what happened to that comment? Did you delete it? Do you delete comments without advising readers what happened and why, if deleted??? Unusual for pjmedia writers if indeed that is what you did. Please advise us. Thx.
“…Iran is a terrorist state ready to murder American citizens and American allies …”
Ready to? Have they not been supplying sophisticated, (explosively formed projectile) IEDs for years? Is it Kaye’s argument, that so far as is known, no single Iranian national, even as a temporary mercenary attached to the Taliban or al-Qaeda, has ever killed an American, or one of its allies?
If you are correct that Iran is dying demographically, nuking up is their best move. NKorea has used their nuclear program for decades in a carrot/stick fashion to extract billions in food and fuel aid from us. Most of the aid of course is used by the leadership on themselves and their most loyal armed forces.
The problem is the Nork leaders want to be alive to enjoy their lifestyle, while Iranian leadership doesn’t seem to mind the prospect of being attacked after they nuke us.
When Israel took out the Iraqi reactor at Osirak in 1981 they were universally condemned.
Despite the very low number of casualties (11 including one French citizen) and the astonishing success of the mission, even the leading conservative western governments of Thatcher and Reagan blasted Israel publicly and in the UN. The sale of F-16s was halted although quietly resumed later.
The attack itself was risky in the extreme. Only 8 F-16s each equipped with 2 dumb, 2000lb gravity bombs hit the reactor which was heavily defended. The planes were not supposed to be able to cover the distance but at the last minute the US was persuaded to supply the extra conformal fuel tanks which allowed just barely enough range. The F-16s had to cross hostile Jordanian and Saudi airspace and reach the target deep inside Iraq. At one point they flew right over the Yacht of the Jordanian King who tried to call in a warning. There was no extra fuel for maneuvering so any defensive response would have been mission over.
Those days are over. We might as well shine up the rest of the Hummers and other goodies we are leaving behind in Iraq with a thank you note written in Farsi. We dont even have the guts to confront Assad which would do harm to the Iranian regime than an airstrike right now.
Obama is afraid of Iran. He likes his drones and no problem joining with the rest of the gang in beating the Duck to death, but he is totally intimidated by the Iranians who humiliate him every chance they get.
With that kind of US leadership maybe doing nothing is in the best interest of both the US and Israel. We can hit the targets all right but there is no way the current US admin can handle the firestorm after.
Liberals always show more deference to unequivocally bad people. Liberals so called peace philosophy is really just a cover for their submission to the perceived strong alpha male. Like in let’s not stir up trouble. The same way regular folks will behave if they encounter a biker gang. Their instincts when Gaddafi is captured, is to demand all kinds of special treatment, fair trial, human right etc. But when regular citizens dies in Gaddafi’s rape/torture chambers, they couldn’t care less. Their self perception is defined by how much tolerance they can show towards the intolerable. The worse the perpetrator, the more saintly they become in their own mind, when they defend him.
And the problem is NOT that they demand human rights for Gadaffi. It’s that they don’t give a damn about decent people’s human rights. And hell will frees over before liberals gain the intellectual competence to understand this distinction. It will never happen, because it is simply psychologically impossible.
The morning the news broke I was on a flight to the US and the only paper to support the action, amongst the many for us to read on board, was the Wall Street Journal.
Now many years later, with hindsight, we can see that the West continues its ignorant foreign policy to the detriment of its own citizens.
Your analysis is quite correct, and this is something I have been screaming to all of the U.S. policy leaders who would listen to me (i.e. no one) since Bush was in office. But that was the problem with electing Obama. He would never and will never consider bombing Iran. Aside from his obvious preference for Islam over Christianity or Judaism, he is weak. He doesn’t have the spine to make a strong stand against tyranny. Observe, for example, his “leading from behind” with the effort re Quaddaffi. He allowed his “days not weeks” intervention to be transmorgrified into a all out effort by NATO (read: U.S.) which cost the taxpayer a billion plus dollars. Talk about tail wagging the dog. No, Obama will never lift a finger against Iran. Our only hope is that Israel will decide to act, but, from what I understand, they won’t as long as Obama and Hillary frown upon the idea. Time to pray.
Two points: Israel seems not to have the capability of destroying the nuclear sites short of using nukes themselves. Their bombs are not powerful enough and their air force does not have the strategic bombing depth to carry out a campaign for more than a few days. They could try to attack the leadership or the infrastructure but it is doubtful they could destroy the sites themselves. Fortunately the computer software method seems to be delaying things.
Second: The problem with analysis Professor Kaye offers is that it compares one action (bombing Iran) with the side effects of that action and omits comparison with inaction. That is like saying that the surgery for cancer is to be compared only with the side effects of the surgery and the anesthesia only, without comparing the risks of NOT performing the operation and allowing the cancer to spread. The same applies to deciding whether to use a dangerous medication — it may have serious risks, but the risks of NOT using it will allow the underlying disease to get worse.
In all of life the choices are not between perfection and the side effects of a particular action. That way of thinking seems to afflict academics in general and liberals in particular. In life the real question is and should be, “Which set of risks and problems offers the better course?”
Whatever we do or don’t do will have consequences. Bombing Iran will have bad consequences. Not bombing Iran will have worse consequences. To refrain from something because of bad consequences assumes that such restraint will create good consequences, but this is the part of the analysis that is too often missed. As usual, David’s post shines the light of clarity on this. Sadly, our current administration chronically misses this point.
Mr Goldman
Even though you probably answered this question before, I was wondering if you could clarify something for me.
With regard to islam dying, how much of the islamic world’s fertility decline and civilizational collapse is down to the unsustainable dysgenic multi-generational practice of consanguinity where consanguineous marriages between cousins or uncles and nieces is universally accepted as the norm in their culture?
Or is it simply down to loving death more than life to the point that they have taken that particular slogan to its logical conclusion by no longer bothering to plan for the future?
I wrote about this in my book, “How Civilizations Die.” Consanguinity reflects tribal organization of society: your clan protects you, so you strengthen relationships via marriage. You can’t have representative democracy if the first loyalty is to the tribe, not the country, and instead of rights under law, you have protection by blood ties. The ideological element is probably more destructive than the genetic one, although birth defects tend to be an order of magnitude higher.
David, I read your book and I think there’s a followup question– What happens if you have a tradition spanning eons to marry your cousin, but you have no cousins? Adding to the whole loss of faith in their future, the average Iranian or Arab of marriageable age may also not know what to do anymore.
Let them worry about that.
But it could also be argued that the Islamic world’s multi-generational genetic element is as self-destructive and suicidal as the Western world’s indifference to their own civilizational death by not having children, with the latter’s justification being something along the lines of “may we live long and die out, for there is no tomorrow.”
I agree with you on the ideological element being more destructive perhaps in the short/mid-term though in islam’s case it appears that the ideological and the long-term self-destructive genetic elements to go hand in hand in way that even if it did managed to win the empire of this world, it would still ultimately lose.
It’s funny you should bring up “although birth defects tend to be an order of magnitude higher.” I’m in the medical field at a major medical center and we are seeing many “off the wall syndromes and diseases directly linked to incestuous Arabs hat intermarry their first cousins. When they are told about their genetic problems, to me, they think we are lying to them despite all the evidence they can read on the internet.
