Search

August 20th, 2007

The Wrong Questions on Iran

Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. troops invading Iraq had, as they neared Baghdad, been fired on by an artillery unit using shells filled VX nerve gas — an attack that would have lasted minutes before a U.S. aircrew had taken out the battery, and may have brought a horrible death to a handful of American soldiers. Imagine, further, that the conquering troops had later discovered two warehouses full of VX and mustard gas shells. And later, that inspectors in a science lab had discovered a refrigerator full of Botulinum toxin or even anthrax.

The Administration and its allies in the punditocracy would have “proved” their case for war, and the media would have hailed President Bush as the kind of Churchillian visionary that he imagines himself to be. And goodness knows what new adventures the Pentagon ideologues would have immediately begun planning.

Now, ask yourself, had the above scenario unfolded and the “case for war” (on the terms accepted by the media and the Democrats) been proven, would Iraq look any different today? Would it be any less of a bloodbath; any less of a quagmire for U.S. troops; any less of a geopolitical disaster; any less of a drain on U.S. blood and treasure? Would the U.S. mainland or U.S. interests and allies worldwide be any safer today? In short, would the Iraq invasion seem any less of a catastrophic strategic blunder had the U.S. discovered some caches of unconventional weapons in Iraq?

The answer to all of those questions is obviously no.

And it’s from that point that we must begin our discussion on Iran, and the media’s role in preparing the American public for another disastrous war of choice. The “necessity” in the American public mind to go to war in Iraq was established through the mass media — a failure for which there has been precious little accounting. But that failure runs far deeper than is typically acknowledged even by critics: It was not simply a case of the media failing to properly and critically interrogate the spurious claims by the Administration of Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction capability. Sure, even the likes of France and Germany suspected that Saddam may, in fact, have still had a few piles of chemical munitions left over from the Iran-Iraq war. The point, however, is that they did not see these as justifying a war. They recognized from the outset that invading Iraq would cause more problems than it would solve.

The more important failure of the U.S. media, then, is its failure to question the basic proposition that if Iraq had, indeed, had unconventional weapons, then an invasion and occupation of that country was a wise and prudent course of action.

Of course many of the decision-makers in the U.S. media in the wake of 9/11 were scared and confused, and looking for John Wayne-style authority figures for comfort — read back now and you’ll find some astounding toadying up to the self-styled tough guys of the Administration: Bill Keller’s wet-kiss profile of Paul Wolfowitz in the New York Times suggested to me a man playing out Robert Mitchum’s epiphany in The Green Berets, the jaded liberal recognizing the harsh truths of John Wayne’s approach to making the world safe for freedom. And Donald Rumsfeld’s loquacious buffoonery created a comforting sense of certainty among a liberal media intelligentsia suddenly desperate to embrace an imperial mythology, and in the case of the George Packers and Peter Beinarts, to render it profound as a narrative of global liberation. Others simply preferred to avoid anything that might have demagogues branding them “un-American,” for fear of losing ad dollars.

That may help explain the failure, but it does not excuse it.

The fact that carnival barkers like Kristol and Beinart continue to be touted as having opinions worth heeding on these matters is ample evidence that the media has either learned little, or else is more dedicated to a kind of edutainment vaudeville than in empowering the American people to make informed foreign policy choices.

Beinart, in a mawkish attempt to account for himself in the excellent Bill Moyers documentary Buying the War, offers up this little gem: “The argument in the fall of 2002 was not mostly about the facts, it was about a whole series of ideas about what would happen if we invaded.”

Exactly. The fact that Beinart and company were wrong on the facts was only part of the problem. More importantly, it was their ideas about the use of force and its consequences that proved so disastrously flawed. And most of the decision-makers in the mainstream media did not bother to challenge the basic proposition that if Saddam had certain categories of weapons, then an invasion was necessary and beneficial.

The very idea that there are certain categories of weapons that draw down a red mist over rational discussion of geopolitical options is an exceedingly dangerous one — that should be one of the key lessons drawn from Iraq. And that’s exactly what’s being cooked up over Iran, too.

The very same crew of neocons and liberal hawks and the Israeli political establishment and its allies in Washington, are goading America to attack Iran. They insist Iran is going hell for leather to acquire nuclear weapons, and allowing it to do so represents a mortal threat to the West, Arab moderates and Israel. And just when a convenient excuse was needed for the U.S. failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you know it, it’s those darn Iranians “interfering”. Don’t even think about discussing, what, are you Neville Chamberlain or something? Don’t you know it’s 1938 all over again?

Of course, not all of it is as plain silly as the paragraph above.

(For the record:

First, there is no evidence that Iran is actually building a nuclear weapon; merely that it is building a civilian nuclear energy program with all elements of the fuel cycle permissible under the NPT that would, in fact, put nuclear weapons easily within reach should they opt to build them.

Second, even if Iran did possess nuclear weapons, the idea that it would use them to initiate a conflict in which Tehran would certainly be destroyed is based on tabloid-style alarmism about the nature of the regime in Tehran — in fact, Iran’s Islamic Republic has long proved to be guided more by unsentimental realpolitik than by revolutionary fervor in the pursuit of its national interests and regional influence.

Third, Iran is not “interfering” in Afghanistan and Iraq any more than the U.S. is; it has close ties with the dominant Shiite and Kurdish parties that represent three quarters of Iraqis, for whom its involvement in Iraq is welcome. Thus the recent rebuke to Bush by both Karzai and Maliki on the question of Iran’s role in their countries. Even the Administration’s claims that Iran is targeting U.S. troops in Iraq are largely unproven: In a remarkably shallow treatment of complaints about the New York Times coverage of the issue, its public editor concedes simply that the Times should have told readers of its previous coverage to provide “context” — there is no serious questioning of the contention that because Iran has been known to supply the know-how to build “Explosively Formed Projectiles” (EFPs), any time an EFP is used in an attack on U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the perpetrators are an Iranian proxy. This is worth dwelling on, because it’s typical of the ignorance on various issues — the extent of President Ahmedinajad’s authority in Iran, for example — propagated by the Times. A simple technical exposition of what an EFP is reveals that the technology is easily copied by anyone with know-how and access to very basic munitions. It’s not an actual weapon; it’s a method of building an improvised explosive device to pierce armor. The idea that the use of EFPs in Iraq is automatically a fingerprint of Iran is ridiculous. Someone ought to tell the Times. And by the way, even if Iranian proxies were attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, that wouldn’t signal intent to undermine the Iraqi government; it would simply be an escalation of the secret war between Washington and Tehran. And that’s a war that this President, his deepest psychological scars laid bare by his failure in Iraq — a wound that the psychotic Dick Cheney will press and press — may be ready to escalate by launching an attack on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Indeed, it is not Iranian “interference” that Iraq and Afghanistan fear; it is being caught in the crossfire between the U.S. and Iran.

1938? Don’t make me laugh. Nazi Germany was the most powerful military nation on earth, and in 1938 it was poised to invade its neighbors. To make the same claim about Iran is just plain ignorant. )The drumbeat for war against Iran is actually more subtle than it was in the case of Iraq: The Administration denies it wants war and insists it seeks a “diplomatic solution” to the standoff over the demand that Iran cease uranium enrichment. But by “diplomatic solution,” the Administration and its allies simply mean an Iranian surrender to U.S. terms as a result of non-military pressures. There’s no room to question, here, the basic assumption: (a) that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons; (b) that, as Senator John McCain put it, “the only thing worse than going to war with Iran is an Iran with nuclear weapons.”

McCain delivers that one as if it’s a last word, but it shouldn’t be. He’s trying to effect the familiar demagoguery of narrowing options in the way the Iran issue is defined in U.S. public discussion: If threats and sanctions can’t dissuade Iran from enriching uranium, then military action becomes the “last resort.” The idea that Iran enriching uranium is a “red line” is not questioned. An irreversible slide to war in the U.S. is being carefully constructed by those who are out to persuade the American public that if Tehran refuses to run up a white flag, military action — unfortunate as it may be — becomes essential. And the idea would be to have the outgoing U.S. Administration to do the job, its disregard for law (international and domestic) well established, as is its propensity to orchestrate disaster. The mythology last time around was that invading Iraq would transform the Middle East in a healthy way; this time it is that a “surgical strike” taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities or Revolutionary Guard facilities would settle the matter. Hardly. Iran would respond in an asymmetrical fashion, that would cost many thousands of American lives in Iraq and elswhere over the next decade, might disrupt world oil supplies and more. Together with the Iraq misadventure, it would ensure that the Bush Administration leaves a legacy that might be a latterday equivalent of the Hundred Years War between England and France; an open-ended conflict with the population of most of the Muslim world that the U.S. can’t really win.

So, the basic question on Iran should be exactly the same one the U.S. failed to ask on Iraq: Will military action against Iran leave the U.S. and its interests and allies in the Middle East in a more secure position or in greater peril. That, really, is the only question that matters.

There’s very little discussion in the U.S. media of why Iran might seek nuclear weapons, what alternatives it might have — and might choose to use should it be attacked — and whether the environment can be altered to persuade it that it doesn’t need nuclear weapons. What are Iran’s strategic needs, and can they be accomodated in a framework acceptable to others that at the same time accomodates its interests? And so on.

Intead, we’re essentially asked to believe that Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to destroy Israel and satisfy some sort of doomsday fantasy. The evidence for this is usually misquoted statements from President Ahmedinajad, and suggestions that he is personally inclined towards an eschatalogical world view (as if the same were not true for President Bush!). The fact is that Ahmedinajad does not actually rule Iran, and would never be in a position to decide on the use of nuclear weapons even if the portrait painted of him were true. Iran’s nuclear program has been in place for decades; Ahmedinajad is unlikely to survive the next Iranian election. (Yes, Iran actually holds elections, at least for the presidency — that may be one reason the presidency doesn’t run the country!) And the regime’s primary concern is to ensure its survival, a principle that governs even its proxy activities abroad — for example, it is conventional wisdom even on the right that Hizballah would attack Israel and U.S. targets in response to an attack on Iran; i.e. their purpose in the Iranian strategic doctrine is asymmetrical deterrence.

It would certainly be quite understandable in the strategic environment in which Iran operates to seek a nuclear weapon; some would argue they’d be stupid not to. After all, three of their arch-rivals, the U.S., Israel and Pakistan have such weapons. And they’ve seen such capability may have helped North Korea evade U.S. military action. The recent U.S. nuclear deal with India, moreover, underscores the fact that Washington is unashamedly selective in applying the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has always ignored the treaty’s premise, i.e. that other countries would refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons in order to allow those that currently have them to disarm. Disarm? The U.S. is the only nation ever to have visited nuclear terror on another nation, a war crime — yes, it is a war crime to deliberately target a civilian population — the discussion of which is quite simply taboo in America. Instead, in the U.S. it is still acceptable to talk of actually using nuclear weapons: Hillary Clinton castigates Barak Obama for ruling out their use against al-Qaeda in Pakistan or Afghanistan!

