Blair Going Wobbly on Iran

Who will join the U.S. in the Coalition of the Willing for any future attack on Iran? Apparently not Blair's Britain.

Comments

[DaveInBigD]

I cannot imagine this conversation going differently...

"Hey, Tony? Ya wanna go smoke out some more evildoers?"
"No, I'm afraid not. Thanks ever so much for the offer, though."
"Tony, this wouldn't have anything to do with that Iraq thing, would it?"
"Duh."

[Gary Gunnels]

Didn't they announce some time ago that they were not interested? Not that Britain spare the troops anyway.

[Jason Ligon]

Not that I will get to, but I would love to see international responses to the following question:

"Is a mullah controlled nuclear Iran something you are willing to live with?"

Many might say, "Sure. No problem." I'm just wondering how many really feel that way.

[Call me snake]

Worry not, thoreau and all the other fretting liberal and libertarian isolationists.

If Iran is really on the brink of nuclear weapons, Israel will insure that it's all over except for the crying by the time the Bush Admin. gets around to serious deliberation.

[Evan Williams]

How dare he back out of our Imperial Quest to Force Democracy Down the Throats of Every Backwater Hovel on the Entire Planet!

Obviously, Mr. Blair has not mastered the fine art of "welfare-warfare-state bogeyman-seeking". If he only knew...when you have an omnipresent, invisible bogeyman (like the USSR, or terrorists), you can pretty much get your taxpaying citizenry to write you a blank check for your defense budget, which is then funnelled directly to your pals at Boeing, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. This is the beauty of the welfare-warfare state, and given that the cold war is over, we were damned lucky to have a blessing like 9/11 befall us. Now, every time Bush asks for $80 billion dollars to throw away in some shithole sandpit, the whole nation says, "uh, sure, it's all part of the 'war on terra', right?"

As I said, Mr. Blair has alot to learn in the ways of Welfare-Warfare State Manipulation.

[thoreau]

Jason, I'd have no problem bombing nuclear facilities. In fact, I think we should have done that sooner.

But there's a big difference between bombing a nuclear facility and invading a country to bring about regime change.

[Gary Gunnels]

Call me snake,

Actually, Israel can't. Iran's facilities are largely outside the range of Israel's aircraft, there is more than one of them (indeed, there are dozens of them, many of which are unknown), etc. Iran isn't dumb enough to put all its eggs into one basket.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

You are dealing with typical hawkish overreach.

[Ball of Confusion]

Come on, thoreau, you know you want it. We'll pull out in time this time, we swear.

[Evan Williams]

Worry not, thoreau and all the other fretting liberal and libertarian isolationists.

Hehe, the best part was when Snake attempted to paint everyone who doesn't agree with our campaign to democratize the globe by force as an "isolationist". This, the true mark of an intelligent debater.

[Jason Ligon]

Thoreau and GG:

'You are dealing with typical hawkish overreach.'

Perhaps. The question matters, though. To me, the answer is an emphatic "No."

The distinction I am seeking to make is that I am willing to try whatever you can come up with to prevent the nuclear Iran scenario. I am willing to discuss different strategies to address the problem. What I am not willing to do is throw up my hands if the mullahs decide to make things difficult by hiding the program Pakistan / North Korea style. I would invade before I would let them exist as a nuclear power.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

I am curious: who is throwing up their hands?

Evan Williams,

Its fallacious in a number of ways: most importantly it impliedly posits a false choice fallacy.

[joe]

Jason, wouldn't that depend on the alternatives?

I suppose I could ask you, in isolation, if 5-10,000 dead American troops is something you can live with.

Or if a wholesale terror war waged against our troops in Iraq and our civilians at home by one of the world's wealthiest oil states is something you can live with.

But since anyone over the age of 9 realizes that it's foolish to ignore all of the attendant consequences of a proposal, and focus only on that issue that boosts a certian position, I won't bother.

[Jason Ligon]

"I am curious: who is throwing up their hands?"

At a certain level of obfuscation, anyone who dismisses boots on the ground as an option.

[Jason Ligon]

"Jason, wouldn't that depend on the alternatives?"

Since everyone over the age of 9 knows to attach whatever consequences they believe might result from a proposal, and I was specifically trying to get at what percent of people believed everything would IN NET be hunky dory, I thought it appropriate to ask a specific question and let each person attach what consequences they will.

I'm hungry. Maybe I should eat more paste ...

[thoreau]

At a certain level of obfuscation, anyone who dismisses boots on the ground as an option.

Well, we're seeing in Iraq just how difficult and bloody that option is. But I will agree that it should at least be pondered, if only so we can rule it out intelligently rather than in a knee-jerk manner.

