I had the opportunity to have a few drinks with a visiting Matt Heidt (formerly of Froggy Ruminations) last evening, who was in from California on business. One of the topics we spent a good deal of time discussing is how the US might (and should) handle growing Iranian nuclear threat. Neither of us found any of the options particularly promising—premising our conversation on the shared assertion that, even though we are dealing with a state actor in the case of the overt and publicly articulated Iranianian threat, Iran is not the Soviet Union, and MAD as a form of deterrence only works when the stalemate occurs between rational actors. Neither Matt nor I was convinced that the mullahs or Ahmadinejad fit that description.
I’ve written a number of posts here noting that I believe the US can’t take any of its military options off the table, including the use of tactical nukes, to bottleneck the program—even though I’m not sanguine about the prospects that such a strike will effect the kind of change necessary to take away the long-term Iranian threat (in fact, there’s a chance such a thing could galvanize Iranian nationalism). Unfortunately, I’m equally as dubious that sanctions or diplomatic actions will work. And so I think we need to convey clearly to the Iranians that we can be as “crazy” as they are, if the situation calls for it.
That we are the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons—coupled with a CinC who is not concerned about reelection—provides our threat with a gravitas not easily dismissed. Which, for those who don’t view difficult foreign policy decisions through the prism of an order of curly fries, is not the same as calling for the nuking of Iranian civilians just for shits and giggles.
And that is why I’ve been so surprised to read how many of those who’ve written on the subject of Iran of late refuse to take the Iranian government (underwritten by the mullacracy) at its word—particularly in the long shadow of 911, and given Iran’s overtly articulated threats. Instead, many pundits have written off Iran’s martial bluster as either a) meant to provoke an attack (though the motive for doing so is unclear: international opinion about the US (and of course Israel) is already low, but it’s not like many countries can afford to marginalize the world’s only hyperpower); or b) a type of bargaining chip to be used in the model of North Korea, where Iran promises not to produce weapons in exchange for certain political considerations—though such a gambit is unlikely to work with the current US administration.
Some commenters have even gone so far as to suggest that Iran is not a serious threat to US security, that our saber-rattling is the only real threat—a suggestion that speaks to their implicit belief (shared by a great number of Germans and many others, I suspect) that the US is more of threat to the world than is a nuclear armed Iran, who not only has promised to destroy Israel, but is one of the biggest terrorist suppliers in the world.
My own feeling is that if Ahmadinejad is being crafty—and Iran is stepping up its rhetoric merely as a ploy—they are not doing so (as some have suggested) simply as product of a traditonal style of cultural discourse. Instead, I’m inclined to believe their goal is to keep the international community preoccupied with discussing potential responses while they stall for the time needed to finish the nuclear weapons program—which some intelligence places at as little as six month (while competing intelligence places it at up to 10 years. So let’s just get this out of the way now: BUSH LIED!).
Am I absolutely conviced Ahmadinejad means ever word he says? Of course not. But in today’s terrorist climate—and especially one where nuclear weapons are involved—how much latitude must we give him? And is it really crazy to say that one of the consequences of threatening nuclear strikes is that others may just take you seriously? And why shouldn’t they?
I find it strange that many seem to be putting the onus on the US or Israel or the international community to “prove” Iran really means what it says before they’ll allow for even the open discussion of potential responses without decrying the US as preemptive overreactors. As Cathy Young points out, Henley writes in one of his comments that those who have decided to take the Iranian threat at its word—at least for purposes of preparing the ground for possible responses—“a bunch of scared little girls, starting at shadows” and “Annie Hall demanding that Alvie Singer kill every spider in the world before it can bite her.”
Such an extension of the “bedwetter” trope is nothing more than an attempt to act tough on national security by treating threats with a dismissive, blase attitude—which to me shows either a startling (and I dare say undeserved) faith in Iranian forebearance, or else is an implicit acknowledgment that, when push comes to shove, we have nothing to worry about: evil King George will protect us, even as Jimmy Carter (ironically) carps from the sidelines.
For her part, Cathy Young finds herself somewhere in the middle. Writes Young (who presumably puts me in the hysteria category, though I don’t think that’s where I’d place myself):
I’m certainly not advocating war, or offering any prescription. I think this is a problem that requires concerted international action. I don’t think there is any threat so imminent as to rush to judgment. But I do think there ought to be a middle ground between hysteria and hiding one’s head in the sand.
