If Iran tries to destroy Israel, you can count on Israel to strike back all over the region, not just in Iran. Mecca, Medina, Riyadh, Cairo, Damascus, and other Muslim cities will be destroyed. Remember, Israel has thermonuclear weapons (H-bombs), which are orders of magnitude more powerful than anything Iran is working on. Lots of Muslims could be meeting lots of virgins, real soon now.

The scenario you paint certainly looks rather scary, increasingly possible, and perhaps even probable. However, while not discounting the value of honestly understanding the worst case scenarios let's look at some other options.

The threat has two distinct facets:
1) The Iranian leadership's seeming zest for war
2) The Iranian capability to make war

Point 1 could be undermined in several ways short of open US military actions.
* Covert ops to support any/all forms of internal Iranian opposition
* Covert ops aimed at regime change
* Covert assassination

Point 2 can be eroded in covert ways as well. Some involving violence, but theft, bribery and other nefarious techniques are also possible.

I've speculated that the recent plane crashes in Iran may be covert ops directed toward one of the points above. I'd be very surprized if we were not taking actions already.

We have evidence that our gov't is acting semi-covertly: see the predator attacks against targets in Pakistan and Yemen. (speculation alert) Libya's strange capitulation of nuclear ambitions strikes me as possible evidence of some very high stakes, secret, ultimatums from the US

Based upon the high stakes, why not use all the resources that the US can bring to bear? Out right war doesn't seem like the correct tool for this job. As you pointed out in your post, Iraq was, in part intended to be a very public demonstration of our collective will as well as a chance to setup a middle eastern democracy. Our task with Iran needn't include those requirements.

Iran is willing to destroy Palestinians to destroy Israel, and no Arab regime would lift a finger, despite their supposed support of the Palestinian struggle. But if Israel directly threatened Mecca, would the Saudis let the Iranians continue to threaten Israel?

While I'm tempted to fret about the necessity of action, I'd also have to say that the situation in Iran is many times less grave than the situation in the Soviet Union some 50 years ago.

Would anyone have believed in the possibility of a peaceful denouement to the Cold War? How many people advocated war as the only viable method of preserving the United States at that time?

If history has taught us anything, it's the impossibility of predicting the future accurately. The only way to prevent the possibility of being a "Neville Chamberlain" is to go to war at every threat guaranteeing you'll spend millions of lives. The only way to guarantee you won't needlessly spend millions of lives is to always do nothing, which guarantees you'll spend tens of millions of lives.

Personally, I think that Bush has expended the political capital necessary to attack Iran on Iraq. But the non-war approach is no more guaranteed of failure than was the same tactic in the Cold War. Of course, no guarantee of success, either.

Although I differ with you on some particulars, I agree completely with your assessment of what we're likely to do, as I wrote in my Options on Iran post last week.

What in President Bush's history suggests to anyone that he'll attack Iran over the objections of the leaders of his own party? The midterm elections are coming up and, with Bush's already low approval ratings, another unpopular front is the last thing they want.

Also, consider Churchill's observation: “The Americans always do the right thing…when all other alternatives have been exhausted.”

Joe, do you mean Hobson's choice? If not, it's an interesting play on words, anyway.

A very disturbing aspect in regards to dealing with Iran is brought up in an article written by Charlie Cook of Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_20_06_CC.html. These days, even looking at covert actions as a possibility doesn't give the same feeling of security. Who can we trust anymore?
I am not a Republican,(not a Democrat either anymore) but I do trust that President Bush at least has our safety and security as an important agenda. The problems arise when his hands are tied. And for many reasons, by the actions of those with a broad spectrum of purposes, his hands are now tightly bound.

It is very difficult at this time to not feel pessimistic about the future.

I would say that a telling sign of the times, is that France stood up and threatened the use of nuclear weapons.

Talk about tied hands. Over at AFOE one of the posters has characterized Chirac's statement as “barbaric”.

Yehudit raises an interesting question: "But if Israel directly threatened Mecca, would the Saudis let the Iranians continue to threaten Israel?"

There are two separate points here, both worth giving more thought to.

1) Would any useful leverage accrue to Israel if it announced a policy of last-ditch retaliation against the Islamic holy sites? Is there any real deterrent value in holding Mecca and Medina hostage? And if there is, what is the probability that doing so would encourage other Muslim states to act as a brake on Iranian 'first strike' intentions?

2) How, exactly, would the Saudis be able to make Iran cease and desist from pursuing a nuclear attack capability? Saudi military capabilities are modest, and the Iranians have their own oil supply. Would it matter if the Saudis denied Iranian muslim access to the holy sites? Could the Saudis even pose such a restriction w/o undermining their own stewardship of the sites?

I was pretty optimistic in the run up to the Iraq operation. I'm fairly well satisfied at the current state of affairs. Iraq is coming around.

I feel nothing but pessimism over the situation re: Iran.

We are seconds from midnite (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Clock).

So many opportunities lost.

I think we are about to enter the Second Atomic War.

lol, Joe, you're wrong!
the bene gesserit wuvved it.

but...Yehudit, the Iranians are shi'ia --they care far more about Najaf than Mecca and Medina.

and our quiver is not empty, Joe.
pre-2006 elections, do what we can.
some options.
1. Use Sistani. He owes us. Have him point out that Iran can't produce the Mahdi--they're persian.
2. translate tom's post and yours to Farsi. and any other relevent posts. put them out on the Iranian blogs. Iran is a nation of bloggers, let them understand the consequences.
3. carpet bomb Iran with HEAPs. ;-)
4. exploit the sunni/shi'ia fault line in the ME. ditto the arab/persian fault line.
5. give Iraq a nuke or two to protect themselves form Iran. change the dynamics.