But there's a more compelling argument than Iraq analogies: We don't have to stop the Iranians completely, we only have to slow them down. Liberalization is proceeding slowly in Iran, but faster than in many other parts of the region. The largest demographic is the youth demographic, many of whom have strong sympathies for the West, and most of whom despise the Ayatollahs. Home-grown liberalization will happen, and it will be better than anything that could be imposed by boots on the ground.

All that we need to do is slow the nuclear program so that it doesn't reach fruition before the kids decide to do like the Ukrainians. And we need to slow it down intelligently, so that we don't provoke a nationalist backlash that slows the liberalization. Even people who hate their leaders have been known to resent foreign meddling.

[keith]

Joe,

Regarding your implied Saudi Arabia, there's an interesting article in Slate today about Neocons going green to "starve the beast" of Saudi Arabia. About freakin' time.

http://www.slate.com/id/2112608/

Relatedly, maybe the following was on one of the Hit-and-Runs -- I vaguely recall reading a few months ago that the oil crisis of the 70's was a two-part realpolitik gambit on the part of the west or the US that 1) starved the cash-poorer soviets of oil, and 2) enabled middle-eastern countries to quickly ramp up arms expenditures (from the west, natch) to inhibit the Red Army once they were done in the central asian 'stans; all this done at the cost of wrecking the US economy in the 70's. It's interesting because it puts stagflation into the "defeats communism" side of the ledger, instead of "dumb circumstance as the result of economic centralization". I've been unable to find a more formal discussion of this idea or generalization to the modern case of the "cash-oil-outlet" (western arms or fundie terrorists?) triangle since then. Any help?

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

I see. Anyone who disagrees with you in other words. Thankyou for your non-explanation explanation. I look forward to more of the same from you on these matters.

[Jason Ligon]

thoreau,

I agree with all of that. Invasion is an upleasant, bloody, and otherwise expensive business. I am not saying that it is a first option, and I disagree with any Bushites out there who suggest that it is the preferred method. I do believe that there is a strategic advantage to putting the invasion card on the table face up, as it were. It needs to be perceived to be a likely outcome of refusal to cooperate, and this president is uniquely qualified to instill that kind of fear.

We can't take it off the table. It needs to be a more credible deterrent than our nuclear arsenal, which is more deadly but whose use is astronomically improbable.

[Jason Ligon]

GG:

Give me a break. This is not an empty answer.

Boots on the ground accomplish things that nothing else does. If those things need to be accomplished, but invasion is taken off the table in advance, we are choosing not to engage the problem. That is called 'throwing up your hands' in common parlance.

Now, if you really don't think that boots on the ground accomplish anything special, that is an argument of strategy, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Gary Gunnels]

keith,

I see. More government coercion.

...oil crisis of the 70's was a two-part realpolitik gambit on the part of the west or the US...

You're going to have to explain how the U.S./West engineered the "oil crisis." Did the U.S. force Israel into war so that the Saudis, etc. could conveniently close off the taps? Sorry, on its face, that claim makes no sense whatsoever.

...1) starved the cash-poorer soviets of oil...

The Soviets had their own oil and gas fields; that's why they we working on developing pipeline deals with Western European governments in the 1970s - to export it.

...enabled middle-eastern countries to quickly ramp up arms expenditures...

This also doesn't make any sense, since arms expenditures by middle-eastern nations were already quite robust in the 1960s. Indeed, regarding the Saudis, their military forces were so weak in the late 1970s that when the buildings around the kabaa were seized by some militants in that period they called in some special French police/commando units to knock them out.

Sorry, on their face these claims fly in the face of the historical record. You're going to have to do better.

[thoreau]

It needs to be perceived to be a likely outcome of refusal to cooperate, and this president is uniquely qualified to instill that kind of fear.

The threat is only credible if we have enough boots to put on the ground. Right now it looks like most of those boots are tied up in Iraq, and the Iranians know that. The only credible threat that we have is bombing nuclear sites. And couple it with diplomatic work on securing the cooperation of countries with ties to Iran's nuclear program.

My understanding is that Russia is involved with Iran's nuclear program. One way or another Bush needs to get Russia's help. Which is admittedly tricky because Putin is not the sort of person we want to be in bed with. We need to offer something to get him to help. I don't know what we can offer him that would get his cooperation without compromising core American values, but we need to at least put some creative thought into it.

I also recall reading (in The Economist maybe?) that France has been involved with Iran. If so, well, can anybody see why a good relationship with France might be useful?

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

It was very much an empty answer.

