Mark Kleiman and friends are having an interesting discussion on Iran from the left side of the plate.
Check out Kleiman here, Sabl’s reply (the term ‘batshit crazy’ is used), then Kleiman again, then Teles. It’s an intelligent and interesting discussion, and if the hawkish folks here ever want to build a consensus for action, you’ll need to find a way to reach out and engage the guys writing over there.
What I see is a bunch of people denying that the wildfire threatening to burn them to ashes actually exists.
The Israelis will do it. No wait the Europeans will make the Iranians see reason. Besides the Iranians are sensible men. We can do business with Mr. Ahmadinejad! Besides politics would never allow it, people wouldn’t love us so much and might have naughty words to say to us.
Much better to sit back and let Iran get nukes. They’d never actually use them except on the Israelis and we don’t like them anyway.
My guess is that Bush is waiting for Iran to actually nuke us, seeing as how the Democrats will scream and prevent any military action to defend ourselves. Yeah of course Iran probably already has nukes, and is just waiting to build more before they attack us. What’s truly pathetic is that Dems won’t offer any alternatives to Bush, and pretend inaction is some grand strategy.
Well, first, sometimes inaction _is_ a grand strategy; the intersting question is whether it’s the _right_ grand strategy at a given time.
And while I’m as anxious as anyone out there about Iran, no one has successfully answerded my _then what?_ question.
The goal is to avoid what Will Smith was accused of in the Wild Wild West (hey, my nine year old loves the damn movie…)
“…policy of shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and then when everyone’s dead, try to ask a question or two…”
A.L.
First neither one mentioned the real “bat sh*t crazy” stuff Adamahjan is pushing as reality. The 12 Imam or 12 Mahdi this apocalyptic view that chaos will ring in the 12 Mahdi’s return. To risk millions of Muslims, Jews and maybe even Westerners on the idea that some apocalyptic believing leader driven by an end times insanity, that worships at the alter of Martyrdom will value life and be reasonable thinking is the real “bat sh*t”.
What Sabl’s not realizing is that if Tel Aviv goes up Israel isn’t just going to settle for Iran allowing Iran to become the nation martyr of the Muslims and Adamahjan the new Salidin. The Israelis are going to torch the Muslims en-whole from Tripoli to Tehran every Arab Capitol along with Holy Sites and major population centers are going to be gone.
The Mullah know they have even said such that Israel is a small nation handful of cities that a couple of nukes would destroy were the Muslims or even Iran hundreds of nukes would just be millions dead.
What is left will be chaos of true mad max vision. And even the US over in our nice little cocoon wont be immune from the fact of a sizable portion of the world being vaporized. The environmental impact of such numbers of nukes at once and then the economic chaos the world shock.
Not to mention who the hell is going to go in and bring order to what is left get the oil flowing and such China, Russia, Europe, Israel, or US? The oil will be safe underground just their for the taking with a broken chaos of survivors left on the surface. The New World caused a rush of colonialism and was seen as a giant natural resource in need of being claimed before X did. The Arab world with no Arabs will be screaming take me before X does.
And I agree with the air campaign idea done by Clark sounds about right. But I would add that instead of land invasion and occupation afterwards we see a no-fly-zone nation wide with target of opportunity to keep the mullah down while we support whatever acceptable groups stand up to fill the power vacuum of our devastation of the current gov control must be high priority to stave the Saddam syndrome of perceived victory.
The Dems are going to do what they do best. If Bush invades they will blame every death and every painful victory on him. If Bush leaves Iran alone they will blame all the hell that results on his incompetence. The world is easy when you have a straw man to blame for all the ills Bushitler is that man for the Dems, just like the Joooo’s are for the tin hat dictators in the Muslim world.
The Democratic party of today is incapable of being part of a war effort their radical base has way to much power. They will be more than content to bitch moan blame cry all the while secretly in mind supporting our effort.
