Please note those estimates of 16 days, 271 days and 13 years all presume unenriched uranium feed stocks. As I have pointed out in Count Down to Iran’s Nuclear Test Revisited that is not a given. A capabilities based analysis of the Iranian's INTERNATIONAL nuclear program would assume that the Iranians would be using pre-enriched uranium from foreign sources in domestic centrifuges.

Problem is, those centrifuges dont exist yet.

"Iran has announced plans to install 3,000 centrifuges at its plant in Natanz by the end of 2006; according to former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright, that many working centrifuges could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

Which is of course well shy of 50,000. Iran can produce enough enriched uranium in 16 days- once those centrifuges exist. Which will take a minimum of 3 years. It might also be noted that the IAEA visited the site as late as 2005, where it was estimated the 50k centrifuges couldnt be ready until 2010. Unless Iran somehow built 49,000 centrifuges in a year, this story is misleading and alarming in the extreme.

Telenko;

Are you hoping for a nuclear war? Seems like it, with all your false puffery and support of "aggressive" military action against Iran, which for this administration includes the use of "tactical" nukes in a first strike againt them.

You must be a cockroach confident in your ability to survive the conflagration.

The best option is to keep the Iranians on ice until a responsible and capable administration replaces the insane and incompetent Bush/Cheney.

True, Mark. However, Albright's also been quoted as suggesting that Iran did, in fact, have the components for the 3,000 in hand. The cascade of 3,000 would take a little over 6 months to install and produce the HEU in another 4 months or so.

A year or so is certainly better than 16 days but not enough to take any real comfort in or for the shilly-shallying that's going on now. But the 10 years that the Left Blogosphere is rejoicing in this morning sounds as obsolete as an M1 rifle.

Trent, who are you?

That is the first question that comes to my mind when I hear you say 'the time for diplomacy with Iran has come to an end'.

Am I to believe this on your say so?

If you have any credibility then it means war.

And war means a different set of choices lots of people, me included, would make regarding certain transactions in the real world.

So, are you anything other than a hysterical conservative spreading war fever among the baser elements of your audience, like a virus?

Or do you have some standing to speak authoritatively on this subject? Are you to be taken seriously?

'cockroach confident' LOL

That is a great term.

It perfectly explains the bar room bravado of Bush, the irrational beligerance of Cheney, the insectile instincts of Rumsfield, and the pesky petulance of Rice.

They are all 'cockroach confident', LOL.

Ken and Wizener,
Your commentary has descended below the merely vacuous to the offensive. I've hopes that will be remedied by someone.

I agree Dave. With the information we the public have, it seems Iran could be about a year from producing enough enriched uranium for a bomb. Still, that is a significant difference from either having weapons or being within days of having one.

Trent,

Time to take a valium dude.

And perhaps for WOC to reconsider your posting priviledges because frankly you're starting to sound like one of the right's "film critics turned foreign policy experts".

I've hopes that will be remedied by someone.

Yeah, they're starting to sound like those idiots who talk about mobile bioweapons trailers, aluminum tubes, and of course dominoe theories.

Wait, that's wrong. We can't prove these two are lying, they could just have been misled right?

Geez.

SPGR,

What is the problem with the imagery of 'cockroach confidence' in the comments of a post that uses imagery that engulfs us in nuclear war: "Welcome to the nuclear express elevator to hell, going down."?

It is a well established conceit that only the cockroaches will survive an all out nuclear war.

I don't see how anyone could object to using strong imagery in comments after the use of strong imagery has already been introduced by the author of the post.

My hat is off to wizener, 'cockroach confidence' is a strong fresh image that conveys a lot of meaning in a powerfull catchy phrase.

I hope he doesn't mind my use of it.

Davebo,
I understand that if there is to be an elevation of the discussion, you do not wish to participate in that.

SPQR

Here's a clue for you.

There is not way to "elevate" a discussion that begins with "Welcome to the nuclear express elevator to hell, going down."

Now apparantly Trent has crawled back under his bed. I'm sure we can keep the discussion "elevated" even if you joined him.

opps, 'confident', not 'confidence' in the above.

I'll add my agreement to SPQR about the effect that some commenters are having on the level of discourse at this site -- and not just in this thread. Their commentary is largely content-free, usually non-topical, and insulting on a personal level toward other participants.

