Trent, what makes you think he's the last Terror Master who's going to show up?

The problem has to be solved for the class, not the individual.

A.L.

If we wait long enough, we won't have to invade Iran.

But if we wait that long, it won't matter.

We'll have a ruthless national security domestic apparatus to protect us from terrorist nukes that could come from anywhere and

we won't be Americans anymore.

Armed Liberal,

You ask the right question of what next. Two additional points:

1. Maintaining a nonproliferation regime in the long run will either require the development cost of mass-casualty weapons (nuclear, biological) never to fall, or the cost to the United States of unilaterally preventing their public and private use never to rise. If either of these conditions are unlikely to hold, then not only will proliferation continue but it will get much worse.

2. The real need is to rethink the foundations of world order. The way to do so may be to look back from the future. If there is a confrontation of the magnitude that Joe forecasts, the survivors will be ready for a world order that is not a restoration of the present one. We could imagine the change right now to clarify what the planet needs to prevent repeated disasters of this kind.

What then in Iran, what then in the face of a world order that will be implacably hostile to us, and what then in the face of a more-united Islamic world.

It seems your entire argument rests on this point being true. What makes you think the world will be "implacably hostile?" There are already far more countries taking a belligerent stance against Iran than we ever had for Iraq. In fact, France just outpaced even us. Most countries would laud the end and damn the means, as is their way, but that doesn't sound to me like implacable hostility.

And as for the Islamic world uniting, I am also unconvinced. That was supposed to happen in Iraq, too, and polls since then show a massive decline in support for terrorism and Al'Qaeda, and a unprecedented increase in cultural cross-pollination. It is no accident that a wide swath of Islam is now talking about human rights and democracy, now that these Western concepts are no longer outside looking in, but walking among them.

No, I think there would be an initial opposition by Arab and Muslim leaders, followed by the usual anti-climax in the Arab and Muslim street. In fact, the Arab penchant to be long-suffering and fatalistic works to our favor, here. It will be over and done with before they know it, and then they will go back to scheming against each other.

Russia and China will test the rhetorical waters to see if they can churn up opposition to the US, but the US can make the UN-relevancy argument, and, uh, continue being the US. Everybody knows in private that the US is a better global hegemon than China or Russia would be. Their efforts at turning global opinion won't go far. Months, maybe.

A small price to pay, it seems to me, to be sure.

Tom Holsinger,

I don't think that to raise the question of what to do next is necessarily in conflict with the need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. One can fully agree with you about this and still ask what will follow.

If there is a raid into Iran that goes as well as you say it will, we would still need to have a policy afterwards to reduce the likelihood that we would have to act again a decade or two later against some other country under the conditions of relative power that may exist at that time.

This is not a question we need to answer before deciding what to do about Iran. But I don't think we can deal with the WMD future in an ad hoc way, and the more clearly we can articulate a longer-range future, the stronger will be our position in the near-term.

How long before someone else starts buying the tools to make a bomb, or buys a completed bomb?

This is, of course, an argument for more preventative action, not less.

The solution is to invade Iran with a small footprint in the populated areas, remove the regime and its nuclear capabilities, leave the country in the hands of whoever steps up to the plate.

Repeat, as necessary. If we make the costs of nuclear intransigence large and inevitable, you will see the number of regimes who try it dwindle to almost zero. That is where we want to be.

Assuming your two choices were a more united Muslim world and a more united Muslim world with nuclear weapons to loan, which would you choose?

And another thing you do not address in your "implacable hostility" argument is the utility of blaming Bush and the neocons.

To the rest of the world, it is Bush, not America, that is the problem. And his "reign" is over in three years. After that, we can go back to being "normal." We can stop making history, and restart managing it (I'm talking, of course, about perception).

Nobody is going to take on America's power if they think her behavior will moderate in three years. It is during this time we should do what's necessary.

And another thing you do not address in your "implacable hostility" argument is the utility of blaming Bush and the neocons.

To the rest of the world, it is Bush, not America, that is the problem. And his "reign" is over in three years. After that, we can go back to being "normal." We can stop making history, and restart managing it (I'm talking, of course, about perception).

Nobody rational is going to take on America's power if they think her behavior will moderate in three years. It is during this time we should do what's necessary.

Double posts. I apologize.

Dave - No. 8:

Fortunately the targets identify themselves. They can't help it. And they are always shaky. If they had the support of their own people, they wouldn't want or need WMD.

