New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 23, 2006

Michael Young asks: After three years in Iraq, how much tough talk on Iran will Americans back?

Comments

|3.23.06 @ 10:12AM|#

We need a Pearl Harbor type event.

lunchstealer|3.23.06 @ 10:49AM|#

ix-nay on the earl-pay arbor-hay! Do you want the MIHOP guys to catch wind of it?

Seriously, if Bush wanted to be able to take on Iran and NK, he really needed to think through Iraq a little better. Maybe wait until we were more 'done' in Afghanistan. As it is, if I were Iran I'd call any bluff the Bush administration makes.

|3.23.06 @ 11:07AM|#

Any military action the US takes will most likely be limited to cruise missiles and bombs, because there's no way we could launch a ground offensive.

Iran, on the other hand, can easily launch a ground offensive against our troops in Iraq, either by sending in Iranian troops or by proxy.

|3.23.06 @ 11:39AM|#

Young flatters himself when he pretends that opposition to "further violence" in the Middle East is primarily a function of emotion and fatigue, rather than reason and principle.

|3.23.06 @ 12:38PM|#

Joe: exactly right. Everybody is now skeptical of the Administration's goals, motivations, and competence except him. There's no shame in being ignorant but he's guilty of wooden-headedness. He's learned nothing; everyone else is moving on.

The paragraph he cited from the NSS made my skin crawl. It amounted to a declaration of war against half the governments on Earth. It casually ignored the fact that the Administration has actively promoted laws and programs to make the US more like Saddam's Iraq while its program to make Iraq look more like the US has turned that country into an economic and political basket case. Not to mention a charnel house.

The NSS was apparently produced in a Bizarro-World where the US is expanding freedom at home, Iranians were denied an opportunity to choose a more moderate president than the one they voted for, and the Iraqis have responded to foreign invasion by throwing roses at the tanks and IFVs. In other words, it's a fantasy derived from a lie.

|3.23.06 @ 12:39PM|#

The U.S. won't do anything about Iran until the crazy fuckers nuke us or Europe and then it will be all our fault for not stopping them. Of course if the U.S. did do something we would be blood for oil imperialists who attacked an innocent peace loving country. These are truely dark times in which we live.

|3.23.06 @ 12:42PM|#

And why would Iran nuke Europe?

|3.23.06 @ 12:44PM|#

Yes James and Joe, I am resigned to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are going to sit around and wait for Iran to get nukes and use them on Europe, Isreal and maybe the U.S. But the good news that I am really working on my self loathing so that I can beleive like you guys no doubt will that we deserved it and that we should welcome our new Mullah overlords.

|3.23.06 @ 12:47PM|#

Yes James and Joe, I am resigned to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are going to sit around and wait for Iran to get nukes and use them on Europe, Isreal and maybe the U.S. But the good news that I am really working on my self loathing so that I can beleive like you guys no doubt will that we deserved it and that we should welcome our new Mullah overlords.

|3.23.06 @ 12:48PM|#

Yes James and Joe, I am resigned to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are going to sit around and wait for Iran to get nukes and use them on Europe, Isreal and maybe the U.S. But the good news that I am really working on my self loathing so that I can beleive like you guys no doubt will that we deserved it and that we should welcome our new Mullah overlords.

|3.23.06 @ 12:52PM|#

Yes James and Joe, I am resigned to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are going to sit around and wait for Iran to get nukes and use them on Europe, Isreal and maybe the U.S. But the good news that I am really working on my self loathing so that I can beleive like you guys no doubt will that we deserved it and that we should welcome our new Mullah overlords.

|3.23.06 @ 12:54PM|#

Yes James and Joe, I am resigned to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are going to sit around and wait for Iran to get nukes and use them on Europe, Isreal and maybe the U.S. But the good news that I am really working on my self loathing so that I can beleive like you guys no doubt will that we deserved it and that we should welcome our new Mullah overlords.

ONe more thing.

It casually ignored the fact that the Administration has actively promoted laws and programs to make the US more like Saddam's Iraq while its program to make Iraq look more like the US has turned that country into an economic and political basket case

I guess that is why over a million Iraq ex patriots have voted with their feet and returned home since 2003 and the IRaqi economy grew 50% in 2004 and over 5% in 2005. But God I don't want to bother you with facts, James, it might change the color of the sky in your world.

|3.23.06 @ 1:12PM|#

I'm interested in peoples opinions on the following issues.

1. Is Iran a rational actor?

2. Is Iran trying to build nuclear weapons?

3. If they are is this a problem?

4. If it is a problem what should be done about it?

Thanks,

TJIT

|3.23.06 @ 2:33PM|#

TJIT

1. Arguably, in the realm of foreign policy they are rational. Iran has been generally pretty successful in allowing the U.S. to advance their interests in the region by taking out their hostile neighbors, while maintaining their support and influence with Hezbollah in Lebanon without incurring any substantial penalties for doing so. Their president's inflammatory statements have not helped their interests, but the real powerbrokers in the country seem to be circumventing him by seeking talks with the U.S.

2. There appears to be a very broad international consensus that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

3. Tough one to answer. In my view, probably less of a problem than Pakistan's nukes, due to the greater level of long-term instability in that country, but adding another country to the nuclear club is never going to be a positive development. It is particularly problematic due to Israel's interests in maintaining strategic dominance in the region.