I know that the level of tolerance from the proprietors for such antics is pretty high (as a moderator I'd never tolerate "if I want anymore lip from [you] I'll just get it from my zipper" -style insults from any commenter), but some commenters here seem to have a singular and overriding goal of driving away thoughtful participants and disrupting all civil conversation.

I apologize for the off-topic comment, but I thought it worthwhile to point out SPQR isn't alone in his observation.

How about a less hysterical discussion about the threat from someone who isn't even a movie critic?

What Greg said..

Ok, so none of this addresses what to do? I don't necessarily agree with the 16 day timeline, but I also don't trust intelligence gathering entities (ours or our allies) to have an accurate count of how many centrifuges they actually have set up. I keep remembering how the Pakistani's had a '10 year timeline' all the way up until they actually detonated a nuclear device and shocked the hell out of the CIA, etc.

The one thing I do agree with is that we do need to something. I can see a few options. First the obvious one: invade/strike/bomb into the Stone Age Iran. That's a huge thorny issue. Even the most hard-line war hawk has to admit that Iran is a much different case than Iraq. No matter how we handle that situation, we're guaranteed to have blowback at home or abroad.

Other options might include bombing flat every electrical generating plant in the country. It's difficult to run 3000-50000 centrifuges with no juice. Downside, massive civilian casualties and extreme hardship for the Iranian population which could end up pushing them into greater support for their crazed leadership. Or we could just take out every oil pumping, transporting, and storage area in the country. These are all located in easily reachable areas in the southern portion of the country. Upside, instant negative cash flow for the aforementioned crazed leadership. Downside, there are LOTS of our allies that depend on that oil. Japan in particular is extremely dependant on imported oil. Are we going to take up the slack for them? It sucks, but it's a fact and one we can't necessarily ignore.

Ok, so if not armed intervention of some sort, then what else? Blockade? While it would be relatively easy (there aren’t all that many routes out of the country to transport their oil that don't involve the Strait of Hormuz. I myself was involved in sheparding oil tankers in and out of there in the late 80's. Upside, no huge loss of life (Iranian or our military). Downside, the countries in that area will freak. Every single oil producing nation either has their oil fields, or more importantly their hugely expensive oil distribution and transportation system within easy reach of potential Iranian attack. Given nothing to lose, the Iranians have said before they have no problem making sure they take out everybody else’s toys in the area. See previous references to messing over our allies.

Sanctions, UN actions? Oh please. Iran has repeatedly told the entire world to f'off, they could care less what the world thinks. And there are jokers in the deck. Pyongyang leaps to mind. Trent pointed out that we're assuming they're starting the centrifuge process from scratch, but N. Korea would be more than happy to supply anything they could to help the process along if there was cash on the barrelhead. And N. K. already knows all about enriching uranium....

Personally, out of the linked article I found the very last line to be the most interesting. I'm referring to the fact that China has finally taken an official stand about the issue and it's not supporting Iran. China wants to be a world player in the worst way. Now, I don't particularly care for the leadership of China (understatement actually), but they have one advantage. People pay attention to them because they have NO compunction about direct military action with the largest hammer they can use.

Now, I'm not suggesting we ask China to invade Iran, but why not try to get them more involved in putting pressure on the country? I don't know that even that would change President "I have a halo around me when speak" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mind, but I'm just fishing for options here.

The one thing I absolutely agree with is that we do need to start laying the ground work to do something now, no matter which direction our leadership decides to head off on. Maybe 16 days is accurate, maybe it's not, but I do know that a nuclear armed and highly irrational Iran isn't in anybody's interest. I'm hoping somebody at the top is paying close attention.

"Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said."

Granting that neither the 3000 machine or 50000 machine cascade exists yet, assuming that its realistic for Iran to get the 3000 centrifuge cascade operational sometime next year, then presumably Iran would certainly have the capacity to build a bomb within 2 years, by which time we much consider whether they would be working on the 50,000 machine cascade.

So based on Trent's data, lets say two years to the first bomb, then accelerating production up to about 20 devices per year within a year or two after that.

Are we all in agreement on that? I didn't see anyone offer a real counter-claim. It seems to me that a nuclear device within 2 years or a nuclear device within a month both could reasonably be described as 'a breakout'. Trent did not make clear what exact time frame he believed was indicated from the post.

I agree that Trent's post is alarmist. Can we all agree on that as well?