[joe]

Sadly, Jason, the invasion option is about as credible, at this point in history, as having Tinkerbell make Iran's nuke program vanish with her wand. And all of this is because of Iraq.

We don't have the troops, and can't raise them without a draft, with can't happen.

We don't have the international credibility to bring other countries on board, as Blair demonstrates.

We don't have the bona fides to convince anyone, especially the liberal Iranian reformers on whom such an effort would depend, that our actions were anything other than an imperialist oil grab.

We don't have the money to sponsor such an invasion, without driving our own economy into serious economic hardship.

All of this is because of Iraq.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

French companies do a pretty robust business there - Alcatel, Peugeot, etc. Indeed, as I recall both Peugeot and Renault have factories there now.

Russia does business with Iran because it needs the $ and there are very things that Russians make (aside from nuclear power plants, military hardware and oil & gas) that anyone wants.

[thoreau]

joe, mostly I agree with you, except when you say:

We don't have the bona fides to convince anyone, especially the liberal Iranian reformers on whom such an effort would depend, that our actions were anything other than an imperialist oil grab.

Actually, given how limited oil production has been in Iraq (remember when the oil was going to pay for the reconstruction), I think it's safe to assume that grabbing oil is the last thing on Bush's mind.

And I never thought I'd say that.

Then again, this is the same guy who lost money drilling for oil in Texas as a young man. Maybe he really does want to get oil from Iraq but he's just really, really bad at it...

[rst]

I'm with the doves on this one. I prefer letting the Iraqi experiment stabilize first. It would be far more effective I think to have Iran's long time enemy use a capitalist, pluralist system to create enviably low unemployment and inflation rates, right next door.

Iran shot themselves in the foot with their baby boom. Those 10 million "soldiers of Islam" they were working on cranking out during the 80s are now secularist 20-somethings looking for jobs that Allah doth not provide. Why would we need further military intervention? A successful Iraq creates the most compelling force for change in Iran. They are still enemies...each one's successes and failures made for familiar propaganda in the other's states. Rubbing Iran's nose in the ever-increasing failure of her 1979 reforms is a step in the right direction. Opening up the border and having the Iranian unemployed come work for Halliburton Iraq -- or just a McDonald's in Baghdad -- would be a coup de grace.

And yes, that leaves the nuclear Iran issue hanging, but I don't think it's much of an issue. I don't see the potential for al Qaeda to get their hands on a nuke as being demonstrably greater once Iran has deployed...it's too highly visible. They know if caught, they'd be no more. Nobody in the Middle East wants to be the next Iraq, to say nothing for having it done with any kind of international consensus to boot.

[joe]

thoreau, whether you buy the "oil grab" theory or not isn't the point - pretty much everyone who we would want to convince of our bona fides believes it.

[thoreau]

Gary,

What do you think it would take to get the French to crack down on companies that support Iran's nuclear program? Normally I'm all in favor of unfettered economic freedom, but I draw the line at selling dictators the tools that they need to make nukes. Buy and sell anything you want, as long as there are no nukes involved.

For that matter, what do you think it would it take to buy off Putin? My libertarian impulses lead me to offer zero tarriffs on all Russian exports to the US, but I know that Congress would never approve it, and it might not be enough for Putin anyway. What else do you think we could offer?

[Gary Gunnels]

I believe that its a safer prediction that Iran will become more capitalist more quickly than Iraq.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

I don't know of any French companies that support Iran's nuclear power or weapons facilities. Now, the U.K., France and germany have promised (in light of their "deal" with the Iranians) to provide Iran with technical expertise in developing its nuclear energy plants.

The nuclear facilities that Iran does have were built by either Germans (during the Shah's reign - Siemens as I recall was the main contractor) or Russians. The German facilities were mothballed and never completed because they were being built when the Shah fell from power. I believe at least some of those facilities have been completed by the Iranians.

[Jason Ligon]

"Sadly, Jason, the invasion option is about as credible, at this point in history, as having Tinkerbell make Iran's nuke program vanish with her wand. And all of this is because of Iraq."

I disagree. We reelected the warmonger. What do you suppose the result of a poll out at the UN that asked something like "Do you believe that George Bush at this point in history would unilaterally send troops into Iran," would be?

Scary as it sounds, we do have the money to do it. Our debt is high, but our debt to GDP ratio is not near other wartime levels. Our troop levels are not high enough to maintain current presence in Iraq and invade Iran, but it is probably closer than you think. Remember that none of our heavy armor divisions are doing anything.

Let me emphasize, I am NOT suggesting this as a preferred course of action. It is a credible possibility that any mullah must consider, however.