A.L. if you believe that peace love and understanding rule the relations of nations, then no Will Smith’s actions in Wild Wild West are pretty inappropriate. If on the other hand you think Machiavelli had it right in relations between states, particularly hostile ones, then Will Smith’s strategy of shoot first, shoot some more, and then shoot some more seems pretty good.
Nuclear technology is not magic. It is well known what it takes to get a working Nuke system. Precision milling of plutonium (very difficult because the plutonium must be derived from Uranium breeder reactors, and besides being radioactive plutonium undergoes 17 separate state changes). Plus of course precision timing of explosive lenses and carefully shaped explosive lenses.
Add to it a ballistic missile system capable of hitting a city, and launchable from a freighter. That’s basically a poor man’s ballistic missile submarine.
It’s very expensive but can be done by a state willing to devote years and resources. It took Pakistan about 25 years to get it, same for India. Iran probably already has it, as do the North Koreans. Brazil, South Africa, Israel, and possibly Taiwan have these as well (nukes plus ballistic missiles).
Even after Iran has been dealt with one way or another we face the specter of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and other hostile states wanting nukes plus ballistic missiles.
Making a very explicit example out of Iran, as a broken and torn state with the leadership all dead, in Machiavellian terms induces fear in these states to not bother with nukes. Because it will simply provoke us to provide them with the same situation.
Doing nothing is IMHO extremely stupid. It shows hostile forces you are no threat, a paper tiger, and can be attacked with impunity as well as giving over to your enemies the initiative.
Let Iran nuke up and yes, every hostile nation on earth that can get nukes will try and get them. And all that takes is time and money.
Sorry, AL, I can’t take these folks seriously. For just one example, look at what Kleiman says in his “Second Update”:
See, all Clark has to do is assert something, and Kleiman thinks it’s a sure bet. What a clown. Uhh, let me clarify that–what a pathetic, intellectually bankrupt clown. I do wonder, however: if it came to pass that we did embark on this path, and everything didn’t go exactly as Clark painted, would Kleiman turn on him and excoriate him as he now does Bush, or would it be ok because it was done by “his guy”. Either way, contemptible.
Nice try AL, but as you can see, a wasted effort.
To the commenters, a few things for you to consider.
We face a serious threat from Iran. It’s ongoing attempts to aquire nuclear weapons can not be denied nor ignored.
But we have a very serious problem. You guys already burned that card.
Going forward, if we are to face this threat as a nation, the administration will need bi-partisan support.
To put it bluntly, George W. Bush can’t go on prime time and announce that Iran is developing weapons and supporting terrorists and we have to take immediate action. In case you didn’t notice it, he’s already blown that wad.
So you can discount those on the left who are serious about foreign policy and push for more of the “my way or the highway” posturing by this administration. To quote Sabl you’d have to be “batshit crazy” to think that more than 40% of America is going to go along, but that’s your perrogative.
Or you can calm down a bit, actually listen to or read ideas from those in the opposition who are serious about the policy.
I don’t hold out much hope of these commenters going with the second choice. But I do think they are going to be extremely dissapointed if they don’t.
Davebo,
“Ask me for anything but TIME” – Napoleon Bonaparte
Incredibly helpful Tom. Really..
Davebo,
There isn’t time to do what you and Armed Liberal propose before Iran performs its first nuclear test, which might as soon as six weeks from now or, if we’re lucky, as far off as October. Either way it will be too late for all of us.
Davebo said:
bq. We face a serious threat from Iran. It’s ongoing attempts to acquire nuclear weapons can not be denied nor ignored.
bq. But we have a very serious problem. You guys already burned that card.
Nope.
You on the Left have convinced yourself that Bush has done so.
That does not make it so for everyone outside the Leftist echo chamber.
bq. Going forward, if we are to face this threat as a nation, the administration will need bi-partisan support.
Nope.
The Administration needs the support of the *American people.*
The two parties are not the people.
bq. To put it bluntly, George W. Bush can’t go on prime time and announce that Iran is developing weapons and supporting terrorists and we have to take immediate action. In case you didn’t notice it, he’s already blown that wad.
Nope.