It seems to me that the real issue is whether you consider Iranian capacity to produce a nuclear weapon within more than about two years to be something to get alarmed about. Trent's assumptions are not in his data. There seems to be good agreement about the reality of his data. As best as I can tell, Trent's assumptions are:

a) That Iran will build a bomb as soon as they are able, and...
b) That Iran will use a bomb or allow it to fall into the hands of someone who will use it shortly after gaining a sufficient stockpile to constitute a credible deterence.

The question becomes, if you accept those assumptions, is alarm with regard to Iran's nuclear program reasonable? If you do not accept those assumptions, why do you not accept them?

Take for example, Wizener's comment in #3:

"Are you hoping for a nuclear war?"

This completely fails to understand Trent's post because it fails to accept his assumptions. It's quite obvious that Trent is not 'hoping' for a nuclear war. He's already assumed nuclear war is inevitable and the only question is how will it begin. If you think the assumption that nuclear war is inevitable is ridiculous, then address the ridiculousness of that assumption. Attacking Trent's character or even the emotional content of his post is not only pointless, it actually serves to protect Trent's assumptions from any valid criticism.

In the same fashion, Wizener's comment, "You must be a cockroach confident in your ability to survive the conflagration." also completely misses the point. Trent's alarmism is based entirely on the fact that he's not confident of his ability to survive the conflagration. As a side note, Wizener's comment is a classic example of making ad hominem attacks from both sides of the issue. On the one hand, Wizener would have people believe that Trent is being alarmist and 'fear mongering' and at the same time he would have you believe that Trent is 'cockroach confident' and treats the whole affair as some sort of wargame. So which is it, is Trent motivated by fear or motivated by his lack of fear?

Likewise, ken's entire post deals not with Trent's data or not with Trent's assumptions, but is an attack on Trent's authority as a speaker. This is a similarly pointless tactic that only serves to insulate Trent's post from real and substantial criticism.

It's well known that Trent advocates preemptive nuclear strike. That's nothing new. I don't agree with Trent for reasons of my own, but before I go into them let me ask his critics here what they advocate. Criticizing a plan is easy. All plans have weak points. What I would like to hear from the critics is an alternative plan. If you feel that Trent's plan is a bad one, fine. But stick your necks out and tell us definatively what you'd rather do.

Gee Shad, I did apologize for that comment.

But hey, I'll do it again now even though it wasn't directed at anyone commenting now.

As for content, have any of you stopped to wonder why it is that everyone is now slobbering over fears of a potential Iranian nuclear weapon yet you hear near nothing on this blog or others about a much more imminent threat from N. Korea?

There's a reason for this of course, and it has absolutely nothing to do with US security and everything to do with the dreaded EEMESSEMM and a failed presidency.

Personally, out of the linked article I found the very last line to be the most interesting. I'm referring to the fact that China has finally taken an official stand about the issue and it's not supporting Iran. China wants to be a world player in the worst way. Now, I don't particularly care for the leadership of China (understatement actually), but they have one advantage. People pay attention to them because they have NO compunction about direct military action with the largest hammer they can use.

That's a pretty fair summary, celebrim.

Davebo, don't you think it's possible for something to redound to the benefit of the Bush White House and not be fomented solely for that reason? I think the Iranians would have done absolutely everything they've done for the last 25 years regardless of who our presidents were.

Dave,

Of course it's possible, I'd add it's even the most likely scenario.

But the question remains. And I think it's perfectly valid. A country that "might" be within a couple of years of having a nuclear weapon (without a delivery system though) versus a country that most likely already has such weapons and could very well have the delivery system.

Am I a fool for giving more credence to people like David Albright or Anthony Cordesman than I have given Trent here? Because I certainly don't think so.

It's impossible to take the political context out of this issue. Nor is it reasonable to ignore the fact that so many people tossed whatever credibility they might have had out the window over the past 3 years.

Does the phrase "They'd be better off scrapping it all and starting over with a bucket" ring a bell?

The timeline suggested by David Albright (at least as quoted in the New York Times this morning) is between one and two years rather than the 10 years some have latched onto. Check the second page of the article.

I believe preventive war is misguided and morally questionable (although I understand and sympathize with the motivations behind the proposal). And I continue to hope that a more united world community can take some actions short of war that will motivate a change of course by the Iranian regime. But I doubt we can delay any more.