Mark Steyn, on the other hand, is more certain about where he stands—and speaks in large part for the supposed “bedwetters” and Annie Halls who have no interest, really, in a striking a pose. From “Facing Down Iran,” City Journal, Spring 2006 (with thanks to Brian Anderson for sending this along):
[…] as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.†Hmm. I’m not a professional mullah, so I can’t speak to the theological soundness of the argument, but it seems a religious school in the Holy City of Qom has ruled that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.†Well, there’s a surprise. How do you solve a problem? Like, sharia! It’s the one-stop shop for justifying all your geopolitical objectives.
The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.†Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.
But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor. In fact, if one were a Machiavellian mullah, the first thing one would do after acquiring nukes would be to hire some obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree to front the program. He’s the equivalent of the yobbo in the English pub who says, “Oy, mate, you lookin’ at my bird?†You haven’t given her a glance, or him; you’re at the other end of the bar head down in the Daily Mirror, trying not to catch his eye. You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face or whether he just gets a kick out of terrifying you into thinking he wants to. But, either way, you just want to get out of the room in one piece. Kooks with nukes is one-way deterrence squared.
If Belgium becomes a nuclear power, the Dutch have no reason to believe it would be a factor in, say, negotiations over a joint highway project. But Iran’s nukes will be a factor in everything. If you think, for example, the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons, imagine what they’d be like if a nuclear Tehran had demanded a formal apology, a suitable punishment for the newspaper, and blasphemy laws specifically outlawing representations of the Prophet. Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist.
[My emphases]
Steyn notes what others have noted repeatedly: a nuclear-armed Iran would change the balance of power in the region and would lay waste to attempts to introduce democratic reform.
To some—especially to those who believe the US shouldn’t be asserting its will on the world—there is something perversely “just” about such a scenario. But to those of us who have concluded that the longtime US foreign policy stance of “containment” and bribery and propping up dictators who we believe will contain the Islamist threat (call this foreign policy realism or self-interested pragmatism) has been a colossal failure—one that has manifested itself in two attacks on the WTC, as well as attacks on Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the Marine barracks in Beirut, and on and on and on—the “new pragmatism” of spreading universal rights and aiding those who desire freedom is not so crazy and idealistic as it seems. Certainly, the sacrifices are greater. But at least it is an attempt to forestall the inevitable escalation of attacks that certainly would have come about as a result of a continuation of our earlier policies.
Always liked Matthew’s stuff.
I have a feeling we’re going to end up just living with Iran having tens, then hundreds, perhaps eventually thousands of ICBMs pointed at us, hoping AhMADinejad doesn’t have wake up today from a dream involving mass Iranian nuclear martyrdom.
Too bad, this may be remembered as the brief period of modern history where we didn’t live under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation.
You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face
Oh, and let’s try to keep bukkake out of this, OK?
I think what needs to be emphasized even more in this discussion is that the proof that the left and the anti-US factions seem to want in order to justify a strategic bombing campaign aimed at either removing or seriously degarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities is already there.
The only further proof that we could get from Iran would be a glass parking lot in Tel Aviv.
Seriously, how many times does the president of Iran, not to mention the former and current Iranian mullahs, have to say “we will nuke Israel as soon as humanly possible” before we take them seriously?
Jeff is right that there are no easy answers, but I can’t comprehend how someone thinks that Iran is joking when they say this.
<style</a>.
but I can’t comprehend how someone thinks that Iran is joking when they say this.
With regard to nuking Tel Aviv, I don’t think certain elements of the Left think the mullahs are joking. It’s that they just don’t care if they nuke Tel Aviv.
Seriously.
Yeah, well good luck on that. The only thing you can get the UN to agree on is possibly where to go to lunch and what nationality of hookers should be supplied to them. Is she deliberately not reading what China and Russia and France and Russia and most of the world is doing to supply Iran with nuclear capabilities?
When push comes to shove, it’s the US that has to clean up the world’s mess. And if we try to do something about it before it becomes an acute danger, people piss and moan about it. I’m ready to say fuck the rest of the world. Oh, and Iran, if you send anything Israel’s way, you’re glass.
Too bad PIATOR doesn’t come around anymore. He could tell us why Iran needs nukes.
feh.
iran threatens israel with weapons it doesn’t even have yet, and because bush can strut his wang in front of the world and threaten to use his own nukes against them, you are all gungho.
n.korea promises to turn us into a sea of fire with weapons it actually possesses, and bush can’t wave his wang against them, since they are an actual threat, you are all as silent as little yellow elephants.
we are attacked by saudi arabians/osama and instead of capturing or pursuing him, we attack iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 and that in no way posed a threat to us.
we are threatened by a country that is actually a threat, n.korea, and instead we focus on a threat that doesn’t actually exist yet. brilliant. maybe our little run into iran will be as successfull as the iraq thing is turning out. one can only hope!