The problem of consanguineous marriage exists in Israel as well, especially among the Bedouin (who compound the problem with polygamy) and the Druse. Not surprisingly, birth defects are especially common in those communities. Higher rates of birth defects are also found among some of the ultra-Orthodox (haredi) communities, though they don’t practice close-cousin marriage. There the problem is the limited genetic pool they’re drawing from because those outside their communities aren’t deemed “really” Jewish or Jewish enough.
WHO places Saudis at an incredible threshold: 25% ish of modern births show defects!
This despite having free King provided medical care and plenty of good food.
This is one of the key reasons that sexual jihadis visis UCLA to make genetic conquests.
Oh, they regard us (the majority of Jews) real Jews, but they consider us bad Jews. Another problem with marriage is that the Haredim want to preserve their way of life, which is very strict and is very difficult for people who weren’t born into it and/or don’t believe in the Haredic interpretation of Judaism. They need their partner to live like them and want the children to be raised according to their faith. So choosing a non-Ultra-Orthodox partner with a very different way of life, and which is also considered by them a “bad Jew”, is out of the question.
In America more religious Jews are encouraged to get pre-marital DNA testing. The system I heard of is anonymous – everyone gets a code and a couple submits both of their codes, and if both are carriers of a genetic defect they are told.
I don’t think fundamentalist Muslims would go for this. I saw a taxi van in Jordan with the seatbelts removed. The driver explained that if there was a crash, then Allah would decide who lives and dies, not the seatbelts.
Spengler,
So will Iran be bombed? And if so, will it be Israel? Will Israel wait to see who wins the 2012 Presidential election? And do you think Romney, Perry or Cain would conduct such a bombing? If Obama wins re-election, will Israel then just strike out on its own and do it?
GOP Bomb Iran?
Romney – No
Perry – Maybe
Cain – Yes
Maybe that’s why Cain is doing so well in the polls–not because of the Iran issue per se, but because he refuses to be careful.
Refusing to be careful was how Reagan commanded Iran’s respect. And Moscow’s.
Two words would be music to Israel’s ears:
“President Gingrich”
Even better if paired with “Vice President Bolton”.
Newt perceives the danger and would stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel against Iran. Newt knows more about foreign policy than anyone in the race. A Gingrich/Bolton ticket would be the highest IQ ticket in a long time and send chills down the spine of any enemy of America (or Israel).
Cain’s a great guy but he’s winging it, as Krauthammer observed. He keeps making gaffes and is thus forced to clarify his remarks endlessly. And he doesn’t know much about foreign policy. He raised some red flags when he declared that “if you mess with Israel, you mess with the USA” but later said that he DIDN’T object to the Palestinian “Right of Return”, which is code for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Mr. Cain is a work in progress and not even HE knows what he’d do if he got the 3 AM call.
Israel’s best hope might be to take action against Iran while Obama is still in office. He wouldn’t want to alienate the Jewish/pro-Israel vote even further in an election year. He might even seek to burnish his credentials with Jews and pro-Israel voters by “getting tough” with Iran or at least assisting Israel in that regard. Recent developments involving the Iranian terror plot might provide the pretext.
The worst case scenario is if Israel waits until Obama wins re-election. Then he has no incentive to help Israel, and will likely pressure the Jewish state to act against its best interests. The window is closing.
Newt is much bigger then all the other contenders, and soes have a greater lead in intellect and will. But I think most of the American public will hold his divorce against him. Personally me, I would vote for him in a hard bit. You can not by experience, you must earn it. That’s why obama will never be a PRESIDENT. He is an empty suit. Newt would be good Commander in chief. Bolton would be great as VP. I’m with you on this.
I’m hoping for Bolton to be our next Secretary of State no matter who who gets the Presidency. (Well, obviously, not Paul, but he’s not going to get elected anyway).
If even only for those who were devoted to invasion, I do not to this day understand why we invaded Iraq instead of Iran.
Very, very good point. I suspect international law justified the Iraq invasion, only common sense justifies an invasion of Iran.
Iraq was the choice because :
1) A clear cause for war could be established (tied back to the first Gulf War)
2) A staging area for the invasion existed
3) The terrain in Iraq is favorable for US combined arms
4) Iraq is much smaller (population and geography) than Iran
An actual war again Iran would include the need to secure ports before any serious penetration could be made, and the logistics are much worse as you go inland. I suspect the Iranian military would have put up more of a fight as well. A full scale invasion of Iran would have involved something like 4x what was required for Iraq – I doubt the US could have pulled it off with the forces available at the time without risking major losses.
Add 2 more reasons:
1. Iraq has land borders with every country we should have invaded next (notably Iran).
2. Iran was one of the three major oil producers in the area. Europe needs oil from the ME, much more than we do. Taking Iraq and getting its’ oil back up before dealing with Iran and/or Saudi was a necessity.
Because Iraq was a clear and demonstrable threat, given that terrorist training camps were operating in North Iraq with at least the tacit permission of Saddam. As we have since discovered, Iran is behind many of the attacks against us, and certainly supports those fighting against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To repeat posts on Belmont Club and at Ledeen’s site from long ago:
If something is to be done, bombing, even precision bombing is not adequate. So:
Announce that, on or about a date certain six months or so hence, the US will perform a Reconnaissance in Force. We will make it clear that we are just passing through, sight seeing as it were.
With the announcement we will state that will not fire unless fired upon (with a very hair trigger). Persia can then choose to let us look and leave. (LOL on that one)
The ROF will enter on three major axis, from Iraq, from Afghanistan and from the Sea in the south. The forces will visit each and every site, as needed to insure ‘compliance’.
We will, similar to Sherman’s March to the Sea, enter with minimum logistics train. For example, take fuel on route from local supplies. Airborne and Ranger forces will improve on Market Garden to take air fields as temporary resupply-refit depots as forces pass through Iran, in one side and out the other.
Persia’s options; Let us look and leave, without a fight. Best case, though not very viable for regime. Man the borders to fight the incursion. Lots of border to man, and build up is the perfect target for US Airpower. Man up the sites themselves. Ditto, plus it telegraphs the exact locations of facilities. Try to fight the route march. The US ground forces, not planning to hold ground, would chew up Iranian Army and Quds in a running gunfight.
So Iran is not left with many options. Regarding threats of retaliation, so, what is different than current state of affairs between US and Iran? Needless to say, that while the incursion is aimed at nuclear capability, a broader definition could include weapons systems that are transnational.
Finally, some special people could be in the force mix, providing lots of support to some of Iran’s internal dissidents.
Regardless of Iran’s protestations, and offers for inspections, the incursion must occur.
Diplomatically, Iran is boxed. And the US restates its overall position in the region. You can kill each other, but keep it at home. How will the world see this? It could reelect his O’ness. It would make Pak, NK, Syria, et al rethink. It does not commit us to anything but a look around.
In the six months of build up, the wailing and gnashing will reach a crescendo. We just move forward, no spiking in the end zone, just steady execution of the plan. What fun that would be.
I estimate 9 to 12 brigades, plus supporting airborne, air and naval forces. Each brigade will have a set of sites to visit, investigate and destroy. Then exit. About 30 days in country, max. If not done, leave anyway. Do not stay and fight. Run and gun. Our guys can do this.
What is the point of being a super power if you can’t be super?
PS, Feelings are best in a song title.
Michael,
I don’t want toseem to bash you, but I think you need to take another look a your plan: “nine to tweleve brigades” with M1 tanks and M2/3 AFVs all foraging “Sherman” style and fueling “on route from local supplies”!?!?