I'm sure there are tons more options. be-lieve me, the bright boys in the think-tanks are working full time on this. Don't judge the rest of our our covert agencies by the example of the corrupt and depraved CIA. they've gone tharn--they have the democrats' disease.
well, CIA/ORD is still clean. i hope.

but anyways, tough times. M. Simon is correct, the Club of Rome is predicting disaster, the doomsday clock is running down.

I'm sure there is more stuff i haven't thought of. But we shouldn't lose hope.

America is a beacon of hope to opressed peoples everywhere. We have new tools to spread the virus of democracy. Let's be opportunistic. Let's be subversive.

Chirac's statement as “barbaric”?

They have got to be kidding!
With France having a history of being the butt of a lot of people's jokes about their appeasement and unwillingness to use force. That statement simply does not make any sense.

The fact that France of all countries have stood up and made this statement, tells me that these are some serious times.

"but...Yehudit, the Iranians are shi'ia --they care far more about Najaf than Mecca and Medina."

The point here is not what the Iranians care about, but what the Saudis care about. They care about Mecca, because it is in their country and they are the official guardians of the holy sites. Would they fly their fighter planes paid for by America over Iran's nuclear sites if Israel threatened to nuke Mecca if they didn't?

Would they fly their fighter planes paid for by America over Iran's nuclear sites if Israel threatened to nuke Mecca if they didn't?

i don't think so, yehudit.
the shi'ia and sunni hate each other. arabs and persians hate each other. one of my persian friends likened arabs to "dirty niggers" once. they are only united in their much greater hatred of jews.

race trumps ethnicity.

"the shi'ia and sunni hate each other."

The Iraqi shi'ia are not fond of the Iranian shi'ia.

But the issue is still whether Mecca is blackmail material. And if the Saudis and Iranians hate each other, then one more reason the Saudis would be willing to nuke Iran if Mecca was threatened.

What finger have the Saudis to lift? It's an idea, Yehudit... but if we are vacillating and indecisive, playing all sides of the fence until it's too late, then with that comparison, what adjective can we use for the House of Saud?

Who's in charge of the clattering train?
The axles creak and the couplings strain
And the pace is hot and the points are near
And Sleep has deadened the driver's ear
And the signals flash through the night in vain
For Death is in charge of the clattering train

Peter nails it.

Such is the times in which we live. Death is conducting history.

Yehudit, you missed my point--they all hate the jews far more. the sauds would never take direction from jews.
ever.

Death has conducted history before. Its insatiable appetite makes it move ever faster -- or are we just slowing down, bogged down by our bounty?

Whatever the case, whatever the perils, and whatever the shortcomings of this Administration -- of which I am no fan -- this is the only bunch of bureaucrats I've seen in my lifetime who'd have the nerve to push this through. What will likely stop them, and be our collective downfall: domestic political constraints.

"the shi'ia and sunni hate each other."

Saudi King Abdullah met with Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr on the last day of the Haj - they were probably chatting over mint tea as the ambulances carried dead pilgrims away. Iran supports al Qaeda, which terrorism experts classify as a Saudi operation. It's primarily Saudi funded. Many Iranians classify the current Islamist regime as "Arab" because it is so Wahhabi-influenced. The current Persian/Arab rulers are destroying Persian relics, just as the Saudis are destroying graves and relics in Mecca. These Shiites and Sunni/Wahhabis share the goal of gaining power by establishing a Talibanesque caliphate under Sharia law. They work together when they have to, and they are hated, but tolerated by Muslims.

The majority of Muslims don't want to live under a Taliban-style regime and the majority of Muslims object to the Saudi destruction of holy relics but, like Europe in the 1930's, they're very passive in the face of totalitarianism. Or, they think it can give them power, so they support it. Threatening the Saudis in an effort to affect the Iranians is a great idea, but a threat against Mecca is one of the few things that could enrage these passive followers.

On the other hand, threatening Riyadh, Jeddah and Saudi bank accounts in Switzerland would probably bring quiet cheers from Muslims, while scaring the Saudis more.

The threat would also be an acknowledgement that Israel is at war with the KSA, in addition to Iran and the Syria..and, oh, yes, the Palestinians.

Since the issue has been raised by several commenters, I'll note as a factual point that the Saudis have 4 squadrons (about 96) Tornado IDS long range strike fighters all based at Dhahran, across the Arabian Gulf/ Persian Gulf from Iran and just NW of Qatar. See this DID article

Given the history of Saudi-Iranian rivalry and dislike, and the deep Muslim belief that G-d protects Mecca and Medina hence making them invulnerable (talk to some), Israel's actions or threats may not mean as much as one might expect here. Consider, too (for the Saudis will), the large number of Shi'ites on its oil-producing east coast, for that may well figure into any Iranian retaliation for airstrikes.

The Saudis are not known for taking chances.

Still, an Iranian bomb implicitly threatens the Saudis as much as it threatens Israel, and past Winds articles have noted Saudi small steps toward a capability of their own and involvement in Pakistan's program. Indeed, the Saudis would be likely to be one of the first "secondary proliferations" to spin out of an Iranian bomb. If so, this would have 2 consequences:

[1] Neatly occupy the pole position slot in Belmont's "3 conjectures" scenario re: intra-Islamic nuclear war.

[2] Given the deep instability of the Saudi regime, and the high level of sympathy with al-Qaeda in the kingdom, a Saudi regime with the bomb could justifiably be painted as al Qaeda owned nukes just waiting to happen.

And the clattering train rolls on...

I knew it was only a matter of time before this happened.

The Islamic regime literally threatened U.S. forces in

Iraq

mary, your relevency?
al-Sadr is an Iranian sock puppet.
within the shi'ia sect, the iranian(persian) shi'ia hate the arab shi'ia, the twelvers hate the seveners, etc., etc.
They are united in their supreme hatred of jews.
i repeat, race trumps ethnicity.