[gaius marius]

The distinction I am seeking to make is that I am willing to try whatever you can come up with to prevent the nuclear Iran scenario. I am willing to discuss different strategies to address the problem. What I am not willing to do is throw up my hands if the mullahs decide to make things difficult by hiding the program Pakistan / North Korea style. I would invade before I would let them exist as a nuclear power.

mr ligon, i think you (and a great many hawks who are slave to this fear) should begin to accept that the genie is out of the bottle. in some decades, most nations on earth will possess nuclear weapons. there are a lot of them around already, and they are getting cheaper and easier to make and deliver. the time will soon come when all the major nations of the earth which we could construe as adversary will be so armed.

what then is the alternative? a plan of global imperial conquest? pre-emptive nuclear strikes to depopulate nations that are getting close?

let's not be so silly. the answer will be in accepting the limitations of what we can or should do, and finding a way to co-exist with that which we are not in total agreement.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jason Ligon,

Oh we may have the troops to defeat Iran's military. That's not the problem of course.

There is also the issue of how one would even remotely justify (and justification there must be) such an invasion.

[Mike H.]

So lemme get this straight - the Brits have said that diplomacy is the desirable solution to the "Iranian problem"? Ok, now: How the fuck is this out of line with what the White House has intoned as of late?

Here's what that evil bastard Cheney had to say to that insufferable prick Don Imus:

We'll continue to try to address those issues diplomatically, continue to work with the Europeans. At some point, if the Iranians don't live up to their commitments, the next step will be to take it to the U.N. Security Council, and seek the imposition of international sanctions to force them to live up to the commitments and obligations they've signed up to under the non-proliferation treaty, and it's - but it is a - you know, you look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list.

This would seem to be completely in line with what the Brits are saying. But by all means, don't let any of this stop some of you from barking at the moon.

Brilliant example of a knee-jerk blog entry, this is.

[Gary Gunnels]

Mike H.,

As I recall - from what neo-con commentators on talk-shows have said - the plan of some is to let the Europeans fail (that's the predicted course I suppose) and then go to the UNSC and then get "tough."

[Gary Gunnels]

Mike H.,

Besides, when you brand three nations as members of an "axis of evil" and you invade and occupy one of those nations, its rather reasonable to infer that the same treatment might be thought appropriate for the other two under the right circumstances.

[Mike H.]

So, I'm to infer all this from a bunch of speculation from talking heads who more likely than not don't know shit?

That's crap, dude, and you know it.

If what you say does come to pass, then fine, then my knee might start twitching along with my fellow libertarians - but even then, only if we're talking about occupying both Iraq and Iran. Until that fateful day, this seems to me to be both a little dishonest and a little chicken little'ish.

Do you disagree?

[thoreau]

Mike-

Well, we argue all the time about the wisdom of proposals that have very little chance of being implemented. For instance, we have had discussions about the merits of a flat tax vs. a sales tax (and yes, I know, no tax is best of all), even though neither proposal is likely to see the light of day.

[Mike H.]

I'm curious, and this may relate to the road Jason Ligon was attempting to walk down:

What might those "right circumstances" be, GG? Assuming that an invasion wouldn't be an occupation, but just a walk-in-and-break-your-nuclear-thingies-then-get-the-fudge-out situation, is there any reasonable set of conditions for which you might support such action?

Or is all military action off the table for you?

P.S. I believe the Israelis have subs capable of launching cruise missiles on Iran.

[Evan Williams]

Mike H.:

One mustn't be so naive as to give preference to the words of a neoconservative warmonger over the actions of a neoconservative warmonger.

I'm sure Cheney was spouting the same bullshit at about the same time he was peeking over the shoulders of his friends at the OSP while they cherry-picked intel that supported an Iraqi invasion. "Yes, diplomacy is always the better option. War is a last resort. Blah blah blah..."

I'm sorry, but actions speak much louder than words, especially when it comes to international diplomacy and the fate of the Welfare-Warfare state. The question is, does anyone have any reason to believe a word the Vice Prez says? No.

[Mike H.]

Too true, thoreau. Just trying to ratchet down the level of hysteria a bit, that's all.

Whatdya guys think about mj legalization? 🙂

[Mike H.]

I'm sorry, but actions speak much louder than words, especially when it comes to international diplomacy and the fate of the Welfare-Warfare state. The question is, does anyone have any reason to believe a word the Vice Prez says? No.

I don't disagree with you, Evan.

Any evidence yet that we're preparing to invade Iran? Then why the gnashing of teeth?

[Gary Gunnels]

Mike H.,

So, I'm to infer all this from a bunch of speculation from talking heads who more likely than not don't know shit?