The problem is not target identification. It's our own will to do something about it.

I personally favor a policy of promoting freedom. When some idjit volunteers as a target, we help his people obtain their freedom.

AL writes:

"And while we might destroy the infrastructure Iran is building to create a bomb, as long as we face a movement that means to do us harm, there will always be a place and a way to rebuild infrastructure."

Therefore, you seem to conclude, we should allow them to build a bomb while we work up a "broader solution" for the entire problem of Islamofascism.

That strikes me as irrational. "We can't solve every problem now, so we won't solve any" is no way to do... anything, really.

Among other things, because the others of this class (a) are already interested in such weapons, and (b) would have a clear signal that they can do so unopposed; hence (c ) would therefore face AL with several nuclear problems before he ever got out of first gear.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

AL also asks:

"Do we really think that the moderate, pro-Western forces within Iran would survive – I mean physically, not politically – much less be able to take over the country in the face of one of these acts? Do we think that an Iran which had been bombed or invaded would be more or less pro-Western?"

This is like asking whether the moderate Germans would survive if Germany was attacked because of the Nazis' clear threats and military buildup.

You know what? It. Doesn't. Matter.

Iran's leaders have made their choices, and those choices are very clear. The only question now is whether the Iranian people can overthrow these guys. If we believe the answer to be no, they're out of the equation. We can, and should, back them to the max and use all other means, just in case we're wrong and it turns out that they win after all. But eventually comes decision time, and when it comes one must be ready to go immediately with Plan B.

If Iran's people cannot solve this problem, they will bear the brunt of the consequences as their leadership pursues its war. Consequences that could include their annihilation. You'd be happy to let them court that because... you're afraid of pissing them off?

WTF?!?

Indulging the mullahs in their mad quest because you can reduce their society to glass whenever you like, makes it far more likely that in the end you will have to do exactly that. And count your dead. Or kiss the world and standard of living you've known entirely goodbye. All because you didn't want the Iranians to be angry with you.

I'm sorry, Marc, but that borders on nuts.

I mean, it's like the environmental groups that fought levee programs around New Orleans in the 1970s, on environmental grounds. As they survey the toxic witch's brew that has spread all over the city in the wake of Katrina, one wonders - how do they like the environment NOW?

And actually, I think that's EXACTLY the kind of situation we're heading for here. That within 10-15 years, we'll be looking at the destruction of vast swathes of the mideast and most of its oil capacity, with little prospect of bringing it back online quickly. Not to mention millions dead. And when that day comes, wondering whether the Iranians might be mad at us will seem like the ludicrous concern it is (though the surviving ones might be pissed - and in my books, they'd have a right to be).

They need WMD because their own people want them and will kill those in power if they don't get them. The Iranian state also made to much propaganda that nuclear energy is a wonderfull thing to back down

Let me refine what I said in #15. The things AL notes here are not bad ideas in themselves. Go ahead and talk to China, Russia, et. al. Support internal resistance in a strong way. Absolutely put the pedal to the metal on alternative energy - given that fact that since I believe Iran will be allowed to get the A-bomb, and so the day will come when every last bit will count.

But don't take anything off the table, and while we're doing the diplomacy we'd better be [a] reaching for the stick and [b] planning a near "standing start" option just in case we find our selves out of time.

Do I believe those things will happen? No. Hence my article.

It seems to me that there are five questions, and each of you is coming at them with very different assumptions.

The first question is whether Iran is in fact trying to obtain nuclear weapons instead of just peaceful nuclear power. I believe, and everyone here seems to assume (heck, even France seems to assume) that Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon.

The second question is how long will it take for Iran, unimpeded, to get a nuclear weapon. Tom and Trent seem to think that Iran will have a weapon in months. Joe seems to me to be looking at a one year horizon. Marc seems to me to be looking at a three-plus year horizon.

The third question is what to do in the meantime. For Tom and Trent, there is no "mean time", and I believe that explains both their harsh rhetorical approach and their unwillingness to even look at other responses. And the thing is, that if Iran really is only months away from weapons capability, they are absolutely correct both in their concerns and in their proposed remedy, and also necessarily in the urgency of their rhetoric. Joe, because of his longer horizon, seems willing to look at other solutions, but not for long and not in lieu of war preparations. Marc, with his quite long horizon, seems willing to put off war preparations (though likely not planning) while attempting to bring other methods into play that would result in the same end, but with less cost.