Arguing about Iraq at this point is just an excuse not to think about Iran. We could start with the counteraguments- Libya giving up there nuclear program far more advanced than we thought for instance, but whats the point?

Look, its stipulated that the intel sucks and nobody is going to take Bush or anybody else in the governments word for anything WMD anymore. Thats simple in hindsight, although i dont remember many people arguing that the CIA was totally worthless and should be ignored 4 years ago. There was plenty of disagreement over going to war in Iraq, but i dont recall a major contention being that Saddam simply didnt have a WMD program. Clinton certainly thought he did.

So lets have a look at what we have to deal with now. Iran isnt hiding at least the parts of the program we are talking about. So lets, as Celebrim wisely suggests, start with something we all agree on and go from there.

Within 3 years it is very likely Iran will have the ability to produce nuclear weapons... or will have produced one. Is that tolerable? If not, what are we willing to do about it?

Those questions take the intelligence and Bush out of the debate for the moment- you dont have to trust anyone but what the scientists from Iran and the IAEA agree on.

Dave

I definately agree with your point on China. Not to mention they're having internal troubles of their own right now (darn pesky farmers in Gaungdong Province keep wanting their government to keeps its word and all, sheesh). I'm also pretty sure they are having issues in their western provinces with a fairly significant Islamic population. I was just trying to look at this from every angle that I could to make sure I wasn't missing any options. Realistically, the only reason I could see China involving themselves in this is if they thought it would increase their influence with their neighbors or expand their influences in asia.

As far as a pre-emptive nuclear strike, there's no way I could get behind that. I would never rule out military intervention of some sort, but the fallout (political as well as litteral) for that would be staggering. IMHO the nuclear option shouldn't ever be removed from the table, but it should be the LAST and final option to be exercised.

"But the question remains. And I think it's perfectly valid. A country that "might" be within a couple of years of having a nuclear weapon (without a delivery system though) versus a country that most likely already has such weapons and could very well have the delivery system."

Davebo: Except for the fact that you seem cognizant of the fact that you might have stepped over the line, I'd be inclined to write you off as another troll. I hate responding to trolls. It's a waste of my time and it only encourages them to continue thier anti-social behavior.

So please forgive me for now testing you.

Yes, it is a valid question. Before I answer it though, ask yourself the following question: "Is it valid and reasonable to suggest that Iran and North Korea are not perfect parallels, and that in fact there are institutions and cultures unique to each which might suggest that they would behave differently in different scenarios?"

If your answer is, "Yes.", might it just be possible that Trent - or anyone else for that matter - believes that the proper responce to the North Korean threat differs from the proper responce to the Iranian threat for real and valid, or at least just plausible, reasons?

When you say things like, "There's a reason for this of course, and it has absolutely nothing to do with US security and everything to do with the dreaded EEMESSEMM and a failed presidency.", it tells me far more about you than it does about the people you are disagreeing with. And to be perfectly frank, what it seems to me to imply does not reflect well on you.

ken;

Have at it, mate!

celebrim;

You missed my point. By intentionally provoking a conflict with Iran which may involve the first use of nuclear weapons by any nation since WWII, and the first ever use against a nation that has not directly threatened us, Bush/Cheney are playing a very very dangerous game. Furthermore, in simultaneously ignoring nuclear non-proliferation treaties while demanding that Iran (but not us, or India, e.g.) comply with them, they have been systematically undermining one of the main international safety and security measures that helps make nuclear war less likely.

Hence, their actions, as you see, can easily be interpreted as leading to a nuclear confrontation...A Nuclear War.

It's as if Bush/Cheney are daring the world to use nukes against us in retaliation for their aggression. This to me seems what Telenko is trying to accomplish with his evident fear mongering.

And lack of support for MUCH BETTER port security.

All under the pretense of wanting to "prevent" a nuclear war initiated by Iran, of all nations. What pure and utter foolishness...no one's buying that crap any more.

Within 3 years it is very likely Iran will have the ability to produce nuclear weapons... or will have produced one. Is that tolerable? If not, what are we willing to do about it?

Possibly one more thing to add to that would maybe be "what do we have to gain by waiting to years to deal with the issue as opposed to acting more immediately?"

