From DEBKAfile, “Tehran steps up war threats Thursday as three EU ministers call for UN nuclear watchdog to refer Iran’s case to the Security Council”:
Our exclusive Iranian sources report Iranian defense minister Mostafa Najjar […] warned the Gulf oil emirates in exceptionally aggressive terms to beware of Iran’s great strength and not place its trust in the American navy. He threatened major action against any party assaulting Gulf security. Former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of the council for the preservation of the constitution, declared Iran’s absolute resolve to continue its nuclear development, adding “And we shall reach our desired goal! We are determined to ignore all prohibitions. Iran will not tolerate colonial policies practiced by any nation or institution in the world.â€Â
Meanwhile, in the forthcoming DEBKA – Net- Weekly, we find out more about “Iran’s forward step on nuclear armament and its unforeseen misfortune: a plane crash that wiped out the entire Revolutionary Guards elite in charge of the Shehab nuclear-capable missile program.” (h/t Robert)
As always, take this info with a grain of salt. Here’s additional DEBKAfile reportage that seems particularly apposite:
The cries of outrage over Iran’s bald-faced removal of the seals at its Natanz nuclear facility have a familiar ring. They also evoked little more from the turbaned rulers of Tehran than a cool shrug.
Tehran has broken one pledge after another and defied every international rebuke, as diplomacy led by France, Britain and Germany alternated with unfulfilled threats of UN sanctions to grant the Iranians precious time to forge ahead with its atomic weapons program.
Tehran cannily prepared the way for its fateful step at Natanz Monday, Jan. 10, by calling it the resumption of the innocent-sounding “nuclear research.â€Â
Now, belatedly, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s director, Dr Mohammed ElBaradei warns that, as well as breaking the international seals at Natanz, Iran will before Wednesday remove seals on two other connected sites. French president Jacques Chirac has reacted with dismay, UK foreign secretary Jack Straw with “huge regretâ€Â, German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Iran had crossed a line, Israel is tied down by its prime minister unconscious in hospital. Its chief of staff, Lt. Gen- Dan Halutz conceded Monday that the fight against Iran’s nuclearization must be an international effort in which Israel cannot take the lead. And the White House is till undecided about referring Iran’s case to the UN Security Council.
But the Iranians clearly don’t give a hoot about their EU-3 negotiating partners, the IAEA, the Americans or the Israelis. Because they have used the time afforded them by sterile diplomacy to manipulate their way to their objectives, as DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources reveal:
1. Thousands of P2 and P1 type centrifuges, developed under cover of the two-year purported suspension, can go into action free of international curbs. The IAEA statement said uranium hexafluoride, a uranium gas – can be fed into cascades of centrifuges to produce low-level nuclear fuel or weapons-grade material. This can happen within a week or two.
2. The intelligence consensus reaching our sources is that within six weeks to two months, the centrifuges will have produced enough enriched uranium to build a single nuclear weapon. Tehran has reached this point of no-return with no real opposition.
The Islamic Republic’s rulers are fairly sure Moscow and Beijing will veto Security Council sanctions. The Russians are motivated by their heavy investments, past and potential, in Iran’s nuclear industry. The Chinese are heavily dependent on Iranian gas and keen to expand their stake in Tehran’s oil industry, partly in order to compete with the Russians.
None of this is new; it has been going on for six years. Iran’s attempts to hide its nuclear bomb program go back more than a decade. Therefore, recurring threats to submit Iran to UN sanctions have always been hollow ones and never had the slightest deterrent effect on Tehran.
What? You mean sovereignty countries have come to the conclusion that the UN is a hopelessly deadlocked and infamously ineffectual paper-pushing stop gap that, when push comes to shove, can be dismissed simply by deciding to dismiss it.
The UN’s recourse? More threats that move at the glacial speed of all bureaucracies—but one that are slowed even further by an artificial insistence on “consensus” which can will never happen so long as the UN is the dumping ground of unelected representatives of mostly tyrannical governments.
So Iran is playing a strong hand here—though the Bush/Cheney/Rice lame duck trump card—along with a stated willingness to move without UN Security Council “permission” and relying on NATO and willing neighboring countries worried about Iran’s expansive feints—must still give the mullah’s pause.
On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Condi Rice continues to step up US and allied rejoinders to Iran’s increasingly aggressive posture and rhetoric:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined European powers on Thursday and said Iran must be referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear plans.
Rice also said the United States wanted an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, board of governors to discuss Iran’s defiant resumption of uranium enrichment work.
“That meeting would be to report Iran’s noncompliance with its safeguards’ obligations to the U.N. Security Council,” Rice told a news conference.
Earlier, France, Germany and Britain, the three European partners negotiating with Iran, said talks with Tehran had reached an impasse and they also agreed it should be sent to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.
The so-called EU3 and the United States believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program. Iran denies the charge, insisting its nuclear ambitions are limited to peaceful power generation.
Iran escalated its nuclear standoff with the West earlier this week when it began removing U.N. seals on equipment used to enrich uranium—a process of purifying it for use as fuel in nuclear power plants or, when very highly enriched, in bombs.
Rice said the removal of seals demonstrated that Iran had chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiations.
“These provocative actions by the Iranian regime have shattered the basis for negotiations,” she said.
EU3 officials are set to meet their counterparts from China, Russia and the United States in London next week to discuss how to deal with Iran’s disputed nuclear program.
Call me an optimist, but I have a suspicion that the game of chicken China and Russia have been playing with the rest of the Security Council over its potential obstructionist posture to serious sanctions is about to end, and significant pressures will be placed on Iran—even if such means a financial hit for both China and Russia.
But that may be too little too late, and military action may now be required—thanks in no small part to the smug and silly game played out over the years by EU diplomats whose faith in their own abilities to control the unenlightened theocratic Other with Englightenment reasoning (and geopolitical pragmatism) has brought with it disastrous results, and an Iranian regime that has played to EU arrogance while all the time working behind the scenes to develop the program they’ve always been determined to develop.
As wishbone and BRD and others pointed out in my previous thread, military strikes against Iranian nuclear processing facilities may not be as hopeless as we sometimes let on: “you can hide things underground, but not everything–and last I checked–those facilities need ‘lectricity”, and “One other thing about underground facilities. They need air. And air vents.”
Do we have the technology—both humint and satellite / other—to identify the location of these facilities? Certainly. Are we willing to take them out, even if, as is likely the case, these facilities are built below schools, hospitals, orphages, studen dissident centers, etc? Possibly—though we would likely opt for the humane route: advanced warning for evacuations, which could gin up nationalist outrage and turn Iranian public opinion against the US; or else we could simply launch a fierce and final repeated attack—after exhausting every diplomatic measure and allowing sanctions to work as long as is possible before nuclear armament is imminent—and destroy the program once and for all, which carries with it the risk of post-hoc opprobrium and righteous indignation, but which may be the only opportunity left us thanks to the failed paperclip and treaty method of deterrence that has brought us to this point of nuclear brinksmanship.
Well that answered my earlier question. 6 weeks to 2 mos.
To borrow a phrase,
faster please.
– For what its worth we do, in fact, have a new “bunker buster” thats reputed to be about the equivalent of a small nuclear device, in terms of destructive blast power.
– But. even if we or the Isreali’s take out some or most of the existing facilities, the cancerous cause will still exist in Tehran, and they’ll just move them elsewhere into still deeper and yet more secure positions. Long past time for regime change in Iran and Syria.