You’re RIGHT, prozacula, we should nuke North Korea. Better call anyone you might know in S. Korea and say goodbye first.
Kim Jong Il just wants food. Since the Madman in Pajamas doesn’t believe himself to be a “nail” of the 12th imam, with illusions of beginning a battle that will end with Burkas being stocked in a K-Mart near me, at the moment I’m a tad more afraid of Ahmadinejadadingdong than I am of N. Korea.
Jeff
Iran, whether we think so or not, is still a somewhat rational actor. The mullahs speak thru Ahmadinejad, seeing how far they can go before provoking a response. They’re pretty sure they’re still within bounds (since the B-2s are not yet on the way), but they’re playing a dangerouse game–but one they think they can control. Hey, they stood up to the US and UN, acquired nukes, flipped everyone the bird, and succeeded. That goes a long way in consolidating their status as the leaders of the Muslim world. For all their bluster and brinkmanship, they don’t want to nuke Israel or anywhere else–the probable response from us will be an unscheduled sunrise. They’ll deal with Israel on their own schedule, through other means. It’s just that having nukes gives them more options to foment/support terrorism, influence regional actors, and push their version of Islam even harder, before someone comes to slap them down. Its a security blanket–and gives them the power to intimidate anyone who doesn’t like it.
Of course, I could be totally off the wall, and they nuke Israel the day they get their nukes operational–but….
*we are threatened by a country that is actually a threat,*
You make actus look like einstein by comparison.
Just FYI.
Did a post on the same subject yesterday.
Put me in the moderate histeria camp, especially after reading Steyn’s piece.
Whatever Bush does he can’t win. If he takes military action to destroy Iran’s nuclear capibility he will be excoriated by all the usual suspects for taking “unilateral” action and being a cowboy and on and on. If he allows them to get weapons (which is the lefts current preferred action, one which they would never actually acknowledge of course but the logical result of all thier policy preferences) then he allowed it, its his fault, why didn’t he stop it?
So what are you proposing he do? Also if this is such a concern of yours then no doubt if we had time machines you would advocate going back in time and preventing N. Korea from ever getting nukes, right? Think real carefully when you are coming up with a response to that or better yet head on back to Kos, numbnuts.
There’s an interesting discussion going on over at Volokh’s place regarding this:
LINK
Barnett’s post specifically asked for civil comments by those who have read the Steyn article, regarding whether his narrative is correct, or wrong. The first two posters basically said “Steyn is Nuts”.
The left just cannot articulate an argument, as is proven by prozacula, and the comments at Volokh’s.
TV (Harry)
I’ll ignore your dig and say that we already heard this line of b.s. from your side, Goldstein. It wasn’t remotely true the last time, why the heck would we believe it this time?
Caught in the horns of a dilemma there, eh prozacula? On one hand, it is the wang of the Chimperor–but on the other hand, it IS a wang, no?
Prozacman is proposing the US wait until we know for certain Iran is armed with a nuclear weapon, then it is OK to attack–’cause then they will pose a threat to the US.
Now, does anyone think the UN will authorize a pre-emptive strike against Iran once they possess nuclear weapons capabilities? No, I didn’t think so either.
Guess it’s back to unilateral action, eh Prozacman?
(Oh, you need to do a little reading up on your international law, as Iraq was in violation of the 1991 cease fire agreement, and 14 UN resolutions regarding same. Your characterizations regarding Iraq and 9/11 culpability or threat has nothing to do with RESUMPTION of the 1991 Gulf War. OK.)
Yes, ignore my dig, Oliver. And I’ll ignore your suggestions that I just want to kill brown people.
But getting back to the gist. What does “it” and “this line of b.s.” refer to specifically?
And why wouldn’t you believe the Iranian President or the mullahs? Is it for the same reason we didn’t take UBL’s threats seriously before 911?
I generally don’t employ ad hominems, but you’re an idiot, prozacula. Based on what you wrote, you would have the U.S. confront an enemy only after it has nuclear weapons, not while it is trying to acquire them. That’s a recipe for the deaths of millions. (I suppose not wanting millions of peole to die makes me a coward?) Why don’t you go get a new rag to wipe the drool off your chin and let the grown-ups discuss things?
Oliver,
So General Georges Sada was wrong too?
Out of curiosity, was Israel wrong to bomb Osirak in the 80’s? Would they be wrong to do the same to Brushehr?
And what would consitute “proof” for you?
Liar.
On one hand, it is the wang of the Chimperor–but on the other hand, it IS a wang, no?
As long as it isn’t a GAY PORN WANG OF LIES.