Folks like Wizener never cease to amaze me. Here we have pre-medievalist theocrats who have been the top supporters and executors of global jihadist terrorism for over 25 years now, openly state the desirability of hastening the end times, have vowed to annihilate another (nuclear-armed) state, and have done everything short of putting up a sign re: their intent to acquire nuclear weapons in order to facilitate all of the aforementioned. A nuclear program that has, note, been going on for over a decade.

The fault? Why, President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. I mean, who else could it be?

To explain this one needs to call a shrink, not a political scientist. It's a perfect example of someone so corrupted by hatred that rational thought is impossible - and easily fits the maxim of "not anti-war, just on the other side." That this should be so via unthinking default rather than conscious policy borders on the ultimate indictment.

One wonders what color the sun is in Wizener's world. Then again, who cares?

My favorite is the non-sequiturs: "Yeh, i'd love to deal with Iran, but how can we with Cheney shooting everybody?"

celibrim, you call Trents post 'alarmist' and then call me to task for questioning his credibility when he declares diplomacy dead? LOL

Do you see the irony?

Like many people who are not pundits I make real world decisions on a daily basis on matters whose outcomes are dependent in part in what goes on in the world. I will be the first to admit that I do not have any standing to declare the death of diplomacy. That is way above my pay grade.

I read research reports every day. The content is divided into objective facts and subjective opinion. The writer is always far more informed about his subject than I am.

In asking for Trents credentials I was just wondering if he is also more informed than I am on the assumption that if he is, then I could use his conclusions to my profit. I think I made that point clear.

On the other hand if he is just fomenting war fever among the baser elements of his readership, that is important to know as well. His success, or failure, in this endeavor could have consequences, if it is part of a general trend.

These are important questions and your dismissal of my questions as a sort of ad hominen attack is quite frankly meaningless.

But, if, on the other hand, you are trying to tell me that this site is a consequent free zone where nothing is to be taken seriously then that would be interesting to know as well. Do people post here just to have a good time blowing hot air?

Just asking.

JK: I've gotten past amazement. I vacilate between pure boredom and disgust.

You could have taken your post much farther.

Iran is a place where the government daily organizes rallies in which thousands chant, "Death to America", but in Wizener's world this never constitutes a direct or explicit threat. Iran is a place where the government regularly promises the destruction of America, yet in Wizener's world its the US which has been and continues to be provocative. In Wizener's world, India has been a major player in the spread of nuclear technology and America has done as much to 'give' the bomb to other nations as Pakistan or North Korea. In Iran, thier President can talk about thier right to nuclear technology, about ushering in the 12th Imman, and about destroying the United States while and yet it is GWB that is 'playing a dangerous game'. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and others can break every sort of international law and openly defy proliferation treaties and it doesn't raise a peep from Wizener, but when the US calls them on it then that is "systematically undermining one of the main international safety and security measures that helps make nuclear war less likely."

There is something inherently racist in this view of the world. I'm reminded of a time I challenged a professor who narrated the Boxer Revolt as if the US had been the central figure in the conflict, and the Boxer Revolt was a inditement of US imperial ambitions instead of my view the Boxer Revolt was fundamentally about China and the US involvement in it was merely as a bit player that found itself utterly inable to shape events in China according to its desires imperial or otherwise. Fundamental to Professor's US centered narrative and all narratives like is the idea that everyone outside the US is mere mindless pawns with no control over thier own destiny. It is the soft racism of low expectations, which suggests that the rest of the world is essentially children or something less than that. Wizener seems to have the idea that fundamentally, it is always about us and that all other actors are fundamentally unimportant. In his world, no one makes any decisions except those that are solely reactions to US actions. If people flock to Iraq and blow up themselves, butchers, hair dressers, school children, and mosques, why this is fundamentally about the decision of GWB and not fundamentally about the decision of those people.

If you believe that the rest of the world is inhabitated by people who are fundamentally children, then sure, you can believe that GWB - in his role as the world's parent - is fundamentally at fault not acting as if the rest of the world were naughty or perhaps merely ignorant or better yet simply disadvantaged children. If the rest of the world were children, perhaps Kerry's seemingly incomprehensible foreign policy would make sense. If the rest of the world is mere children, then sure it becomes reasonable to believe that the world's problems are primarily the result of the European powers being poor parents.

But the truth of the matter is sadly that we are all adults here, and there is nothing like sole responcibility for anything being a mess.