When some of those talking heads clearly have the ear of members of the Bush W.H. it is foolish to argue that such calculations and ideas aren't considered and on the table. And of course, the "axis of evil" line came directly from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Now what is crap is your silly effort to claim that the comments here are hysterical in nature. Indeed, let's note right now that almost all the comments on the subject of war with Iran have dealt with the wisdom of such a war, not its liklihood.

[Evan Williams]

Mike:

1) As Gary noted, the Prez labeled 3 nations as part of the axis of evil. We invaded and now occupy one of them. The other two have not changed their ways. Thus, it is not an altogether illogical supposition.

2) Couple that with Dub's Inauguration speech, wherein he basically promised to force democracy down the throats of every country on earth (at the expense of the American taxpayer, of course), and you have an even more logical scenario.

Think about it. I'm the playground bully. I name 3 kids as part of the "axis of stupid", and promise to beat them up if they don't change their ways. So, I beat up one of them. Another one brings a gun to school for protection, so I can't fuck with him. And the other kid, he hasn't changed his ways. So, then, I go around stumping about how I'm gonna kick EVERYONE'S ass if they don't get in line with my ways. Now, logically, who would you think would be the next target of my wrath?

[thoreau]

Mike-

Another subject in this thread is what to do about a nuclear-armed Iran. The Bush White House may or may not be considering invasion as a serious option, but the question being debated here is whether it should be considered as a serious option. My argument is that it shouldn't because, aside from the difficulty of the task, liberalization is proceeding and the nuclear program only needs to be slowed down until a more liberal government assumes power.

[Mike H.]

When some of those talking heads clearly have the ear of members of the Bush W.H. it is foolish to argue that such calculations and ideas aren't considered and on the table. And of course, the "axis of evil" line came directly from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Ok, which talking heads do you think are directly influencing WH policy? Or which ones are so close to the WH that they are being leaked info regarding future military operations?

It's typical talking head crap, is what it is. Left and Right, these clowns are so often wrong it's fucking stupid and hysterical to take what they say as gospel.

As Evan already said, actions speak louder than words. I'll wait until we begin to mass troops on Iran's border.

Now what is crap is your silly effort to claim that the comments here are hysterical in nature. Indeed, let's note right now that almost all the comments on the subject of war with Iran have dealt with the wisdom of such a war, not its liklihood.

Granted, I probably misspoke there. The comments, well most of 'em, are totally fine. What's hysterical, in my mind at least, is the very fact that this is being discussed in the context that it is: that the US is gunning for another fight and the Brits are already backing out. When in reality, the two countries have essentially the same position regarding Iran.

[Mike H.]

thoreau, I completely agree. I don't want an invasion of Iran, precisely for the reason you stated and my own fear that an invasion would actually work against the reform movement there.

Evan, we seem to completely disagree. I didn't get that impression from Bush's speech. So much for actions and words, eh?

Oh, and Evan, since we're talking logically now, how does invading one country in the Axis o' Evil mean that one must or will invade the others? The 3 are completely different situations, and what may be necessary in one may not be in another.

[Jason Ligon]

gaius indicates that the genie is out of the bottle, so all this is a waste of time.

I get that, honestly. Peering into the crystal ball, I strongly suspect that we will be victims of nuclear terrorism over whatever time period elapses while every enemy nation gets nukes. The implications of that kind of world have not completely escaped me. The difficulty goes back to that thread from months ago where we were all discussing why some people - myself included - believe the USSR could be contained by MAD, but Iran can't.

What we did successfully during the cold war was convince the Soviets that if any nuke went off in a US territory for any reason, they were toast. We didn't need evidence of this or that, they and their agents were the Other Guys with Nukes, so they would get it. Our retaliation strategy was fixed (not the sequence, but the net result), and they basically knew what it was. Clear cause and effect, and clear target designation.

Once you introduce the third party delivery agent (the terrorist) and the burden of proof popularly demanded for any military action whatsoever, deterrence is gone. Never was this more obvious than during the debates about Iraq. The only conclusion I can draw is that if nuclear weapons detonate in American cities, we will do absolutely nothing unless we have a Perry Mason tight case against very specific threats. Simply saying you want us dead and having nukes is insufficient in this day and age. If I can draw this conclusion, so can any mullah.

I suspect that folks who shrug this off as obvious and right have an exaggerated view of what intelligence is capable of, and, perhaps worse, what diplomacy absent threat looks like.

[thoreau]

So, Mike, it seems like you agree with a lot of sentiments, the only thing is that you thought some people were trying to imply that war is imminent or something.