Er…I don’t think so. Shi’ite Persians won’t exactly whomp up a huge load of enthusiasm from Sunni Arabs.
But Oliver, the UN/IAEA says they are violating the nuke restrictions. The Iranians are boasting of it. I guess they are both lying, and we should just toodle on our merry way. I mean, what has Iran ever done to anyone, right?
Don’t like fat jokes or invective? Put the fork and the poison pen down.
If the shoe fits, etc.
“It” is the atmosphere of crisis in which “OMG we have to blow them up nownownow because they hate teh freedom” substitutes for a coherent foreign policy. The last time we used a nuke it was to end the biggest war the world has ever known, I just don’t think President Bush’s 36% approval rating merits the same cause for alarm. We used diplomacy and subterfuge to eventually beat the Soviet Union over a long succession of Presidents of both parties without going to the absurdity of nuking Moscow. Somehow I think we can deal with Iran’s saber rattlings without unnecessarily killing a buttload of innocent people – brown skinned or not.
“Mr. Thompson, open the outer doors. Firing point procedures.
Now, if that bastard so much as twitches, I’m going to blow him right to Mars.”
— Red October
SB: trying
times again
Oh, Jesus Oliver. Can you be that fucking stupid? You’re comparing the Soviet Union (Communist, but rational), to Iran (neither Communist NOR rational)? Can a comparison possibly be more inapt?
The Soviet Union didn’t threaten to nuke an entire country because of religion. Iran has. Conflating the two is idiocy in it’s purest form.
TV (Harry)
tw: Is there a point to arguing with these bozos?
And when the Iranians launch – I suppose you’ll be the first to admit you were wrong?
Major John,
LOL! No, he’ll just blame Bush.
This is coming from the people who repeat like lemmings that Iraq = WW2?
Oliver,
Simple question: what will you say when an Iranian nuke glasses Tel Aviv?
OK, then: what will you say when an Iranian nuke glasses New York Harbor?
WIll you say “we just didn’t try diplomacy hard enough”?
Doesn’t seem to concern Oliver about the possibility of “boatloads” of dead Israelis.
Right. Because Iraq=Iran=USSR=Nazi Germany.
Now I’m more confused. Did you go to public school?
TV (Harry)
tw: There was a meeting of the minds, but one of ‘em came unarmed.
Ok, now if I’m supposed to be repeating something like a lemming, don’t you think I should have at least heard it before?
Precisely, Oliver. I’m the racist for taking Iran at its word, whereas you (tell me again what you think of Michelle Malkin) can’t be racist. Because you’re black, I suppose.
Incidentally, you’ll find the shoe fits a lot better if your ankles weren’t so swollen from pudding binges.
I never said Iraq was like WW2. I have said that the UN’s approach to it was very Chamberlain-like, appeasement all the way until too late. However if you would like to point out where Jeff said Iraq = WW2 (and not just something like I pointed out), I’ll be happy to spring for a Happy Meal. Because it’s time for lunch.
Prozacula,
How bout if Bush just slaps his wang upside your ridiculous face? …Nice use of tired and typical lefty talking points by the way. Now do us all a favor and go back to 2nd period gym class asshat…
Wow, if you are referring to the supposed lack of WMD in Iraq you must really have your head crammed deep into David Brocks ass. Tell you what, to be sporting I’m not going to mention the daily revelations flowing from the release of the Iraqi Government documents, the 9/11 report, the Butler report etc and just ignore you in the hopes that one day Brock will eat something that doesn’t agree with him and shit your head out. When that day comes, for chrissakes look around will ya? Resist the impulse to just shove it back in immediately. Us head out of rectum type people have some real problems we are trying to deal with in the most logical manner possible. Morons screaming “liar”, “warmonger” and “racist” from the cozy confines of thier sugar daddies ass are not helping.
I guess all those REFORGERs were “subterfuge” But I sure remember an awful lot of armor being involved…
I love how a boatload of third grade (actually, that’s an insult to third-graders) insults is supposed to counter the idea that the left is unserious and profane.
Soldier on, keyboard commandoes. Every time you hit the enter key an insurgent gets blown up (or so you apparently think).
Oliver will get back to us with more “wisdom” after he finishes off those dozen jelly filled, which honestly, have been taunting him all morning.
Good God, did the World’s-Most-Fucking-Stupidest-Blogger, Oliver “Like Superglue to Stupid” Willis, win an e-date with the World’s-Most-Fucking-Stupidest-Commenter, actus?
Holy Hell, think of the children; the fat, obtuse, transexual, so-left-wing-they’re-to-the-right-of-Buchanan children.
BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN!!!
God damn it Jeff, do you have to pick fights with the ankle-deep gene pool half of the blogosphere? This is getting ridiculous, I might not always have your back, bra; not enough hours in the day.
Third grade, I guess..
Oliver that itch in your belly button?, last nights fried chicken leg, time to dig it out wipe off the lint and enjoy lunch….
We can only hope!
And every time you hit the enter key a brown person is saved from a redneck, racist, rethuglican who would kill them just for sport.
I will give you credit for coming in hurling insults and then acting above it all when they come flying back. Kudus, sir. You truly are a worthless bastard.
I think is very instructive that Oliver and the rest seem to feel that the American Adminstration is much more reckless than the Mullahs. Oliver, is America the biggest threat to justice and peace in the world?
I have a third-grader right here. And we are no third graders; not enough fart jokes.
Whats the 911 connection?
Deep and abiding ignorance of many of the commenters here, eh?
Do CJTF-180 (10th Mountain) and CJTF-76 (25th ID Light) count as “keyboard commandoes”?
Survey sez: Iran gets nukes! Thanks for your vote, Oliver Clothesoff (but only if you have five bills; what kind of woman do you think I am?).
Now, fighting the USSR on the Subterfuge arena…
Greece, Korea (still at war, I hear), Nicaragua, Grenada, Shining Happy People on the Shining Path, Cuba, Cambodia, also includes Maoist China, also includes Vietnam, also includes most of the Israeli-Arab wars, swallowing Eastern Europe whole, and the petty slaughter in Africa (hey, Che Guevera isn’t just another pretty face, after all).
All told? Millions dead. But hey, the US is war criminals for our depleted-uranium NUKLEAR WAR!!!
Major John
Concur there’s no love between the Shia and Sunni–they make Protestants and Catholics in Ulster look like butt-buddies. But Jihadism (or Islamofascism) is crossing those denominational lines–and the ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ mentality is prevalent. OBL is not the long-term leader of the Jihadi movement–he’s got the extremists moving, but he’s marginalized at the moment. But a new nuclear power–with the prestige of telling the ‘other’ to shove it, can take over for OBL, and invigorate the Jihadis. Do they run the risk of getting us to slap them down–definitely. But they’re willing to accept that risk, truly believing that either way, they’ll get the Jihadi movement into the mainstream of Islam. And I think, unfortunately, that they’re right.
Personally, I savor the rich irony of leftists lauding our “bipartisan” approach to winning the Cold War.
The Left opposed each and every effective tactic deployed during our twilight struggle with global communism just as they oppose each effective tactic that we’ve attempted to deploy against global islamofascism. My guess is that in twenty years, if we’ve won this one, the intellectual progeny of Oliver’s ilk will be longing for the days when “we were all in it together” against jihadists.
It will be just as phony then as it is today.
As I note in this post from a few days ago, we are already at war with Iran. And it’s a shooting war.
The problem is going to be convincing the nutters on the left and in the Democratic Party that it’s been going on for a while, we’ve all just been ignoring it.
Ugh. The chicken-hawk argument, this time from Oliver. I wonder if he knows that this represents a classically fascist position. Here’s a lesson O-Dub: in America, you don’t have to join the military to be considered a full citizen and have a say in how the country is run. You’re arguing a standard that would have fit in much better in Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’s Spain.
Obligatory ”ignore actus” comment.
Now if someone tells me they’re going to cut my throat, I may just sorta give ‘em the look. When they start reaching for the knife, I start paying attention. When they have the knife in hand, I start pulling out my gun. When they start coming at me….well, that when there’s a big bang. I certainly do not need the knife at my throat and blood dripping to know that there is a threat.
I don’t see that secenario as being hysterical – just being prudent.
Does bigO get paid in donuts? ‘Cause if I could swing a deal to get paid in Sutphen’s ribs and lemonade…yeah, I could try to be that retarded too.
Or you could be realistic, tubbadubz. Something like, “OMG we have to define our potential courses of action because Iran’s ‘leadership’ has an irrational hatred of all things Joooooo-ish, and really will (continue to) try to kill them. All of them.
William Yound
Just read your post–I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Wars don’t just jump out of nowhere. They erupt after years of simmering hatred, moves and countermoves, information warfare campaigns, etc. The Cold War effectively started post WWII–but communism moved relatively unimpeded for over a half-century before, making severe inroads in all nations–but winning in Cuba, USSR, China, N. Korea, Vietnam, etc–and getting alot of help from sympathisers throughout the western world.
Jihadism is working the same way. We can either combat it now–politically, economically, militarily, etc.–or diddle around until the first two options are completely unfeasible.