The fourth question is whether Israel will solve the problem for us, and whether we want them to. If you believe that it is OK for Israel to obliterate Iran (and maybe Syria, Hezbollah and perhaps Saudi Arabia: since Israel may only get one shot, they may feel it necessary to be in a world where their only enemies are European), then there is no need for the US to act.

The fifth question is how the US should act if the matter comes to war. Marc seems not to have thought this through yet: it's too far out on his horizon. Joe, Tom and Trent all seem to have concluded that some military scenario between sustained aerial destruction of all Iranian infrastructure, and invasion and occupation is the way to go.

The unconsidered, and really irrelevant, question (and thus not included in my count) is whether Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. This is irrelevant because even if they do not do so, the threat is still too much to accept.

From my point of view, the answers are (without elaboration, but I'd be glad to elaborate if you're interested):

Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

Iran is 1-3 years away from nuclear weapons capability, and six months after that capability would be in a position to make a nuclear attack. One year after that, Iran would be in a position to attack Israel with confidence that they could obliterate Israel.

We should be aggressively using every means at our disposal, including threatening and cajoling and bribing Russia and China, to find a way to isolate and impoverish and if possible deter the Iranian regime. We should be aggressively supporting revolutionary movements in Iran.

We don't want Israel to solve the problem for us, because the whole point of the exercise is to avoid a nuclear war. We could have one of those any time we want. We don't want.

If the matter comes to war, we should invade and occupy key strategic terrain (SW oil fields and the area around the straight of Hormuz); bomb to utter destruction the Iranian military, civilian and nuclear infrastructure; stay until the nuclear program is gone and the theocrats overthrown or killed; then leave and let Iran rebuild itself.

Good piece AL. I find this more persuasive than Joe & Tom's pieces earlier this week.

Containment and deterrence is a nasty business - it means, after all, that we're holding 80 million Iranian civilians hostage to their leaders' good behavior - but probably better than the alternatives. It also means that we'll be extending the US nuclear shield (and maybe missile defence tech) to some dubious regimes to prevent further proliferation.

Moreover, we need to be quite public about the "Godfather option". Much like Chirac did this week, we'll have to make public statements about the consequences to Iran should they attack any of their neighbors. And convince them that US forensics is good enough to find the Iranian fingerprints on any terrorist-delivered nukes.

On the other hand, we basically have Iran surrounded with bases & troops, so we're well positioned for containment. We also have a very strong diplomatic coalition at the moment - more like the anti-Saddam coalition in 1992 than in 2003.

So deterrence is not an ideal policy, but probably has less downside than immediate military action. And the end of the day, it all hinges on the question of whether the Iranian leadership is deterrable. There's evidence both ways, but that's the big bet you have to make.

ummm...Tom and Trent, i don't think the goal of the theocracy is to demonstrate capability via a nuke test. unless it is a nuke they have built themselves. and i think they already have purchased and stolen nukes.

i think Ahmadinejad and the mullahs want to have the capability to build a countably infinite number of nukes. i think Ahmadinejad is promising nukes to palestine and syria even now, in return for their support. that is what breaking the seals is about.

so, we have some time.
and maybe some of Armed's strategies could work.

AL -- you are missing the big issues.

As of now, the big nuclear powers (US, China, Russia) hold a qualitative edge over everyone else, in wars where central issues of national existence are at stake they cannot lose. Because they have nukes and plenty of them and others don't. THAT is what separates a major power from an also ran.

Iran possessing even moderate amounts of nukes is a signal for Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and other countries to develop nuclear weapons. Perhaps also Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Point being there is a deal to be made, to protect the value of the nuclear club (it becomes less valuable the more nations are in it). The political plus of crushing Iran and keeping the NPT regime in place by brutal force by the united political efforts of China, Russia, and the US outweighs other costs. Because it deters nations from challenging that Troika. The Muslim world will be outraged, but they already are anyway, so what. Burn a few flags, trash a few (closed) embassies, no big deal.

Otherwise we are at a point where not just Iran but Egypt, Saudi, Kuwait, Turkey, Algeria, and perhaps Italy, Croatia, Serbia, Greece, and other vulnerable Mediterranean nations get nukes to achieve deterrence from neighboring Muslim nations. Once Iran gets nukes EVERYONE will want them too. Which means they will get used.