I’m an Iran WMD hawk, but good luck with that one, you’ll need it. You might want to run the logistics numbers in your “estimate” by the ghost of George Armstrong Custer. The U.S. Army sometimes uses “beer math” numbers but show me a G4 who will sign off on that plan.
I was trying to be concise and not bore the audience with numbers. I apologize for not being clearer. I meant that local supplies would supplement the logistics chain. Note that I envisioned an advanced Operation Market Garden with intermediate supply-refit laagers hither and yon as needed.
What we are to avoid, however, is a train of thin skins. Self carried supply will probably specify time in country. I.e. food and water. Fuel and bullets become the big resupply question. Parts are lesser tonnage, but important. It is a 1500 mile run for the longest axis.
I feel that with careful combat staging, and maximizing use of in country fuel stores (combat brigade visits a known fuel farm, tanks pull 1k fuel buffaloes etc.) and airlift, the problem is solvable. It is a limited tactical event, not a campaign.s
I was an UnRep, Military Sealift Command sailor before and during Desert Storm. It can be done. The issues, for me, are ground tactics, a matter I defer to USMC and USA experts.
As a general observation, maybe one of the things that distinguishes adults from children is that adults can recognize when they must make the least bad from among a range of bad choices; children think that somehow “justice” will be served and a good choice will magically appear.
It strikes me that by that perspective, Prof. Dassa and the Obama Admin. are acting like children. Maybe the Administration has something up its sleeve, but all our experience suggests that is unlikely.
Michael Hoskins’ sugegstion has some emrit, I think, a slong as we (a) also do everything we can to bring teh mullahs down, and (b) understand we may have to repeat the process every few years, against progressively better-defended and better-hidden sites. But this is similar to what we should have done in Afghanistan. In 1916 Mexico, we called it a “Punitive Expedition,” and it worked. We didn’t catch Villa, but the Merxicans thereafter kept their Civil War on their side of the border.
Well, 1st, what Mubarak’s and particularly Khadafy’s fates (vs. Kim Jong-Ll) have taught Middle-Eastern regimes is that without nukes you’re dead. So nothing will stop Iran short of a military attack.
2nd, this validates my argument from day one that Iraq is probably the worst American strategic blunder, which may cost it the Middle-East, if not more.
3rd, if America IS deterred, how exactly is it going to attack? Deterrence means that you perceive that you CANNOT attack and/or that you see no way to sustain retaliation. If the enemy sees that — and the Obama administration has made it clear to them that — it will become increasingly daring, as the terror attempt in DC shows. That’s exactly what propelled Hitler: the clarity with which Europe demonstrated it is neither capable nor willing to defend itself.
4th, America is bankrupt, with its level of living going down so drastically in the next decade, that it’s already incurring social upheaval. It has an entire young generation lost and it won’t be able to support the retiring old generation.
5th, beside Israel it has no allies willing and capable to support a military effort following 2 major ones which it has lost.
As I argued for so long, Obama’s election is a consequence, not a cause of American decline; he would have not been elected otherwise. What he does is accelerate the decline, he can’t stop it. And I very much doubt that anybody else can: such declines include crises of leadership. And just look at the candidates. Yuckh.
David – It would be interesting to see a debate between you and your PJM colleague, Michael Ledeen, on the COA for Iranian WMD. He is a proponent of regime change through support for dissidents and an opponent of bombing.
In a related matter, pundits should note that our adventure in Iraq had the effect of creating a strong challenge to the legitimacy of the Iranian regime (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2009/06/moderate-ayatollah-sistani-reps/) which we failed to exploit in 2009, perhaps losing this option.
Circa 2007/08 in Iraq, there were brave and moderate (anti-Iran regime, anti-Lebanese Hizballah, etc.) Shia government officials who placed their lives and the lives of their families on the line in the hope that the U.S. would stay and work with them (along with “Awakening” Sunnis and Kurds) to build Iraq into a moderate ally (and therefore a platform from which to effect Iran). In my view, we sold them down the river and I understand why those who stayed have made common cause with pro-Iranian factions for reasons of self-preservation. For the rest, I hope they got out and are selling kabobs in New York.
Oddly enough, these moderate religious Shia Iraqi officials reminded me somewhat of Dati Israelis.
Michael is a good friend, and I value his views enormously. I just don’t think there’s time to rely on subversion.
David,
You may be correct w/respect to timing, but sadly I don’t see the U.S. security establishment supporting either COA.
I would be interested to hear your theory as to why it is that the Western elites of the government/media/think-tanks who focus on security issues were and are so eager to appease the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the extent of turning a blind eye for so many years to their WMD and terrorism programs. I was always shocked by the vehemence with which anti-Iran advocates were attacked, especially during the Bush administration. Michael Rubin compared it to an intellectual pogrom.
Sadly, you are correct. And the answer to your question is one I attempted to provide a year and a half ago, here:
http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/29822/silent-right/
The security establishment had staked its collective reputation on stabilizing Iraq, and Iran was in position to turn Iraq into pandemonium. We left Iran alone precisely in order not to provoke the consequences of which Mullen warned in his Charlie Rose interview in 2009. That is why I objected so bitterly to our Iraq policy: we turned a blind eye to the greater security threat, namely Iran, in order to maintain the appearance of success in Iraq. Everyone signed on to the “Bush Freedom Agenda,” and was stuck with it. Many in the security establishment, both Pentagon and CIA, agreed with me privately, but could do nothing under either the Bush or Obama administrations. The result is a prospective disaster. There is still time to act, and my hope is that a Republican administration (if we get one) will act in 2013.
If that’s indeed the rationale, it’s the worst blunder yet of this generally very confused era. It’s hard to believe anyone can actually think like that, but you have the citations in your article. I’m quoting from your article:
==================================================
In 2004, Robert Gates, now the secretary of Defense, and former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski chaired a Council on Foreign Relations panel on the future of Iran. They concluded:
It appears I made a mess with the HTML there, forgot the closing slash of the blockquote, thereby opening a new blockquote instead of closing it. Unfortunately I can’t edit it. Sorry.
You may be correct w/respect to timing, but sadly I don’t see the U.S. security establishment supporting either COA.
I would be interested to hear your theory as to why it is that the Western elites of the government/media/think-tanks who focus on security issues were and are so eager to appease the Islamic Republic of Iran, to the extent of turning a blind eye for so many years to their WMD and terrorism programs. I was always shocked by the vehemence with which anti-Iran advocates were attacked, especially during the Bush administration. Michael Rubin compared it to an intellectual pogrom.
just sticking my nose in here: nobody knows how long it would take for a properly-supported democratic revolution to succeed.
we’re always surprised when revolutions occur. but since it’s the best “solution” it should be attempted.
the point is that, aside from bombing and appeasing, there is a third option. if it worked against the Soviet Empire, and it did, it should certainly work against the fanatical buffoons in Tehran.
Until a yacht off Manhattan goes boom.
For those of you who do not speak Hebrew Dati means religious.
I like “Spengler’s” writings and even agree with them often. But bombing Iran is a particularly stupid idea. Spengler himself admits that Iran is a dying society. So, why not just let it die? There is no reason for us to involve ourselves in Iran. Iran is only a threat to itself.
See Gregory Cochran’s “Size Matters”:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2006/oct/23/00007/
Iran is like that dysfunctional family that lives down the block from you. They are always screaming and shouting at each other, fussing and fighting. But the moment you involve yourself in their affairs, they pull together and put up a united front against you.
