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:
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.
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.
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?
Last month an excellent, must-read article on Hiroshima was posted on the History News Network.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/41354.html
@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
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.
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?
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?
Pingback: Asking The Wrong Questions On Iran at Toward Praxis
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.)
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Pingback: Asking the Wrong Questions on Iran « Dr Nasir Khan
Thanks for this discussion. lolaone
Pingback: SyriaComment - Syrian politics, history, and religion » Archives » Subsidies and Iraqis: Syria Shifts Gears
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.
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.
Amazing summary on The Wrong Questions on Iran! I love this blog!
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.
Good comment. It is a pitty that many people doen\’d think like trat. Thanks.
Hello webmaster…I Googled for nicole chamberlain, but found your page about The Wrong Questions on Iran…and have to say thanks. nice read.
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.
Hi there, i am looking for info on online education but sometimes i am left wondering , is there any true value to online education ? .
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.
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..
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!
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 🙂
Nice, but I think it is sometimes not enough to get it complete.
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.
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 🙂
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
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
yoooo!!! new [url=http://onlinefreeporn.net]free porn[/url] coming!
So here we start:
>>>>Some lesbo girls
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
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 🙂
Fantastic blog post about The Wrong Questions on Iran! Thoroughly love this interesting posts.
Dynamite summary on The Wrong Questions on Iran! Always love this write ups.
I enjoy reading your posts, keep them coming
Thanks for this, I\’m writing an ebook about starting up businesses right now so this post was very informative.
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.
Thanks, I recently started my own business so this type of post is of great interest to me. Keep it up 🙂
rzyl sqzdxcloe jnabiltvk apqne qcrzke vocdypatm subwoin
pzafsihjr cmduhrx cvghi lmuiw oltnhve mqdsf ehwdn http://www.mwhtlfxj.rbhki.com
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
Good comment. It brought light to an old idea I had.