China can be brought on board because Iran's nukes will only provoke Indonesia and Malaysia and Thailand and Vietnam to get them also and push back against China on territorial and political issues with a nuclear shield. The same works for Russia. Imagine Castro with nukes making claims on US territory. Say southern Florida. Or Morocco suddenly demanding most of Spain fall to it's rule?

Jim, the second the Russian and Chinese troop carriers start warming up their engines, the equation changes completely.

Right now the only ones gassed to go have stars and stripes on the wings; that's a different solution than the one you present.

A.L.

There is no "then what?" The reasons for invading Iran and destroying the theocracy there are to destroy the immediate threat and to dishearten Islamic ambitions for world dominance in the foreseeable future.

The likes and dislikes or the Islamic world should be irrelevant. We need to impart the message of what it means to kill us strongly enough. What would be more prudent: destroying those parts of the Islamic world that hate us, or saying "nice doggie" while brandishing a stick the canine knows we are not going to use? What message will that send to those parts of the Islamic world that hate us? I would say that the dog would conclude (actually already has concluded) that it's master is a scared master. Would killing off the bad parts of the Islamic world send a message of hope to the rare good parts of the Islamic world, as a secondary consequence? Contrary to popular belief, there is a breaking point for all ideologies, but it requires crushing the ideological center, in this case, Iran. The dedicated Nazis where as fanatical as they come, but when its spirit was broken, i.e., they had a direct perceptual experience of what their ideology meant to them on a personal level, they melted away. No amount of clever air strikes or special operations would have accomplished this. Massive use of force did. This is what is necessary to solve the wider problem of the Islamic threat.

The Iranian opposition to the mullahs is considerable and more civilized than its counterpart in Iraq. But they have not acted yet and we cannot wait for them to act on our behalf. They could surely be part of what comes after the mullahs, but they should be not our main focus, nor our main hope. Nor can we allow their presence in the target country affect our tactics or strategy (see below).

This is war, a war already declared by Iran, and war is collateral damage. War is killing innocents. War is defeating the enemy in the most unambigous terms. Remember the lessons of WWI. The Germans were allowed to walk away with the sense that "maybe, next time." The result was WWII. War is not, repeat not, about imparting democracy to others. Instead the choices are on the primal level: their innocents or ours, our lives or theirs. If we can't make those primal choices, the Iranian mullahs will be happy to choose for us, sooner or later, in some form or another. They have since 1979 actually, only now, they will soon be able to enforce their desires on a global scale.

On June 6, 1944, about 10,000 French civilians died due to Allied bombings. On that day alone. By today's standards (shared by virtually everyone), such an amount of collateral damage would have precluded that component of the operation, thereby resulting in incalculaby more allied deaths. The ferocious beach battle in Saving Private Ryan was a result of almost all the preparatory bombing missing its targets. I'm not talking technology. I'm talking about the will to win, or rather, the will to do what is necessary to win. Again, war involves making a couple of (most often unstated) primal choices. In "13 Days", the drama-documentary about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the then-former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, said about the situation, "Sometimes there is only one choice and you thank God when it so clear." To which I in principle, as an atheist say with the greatest of fervour: Amen. Let's roll!

I have opinions on what should be done, but at this stage, it likely isn't worth the bits. What interests me right now is what will happen, not what should.

The UN/IAEA diplomatic escalation is set to inevitably humiliate someone. Who will it be?

Any determined action against Iran which has even a hope or prayer of influencing any of the players in that regime will inevitably take 4 million barrels of oil a day off the world market for some substantial period of time. Given that spare capacity in the world right now is only 1.5 million barrels, the price of oil will spike and I've seen numbers in excess of $100 a barrel. The truth is nobody knows what will happen when demand well and truly exceeds production capacity for any length of time. This will inevitably cause a worldwide recession - every industrial economy will be affected, regardless of which nations are more or less dependent on imported oil - this is due to the highly coupled nature of the world economy.

There is no political will in the industrial nations to take any actions along these lines right now. The United States, if it were to implement any variant of Joe's Operation Desert Locust, would be an international pariah - not due to the ascendance of Transi moonbatism, but simply due to the fact that we cratered the world economy. Ditto for UNSC sanctions which successfully effected an embargo against Iranian oil. I doubt this would happen and Ahmedinajad might take his oil off the market for a few days just to give us a taste of things to come.