Dave (#5) - yes, "Hobbesian choice" was deliberate on my part. As in, choices forced in the absence of any viable enforcing authority, in an environment characterized by all against all, and where life will be "nasty, brutish, and short" absent the capability to personally enforce otherwise. Not to mention a situation that also threatens to return us to Hobbes' State of Nature in other ways.

But yes, one could use "Hobson's choice" here as well. I just liked the deeper allusions and play on words.

Although I am critical of the opposition forces to the mullahs, but I dont believe that struggle of the Iranian people like Ganji is useless.

See my input here

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/01/opposition.html

Indeed, it helped every one of us see the real face of a brutal and corrupt regime when it comes to dealing with its own people.

FREEDOM FOR IRAN

Joe, I think this is a much more realistic evaluation of the "likely worst case" than Tom's; but I do also think that there are an array of better likely cases out there.

I'll take some time this weekend and see if I can at minimum enumerate them.

A.L.

also, may i remind everyone, least you forget--kurds and arabs hate each other, and they are both sunni.

mary, your relevency?
al-Sadr is an Iranian sock puppet.
within the shi'ia sect, the iranian(persian) shi'ia hate the arab shi'ia, the twelvers hate the seveners, etc., etc.
They are united in their supreme hatred of jews.

The relevancy is, we need to rethink the problem. There's overwhelming evidence that Saudis and Iranians are working together. They're united by their goals and by their desire for the destruction of Jews, Buddhists, Christians, atheists, the United States, Russia, etc.

It's also a fact that the suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi, sent by the Saudi government. They're working with al Qaeda and with al Sadr to turn Iraq into a Taliban Style regime. These terrorists do not have the support of the majority of the people, but they do have the financial support of the Saudis, and they've turned Iraq into a finacial and social mess. We were able to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, but he wasn't the only fascist in the area. We ignored the Islamist fascists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc. and they sent their fighters in to kill Iraqis and Americans, despite the will of the majority of Iraqis.

So, if we invade Iran, and if we successfully overthrow the Mullahs, what do you think will happen next?

Winston,

I don't think they're entirely useless, either. They are part of the Enlightenment struggle for the Dignity of Man, and that is no small thing.

But in terms of helping to avert the present situation in a meaningful way, or protect the Iranian people - in that instrumental sense, yes I think they're useless. The true face of the Iranian regime is on display in far more prominet ways, and the world will not act. Nor will the Iranian people. As your comments in this post acknowledge.

At this late date, those are the only bottom lines that matter now.

Mary, i don't we have the sand to invade.
i think we can either work for regime change from the bottom up, or bomb them back into the stone age. which will cause a lot of resentment.

Out of this discussion, one thing would clarify the situation. This crisis isn't about a country called 'Iran' obtaining nuclear weapons; indeed, it it were, the Iranians could be counted on as being responsible actors in the nuclear club, as was the case with the Soviet Union.

This crisis is about a globalized, transnational death cult acquiring the means to achieve its messianic ends, that as Mr. Katzman put it, "believes suicide/murder to be the holiest and most moral act possible." That death cult happens to run a country right now. Nukes in the hands of messianic mullahs would be like hand grenades, fit for passing out to the faithful, true believers. It simply doesn't get any worse than that.

The 9/11 era's hallmark is that great powers need not be nations any longer -- not in the sense of sovereignty as we have known it. Some guy named bin Laden -- who's probably dead -- regularly makes headlines, speaking directly to governments, usually with threats, such as his little diatribe on Al Jazeera yesterday.

I believe that we're in a closing window of affecting change in the current tragectory right now -- one last chance to at least stave-off the ultimate proliferation of malignant cancer cells in the world as we know it. But I also believe that whether or not we strike, react or remain unresolved, the Oil Age is coming to a close. The other big story out of all this will be about energy, or lack thereof. We will learn precisely how cheap, abundant energy fueled the miracle we call modern living, that we take so for granted.

A simplistic anecdote that might have some application here. Back in late fifties Los Angeles a couple of my friends and I were being harassed by a gang (yes, there were gangs back then). We finally cornered their leader and informed him that if anything happened to any of us he would personally pay the price - him and no one else. It would not matter what the circumstances or if he could prove he was not directly involved. He would take the baseball bat from out of nowhere to the face. No further problems arose after that.

It puzzles me why Iran would take such an overt approach. State built Nukes, holocaust denying, “we’ll bury you” rhetoric, etc. If they really mean to damage us why not just smile while supplying terrorists? If they really are such a death cult and are willing to suffer any consequence I guess it makes some twisted sense but it strikes me a major tactical blunder. Once they go Statist with their war plans doesn’t this leave them open to just the scenario I outlined above? The gang leader figured his gang was badder than ours so we had no choice but to bow. He didn’t count on a completely new universe to operate in. It is not just terrorists that can play asymmetrical warfare against an entrenched State.

i think we can either work for regime change from the bottom up, or bomb them back into the stone age. which will cause a lot of resentment.

There are more choices. We could bomb them carefully, focusing on the leaders to minimize resentment.

Or we can threaten to bomb their Islamist (temporary) allies in Saudi Arabia.

Or we could work out a Mutually Assured Destruction pact with nuclear armed Islamist Pakistan, which has been (apparently) working to help Iran build nukes. Or we could ally with everyone who is threatened by the Islamists - five sixths of the world's population including Russia, China, India - to invade and dismember all Islamist states and assasinate all Islamist/terrorist leaders living within their borders simultaneously.

Or we could ally with everyone who is threatened by the Islamists to go cold turkey from Middle East oil, slap trade sanctions on the entire area, pour money into alternative resources and technology and threaten that any terrorist attack will result in the bombing of specific cities or sites.

Or we could offer all Iranian & Saudi women free passage and citizenship to the United States, with job training and housing, sort of an underground railroad that would undermine their society. As with all peaceful methods, we would have to plan to circumvent the inevitable terrorist response.