States do not pursue weapons systems as ends in themselves; and states are hardwired to ensure their own survival. It is to that end that they acquire weapons systems, to protect, enhance or advance their own strategic position and even up the odds against more powerful rivals. As everything from the Cold War to the current deal with North Korea demonstrate, the only way to avoid nuclear conflict is to address the concerns and fears on both sides that might spark such a conflict. Weapons systems are dangerous, but not as dangerous as the conflicts that might result in them being used. And we should also get used to the idea that the globalization of technology on the current strategic landscape makes nuclear weapons likely to become the norm among states — after all, the existing eight nuclear weapons states have no intention of relinquishing theirs, so why would any states that anticipate being in conflict with any of them refrain from pursuing those weapons when the opportunity presents itself?

It is the conflicts that fuel the drive for nuclear weapons that are more dangerous than the weapons themselves, and the problem of those weapons can’t be addressed separately from those conflicts. An Iran bombed to destroy its nuclear power plants would likely be far more dangerous to the U.S. and its allies over the next couple of decades than an Iran that had nuclear weapons within reach might be. The only way to diminish the danger of an escalating confrontation with Iran — which is what bombing its nuclear facilities would certainly do — is to address the conflict between it and its rivals directly, and seek a modus vivendi that can manage their conflicting interests. Iran has shown itself to be ready to engage in such dialogue; it is the Bush administration that has demurred.

At this stage, the U.S. media corps that facilitated the Iraq catastrophe ought to be asking the question, can the Bush Administration do any worse than it has already done in plunging the Middle East into bloody chaos and in destroying countless American and Arab lives — and doing irreversible damage to U.S. interests across the planet. The answer, of course, is yes, but only if the U.S. media once again enables it.

Posted by Tony at 3:04 pm | Link | Tags: Featured Analysis, Situation Report, Unholy War

176 Responses to “The Wrong Questions on Iran”

[...] Wesley Clark Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran » This Summary is from an article posted at Rootless Cosmopolitan on Monday, August 20, 2007 Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. troops invading Iraq had, as they neared Baghdad, been fired on by an artillery unit using shells filled VX nerve gas — an attack that would have lasted minutes before a U.S. aircrew had taken out the battery, and may have brought a horrible death to a handful of American soldiers Summary Provided by Technorati.comView Original Article at Rootless Cosmopolitan » 10 Most Recent News Articles About John McCain [...]

Posted by University Update - John McCain - Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran | August 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Tony,

Great column. You’re right that this is not 1938, and in fact, I think it’s more like 1913. We’re one bullet away.

Actually, I’ve been deeply worried about a potential war for a while now, but when I try to convince my liberal friends they are highly skeptical. They say that Bush is fast losing political power, that he’s a lame duck, and that once the march to war seriously gets started, people won’t buy it. How would you refute this (if you disagree)?

Posted by Shlomo | August 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
[...] Zac Efron Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran » This Summary is from an article posted at Rootless Cosmopolitan on Monday, August 20, 2007 Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. troops invading Iraq had, as they neared Baghdad, been fired on by an artillery unit using shells filled VX nerve gas — an attack that would have lasted minutes before a U.S. aircrew had taken out the battery, and may have brought a horrible death to a handful of American soldiers Summary Provided by Technorati.comView Original Article at Rootless Cosmopolitan » 10 Most Recent News Articles About Fergie [...]

Posted by University Update - Fergie - Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran | August 20th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
[...] Tony Karon, Rootless Cosmopolitan, August 20: [...]

Posted by Suckers born every minute at Antony Loewenstein | August 20th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Great post!

The consequences of an attack on Iran would be catastrophic for the US.

Yet I put its likelihood at over 50%.
Quickly the arguments for and against:

AGAINST: Sanity

FOR:

1. Bush’s redemptive strike. His “Osirak” will see him leave the stage with the glow of a military triumph. (Hillary or Mitt can clean up the mess.) Remember that the guy’s last “triumph” was March 2003. He has 16 months left for glory.

2. All the candidates (except Paul and Kucinich) will applaud. Triply so in fact: (i) in time of war, one cheers, not kvetches at, one’s C-in-C; (ii) Iran’s nukes”have to go”; (iii) AIPAC wants it.

3. Congress has already authorized an attack against Iran. In May the House tabled motions requiring Bush to seek congressional authorization for an attack. WIth the IRGC’s designation as a terrorist organization, the 9/11 Force Authorization is quite enough for Bush to do as he pleases. (Not that he’s ever let the constitution get in the way of his desires anyway)

4. The media hate a war of IEDs and blinded soldiers. But they love the video game sort that only the USAF and the Navy can provide. And think of the morale booster a coordinated flattening of Iranian military installations will give Chris Matthews a chance to tell us again how much women love this bombing campaign.

And then what?

Tony has it exactly right.

I thought in 2004 that the next president might withdraw from Iraq. Now I know for certain that he/she won’t.

If Iraq is Vietnam, then Iran might be Cambodia. Maybe before giving Adm Fallon the green light, Bush can have Dr K over to watch “Patton” together, the way Nixon did before bombing the living daylights out of Cambodia.

Posted by Bernard Chazelle | August 20th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
[...] attitudes of America’s Beltway elites are on the question of war. Posted by Jim Henley @ 8:43 pm, Filed under: Main « « No Exit, Press Enter | Main| [...]

Posted by Annals of the Iran-War Clown Car § Unqualified Offerings | August 20th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
By re-electing Bush in 2004, the American people have reaffirmed my faith that they are ‘STUPID’ enough to be swayed away by another media blitz and another disastrous war campaign in the middle east. They still don’t have a freaking idea (they hardly care anyway) about the open wounds of the Arab hearts and minds, and what another war would mean to them. A democratic congress or senate can do nothing to stop this campaign other than threatening to stop supplying money for more war - and we all know the two words Dick Cheney has for them … !

Among the democratic candidates, no candidate has the guts to say anything constructive about Iran … and even less about mollycoddling Israel & Saudi Arabia with $50 billion in arms over the decade. It appears it has been already been decided and dictated what would happen. We are just watching the show. The next government (unless Kuchinich pulls a Bush) can’t do much to alter the foreign policy of this country. Joe Biden may have ’some’ plan for Iraq - but I’m surprised why no one asks him about Iran.

Posted by ASA | August 20th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Obama has always been my personal favorite, because of his inspiring message and because he favors reaching out to the Islamic World instead of bombing it. But his comments about Pakistan worry me. It seems that mainstream viewpoints on the War on Terror are ossifying, just as they did around unconditional aid to Israel.

ASA, you seem to like Dennis Kucinich, but do you really think he has the answers either? His “science of diplomacy” amounts to negotiating with dictators reviled by their people, and often completely divorced and insulated from the “wounds of the Arab hearts and minds.”

Posted by Shlomo | August 20th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Shlomo, didn’t want to use Tony’s space for our discussion - but just wanted to clear the idea that Kucinich is my favorite. He is not. I think he is too focused on middle America (his choice I guess) and little on the world. He would probably cut down foreign interaction - but the reason of my comment was whether any of the ‘mainstream’ candidates would take any serious step to change the overall military-threat-backs-up-diplomacy tactic of the US of A.

I am actually not a keen follower of US domestic politics. I am just appalled how the neocons seem to have a magic hat of tricks - and the know-how to keep the people of this country mesmerized. Nobody asks the right questions. No body! No journalist has the guts to grill a senator. When a country’s best news source is a fake-news comedy show (three cheers to Jon Stewart!) - what can you expect? Now I want to ask Tony - why can’t you air the same questions in your Time columns!!! You have to … journos like you are the last line of hope before all hell breaks loose again!!!

Posted by ASA | August 21st, 2007 at 12:28 am
I wonder what the soldiers and officers in the military think about all of this? Surely some will refuse to press the button.

Posted by Chris S | August 21st, 2007 at 1:36 am
Iran is KILLING OUR TROOPS with impunity! This CANNOT be allowed to continue! Iran is a state sponsor of TERRORISM! Iran is a LOOSE CANNON regime that is building nuclear weapons!

And here is the clincher; Deterrence requires that the adversary NOT be suicidal!

Hence, deterrence CANNOT work with Iran!

There is no point in delaying the INEVITABLE clash with Iran…the ONLY solution is to BOMB IRAN til they cry UNCLE!

Sung to the melody of the Beach Boys “Barbara Ann”…

BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN!

Posted by John Wayne | August 21st, 2007 at 4:33 am
Yes, we know attacking Iran is stupid.

Let’s move beyond that.

Because it IS a done deal now.

Robert Baer in Time quotes an Administration official as saying that Bush absolutely WILL attack Iran at some point - if not because of the nonexistent nuclear weapons programs, than because of the nonexistent evidence for Iran “killing US troops.” (Amusing that the answer to “Iran killing US troops” is to allow Iran to kill MORE US troops! But I digress…)

The arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Israel are BRIBES - to Saudi Arabia to not criticize the US attack on Iran, and to Israel to actually be willing to INITIATE the attack on Iran (which Israel wanted the US to do so it would get the blame when things go badly - as they will, and Israel knows it, but doesn’t care as long as Iran is badly damaged as well.)

So the war is a done deal.

What are you going to do to stop it, given that you can’t get a Democrat to voice the word “impeachment”, and nobody in the US government is listening to any of you any more - if they ever did?

Let me spell out for the readers what is going to happen when Bush attacks Iran.

1) Iran will retaliate against US troops in Iraq. The scores of thousands of Iranian agents already in Iraq (according to Colonel Pat Lang) will coordinate with the Shia militias to cut US supply lines from Kuwait. Within ninety days, the US forces in Iraq will be out of water, food, fuel, and ammunition. According to military expert William Lind, there is a good chance we could LOSE - not be defeated, but LOSE - much of the US military forces in Iraq.

2) The war will drive the price of gas to $5, $10 or more per gallon. Have you thought about what your gas guzzler is going to cost you when this happens?

3) The cost of the Iraq war alone today is $10-12 billion PER MONTH. The added cost of the Iran war will be in the neighborhood of $20-30 billion PER MONTH.

4) China, pissed off at being cut off from Iranian oil and gas, will dump the US dollar, of which it holds trillions. Bye bye, US economy…Your job then will be worth squat…

5) Given the military disaster in Iraq, the exhaustion of the US military, and the shortage of things like ammunition, you can be sure that a draft will be instituted very quickly. Your sons and daughters WILL be going into the military, NOT to college - where they will die by IED and anti-tank weapons, because the Iranians will use the same tactics as the Iraqis are using and as Hizballah used effectively against the Israelis last summer.

6) US casualties will rise to hundreds or even thousands of dead, and tens of thousand wounded PER MONTH. That is, YOUR sons and daughters (unless you’re a politician, of course.)