Iran is saying they have over 300 sites around the country that have nuclear facilities. So yes, regime change seems to be the only way to actually end this completely. In the meantime, that’s a hell of a lot of bunker busting.
The only solace I take from all of this is that W, despite all of the howling that will ensue, despite the political fallout, and despite the world condemnation that will surely flow like wine when W has to finally unleash “The Hounds” to take care of this problem (militarily speaking, of course), W will do what is right, even if he has to destroy his own historical legacy and his party’s future chances to win presidential elections to do it. He’ll order an attack that will succeed in stopping Iran, which at this point is probably the only thing that can really be done to stop the lunatics in charge of Iran. We live in interesting times, that’s for sure. It is nice to know we have a president who will use his balls for more than just occasional ornaments for interns to cup in their fat little fingers.
Possiblyâ€â€though we would likely opt for the humane route: advanced warning for evacuations, which could gin up nationalist outrage and turn Iranian public opinion against the US; or else we could simply launch a fierce and final repeated attackâ€â€after exhausting every diplomatic measure and allowing sanctions to work as long as is possible before nuclear armament is imminentâ€â€and destroy the program once and for all, which carries with it the risk of post-hoc opprobrium and righteous indignation, but which may be the only opportunity left us thanks to the ffailed paperclip and treaty method of deterrence that has brought us to this point of nuclear brinksmanship.
And when, two or three weeks later, a dirty bomb is detonated in an American city, will you drawing any lines between the events and be accepting any responsibility due to your pro-war stance?
Hmmm.
That is perhaps the most inane and idiotic comment I’ve ever seen posted on a blog at any time or on any blog. Ever.
That’s quite an accomplishment.
Normally I’d include a witty bit of sarcasm that’s both topical and humorous but that bit of stupidity has me stumped. The level of self-sarcasm implicit in your comment is almost zen.
Phoney, there is no terror threat, remember? But there is Iran, and nukes. So what should we do about it?
Phoney, there is no terror threat, remember? But there is Iran, and nukes. So what should we do about it?
What did you do about Pakistan and India?
It’s possible we’ll soon start seeing stories like this…:
“WASHINGTON  In addition to a widely suspected but unacknowledged nuclear arsenal, Iran has developed offensive chemical and biological warfare capabilities, though it is not clear whether the country possesses actual weapons stocks at this time, according to a new report by a Swedish defense agency (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2015).
Iran’s ambiguity about such activities probably is intended to suggest to potential adversaries it has a “credible and massive deterrence capability,†according to Iran and WMD: Incentives and Capabilities, produced in December by the Swedish Defense Research Agency. […]
“The most likely present focus of the Iranian chemical and biological program is to develop agents for small-scale covert use, i.e., a so-called ‘dirty tricks’ program†such as those in former Soviet and U.S. programs, the report says.
Iran’s nuclear arsenal is its most important weaponry “for deterrence and counterstrikes, if the state’s existence is threatened,†it says.
And if there is, then the US will whack back.
Frankly, PiatoR, I’m not entirely certain I see the purpose of your comment.
Yeah, they may try to take a swing at us, and if they connect, folks are going to holler, and then we’ll repay with interest. Where, exactly, are you going with that?
That’s a non-sequitor. Please elaborate.
Because the best way to avoid getting dirty bombed is to cooperate, to appease… right? Never confront. Because confrontation makes the inevitable reprisal the confrontER’s fault, not the confrontee.
What the heck kinda gotcha is that supposed to be?
I just love seeing moonbats scrambling…
Non-responsive. What should we, the whole big world, do about Iran going nuclear?
Frankly, PiatoR, I’m not entirely certain I see the purpose of your comment.
I think it’s pretty simple, really. Douchebag in a Time of Pampers is on record as desiring the deaths of American “sons, daughters, husbands and wives” in order to “rub the nose” of the U.S. in it’s sins. His followup comments, like the one cited, show a real lust for American deaths. He’s angry, like the Europeans who turned in Jews to the Nazis, not because they liked the Nazis, but because they believed those big-nose Juden had gotten too rich and greedy, and needed to be taught a lesson. Douchebag believes he’s morally superior, entitled to sit in judgement on his fellow men, and immune to the consequences of supporting murder.
– Well asshole in a time of prepH, at that point there’d be absolutely no reticence to dispatch the Islamic idiots to Allahs cathouse, after which I’m thinking the American publics patience with Utopists/Marxists might finally run out and you’ll all be considered enemy combatents and given one chance, one way tickets to the socialistic country of your chioce where you can finally be happy, and very possible avoid being beaten to death by an angry mob….
Phoney remains phoney. The sun will rise in the west before that changes.
I think we all realize at this point, that no matter what President Bush does or say’s it will be reacted to in an uproarious manner by the left. Because afterall, it is all about politics to them. Whether Iran is or is not a thread is besides the point. In fact, as we can see already, their argument will be against Iran being a threat, simply to serve their purpose. I honestly don’t think they pay any attention whatsoever to what is really happening out there in the great big world.
And if there is, then the US will whack back.
Uh-huh. If the US is attacked, it will strike back, a natural reaction.
However, we’re talking here about the US attacking Iran. Is it your belief that Iranians are unable to have the same reaction?
That is perhaps the most inane and idiotic comment I’ve ever seen posted on a blog at any time or on any blog. Ever.
Let’s see – Al Qaeda attacked the US. The US stated that it would use whatever means were necessary, and then struck back against Afghanistan.
Now we are talking about the US attacking Iran. Doesn’t Iran have the right to have the same reaction, using whatever means are necessary to retaliate for such an attack?
The sight of Germany and France flogging their little Euro-weinies, trying to remember what an erection feels like, has obviously unpset little Phoeny and he is unsure what is going on. You all need to be gentle with him in his time of distress.
Why not? You seem intent on making up arguments that your opponents have said. So, yes, in the interest of rope-a-dope, yes, that is our belief. Now, exhaust yourself telling us why this bit of more equivalency is justified. *Rolls eyes* The rest of us will be in the real world, where Iran cannot be assumed to be a rational actor with nukes.
Don’t forget, the country that has a smaller military is allowed to target civilians with nuclear armaments not for any reason (Ending a war without a brutal land invasion, crippling the industry fueling a war machine) other than killing civilians. Asymmetrical warfare ladies and gentlemen!
– Hot new business tips. Supplying cluebats and mouth corks for Liberals. Coming to your neighborhood soon……
Of course we could always do what they want. Sit back, whistle, sing la la la and wait for the bomb to drop. Then what will they scream? We know damn well they will.
PiatoR,
In a word, yes. And we will respond as appropriate.
The weight of the calculations for deterrence will, in this case, reach some sort of new equilibrium.
Let’s say, that Iran engages in Total War on the US in response. Then the US will be much less inclined to moderate its response, and there you go.
If, however, Iran decides that the potential for the situation to escalate out of control is too high, and opts to modify its current course, then that works too.
BRD
Why not? You seem intent on making up arguments that your opponents have said. So, yes, in the interest of rope-a-dope, yes, that is our belief.
Very good – so we’ve established that you think that when countries are attacked they will retaliate. And you are advocating attacking Iran.
So, allow me to ask the question again: should Iran retaliate, will you drawing any lines between the events and be accepting any responsibility due to your pro-war stance?
PiatoR,
Perhaps then, are you trying to say, (so to speak) that with Kosovo, the uncertainty isn’t a bug, but rather a feature? That a precipitous shift to any one outcome has destabilizing potential, so at this time, not having an specific plan of action is the preferred state?