Hey Smirky! Who do you like in the Maryland Senate race?
Pete – Iran = leader of the jihadi world/movement as opposed to the Islamic world? Sound pretty rational to me. I’ll give you that one.
these days i’m more apt to believe this:
Michael Ledeen on radioblogger..
ML: “I think they have nuclear weapons already. I just think it’s contrary to common sense to assume that they don’t have them. I keep on saying if the United States could go from zero to a bomb in four years, when nobody had ever built an atomic bomb, and we know that Iran has been at this for at least fifteen years on a serious basis, how can they not have it? I mean, they’ve had help from everybody. They’ve had help from Pakistan and A.Q. Khan, they’ve had help from the Libyans, from the Russians, from the Chinese, from the North Koreans, from the Georgians, from the Ukrainians, and so forth. I mean, a few years ago, probably less than three years ago, poor old Shevardnadze got up in Georgia, and said hasn’t anybody noticed that all my nuclear physicists have gone to work in Tehran? And doesn’t anybody worry about that? And I wrote that up, and I said okay, I worry about it. Anybody else? And nobody called. So you know, we’ve ignored this as we have ignored Iran as a serious matter, for many years. And if I can just make one…it seems to me the biggest point. The issue about Iran is not nuclear weapons, whether they have them or whether they don’t. The issue about Iran is the nature of this regime, which declared war on us 27 years ago, and has waged war against us, non-stop, for 27 years, and we have yet to engage.”
—-
who knows, maybe that’s their game, very small big bang stuff that takes out tel aviv and leaves the surrounding area livable…….
Exactly.
Kimmy want to live to enjoy his virgins in THIS Life (or at least videos of them), the insane Islamic Fascists are happy to enjoy them in the next. That’s the difference, one which the Iranian leadership is happy to exploit I think. Some portion of the leadership probably would be willing to die in the service of Allah, but they’d probably rather get some other poor, stupid fellow Islamic Fascist to do it for them, as long as enough of the infidels are taken as well. Same deal with the amazingly stupid comment regarding the Russians. The Russkies were actually rational (which is why MAD worked during the Cold War),and therefore were happy to try and conquer the world with subterfuge, using third parties and the help from the Useful Idiots on the Left in this country (though I guess that’s a different topic of discussion).
Sorry I’m late.
So this Oliver dude is really fat? Like how fat? And does he know he’s fat?
Dude, al, this fat…
Holy shit!
He looks like a travel case for a whole set of fat guys.
Do you think he knows?
Darn it, rls, I was just going to note that He Who Apparently Must Not Be Named was going for the big OBL gotcha. In spite of Jeff’s preemptive strike against gotchas in one of these recent posts. Oh well.
And I’d go easy on Kim Jong Il.
I heard he had 5 holes-in-one in one round of golf!
That’s in the zone baby.
Man, if he ever had to haul ass he’d need a semi.
He knows. He attempts to hide his probelm under the veneer of pseudo intellectualism- unfortunately, the aforementioned veneer doesnt fit over and around him.
That being said, it is astounding that democrats/liberals/jelly eating pussies somehow dismiss the “we will nuke Israel” rhetoric as “those crazy mullahs”. How do you not take that seriously ? How do you question the man’s intentions when he’s telling you in plain fucking Arabic. I suspect the true reason for the refusal to believe Iran is simply that if we’re wrong, its only Israel, who is the REAL thread to peace on earth.
Right tubby ?
No argument, just an addition.
Is the cold war/MAD model really the best option we have? Sure that model has the benefits of a peaceful (relatively) and positive outcome. But Christ, look at what the world was forced to tolerate for almost fifty years. How many people suffered under the yoke of totalitarianism? How many were sacrificed in proxy wars? How many would be Pol Pots are out there? How many decades of appeasement did we suffer before finally finding a leader willing to stand up and force the issue? And was the outcome truly inevitable? What if our own fifth columns had actually succeeded?
Do we really want to repeat that process? Is that the best the left can come up with?
I’ve read Steyn’s piece, as well as Edward Luttwak’s essay over at Commentary Mag (can’t link to it). Both agree that we should take the mullahs at their word, but it also does appear that we can afford to wait them out awhile.
The theocracy is increasingly corrupt, more so that the Shah ever was. They are resorting to violent measures to enforce their extreme norms on their people. In return, the people of Iran despise the mullahs, while at the same time appreciating their one-time ally the U.S. and its citizens. It’s no secret that the local Iranian community here in my home town of Los Angeles have a broadcast that is well-received in Iran, despite the mullahs attempts to squelch it.