The Iranians are on the top of the list of America’s foreign enemies with the American people. They have been for decades.
The vision of the Iranian mullahs with nukes gets the soccer moms in a bunch no matter what the Left or main stream media says about it. Wider Jacksonian America simply wants the Mullahs dead, like all our other dishonorable enmeies.
bq. So you can discount those on the left who are serious about foreign policy and push for more of the “my way or the highway” posturing by this administration. To quote Sabl you’d have to be “batshit crazy” to think that more than 40% of America is going to go along, but that’s your perrogative.
All that is required is the support of the majority of the American people and a majority in both Houses of Congress.
Bush can have both without either the Left or without Democrats come to that.
bq. Or you can calm down a bit, actually listen to or read ideas from those in the opposition who are serious about the policy.
Why bother with people who a) can’t deliver anyone from their party and b) will abandon the project when the going gets tough. Bush has enough fair weather friends in the Republican coalition as it is.
After the pro-war Left’s behavior on Iraq, what is in it for Bush to try?
from a french point of view (please forgive the faults in my mail), the debate is very interesting (there is also a very good post at the officers club on that). I (and my government) opposed the US invasion of Irak. However, i am part of a large mass of people i know for who (m? ich?) we would be justified to bomb Iran to stop the proliferation of nukes. And that despite the consequences. I just hope that if action is deemed necessary we will go with you this time.
Another point to consider in my mind: what would be the reactions of the Chinese (Taiwan?) and the Russians? do we need to bribe them? and how?
Ironic considering Iraq is the biggest reason Bush has no hope of selling another preemptive strike.
Look around dude. The majority of Americans believe Iraq was/is a foreign policy disaster of the highest scale.
And Tom.
Davebo,
The very idea that Iraq has been “a foreign policy disaster of the highest scale” is simply laughable and demonstrates an utter lack of historical scale.
The irony is that those who parrot this line without any substantive argument wish to absolve themselves of responsibility for the consequences of devolving the debate.
Davebo,
Amir Taheri has been saying for months now that she has information that the U.S. has planned to commence bombing of Iran on March 19. 3-4 weeks ago IranWatch or an equivalent web site said that Iran planned its first nuclear test for March 20, because that was Iran’s New Year. These matters may be related.
My prior opinion – in my Case for Invading Iran – was sometime in the fall. This was based on a variety of factors as explained in my article. Our November election was one – it will be before then.
What I did not say there, because the article was long enough already, was that Ayatollah Khomemi admitted he timed the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the taking of its staff as hostages, with the intention of getting President Carter defeated for re-election. Now they’re trying to do that to President Bush. This was one of the reasons why I said that Iran was timing its breakout based on American election cycles. There are other reasons.
Robin.
Do you really need arguments Robin? Ok…
We can question whether or not we are incubating a democracy in Iraq, but we can’t question the fact that we are incubating an entire new slew of terrorist recruits. This isn’t conjecture, but fact. And when considering the question of Iran and the threat it poses Iraq cannot be ignored. Specifically, the effect alpha strikes or other attacks on Iraq will have on US troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan, but especially Iraq.
You are free to believe that the invasion was a good idea, but you are in the minority of Americans in holding that belief.
And Tom, I seriously doubt anyone is scheming to prevent Bush’s re-election. Unless of course you know something the rest of us don’t.
bq. Look around dude. The majority of Americans believe Iraq was/is a foreign policy disaster of the highest scale.
That statement is factually incorrect.
The latest Pew Poll results:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=269
bq. *A narrow majority of Americans (51%) say the original decision to use force in Iraq was right, up from 45% a month ago.* But at the same time the proportion saying we will definitely or probably fail in establishing a stable government in Iraq also edged up from 34% to 39%. Overall views of how things are going in Iraq remained level with 13% saying things are going very well, 38% fairly well, 29% not too well and 17% not at all well. And the public remains divided about evenly over whether we should keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized (50%) or bring U.S. troops home as soon as possible (46%).
bq. Pretty exact dates there. Care to share what you are basing this certainty on?