7) It is possible that Arab terrorists will begin operating in the United States. After a few car bombs clean out Times Square (the US is MADE for car bombs!) and some suicide bombers blow themselves up on your transit station during rush hour, I suspect you’ll be more than willing to grant Bush his “martial law” statutes and even the cancellation of the 2008 or later elections “until the emergency is over”.
Iran will be devastated, hundreds of thousands or even millions of its civilians killed. Nonetheless, by following the Vietnam strategy and Fourth Generation Warfare, Iran will bleed the US militarily, economically, and geopolitically to death over the next ten years. It will make Vietnam and Iraq look like a walk in the park.

And this disaster is due to occur within the next six to 18 months.

So what are you going to do about it?

My prediction: nothing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 21st, 2007 at 5:37 am
We are talking about trying to stop attacks/invasion of Iran ( to no avail). Three years from now, we will talk of stopping attacks/invasion of Pakistan (to no avail, either). If we can possibly survive that, we will then be talking of stopping attacks/invasion of China. America is governed by madmen; end-times Christians, uber-paranoid Zionists, and morally blind partisan hacks. Talk will not halt this madness. The time will come soon, when we must take a stand.

Posted by richard vajs | August 21st, 2007 at 8:14 am
Re: 1938
You have it backwards, we are the nazis.

Posted by f | August 21st, 2007 at 8:30 am
Thank you, Tony, for an excellent analysis. My guess is that if we go to war with Iran, it will be through Cheney’s “end-run” scenario — e.g. 1) a “small” US attack on a Revolutionary Guard camp in Iran triggers an Iranian missile attack on a US base killing Am soldiers; or 2) Israel launches an attack in which US denies complicity but Iranian response to Israel and to US soldiers in Iraq causes multiple deaths. In any case of this sort, Bush could get a Congressional majority to vote for war on Iran the next day, and the full war would be on.
Our group in Cleveland, Cleveland Peace Action, believe that we are not powerless. We are meeting with Congressional and Senate staff and making several points:
1) Current policy (sanctions, accusations, threats and provocations) will put Congress in a political bind (see scenarios above) where most will have to vote for war on Iran.
2) We lay out the disastrous “day-after” results of a war, as one of the respondents did above, and in addition, point out that ALL our progressive domestic and environmental programs will go down the drain for years to come.
3) We make the point that we should NOT be forced into a “sanctions with pre-conditions” option vs. war: that experts have proposed workable deterence/inspection/security guarantee options which DO bring security to US, Israel AND Iran.
4) We ask for immediate passage of outstanding bills requiring Congressional approval of war on Iran - as a first step. We also ask for immediate Foreign Policy Committee exploration of these workable no-preconditions negotiating options; and Intelligence Committee exploration of real evidence for and against an Iranian nuclear program; also of Saudi/Jordanian aid to Sunni insurgents (which probably dwarfs Iranian military aid); and of US clandestine “meddling” in Iran, and to get these results out to the public.
5) We are putting letters and op-eds into our local media along these lines.
So far, we have had an “interested” hearing. Will we be too little or too late? Don’t know. Would like to hear from others on positive ideas — not just hand wringing.

Posted by Norman Robbins | August 21st, 2007 at 9:52 am
Thank you for an excellent and timely post, Tony. However, two assertions over estimate our national security elites’ regard for the national interest:

“Will military action against Iran leave the U.S. and its interests and allies in the Middle East in a more secure position or in greater peril.”
“States do not pursue weapons systems as ends in themselves; and states are hardwired to ensure their own survival.”

As Mr. Hack notes in pt. 3) of his excellent tabulation above, Operation TPAjax2 promises to double the income of those our beltway errand boys (and girls) serve so well. Regardless of the consequences, they presume themselves quite immune. They’re quite mad, you know.

Posted by Pvt. Keepout | August 21st, 2007 at 10:47 am
From my vantage point up north in Canada, I find most of this chit-chat unbelievable. The Iraq war has cost you Americans dearly, financially. In about 30 days your Congress will have to up the authorization for borrowing monies from 9 to maybe 11 trillion dollars. That’s over $30,000 per man woman and child. Another war with Iran and then with Pakistan will place the USA at the whim of China, who aready holds about 2.2 trillion of your debt. Of course, you may choose to not pay up when the chits are called in, and then financila hell will break loose. The USA does not have the financial where-with-all to go about the world just to keep the “bombs bursting in air”.

Posted by JDonald | August 21st, 2007 at 11:58 am
Great piece–and three quick points:

1. The chemical & biological weapons that Saddam might’ve had, would’ve been supplied by the US when the US sided with Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war.

2. Iran is not a militarily weak puppy like Iraq and Afghanistan were. It can respond, not only asymmetrically, but with conventional weapons such as an array of cruise missiles that could sink a carrier and put a lot of squids in the water.

3. There are at least 25,000 Jews living in Iran, some say 40,000, living mostly in Tehran. There are 30 synagogues and half a dozen kosher butcher shops. These people have resisted Israeli bribes to emigrate because they like it where they are. If the mullahs hated Jews, wouldn’t they start at home?

Posted by Don Bacon | August 21st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Pretty good piece, as far as it goes, however:

Has it not been established for a long time that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets? This does not excuse the action, it is just to make a point.
In my home town of Madison, Wisc., there has been annual ceremonies marking the bombings.

Posted by Jim S. | August 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
An excellent article, but I think the drumbeaters of war have already found a new target — Pakistan. It appears that Pakistan is the next target and a low-level war has already started there. Musharraf has obligingly pitted the Pakistan Army against the tribes of Waziristan and it is only a matter of time when he will be asked to ask for US help. It is a sad turn of events and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. Contrary to what most people think, the media is not fooled by the administration the media pundits are actually the instigators. Haven’t you noticed all the questions about whether or not we should Nuke Pakistan’s tribal belt. In every debate somehow Pakistan’s name show up. The bugaboo of OBL and AQ Khan are brought out. I even saw a statement by a Washington Post journalist about the possibility of OBL exploding a nuclear bomb in a Pakistani cave next year. Can you believe that? All these questions come from the media pundits in order to prepare us for the next war. Can we stop the next war? The answer sadly is probably not.

Posted by Mas Manz | August 21st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Maybe someone else will want to weigh in on this, but I am disappointed in Baer’s piece in Time (”Prelude to an attack on Iran”)

The money graf is the last one:

“And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran unifies Iranians behind the regime? An Administration official told me it’s not even a consideration. “IRGC IED’s are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran.”

Quite an eye-catcher, I’d say. And I am ready to believe that.
But what’s the evidence Baer gives us?

He quotes a CIA guy in Iraq: “”The Iranians are making them [EFPs] End of story.” His argument is only a state is capable of manufacturing the EFP’s, which involves a complicated annealing process.”

And then Baer adds: “t… is that the IRGC has had a long, established history of killing Americans, starting with the attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983.”

If Baer, the former CIA operative, was trying to give the CIA a bad name he couldn’t do a better job.

That only a state can produce EFPs is total BS. In fact, EFPs are easy to make; they are cheap; most of their components are available in the open market. Last April, the US discovered several factories producing them in Iraq (near Ad Diwaniyah). This does not mean that Iran is not shipping some to Iraq: it means that Baer’s CIA friend is bullshitting us.

Now re. the 1983 Beirut bombing, words matter. No, Mr Baer, the IRGC does not have a long, established record of killing Americans. Just as the Americans do not have a long, established record of killing Palestinians: they help Israelis do that. And the IRGC helped Lebanese do that. Not the same.

Baer writes: “An awe and shock campaign, lite, if you will. ”

Awe and shock? Is that CIA way of saying “shock and awe” ?

Posted by Bernard Chazelle | August 21st, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I actually disagree with Mas’s comments. Musharraf will never ask the U.S. to crush the Waziristani Islamists, and he will never do it himself. He pays patronage to the radical Islamists; in turn, they create a facade of democracy that legitimizes Musharraf despite his marginalization of the Pakistani majority. Maybe the radical Islamists have become a bit stonger than Musharraf wanted, but even now he can point to them as a reason NOT to hold elections. They are very convenient for him, and he for them, despite the recent disagreement at Lal Masjid. If this invasion were to happen, it would happen also against Musharraf’s wishes.

Posted by Shlomo | August 21st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Jim S. I assume you’re being sarcastic.

Posted by Bernard Chazelle | August 21st, 2007 at 1:20 pm
[...] In Which Tony Karon Asks the Right Questions on Iran Tony Karon, who’s got a blogful of smart postings about the Bush Administration’s adventures in Iraq, outdoes himself with this really nice assessment of the media’s role in the runup to the Iraq War, and the parallels he sees today in making the case for attacking Iran: Imagine, for a moment, that U.S. troops invading Iraq had, as they neared Baghdad, been fired on by an artillery unit using shells filled VX nerve gas — an attack that would have lasted minutes before a U.S. aircrew had taken out the battery, and may have brought a horrible death to a handful of American soldiers. Imagine, further, that the conquering troops had later discovered two warehouses full of VX and mustard gas shells. And later, that inspectors in a science lab had discovered a refrigerator full of Botulinum toxin or even anthrax. [...]

Posted by In Which Tony Karon Asks the Right Questions on Iran « I’m Not Going to Do This Every Day | August 21st, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Of course, one should always note that these guys have always gotten 1938 wrong, too. Chamberlain and Daladier faced a difficult choice: whether England and France, not yet prepared for war, should go to war to protect Czechoslovakia when the ethnic Germans in that country indeed had legitimate complaints–notwithstanding that they were being used by Hitler to justify his aims.

In the end, one can’t blame Chamberlain and Daladier for what they did–conciliatory diplomacy while undertaking massive rearmament programs. Nobody knows that all that Churchill did was to bluster…while the battle of Britain was won with the arms produced from Chamberlain’s programs.

Posted by hkim | August 21st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
21 aug 2007

robert mitchum does not appear in the john wayne movie, “The Green Berets”.

Posted by M. Stanley | August 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Excellent piece, Tony. Thank you.

I hope you crank it up with a couple of follow-up articles on the same topic.

I sincerely believe your words could make a difference, could make the media pay attention. You have the bonafides: senior editor for TIME, lived in Israel, Jewish.

And the issue concerning Iran *is* Israel, the third rail in NYC journalism.

While you’re at it, consider the influence of the Christian mega-churches and John Hagee. Hagee’s “Christians United for Israel” (CUFI) now teaches members how to lobby Congress to bomb Iran. (DC seminar: July 14-19, 2007) Hagee claims he reaches 70,000 people. jewsonfirst.com is going after him, but that’s not enough.

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic in my praise of your writing (READ: thinking) I really believe you can make a difference. You could change things. But you need to get out your spears. In earnest.

Posted by Janie | August 21st, 2007 at 2:04 pm
M. Stanley: Do you think he meant David Janssen, who played George Beckworth?

Posted by Matthew | August 21st, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Oh. And another thing, Tony.