Iran has never been adept at technology or building organizations. Evidence of this exists with their oil drilling expertise, or lack of it. The fine precision and sheer scale of a successful nuclear program seems to be outside of their reach. They may yet achieve the end goal of having true nuclear capacity, but it won’t happen any time soon. Until then, we should continue observing them, taking advantage of information from their scientists (who have a tenuous allegiance to the mullahs), and when their capacity measures up with the rhetoric, we should bomb them without remorse.
The unserious and profane like Oliver can rest assured that we will use precision bombing to protect his precious innocents. God forbid anyone should get hurt or killed in a military mission, but America has taken such a notion into account as it has developed military technology so as to pacify its pacifists, who, let’s face it, only exist to spout their nonsense thanks to America’s strong military, but that’s another point all together.
Who says they’re not as rational as the communists? And who was it that that thougth the communists were rational?
Dude, the president thinks green beams shot out of his head while he addressed the United Nations and that no one blinked once while he spoke. And he holds regular talks with the “hidden imam.”
If that sounds rational to you, then you have low rationality standards.
History tells us that the commies were rational with their nukes for 50 years.
I am in the camp that believes diplomacy will not achieve anything and ultimately some sort of military intervention will be required. For peace of mind from those who think we should be bombing them yesterday, remember that the adminsitration has been unwaivering in its line that “Iran will NOT be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons”.
One good reason to wait awhile on the military option that I have not heard anyone posit has to do with timing. We hear as soon as 6 months or 10 years, whoever you believe, as the time required for them to have all the pieces in place. If the inteligence community has a good handle on at least the minimum time, why not wait until they have 98% of everything built before we blow it up? This is what the Israelis did with Osirak. Wouldn’t it be preferable to let them expend as much of their national treasure as possible, if the outcome is going to be the same?
This strategy will also have the benefit of giving time for security in Iraq to stabilize and let the new government gel, which will in turn help quell the inevitable uprising in the Shia south instigated by Iran once the bombs begin to drop.
As craven as it sounds, the reality in Washington is that bombing Iran is a political non-starter just months before mid-term elections. Of course, if the 6 months projection is accurate, the Bush administration should pull the trigger, politics be damned. But on the other hand, if it could wait that long, my opinion of the perfect time for the bombay doors to open would be somewhere between November 2008 and January 2009…
And that’s not even talking about him wanting to glass Israel.
Israel has a right to be jumpy, since it wasn’t too long ago that a fair percentage of Jews worldwide were turned into air pollution by another dictator.
And the iranians with their weapons too. They backed off when our tankers were re-flagged.
I mean, its not like their consulting astrologers or anything.
Um, an F-4 with a bomb is a TAD different than an IRBM with a nuke on it.
Dear Actus,
I am your biggest fan. I think about you all of the time. And I would be so happy if you could just answer me one question: How do you do it?
How can you be wrong, 100% of the time, on everything, always, forever more?
One would think that a broken watch is right twice a day, maybe more often if flying around the world like a good ComIntern pseudointellectual (timezones, in case Your Obtuseness must ask). Yet you appear to actually wind the watch frantically so that when the Trvth comes close, you are 180 degrees out of phase, in the wrong month and year.
How do you do that? How is that possible? SHouldn’t space-time itself rupture and drag your hairy ass back through time or is it that by supporting Iran’s bid for Nukes, you seek to accomplish armageddon, thus neutralizing the time-wormhole breach?
Please, I’m dying to hear from you, my Stalinista hero.
Luv,
Verc
PS. Sorry rls, for the ten thousandth time, I’m sorry.
What have they done that is irrational lately? Take hostages? That worked: they got missles.
Also the commies were pretty committed atheists – no theological axe to grind. Whereas our beturbaned pals follow sayings such as, oh, how ‘bout this gem:
See the difference yet? Actus? Jell-o-ver?
Is that what we thought? that their ideology didn’t blind them to reason? ok.
Like how? I see them engaging in quite brutal realpolitik.
I know…I know…I have to bite my tongue, er…fingers too. But you can do it Verc. Look later in the thread and see what you have wrought. You could spend the rest of your internet life scooping up little acthole turds, one at a time on this thread alone. Just think of it as if a rabbit stopped to squeeze “one little one” at each hop – and that rabbit was on a 1,000 mile journey.
You would be the all time, king of pooper scoopers.
Arguing with someone who thinks that Iran is a rational state is a waste of time. One could ASSUME they will behave rationally but their actions and words leave a lot of room for uncertainty.