Someone on the radio today made the analogy to a "slow moving cuban missile crisis". It's not perfect, but it works.

Just like in this case, Kennedy was given two choices: give up or attack. He saw both options as potentially devastating. So he went 'outside the box' to find a third option, which succesfully defused the situation.

Bush needs to be finding a third option NOW, while there is still time. Bush has never attempted diplomacy; which will probably fail but is worth the time and energy if there is a chance of preventing the crisis... or even reducing some anti-american sentiment.

There have to be other options out there, but it will require the best this administration has to offer. Anything is better than the two options given here.

celebrim

I haven't taken a "test" in over 10 years so no, please forgive me.

This post of Trent's goes beyond silliness, and yet in it's comments you guys are decrying the lack of constructive debate.

Give me a break.

alchemist writes: "Bush has never attempted diplomacy..."

Why write something that so misrepresents the history of this crisis?

I'm really wondering why one would state this.

There has been a lot of diplomacy in consultation with and led by our allies with respect to Iran. If the comment is meant to be a general comment about the administration beyond this crisis, it is if anything more false, as the Bush administration has demonstrated a great deal of diplomatic efforts, some outstanding in success and others less so, such as the work in building a new relationship to India, the half year or more of work in advance of the Iraq operation, a myriad of bilateral work in support of the global war on terror across the world and more.

Ah, It wouldn't be Amerika without Joe announcing, yet again, that anyone who points out the indisputable is "on the other side".

Brilliant there Joe. I'd say you're within 16 days of a cognitive dissonance breakdown if I thought you were capable of such genuflection.

Objectively pro-Disney.

alchemist writes: "Bush has never attempted diplomacy..."

SPQR writes: "Why write something that so misrepresents the history of this crisis?"

Because, if you don't so misrepresent the history of this crisis, then you have to deal with the statement "The time for diplomacy with Iran has come to an end." as something less than 'silly'. That would appear to be very painful to some readers.

Trent's statement might be wrong, but its not 'silly'. If it were silly, then it would be easy to show how much progress would likely be made by continuing the diplomatic efforts with regard to Iran of the past few years. There has been a notable lack of willingness to produce any such evidence that might be contrary to Trent's 'silly' thesis, and instead alot of time has been spent attacking Trent himself.

The reality is that far Iran has resisted all overtures by the US, the EU, and Russia, and any observer who has witnessed the process has a hard time escaping the conclusion that Iran has only be playing games with all the negoitating partners. Despite Iran's repeated statement that it is 'willing to negoitate', Iran's basic position hasn't even wavered and its program has remained on 'full speed ahead'. Given that that is the reality, it would seem to me that if anyone had any right to call anyone's position 'silly', it would be Trent's right to call 'silly' any claim that a diplomatic solution to the problem was forthcoming.

It may be painful to consider that diplomacy is dead, but as a practical matter diplomacy it would appear not only to be dead but that it was dead on arrival. I await any evidence to the contrary.

Does anyone want to challange the presumption that nuclear weapons are Iran's overriding goal? Can we accept that as a given? Or is there some theoretical combination of carrots and sticks that can supercede that desire?

I ask because i think the conservative, hawk, side doesnt think the UN or most EU nations understand that question or acknowledge it. Thats what breeds suspicion in diplomacy. There is a certain frame of mind with diplomats that every problem has a potential solution- but the truth is that depends entirely on the parties involved. They have no Plan B if diplomacy fails.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that we cant take anyone seriously in this debate on either side that isnt willing to acknowledge they could be wrong, and at least sketch out the worst case scenario and how it would be mitigated if their program is adhered to but their presumptions fail. Im not afraid to say that is a lesson learned from Iraq.

The UN diplomats wont even discuss the posibility of diplomacy failing. They have no Plan B. If Iran's desire for nukes is greater than anything they can offer, they will fail, period. So going back to the original question, are we mostly in agreement that diplomacy will inevitably fail at some point for this exact reason?

Celebrim,

Diplomacy is dead against a regime hell bent on support of terrorism and the destruction of the US and Isreal?

Well, I don't put as much credence in Leeden and the AEI as you do.

Mark had a compelling comment in #38, Davebo.

I noticed that you just kind of skipped right over it, though.

What's the timeline if you are reprocessing the material from old no longer functional ex-USSR suitcase Nukes and Tacticals?