There are probably a lot more choices that we haven't even thought of..

Ultimately, some major changes will be needed in regard to all of the regimes. I don't see this merry go round that we have been on for years ending, without it.

re: options, something entirely different.

Have the U.N. declare Iran a Chinese protectorate for a decade, and have the Afghans provide the Chinese army safe passage to the Iran border, with U.S. air support for their occupation for up to ten years (with a right to harvest Iranian oil for at least that period of time) or until there has been no organized radical islamic terrorist activity for 3 years, whichever comes first (at which time a (UN or its successor body of democratic states) would supervise free elections).

NATO no longer exists as an armed force. The Turkish army isn't large enough to do the job. We made common cause with Stalin and communism at a time when their behaviors were far worse than the current Chinese. The Chinese want to earn their place at the table.

Hmmm.

sigh
mary, just bombing them a little is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants.
bombing saud would be just as good for him.
iran is positioning itself to lead the caliphate.
your other suggestions are patently non-viable and surely must have been made in jest.

It puzzles me why Iran would take such an overt approach.

boyd, he is not talking to us.
think who this rhetoric is really for.

Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.

Since it has not cropped up in over three dozen comments I am passing on a few excerpts from a much longer report out of Stratfor.;

======
[big snip]
Tehran spent the time from 2003 through 2005 maximizing what it could from the Iraq situation. It also quietly participated in the reduction of al Qaeda's network and global reach. In doing so, it appeared to much of the Islamic world as clever and capable, but not particularly principled. Tehran's clear willingness to collaborate on some level with the United States in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in the war on al Qaeda made it appear as collaborationist as it had accused the Kuwaitis or Saudis of being in the past. By the end of 2005, Iran had secured its western frontier as well as it could, had achieved what influence it could in Baghdad, had seen al Qaeda weakened. It was time for the next phase. It had to reclaim its position as the leader of the Islamic revolutionary movement for itself and for Shi'ism.

Thus, the selection of the new president was, in retrospect, carefully engineered. After President Mohammed Khatami's term, all moderates were excluded from the electoral process by decree, and the election came down to a struggle between former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- an heir to Khomeini's tradition, but also an heir to the tactical pragmatism of the 1980s and 1990s -- and Ahmadinejad, the clearest descendent of the Khomeini revolution that there was in Iran, and someone who in many ways had avoided the worst taints of compromise.

Ahmadinejad was set loose to reclaim Iran's position in the Muslim world. Since Iran had collaborated with Israel during the 1980s, and since Iranian money in Lebanon had mingled with Israeli money, the first thing he had to do was to reassert Iran's anti-Zionist credentials. He did that by threatening Israel's existence and denying the Holocaust. Whether he believed what he was saying is immaterial. Ahmadinejad used the Holocaust issue to do two things: First, he established himself as intellectually both anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish, taking the far flank among Islamic leaders; and second, he signaled a massive breach with Khatami's approach. [snip]

The second phase was for Iran to very publicly resume -- or very publicly claim to be resuming -- development of a nuclear weapon. This signaled three things:

1. Iran's policy of accommodation with the West was over.
2. Iran intended to get a nuclear weapon in order to become the only real challenge to Israel and, not incidentally, a regional power that Sunni states would have to deal with.
3. Iran was prepared to take risks that no other Muslim actor was prepared to take. Al Qaeda was a piker.

The fundamental fact is that Ahmadinejad knows that, except in the case of extreme luck, Iran will not be able to get nuclear weapons. First, building a nuclear device is not the same thing as building a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon must be sufficiently small, robust and reliable to deliver to a target. A nuclear device has to sit there and go boom. The key technologies here are not the ones that build a device but the ones that turn a device into a weapon -- and then there is the delivery system to worry about: range, reliability, payload, accuracy. Iran has a way to go.

A lot of countries don't want an Iranian bomb. Israel is one. The United States is another. Throw Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and most of the 'Stans into this, and there are not a lot of supporters for an Iranian bomb. However, there are only two countries that can do something about it. [snip]

In the past, our view was that the Iranians would move carefully in using the nukes to gain leverage against the United States. That is no longer clear. Their focus now seems to be not on their traditional diplomacy, but on a more radical, intra-Islamic diplomacy. That means that they might welcome a (survivable) attack by Israel or the United States. It would burnish Iran's credentials as the true martyr and fighter of Islam.

Meanwhile, the Iranians appear to be reaching out to the Sunnis on a number of levels. Muqtada al-Sadr, the leader of a radical Shiite group in Iraq with ties to Iran, visited Saudi Arabia recently. There are contacts between radical Shia and Sunnis in Lebanon as well. The Iranians appear to be engaged in an attempt to create the kind of coalition in the Muslim world that al Qaeda failed to create. From Tehran's point of view, if they get a deliverable nuclear device, that's great -- but if they are attacked by Israel or the United States, that's not a bad outcome either.

In short, the diplomacy that Iran practiced from the beginning of the Iraq-Iran war until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be ended. Iran is making a play for ownership of revolutionary Islamism on behalf of itself and the Shia. Thus, Tehran will continue to make provocative moves, while hoping to avoid counterstrikes. On the other hand, if there are counterstrikes, the Iranians will probably be able to live with that as well. [end]

mary, just bombing them a little is exactly what Ahmadinejad wants.

Bombing them precisely, and targeting Ahmadinejad is probably not what he wants. Although they prattle about not fearing death, these leaders are famous for running when their lives are threatened.

bombing saud would be just as good for him

Saudi money is important for their cause so that's not clear. The idea was to threaten to bomb saud.

iran is positioning itself to lead the caliphate

that could be true, which might be a good thing, as he's so incompetent. Unlike the diplomatic and fairly clever Sauds who are very good at playing the divide and conquer game, Ahmadinejad is managing to unite the world against the idea of Islamism and the caliphate. He's sort of like bin Laden, but an easier target.

your other suggestions are patently non-viable and surely must have been made in jest.

sigh. spitting out random ideas encourages some people to think - others, not.