4. What you do about it depends upon who you are and how big of a problem you think it is. China and Russia think if we can live with Pakistan and North Korea having nukes, we can live with Iran having them. Israel has a different perspective, since their ability to project conventional military force in the region might be compromised if Iran had a counterweight to Israel's nuclear trump card. On the other hand, if they take military action on their own, they risk serious international isolation, particularly from Europe, China and Turkey, whom they have lots of economic and military ties to. The Saudis are probably terrified of a nuclear-armed Iran, but don't have the means to do anything (directly) about it. The U.S. has many compelling geostrategic reasons to be allied with Iran, which is why it has been talking mainly about regime change when discussing the problem. Turkey has been surprisingly quiet about Iran's nuclear ambitions, which makes me think they have an "understanding" they haven't told anyone else about. For the U.S., in the end it comes down to an analysis of the likelihood of Iran handing a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah vs. the risks of military action and international economic disruption. My guess is we end up not pulling the trigger.

|3.23.06 @ 2:57PM|#

Since John has long since proven himself to be incapable of reason, fairness, and perception, I'm going to embrace his transition from aggressive, triumphalist hostility to sullen, accepting hostility as the best we could hope for.

TJIT,

1. Iran's willingness to cooperate with the US during the Taliban War is a strong indication of their rationality.

2. Very, very likely.

3. Yes, but it is unclear how big a problem.

4. Embrance the complete, verifiable, staged abolition of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth as the only practical response to nuclear proliferation.

|3.23.06 @ 3:07PM|#

"Turkey has been surprisingly quiet about Iran's nuclear ambitions, which makes me think they have an 'understanding' they haven't told anyone else about."

Or the Turks are more rational than the Western MSM which frequently shrieks about how Iranian missiles could hit X without asking the obvious question of why Iran would want to shoot a missile at X.

|3.23.06 @ 3:48PM|#

John: "ex patriots" neatly sums them up. Incidentally, there is a building boom going on in Amman and Damascus. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their new paradise. It's really amazing...take a trip through the trade press and you'll find a number of articles about awed construction companies making staggering fortunes catering to middle-class Iraqis who are getting out while the getting-out is good.

Fifty percent increase in the economy? Impressive. I'll bet if we poured a couple of hundred billion dollars in aid into Mexico we would get a fifty percent increase in the economy and end illegal immigration overnight. Five percent increase in 2005? Less impressive. Probably the fleeing middle class and civil war dampening the effect of the staggering aid. And corruption, of course.

Iran isn't going to nuke anybody because they'll get nuked back. Plenty of strange fish have had nukes and we've survived it. At the end of the day, you don't get to be president of anywhere unless you like power. You like having it, you like exercising it, you like keeping it. It tends to make you conservative. Nuclear weapons are just another power trip and no Iranian president is going to transfer the most powerful weapon in his arsenal to a stateless fanatic he has no control over. Nor is he going to risk his Mercedes and mistress for the Palestinians or anybody else.

The sky is blue, John. No mushroom clouds and none likely. Free yourself from fear and you'll live longer and happier, I promise you.

|3.23.06 @ 7:37PM|#

The leaders of Iran have been described as "crazy mullahs" by this administration and its mouth (Fox News) repeatedly over the last year or two because of their apparent pursuit of a nuclear bomb. It seems to me they would be crazy NOT to try and build one...it might be the only thing that prevents them from being next.
I don't want Iran (or any country) to have nukes, but it seems to be the only thing that gives a nation real sovereignty.

|3.23.06 @ 8:53PM|#

TJIT,

1. Is Iran a rational actor?

How do you define "rational"? They do support terrorism. But I don't think they're as crazy as Saddam.

2. Is Iran trying to build nuclear weapons?

Why wouldn't they be?

3. If they are is this a problem?

Probably. Especially if they elect a mullah with a Bush II foreign policy.

4. If it is a problem what should be done about it?

Perfect our missile defense system. It would work against Iran, N Korea, and anybody else that wants to build nuke armed ICBMs.

Not that this will stop acts of terrorism. But keeping nukes out of Iran won't stop acts of terrorism either.

It'll cost a whole lot less to push a missile defense system to a reliable, working status than invading Iraq has cost. Plus we don't loose soldiers. Plus the civilian tech spin offs would probably help our economy to at least some degree. Plus invading Iran would almost certainly cost more than Iraq has.

There are few nations on earth that can match us in high tech military gadgets. I'm a firm advocate of putting a good chunk into this kind of defense spending, to avoid as far as possible having to put boots on the ground like in Iraq.

|3.23.06 @ 9:46PM|#

Time to answer my own questions

1. Possibly as a whole. I think the current president is not completely balanced. And who
knows what their chain of command and nuclear security / control system looks like. I have little faith the Iranian political system has rationality needed to have nuclear arms in that part of the world.

2. Absolutely, with the amount of natural gas they have they have zero need for nuclear reactors.

3. Big, big problem.

4. Who knows. Not sure if military action of any sort could disable the weapons program. I have zero faith that the Iranian's will voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons program.

|3.24.06 @ 7:36AM|#

TJIT: You might find this interesting--http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iran/articles/20060324.aspx