I assume starting with such rich material, Pu or U, it would be a lot shorter than the timelines most here are assuming.

{I am operating on the assumption that Iran got at least 3 tactical nukes in the fall of the USSR. I had that info, in 1997, from a relative who was paid by Uncle since WW-II to follow that stuff. Somebody as an extreme GS level and now in, as he assumed, hell.}

Iran is known to have the components for 3000 centrifuges. That's the ones we know about. 3000 centrifuges can the U-235 for one bomb in 271 days, assuming they start with unenriched uranium hexaflouride gas.

They won't start with unenriched uranium. They have lots of partially enriched stuff - enriched to varying degrees, but none anywhere even near 50%. That we know of.

So the most optimistic thing we can reasonably say is that Iran is at about a year off from producing its first U-235 weapon. A gun-type trigger of the sort used on our World War Two Little Boy nuke in 1945 does not need testing and is sufficiently sturdy and small enough to be fitted on the ballistic missiles Iran is known to have.

This is the best case scenario.

It is far more likely that Iran has acquired, from North Korea, sufficient plutonium for several more complicated (implosion-type) nuclear weapons which, absent testing that we could detect, are not suitable for use on missiles but could be carried today in container cargo boxes or delivered by aircraft.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2014464,00.html

It is also more likely that Iran's uranium enrichment program is more advanced than our best case scenario. IMO they'll have their first U-235 nuclear warheads in 4-5 months. Not one, but several (2-4). With more on the way.

Then they'll test the plutonium nukes they have now. How long after that it will take for them to produce plutonium warheads small and sturdy enough for use on ballistic missiles is beyond my expertise to evalute, but they clearly have advice from North Korean, Pakistani and Chinese technicians and scientists.

Plus Chinese warhead designs. We know that because Libya gave us those when Quadaffi decided to come clean after we invaded Libya. The A.Q. Khan network was the distributor, but he got those from China somehow - either directly or through North Korean cutouts. This is very important. It is convincing evidence that China is intentionally proliferating nuclear weapons technology. We know they started this more than ten years ago.

So the question is what else they've passed on, to who, and whether they've stopped. Are there still Chinese nuclear weapons specialists of Korean ancestry (Manchuria has millions of Koreans) in North Korea? Are any of those in Iran now?

It would be very convenient for North Korea if Iran tests the nukes that North Korea provided.

It is a serious error to assume a best case scenario for Iranian nuclear weapons given China's obvious proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.

And the best case scenario is for the first Iranian nuclear warhead for a missile in about a year.

It is more likely that they have several plutonium implosion type nuclear weapons right now, using the Chinese implosion design we know they have, which are not yet sturdy or small enough to fit on their missiles.

And that a more realistic estimate for Iran having gun-type U-235 missile warheads is six months or a bit less.

That is why I wrote The Case For Invading Iran three months ago.

Johnny,

Here's your answer.

In the long term, if Iran is dead set to aquire nuclear weapons, I believe they will. We can slow their progress through international sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and aerial bombardment, but in the end we can no more prevent them from gaining the required technology than we could prevent India, Pakistan, or N. Korea from doing so.

Now if you agree with this assesment, what steps should the US and the rest of the world take to diminish the threat of a nuclear capable Iran?

Can we all agree that invading and occupying Iran, which is the only way to assure they do not gain nuclear status, is not a reasonable option?

Davebo,

Invasion and occupation is not the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. There is a more certain, thorough, immediate and far less expensive means in terms of casualties and financial cost to us.

You won't like that either.

hey Tom,

If bush decides to use that option, let me know so I can get out of this country ahead of time.

That's an interesting article, Davebo, although CNS isn't the greatest source. The problem with the article, though, is that it doesn't mention the repeated threats from multiple Iranian officials against Israel. And the frequent demonstrations with chants of “Death to America! Death to Israel!” also provide some context.

This might be a good point in the discussion to bring this post to everybody's attention:

http://freedomspeace.bl*gspot.com/2006/04/iranthe-leader-of-islamist-terrorism_12.html

Mark, I'm not sure that nuclear weapons are the Iranian regime's “overriding goal”. More a means to an end, I'd say. I'd say their goals are the survival of the regime and spreading Iran's power and influence. Those are perfectly rational goals their part.

However, our opposition to those goals is perfectly rational, too.