Am I right?

[Mike H.]

Well said, Jason.

[Mike H.]

Meh... kinda, thoreau.

The trouble is when discussing situations like this, absolutism comes into play. Eventually it boils down to either a pro- or anti-war argument. But in this case, I don't think that's nearly sufficient.

My main contention is not with the majority of posters here (and yes, I realize that phrasing my opening comment more directly would've helped) but with the blog entry itself, and more to the point, the implied notion that the US is looking for another fight in Iran.

It seems to me that we're trying to prevent another war and simultaneously prevent Iranian nuclear development, but the paradox is that in order to prevent both, we ought to be prepared to actually use military force.

Maybe my own knee was jerking just a bit? 😉

[Gary Gunnels]

Mike H.,

It's typical talking head crap...

Which often includes the real desires of any administration. I don't see how discussing that is hysterical.

[Brett]

Gary,

Actually, Israel can't. Iran's facilities are largely outside the range of Israel's aircraft, there is more than one of them (indeed, there are dozens of them, many of which are unknown), etc. Iran isn't dumb enough to put all its eggs into one basket.

I believe the new F16-I's that Israel purchased from us this summer can indeed reach Iran (the main reason they were purchased). However, I agree completely with your 2nd point. Iran's nuclear facilities are not Osirak.

I don't necessarily believe this will stop an attempt, however.

[Mo]

the burden of proof popularly demanded for any military action whatsoever, deterrence is gone. Never was this more obvious than during the debates about Iraq

Doesn't this contradict your "we elected the warmonger" comment, Jason? We've invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for 9-11 (according to common world belief, not my own belief) and show we'll be crazy mothers when attacked by foreign countries, Iran is already on our shitlist and we can say that we will nuke them if we even have a shred of evidence that we believe a nuke came from them at one point in its life. We can then send over a complete history of the Spanish-American War to show them that we mean business. The downside is that Pakistanis with Islamist leanings and access to nasty weapons may be emboldened to send if off since Iran will be the prime suspect, but it would deter Iran pretty well.

As Evan already said, actions speak louder than words. I'll wait until we begin to mass troops on Iran's border.
Mike,
We have troops on two borders, Iraq and Afghanistan. On the plus side, it will be real easy to show all 3 hotspots at the same time. 🙂

We need to show the stick, but I'm afraid using it will delegitimize the homegrown democratic movement in Iran (the best ones are always homegrown).

[Jason Ligon]

Mo:

"Doesn't this contradict your "we elected the warmonger" comment, Jason?"

That is the point I was getting at in an oblique sort of way. If the people who want to take invasion off the table had their way, there would be no possibility of deterrence.

[Jennifer]

Though not usually a fan of graphic novels, I read Persepolis and Persepolis 2, the memoirs of Marjane Satrapi, a secularly-raised Iranian who was ten when Khomeini took over in the Islamic revolution. Judging from her book, Iranians for the most part were not happy with Khomeini and his government, but once Iraq invaded Iran everybody rallied behind their government. Even the fighter pilots Khomeini threw in jail agreed to go to war and fight, not to defend their government but to defend their homeland and their loved ones. The same thing would happen if we invaded now.

Also consider that while we're certainly capable of winning a war with Iran, we couldn't just destroy the country and leave, because that would make Iran another anarchic paradise for terrorists, and our foreign policy is supposed to reduce the number of such places. So we'd have to occupy it, and we'd be just as unsuccessful as in Iraq, and that would wipe out most of the pro-Western, democratic gains Iran had painstakingly achieved over the last several years.

Also, considering all the horror stories about Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and our other torture-dens, there's no way the Iranians are going to believe us if we tell them we have their best interests at heart.

[James]

Of course we're going into Iran. We're an inch away from being two for two in getting islamic countries to hold elections, why would we stop now? And how would getting an election in Iran hurt the democratic forces there? If they are truly democratic they'll be happy with an election no matter the outcome.
The Islamists didn't pay Kahn for the bomb to just sit on it! If we don't find them there then eventually we'll see them here.

[thoreau]

how would getting an election in Iran hurt the democratic forces there?

When the soldiers manning the checkpoints and raiding homes answer to the Ayatollahs, most people will want to vote against the Ayatollahs if given the chance.

If those soldiers are American, a lot of people are much more likely to vote against the Americans.

Is it really so difficult for people to comprehend that some foreigners don't want US tanks in the street any more than they like their dictators? It isn't a binary choice of depose a regime vs. be buddies with the local dictator.