I am generally gloomy about a positive outcome to this. The least worst case scenario is that the international community (IC) decides to start sanctioning Iran. But I think the only hope of that depends entirely on whether the IC thinks the US will really pull the trigger on Iran if all else fails. That possibility carries such dreadful ramifications that they, being rational states, might see it as in their self-interest to go the sanctions route.
Now they already have the Iraq example as an object lesson in the failure of the UN. So perhaps they will now view the US as having the crazy street creds.
There is one more chance for the IC to do it right. If not I fear we’re all fucked.
TW: Just keep smiling, we’ll get through this.
To anybody but Actus,
If he makes the jump from ideology from religion, politely slap his bottom.
Islam is the religion of peace (TM), and harbors absolutely no ideology inimical to anything good and pure and progressive; as we have been told, so very often.
Also, realpolitic generally stops with religious war, by definition. So Iranian Hizbullah is not realpolitic, and subsidies to Hamas, not realpolitic, neither are martyr brigades, neither are threats of annhilating a neighbor who will certainly annhilate them first.
By definition, ‘brutal’ realpolitic is NOT realpolitic.
Go fish.
Protein Wisdom Comment Calculus
Jihad = Religious War is NOT equal to a Rational war
Religious Warriors fighting a religious war are NOT rational actors
Armageddon baiting is NOT equal to real-politic
Any questions, especially from the window-licking, short bus riding crowd (looking at you Actus, but not you Oliver, we need a bigger bus for you).
Sorry. Those sound like quite realpolitik to me. They extend the power, control, and influence of Iran. You don’t see Iran sending money to any old islamic group.
…retarded telephone pole
Cut and paste my post above. Repeat as necessary.
Apparently Actus thinks irrational has to be exactly 100% equal to stupid. Which may be why he sounds the way he does.
I could have missed a response among all the fat jokes, but think we have to thank prozacula for shooting down a particularly stubborn anti-war meme for us. After all, there’s no way North Korea could actually hit the US with a nuclear weapon, given the state of their “space” program, unless the Dear Leader has a multikiloton warhead that fits in a golf ball. This used to mean that they weren’t a threat if they couldn’t hit us, no matter what effect their posession of nuclear weapons would have on our allies.
Oddly enough, under this definition of threat a certain country or countries (hint: four letters, starts with IRA-), despite engaging in vicious proxy wars via terrorism which killed hundreds of Americans and threatening our strategic allies, were not threats.
With regards to World War II, you can compare anything… 10 pieces of fried chicken, a dessert cart, an all-you-can-eat buffet… to World War II and still have a valid comparison.
Or just without reason. There are reasons for what they do. They do respond to both carrots and sticks.
When their reasons no longer include destruction of Israel and/or the establishment of a Caliphate, and when their plans do not involve a serious risk to themselves of immolation, perhaps then they will have entered the realm of realpolitik. Not before.
RLS, would I be remiss to point out to you the utter irresponsiveness of Iran to carrots (in the direction we want to push them in, i.e. not towards nuclear fucking weapons) and the too-obvious-to-miss-unless-you-have-cranialcolonorectomy that if you don’t allow sticks, they don’t fucking work, now, will they?
But that would be, say, checking evidence and data against the real world and not living in librul la-la-land. What an absolute joke.
I think you meant someone else,
But how do you eat a nuclear carrot?
Mmmm… WW2…
Well, lesse… 10 pieces of fried chicken… that’s a LOT of chicken. Such a meal would be difficult to swallow. Tis best just to fight that meal back a bit and then nuke it later to finish it off.
I’d think they want a nuke in order to prevent themselves from being nuked. MAD all over again.
Not true. Carrots worked in the Iran/Contra affair.
“If the inteligence community has a good handle on at least the minimum time”
We could wait until the director terms the case a “slam dunk”, perhaps? Our intelligence capabilities at this point, are, shall we say, inexact…
Actus, the problem is that the Mullahs are rational… by 7th Century standards. They are indeed engaged in Realpolitik, but the political arrangement they seek to see realized makes the Left Behind folks look like Quakers. I’m sure the Borg are perfectly rational as well.
I am somewhat concerned that American strikes would make the task of those hoping to overthrow the Mullahs more difficult. I mean if France nuked Guantanamo, it would be unlikely to lower Bush’s support, for instance.
Bezuhov, at this point, if we cannot do anything else, we may likely have to take the bad medicine and attack the sites, and then deal with the enemy we on some level help to pit against us. I really cannot foresee a less reprehensible alternative…
Note, I am as interested in such a potentially adversarial policy as I am in getting a needle jammed in my eye, but I’d rather have the needle than the nuke.
Or it could be that I just hate brown people. I never can tell these days.