Mary, bombing Iran is right now what Ahmadinejad and his thugs want the US or Israelis to do!

Although I am for a surgical air strike against their facilities and government structure, but no one can predict how it will play out.

Iran's death-cult shows all the markings of a Ghost Dance cult. Ghost Dance cults invariably disappear over time; mostly, they just need to be humiliated in some fashion, showing their beliefs to be false.

What's the best way to do that? Invasion seems off the table at the moment. Can it be done other ways?

Winston,
That phrase has always bothered me: 'surgical strike'.

One does not perform surgery with high explosives.

"Let's get real. Whatever they may think of the mullahs, the Iranian people, and such civil society as they have built in the shadows, have no stomach to seriously oppose them."

seeing as some have died to oppose them, I think we need to quantify this generalization.

" The mullahs have proven that they are quite willing to kill, with their Basij hitler youth corps and al-Qaeda mercenaries, as many Iranians as necessary."

At some point increasing the numbers you kill becomes self defeating. Thats the logic of revolutionary situations, and why dictators go to such extremes to prevent them.

"Nonviolent measures like the commendable struggle of decent people like Akbar Ganji or even Ayatollah Montazeri are, in this situation, useless. " which situation? the status quo of Jan 19, 2006?

"Despite the scattered attacks etc. noted by This & That in the comments to Tom's article, there is no pre-revolutionary situation in Iran.
Its people have proven that they will be a non-factor in all of this until the die is cast, at whic point it will be too late. What I see from them, and much of the exile community as well, is helplessness, a lack of leadership inside or out, a shirking of responsibility for the current situation, and the middle eastern disease of alternately blaming and beseeching others rather than working to acknowledge the situation and committing to solve it. For many reasons of circumstances, culture, and history (see the excellent comment from "Anonymous"), their widespread resentment of the mullahs is a quiescent one. Nor does there appear to be any serious appreciation for the potential consequences of the mullahs' insane atomic adventure."

words from reporters inside Iran indicate quite some concern for the security and economic consequences, and concern that Ahmadinegad has gone to far. This even seeps through the MSM, which wouldnt be inclined to report this.

Today Iran faces historically high oil prices. It has a president who has pledged to relieve the stress of the poor, and who could be expected to have the resources to do it. I have little doubt that a massive surge in unemployment and fall in living standards would bring Iranians to the streets in large numbers. I have little doubt that the revolutionary guards would provide the necessary match. That, plus the existing hostility to the regime of the affluent, and the genuinely prerevolutionary situation among the national minorities (azeris, baluchis, kurds and arabs) presents a real possibility of internal regime change.

Now it may be that you are right, and what i project will not happen. But is it not worthwhile to pursue it, which means continuing to work with the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, etc? Is it worth discussing worst case scenarios that may make the pursuit of a desirable outcome less likely?

i also note that the anonymous you point to, as to why the opposition cant win, follows up with a more optimistic comment.

i also note that he is discussing the present situation, NOT the situation after large scale economic sanctions.

Having been in the region during their Shahab missile tests in 2004, the Iranians are very capable of delivering a "device". Whether it will work or not is open to debate. They are not a stupid people, simply on the wrong path.

What is their real goal? The elimination of Israel? A couple of nukes delivered against that nation may suffice in their minds. Likely Tel Aviv vice Jerusalem would be the target. The delivery would also likely be conventional, smuggled aboard an airliner or cargo plane. I expect the Mossad to have considered this eventuality and is working VERY hard to deal with this.

What I would like to see is a concerted effort by the world to unseat the present Iranian regime. Iran does not consider itslef "Arab" in the truest sense of the word. They are Persians and thus inheritors to the splendors of their very long history.

PS - Pick up All the Shah's Men for a nice summary of Iranian game playing and perspective

I think the threat analysis is correct.

I anticipate that among the range of options are...

1. To the extent this is possible, seize control of the electronically based accounts the Iranian regime holds.

2. Control the Iranian oil pumping stations that are in the Persian Gulf. See an atlas. Offer China the opportunity to purchase as much of its production as they care to have, and hold the proceeds in escrow for an Iranian government that satisfies our demands.

3. Arm the ethnic minorities (see the map in UT's Perry-Castaneda library) that would be likely to resist their Persian emperors.

4. To the extent possible, offer neighboring countries an opportunity to protect "their" ethnic minorities currently within Iran's political borders. Iran thereby loses most of their oil producing areas and maritime access.

5. If military action becomes necessary, be prepared to refuel Israeli aircraft over the western desert of Iraq. (I am assuming their F-16's / 15's have air-to-air refueling capability). If not, we could "reflag" some of ours that DO have refueling ability.

6. Execute whatever OPLAN exists to take down the enforcers of the Iranian state. This includes kinetic (i.e. explosives) and non-kinetic means.

7. Disrupt telecommunications that source from inside Iran -- no need to allow outsiders to get state-sponsored visuals of portrayals of conditions inside Iran.

8. Reflag all oil tanker traffic in the Gulf to US.

9. Raids do not REQUIRE seizing every mile of road along the way. The US has a well-developed capability to deliver with precision logistics packages from the air. Once we own the air, we can go to any spot in Iran without needing ground lines of communication. NOTE: Yes, this is a substantial risk to the units we send in. That is why I call this a RAID, not a ground campaign.

Just a few thoughts on options short of all-out inferno.

Liberalhawk (#47) - First, good to see you here.

I follow these reports from Iran as well. By all means, we should try the approaches you have mentioned (and which we have advocated here for years).

What we cannot and must not do, is depend on them.