Why is no one in your biz (media) doing an in-depth look at who the defense contractor players are? A real look. In the US, Israel, and wherever else. The monies involved. The increase in revenues since 2002. We need a chart to see who’s benefiting.

I looked up some of them the other day when I had access to a friend’s LexisNexis account. You can’t find this stuff on the web easily, if at all. The increases in revenues are shocking. One Colorado firm went from $5.2bn to $6.5bn in a year. An Israeli firm got $6bn to make 1,000 armored vehicles. They hire ex-military guys, and they keep this gravy train loaded.

Posted by Janie | August 21st, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Tony, a column like this says all I wanted to say on my blog, but better! I think you are Jewish, and I am not, though I am sympathetic to Israel (but not the occupation). I admire the way you care more about a calm look at the truth than in giving in to existential fears of crazed mullahs nuking Israel. Your lucid article gives the proper response to that scenario. The world can only survive if thinking individualists like you (and hopefully I) abandon the fears and prejudices of tribe and class and try to be rational and fair instead. This may sometimes require understanding our adversary’s point of view. How few people are willing to do this!

Posted by Benjamin | August 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm
The biggest problem I see of American policy is we talk about Iran - we don’t talk to them.

It is far easier to wip up a ferver when Big Brother is the sole decider of good and bad - who gets heard - who gets excluded. The simplistic — He is the next Hitler and must be stopped! plays well to mindless masses.

It does not help that the “Religion of Peace” has so far protected rather then stopped one of the greatest mass murders of the last hundred years.

American president Abe Lincoln during the American Civil war observed that “both sides claim God as their ally - at least one and probably both are wrong.”

It matters not which side is doing it, evil is as evil does.

Posted by Tom Martin | August 21st, 2007 at 2:59 pm
My apologies, David Janssen doing a kind of poor man’s Robert Mitchum…

Posted by Tony | August 21st, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“The simplistic — He is the next Hitler and must be stopped! plays well to mindless masses.”

‘The next Hitler’ is Binyamin Netanyahu’s metaphor. Ditto ‘this is 1938′. [Google it.]

No one in the NYC/DC press had the balls to take him on for that. Unfortunately, if we do nuke Iran and millions die of radiation from Iran to Singapore as predicted by the Pentagon, a virulent form of anti-semitism will spring up overnight.

Netanyahu will have his self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by Janie | August 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Thank you Tony for an excellent and well thought out article. It is very much appreciated.

I think there is an additional important point to be made. As George Kennan remarked in the lead up to the Iraq.war “you know where you begin. You never know where you are going to end.”

We don’t , in fact, know what will happen in the event of an attack on Iran, especially if it’s a full scale attack on Iran’s military and nuclear facilities. The outcome not predictable. As one writer above noted, Iran could respond by attacking vulnerable US troops in Iraq, or by launching missile strikes at US ships in the Gulf. What would happen if they manage to kill thousands of US soldiers in Iraq or sink am aircraft carrier? How would the US respond? It’s conceivable that the response would be with nuclear weapons. We know from Seymour Hersh’s reporting that the Bush administration has at least considered the use of nuclear weapons. It might not start out as nuclear attack, but an escalation to nuclear war is always a possibility.

One has to wonder if people in positions of responsibility, especially in the media, have really thought any of this through.

Posted by Patrick Cummins | August 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
MAJOR TYPO:
I wrote “Hagee claims he reaches 70,000 people” at August 21st, 2007 2:04 pm.

IT SHOULD READ:
Hagee claims he reaches 70,000,000 people.

Posted by Janie | August 21st, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Tony,
Thanks for focusing on the campaign by the USA and ISRAEL to attack Iran. It seems elements with access to
the levers of power in the above named pathocracies have made the decision to attack Iran and are now carrying out a psyops war on American and Israeli citizens attempting to frighten them into supporting this criminal action. What could be the objective of this doomed campaign? Could it be that a cabal of psychopaths are using the looming carnage and chaos as a vehicle to futher their totalitarian ambitions in Palestine and the USA? I think the question
we should be asking is whether the people in power are psychologically deviant and should be restrained by more normal men and women. I am linking to a websight based on Andrew Lobaczewski’s underground study of the psychological deviance of the men and women in power in the Soviet Empire. Psychopathic types lack empathy and capacity to visualize the suffering and disaster their orders bring upon the heads of mankind . Ponerology-The Study of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes is the name of his book. The web link is:http://ponerology.blogspot.com/

Posted by bob k | August 21st, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Hello.

Perhaps there are certain beings who want more and more war on earth because they think wars will help to persuade humans to embrace a planned PSEUDOCHRISTOS related deception or something like that. Maybe there are Gog and Magog related lies being told and maybe stuff related to grigori and nephilim has been covered up in a way for a reason.

-Jacob

Posted by Jacob | August 22nd, 2007 at 12:27 am
[...] …is the title of an excellent article by Tony Karon. Read it. [...]

Posted by www.benwhite.org.uk: the blog » Blog Archive » Asking the wrong questions on Iran… | August 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 am
The real heresy is acceptance of the false alternatives of hegemony or extinction. (Hat tip to Chomsky on this idea: He called it “Hegemony or Survival.”) Implicit in this heresy is the belief that a world that cannot be remade by America is a world that cannot be lived in by America. This heresy is the greatest threat to the world and American democracy, not the Islamists.

Posted by Matthew | August 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
No I was just mentioning a fact. And trying to be a little thoughtful.

Posted by Jim S. | August 22nd, 2007 at 2:15 pm
For all his inflammatory statement, “Israel torn from the pages of history/eliminated from the face of the earth”, Iranian President Ahmadinejad has no real clout to speak of, but oh what star power he has in the hands of cunning fear mongers, as good as a smoking gun about to metamorphosize into a mushroom cloud. The real power rests with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei who presides over the Guardian Council, the army of which has been condemned by President Bush as a terrorist organization. Another body of Iranian mullahs makes up the Expediency Council, and together both, in an Iranian style checks and balance process decide on state policy, fatwas and the like. The Supreme Leader is in charge of pushing the nuclear button, not the clown with the goofy smile. When back in 1976, the Shah of Iran began to build Iranian nuclear facilities, it was with full approval from the US. With Gerald Ford in the White House, the men that gave him the green light were none other than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney oh irony of ironies. Apart from an obsession with regime change, and Israel’s deepest darkest desires, could it be that there is an oil slick on the war tattoo’s steel drum??

Posted by Gracie_fr | August 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I want to go back to the earlier part of the thread where people were discussing who’s going to stop the war machine. I agree with the consensus that the corporate media and the Tweedledum-ocrats are going to play along with Bush and Olmert and their merry band of sociopaths. This means it’s up to the american people to stop them. The anti-war movement is simply going to have to get serious about physically stopping the war machine through direct action of a peaceful and non-violent nature (hopefully). It’s time for people who believe in peace to start making real nuisances of ourselves, especially in the states. I don’t think we Canadians are that far behind - we are already participating with troops on the ground in Afghanistan and in Iraq through the provision of weapons and weapon systems. How much worse do things have to get before we start chaining ourselves to the munition factory gates?

Posted by Doug Kellam | August 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Jim S. Sorry but I don’t get your point. Hiroshima was an army depot but that’s not why it was chosen. It was picked because the surrounding hills ensured that the entire city would be destroyed. I’ll quote from the Target Committee, Los Alamos, 1945:

“[Hiroshima] is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. . There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. ”

Until it was vetoed at the last minute, the first choice was Kyoto (zero military value). I’ll quote again:

“From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)”

The purpose of the H&N was psychological: the very definition of terrorism, in fact. Tony has it exactly right.

Posted by Bernard Chazelle | August 22nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Thanks Bernard, I agree — clearly the purpose of deploying a weapon of mass destruction was precisely that, mass destruction. Regardless of whatever military target there might have been in the city, destroying the whole thing in this way was an act of terror. One Japanese city was destroyed, and then a second, with the objective of forcing Japan’s surrender. And that’s precisely what terrorism is, attacking civilian populations in order to force politicians to change their policies.

Posted by Tony | August 22nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Tony: I prefer Brendan Behan’s definition of terrorist, “The terrorist is the one with the little bomb.”

Posted by Matthew | August 22nd, 2007 at 6:06 pm
There are primarily two entities in the world right now who want to maximize the amount of War on Terror battle fronts. One is, of course, the Jihadis. The other is the Bush administration. Both are serious threats, but only one controls the most powerful army on Earth…

Posted by Shlomo | August 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
[...] Rootless Cosmopolitan » Blog Archive » Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran One of the most thoughtful articles on the consequences of attacking Iran. Read this neo-cons. (tags: Bush Iran Iraq War) Bookmark and Share:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]

Posted by links for 2007-08-23 at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam | August 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 am
I stand corrected.

However, the war would have still gone on, and large numbers of people would have been killed. This is not to justify the bombings, just to show what the other course might have been.
And there are still remembrance ceremonies. By Americans.
Are there any remembrance ceremonies about the Rape Of Nanking, by Japanese?

Posted by Jim S. | August 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Jim — as a foreigner, I have to say that I find your response interesting, in that it reflects a defensiveness and self-righteousness quite common on these shores on this question. You’re absolutely right that the Japanese have failed abysmally in dealing with their own war crimes in China and elsewhere — it’s a feature quite common to nationalisms of all stripes to emphasize their own victimhood and ignore instances of their own culpability (e.g. Japan’s extensive observation of Hiroshima Day etc. but, as you say, very little on everything from the Rape of Nanking to the “comfort women”). But ask yourself, has the U.S. really held a proper moral discussion about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What I remember most vividly shortly after arriving here was an hysterical campaign led by Newt Gingrich and the new GOP congressional majority to squelch an exhibit at the Smithsonian that was simply going to show the impact on the ground of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. This was “un-American” they said. And besides, unless you first showed the brutality of the Japanese, you’d be making propaganda against the U.S. I found this utterly bizarre, becuase it was so reminiscent of the nationalist thinking I’d always associated with Israel and the old South Africa, i.e. you can’t discuss any of our actions without first, literally, “excusing” them by showing things that were done to us — like when Jimmy Carter discusses Israel’s apartheid set up on the West Bank, he’s called a holocaust-denier for the simple fact that he didn’t discuss the Holocaust! Similarly, I think there was a guilty conscience at work in the move by Gingrich and his cronies to successfully stop the Smithsonian inviting Americans to have a rational discussion about Hiroshima…

Posted by Tony | August 23rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Tony: Since you have arrived, have you noticed if the “Gingrich” tendency is growing? I’m not sure. People acted pretty hysterically when we talk about apologizing for slavery or when we paid compensation to Japanese Americans. I feel we as Americans love to taught about “mistakes” so long as they are perceived as deviating from American values instead of expressing American values.