BRD
PiatoR – sorry for the Kosovo comment. Wrong thread.
PiatoR,
First off, I speak only for myself on this front, but going with your question, perhaps I can say this;
Yes. I do accept responsibility for the consequences of that action as a both a citizen of my country and an advocate of harsher measures.
Which then presents the reverse question, do you accept the consequences of failing to disarm Iran, even when such consequences could result in the exchange of multiple nuclear weapons?
Regards,
BRD
– One possible development, as the rhetoric heats up, is that at some point the Iranian public will have had enough of their adventuresome idiot savant leadership, including the Mullahs. I’ve heard it said from an Iranian expatriate that the gravitas for a Mullah leader can dissapear in good will and respect quickly if the people think hes wandered too far from the faith. Think Pat Robinson on this one. I don’t see the more moderate segment in Iran just sitting there while a lunitic takes them into direct confrontation with the entire west. Something will happen when the Iranian public realizes the huge risk hes putting them all in. At least thats a hope. Otherwise this is going toward even more death and destruction. Even if no one else chooses to act, Isreal will only wait so long, and then they’ll pull out all the stops. Any other Muslim country joining in against them will not find a patient, punch pulling advisary. Someone on the Iranian side needs very badly to get that asshole under a leash.
Phoenecian!
A sovereign government certainly has the right to protect itself. Now, would you explain to me why you think the theocratic junta in receivership of Iran is sovereign and deserving of such a right?
:peter
Hey, it’s not like Iran hasn’t already attacked us. Cough Khobar cough.
I wonder if kiwi in a time of aussies warned Iran before hand that such acts might lead to retaliation (as if that isn’t obvious enough). Doubt it somehow.
– Peter… to the moonies the word “sovereign” is anti-thetical heresy. When you’re a member of the “hive” and believe in “collectives”, individual freedom is, in fact, blasphemy. Thats the greatest irony of all for the elites and their brain dead ideology….
No, of course not. Such retaliation would not be in “self-defense,” but rather would be lashing out at a civilian populace with an act of terrorism; such an attack would be a disastrous miscalculation by the Iranian government. Have them attack a military target or munitions installation, and then we can talk. When a strike on Iranian nuclear sites creates collateral damage in the form of civilian casualties, will the Iranians be accepting any responsibility due to the placement of those sites? –or due to their single-minded insistence on developing nuclear weapons in the first place?
Your comments are boring distractions as usual.
All this talk of ‘rights’ means nothing. Countries will attack or retaliate whether they have a right to do so or not if they believe it to be in their best interest. Talking about the rights of countries is a dodge to avoid discussing the reality of situation at hand.
The current situation is as follows: Iran has a nuclear weapons program that is very close to deploying a usable nuclear weapon. The Iranian leader (head of state?) has declared his intention to use said weapon against a civilian target.
We can wait to see if he does use said weapon, and retaliate. Or we can attack his military program and hope to do enough damage to stall it, and see if he retaliates. One can rationally say, as you have, that the negative consequences of us attacking first to pre-empt outweigh the risk that they will use their weapon unprovoked. I, however, fail to understand how your value judgement, can be viewed as provably correct.
I, for one, accept the risk and responsibility of advocating a pre-emptive military strike. To me, the damage to an Iranian military target and the risk of a ‘dirty nuke’ on US soil outweigh the risk of a limited nuclear war in the Middle East triggered by an Iranian nuclear first strike.
I do not understand how you cannot morally distinguish between a country that threatens limited force against military objectives and a country that threatens all available force against civilian targets, regardless of their motivations. Then again, you live in a country that has next to no military force.
A point that needs to be made regarding a portion of the argument here. The fact is, there are many countries in this world who possess nuclear arms. But, there are only a couple of countries who’s possession or attempted possession can and does cause a reaction such as this. Could be there is a reason why?
Yes. I do accept responsibility for the consequences of that action as a both a citizen of my country and an advocate of harsher measures.
Which then presents the reverse question, do you accept the consequences of failing to disarm Iran,
I’m not a citizen of Iran, nor do I accept responsibility for the sun rising in the east.
It is inevitable that the ability to inflict large scale damage will spread to smaller states and non-state actors. “Failing to disarm Iran” is a short-term crisis with only one long-term outcome – Iran will get nuclear weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction) if it wants them. Hell, Andorra will get WMD if it wants them.
The best way to ensure that smaller countries want these weapons is if they serve as a means of deterring large bullies who rattle sabres and threaten them. You create the conditions which motivate people to seek out these weapons, and then lurch from crisis to crisis as they actually do so. What a surprise.
One notices that the US and Europe took Serbia on over Kosovo, but didn’t take Russia on over Chechyna. One notices that North Korea, a throughly despicable regime, is being treated considerably more politely than Iran, a flawed democracy.
PiatoR,
Iran is different than Pakistan or India. Its president has very clearly telegraphed his intentions. Not only has he openly called for the destruction of another country—yes, Israel—he has also proclaimed that his kind “must prepare ourselves to rule the world.”
This is a man with aspirations of a global Islamic empire. In character, he is no different than Hitler or Napoleon.
We must operate on the assumption that this man is serious, because the alternative is utter negligence. He has said that he doesn’t believe anything can stop him; he has no fear of an Israeli or US strike. What in the world would restrain this man—who sees himself as a divine messenger from God—from making a nuclear first strike?
If he is allowed to get the bomb, millions of innocent people will die and many more will suffer. We cannot allow that to happen.
No “one” does not, because “one” is not a moron. Your casting of things here, as elsewhere, is wildly off the mark.
But what if they serve to encourage large bullies to annihilate them? Seems to me that would be a deterent toward acquiring them.
There’s nothing we can do against such a nuanced world view.
It appears that Iran’s threats against other countries are just fine. But, just the simple thought that the US is just thinking about attacking Iran, isn’t?
Cool it, guys.
As usual, PiaToR is working from an absolute concept of sovereignty regarding people who consider the Treaty of Westphalia a matter for standup comedy, combined with a concept of “fairness” that emphasizes the “right” of the “little guy” to hurt the “big guy” without retribution.
Iran is a country. All countries have equal rights, including the right to atomic weapons, and anything that stands in the way of that is unfair. The fact that Iran has specifically declared its intention of violating the “rights” of another country (several, actually) as soon as it has the wherewithal is irrelevant. The United States has violated the “rights” of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi KKK, so all other countries are allowed to violate the “rights” of others. It’s only fair.
It’s an arguable proposition, but if the U.S. attacks Iran (which I don’t think will happen, at least in the near term, and don’t consider desirable in any case) I would strongly suggest that PiaToR and anyone else who feels he or she has some influence advise the mullahs against it.
At the moment, the American population is barely aware of the situation—yes, they see it in the newspapers, but it belongs with the latest celebrity scandal. An attack against the U.S. that resulted in significant civilian casualties would result in a spasm that we’d be sorry for later. So would those identified as the attackers, or not, depending on how long they have to wait for service from the virgins. There are only 72, right?
Regards,
Ric
And exactly what did Israel do to Iran to deserve being “wiped off the face of the earth”?
Phoenician,
Seldom have I seen someone as bereft of an understanding of world events and reality as yourself. North Korea is not treated “more politely” at all. It is treated with more fear than Iran. Hundreds of thousands if not millions have already died at the hands of the North Korean regime and North Korea currently effectively holds hostage an urban area containing millions of South Koreans. Seoul is in range of North Korean artillery known to be equipped with chemical munitions.