Q: “So, why not just let it die? … Iran is only a threat to itself”.
Because, with all due respect, it is naïve to think that we can contain a nuclear Iran without serious risk (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/02/Containing-a-Nuclear-Iran-Difficult-Costly-and-Dangerous).
You wrote: “Iran is like that dysfunctional family that lives down the block from you … the moment you involve yourself in their affairs, they pull together and put up a united front against you”. Tell it to the various ethnic (Arabs, Kurds, Baluchs, etc.) groups and dissidents (students, trade unionists, remaining Green Movement), all of whom hate the regieme.
Maybe because it’ll take a generation or two for Iran to “die”, and we can’t wait that long. Iran will go nuclear long before its demographic collapse.
I have not read the book but I suspect that it is the non-religious Iranians that stopped having children, the religious Iranians are probably still having lots.
Waiting for a society to die is hardly a strategy, more like a ridiculous excuse.
Were Iran to acquire nukes, do you not think the Mullahs would use them? In the 1930′s, Europeans ignored the “rantings of that lunatic Hitler” at their peril.
Have I gotten this right?
1. Iran cannot be deterred from obtaining nuclear weapons.
2. If its nuclear program is militarily stopped, Iran cannot be deterred from retaliating.
3. But should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, it will somehow become deterrable.
Wonderful things, those nuclear weapons. Maybe we should voluntarily proliferate them.
(As to the Mullen argument, it immediately made me think of two Sicilian gentlemen.)
Sigh, this is where I part ways with David. Why is the answer to everything to bomb Iran and Syria? What, to paraphrase the notoriously unreliable Gen. Wesley Clark in 2002, you’d almost think there was a plan or something to take down Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iran and Yemen all at once or something.
MarcH, I wouldn’t go quoting the Heritage Foundation. They’re still itching for a scrap with Putin’s New Evil Empire but darned if too many Hollywood actors from the 1990s A list love singing along with the guy (and the Germans for some reason aren’t getting with the program of bailing out their neighbors to kingdom come and stop doing business with that nasty in the Kremlin).
Dear Mr. X,
In my estimate, the Heritage Foundation report on the perils of attempting to contain a nuclear Iran (see my reply to comment #12 above) was good analysis.
Do you have a substantive critique of the Heritage report, or anything else to offer besides failed snark?
v/r,
MarcH
And again, do you have to be a John Bircher to ask why every time some national or transnational institution like the EU fails spectacularly the answer according to certain elites is always giving MORE power to globalist institutions?
The Vatican needs a good purge of all the one-worlders. Even if you don’t believe that they’re paving the way for the Antichrist.
“To destroy nuclear weapons capability means to decapitate the regime and the military leadership, with a lot of collateral damage.” That regime and that leadership are rather extensive. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basji number in the hundreds of thousands. (The IRGC also controls, by some estimates, a quarter to a third of the Iranian economy.) Taking out a few labs and enrichment sites won’t do the job.
If they’re not stopped, millions of Americans might die.
This rather extravagant concluding sentence does not conform with the lighter, somewhat detached tone of the rest of the article, making it hard to tell if Spengler is really serious. Obviously, if millions of Americans might die (or, if one prefers, if there is a “non-negligible probability” that millions would die), then this blows out of the water every other consideration. As such, it should have been stated early and should have been the main focus of the whole article. Leaving it as a bombshell at the very end takes away from the whole preceding argument.
David,
Don’t worry, Hillary told Iran:
Clinton warns Iran not to exploit US pullout from Iraq
Following President Obama’s decision to remove all American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, Hillary Clinton says U.S. will continue to maintain strong security relationship with Iraq.
I’m sure Iran watches what she says, not what the US does.
I am still counting on the massive earthquake that is Teheran’s destiny.
And the 40% of Iran’s population who ring the persians – Azeris and Kurds in the north, Baluchis in the east, Lur and arabs in the west.
The real dilemma is the rest of us are running out of time, unless Moqtada al-Sadr turns out to be the 12th Imam, precluding the need for a nuclear attack.
ok, the real dilemma is the global obsession since WW2 about the rules of engagement. Someone needs to Go Genghis – total destruction.
Maybe the best hope is that Iran really does become a Chinese economic colony. It certainly does not serve China or Russia for Iran to go nuclear.
Maybe the Saudis have Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
well, time for some baseball.
If the Iranian regime is not deterred by the United States, there is no good reason for the United States to be deterred by Iran even if Iran does have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear deterrence only works if both sides are rational. Whatever can be said for the Soviet Union, it was rational. Cruel, tyrannical, vicious, nasty, and evil – but rational. In contrast, the Iranian regime is irrational, fighting for metaphysical aims more than for mere empire. So it cannot be deterred.
Islamists, whether Khomeiniist, Qutbist, or merely readers of S. K. Malik’s “Quranic Concept of War”, revel in how they cannot be deterred even by nuclear weapons. Yet, if they can deter us while not being deterred by us, they effectively control us. We must never allow that to happen.
If they attack us with nuclear weapons, we must destroy them by any means necessary. If they use nuclear weapons as a “nuclear umbrella”, we must act as if that umbrella did not exist. Indeed, that is how we should act toward Pakistan, not just Iran.
You see, nuclear weapons only promote deterrence when rational minds prevail. Yet, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons has little to do with deterrence – it has vowed “Death to America” for the past 32 years, and it should be taken at its word. Iranian ayatollahs seek nuclear weapons for much the same reason that drunks light their farts – because they can.
If the Iranian regime is not deterred by the United States, there is no good reason for the United States to be deterred by Iran even if Iran does have nuclear weapons.
Nuclear deterrence only works if both sides are rational. Whatever can be said for the Soviet Union, it was rational. Cruel, tyrannical, vicious, nasty, and evil – but rational. In contrast, the Iranian regime is irrational, fighting for metaphysical aims more than mere empire. So it cannot be deterred.
Islamists, whether Khomeiniist, Qutbist, or merely readers of S. K. Malik’s “Quranic Concept of War”, revel in how they cannot be deterred even by nuclear weapons. Yet, if they can deter us while not being deterred by us, they effectively control us. We must never allow that to happen.
If they attack us with nuclear weapons, we must destroy them by any means necessary. If they use nuclear weapons as a “nuclear umbrella”, we must act as if that umbrella did not exist. Indeed, that is how we should act toward Pakistan, not just Iran.
You see, nuclear weapons only promote deterrence when rational minds prevail. Yet, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons has little to do with deterrence – it has vowed “Death to America” for the past 32 years, and it should be taken at its word. Iranian ayatollahs seek nuclear weapons for much the same reason drunks light their farts – because they can.
People always argue extremes when talking about Iran. Always. It’s either bomb them or do nothing. We could do A LOT to Iran without ever bombing or invading the country. Iran has a very fragile government right now with not much public support. This was amply demonstrated after the 2009 elections and the near revolt that took place after that. It was Obama’s and Clinton’s massive stupidity not to take advantage of this civil unrest and go for regime change right then and there.
We could maintain some Special Ops basis in Kurdistan (which borders both Iran and Turkey) and from there supply, arm, train, and fund every rebel group there is inside of Iran. We could cause so man acts of sabotage inside of Iran with the help of the Iranian people it would make the mullahs shake with anger. Oil pipelines could be blown up, politicians and nuclear scientists could be assasinated, massive civil unrest leading to huge riots could be started. And all of this could be achieved without dropping one bomb or sending one American soldier right into Iran.