Posted by Matthew | August 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
This is the most ridiculous article I have read in awhile. How can anyone even believe this crap … so you are in favor of letting Iran decide to either build or not build a nuclear weapon huh ? I hope it is set off in your back yard and anyone elses’ that whines about all this. Put on a uniform and go fight for your country fool, or there may not be one tomorrow. It makes me sick to read these attacks and comments, like you actually know what’s going … its people like you that will whine now, and then when it all falls apart, you will say enough was not done and still point the finger.

Posted by DP | August 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Tony,
The USA did not drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to force the surrender of Japan. The Japanese had been trying to negociate surrender for months before the mass murder of civilians was perpetrated by the USA to convince the Soviets and Europe that not only did the USA have the atomic bomb, the psychopaths controlling the USA will kill you and your families if you won’t submitt to our rule. There is a lot of material available on the internet to confirm this fact. Humanity was henceforth to be “terrorized” by the psychopaths with their fingers on the trigger, and this state of nuclear terror still exists as the USA and Israel hold the world hostage to their demands for absolute control of body, mind, and soul of all mankind. What kind of evil motivates these mass murderers?

Posted by bob k | August 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Last month an excellent, must-read article on Hiroshima was posted on the History News Network.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/41354.html

Posted by Latin_Observer | August 23rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
@Latin-Observer,
Thanks for the link detailing the decision to commit the USA to Cold War Nuclear Terror by Truman and the diabolical death cult advising him. Another generation of psychopaths continue to push for US Nuclear First Strike Primacy as detailed in William Engdahl’s piece on the GWB preventive war doctrine. I fear the madmen may use the atomic bomb on Iran in a desperate attempt to turn back the tides of history.
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Putin/putin.html

Posted by bob k | August 23rd, 2007 at 6:18 pm
This thread was about Iran, and I apologize to Tony if he feels I am hijacking the discussion with this focus on terrorism. But I’d like to make one more point. Some people will find it inflammatory. So be it.

Terrorism (be it Hiroshima, Palestinian suicide bombings, 9/11, Israel’s bombing of Lebanese villages, etc) is, in my view, always immoral but it is almost always rational — it might be dumb and ineffective but that does not necessarily contradict rationality. The ultimate aim of terrorists is almost never to terrorize:that’s only a means to an end. Tony defined it well: “terrorism is attacking civilian populations in order to force politicians to change their policies.”

If Americans thought they could have convinced the Japanese to surrender (and yes to intimidate the Soviets with their “gadgets”) without dropping any nukes, they would have abstained from doing so. I doubt they enjoyed the thought of incinerating little children. Hiroshima was rational terrorism. So was the Tokyo firebombing and so was Dresden.

This statement is not conditional. It is not altered by the fact that both Germans and Japanese took their war crimes to an entirely different level. Guernica and Coventry were terrorist acts (war crimes) but Auschwitz or the Rape of Nanjing goes way beyond terrorism, because these acts were entirely irrational: just indulging some mad inner sadism on a mammoth scale for no other purpose.

An important digression: Germany has made amends and is so much better off for it. Japan has not, and that’s a huge moral stain on the future of that country.

People like to conflate morality and rationality, but that’s a big mistake. Immorality can be entirely rational. Often, in fact, terrorism works. Bin Laden’s act of terror worked beyond his wildest expectations. He wanted the US empire to crumble and, unbelievably, as a result of his action, it will come crumbling faster than anyone could have predicted.

Time and again, Israel will not hesitate to kill civilians to achieve political objectives. Same with Palestinians. (Though it is worth noting that Israel repeatedly “rewards” Palestinian terrorism. The way it does it is indirect. It screws over the Palestinians twice as hard as soon the violence subsides, thereby leaving them with terrorism as pretty much the only rational –albeit, I repeat, immoral– alternative.)
Shock and Awe was terrorism. (The name alone says it all.) All of them are examples of rational immorality.
And, by the way, that my immorality is a response to your higher immorality does not make it moral. So the Israeli argument that the Palestinians are worse than they are would have zero exculpatory standing even if it had any kind of standing at all.

But now to the main point of this comment.

One of the worst acts of Western terrorism post-WWII remains, to this day, the Vietnam war. Forget My Lai. The US killed over 2 (probably 3) million civilians who had never lifted a finger against America. That’s one third of the Holocaust. Again, defeating communism in South East Asia was a rational goal from America’s hegemonic perspective. But its implementation was unfathomably immoral. America has never atoned for it. (Bush even says we should have continued the slaughter….)

The evidence is overwhelming: US depravity in Vietnam was unspeakable: Agent Orange dropped over entire villages, free fire killing zones, chopper turkey shoots, live bodies dragged behind jeeps, ear and testicle necklaces, etc. When John Kerry spoke the truth by just stating the historical record he was reviled.

But it all comes down to one number: 2 million Vietnamese civilians killed. How does America explain that away?

The US has dozens of Holocaust museums. I am all in favor of that. The more people learn about the abyss the less likely they are to fall into it.

But one can’t help but think how easy it is for a country that played the part of the hero and savior to highlight the horrors of the other side.

The Vietnam memorial has 58,195 names.

It’s missing a few: 1,941,805 names to be precise.

Sadly, America has no moral authority to lecture Japan.

Posted by Bernard Chazelle | August 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Mr DP, so what’s special about Iran? What about Pakistan? Should the USA invade them too? After all, how can we allow their next future fundamentalist govt get their hands on nuclear warheads? We can’t wait for that to happen, right?

Even if Iran acquired a nuclear bomb, how is that going to end up in your or my backyard? Or is that going to give them too much leverage to exercise control in Middle east instead of ‘others’? Can you please clarify the point that USA is the only country that is entitled to have the bomb or the power?

Posted by ASA | August 24th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Bernard,

Also, I agree with you that U.S. moral authority has been badly damaged. But it is not nonexistent, and honestly no country can realistically claim monopoly on such authority. Do you think America’s previous bad behavior should preclude it from ever taking positive diplomatic measures?

How do you know those people would not have died anyway? Given what Pol Pot did to Cambodia, are you certain that Vietnam would have been better off with a wrenching N-S civil war?

Bob, same question to you. More people probably would have died on all sides if the U.S. had continued “island-hopping”. Also, I think it is terrible that the U.S. let the genie out of the bottle, but the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany were also actively seeking nukes. The technology would have been there regardless. Given these calculations, what would you have done in that situation, as president? For which sadistically deranged totalitarian ruler would you have assumed virtuosity?

Posted by Shlomo | August 24th, 2007 at 12:04 am
[...] Just a great piece. [...]

Posted by Asking The Wrong Questions On Iran at Toward Praxis | August 24th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Shlomo: I’ll be the first one to withhold the moral authority crown from any major country. But among Western nations, the US today truly stands out in the denial of its ugly past. Among non-Western nations, Japan and Turkey are giving the US a run for its money.

Re. Vietnam, you cannot ask whether I am certain that Vietnam would have been better off without the US invasion. As it turns out, yes, I am certain. But it’s completely irrelevant. Suppose some historian could theorize that Hitler prevented some other lunatic from killing 7 million Jews. Would we call Hitler the savior of one million Jews?
(Yes, I am stretching the metaphor, but you see my point. Killing 2 million Vietnamese cannot be justfied by some hypothetical that things could have been worse.)

Posted by Bernard Chazelle | August 24th, 2007 at 1:42 am
I love how all these discussions about attacking Iran focus on the actual attack but never even mention the CONSEQUENCES. I have also noticed that the proponents of attacking Iran grossly underestimate the capability of Iran to make the consequences very bad.

For example, here is a small portion of the publicly available facts about Iran from the CIA Factbook, Federation of American Scientists, Global Firepower and Global Security:

- Standing army = 300k to 500k well trained and equipped soldiers. Note that these soldiers are fresh, not worn out like US soldiers.

- Manpower fit for military = males age 18-49: 15,665,725 and females age 18-49: 15,005,597. Remember, when people are attacked, most everyone in the population responds, so we are talking about 30+ MILLION very angry Iranians .

- Size slightly larger than Alaska (lots of room to hide lots of weapons)

- Terrain = rugged, mountainous rim; high, central basin with deserts, mountains; small, discontinuous plains along both coasts. A “fun” place for Americans to fight.

- strategic location on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, which are vital maritime pathways for crude oil transport - 25% to 30% of the world’s supply. What happens to the price of oil when this goes away? Note the world supply of oil is only slightly higher than the demand.

- Weapons production = Iran builds many of its weapons, like Main Battle Tanks (~1600 in service) and missiles. It also buys weapons and designs from around the world.

- Missiles - Iran has improved the Scud-C and Taepo Dong MRBM designs and can now easily target most of the ME, including Israel with conventional explosives (bye bye Saudi oil infrastructure and Israeli infrastructure).

Basically Iran would be a very deadly enemy if attacked and the negative consequences for the US very large. Remember what we don’t know will be even worse than what we know already!

So what would I do if I were an Iranian leader and the US attacked?

- destroy the Saudi oil infrastructure. Oil infrastructure is insanely easy to destroy and takes a very long time to replace, especially during a war. Iran has all the weapons it needs to do this and Saudi Arabia has no defense.

- shut down the Strait of Hormuz so over 25% of the world’s oil stops. This will send the price of oil through the roof and the US economy into the deepest depression that it has ever had. Since the US food distribution system is critically dependent on oil to move food around, within a few weeks millions of Americans will begin to starve to death. Since the oil price rise will be sudden and steep, there will be no way to compensate like there might be in “peak oil.”

- Kill every American in Iraq. The us soldiers and equipment in Iraq is severely worn out. The soldiers will fight a good fight, but with no supplies their resistance will wither.

- To further complicate the US response, use missiles to attack Israel starting with the oil infrastructure, the electric power infrastructure, the water distribution infrastructure and of course the nuclear weapons facility. with any luck, the nuclear weapons facility will spread radiation all over Israel.

- Since the US might try to invade, of course set up lots of traps and killing fields - the Internet has documented how to do this very well.

- To keep the US navy at bay, sink as many carriers as possible. This will accomplish two things, prevent the air bombing and scare the heck out of the navy. Note that Iran does have weapons that can do this. To over-ride the US defenses all they have to do is send lots of missiles at the same time so they will overload the defense systems.

Basically the US no longer has a weapons edge thanks to the global economy and the Internet. What you say? here is what has happened:

- driven by the short term focus of US business, much of the US technology know-how has been transferred out of the US giving other countries access to the knowledge. With the base knowledge provided, these other countries are free to innovate on top of the base knowledge. Americans discount this happening because they believe they are the only ones smart enough to do this but contrary to popular belief, the Chinese are “magical” about reverse-engineering anything and making it better. Now other countries are just as capable as the US of producing top-of-the-line weapons.

- The internet has become the world’s largest library, sometimes inadvertently. A person that knows how to search the internet can find anything they want including detailed discussion about things that are supposed to be super secret. Technology breakthroughs are freely shared via the internet because scientist and engineers want the “glory” that comes with their discoveries. They naively think that only a few people could understand what they have done.