You might want to read what Tom Holsinger wrote here.
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php
Davebo –
Talk about self reinforcing arguments, though – so after spending three years single-mindedly hammering the basis, conduct, and outcomes of the war, with a media that has been strongly supportive of their views, the anti-war folks now point to weak public support of the war as a) a measure that it was a bad idea; and b) an indicator requiring immediate action.
Hmmm.
A.L.
Tom Holsinger said
bq. What I did not say there, because the article was long enough already, was that Ayatollah Khomemi admitted he timed the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the taking of its staff as hostages, with the intention of getting President Carter defeated for re-election. *Now they’re trying to do that to President Bush.* This was one of the reasons why I said that Iran was timing its breakout based on American election cycles. There are other reasons.
Tom, Bush was re-elected in 2004.
He won’t be up again in 2008, however much Democrats like to pretend otherwise.
I suspect the audience Ayatollah Khomemi is playing with right now is internal.
Trent,
For every outlier you can offer I can offer 4 other polls showing what the majority of polling has shown. Between 52% and 56% believing the war was a mistake. That’s not to say we should set foreign policy around polls, but it’s something to consider when deciding whether or not to attempt to rally the public around another pre-emptive war while the last one is still going on.
AL. Please, blaming the press yet again? Well, if we are going to blame the press for it’s coverage of the Iraq war, why not offer some criticism of the coverage of the build up to war with Iraq? Sad day indeed when only the Washington Times, for instance, is willing to report that Bush made stories up out of thin air about IAEA reports on Iraq’s nuclear potential.
But again, the point here is what it would take the administration to convince the public to support another pre-emptive action but this time with a far more capable foe.
Like it or not, any action against Iran is going to be coordinated through the security council with all that it entails. Better to recognize that now rather than blame the media for our mistakes of the past wouldn’t you say?
Let’s get one thing clear now. The media didn’t hype the threat of Iraq. The media didn’t ignore knowledgeable experts on what the occupation would require. The media didn’t pass out plum reconstruction positions to kids right out of college who’s only qualifications were their AEI or Heritage foundation connections, or their fathers White House connections.
And the DNC had nothing to do with it either.
oops,
The November election is involved in the timing here – when the US govt. is most likely to be temporarily paralyzed.
Such has happened before. When I was 18, I called the timing of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia months in advance, based on the timing of the Democratic presidential convention. I wasn’t the only one to make that call – just the youngest.
I believe you are meaning to refer to the Ayatollah Khomeini?
And I’d imagine his current audience is more ethereal than internal. He has been dead for almost 17 years now.
Davebo –
Not blaming the press – I’ve publicly blamed Bush in the past for doing an awful job of making the case for the war to the American public.
But it’s interesting that popularity is suddenly a basis for going to war – or not.
I actually agree that it is, albeit one that needs to be watched very carefully, because there may be a time when the public is more bloodthirsty than our leaders are.
A.L.
There’s Khomeini (dead, praise be to Allah) and Khamenei (in charge from – get this – “The Office of the Supreme Leader”:http://www.leader.ir/ ).
And I’d say you were very unfair in your criticism.
If you wanted the war to happen, you can’t complain that Bush did what it took to get the public behind it.
Bush could have just said that toppling Hussien would free millions of oppressed Iraqis from a brutal dictator and that planting a seed of democracy in Iraq could spread throughout the middle east.
But had he done that there would have been no war and I think deep down you realize that.
This is only my opinion, but your problem isn’t with how Bush made the case for war, but with what is required to get the American public behind such a war.
And seriously, I don’t want to berate you too much. But if you’re biggest beef with Bush is how he publicly made his case for war and not with how he totally botched the post invasion planning and has since refused to hold anyone, anyone at all, accountable for the mistakes you yourself have pointed out here, then I think your priorities are way out of whack and, to be honest, show a lack of serious consideration.
The Iranians are already armed with nuclear weapons(fission ones). It does not require the milling of plutonium etc. Tel Aviv is much smaller than Hiroshima.