[gaius marius]

The difficulty goes back to that thread from months ago where we were all discussing why some people - myself included - believe the USSR could be contained by MAD, but Iran can't.

mr ligon, i agree that the new delivery method voids direct responsibility and replaces everything with a gray area into which civilized nations will not venture with nuclear retaliation.

i do not see how this circumstance can be avoided. it will happen.

is that a difficulty we cannot address? no. i think we can address it by addressing the concerns of the third world of which we are a direct counterparty.

is that a guarantee of safety? no. but quitting naked territorial and political aspirations in the third world -- and replacing them with a forced, fair solution to the palestinian question -- could change the light in which the united states is seen in the third world. and in so doing, perhaps spare new york or san francisco a fate we can not otherwise avoid.

this is not as radical a solution as it may seem. it is the foreign policy stance most nations on earth practice.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

The trouble is when discussing situations like this, absolutism comes into play. Eventually it boils down to either a pro- or anti-war argument.

Which is why I no longer post anything substantial in the Iraq threads. Both sides are half-retarded in this discussion.

[Gary Gunnels]

James,

The Palestinians had held elections before those recently undertook. And the Iraqi election has taken place yet.

thoreau,

Some people are simply too dense to understand that an occupying American military is not something that most foreigners want or desire.

Jason Ligon,

I've been meaning to ask you this for some time now. Are you related to Richard Ligon? The first person to write a history of Barbados (in 1657)? Its titled A True & Exact History of the Island of Barbados. Its one of my favorite early colonial Caribbean histories.

[Jeremy Nimmo]

Gary, Bret,

Note the map: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/reference_maps/jpg/middle_east.jpg

What exactly requires the Israelis to take fighter aircraft on a roundtrip all the way? I'm sure that a sufficiently patriotic pilot could be found to go it alone and ditch in the Gulf near a friendly ship. Or cruise missiles or their own ballistic missiles (they can put a sattelite into space so why not a nuke). Or simply take tankers along, not like they could get shot by the Iraqi police or something.

[Gary Gunnels]

Jeremy Nimmo,

I don't believe the Israelis have tankers.

I don't believe they have cruise missiles either.

As to launching nuclear weapons, that would probably bring on a world-wide embargo amongst other things.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

Gary, you should update your info. Israel most certainly has cruise missiles.

[Gary Gunnels]

TPG,

No, as I recall, Israel was still testing its land attack cruise missile. Its been trying to develop a land attack cruise missile since the early 1990s. Furthermore, the cruise missile that it is developing has a range of 250-300 km.

Now Israel does have harpoon cruise missiles, but those are anti-ship weapons. It also has UAVs with a range of 400-500 km. Finally it has some Popeye-3 land attack missiles with a range of 350 km.

None of these systems would be particularly helpful because they couldn't reach Iran's nuclear facilities (Jerusalem to Tehran is about 1,500 km - from what I have read most of Iran's facilities are west of Tehran). Note that even the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) - except for version A - only has a range of 1,600 km.

Now, their Jerico-2 & 3 ballistic missiles could reach Iran, however their are issues of accuracy involved with those missile systems as well as "collateral damage."

[thoreau]

I think Jon Stewart just made the best case against invasion: A third of Iran's population is under the age of 15. They could either be the world's largest market for MTV, or the world's largest market for militant Islam. Right now the face of militant Islam is a bunch of old dudes who decided that satellite TV should be illegal. (Not that any Iranians are paying attention to this law, but anyway)

If we invade Iran, the face of militant Islam will be the guys fighting the invaders. The same invaders who destroyed a kid's home and accidentally killed the kid's sister.

If we have to destroy some nuclear research facilities then that's what we have to do. But regime change would be insane. In the long run, Iran is the best hope for a liberal Muslim state in the Middle East. All we have to do is slow down the nuclear program so it doesn't reach fruition in the short run, and in the long run liberalization will prevent terrorists from acquiring Iranian nukes.

[Solitudinarian]

Actually, Israel can't. Iran's facilities are largely outside the range of Israel's aircraft, there is more than one of them (indeed, there are dozens of them, many of which are unknown), etc. Iran isn't dumb enough to put all its eggs into one basket.

Actually, Gary, Israel can. Since the beginning of 2004, the F-16 I "Sufa" has a new additional fuel tank system giving the aircraft a range of about 2,100 km - and enough of a safety margin to bomb the nuclear facilities in Teheran, Isfahan, Prachin, Arak, Buschehr, Saghand or Natans.

[Andy]

If we Brits vote in Blair in May I shall hang my head in shame...