The bottom line is any nation with a little cash and some decent engineers can duplicate if not exceed the US weapons capability in some areas (mostly defensive).

So what do you think Iran will do if it is attacked? My best guess is it will not submit to the US and will make the next century a living hell for any American they come in contact with. Talk about unintended consequences for the US!

Posted by Spyguy | August 24th, 2007 at 5:47 am
Bernard,

You’re right, you are stretching the metaphor, and perhaps past its breaking point. But let me give you a metaphor at the opposite extreme: What if on September 10th, 2001, I walked into a bar and shot to death Mohammed Atta, thus thwarting the attacks on the World Trade Center? Would you verbally assail me for “causing” one death? Well, why not? Who cares if some CIA bigshot could “theorize” that thousands of Americans would have died otherwise? I’m a murderer!

I am not a pacifist, and would be willing to personally fight if it did more harm than good. So what makes you certain Vietnam would have been worse off?

Oh, BTW, Spyguy, I admire your imagination. It’s pretty incredible what you can come up with when you compile all the worst-case scenarios from the U.S. perspective, coupled with a wild overestimation of the power of the internet. But I have to admit, it’s no better or worse than the fanciful stuff the neocons are cooking up about post-withdrawal Iraq.

Posted by Shlomo | August 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Not sure how you guys got onto this particular angle, but I agree with Bernard that the U.S. invasion of Vietnam can in no sense be redeemed by the idea that Vietnam might have been worse if it hadn’t. That’s plain rubbish. The Vietnamese defeated the French and the peace agreement envisaged demobilization of the communist-led Vietnamese nationalist forces to the north and the French the south, following which there would be national elections to choose a government. The U.S. knew the Viet Minh (communist-led nationalist alliance) would win those elections, so it sought to prevent them, cultivating a sort of Vichy regime to establish the fiction of “South Vietnam” as some sort of independent country being “invaded” by “North Vietnam.” It was always one country, and it was divided at U.S. behest for Cold War reasons that proved spurious. And, frankly, the idea that the US leaving created the Khmer Rouge regime is bizarro world nonsense. The Khmer Rouge was enabled to power by the U.S. bombing the crap out of Cambodia, and when the Vietnamese communists finally stepped into and overthrew the Khmer Rouge regime, the Reagan Administration actually supported the Khmer Rouge in its efforts to regain power!

Posted by Tony | August 24th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I generally agree with Mr Hack’s itemisation of the consequences for an attack on Iran (although I cannot imagine the Bushies getting away with cancelling elections), but I have to wonder what the effect on the Muslim public would be. Most likely Shiite Iraq and Saudi Arabia will side with Iran, threatening US supply lines in Iraq and Saudi oil, and possibly directly supported by Iranian troops. Additionally, I’ve seen polls reporting that Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad are amongst the most popular political leaders even amongst Sunni Arabs. An attack on Iran would likely horrify many of these too. I remember one Saudi diplomat quoted as saying they have two nightmares: Iran with a nuke and a US strike on Iran. Perhaps he fears that popular anger could overthrow US allies in the ME? More likely these allies would have to distance themselves from the US in order to survive.

With respect to Iranian ability to sink US warships: I doubt it. They have the weapons to do so (e.g. supersonic rocket torpedo), but they are short range. They’re unlikely to get within range to launch them. Their most advanced aircraft are 30+ year old F-14s, and they don’t have many. Motor torpedo boats may do better if they can remain undetected.

Posted by amk | August 25th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
At this late hour and a little off topic, I want to comment on the following observation by Bernard Chazelle, “People like to conflate morality and rationality, but that’s a big mistake. Immorality can be entirely rational. Often, in fact, terrorism works. ” I have pondered the limits of solely rational decision making without consideration for the emotional basis of human understanding and decision making and find this is very close to the DSM definition of sociopathy.
Human beings with a normal instinctual basis apprehend the world and its decision making requirements with the critical thinking and emotional capacities equallity engaged.
The individuals who do not have emotional capacity, whether from genetic or/and environmental factors can make quick and merciless decisions. These decisions are rational and entirely immoral, as Bernard points out. These individuals, if I may for the sake of examination, call these individuals psychopaths and propose this as one of the fundamental reasons for the terror of history. The lack of emotional capacity leaves these deciders with a blank spot in predicting other peoples response to their decisions, the deciders who invaded Iraq did not comprehend the ferocious resistence to their liberation rhetoric and views.
The lack of emotional capacity limits the value of solely rational analysis by psychopaths. It was not rational for the Vietnamese to defend themselve in the face of overwhelming firepower and immorality of the american elites slaughter, it was an emotional-rational resistence and not comprehended by the american leaders without conscience. It seems necessary that our war making powers be removed from the hands of psychopaths and placed in the care of men and women who are rational and moral. Yes, even moral men have to use military power, but this seems justified as a last resort and only in existential crisis, and not for mere political ends. The question I am left with is at which point rational becomes irrational!
Tony, thanks again for your generous spirit and Bernard for bringing a deeper question to the table.

Posted by bob k | August 25th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
“With respect to Iranian ability to sink US warships: I doubt it. They have the weapons to do so (e.g. supersonic rocket torpedo), but they are short range. They’re unlikely to get within range to launch them. Their most advanced aircraft are 30+ year old F-14s, and they don’t have many. Motor torpedo boats may do better if they can remain undetected.”

Which is why I usually mention anti-ship-missile “swarm” attacks. Launch enough missiles at one target, one will likely get through. The US Navy is not adequately prepared for this tactic. You only need one or two Sunburn missiles to get through and hit the right spot to sink a carrier - or at least damage it enough to put it out of action for some time.

You’re correct - their Air Force is not much of a factor, but if the US Air Force doesn’t knock out all the top-quality Russian anti-aircraft systems, the US will likely lose some aircraft either during the initial air attack or subsequently.

Primarily, the Iranians will rely on their ground war and guerrilla war capabilities. And it WILL be a ground war once they retaliate across the border in Iraq. The US will attempt to invade Iran in that situation.

BTW, the efforts of the Kurds these past two weeks to start a war with Iran by claiming that Iran is performing incursions into northern Iraq and killing Iraqi civilians, as well as doing artillery bombardments of Kurdish villages, and their claim to have shot down an Iranian helicopter, are all reminiscent of the German fake “Polish incursion” that they used to justify their invasion of Poland in WWII.

Watch for these news items. The Kurds are working with the Israelis to start a war with Iran, since both the Kurds and the Israelis want one, the Kurds in support of the Kurds in Iran, and the Israelis for obvious reasons. The Israelis have been working with the Kurds in Iraq for years now since the invasion, trying to get on their good side so they can get an oil pipeline for Kirkuk to Haifa. The Kurds need a way to get their oil independently to market, so they’re up for this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
NICE!!!
Same thing we can say about HITLER, POL-POT, STALIN and others. A dictator is a dictator and the world should strive to get rid of them, not praise them and “leave” them alone.
If Iran nukes Israel because we used “Chamberlain’s” tactics of appeasement then I will be the first to propose to send you to the war zone to experiment what nukes can do to you.

Posted by Daddio | August 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Whenever someone invokes Hitler, Munich, and Chamberlain in relation to the current ME, that person exposes his limited knowledge of history, geography, and culture. Frankly, such screeds just pollute the blog. They are to thinking what Musak is to Mozart. I suggest that all such “insights” be posted on Little Green Footballs. That site has the wisdom that one expects from a former bicycle shop owner who “analyzes” a religion he cannot understand, a culture he can’t describe, and a language he doesn’t speak.

Posted by Matthew | August 29th, 2007 at 9:55 am
[...] Continued . . . [...]

Posted by Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran « Dr Nasir Khan | September 2nd, 2007 at 4:49 am
Thanks for this discussion. lolaone

Posted by lolaone | September 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
[...] A week ago, he wrote, "Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran" (Monday, August 20th, 2007) which raised a number of important questions. [...]

Posted by SyriaComment - Syrian politics, history, and religion » Archives » Subsidies and Iraqis: Syria Shifts Gears | September 4th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Tony, Intetresting blog although the surmises are long winded. However, there are some overlooked considerations:
1. Iran’s nuclear intentions - without going into great detail, the nuclear rods used in a nuclear power plant are not capable of causing a nuclear explosion. An enrichment process is necessary, called enrichment. Iran is constructing, and purchasing, the components for an enrichment faciilty and the shaping of the material so as to fit into a rocket propelled warhead. if all Iran was doing was constructing a nuclear power plant, there would be no such purchses. I refer you to the stream of inspection reports from the International atomic agency.
To say there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon is parsing the issue. What is happening is Iran is building the capacity to make nuclear weapons.
2. If one couples the effort to develop capacity for enrichment to the statements of Iran’s present leader that Iran will wipe Israel off the face of the earth, then Israel has a very legitimate and real reason to be concerned. I agree those in Iran’s leadership community who understand realpolitik recognize the adverse consequences of use of a nueclear weapon. But (1) are they strong enough to dissuade the inner circle? From my position I cannot make an assessment. (2) More significant, perhaps, is we cannot rule out a leadership mistake. Realpolitik often acts as a restraint on aggressive action but leaderships all too frequently focus only on the proposed action and do not think through the potential consequences. My assessment is the current leader is very impulsive and may not be dissuaded by realpolitik based advice. (3) there is a concern in many capitals that Iran’s current leader would dismiss “realpolitik caution” because his belief is such a catastrophic military action would win the support of the Arab world thereby making Iran the leader of all fertile crescent countries - a goal the current leader has proclaimed frequently. If so genuinely concerned realpolitik words of caution will fall on deaf ears. The situation is dangerous and we=ill be played out for several years.
3. E.F.P.’s: Serial numbers of EFP parts match the numbers used by a unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.There is no known facility in iraq manufacturing these parts - all are imported - through Iraq’s porous eastern border. From interrogations of the revolutionary guards arrested in Iraq and Iraqi militants, the guards have been training Iraqi militants how to assemble and detonate E.F.P.’s. Any non propaganda assessment of Iran’s participation in Iraq’s terrorism will take these facts into account.

Posted by Friend in America | September 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Nicely done, absolutely spot on. You threw me a little with the “Green Beret” reference, since Robert Mitchum wasn’t in that movie, but I just assumed that you meant Jim Hutton and read on. (Hutton was Wayne’s favorite “liberal-who-sees-the-error-of-his-ways.”)
I don’t know if anything can be done with the DC press corpse. I am starting to doubt it. Walter Shapiro, a presumed liberal, just published a defense of John Edwards in Salon that virtually began with a cheap joke about — you guessed it — “the haircut.”
Anyway, I love your blog. I truly believe that if “we” invade or attack Iran, it will be the end of the United States as I know it — having been born here, with one Jewish parent, in 1946, and lived here ever since. What a stupid way to go down.