• First, note how many things, even in your comment, need to come together. Each jump from A-B may fail, and there is room for very few failures.

• One thing about revolutions that isn't commonly discussed, but which is generally true: revolutions don't generally succeed without substantial outside help. Unfortunately, the primary instruments by which we might deliver this approach (US State Department and CIA) cannot be depended on to do it - indeed, have opposed such an approach consistently and worked to undermine it.

• Finally, I stick to my assessment that the Iranian people themselves are, at present, a long way from revolution - even the minorities. Perhaps the folks with security clearances are seeing a different picture, or coming to different conclusions. But that's mine. This doesn't detract one iota from the nobility of the sacrifices being made by Iranian democratic activists. But the issue has gone beyond Iran, now, and the bottom line is now effectiveness.

This is not to say that all of these situations are set in stone. Of course they are changeable, and February 20, 2006 could look different. To the extent that we can, we should try to change them.

But it's a long-odds card hand, and we have to be honest enough to acknowledge that, too.

Mr. Katzman, I share your bleak outlook not because I believe we will not take action against Iran. I think we will. My concern is that Americans keep looking at this war as one defined by borders. It needs to be thought of in terms of regions and populace unencumbered by borders.

Let's say we take action against Iran and do what you suggest. I would think the likely outcome is that radicals overthrow Musharraf in Pakistan. You are then faced again w/ crazies with nukes.

My concerns come not from taking step one, it's that we have no solution for step two.

Chirac now has made clear that Europe doesn't only talks nicely, but does also carry a big stick. A clear warning towards Tehran.
That makes the situation look different. Until now, Teheran was assured that Europe has no will neither the means to deter Tehran. But in fact Paris as well as Berlin are extremly concerned.
There is still the chance to mount the pressure. Until now, Teheran saw itself in the position of the challenger, in a position of strength. To pursue the nuclear program had no costs, only benefits: more respect, more carots. If the pressure mounts, Teheran might begin to make a different calculation. The mullahs are not suicide bombers, they love the life as we in the West do.
So it's crucial to offer them a clear alternative. The Europeans are on board, this time. The Russians are half on board. The Chinese might stay neutral.

Sure the world is about to engage in WWIII (or 4?) but most importantly I was CITED in the blog post by Joe!!!! That is the line that starts with "Despite the scattered attacks..."

That was the first time....oooooo felt so good!.

I need a cig.

8^)

This&That

(nothing to add to the thread except maybe we can use some of our special forces with the various rebel wannabes like we did in Afganistan.)

Chris (#52), provocative contribution.

Not sure why this would necessarily be the outcome, esp. given the long fighting in Afghanistan that touches many Pakistanis far more directly (largely because they personally know people who have gone there to fight/die). Yet Musharraf stays. The USA invaded Iraq. Yet Musharraf stays. If the crazies could get him - and they've tried - they would. They may get lucky tomorrow, but that's true whatever we do.

Having said that, the revelations, legitimate fears, et. al. as a result of Pakistan's (note, considered a relatively stable state by Arab/Islamic standards) nuclear adventure speak strongly to the depth of the Iranian problem. Not only is Iran a much less stable regime (to put it mildly), but so are many of the other Middle Eastern regimes who would be the "secondary proliferation" wave. So really, if Iran succeeds you have to imagine the Pakistani situation but only about 1/10 as secure and/or controllable - and that's just the secondary effects.

Back to the main subject of your comment, however.

There are, so I understand, plans in place to "secure" Pakistan's weapons should events require. So that's Plan A for your "Step Two". Which may, we must acknowledge, fail.

As for a Plan B, I think the word we're looking for is "India" - who realizes full well that they would be the #1 target of crazed Pakistanis with nukes, even above the USA. Here on Winds, we've discussed what that situation could look like before. It's bleak, and sad, but does largely solve the problem. And if Pakistan doesn't get its problem with Islamist death-cults and hate under control, it's pretty close to inevitable in the long term.

Historical evolution has always been unkind, but the nuclear/biological age takes that to a whole new level.

"If Islam desires the secret of the stars it must embrace the kuffar as its brother -- or die."

The truest and most succinct summation of Islam's situation I have yet seen, anywhere. My strong belief at the moment is that this will not sink in until we get a major demonstration. Which is in the nature of Islamofascism to force, imbued as it is with the classic fascist death wish as well as Islam's tradditional imperalism and supremacism.

I had once hoped we could avert this. I still do, and we should continue to try. But I am finding it harder and harder to believe that we will succeed.

What is the possibility that Ahmedinajad is in the position of Khrushchev -- he has the support of the mullahs until he doesn't?

And Cicero (#31) is right when he says:

"But I also believe that whether or not we strike, react or remain unresolved, the Oil Age is coming to a close. The other big story out of all this will be about energy, or lack thereof. We will learn precisely how cheap, abundant energy fueled the miracle we call modern living, that we take so for granted."

Good thing Winds just beefed up its New Energy Currents briefings. Not a coincidence.

Got solar?

#10,

Tharn?

Marvelous...how many here caught the Watership Down reference? The perfect word to describe the condition, too.

Mr Katzman.

I certainly cant guarantee a revolutionary outcome, and yes there are many intermediate steps, but i think there are as many steps on the path to armageddon as well. 1. Its possible that the rest of the regime is NOT as crazy as ahmadinejad (and yes ive looked at your links, ans while they indicate at least some other than ahmadinejad are serious about the 12th imam business, they DONT indicate it for all the players - and even for the individuals quoted, its not impossible this is just rhetoric) - this could imply that sanctions could deter them EVEN in the absence of immediate revolution 2. Its possible weaponizing will take them longer than expected, and meanwhile things change 3. Its possible the MAD works. Now dont get me wrong. Ive just been on a site where ive argued with a pro-Mad dogmatist someone who excludes the possibility of MAD failing. Be clear, I dont trust in MAD. But I am also not so pessimistic as to be 100% sure it will fail. That possibility must be allowed for. Indeed, looking at the behavior of the Mullahs over the last 25 years, they show an inclination to send OTHERS to commit suicide, but little inclination themselves. Now again, that doesnt make me feel safe and warm - once theyve got nukes theyve got them, and it only takes one moment when genuine loons control all the levers of power to result in the nukes being used (and of course theres the real possibility of accidental use as well) BUT it means that we dont necessarily have armageddon the first day Iran has a working weapon. And then theres the possiblity that we will develop a very effective missile defense that we can share with Israel.