We MUST start using Iran’s tactics against them for a change. Destabilize their government, provoke their population into revolt, and this time they really could topple the mullahs. They almost did it in 2009. No reason why, with a lot of help, they can’t do it in the future. The mullahs are afraid of their own people, and the mass killings in 2009 proved it. Use the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs and you will get results. And remember, Unlike Libya, Egypt, or Tunisia, Iran has lived under a theocracy for over 30 years now. They are not about to put another mullah or Islamist in power. The young people in Iran want a future and they know they’re not going to get one with the people who are in power today. Time to give them another choice, without bombing anyone.
I agree that this would be useful, and in any case should have been started long ago. If we do get on with it, and tilt the balance against the regime, great, but this may or may not work, particularly not work early enough, because we have gotten so far behind the ball. So, I’m afraid he bombing option still make sense, unfortunately.
Now, the question arises, how much bombing? Obliterating their nuclear facilities is not necessary. The objective should be to set them back sufficiently for the slow process of subversion to have a reasonable chance. Would the population become supportive of their government if we did anything spectacularly hostile?
I do not know the answer, but I would challenge the “consensus” that the reaction would be impossible to deal with. It would certainly be incomparably more difficult when they have the nukes. The bombing idea may be unpalatable, but still better than allowing them to go nuclear, literally. Suppose we just disable some installation, not even a nuclear one, just help along the damaging of infrastructure such as pipelines and refineries. If well calibrated, this may in fact encourage the opposition, which by now is waiting for whatever miracle will materialize their dream of defeating the theocrats once and for all.
So, it’s not all or nothing, its getting over a critical threshold. The current administration is too invested in its radical pursuits to wake up in time, but the 2012 election can do change this. The Arabs are going to see some extreme turbulence in the coming years, because reality can easily subvert the dreams of those who hope for an ultimate escape from tyranny, so they will be very vulnerable to an emboldened Iran. Another reason to get serious about it.
This sounds great. And I would like to add; let us frame such a policy in a context of positive goals. I mean, it is perfectly valid to discern threats and then act because of concern. But what do we do it FOR? And when we do know that the Islamic enemy at least has so much commitment, can we match that in our own people, the old and the wise and the young and enthousiastic alike? It has been said that the general Iranian population does well know what it is against, but far less what it is that it is FOR. And perhaps that is what ails citizens of Democratic Nations the most; big enthousiasm about what they are FOR, and consequently desire strongly to defend and expand. on a level to match with their competitors, the fundamentalist (true?) Muslims!
We should first, declare war on Iran, we have plenty of reasons. Next chase A’jad down with cruise missiles. Let the Iranian military take over the country after leaving it intact and tell their generals that they’re next if they misbehave. Iranian crisis resolved.
It is to late. America’s no new Nuke energy policy has got us where we are at today. In about a year, the PLO will have their terrorist state, and Israel will be surronded by an Islamic economic region with one coin. The American CFR controled government has brought a great curse on our nation.
I can not see the future, but I can see the writing on the wall.
BZO, or Die!
The logistics of trying to get a small suitcase size nuclear bomb into the US would be daunting in the extreme; it’s a case of being much more easily said than done. But if they ever managed the feat and detonated it the consequences to the mullahs would be beyond horrific. And for a regime allegedly worried about the long term survival of the nation this would be a very strange way of trying to survive.
What Hath Obama Wrought?
Okay, let’s give the man some credit, but not too much.
President Barack Hussein Obama is claiming his drawdown of America’s forces in Afghanistan enabled the capture and summary execution by Navy Seal Team Six of Osama bin Laden and he has announced the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by year’s end.
The former is a stretch but plausible even if then-CIA Director Leon Panetta actually gave the order to get Osama while Obama went to bed. At least the president didn’t obstruct the operation.
The Iraq bug-out will constitute an accomplishment only if our departure doesn’t send a signal to neighboring Iran to fill the vacuum, a distinct possibility that terrifies many Iraqis and may make them long for the good, old days of Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons.
When Obama concludes what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan and withdraws our troops from that sorry land, a comparable disaster could ensue.
Demonstrating his contempt for the nation that put him in power, Afghani President Hamid Karzai has already declared an alliance with another former U.S. friend, Pakistan, and when his government implodes under the weight of corruption, America will find itself back to square one in the region.
Yet another questionable plus in the Obama column is his non-interference with the drone that took out the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Obama hasn’t boasted much about that action since al-Awlaki was an American citizen and killing him is widely interpreted as an unconstitutional abuse of power by our constitutional-scholar president.
None of those accomplishments-by-inaction will endear him to peaceniks in his Democrat Party nor to members of the committee that awarded Obama a Nobel Peace Prize but that’s a whole other story as is whether they will help him win re-election with the American economy mired in the doldrums.
After the plaudits for those questionable coups subside, the most immediate issue on Obama’s foreign policy table right now is, What has he wrought in the Mideast?
What comes to mind is the age-old aphorism that the devil you know sure beats the devil you don’t. America’s current president has rescued a number of devils at the same time he has sent some to Hell.
What hath Obama wrought?
In the Libyan non-war, the euphemestic “kinetic military action” Obama swore would last days not weeks and went on for seven months, our Tomahawk missiles and drones softened up the defenses of Col. Khadafi’s loyalists and put him on the run until rebel forces trapped him in a sewer drain and executed him.
Libya thus rid itself and the world of the mad dog, a man who had called Obama ”our son” and whose friendship was reciprocated by our president before he turned on his “dad.” In turn, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, who used to address Obama as “brother,” then asked his bro, “Who the hell do you think you are?”
More pertinent questions now would be, What have you done, who and what are taking Khadafi’s place, and what now? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5779.)
It is always a difficult decision. But that’s the world for ya. It is not a safe place. These kind of things has to be done. A country that says it wants to wipe another country off the map, should not have nuclear weapons. It is really not difficult. So from the vantage point of a citizen observer, it is easy. Bomb them and leave nothing left to salvage.
But I suspect that there is a lot going on behind the scenes that regular folks are not privy to. Notice that none of the high level national security advisers from both this and the previous administration advocates a strike. None of them. That is a remarkable statistic. And why? In my opinion, it indicates that there is something covert going on that somehow makes these people believe that a strike is not the best option. They are doing “something” we don’t know about.
I have written elsewhere that allowing the growth of the Muslim Caliphate is the current US and NATO strategic choice, because it places Islam in opposition to both Russia and China. If America can maintain its studied “non-interventionist” policy, the oil will continue to flow, but towards the West. That, folks, is why Israel is the sticking point in the whole mess. It prevents the implementation of the Machiavellian scheming that is happening as the major sub rosa text of our seemingly stupid Middle East withdrawal accompanied by bowing and scraping. Israel thus becomes expendable. However, Iran must be permitted to develop nuclear weapons to make their threat against Russia and China creditable.
It is because of the foregoing reasoning that we must re-elect Mr. Obama so that he can strengthen Islam, which will then buffer the West without it having to use its treasure to protect itself. Politicians and diplomats call that playing chess, rather than football.
Of course, the politicians and diplomats are idiots, because they believe they can predict the future. Only an idiot would strengthen his enemy and then hope he does not turn on you. But by the time this policy comes to full fruition, we will be too busy with subsistence farming or hunting and gathering to form a coherent opposition to these nitwits.