While I agree with Marc that America is risibly overdue for a policy of energy independence, I would suggest that the possibility of true independence lies in the past, not the future. As I mentioned above, the global nature of the economy is such that every nation would have to be independent of foreign oil (at least to the point of world demand being substantially lower, such that "friendly" regimes such as the Saudis (?!) could take up the slack in case of crisis, as they had done in past crisis.)

In agree with the basic Stratfor premise that Ahmedinajad 's game is intra-Islamic prestige. As such anything that causes him to lose face might cripple him, and anything he could portray as a victory will solidify his power. This is why the current diplomatic game may be a bad strategy - since the industrial world has no collective will to deprive Iran of its oil weapon, the diplomatic path will eventually lead to a climbdown by the West and a victory for Ahmedinajad . At that point any hope of removing him will be gone.

It gets worse. Any threat to use sanctions or destroy oil facilities will need to be credible if they are to be effective. If they are credible to Ahmedinajad , they will be credible to the markets. You will know when the US, France, Israel et al really mean business when there is a worldwide market crash. Anyone who argues that Iranian oil will be coming off the market any time soon, I have one question for: you've sold all your equities, right?

It's not just the Democratic party or the CIA that has "gone Tharn". It's the entire industrialized world. Don't believe me? Stay up and watch "Worldwide Exchange" on CNBC next week. We are all caught short and screwed, and we know it.

Of course, it's late and I'm likely missing something. What?

A.L. wrote:

To the regime, our unwillingness to allow Iran to become a state locus for a worldwide Islamist movement...

Elegant words can sometimes obstruct clear thinking, and this is an example. Unwillingness> means... what? A nuclear Iran is going to pursue its foreign policy, and with increased vigor. More shaped charges and agents across the border to Iraq. More support for Hezbollah, and boatloads of plastique to Gaza. Sanctuary for al-Qaeda leaders. Marine barracks exploded. Oil revenues devoted to Islamist subversion. Etc.

Finish this phrase: "Because the U.S. is unwilling to allow the Iranians to take these foreign policy initiatives, we are going to ______ ." Since this sentence has no ending, A.L.'s original sentence cannot have the meaning that A.L. thinks it has.

#24 lew14y:

> Of course, it's late and I'm likely missing something. What?

The obvious point. What will happen will be shaped by our choices and actions. Or the choices and actions of the Iranian madmen. What do we want to happen? What we want to happen is another way of saying what we consider should happen. I see no split between those in terms of setting or goals and actions.

There's no gainsaying that the economy will be very much affected by an attack on Iran. But precisely how will the economy be affected by a nuclear attack?

1) The direct destruction and losses in terms of human lives, material, infrastructure, etc.

2) The incalculable loss once the realization sinks in that we have failed in defending ourselves against a danger we saw coming. Try to compute the long-term economic consequences once that sinks in with the market, increased costs due to security concerns as mentioned in Thomas Holsinger's article. If it happened once it can happen twice. And again. Long-range economic planning will not be the same as before. There'd be the x-factor of seeing all your efforts being vaporized in a microsecond to consider.

3) The effects on US policy, domestic and foreign. What will be the reaction? Introverted regression a la Leftist defeatism? Calls for a strongman to ride the US through the storm and punish the evil-doers? Something in between? Again, as mentioned above, what will the effects inside the US be? Will the widespread demands for security measures be such that they will mean a de facto death blow to the uniquely American freedoms?

I can't see how "the economy will be very severely hit" outweighs even the possibility of any of the enumerated effects above? Tell me I'm wrong.

#24 lew14y:

> Of course, it's late and I'm likely missing something. What?

What will happen will be shaped by our choices and actions. Or the choices and actions of the Iranian madmen. What do we want to happen? What we want to happen is another way of saying what we consider should happen. I see no split between those in terms of setting or goals and actions. Now, I agree with many here that Bush will not do the right thing, invading Iran. But people nevertheless have to be convinced of what is necessary.

There's no gainsaying that the economy will be very much affected by an attack on Iran. But precisely how will the economy and the rest be affected by a nuclear attack?

1) The enormous direct destruction and losses in terms of human lives, material, infrastructure, etc.