Posted by Gerald Carpenter | October 1st, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Amazing summary on The Wrong Questions on Iran! I love this blog!

Posted by Bulletin News | October 28th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I’ve been saying this all along to anyone who would listen.

But my scenario works out differently.

Before the war, I placed myself in Saddam’s shoes.

If the U.S. invaded and I DID have WMD, I’d use them the moment the first bomb dropped - and we pretty much telegraphed when that was going to happen.

Knowing the end was at hand, I’d take out as many enemies as I could. Who among us would not? Certainly everyone on the right would (just by extension of the pro-U.S. argument).

Nuclear/biochemical holocaust was the scenario some in the media suggested, noting that “thousands may die.”

But the question most failed to ask was, “Would we have invaded Iraq if we really believed that Saddam had WMD?”

Think about it? And hopefully you will come to the conclusion I did pre-war.

There’s no way in hell that we would invade a country that possessed WMD. We never invaded the Soviet Union, China or any foe that possessed WMD.

THAT is precisely WHY the U.S. does not want Iran to get the bomb. AT THAT POINT, we’ll be unable to pull Iran’s tail.

Conversely, though, we need not fear Iran’s getting the bomb. Iran will not use the bomb willy-nilly. Iran merely wants to be spoken to as an equal. And why not?

Iran isn’t getting the bomb so that it can take one shot at Israel before the West blows Iran off the face of the world.

What the U.S. needs now is a commonsense approach instead of a “politically-correct”-”Go USA” approach (talk about turning the opposition’s verbage against it) to foreign policy.

No nation on earth wants to be talked down to or treated like a nobody. The U.S., though, always speaks of its own interest and not the interest of others.

This is the crux of all of the political discussions out there. On the one hand, you have those whose only concern is U.S. self-interest. On the other hand, you have those who are willing to balance U.S. interests with those of other nations.

Unfortunately, politics prohibits the second group from speaking out. As noted here, anyone who considers another nation’s interests is consider the second coming of Neville Chamberlain.

Thus, conflict is inevitable. For the U.S., despite it’s power, is still not secure enough and mature enough to deal with other nations as equals.

Someone mentioned Dylan’s “Neighborhood Bully” in a recent post. Well, Dylan, whose music I’ve always enjoyed, had it wrong in that instance. Of course Israel (with US support) is the neighborhood bully as it, with us, plows its interests ahead of others… even when those interests might not be entirely exclusive.

Posted by Jorge | November 5th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Good comment. It is a pitty that many people doen\’d think like trat. Thanks.

Posted by John Smith | November 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hello webmaster…I Googled for nicole chamberlain, but found your page about The Wrong Questions on Iran…and have to say thanks. nice read.

Posted by Nicole Chamberlain | December 4th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
i am looking for info on dog training , i believe that dog training is an essential part of caring for your dog - your post may help me to look at it from a different perspective , wish you all the best.

Posted by dog training | December 6th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Hi there, i am looking for info on online education but sometimes i am left wondering , is there any true value to online education ? .

Posted by Wayne State University Book Store | December 10th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Good day! I was doing a search for sales training seminar colorado and found myself here. My family could read this blog, and that makes a change I can tell you. You are a great find. Informative too.

Posted by John Campbell | December 10th, 2007 at 9:45 am
OK , we read you and now we are very calm…. The Iranians are not in a race to create a nuclear arsenal but if they do so and have some nukes it is OK with you because the Iranians won’t risk themselves wiping Israel of the map… neither to drop some bombs over Europe…. . I must say that your assumptions are much better than the US intelligence community. Now we all can go calmly to sleep and be sure that we will get up alive in the morning after…..

Germany in 1938, although being the greatest military power, couldn’t win the war as we have seen in 1945. Today the WMD multiplies the power of the holder. As far as we see as you put it, Iran acts in “sanity” and that means that we should be aware that this insane religious military extreme regime can act in moments of crisis in a weird and unpredictable way, and use the WMD even a suicide bomber character.

Btw, no one talks about (land) invading Iran. It is not necessary to achieve mission. It is all about air (aircrafts and missiles) attacking on certain known targets. If the US (or some one else) won’t do the job now, it will have to do it later with more power and more risk to the Iranian people. Now it is your choice to decide what kind of America you want. A declining power that is controlled by anti democratic states and their leaders and allies, or self assured leading power that dictates its demands to the unstable world and if needed implying some alternative and measured power to achieve that mission..

Posted by Abe Bird | December 10th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I’m especially contemptuous towards the idea of looking to politicians to be “daddy figures.” I got me a good daddy. I don’t need to look to some damn politician to act like one for me!

Posted by Rich | December 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I was searching for \’Cruise Dumped\’ at google and got this your post (\’The Wrong Questions on Iran\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read

Posted by Traveler | December 15th, 2007 at 5:20 am
Nice, but I think it is sometimes not enough to get it complete.

Posted by John Smith | December 18th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Maybe I won\’t see this until it happens, anyway. Maybe it\’s true. Until now I have only seen this in another related post.

Posted by John Smith | December 18th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I was searching for \’Cruise Agents\’ at google and got this your post (\’The Wrong Questions on Iran\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read

Posted by Traveler | December 19th, 2007 at 1:28 am
I am looking for post on online eduaction and what i came across makes me doubt the value of such education , anyway i wish you success

Posted by online education | December 19th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I was researching the same thing when I saw this.. I can not agree more - but I am still going to look for a better source

Posted by The Tribe Video Jew | December 20th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
yoooo!!! new [url=http://onlinefreeporn.net]free porn[/url] coming!
So here we start:
>>>>Some lesbo girls

Posted by Immaceexceete | December 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 am
i am looking for information on singapore , i heard that they planning singapore to be the monte carlo of the east - anyway i wish you all the best on your post

Posted by singapore tour | December 22nd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I was searching for \’Alaska Cruise Tour\’ at google and got this your post (\’The Wrong Questions on Iran\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read

Posted by Traveler | December 24th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Fantastic blog post about The Wrong Questions on Iran! Thoroughly love this interesting posts.

Posted by Bulletin News | December 25th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Dynamite summary on The Wrong Questions on Iran! Always love this write ups.

Posted by Bulletin News | December 31st, 2007 at 3:58 am
I enjoy reading your posts, keep them coming

Posted by Brenda | January 4th, 2008 at 5:00 am
Thanks for this, I\’m writing an ebook about starting up businesses right now so this post was very informative.

Posted by Online Home Based Business Home Business Idea Home Business Op | January 4th, 2008 at 6:30 am
Hi there I to have a blog similar to your about home inspection business online home based business. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Home Inspection Business Online Home Based Business | January 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Thanks, I recently started my own business so this type of post is of great interest to me. Keep it up

Posted by Home Based Business Lead Online Home Business | January 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
rzyl sqzdxcloe jnabiltvk apqne qcrzke vocdypatm subwoin

Posted by dpleqvfxr vkodejfz | January 6th, 2008 at 4:52 am
pzafsihjr cmduhrx cvghi lmuiw oltnhve mqdsf ehwdn http://www.mwhtlfxj.rbhki.com

Posted by azyhojelq mijfbkz | January 6th, 2008 at 4:53 am
I found your blog via Google while searching for blank united states map and your post regarding The Wrong Questions on Iran looks very interesting for me

Posted by John Smith | January 7th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Good comment. It brought light to an old idea I had.

Posted by John Smith | January 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Hi there I to have a blog similar to your about an online home based business is not rocket science by. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by An Online Home Based Business Is Not Rocket Science By | January 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I came here by accident, but just might stay

Posted by corey | January 9th, 2008 at 4:26 am
Hey! You are right. Thanks for this comment. I think this could help also.

Posted by John Smith | January 9th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
http://zoeyzanevideo.blogspot.com zoey zane

Posted by zoey zane | January 10th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Good site. Thank you.
http://users.newblog.com/ashleytisdale sokregikd

Posted by sokregikd | January 10th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://users.newblog.com/mileycyrus miley cyrus naked

Posted by gredolfg | January 10th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Very good site. Thanks!
http://users.newblog.com/jenniferlovehewitt jennifer love hewitt

Posted by jennifer love hewitt | January 10th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Nice site. Thanks.
http://users.newblog.com/jenniferlovehewitt fdsedimm

Posted by fdsedimm | January 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
http://users.newblog.com/jenniferlovehewitt jennifer love hewitt

Posted by fdsedimm | January 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
http://users.newblog.com/jenniferlovehewitt jennifer love hewitt

Posted by fdsedimm | January 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Just passing through

Posted by Josh | January 10th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hello webmaster I to have a blog similar to your about home base business online home based business. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Home Base Business Online Home Based Business | January 11th, 2008 at 12:07 am
If your mom desires a immediate and effortless online cash advance just search for for http://www.2minutecashadvance.com . They are available consumers from Rhode Island all the way to the state of New Hampshire.

Posted by Advance Cash | January 11th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Could not agree more

Posted by Quagmire Band | January 11th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Hi there I to have a blog similar to your about best home based business home business opportunity online. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Best Home Based Business Home Business Opportunity Online | January 12th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I was searching for \’Carnival Cruise Ship\’ at google and got this your post (\’The Wrong Questions on Iran\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read

Posted by Traveler | January 12th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Have heard from it before, but is indeed a very good comment. Thanks.

Posted by John Smith | January 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hello I to have a blog similar to your about online home based business opportunity home party business. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Online Home Based Business Opportunity Home Party Business | January 13th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Lol, not another article about %KEYWORDS%. I\’m writing an e-book with a business-theme and found you whilst googling. Thanks for the information.

Posted by Home Based Business Idea Home Business Opportunity Online | January 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Hello webmaster I to have a blog similar to your about best home based business opportunity online. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Best Home Based Business Opportunity Online | January 13th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
http://usephen.blog.ca deaajdgo

Posted by deaajdgo | January 14th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Hi there I to have a blog similar to your about based business home home make money online opportunity work. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Based Business Home Home Make Money Online Opportunity Work | January 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I found your blog via Google while searching for cruise agents and your post regarding The Wrong Questions on Iran looks very interesting for me

Posted by John Smith | January 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Hello webmaster I to have a blog similar to your about washington online home based business opportunity. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Washington Online Home Based Business Opportunity | January 20th, 2008 at 5:06 am
Once again I have found a good post of yours

Posted by John Masters | January 21st, 2008 at 2:20 am
Hey! I to have a blog similar to your about home money making business opportunity online home based. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Home Money Making Business Opportunity Online Home Based | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 am
Hey! I to have a blog similar to your about online home based home based business opportunity online. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Online Home Based Home Based Business Opportunity Online | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hello I to have a blog similar to your about based+business+find+home+idea+online. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Based+business+find+home+idea+online | January 23rd, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Hey! I to have a blog similar to your about home based business opportunity information online. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Home Based Business Opportunity Information Online | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Hi there I to have a blog similar to your about cash here online home based business.com business. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by Cash Here Online Home Based Business.com Business | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hello I to have a blog similar to your about new york online home based business. I have just linked to you so hope you can do the same.