This person who wrote this article has been paid by the coterie of greedy billionaire oil barons from Texas who seethe with rage that the Iranian people are free of their domination. While most of the Muslim world lies prostrate before the corporate behemoth America whose military will slaughter without mercy anyone who aspire to a better life free of corporate rule, like in Iraq and Libya, Iran has held fast against corporate power. Iran needs nuclear weapons only to defend against the American_israeli corparchy and keep her natural resources, and people, free.
Neda Agha-Soltan could not be reached for comment.
Ouch. Touché, but ouch.
What gets me about people like Throbbin Yobbin, people who fancy themselves “progressive”, is that, no matter how fascist, genocidal, theocratic, misogynist, racist, or homophobic a regime might be, if it opposed to the US, they are behind it 100%. Lemme guess, Yobbin: Ahmadinejad is a sunovabitch, but he’s your sunovabitch? Where have I heard that one before?
Ahmadinejad is not an ideal fighter for social justice like Castro or Chavez, but he is the authentic voice of poor and dispossessed People of Color victimized by predatory capitalism. I find much of what he believes distasteful, but there is compassion too in his heart. He has not been poisoned by Wall Street greed and for this he deserves the support of caring, compassionate, loving people everywhere.
“Ahmadinejad is not an ideal fighter for social justice like Castro or Chavez”
So, Ahmadinejad is a sunovabitch, but at least he’s your sunovabitch. At least Castro and Chavez are just plain ol’ fascists, instead of being theocratic fascists, right?
Incidentally, did Castro ever get around to releasing Oscar Biscet? Did they ever find out who killed that student who was leading all those anti-Chavez marches a couple years ago?
“I find much of what he believes distasteful, but there is compassion too in his heart.”
Distasteful? Distasteful? You know what happens to homosexuals in Iran, right Yobbin? And what the status of women is in Iran? And the best you can say is that it’s distasteful? Do you realize that, if you make things like misogyny and homophobia simple matters of taste, that you completely undermine the concept of “social justice”?
“He has not been poisoned by Wall Street greed and for this he deserves the support of caring, compassionate, loving people everywhere.”
You realize Ahmadinejad hosted a conference for the Institute for Historical Review, right? To consider someone who denies the Holocaust while calling for a second as an ally bespeaks an ignorance of what caring, compassion, and love are all about.
When you went to see how far the rabbit hole goes, did you double-check to make sure the rabbit hole wasn’t an anus?
“Ahmadinejad is not an ideal fighter for social justice like Castro or Chavez”
So, Ahmadinejad is a sunovabitch, but at least he’s your sunovabitch. At least Castro and Chavez are just plain ol’ fascists, instead of being theocratic fascists, right?
Incidentally, did Castro ever get around to releasing Oscar Biscet? Did they ever find out who killed that student who was leading all those anti-Chavez marches a couple years ago?
“I find much of what he believes distasteful, but there is compassion too in his heart.”
Distasteful? Distasteful? You know what happens to homosexuals in Iran, right Yobbin? And what the status of women is in Iran? And the best you can say is that it’s distasteful? Do you realize that, if you make things like misogyny and homophobia simple matters of taste, that you completely undermine the concept of “social justice”?
“He has not been poisoned by Wall Street greed and for this he deserves the support of caring, compassionate, loving people everywhere.”
You realize Ahmadinejad hosted a conference for the Institute for Historical Review, right? To consider someone who denies the Holocaust while calling for a second as an ally bespeaks an ignorance of what caring, compassion, and love are all about.
When you went to see how far the rabbit hole goes, did you double-check to make sure the rabbit hole wasn’t an a***?
Pardon my double post.
Typically Iranian point of view: no-one does anything without a bribe.
Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, Mao Zedong and others who stood up and challenged corporate power were not bribed. They were fighting from the heart. Fighting for social justice, fighting for peace, love,and the brotherhood of man. Those who support the corporate plutocracy by advocating war must be bribed or forced, because unless you are one of the top 1% who has everything, your objective interests are the same as the regime in Iran and all others who oppose the corparchy, no matter how personally distateful you might find them. If you were not bribed, then you must simply be stupid, or else so racist you are willing to sacrifice your own interests just to punish People of Color.
Which one is it?
“Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Ghandi, Mao Zedong”
♫One of these things is not like the others…♫
“Those who support the corporate plutocracy by advocating war must be bribed or forced, because unless you are one of the top 1% who has everything”
Ah, an Occupier! Given the next part of this sentence, do you consider yourself representative of the kind of people who are Occupiers?
“your objective interests are the same as the regime in Iran and all others who oppose the corparchy, no matter how personally distateful you might find them.”
Would I be correct to assume, Yobbin, that you would tolerate genocide if the guys manning the death camps were anti-American?
“If you were not bribed, then you must simply be stupid, or else so racist you are willing to sacrifice your own interests just to punish People of Color.”
None of the above. I simply have enough moral sense not to allow myself to be associated with fascists, theocrats, racists, Holocaust deniers, misogynists, and homophobes, particularly those whose stated policy is the absolute destruction of another country and the imposition of a global theocracy.
And you call yourself “progressive”…
“She neglects to mention that the Saudis, now by far the most important Arab power, have been screaming at America for years to take action against Iran.”
What, didn’t they like Stuxnet?
In private, I assume, since I seem to missed the oft-repeated NYT headline: “Saudis demand America destroy regime in Tehran.” In private, where all the shrieking and screaming will do no good. I’ll believe the Saudis want it when they ask Israel to do it. Until then, I’d rather bomb Riyadh and Karachi.
Then again, perhaps we could do it like WW2. Let Iran (Germany) conquer and occupy Saudi Arabia (France) for four years, then we can stage a sea-borne invasion to rescue them. Having Iran govern Saudi Arabia sounds like a win-win proposition for the USA.
I’m not opposed to bombing Iran, but it’s not the only idea. Every since I have been blogging I have advocated an executive order reversing the ban on political assassinations signed by Ford, supporting the Green movement in Iran, selective targeting of Quds commanders, killing of Iranian forces in Iraq, covert warfare against Iranian forces scattered throughout the M.E. (including Hezbollah), and fomenting an insurgency inside of Iran by the CIA and Special Operations Forces.
It has its strengths and weaknesses, just as does a bombing campaign. But bombing isn’t the only idea.
My friend Michael Ledeen thinks that aggressive action to promote regime change would do the trick. Let me put it this way: if I hypothetically were president, and the CIA came to me with a plan to bring down the Iranian regime through subversion in a 12-to24-month time frame, I would keep the bombers on hold. I’m just not persuaded (yet) that we’re in position to accomplish this quickly enough without bombing.
How about a 2-week plan to bring BOTH the Iranians and Saudis to their knees by mandating flex-fuel gas tanks? Fischer-Tropf is real, well-understood, and unnecessarily-expensive if enough fuel-methanol to cover the gap spikes the prince of oil/bbl far enough.
The Saudis can’t fund terror, nor the Iranians purchase centrifuge parts, if their oil spigot’s value tanks.
I agree. Like you, I have had extensive discussions about this with fellow Marine father Michael. Michael tends to take a somewhat more smooth and thoughtful approach, I tend to be a bit more aggressive with my views.
But I still agree. Hold the bombers for now. They may be needed later if a covert campaign doesn’t work. Too, there is always the problem that the regime changes, but Iran still wants nuclear weapons. Then what? We’ll have to see, but military actions should always be an option.