2) The incalculable loss once the realization sinks in that we have failed in defending ourselves against a danger we saw coming. Try to compute the long-term economic consequences once that sinks in with the market, for instance in increased costs due to security concerns as mentioned in Thomas Holsinger's article. If it happened once it can happen twice. And again. Long-range economic planning will not be the same as before. There'd be the x-factor of seeing all your efforts being vaporized in a microsecond to consider. What will happen to places like NYC? I mean they are primary targets but let's say NYC is not the first city to be hit? If it happened once it can happen twice. The Big Apple won't be the same is my guess.

3) The effects on US policy, domestic and foreign. What will be the reaction? Introverted regression a la Leftist defeatism? Calls for a strongman to ride the US through the storm and punish the evil-doers? Something in between? Again, as mentioned above, what will the effects inside the US be? Will the widespread demands for security measures be such that they will mean a de facto death blow to the uniquely American freedoms?

I can't see how "the economy will be very severely hit" outweighs even the possibility of any of the enumerated effects above? The economy will be severly hit regardless. Tough. Do we want to stay on top of this or do we hand the ball to "hey I have a halo around my head" Ahmajinedad?

Here's what I don't get: How can people argue, so seemingly blithely, that "if it happens we will deal with it then."?

1: If in 1979 the soviet embassy had been taken hostage instead of the US embassy, Tehran would have been glass .... paraphrase of a senior Soviet of that time interviewed recently AFAICR Defence Minister or equivalent.

2: The Islamic armageddon-seekers do not respect us or our willingness to fight or die and their worst-case-scenario is paradise and 72 virgins multiplied over millions vaporized by our nukes. THEY DO NOT CONSIDER THAT TO BE A NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE. (you cannot usefully threated or scare someone who honestly believes that the worst you can do is send him to paradise. Worse, you encourage Amadinijad because he believes armageddon is a necessary precondition for the return of the Mahdi(Messiah) and he personally wants to be the agent-of-change to bring the Mahdi back)

3: Look up the concept of "taqiyyah" = "religiously mandated strategic deception" ... Muslims (especially Shia) cannot be trusted regarding truthfulness when speaking to unbelievers / infidels (us).

4: When even France is prepping themselves for nuclear strikes (and making sure the CdG's propellor is firmly on this time) I think it is safe to say that the world has an agreen consensus that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. What do we do ... take the above time frames and extrapolate:

a: 3 years ... not too bad, they have nothing ready and are still far down even on basics, stopping them here is actually best ... turn off their lights and shut down their oil economy (+ gasoline imports) and sit offshore repeating as needed while we pull a Serbia ... irritate the population into an uprising.

b: 1 year ... very bad ... even if we delete every physical thing they have, they have the knowledge, designs and plans on CDs copied in thousands of places, and can rebuild hardware in relatively little time. Once soneone is at the one-year mark, getting back there from ZERO may take only a year or two and is trivially exportable (AQKhan).

c: 3 Months ... too late ... warm up the SSBNs ... no matter what we demolish at this stage, they can have reserves of nuclear material to continue assembly when and where they choose.

d: pre-purchased from Pakistan or NK ... Iran would start prepping for war, like clearing out their bank accounts in Europe, making a pre-emptive explanation of why they need to cleanse the world of filthy-israeli-sons-of-pigs, give a non-specific countdown warning the rest of the world to take the jews out of Palestine or they'll let the Light-of-Allah out of its U-235 genie-bottle to remove the jews we should not have ... etc etc etc

Tellingly, France is warming up the SSBNs.

Here is my solution that Just_Might_Work:
The US makes the following deal with the UNSC:
The USAF and USN will demolish Iranian military infrastructure and internal electrical capacity, theoretically stopping further reprocessing, in return, China sends in the PLA as "peacekeepers" and takes over all future responsibility for keeping Iran nuclear-free and in return may take ALL of Iran's oil ... forever. Russia gets the rebuilding contracts to clean up the internal infrastructure we knocked down and maybe build some new nuclear power stations, which we own't worry about since China's newest province will not be threatening anyone ever again, and nor will China be lacking for oil anytime soon. The US wil make arrangements for the Afghans and the 'Stans to allow an oil pipeline from Iran to China.

... Everybody's happy, especially the Russians who will now not have China breathing down their neck to steal Siberia's oil reserves.

If we are just willing to "give" a little, everyone except the Iranian people will be happy. I think the West would prefer a deal with the Chinese PLA we know rather than the "Twelver" Amadinijehad we would rather we didn't know quite so well. (I think we were far more comfortable before the recent several months of Amadinijehad's suggesting "solutions" to the "Israel problem")

Sorry for the double post.