Nuclear weapon systems are on constant and around-the-clock alert to deter North Korea and have been for decades.
As for Iran having some sort of justification for pursuing nuclear weapons in your Bizarro World; the reality is that Iran’s “justification” for a nuclear weapons program is to attack Israel. Israel is a nation that not only does not border Iran but has never threatened Iran. In fact Israel secretly aided Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in the ‘80’s.
That’s a purely disingenuous dodge. The rhetorical equivalent is my stating that I have no responsibility to bear if the US nukes Iran, simply because I have no direct control over that.
More to the point, is you’re basically now rehashing what is called in policy the ”Security Dilemma”.
The thing about the Security Dilemma is that it’s not static. You’re also right about the whole notion that over sufficiently large time scales, the probability of a nuclear weapons seeking state rises to one.
There are, however, two significant failure points in your model. One, is if we accept your model, then it would not be apparent that any nations would have either given up nuclear weapons or halted their programs, as the growing gap in first versus second rate militaries means that smaller states become less and less able (relatively) to hold their own militarily. This is not born out by the historical record, yet many nations have abandoned either their programs or their weapons.
Secondly, your analysis also implies that deterrence is a one way street. I would argue that in large part, Libya’s has been deterred from pursuing it’s WMD programs.
So, I would suggest that the carrot and stick are used most effectively in conjunction. The basic underlying sense I get from your suggestion seems to fall prey to the butter-knife problem. This analysis is not borne out, in particular, by the historical record either. Neither India nor Pakistan developed nuclear programs as a response to an external “Great Power” threat, but out of a mutual emnity.
If we completely rely on engagement to reduce tensions and hence reduce the inclination to get nukes, then we end up with an entire class of unsolvable problems, of which I would submit Iran is an example.
BRD
The cure for what ails you. Surprisingly enough, we seem to just have happened to sell Israel 100 of these in April of ‘05, which just happen to fit the advanced F15I “Ra’am” strike fighters we sold them that have the range to hit nearly anything in Iran.
Quite the coincidence, don’t you think?
– Phoney – One also notices you have your pointy little head up your ass, but it would be impolite to call attention to it. Instead just suffice it to say the many flies in your argument ointment is trumped by the biggest of all. No one I know of, outside of Hussien when he terrorized Iraq as its thug-government leader, has attacked Iran, without provication. This includes Isreals bombing of their nuke works in ‘83. the Iranian cabal has as much as declared war on Isreal, calling for its iradication, which facts give lie to your points.
A more telling fact of Interest is the idea that a close analysis would show that no Islamic based country has ever “built” a working peaceful country in the past 3500 years with the exceptions of the UAE and a few smaller regimes. thats a pretty damning fact when you consider the untold billions in wealth their leaders had at their disposal to do so if they had the slightest inclination.
– Arafat died with 65 billion in hidden wealth while his people and country starved and wasted their time suicide bombing and shooting rockets at Isreal. The real truth is the Islamic Celephate is just one more thinly disguised, thuggery based, despotic, theocractic, totalitarian movement. period. Rather than ever building anything, they will continue to spend their useless lives waring and killing and destroying, just as they have for mellenia. If you don’t see that clearly then you’re mentally incompetent and not worth debating.
TW: The left will support anything that has an element of collectivism… no matter how dispicable it is….
“A flawed democracy.” Second most idiotic comment ever left on a blog.
Nothing is inevitable when it comes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons if rational actors take steps to prevent the lunatics of the world from getting them.
Yes, perhaps Andorra may get nukes some day. But I seriously doubt that Andorra will ever have a “president” as crazy as the current leader of Iran. I have a good friend who emigrated to the US from Iran after the fall of the Shah. I’ve been talking to him about Iran and the middle east for the past four years. During all of that time, I’ve asked him many times: “What do you think the US should do, if anything, to help Iranians gain their freedom from the Mullahs?” and every time his answer has been: “We don’t need an invasion by US forces or an attack. Just give us financial support and weapons, and we will do it ourselves in time.” Yesterday, I talked to him again, and asked that same question. He said: “Ahmadinejad is insane. The US or Israel MUST do something soon about him! He would sacrifice all 70 million Iranians just to go down in history as the man who destroyed Israel. Something must be done!!!! He will use a nuke the day he gets it.”
So a guy who holds no great love for Israel, and who previously thought Iranians could liberate themselves from these nuts if given enough outside support, now has a palpable feeling of dread that something horrible is about to happen to his country, retaliation-wise, because Ahmadinejad is such a lunatic that he cannot possibly be controlled except by destroying him and his offensive capability first.
Sorry, but the US has never said it wanted to utterly destroy another country just for the sake of destroying it, as Iran’s leader has. PiotR may be able to live with himself if Iran is allowed to destroy Israel, and in return suffer near-destruction itself. But sane people won’t be able to. Fortunately, W won’t allow it to happen, nor will whomever is leading Israel when the stuff finally hits the fan.
Butbutbut… But… America has said that it will abduct, torture, rape, and brutally murder anyone its thug cowboy monarch deems to be a terrorist! That should give the Iranians plenty of fear!!!
Was that some sort of wishful thinking from a self-avowed, self loathing Marxist. Iran has never been a Democracy in its history, not under the Shah, never before him, never after. I bet you assholes drool at the idea of having a single failed Democracy to point at. ‘Course ignoring the literilly hundreds of failed totalitarian “experiments” down through history would be so typically revistionist of the left. The only thing worse than spewing this sort of garbage is being so arrogant and self absorbed you’d think anyone with a working brain would believe it.
Phoenician!
Agreed. In fact, we’ve know it since the US built the first ones with slide rules and vaccuum tube technology.
There’s nothing wrong with the logic of this argument; the problem is with its implicit premises, which presume that all states (and/or non-state actors) are essentially interchangable units, both morally and practically, in essence and circumstance, and thus they are bound to behave in accordance with this abstract of yours.
Here in the real world, where nations are neither interchangable nor abstract, in their essence or the circumstances in which they find themselves, some governments, particularly aggressive despotic governments politically unaccountable to their own people, are NOT bound by your model and will be aggressive for their own reasons own reasons on their own accord.
At the end of the day, France and Spain may be a little concerned if Andorra gets the bomb, but as a liberal western democracy, no one else is going to really care. A liberal western Andorra (or New Zealand) WITH nuclear weapons is far less dangerous to anyone than a despotic Iranian theocracy is WITHOUT them.
Yours/
peter.
Guys, you have to remember, PIATOR saw Iranians voting on TV, so they have a democracy. Since the election turned out to have been rigged, it’s a “failed democracy”.
Never mind that the election was rigged from the choice of candidates, or that the government never intended to honor the results—going through the motions is enough to qualify as a democracy in his mind.
Plus, taking that stand allows him to grant some legitimacy to a country that wants to slaughter Americans by the thousands. No way PIATOR will ever pass up that chance.
No pacifist has ever solved the problem of bullies.
They paper over it by defining bullies out of existence. People whose goal is not the lunch money so much as it is the power inherent in their ability to extort it simply do not exist. The fact that the lunch money is at issue allows them to obfuscate the situation: the bully is simply deprived, and is lashing out as a result.
The end of that is of course to enable the bully, and encourage bullying. When the victim resists effectively, the pacifist punishes both for “using violence”. Both victim and bully take careful note of who’s been punished twice.