The canard of fusion weapons misses the boat. why does Iran want them and what will we they do with them? As countless posters here have pointed out all the terrorist suicide bombers have never been the ones carrying out the attack. Is the president of Iran going to carry the bomb to Israel or anywhere else? I doubt it. Can he give it to terrorists to move into place without it being known? I doubt it too because of the logistics.
I suspect it is a matter of nationalism and a rsponse to a security threat. I believe it always has been. As a result all the talk of invasion bombing et al is not going to happen until Iran uses them. They have been told what will happen if they use them. If they do a couple of centuries of Persian history is going to disappear off the map of the world.
As to the argument Bush has run this war in Iraq so incompetently as to preclude help I know that to be the case. The info had better be accurate this time.
I read Kleiman et. al. Seemed very rational and yes, reality based – except for Andrew Sabl. I don’t see what folks here so bothered about. I may disagree with some of the presmises, but they seemed to be focused on the fact that there is a real threat, devoid of technicolor religious fantasies like salvation through the UN, and able to have a pretty sane discussion with people like myself re: what to do about it.
This is a reasonable set of things to ask of a reasonable counterpart. Instant and unqualified agreement is not. That’s why one has discussions in the first place.
The point of Tom’s quote from the short general is apt… time is the most perishable commodity here, and always has been. We aren’t sure when it will run out, and if it does bad things start happening fast. And that’s an argument that can be made to Kleiman and Teles, I think, and backed up.
A.L.’s point is that someone would have to engage them in a non-hostile way and participate in the dialogue, in order to accomplish that. His sibsidiary point is that this is good politics and good policy.
And he is right on both counts.
I do not believe in the agitprop lines about Iraq, negligence, conspiracies, et. al. It’s a significant war, the price is actually low in historical terms, the things that happened are common to major wars, and at the end of the day America has the 100% guarantee it required re: Saddam. It may yet have something even more valuable. We shall see.
But the conduct and negligence of this administration and most players in State, CIA and Congress (both parties) re: Iran is indeed damn near criminal.
Energetic, consistent broad-spectrum promotion of democratic movements, major backing technically and financially (in the golden era of earmarks, none for this?), and a full-on covert campaign to topple the mullahs and let Iranians have a REAL choice without any “Guardian Council any candidate as long as it’s ours” b.s. is at least 4 years overdue. And we didn’t have 4 years to piss away.
Robert M… make that a couple millennia of Persian history. It’s only in the “couple of hundreds” if you take the Islamic view that history started after Iran submitted to Islam. Innocent timeline mistake I know, but thought I’d set that one straight.
Because that may indeed be what we’re about to lose. And ironically, the nation that would feel this loss of history most keenly and sadly by far (after the Persians themselves, of course) would be…. none other than Israel.
Davebo –
You ovbiously didn’t get around to reading what I wrote about Buah back then – I’m not massively upset at him for hyping the issues in the leadup to war – I’m upset at him for doing a piss-poor job of maintaining support for the war over the last three years.
“here”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003777.php
“here”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003832.php
and “here”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/003957.php
…that ought to set out my basic views (there are some more, but I’ll have to pull them later on…
A.L.
Joe
Please explain your reference to Israel and Persia. I do not want to guess at what you are thinking or the history (shared).
I can not fathom how you can see the the incompetence towards Iran but not Iraq. Can you see into blind trusts?
But to why I came back no matter how much the French talk out of both sides of their mouth to the world when they decide they have a problem they do something about it. I doubt Joe misunderstands this post.http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,1706776,00.html
Iran, I am not sure there is a winnable solution. I think the ‘winds of war’ this site mentioned are picking up, though.
As far as the Kleiman article. I noticed he linked some references when he made a point. I was only saddened he didn’t when he stated Bush lied about Iraq’s nukes. I am afraid he didn’t because he might have only been able to link to the Dem’s crazy uncle, Howard Dean, not anything really factual. I would have taken his article more seriously had he skipped bringing out the sound bites so many have been fed that they believe them.