USA: "You're the axis of evil; we might invade to show you that our Truth is more true than yours"
Iran: "Crap, how do we stop the USA? Only nukes will do it. Let's get nukes"
USA: "If you build nukes we'll invade you"
Iran: "They'll invade us anyway, we need nukes quicker"

The 'Diplomatic' solution would be to tell Iran that although you disagree strongly with their abuses of human rights, that it's their country and you will only ever attack them in self defence. Remove the 'need'.

Nukes were built to counter a perceived threat; they are still maintained to counter a perceived threat. The more threats you make, the more desire for nukes there'll be.

[Brett]

What exactly requires the Israelis to take fighter aircraft on a roundtrip all the way? I'm sure that a sufficiently patriotic pilot could be found to go it alone and ditch in the Gulf near a friendly ship. Or cruise missiles or their own ballistic missiles (they can put a sattelite into space so why not a nuke).

Jeremy, the first is certainly possible, but not necessary with the new F-16I's, of which I believe we sold them 100. Plus, it would take much more than one pilot, Iran's nuclear sites (the ones we even know about) are distributed. A bunch of F-16I's flying low and striking nearly simultaneously is probably the best bet.

And nukes are certainly possible, although I don't think they'll want to deal with the consequences of using those in a manner that cannot easily be proven defensive (i.e. rumor has it that Dayan and Meir considered using them in the opening days of the 1973 war).

But I agree that Israel certainly has options.

[Gary Gunnels]

Solitudinarian,

Thanks for repeating what Brett wrote. 🙂

Of course that doesn't deal with the second issue - the spread out nature of their nuclear facilities - unless you are contemplating sortie after sortie.

[Gary Gunnels]

Solitudinarian,

Indeed, any strikes against Iran would have to much more similar to the opening air strikes seen against Iraq in 2003 than the Israeli attack on Iraq in 1981. There is also the fact that the mission would have to be flown through American controlled airspace (through Iraq). We also do not know how good our intelligence assessments are; thus there is an issue of how many undetected facilities there. Finally, there are environmental considerations involved as well - blowing up active reactors is not very healthy for the local human population.

[Solitudinarian]

Sorry about that, Gary - I didn't see his post. But the repetition will do you good.

[Solitudinarian]

Gary,

Call me cynical, but I think environmental considerations are probably the low man on the totem pole in the decision to carry out such a mission. I'm also guessing there would be a minumum of outrage from the Bush adminstration over an Israeli violation of Iraqi airspace.

[Jason Ligon]

GG:

"I've been meaning to ask you this for some time now. Are you related to Richard Ligon? The first person to write a history of Barbados (in 1657)?"

Much to my grandmother's chagrin, my sense of family history is crap. I know essentially nothing beyond my great grandparents. I do use my real name on this forum, and that clan was colonial from England, so it seems likely that there is a connection somewhere.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

No, as I recall, Israel was still testing its land attack cruise missile.

As you recall, shit. You just googled it. I found the same article that you rearranged wording within to make it seem like you knew.

[Isaac Bartram]

...blowing up active reactors is not very healthy for the local human population.

Isn't that one of the reasons given for caution on the NK front? Not so much concerns for the North Koreans, so much, as for South Korea and Japan, to where radiation could easily spread.

[Gary Gunnels]

TPG,

I've read an articles about this subject since the 1990s in Janes Defense.

I do have to ask, without research how does one learn? Or would you rather folks sit in ignorance all their lives. Or are you just pissed that you were wrong. 🙂

Jason Ligon,

If you wouldn't mind telling me the name of your grandparent (or their parent - whoever it is has to be deceased) who is named Ligon, their birth date, and their place of birth I could work up a quick geneology for you. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

Solud,

I'm also guessing there would be a minumum of outrage from the Bush adminstration over an Israeli violation of Iraqi airspace.

That's not what I am getting at of course.

Anyway, there's also the issue of Iran's defenses, which will be or are being or were beefed up by the Russians (there was a hell of lot of discussion about this in 2002-2003 but I haven't paid attention to it since then). There's no guarantee that the Israelis could get successfully past them in other words.

[Gary Gunnels]

Isaac Bartram,

Well, given the common borders Iran has with numerous countries, you would have the same problems there.

[IDF Air Operations Planner]

Iranian Air Defense, ha! You're talking about Russian "high tech", I presume.

We'll land on their damn airfields, refuel, take a smoke break and ask for directions to the nearest nuclear installation if we feel like it.

[Rob Read]

Cough.

UK snap Election for May-June-July...

Left leaning UK Media don't like Bush. Not good for re-election. Not look poodlely.

cough-cough.

[Isaac Bartram]

Left leaning UK Media don't like Bush.

And this will get the electorate to go Tory?