The mullahs of Iran are quintessential bullies, exemplars of the mindset that says that because they are able to destroy they are superior to those who create. Their status is high because they are able to smash those who are stupid enough to actually work. If allowed to continue they will do precisely as they have said they would do. (Ahmadinejad is allowed to say what he says because he’s known to be a bit nuts. If he wasn’t saying what the mullahs wanted him to say, he wouldn’t last long.)
Removal of the mullahs will inevitably involve violence. This allows jealous, bigoted pacifists like PiaTor to invoke “moral equivalence”—those prepared to remove the mullahs are violent, just like the mullahs themselves, and thus there is no choice to be made between the two forces.
PiaToR and others also exhibit a curiously dichotomous attitude: by casting the mullahs as “Iran” they legitimize the violence as rational acts by a State supported by its citizens, and at the same time they remind us that violence against the rulers will inevitably result in damage to people who are oppressed by the mullahs and in fact would not hurt anyone. If “Iran”—that is, the people who make up the nation—is attacking, all of them are legitimate targets. If it’s only the mullahs on the prod, and the people are being cruelly suppressed, why is the removal of the mullahs an illegitimate goal not worth even minimal egg breakage?
Of course PiaToR himself has the same advantage as the standard-issue Lefty professor, with more reason. The Lefty professor cannot imagine that anyone might wish to depose him or her, let alone have the power; thus immune, he or she is free to shout denunciations from a crag of omniscience. PiaToR, sitting in the middle of the Pacific, far from any deleterious effect likely from the people whose cause he champions, is similarly immune (or so he thinks) and equally privileged to carp, claiming virtue. Violence is always vile, right?
Regards,
Ric
North Korea is not treated “more politely†at all.
Where are the reports of preperations to attack North Korea?
That’s a purely disingenuous dodge. The rhetorical equivalent is my stating that I have no responsibility to bear if the US nukes Iran, simply because I have no direct control over that.
You’re not a US citizen? The US is a dictatorship?
(Well, I suppose one of those might be true…)
This includes Isreals bombing of their nuke works in ‘83. the Iranian cabal has as much as declared war on Isreal, calling for its iradication, which facts give lie to your points.
Uh-huh.
A more telling fact of Interest is the idea that a close analysis would show that no Islamic based country has ever “built†a working peaceful country in the past 3500 years with the exceptions of the UAE and a few smaller regimes.
The world’s fourth largest country is 88% Muslim, and is arguably more peaceful than the US (being a democracy, invading one piece of territory that didn’t belong to it, having territorial tiffs with neighbours, cracking down hard on rebels, and committing near genocide in said invaded territory).
Here in the real world, where nations are neither interchangable nor abstract, in their essence or the circumstances in which they find themselves, some governments, particularly aggressive despotic governments politically unaccountable to their own people, are NOT bound by your model and will be aggressive for their own reasons own reasons on their own accord.
Has Iran (since the revolution) ever invaded a neighbouring country? Demonstrate that Iran’s actions show it to be less irresponsible than, say, Israel…
Ah, here we go:
“WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 (UPI)—There may be one or two more moves to be made in Tehran’s cat-and-mouse game with nukes. But few serious observers can remain in much doubt that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power, and that its current government is prepared to lie, cheat, smuggle, obfuscate, bully, bribe, threaten and resort to just about any maneuver in order to win nuclear status.
Who can blame them? The Iranians are surrounded by nuclear powers. [Long elision listing these]”
“The only question now is whether the world is prepared to put up with a nuclear-armed Iran, which is currently led by a religious zealot who declares publicly that the Holocaust never took place and Israel should be wiped off the map. […]
“If Iran, as an oil-rich sovereign state, is determined to become a nuclear power there are no obvious steps short of all-out war and occupation that could prevent it eventually from doing so. So just as the world has learned to live with the Soviet-American nuclear balance, and with the Indo-Pakistani nuclear balance, it may soon start to accept that it will probably have to live with the balance of nuclear terror between Tehran and Tel Aviv.
Curiously enough, with the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem giving the Mullahs pause for thought, until the Iranians become very certain of the accuracy of their Shahib missiles, the Iran-Israel standoff may ironically prove to be rather stable.”
Neither had Germany, in 1936…
Regards,
Ric
And from the same commentator, a year beforehand:
[…]
“The Americans in Baghdad, the Israelis in Jerusalem and the Iranians in Tehran are now the arbiters of the Arab future. The respective rulers are now mutually dependent in this moment of stasis before a decision is reached.
If the Israelis and/or the Americans try to destroy Iran’s nuclear potential, the Middle East will erupt. If they do not, then an accommodation will have to be made with Iran and the Shia as a  if not THE  major Middle Eastern power for the future.
And after all, as everyone in the region knows, the Americans are only visiting  the Persians live here, always have and always will.”
I look forward to PIATOR’s reaction when Indonesia gets the bomb…
They don’t have them already? Mmmm – only a matter of time.
You were obviously asleep throughout 1999/2000.
And meanwhile, on a related note (but with regards Iraq), an open letter from Europe in reply to Victor Hanson:
“But the thing is that many, perhaps most of us, do not see this present US venture as a conflict between a defender of Western secular ideals against the forces of religious fundamentalism, but rather as a conflict, for a number of various motives, between two parties, spurred on by twin religious fervours, neither of which carries the torch for the values of the West. And to that is added the small point of victory.
The premier rule of war, which The United States may still be too young, and too little bloodied by history, to have fully internalised, is, avoid the ones you’re likely to lose.
What The United States saw as spite and lack of fibre on the part of the nations of Europe in the run-up to this war, was the almost instant realisation on the part of most Europeans that the strategy proposed by The US was almost certain to lead to little gain, or even be counter-productive, as indeed has been the case. Even those who originally defended this war, and still defend the reasons for which it was fought, can hardly avoid the realisation that the practical results have been less than stellar.
We saw the same claims of European perfidy and cowardice levelled at us when the nations of Europe declined to join The United States in its war in Vietnam. But, Mr Hanson, with the benefit of hindsight, do you feel that they would have been wise to participate in that war?”
Especially telling – Phoenician’s studied avoidance of the word Hezbollah. He/she might find it interesting to read Bob Baer’s take on the subject in See No Evil and Sleeping With the Devil.
But how about putting your cards on the table and answering the one question you’ve been dancing ever so frantically around, Phoenician? Given the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadi-Najad has made no secret of his desire to “wipe Israel off the map” and moreover heads a government that regularly funds terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, what do you feel would be a legitimate Israeli response to the clear and undeniable threat that Iran poses?
In the same eventspace as the reports of preparations to attack Iran–whenever and wherever the regime in question decides it wants to start waving its proported nuclear penis. Further, for better or worse under the current US Administration the rhetoric towards North Korea has been far less “polite” than towards Iran; you literally have no idea what you are talking about. Talk on though, because obviously everyone here feels the need to feed your silly trolls.
DEBKAfile:
[snip]
Washington Post:
[snip]
Jeff Goldstein:
[snip]
PIATOR:
Notice the patterns, folks? Three congruent statements, resulting in PIATOR throwing out a one liner that is a classic non sequitor, unless you firmly believe that Iran is right in pursuing nuclear weapons, no matter what it does to that part of the world.
That’s a lot of red herrings you’ve been throwing out, Phoney. A few good points in some other threads (yes, I’ve been reading your rants), but here, a bunch of one liners that merely divert from the main topic: Iran wants nuclear weapons, despite the wishes of most of the world, because Iran is not behaving rationally.
Excepting, perhaps, Russia, China, and Phonecia. And the first two may be changing their minds soon enough.