I've seen a couple of suggestions that we let the Chinese occupy Iran and take their oil, as part of the price for getting the UNSC to let us knock down Iran without screeching. This has two problems, even assuming the Chinese aren't inherently opposed to doing that.

The first is, there will still be lots of screeching. Anyone who believes that the only thing that made Iraq so noisy from the "anti-war" side and Europe was lack of UNSC backing simply .... Well, let's just say I have a lovely bridge to sell you. Let's talk. Just the fact that we let China in on it like that, well how could we be so low and cynical as to bribe a totalitarian dictatorship with oil like that? Clearly are motives are not pure! And why Iran and not North Korea? That's the real threat!

Anyway, the second problem is that the Chinese don't have the logistical capability to occupy Iran, if there is any existence at all, and there would be. In fact, only the US has the logistical ability to occupy a nation that size. France and England could work with smaller nations (like Ivory Coast) with their current militaries. China could occupy something close like Viet Nam (probably) or Taiwan, though there would still be major issues for them in doing either.

So it is not a very workable solution, really.

Sarnac (#28):

I think you might be on to something...

Iran's oil fields could be enough of an offering to China to perhaps ask them to make changes we've been pushing on them in the last decades, most notably on human rights issues.

They (China) would offer the confirmation of security and the elimination of Iran as a problem on the world stage for good, making the Middle East situation a lot clearer (Syria and Palestinian movement would be significantly weakened by a non-supportive Iran).

We would request, very simply, a promise of basic human rights to Iranians and possibly all Chinese. China could be willing to agree to such a demand when such loot (Iran) on the table. Awarding the human rights increases their credibility on the world and economic stages, effectively breaking down the last wall holding back full industrial trade with China.

Worst case scenario, the Iranians revolt against the Chinese. A revolution couldn't put anyone worse in power than Ahmadinejad anyway, and the enemies of the Iranian people are no longer West, but East...

Now, the Middle East is easier to solve, with Iran and Iraq out of the way.

North Korea, anyone?

Oh, and awarding China Iran's oil isn't Economic Superpower Suicide, because within 20 years, with an alternative fuel breakthrough, oil will be a less marketable fuel, like coal. So, hand in hand with the Iran-o-China policy would be an Manhattan project-style (without the secrecy) alternative fuel program buildup, with subsidies and research grants for anyone growing biodiesel or interested in building a hydrogen station.

This is a much better "ends justify the means" scenario than the others proposed. Glassifying Iran (or invading with Americans) because they could attack us just makes us a larger target to more Iranians who lost family members. Let China do our dirty work.

And who says we need to go through the UN? The US acted unilaterally, in what could be viewed as an Iraqi takeover "wolf" in regime change "sheep's clothing". Let China act unilaterally to protect their assets and secure the nuclear program. The international community doesn't expect us to stop them, does it? ;)

Jeff's opening paragraphs of his comments in #18 above are important to consider more fully (the "first" and "second" questions).

Apropos of these, what I'd like to know before considering military actions against Iran is, simply put:

What has changed between August 2, 2005 and now that makes Iran a more iminent threat to regional and national security?

This is when an NIE analysis came out that put Iran's nuclear bomb capability at 10 years hence.

America is risibly overdue for a policy of energy independence...

And Iran has a plan to help us out there. We won’t have much need for any foreign oil when our electric grid is gone and most of the vehicles in the country are disabled.

Iran Tests Suggest Possible EMP Trials

I would argue that this will be their first strike, not Israel. If you agree that any civilization is just a few meals away from barbarism, then you can easily imagine how our civilization would break down in a matter of days in this scenario. If you only have a bomb or two this is by far the most effective use.

Given that the range of the Shahab-3 is about 850 – 900 miles, launching from freighters off the east coast (and possibly the west coast simultaneously) is a given in this scenario. As opposed to the 30 minute warning we expect with an ICBM launched from the other side of the world, the warning time here would be a matter of minutes. There is very little chance of an interception. Assuming their missile and warhead perform, it’s a slam dunk.

How far the EMP is effective will likely remain a question until it happens. Could it affect the entire country? Doesn’t really matter as “75 percent of the total U.S. population of 290 million people and 75 percent of its military bases are within 200 miles of the coast”.

We would retain a nuclear response. Many silos are in the center of the country and they are built to survive a first strike anyway, including EMP effects. Besides, there are always the boomers.