My biggest fear over overt military action is that it isn’t a one-shot deal. Deeply buried bunkers will have to be hit again … and again … and again … every time they rebuild the partial destruction we can accomplish on them. This campaign wouldn’t stop any time soon.
Destruction of most of Iran’s oil refining and export infrastructure (pumping stations, docks, etc.) by air attack would be feasible, extremely fast to achieve (3-4 weeks from the start order), and affordable. Precision-guided munitions make that possible, and Iran has no air defenses worth mentioning. Only the US has the means to do this, but we’ve had that means for twenty years. Before then it would have taken perhaps two months from the start order. 2-3 carrier battle groups plus some B-52′s, AWACS and other USAF support from Diego Garcia could achieve this.
That alone would destroy the mullah regime in six months. It wouldn’t go out immediately, and could so harm while it lasts, but its end would be immediately certain and obvious.
Our only problem is political will. That is the only thing we have ever lacked here. Iran is totally vulnerable to a PGM campaign against its oil income infrastructure.
The problem with destroying the Iranians’ ability to sell oil is that it is going to be regarded very poorly by the people who buy that oil and that means the Chinese who, as you know already have nukes and a vast pile of our debt. While the Chinese probably don’t give a minute’s thought to the welfare of the Iranian people, they would be quite upset if we were to put their economy in jepordy by cutting off such a large part of their oil imports.
Unless you have a plan to keep the Chinese happy, I would suggest that your plan needs a bit more work.
The Saudis undoubtedly have similar and greater concerns about Iran and their airfields and airspace could and would become available for an effective assault. They might be persuaded to fund the bulk of a concentrated attack on Iran, even if by Israel. It is all a matter of will.
This op-ed was placed as an in NYTimes (over 10 years ago) right after 9/11
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207&news_iv_ctrl=1021
“End States Who Sponsor Terrorism”
Tuesday, October 2, 2001
By: Leonard Peikoff
The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations
As usual the world is catching up slowly
This op-ed was placed as a paid ad in NYTimes (over 10 years ago) right after 9/11
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5207&news_iv_ctrl=1021
“End States Who Sponsor Terrorism”
Tuesday, October 2, 2001
By: Leonard Peikoff
The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations
As usual the world is catching up slowly
Thank you for this link. It’s the best thing I have ever read on terrorism and what to do about it. Unfortunately, as persuasive writing it has to go down as an abject failure.
I don’t think we can afford to bomb Iran anymore. As Spengler says, we can no longer scuttle the nuke program in Iran without destroying the Iranian regime. That requires not only killing the religious and political leadership but also decimating the IRGC. That sounds like a really ugly ground war to me. Not gonna happen.
But we can adopt a deterrent posture that’s so draconian that the Iranians might reconsider continuing with their development program. What if we re-work Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis policy statement a bit:
“It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Iran against any nation, **or any nuclear attack of undetermined origin anywhere in the world**, as an attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.”
In other words, you make Iran responsible for any act of nuclear terrorism in the world, irrespective of whether they supplied the materials or not. Rescission of this policy would be made contingent upon verifiable dismantling of their nuclear program.
Israel has an insurmountable problem maintaining a credible deterrent against Iran: Iran is simply too big, with too large a population, to be completely annihilated by Israel. Israel, however, is tiny, and even a partially successful nuclear attack on Israel will result in so much destruction that the nation will cease to exist. But the US can still turn Iran into a glassy puddle if need be. Formally extending the nuclear umbrella over the Middle East makes Iran’s life a lot more complicated, and the cost of maintaining their nuke program much higher.
It’s important to remember that Iran isn’t crazy; its leadership merely has national interests that we in the West find completely alien. But those national interests can’t be furthered if the nation is completely annihilated. Deterrence can’t do much about Iran-sponsored non-nuclear terrorism, nor can it completely make up for Iran’s ability to completely deter conventional attacks with their nukes. But it does hang out the “open season” shingle against all of Iran’s proxies, because those proxies completely lose the ability to make any sort of credible nuclear threats.
BTW, this same policy, slightly modified, could be put in place against Pakistan and North Korea. We can make it very, very dangerous to be a rogue nuclear state.
I don’t expect it from this president, but perhaps from the next…
Absent an attack by Israel or by us, Iran is likely to go after the “little Satan” regardless. Israel has its “Iron Dome” defense, but the missiles are expensive and easily overwhelmed by the dumb rockets Iran has stashed in Lebanon. The U.S. has several flavors of anti-artillery & anti-missile laser systems under development. Offer Israel a suitable laser type to meld into Iron Dome. As a quid pro quo the deal could include our access to any improvements they (almost inevitably will) come up with.
That would give them a viable defense against Iranian proxy rocket attacks. They already have the Arrow system to defend against direct missile attack. We could put a cruiser or two loaded with SM-3′s off Israel’s shore at frequent but irregular intervals to keep Iran deterred.
The real teeth in the strategy would be making it clear to Iran that any attack from them would repulsed, and that they wouldn’t have time get a second swing. We still have boomers, both ballistic and cruise missile firing. Make sure that Iran and everyone else knows that an overwhelming response is ready if they launch an attack.
Iran’s leaders aren’t operating from the same playbook as those of the USSR in the 60′s through 80′s, but if mutually assured destruction worked then, assured destruction with no guarantee of “mutual”, plus making sure Iran’s public knows the situation, is the best way to keep a lid on Iran until either the mullahs are overthrown or until its demographic collapse.
Looks like we have a series of options that range from: bad to terrible, nothing even close to…good. One thing that everyone should be aware of: by doing nothing, we ARE doing something. By not choosing, we are choosing. We are picking one of those options whether we like it or not.
However, what happens if we take the least “bad” option, bombing, and it doesn’t work??!! What then? I think we have then crossed the threshold into….horrible.
Let’s be clear – do we need to fight a countervalue war or a counterforce one?
Most Iranians have little or no support for the regime. Killing them wholesale does little good and much evil. We could focus on Persians (~50% of the population) but that’s still not very helpful. A country like Iran depends not on their hardworking citizens as on their oil wells and export terminals.
So it would be a counterforce attack. That means decapitation then military assets. Decapitation is difficult in a closed society since we seldom will know the physical whereabouts of the important leaders and associated military and religious elites. Their main way of causing us pain in retaliation is their terrorist network which suffers the same targeting problems as decapitation.
Yes, we could hit their nuclear facilities but those are dispursed and/or hardened and it may be too late in any case to prevent them having a few nuclear weapons.
By this logic, a surprise blow against their leadership combined with an attack on their oil production and export facilities seems the proper choice. The Saudis MIGHT be able to help by ramping up production of oil to drive the price down and cushion the production shortfalls. The fact that they have not implies that they CAN’T increase production.
The Saudi oil production limits seem to argue for delay until the next administation and Congress lift dometic production restraints and build the Keystone pipeline from Canada. Agreed that removing our troops from Iraq, where they serve a “trip wire” function much like our Army at the Fulda Gap during the Cold War, is a TERRIBLE idea.
BTW, just finished “How Civilizations Die” last night – GREAT book! It is a must-read for those concerned for the well-being and longegivity of our civiliation.
Here’s a crazy idea/thought experiment:
A joint Israeli/Saudi attack on Iran.
The Saudi air force launches decoy attacks all over the place, absorbing Iranian defense measures, while Israeli planes follow with accurate strikes on sites whose defenses were spent against the Saudis.