TW: anti. The AI knows your flavor, Phoney.
Well, yeah, trolling is a good word for a fellow who believes that Iran is more responsible and less of a threat than Israel or the US. *Sigh*
Iran wants nuclear weapons, despite the wishes of most of the world, because Iran is not behaving rationally.
On the contrary – Iran wants nuclear weapons for some very rational reasons (as well as nationalistic pride).
After all, not having WMDs didn’t save Iraq from Bush lying his country into invading it, did it?
Meanwhile, Bush I vs Bush II (at least the first part)
PiaToR cried, “Bush lied!” PWers sighed.
I step away from this. I have troll fed far too much.
Phoenician’s link to the “response” to Hanson is well worth the read – it’s a veritable gold mine of condescencion, straw men, and sheer hilarity, rivalled only by the comments, which do a spectacular job of missing Hanson’s point.
Especially priceless were the sophomoric bits that impressed Phoenician so:
“But the thing is that many, perhaps most of us, do not see this present US venture as a conflict between a defender of Western secular ideals against the forces of religious fundamentalism, but rather as a conflict, for a number of various motives, between two parties, spurred on by twin religious fervours, neither of which carries the torch for the values of the West. And to that is added the small point of victory.
and
The premier rule of war, which The United States may still be too young, and too little bloodied by history, to have fully internalised, is, avoid the ones you’re likely to lose.
Leave aside the irony of someone from the ancient and venerable realm of New Zealand calling our republic youthful, have you ever seen anywhere such a perfectly distilled example of European and Leftist myopia?
More on Bush I vs Bush II, this time relevant to Iran.
How do countries who have disarmed, such as Ukraine, Libya, and South Africa fit in to this narrative structure?
PiatoR, ideas and actions either have consequences or they do not. If your points change a mind in the US, then would that not imply that you have changed something? To saddle only your opponents with the consequences of actions while claiming immunity on your own part is disingenuous.
So, as a New Zealander, your claim to vast experience derives from what? I mean, I suppose we could go with the Vichy model, but at the outset of WWII, the United States had the world’s 18th ranked military, and yet we engaged to good effect. So, no I buy none of the underlying assertions behind the statement.
Hezbollah, Khobar Towers.
However, to interpret your point more broadly, such an approach has worked with nations like Libya and Taiwan.
But more seriously, at the end of it all, the basic assertion that the carrot and stick are far more effective than either one alone seems to be an assertion you axiomatically refute. You may be right, but I just don’t see a lot of support over the last few thousand years of human history to support either the basic assertion, or to be able to reconcile the implications with such an assertion with obeserved history.
And still no answer from Phoenician on what Israel’s legitimate options might be in response to a clear and present danger from Iran…
PiatoR,
The other question I have for you is how the Indian “test detonation” in 1974 squares with the weapons test in 1998? Or for that matter, the strategic plans behind the deployment of South African nuclear capability.
I don’t buy this relatively narrow model you appear to subscribe to. It doesn’t square even with the history of the Iranian nuclear program over the last three decades nor does it jive with the events over the last three years that have led us to this nuclear impasse.
BRD
It’s a simple question, Phoenician: what, in your opinion, are Israel’s legitimate options in the face of an Iranian threat?
Still waiting…
Oh wow, PIATOR, I am so impressed! Links from a “Moscow-based alternative newsletter”. It might save us all some time if you confined your linkage to credible and impartial sources.
You know guy’s, we could always do it PIATOR’s way. Take all of our military toy’s home, lock up our borders, brush the dust off our hands and wait………..
It’s only a matter of time before the terrorists are knocking his door. Because after all, Iran’s mission is to take over the world.
I see that yet another attempt to prod Phoney into telling us what ought to happen has failed.
Come on, Phoney. We know what you think the Satans Great and Little ought not do. But what should be done? By whom? Start us off with the Security Council and assume that Iran is going to continue to ignore the UN, the IAEA and its NPT obligations.
What do we do about it? What is the Phoney solution to this dilemma?
Wow, this is the most interesting thread I’ve read in a long time. Good comments, all. I hope I can add some others.
To Phoenician, I would say this: You seem to regard the explosion of a nuclear weapon in an American city as THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME that we could possibly FEAR, and that somehow, those who argued for preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons would be responsible for it, and thus, irredeemable.
I would say this to you sir: A nuclear explosion in an American city is NOT the worst possible outcome. The worst possible outcome would be sitting idly by while the enemies of freedom arm themselves. It is that, and only that, which we should fear.
I (and I suspect many other Americans) ALREADY FULLY EXPECT that Islam will unleash a nuclear nightmare on the United States the MOMENT they are able to. It is INEVITABLE … whether we fight now or wait until after the deed is done.
Fighting NOW will not stop it, nor create it. The act will have no effect, except to usher in the public will necessary to end Islam.
Islam, after all, isn’t the first quasi-religion to ever think of the tactic of suicide attacks, or using civilian attacks to undermine will. The Japanese were conducting Kamakazi raids while the Iranians were still shitting into dirt holes. Germany bombed London to rubble.
Neither tactic had any effect except to wake the sleeping Tiger that is freedom-loving peoples.
Our response to these acts was to attack civilian targets – to take the POLITICAL WILL TO FIGHT out of the populace. The result has been 60 years of peace between our nation and the nations of Japan and Germany.
We EXPECT you to attack our civilians. After all, in the history of ALL conflict, civilians have paid the price. But that is BY DESIGN.
It is us, the civilians, who created our army to fight for us. They are our proxy, our paid defenders. That one day we ourselves might be targeted is KNOWN BY US. We expect our enemies to try and we do not fear it. What we fear is an unwillingness to TRY TO STOP IT or to fight in return.
If our armed forces are unable to defeat your armed forces, then we will have our proxy defeat your civilians. You will do the same. It is HUMAN NATURE, fully to be expected, and anyone who denies it just hasn’t paid enough attention to history.
We will not defeat the Iranian government by killing it. We will defeat the Iranian government by creating the conditions necessary for it to be beheaded by its boss – Iranian civilians. All war is thus, and ever has been.
Some believe, wrongly, that the United States is unwilling to target civilians. This is simply historical blindness. We ARE willing to target civilians, because it is the civilians who are paying their army to create the fight.
And so the answer to your question is that your question has no meaning. Fighting now will neither create the use of a nuclear weapon in an American city, nor stop it.
What you SHOULD be asking is whether the Iranian civilians are sufficiently schooled in military history . To understand that we are GLADLY WILLING to target THEM, should the government THEY ALLOW seek to curb OUR freedoms.
I do not believe that they are sufficiently educated enough to understand this.
And that is why the conflict MUST OCCUR.
I think we’ve danced around the most important part without sepcifically spelling it out.
It is rational from the point of view of the Iranian government to pursue nuclear weapons for a vareity of reasons, one of which is deterrance against American actions. If all countries were only interested in deterrance, a world where even Andorra had nukes would be stable.
The first problem with this is that it locks in the current global power structure. A regime in power, no matter how tyrannical, can never be intimidated into behaving because it can counter-intimidate. So the nuclear-armed Sudanese can slaughter their ethnic minorities in peace if they really want to because if we try to stop them, they’ll nuke something.
The second problem is that deterrance breaks down when one of the nations is willing to use nukes as a first strike. This is the case with Iran. The question for the international community is, can we afford to take reponsibility for advocating an indifference to the aquisition of nuclear weapons by a country that isn’t bound by deterrance? And PiaTor, although you aren’t an American, you are a member of that international community, and have to put up with the consequences of that decision just as much as we do. I believe it is irrational from the point of view of the US or the international community to allow a country not bound by deterrance to have nuclear weapons.