Now that said we've got to balance things. The prospects that we DO have time. The possibillity that a revolutionary narrative will work. The likelihood that any other path will fail. Should we be doing things to prepare for war with Iran - sure we should. I should hope we are working on better bunker busters, etc. I would like us to increase the size of the Army. I would like us to more fully mobilize our society (but youve heard that from me before) And yes, we need to IMPROVE our relations with allies we will need IF we go to war, as well as for the present course. But we should NOT take steps that weaken the diplomatic-economic-revolutionary course.

As for State and CIA opposing revolution, lets review that. They opposed it in the past, when Iran did not present an imminent nuclear threat. And that may well have been a rational approach - certainly its better if the revolutionaries develop on their own, develop their own leadership, etc. But now is different. Indeed, I would be surprised if we arent already working some of those angles. And I should hope,if we are doing so, that we are not publicizing it. I would suspect the problem at the CIA would be more one of capability than of desire.

I would also suggest that if we can work on that together with our allies, and with some states that arent our allies, like Russia (and some that fall in between, like KSA) we will do much better. Lets recall - the goal in Iran is NOT necessarily an ideal democratic regime, or a pro-American regime. Its a regime that can be trusted to be sane wrt to nuclear weapons. And with that goal in mind, it may be reasonable to compromise with French, Russian and even Chinese goals in the region. Surely it is, if we are as close to armageddon as you suggest. If we are really concerned about the marginal increase of Chinese power, or about a setback to the democratization program, then I would suggest we dont really take imminent armageddon all that seriously.

Islamists have been threatening to destroy the world and kill us all for decades. We listened to them for a few months after 9/11, then we went back to playing realpolitic games (see Iraq). The Sauds, maybe with Libyan help, have been quietly destabilizing governments around the world and sponsoring thousands of terrorist attacks. But we didn't seem to care about these constant attacks and crimes until someone was dumb enough to say the word 'nukes'.

In the mid-1980s, they clandestinely negotiated the purchase of about 50 to 60 Chinese CSS-2 missiles. The Chinese and Saudis were able to complete the deal before American intelligence was wise to the relationship. The Saudis paid handsomely, with about $3 billion to $3.5 billion dollars for the Chinese missiles capable of reaching up to about 4,000 kilometers (2,500 miles). The CSS-2s had been armed with nuclear warheads when they were operational in the Chinese force structure, but Riyadh and Beijing claim that the missiles delivered to Saudi Arabia were armed with conventional warheads and rebuffed U.S. requests to inspect the missiles. The CSS-2 missiles, however, are too inaccurate to be militarily effective with conventional munitions, but more than accurate enough for the delivery of nuclear weapons.

Like Ahmedinajad, bin Laden wants to be in charge of everything, and he also openly threatens the west. But he's smart enough to hide.

If Ahmedinajad's goals are exactly what he says they are, then we couldn't ask for a better potential head-of-the Caliphate. If this idiot is really in charge, their movement is doomed. If his goals are what he says they are, we should be (quietly) encouraging his leadership, for a short time.

End-use/least cost analysis begins with a simple question: What are you really trying to do? If you go to the hardware store looking for a drill, chances are what you really want is not a drill but a hole. And then there's the reason you want the hole. If you ask enough layers of "Why" --as Taiichi Ohno, the inventor of the Toyota production system told us — you typically get to the root of the problem

I might have seriously underestimated the time we have before the mullahs announce they have nuclear weapons.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php#c177

Joe,

So we have to go now and count on the USAF coming through with CONPLAN 8022.

"The tradeoffs between the cost of an extended occupation in Iran, and its desirability, change dramatically if we must search for easily concealed, ready-to-use nuclear weapons, as opposed to merely destroying the physical ability to produce them."

"Tharn?

Marvelous...how many here caught the Watership Down reference? The perfect word to describe the condition, too."

LoL. Me. I did. I did. How many points do we get?

darwi odrade : fyi

Persians don't hate Jews. The Arabized regime does, but the Persian in the street does not.

It all seems a little too gloomy to me.

I have not looked for one but I think it's entirely possible that Reagan or Bush have some quote referring to the "end of days" that could be taken by a Iranians to mean that he is willing to use nuclear weapons to bring about the second coming. I think we are doing the same thing to the Iranian president.

I have a hard time believing Iran is going to start an unprovoked nuclear war on Israel, knowing that this will mean their own destruction.

A collapsing North Korea worries me more.

I know Joe has already seen this Stratfor piece on Iran It comes pretty close to concluding that Iran doesn't necessarily want nukes, it wants the world to think it has nukes and doesn't care about the consequences of that belief.

Mary, we've covered the CSS-2s before. Saudi-focused military digression time...

The general consensus (and it's a strong consensus) is that the CSS-2s are conventional, but that this woud change if the Saudis acquired or received nukes.

The PRC has pretty good relations with the Israelis in the mid-80s, recall, when the USA was encouraging Israel to cooperate with China's defense industry. And the USA would have effective ways of checking something that fundamental given its access to Saudi Arabia, with or without Saudi permission.