But would we retaliate? If there was no direct loss of life due to the attack it might be a tough case to make.

Another alternative would be to launch on Israel at the same time. That would alleviate the need for the US to respond – as noted there would not be much of the ME left and any missiles we fired would likely be redundant.

AL – it’s a good thing the A stands for armed. Imagine this scenario: no power, no electronics, no transportation beyond the bicycle or a horse, roving gangs of people looting and burning what they want to stay warm. Katrina on a national level.

We have got to take preemptive action.

A lot of just plain silliness here.

Now we are taking over Iran, and divide up it's resources to tweak other countries into doing what we want.

But what you arm chair Sec's. of State are missing is pretty obvious to those who've actually travelled outside the county they were born in.

You think Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia and all the other major oil producers are just going to watch from the sidelines?

Do you think Great Britian, Turkey, Poland and Italy are going to go along with this idiotic folly?

I swear, I read these comments from what can only be described as a mouth breather circle jerk and I come to realize something.

I good deal of my fellow citizens really are bat shit crazy.

Davebo,

You don't offer any other options. I hate that.

First, the China takeover would be acceptable to the security council nations because it is a non-nuclear solution to a seriously nuclear problem. You think France WANTS to fight??

And not that Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria's opinion really matters, but they would applaud the move - you are taking Iran's 4 million barrels off the table.

I've gotta get back to my circle jerk.

Signed,

Batshit Crazy Armchair Condi Rice

First, the China takeover would be acceptable to the security council nations because it is a non-nuclear solution to a seriously nuclear problem.

Hilarious. Another minor problem you haven't considered is that such a move wouldn't be acceptable to the US population, much less the Sec. Council.

There's a trait among most Americans that upholds fairness and can conceive of empathy.

And not that Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria's opinion really matters

Their decision to fill the void left in Europe and elsewhere certainly does matter.

But hey, do keep "thinking this through". It's a fascinating thing to watch.

Andy (#33) - Was that anything like the 1962 NIE analysis that said there were no missiles in Cuba? Just curious.

As for Davebo, he never offers any options unless the discussion is focused on Republicans. That's the only threat he knows, or is interested in discussing.

He's right with his last sentence, though. Probably a lot more right than he knows.

Jeff Medcalf (#18), on the other hand, by noting the critical role time horizon views play into the way each of us sees this, has actually done something to substantially move the discussion forward. Thanks, Jeff.

I'm not sure I understand your points. Let me rephrase a few of mine:

What if China said tomorrow that they have decided to indefinetly invade Iran? Would we stop try to stop them?

SO - it doesn't matter what the American people, however empathetic and fair (cough..bullshit...cough) we may be, think. The people wouldn't support a head-on fight with China over Iran, especially when the pundits and papers explain that Iran-o-China serves our foreign interests anyway. It has a Cold War vibe, but we set it up from the beginning anyway! Now we can continue the Military/Industrial Complex with China starring in the role of USSR and go back to the way things were. I'm going to go find my Rubik's Cube.

The human rights deal is wishful thinking. I'll take the China solution with all deals off too.

Regarding Mexico and friends, I don't understand your point above.

"Their decision to fill the void left in Europe and elsewhere certainly does matter."

Yea, it means more money for them, as they can raise production (or prices). 4 dollars a gallon is a small price to pay for non-nuclear proliferation. It would propel the alternative fuel movement anyway.

Signed,

Batshit Crazy Armchair Colin Powell

Ah Joe, ever the complainer. You whine that I offer no alternative options.

So lets get this straight. You are looking for a constructive alternative to invading Iran and then turning it over to China.

That about sum it up feller?

Republicans arent the threat here Joe. Whacked out folks that suggest such actions are a problem however.

And even more of a problem are folks like you who, though you know these folks are crazy, play kissy with them for reasons I can't fathom.

And the most precious part?

Andy (#33) - Was that anything like the 1962 NIE analysis that said there were no missiles in Cuba? Just curious.

Suddenly Joe has questions about the veracity of US intel.

Check out the archives and see how that little trend emerged.

Out.

But Joe, if you seriously want to hear actual reasonable alternatives to some of the more ludicrous plans offered here by all means read this .

From actual Iranian exiles.

The real ones ya know, not those Iranian exiles who curiously have no problem going in and out of Iran as they please.

Or italians for that matter...