Posted by New York Online Home Based Business | January 24th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Great write up in respect to The Wrong Questions on Iran. Your views is by far why I continue to drop by your blog pages. Keep it up!

Posted by Consolidation Debt | January 25th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Well, it is from a different point of view anyway.

Posted by John Smith | January 26th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Post trackbacks and comments to remote blogs automatically with Trackback Submitter! This tool will submit your comments to millions of blogs automatically. Trackback Submitter - the most powerful tool on the planet to submit trackbacks automatically!

Posted by Trackback Submitter | January 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Just passing through

Posted by Bernie | January 28th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I was searching for \’Carnival Cruise\’ at google and got this your post (\’The Wrong Questions on Iran\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read

Posted by Traveler | January 29th, 2008 at 9:23 am
If a loved one lacks a swift and plain online cash advance just hunt for for http://www.2minutecashadvance.com . They are convenient consumers from Missouri to applicants from Utah.

Posted by Advance Cash | January 30th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I don\’t mean to be too in your face, but I\’m not sure I agree with this. Anyhow, thanks for sharing and I think I\’ll write a post on this on my blog soon.

Posted by Mike | January 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Hi - just wanted to say good design and blog - cu Frank

Posted by Max | January 31st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Yep - I think you are right on again..

Posted by Research Guy | February 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by Chilly | February 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
The Wrong Questions on Iran is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me .

Posted by Max | February 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
The Wrong Questions on Iran thanks for this post! Andy

Posted by Max | February 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I was searching for \’Alaska Cruise\’ at google and got this your post (\’The Wrong Questions on Iran\’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read

Posted by Traveler | February 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Maybe it can get a little complicated if used in a different way.

Posted by John Smith | February 7th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
http://users.newblog.com/ringtones_verizon free verizon ringtones

Posted by free verizon ringtones | February 7th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
http://users.newblog.com/ringtonestracfone free tracfone ringtones

Posted by free tracfone ringtones | February 7th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
http://hydrocodonepurchase.lookera.net hydroc430odone

Posted by hydroc430odone | February 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Very good site. Thanks!
http://hydrocodonepurchase.lookera.net hydroc430odone

Posted by hydroc430odone | February 8th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Nice site. Thank you.
http://users.newblog.com/meridiapurchase meridia y721 purchase

Posted by meridia y721 purchase | February 8th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Very good site. Thanks.
http://users.newblog.com/ephedra_purchase purchase hyggr ephedra

Posted by purchase hyggr ephedra | February 8th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
http://users.newblog.com/buyephedrinepure buy ephedrine

Posted by ephedrine kmm8 | February 8th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Nice site. Thank you!!
http://users.newblog.com/bathroomremodeling bathroom remodeling

Posted by bathroom remodeling | February 8th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
http://meridiapurchase.lookera.net meridia

Posted by meridia | February 8th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Good site. Thanks.
http://ephedrapurchase.lookera.net ephedra

Posted by ephedra | February 8th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
http://ephedrapurchase.lookera.net ephedra

Posted by ephedra | February 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
http://ephedrapurchase.lookera.net ephedra

Posted by ephedra | February 8th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
http://bathroomremodeling.lookera.net bathroom remodeling ideas

Posted by bathroom remodeling ideas | February 8th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Useful site. Thank you!!
http://cocakola.forumlivre.com percocet

Posted by percocet | February 9th, 2008 at 11:22 am
ajepkwgvm hlzgfab yavq lpndbvjmi cjapsl adqcpluhw cgvfrw

Posted by wiatg iyfaldgq | February 11th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
bheroujd ghqc jbginh drmbceyi wbgohs fhvx fbvq wcoxdiqs mtxu

Posted by keitacsul grwqonfp | February 11th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
jerzlvq xkgmeva uafzi lowjd xmfdzh jumylt gbdf [URL=http://www.hsrvzknfi.zgdjrwcl.com]khvruais tdprokwj[/URL]

Posted by kbileda keytizs | February 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
nsgq euxlb wkjtndmbz cafuq ucxblvm mkdjv isxo [URL]http://www.nuasmpex.ctng.com[/URL] lbhokqf kqayo

Posted by wpbvysr mvtrn | February 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Submit Links to Social Bookmarking Websites Automatically! Get Thousands of Visitors! Increase Website Traffic and Income with Automatic Social Bookmarks Submitter. Prepare to upgrade your servers today ? you will have thousands of real and highly targeted visitors who will make you the money like crazy!

Posted by Social Bookmarks Submitter | February 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
The Wrong Questions on Iran is a quite interesting post but quite difficult to understand for me - L.Dexter

Posted by Max | February 12th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Thanks for what you said. It seems I have thought the wrong way… until now. Hope this helps also.

Posted by John Smith | February 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I have carried out huge work and collected the most interesting
sites about online business in the Internet

I choose only update and developing ones and collected them in the same place.
They are accessible for everybody.
I offer you to acquaint with them ( online investing bookmak http://tagvibes.com/bookmarks.php/boksir124 )
If somebody can supplement my list please publish here your research or bookmark

PS I am sorry if my message out of forum topic or it`s not interesting to community.

Posted by alexbookmin | April 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
how to increase website traffic…

Thanks,…

Posted by how to increase website traffic | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Eric…

My brother was mentioning something like this the other day….

Posted by Eric | June 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
fun websites for women…

How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…

Posted by fun websites for women | June 26th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
aldactone…

aldactone precio por caja…

Posted by aldactone use in polycystic ovary disease | July 8th, 2008 at 2:03 am
thanks for this…thumbs up!

Posted by zeugirdor | February 6th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Her parents are pedophile enablers, or child pimps; however you want to spin it.

Posted by Keaton Manning | March 16th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
LOV3 YOU MIL3Y!!!

Posted by Zackary Santiago | March 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
yes, miley, becauae all moms are ugly and huge and have lost their figures. we all hate our lives, too. that\’s right.

Posted by Andres Hawkins | March 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
check out this one……

Keep up the g00d work man!…

Posted by Andrea Schamoz | June 30th, 2009 at 4:03 am

The Latest

Guest Columns
How I Overcame My Jewish-Evangelical Upbringing and Learned to Love Christmas, Anyway
Guest Column: Gavin Evans Back in the day, when Gavin and I were young activists trying to change the world, the doorbell rang at our Observatory student house. I opened it to see a tall and handsome man in the silky purple shirt and dog collar of an Anglican Bishop. "You must be Tony," said Bis...
Featured Analysis
Does Obama Have a Mideast Plan B?
It's hardly surprising that President Barack Obama chose to schedule a White House visit by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the dead of night on Monday, because right now Obama has little to show for his 10-month effort to revive a Middle East peace process. The Israeli leader's refu...
Unholy War
Who Lost Fatah?
‘Who lost China?” was the battle cry of a witch-hunt conducted in the US State Department following the 1949 victory of Mao Zedong’s communists. The department’s “China hands”, critics charged, had been woefully ignorant of the dynamics at work on the ground in China after the Second W...
A Skeptical Read
More Iran Hysteria from the NY Times
The surest sign that another neocon bill of goods is being hawked in respect of the Iran "nuclear peril" is the revival of Rumsfeld-esque "unknowable unknowns", a la Iraq WMD panic circa late 2002. In the real world, of course, solid progress is being made towards a plausible diplomatic deal to ...
99c Blogging
The 'Metrics' of Obama's Vietnam
Why is the Administration conducting a "test run" for its metrics of success in Afghanistan? Because the metrics used will be those that provide the desired verdict
Hear! Hear!
Helena Cobban Explains Fatah
If I Was a Blogger...
More Dennis Ross Dissembling
Obama's Iran point man can't seem to get his head around the reasons for Israeli emigration
A Wondering Jew
Obama, Foxman and Israel's Purpose
Having spent decades drumming home the idea that Israel is rooted squarely in the Holocaust experience, and should be viewed by the world as the state of the survivors, Israelis and some of their most fervent backers in the U.S. are suddenly insisting that this is a misleading, even hostile idea.
Glancing Headers
The Shebab, the Shahids and the Champion's League Final
The Shebab gunman on the left appears to be a Gunner, i.e. an Arsenal fan... In honor of today's Champion's League final, I republish my op ed that ran in the National a year ago. What was most fascinating about the photograph of the Somali gunman who was part of the crowd dragging the body...
Annals of Globalization
The Shebab, the Shahids and the Champion's League Final
The Shebab gunman on the left appears to be a Gunner, i.e. an Arsenal fan... In honor of today's Champion's League final, I republish my op ed that ran in the National a year ago. What was most fascinating about the photograph of the Somali gunman who was part of the crowd dragging the body...
The Whole World's Africa
Congo's Not Africa's WWI, It's Worse Than That
If there is a European analogy to be applied in the Congo, it would be the brutal Thirty Year War in Germany that ended in 1648
Shameless Cronyism
Embedded with the Jihadis
My crazy friend Nir Rosen goes on embed with the Taliban, and finds out just why the U.S. can't win in Afghanistan
Rebellion Into Money
Why Joe Strummer Was a Socialist
Hint: It had nothing to do with bailing out banks
Could Die Laughing
Whatever Became of that Nice Mr. Blair...
The problem with a global conversation between Muslims and Christians refereed by Tony Blair? Two words: Tony Blair.
The 51st State
A Teachable Moment in Basra
It should come as no surprise that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's disastrous offensive against the Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr in Basra has had the exact opposite effect of that intended -- strengthening rather than weakening Sadr, and making clear that he, and the Iranians, have far greater in...
Futures Market
Will Russia Partition Kosovo?
Why my tea-leaf reading suggests that Moscow has a nasty surprise in store for Washington in the Balkans
Cuisine
Yummy yummy Umami
Why a leftover lamb bone turned a bean stew into an ecstatic event
Housekeeping
'Lost' Entries on Rootless Cosmopolitan
Previous entries that now register as "not available" are ones that got left behind in a server migration. We're working on retrieving them
New York Moments
The Debka Made ‘Em Do It
From Tony's Archive
A Playground Lesson for Bush
How a spontaneous alliance of jocks, do-gooders and lesser bullies against the biggest bully at the school changed the balance of power at Milnerton Primary

About

Blogroll

Search

Syndication

Archives

The Wrong Questions on Iran

176 Responses to “The Wrong Questions on Iran”

Leave a Reply

The Latest

Guest Columns

Featured Analysis

Unholy War

A Skeptical Read

99c Blogging

Hear! Hear!

If I Was a Blogger...

A Wondering Jew

Glancing Headers

Annals of Globalization

The Whole World's Africa

Shameless Cronyism

Rebellion Into Money

Could Die Laughing

The 51st State

Futures Market

Cuisine

Housekeeping

New York Moments

From Tony's Archive

Share This