The third problem is that there is an exception to deterrance. If you think your country can attack an enemy country with nuclear weapons without the attack being traced back to you, deterrance breaks down. In this era of global commerce, that crude-nuke-in-a-cargo-container may be the only viable way to survive launching a nuclear first strike. Which means that countries that rely on terrorist actions as a means of warfare have an advantage over those that don’t. Which means that… (wait for it)… Iran has an advantage over the US when it comes to nuclear war capabilities.
WHY DID YOU ILLEGALLY INVADE IRAQ, MR. BUSH!
WAS IT TO PLACE 170,000 TROOPS, BOMBERS AND TANKS ON THE BORDER OF IRAN?
No blood for atoms!
Admittedly, my Sarcasm-O-Meter is notoriously inaccurate, but I absolutely cannot tell if that was real or fake. I think that there is something wrong when the discourse when it’s impossible to make up something sarcastic enough that it’s obviously sarcasm.
Good points, Civilis. Those have been discussed, in bits and pieces, in other threads. But I think that we haven’t been dancing around them, they’ve been inherent in most of the more rational discourse here, as a philosophy or premises. But you sum them up nicely. I’ve bookmarked that post for future reference.
And when I say “rational discourse”, at least when it comes to Iran and nuclear weapons, I am specifically excluding Phoney.
Since development of nuclear weapons is more likely to lead to military action taken against them, self-defense is not a very rational reason. So what other very rational reason did you have in mind? Do you consider a nuclear strike against Israel to be very rational? Or maybe they have decided to nuke Salmon Rushdie?
JeffS,
Much as I disagree with his PiaToR’s opinions and values, and I believe he is not interested in rational debate, I address him because he raises valid points.
Iran may very well have multiple reasons for seeking a nuclear arsenal. One of the reasons is to serve as a deterrant to the United States. One of which is national prestige, in that the nuclear club is a very exclusive club. These reasons may be why the Iranian public and the more realistic members of the government support the nuclear weapons program. Those are all valid rational reasons to seek nuclear weapons from the Iranian point of view, which is the point of view that matters in Iranian decision making. That does not mean we can ignore the overt declaration of intention by the Iranian President to use nuclear weapons.
From the American and International points of view, there are reasons to make it as difficult as possible for new nations to develop nuclear programs. First, as the number of nations with nuclear weapons grows, the need for a nuclear deterrant grows, so there is more desire for new nations to develop weapons.
This can be avoided by some countries (like New Zealand) by allying with a nation with a nuclear arsenal, but then you are dependant on a superpower for protection. It works the same way with conventional military forces. You don’t need a major military force if someone you trust has one and is willing to use it on your behalf. This means you need to stay in their good graces if international tensions rise. Say, for example, someone, say France, committed an act of war on, say, New Zealand. New Zealand does not have the force projection capabilities to respond and get more than a token apology from France, so it relies on Britain to supply military force. If Britain chooses not to do so (and because France has a nuclear arsenal, doing so may be suicidal for Britain) then New Zealand is out of luck.
Second, the inherent instability of many countries makes the mere presence of nuclear weapons dangerous. If you’re a dictator of a nuclear armed country, and there is a democratic rebellion threatening your office, what is to stop you from making an example of a rebel city? Saddam did this with chemical weapons. What is to prevent the weapons from falling into rebel hands? Or terrorist hands? Most of the major nuclear powers currently have extensive electronic safeguards. Can we rely on the Pakistani weapons or an Iranian or a Sudanese program having the same safeguards?
Of course, this is all outside the scope of the current debate on Iran, as the major concern is the declaration of intent to use by the Iranian president.
B Moe,
It may very well be that the Iranians are mistaken in their belief that the US will not attack them. In fact, I hope the US or someone will prevent the Iranians from aquiring nuclear weapons.
But it is not irrational from an Iranian point of view to believe that the rewards from aquiring a working nuclear weapon arsenal is greater than the risk of the US or someone stopping them from producing weapons, whether by not attacking or attacking and failing to stop the program. It may also be that they believe the rewards (in terms of shifting Iranian support for the government or shifting world opinion of the US) of a US attack outweigh the risk of the damage done by the attack. Finally, it could be that they believe the rewards of a bigger EU/UN carrot to stop the production outweigh the risk that the EU/UN will give up and resort to US stick-based diplomacy.
I don’t believe the Iranian president is rational. That doesn’t mean I believe there are not rational Iranian motives for continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
Civilis, I understand your reasoning, I just have a hard time calling it rational, lol. It seems to me for a country in the dire economic straits Iran apparently is, pissing off the EU and the US is hardly a rational decision.
– On another level, protagonists such as Phoney have yet another agenda in this fight. Inclusion. When you’re not in power, which they are not, save for a few muddled and badly confused Euro block countries. When you have lost voice on the world political stage, which they have. When Democratic Republics are threatening to break out everywhere you look, which they are, its a very bad time for Socialists. No rational citizenry of a Democratic Republic would ever knowingly shift to a Socialistic based government. There simply is not enough Lexiconal gymnastics available to the Marxist, no matter how far reaching the lies, to accomplish that. Collectivism, with its adherance to government coddling from cradle to grave, can never get around or over the counter fact that it removes all but the bearest of personal freedoms, leaving the electorate longing for a time when they could actually make personal choices in thier daily lives. That, of course is the dead-at-birth, unworkable conundrum, 700 pound gorilla, which the left studiously tries to burry and ignore.
– So, faced with the prospect of political impotence for generations to come, they welcome chaos, and nuture it for the simple reason that stable, peaceful regimes, are the kiss of death for the sort of anti-social changes they seek.
– What they can do is what you see Phoney, and his ilk engaging in. Antagonistic bomb throwing, inflamatory rhetoric, and twisted narative, all the while hoping for unrest and confusion, both neccessary elements of any chance of a reentrant “collectivistic” movement.
– Best to mark them and keep them on the edge of the public radar, noting their perfidity and prevarication in the guise of “peace” and “conciliation”, while going on with the daily work of dealing with the real world which the rest of us fortunately pay attention too.
– The image of the Marxist reprobates, gleefully rubbing hands together as they anticipate yet another destructive war on the horizon, while they do all they can to fuel the antipithy and rhetoric, is a poster that should be displayed on every campass in America.
– That Ladies and Gentlemen, would do more to expose their lying campaigns than all the debate we could ever engage in…..
We are pretty much on the same page, Civilis.
Exceptions:
Change that to read ”…Iranian government decision making”, and it’s spot on. But I don’t have an objective view of the Iranian government like yours; I don’t trust it. If there are any realistic members of that organization, I hope they are seriously considering a coup.
Yes and no. PIATOR and his/her ilk have compared Iran to Pakistan and India, who are nuclear powers, but no one is really complaining about that status. Or North Korea, who claims to have a nuclear weapon or two, yet we are not poised to invade. Nuclear proliferation is a valid point, but worn thin by PIATOR’s continuing moral relativism, not to mention his/her inability to accept any premise remotely supporting a pro-American policy.
But any nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons needs to be examined closely, to see if they will handle those weapons responsibly (assuming, of course, that the decision to develop and deploy nuclear weapons is a responsible action in the first place. Often, it’s a case of accepting a fait accompli, and dealing with the consequences). I think that most folks here agree with the assessment that the Iranian government is not responsible in at least this regards….if not others.