The CSS-2s aren't useless, though. SCUDs and even FROGs after all, are also totally inaccurate. That hasn't stopped them from being very popular world-wide. CSS-2s do allow the Saudis to threaten many more Iranian & Israeli cities than Al Quwwat al Jawwiya as Sa'udiya (the RSAF) could alone - and with cities, close is good enough for retaliation purposes. I'll also note that the CSS-2s could also be given chemical warheads, which are much easier to make and conceal than nukes. Libya was quietly much further along that path than anyone had suspected, for instance... No idea where the Saudis are at with that, but it's a possibility.

Sadly, I see the clock ticking down also; and that Mr. Katzman's projections have a high probability of coming true. I would like to point out one thing that has struck me as being "off" in this discussion. Yes, Chirac did make a speech saying that France reserved the right to use their Force de Frappe against terrorist states or movements "who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass destruction". This is taken by most observers to be a threat to Teheran. Given France's past actions, given its past overt support for Iraq's nuclear ambitions, given its economic ties and technical support for the current Iranian regime, given its denunciations of the United States in this war as being "terrorist", and given their abject fear of an uprising by their Muslim minority; France's position is far more ambiguous. It is not reasonable to definitely regard France [ or the EU ] as being either a friendly or potent actor on our side. They have decades of regarding opposition to the United States as the normal and highest motive for their foreign policy. They for years allowed terrorist groups to operate freely on their soil so long as their targets were the US or Israel. One cannot rule out that they will attempt to appease and collaborate with the Mullah's, believing that will buy them safety at the expense of the rest of Western Civilization.

Liberal Hawk #47 & #59

If the article Tom Holsinger posted a link to in his comment #61 is correct, we have until March 2006 until Iran tests a nuke.

No internal revolution in Iran can be fomented and bring down the regime quickly enough o prevent that.

American Force of Arms must decide the issue and anything less then a regime changing ground invasion will allow the Mullahs to get off a nuke at us.

Time has run out for any other option.

Choose.

Either we invade or we have a world where nuclear armed 3rd world states that 1) throw nukes at each other 2) use them within their borders and 3) lose them to terrorists who ISO container deliver them to major Western cities.

There are no other choices.

Mike (#63): "I have a hard time believing Iran is going to start an unprovoked nuclear war on Israel, knowing that this will mean their own destruction."

This is known in technical terms as 'mirror imaging.' Mike can't imagine doing this himself, therefore no-one else would do it. Unfortunately, everything in the Iranian mullahs' religious beliefs, ideology of suicide bombing, and regime ideology re: war with the west and 12th imam says that yes, indeed, they'll do it.

This is like the CIA Natonal Intelligence Estimate that said the Russians wouldn't put missiles in Cuba. Their 1962 NIE... and when pressed later, it came out that they issued that opinion because it wasn't how they would have played it if they were the Soviets. I mean, it's comical really, but not on so serious a subject.

PD Shaw (#64) Thank you for posting the full link to the STRATFOR piece. I think they have one good insight they've made a bit much of, which is that Iran is making a play for leadership of global Islamism. Well, their own writings tell us that.

I think STRATFOR tie themselves in a knot when they then go on to look at Iran's program and say "they don't mean it, or seriously believe they'll get there, it's all theater and they're just reckless." Uh, they ARE reckless, but it isn't theater.

Liberalhawk (#59): Take out all the "possible" words, "could," and other estimates of probability from the comment, and put in more precise estimates of probability like "highly possible," or "remotely possible," or "vanishingly unlikely," or what have you. At that point 2 things will become clearer:

[1] The true strength of your belief in happy outcome possibilities.

[2] The a priori assumptions behind that, so we can have a better chat about those.

For instance, I'd personally rephrase the following:

"...this could imply that sanctions could deter them EVEN in the absence of immediate revolution.

as:

"...there is a vanishingly tiny possibility that a sanctions program could deter them EVEN in the absence of immediate revolution."

And then, of course, one could explain why (Iran is too lucrative so sanctions will be circumvented, China & Russia are already bought, past US sanctions on Iran ineffective, Saddam's history with sanctions, consistent declarations by Iran on this subject, the nature of fanatics, etc.)

well, unfortunately the the doomsday duo (Tom & Trent) is correct per usual.
the bad thing is i think we don't have the sand or the logistics to invade.

so we bomb them back to the stone age?

and i think the theocracy has some nukes already.
but to lead the caliphate, they need the capacity to make infinitely many.
i think Ahmadinejad's posturing has more to do with Iraq than anything else, even after reading Tom's link.

PD Shaw #56, Joe

"What is the possibility that Ahmedinajad is in the position of Khrushchev -- he has the support of the mullahs until he doesn't?"

There's a very good possibility of that. But it's meaningless. He doesn't run the show, Khamenei does. And he isn't doing anything right now that Khamenei isn't permitting him to do.

As for the March testing date....the info came from MEK. They're not reliable. They hit the bullseye once, and have had trouble even hitting the dartboard since.
But time will tell.......

I don't expect the mullahs to attack Israel with nukes directly. More likely, they will smuggle a nasty package to their Lebanese Hezbollah allies. Israel should retaliate against Tehran (at least) regardless.

I feel as apprehensive as the dark days of the Cold War, though at least then, we could count on the Soviets sanity.

#58,

I chuckled when I read it. I've been describing Democrats as the Tharn Party for years. Everyone just stares - especially Democrats. They assume I meant the Thorn Party....

For those that haven't read Watership Down - the Rabbits went Tharn with fear. They couldn't move or function, just let circumstances unfold

#69,71:

re: Iran having nukes and more importantly having weaponized them - this is a much more complex problem than simply having a device which will explode. Their program appears, AFAIK, to be based on HEU (centrifuge enrichment?) which means any device would be HEU cored - which, in turn, imposes lower mass and size limits on the device. The engineering challenges on miniaturizing a HEU device to the point of being able to deliver it on a packaged warhead or especially in something that can be 'smuggled' are non-trivial,