In return, the Saudis agree to stop pushing and funding ‘palestinian’ gambit to destroy Israel. They spend those funds relocating these monsters elsewhere within the deserving Arab world. Without Saudi support, the genocidal weapon masquerading as a ‘people’ withers and goes away.
A man can dream, right? What else are you going to do when the USA has lost its strategic marbles.
With all due respect Michael Ledeen has been tirelessly writing and working for the best solution to all the mayhem we are having in this sick world. He has been suggesting support of democratic revolution in Iran for quite some time in the way of what happened in Poland, South Africa and Russia, but all to deaf ears unfortunately. If the world had taken his advice we would have seen peace by now.
The fact is that I believe the “world powers” WANT to keep the status quote and refrain away from supporting a real democratic SECULAR system of government in the middle east specifically in Iran and Syria where there is a bloodline of economical interest for Europe.
As I have been saying Islamic systems is the plot and plan of the “colonial” Europe. We should not fool ourselves into thinking otherwise. Once colonial always colonial, that is Europe. US should consider Europe as just another continent and even adversary in its international dealings and never as partner, it’s never been. Don’t be afraid of being alone US. Our ancestors were never afraid of being alone. British colonials were once tried to impose their rule upon us, damn it. Where has our fighting souls gone??? And I am a woman!!!
Actually I think the US wants to stay out for political reasons: the goal is to make the locals beg for our health. I am sure that those who count want to make the Saudis and other sweat and snivel. The longer it waits the higher the price offered.
Iran will be pointing the Death Bone at many, but the chief object will be Israel, especially in a period of decline. By doing so, Iran would establish the importance of the Shia in the Ummah forever and ever. When their is increased talk of the 12th Imam returning you can be sure they will act to provoke that happening.
Lastly, Israel deterrence will be meaningless once Iran has enough weapons to destroy it. The leadership will be indifferent to any popular suffering concomitant with the destruction of Israel: if you are dying, take an enemy along. As a friend used to say: “If you send someone to Hell, you have to send piece of yourself to make sure they arrive.” If you are going anyway, well, why not take all the company you can? Much the custom in the region.
The only way the US would do the necessary is if it had world opinion behind it, sufficient to fight a total war.
Instead of dismantling it, they should have dropped this big boy right down Teheran’s throat.
http://news.yahoo.com/uss-most-powerful-nuclear-bomb-being-dismantled-071325260.html
Why kill innocent Iranians? Most of them are Western, if only in spirit, but possibly in action as well.
If Armani Dinner-Jacket and his merry band of mullahs are the problem, than Predator their arses.
This is not that hard. Give a nuke missle to the Saudis. Make it a Minuteman 3. 10 MIRVs. With pre-programmed launch, targeting and detonation altitude data that cannot be overridden (they can enter new data all they want, but the original will be what is acted upon). Then when the Saudis fire it at Iran (and they will – they hate Iran and the Shias more than anyone hates anyone), those ten .475MT W88 warheads are gonna destroy: Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Jeddah, Qom, Arak, Islamabad, Sanaa, Al Hudaydah, Kabul.
What’s the problem? They like killing each other. They ENJOY killing each other. LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER.
We can keep pretending in the West that functionally illiterate societies (Egypt, the most advanced Arab nation, is 45% illiterate, for example), can be made into western liberal democracies, and we can pretend that Islam (average fertility over 4) will not destroy the West with demographics within a century, extinguishing all our rights, freedoms and liberties, and we can pretend that there is a non-violent answer to the problem of Islam all we want – but it is only pretense. And the longer we wait, the more people will die, the more freedoms will be destroyed, the more liberty extinguised, the harder it will be to kill Islam. And it IS Islam that is the proble, whether you understand or like that – or not.
wonderful post
I think we make too much of Iran; just remember the backward ideology they follow AND how when given the chance in 1992 saddaam’s “army” surrendered en masse” Iranian’s will not stick with this leadership (I’ll bet ya!).
Bring a carrier group into the Med and persian gulf-start with tomohawk missiles, hundreds of them. Go for communication (tv and cell) towers, any mullahs homes we can I.D. and the anti aircraft sites.
45 day bombing campaign on the military and nuke sites. Take a 48 hour break after air defenses are defeated to ask if they want more, or if the oposition is ready to rebel again. Go from there until the finish and then WALK AWAY!!
The nukes might still be buried, but make it take 2-5 yrs to even get to them again. Syria lebanon, hesbullah and hamas will crumble in short order as well as any other Mo’s iran is supporting.
Either bomb them now or after they bomb us first, you make the call.
I have never seen a serious discussion on why we don’t just defund the Iranian regime. They have only one source of income. Their pipelines are exposed, and they only have one refinery. Soft targets, all. Easy to hit, repeatedly, as needed.
They would soon run out of money to build a bomb, arm proxies, buy gas and food.
When the regime falls, contract to rebuild.
The people of Iran can take care of The Hezbollah Party in Iran by themselves.
For the world’s sake, I hope you’re right, Ali.
I don’t think America is going to take out Iran’s nukes. (either party)
I assume Israel has enough atom bombs and missiles to do the job but probably
won’t go that way first.
Can Israel take out Iran’s nuclear sites with conventional forces?
Let’s be practical – if you want to hurt the Iranian government, hurt them in the pocketbook. Remember how oil prices went up when mines were in the PG, and nobody officially knew who did it? Put a few WW2 naval mines in Iranian oil terminals (preferably old Soviet ones – there’s got to be tons on the black market, but have them unfused) and let the Iranians quietly know that they need to sweep for them.
Insurance rates will go up for oil from Iran, nobody will get hurt, nobody can prove who did it (though everyone will know), and the message can quietly be made that next time they won’t be defused.
After that, put fuses in, and put out a few 1960s Soviet mines purchased from the black market – the Iranian minesweepers can’t be all that good.
Of course, this is all causus-belli, but we’ve been in this state since the hostage crisis.
If you don’t like that, then simply allow a lot more oil drilling in the USA; Iranian oil is high-sulfur and expensive; oil prices dropping will really hurt them in the economy. That means less $ to Hezbollah, Syria, and nuclear-weapons programs. And of course would help solve our debt and unemployment problems. But that’s too logical – it’ll never happen
Mr. Goldman:
In my opinion, Bush should have attacked, and removed the leadership of, Iran and when questioned afterwards, said, “Oops! Have I been saying, ‘Iraq’ all these months? I meant ‘Iran.” They’re spelled almost the same. Saddam is the president of Iraq?”
Given the “international community’s” and U.S. liberals’ low estimation of Bush’s intelligence, not to mention his Texas accent, I have no doubt that he would have gotten away with it.
Iran is going to get bombed! If you don’t believe me, read Ezekiel 37-39.
The argument for “bomb Iran” are reminiscent of the German arguments as to why Poland was such a danger and invasion was absolutely necessary.
Actually, the Germans had the better argument as they were referring to an immediate neighbour, not a nation on the other side of the planet.
The last time I checked Poles didnt have nuclear tipped ICBMs which they were threatening Germany with or sending death squads to fight proxy wars against German interests.
You sound like a Ron Paul supporter(hint:that is not meant to be a compliment)
And the Iranians have ICBMs armed with nuclear weapons with which they are attempting to threaten the US?
Reality. They don’t and they’re not.
You don’t need an ICBM to deliver a nuke to the US, Bogs…