As a footnote, Civilis, I am endorsing Big Bang Hunters’ post. I will go further and say that the (relatively few) valid points raised by PIATOR are less a result of considered thought and philosophy than they are coincidence, or wheat amongst the chaff.
Throw enough darts at a target, and eventually you’ll score a bullseye, whether you have the skill or not.
This word “rational” – I don’t think it means what you think it means.
IN terms of rational actors, the term rational means that the actor will seek to maximize what they percieve to be their own interests. That doesn’t mean that they will seek to optimize what you think is in their best interests.
So, Iran may, in its list of (very much simplified) priorities assume that its priorities are (from most to least importance) regional preeminence, national pride, domestic politics, international goodwill, open trade.
So if there’s something that gives them a 10% chance at meeting their regional preeminence goals, but comes at a 80% risk to their international goodwill, the question becomes how heavily the leadership has each option. So if they feel that regional preeminence is 8 times more valuable than international goodwill, then it’s a wash. If we throw in the odds*value of each of the other concerns and add them up on the balance sheet, then you can calculate the utility of a given course of action.
One thing that I would also like to point out with the current Iranian president, is that the nuclear program has been rather well supported for more than thirty years, so what ever is driving Iran has deeper motivations than this particular loon’s ravings. That isn’t however, making any comment on his likelyhood to do something rash, like use the nukes. That’s another kettle of fish.
Regards,
BRD
There behavior may be sane and reasonable to them, but it wouldn’t be to any sane and reasonable person.
Oh, boy, PiatoR is damn near to being thrown against a pole and scourged, the old Roman way.
Phoenician, you had best chuck your beautific appreciation of that most-blood soaked continent at the door. The European genius for absolute brutality is breathtaking, really the envy of the world. Their apparent waiting until they cross the point of no return with Iran is just one of these brilliant motions, in order to ensure the greater share of carnage.
Care to take a stroll down memory lane, past the “Ottoman global suzerainty, Bonapartism, Prussian militarism, Nazism, fascism, Japanese militarism, or Soviet Communism” that the Europeans threw down? Care to ask how many of them came from Europe, at least in part, and include the wars of Reformation, colonialism and imperialism? What a marvelous ability to spawn genocide after genocide! Is there no better candidate to look to for moral grandstanding? Do we have to hear the preening of the graying Tookie Williams of Eurodisney, who have been successfully locked away to where they can do no harm, for once, but still have to suffer the indignity of these least-moral among us, unrepentant felons give us lectures.
If you want to claim the moral high ground, PiatoR try to choose friends that can actually hobble themselves up the slope.
*Their* behavior…
Vercingetorix
Well said.
BMoe,
A minor quibble, if I may, the terms “rational” and “rational actor” can be defined, as you did, in their colloquial sense, or they can be (as I should of mentioned) used as a term of art in game theory and strategy.
Or, to maybe bridge the gap, I am perfectly comfortable with stating that someone who beats their head against a door without any expectation of of conicievable benefit or gain, knowing full well that it will hurt, is not considered to be rational actor.
If someone beats their head against a door because they happen to like the pain, thinks this will impress someone, or is intent on self-inflicted injury with an intent to malinger in future, knowing full well that it will hurt, is considered to be rational actor. A stupid rational actor, perhaps, but still a rational actor.
Furthermore, I agree with the implicit perception that the Iranians are sure taking a bad read on the risks, rewards, and likely outcomes of this gambit. The Iranian decision makers would probably tell me that my assessment is way off.
These disagreements on risks and rewards that provide the ground which allows miscalculations and failed communication to blossom in to war.
Or, to use a crude analogy, the Iranians seem well down the path to fouling up with Kruschev and Kennedy managed to avoid during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Cheers,
BRD
Morning session of the German/US Leadership on Iranian nuclear problem:
Chancellor Merkel: …Good morning President Bush and welcome to Germany. I’m glad we have this chance to explore possible trade expansion and…
Dubyah: ….Mornin’ Madam Chancellor…How you’all doin here in beerland….Laurah sends her best and of course VP Chaney sends his best…. still hoping for a case of that good lager he loves so much and….
Chancellor Merkel:….Ohhhh … well thats no problem…. certainly….Now if I might I’d like to discuss some of the areas we’re prepared to consider in exchange for expanded franchise rights west of the Mississippi area and…
Dubyah: ….Erm….. well I was more hoping we could get into the area of whether or not your government is prepared to support the US if we decide we need to nuke those Iranian idio…. erm Mullah’s into atomic dust stuff…. Heheh …. if you know what I mean…
Chancellor Merkel: …Ok well how about we propose to lower the speed limits on all the autobauns… we might be willing to do that if the markets were …..
Dubyah: ….Madam Chancellor…heh…. with all due respect… Ahh really want to focus on this mess in Iran and whether the US can count on your support… Ahh mean after all you’re a hell of a lot closer to the action than we are if you’all get my drift….
Chancellor Merkel: …Mr President I want to assure you we have added incentive to adjust the speed limits…. We don’t think the French approach of burning all the cars is a workable plan and……
Dubyah:…Oh I’m glad you brought up the French, because we’re going to need their support as well….this situation is dire for every country in the western block and if you’d just bear with me here I….
Chancellor Merkel: ….I have to assert right up front that neither we nor the French acknowledge that we have any sort of Muslim unrest problem. As to Iran, we fail to see how developing peaceful sources for nuclear power is a threat. Now if I could I’d like to get back to the question of trade barriers and our mutual interests…..
Dubyah: ….Erm…Excuse me for a moment Madam Chancellor…. (Whispering off mike to Condi Rice…)…. Condi has Merkel had her meds this morning….I mean I can’t make any sense out of what this gals a’sayin…
Secratary Rice: ….Ohhhhh….I know….. show her that Intell picture of that nutcase Ahmadinejad, playing with the ICBM toy models over a map of Europe in his office in Tehran….. that should do it…..
This is the Phoeny quote that I am addressing, and it seems to me that Phoeny believes the reasons to be rational. I simply want him to specify what rational reasons he believes they have, if any.
BMoe,
Yeah, Iran and PiatoR may view them as reasonable reasons.
I think the calculus they’re using won’t be borne out that well in practice.
Or, I guess another way of looking at it is the differences between someone being stupid and someone being crazy.
BRD
Or, perhaps, stupid and crazy.
Jeff,
Normally, with Iran I’m tempted to say they’re stupid like a fox, but with this current nutter, he makes Kim Jong Illmatic look like freaking Andy Griffith.
BRD
They are sitting on the second largest known reserves of both crude oil and natural gas in the world, yet they are going broke because the are net importers of both. And rather than develop a modern exploration and refining network, they would rather invest in underground nuclear facilities. I guess what I am trying to say is I am not real interested in what passes for rational thought over there.
BMoe,
That’s the problem with nutters, though. If they weren’t hopped up on getting nukes, sitting next to Iraq, on top of a lot of oil and so on, then it wouldn’t matter how or what they think. But they can screw things up for us right quick if they wander too far off the reservation. And that’s why there is some merit in understanding what goes on underneath the turbans.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean understand like sympathize, but something more like that line in the movie “Patton” where Patton is beating Rommel, and says something to the effect ‘I read your book, by God you bastard, I read your book!’ as his forces are beating Rommel’s troops back.
And no, definitely not ‘understand’ meaning to agree with.
BRD
A few years ago, that would be true, BRD. Not any more.