Tom,

I know your optional solution. But given that within 200 years the country could well be inhabitable again aren't you just kicking the can down the road?

Obviously we will have to invade and occupy Iran until such time that we can modify the laws of physics making nuclear fission and fusion impossible.

As best as I can tell, that's a pretty fair timeline, Tom. Add a couple of months to bring the 3,000 centrifuges online and functioning properly. It's a matter of considerable urgency.

Or, said another way, if the UNSC were actually to be taken seriously given Iran's announcement they should be meeting to plan a course of action this moment rather than waiting for the IAEA to submit a report.

Dave

Iran has been threatening Israel ever since there has been an Israel, along with many other countries in the region.

And I would add that CNS isn't a "source" but a distributor. The sources are cited within the article.

That said, you link was very informative. I would just say that, 22 years ago Lybia was the major source if Islamic terrorism in the world (IMO) and despite the recent euphoria over it's pronouncements still can't be trusted. Should Iran be decapitated another group or country will become the leading source of Islamic terror.

Iran has been threatening Israel ever since there has been an Israel, along with many other countries in the region.

Dave

I agree. But there's another distinction between "what we'd love to be capable of doing" and "what we are capable of doing" and I think this is the distinction being missed here.

After Osama threatened, was ignored and 911 resulted... Isn't the lesson to NOT ignore threats?

"Now if you agree with this assesment, what steps should the US and the rest of the world take to diminish the threat of a nuclear capable Iran?"

I dont agree with that assessment necessarilly. I think Iran can be indefinately delayed from producing a nuclear weapon and their ability to deploy one radically minimized. But it would require a bombing campaign at some point to wreck as much equipment, kill as many engineers and scientists, and destroy as much missile infastructure as possible. That would set them back potentially by years. The indefinate part comes with the promise of repeating the process regularly if necessary.

"Can we all agree that invading and occupying Iran, which is the only way to assure they do not gain nuclear status, is not a reasonable option?"

I suppose i agree it is the most certain way to ensure the dont get nukes (although the implication that NK would provide the Mullahs with a working weapon would conceivable extend to handing them off one in hiding or exile). I do agree invasion is not reasonable or viable at this time, or for the forseeable future.

None of our options are good, im pretty sure we all agree on that! My thought is to promote triage- stop the damage from getting worse, buy ourselves time, and search for a better solution or favorable turn of events. The most drastic options are always available, but meanwhile diplomacy has a chance to run its course and theoretically be picked back up at a later date when Iran has been forced to reevaluate it's position. If your cards suck, shuffle the deck.

Since I don't believe that we should either invade or bomb at this point, I don't want to get ahead of myself but I think we're capable of quite a bit with the resources that can currently be brought to bear. For example, targetted bombing or pre-Desert Storm-style bombing to degrade Iranian military capability is certainly within our capability.

We can introduce a blockade.

We can degrade their oil production using special forces.

We could even launch an invasion if we didn't mind leaving the Iraqi people to the tender mercies of the insurgency there (or their own army and national guard).

But, as I say, I think that's getting ahead of ourselves.

If your cards suck, shuffle the deck.

The best line of the day!

In the worst case scenario, should we invade Iran I'll probably be able to get 10k a piece for the two 60's vintage Vespas I just bought!

Just curious Dave.

What would we hope to accomplish with a blockade of the Persian Gulf?

All I can see would be to partially stop their oil exports.

Show of force, demonstration of resolve, reduction of available funds, prevent fuel from coming into the country (Iran doesn't produce all of its own gasoline), eliminate the likelihood of importation of additional centrifuges (or components for making them). And so on.

So as the debate currently stands, our options appear to be:

1. Sit on our hands and wait for regime opponents to become credible.
2. Engage in infrastructure strikes and eat the resulting economic and diplomatic blowback.
3. Invade and occupy, eating the resulting chaos.
4. Wipe them off the map, and become the world's official bad guys.

I would submit that at this juncture, with these options, a year or two with gas at $7 per gallon doesn't sound all that bad.

Are there any other options/ways to shuffle the deck?

Dave, quick question: if part of the benefits of a blockade (didn't catch your reply in time to add that) is to block centrifuge parts, and Tom is correct about Chinese proliferation (which I believe can be agreed), wouldn't that also mean an air blockade? Are we prepared to shoot down incoming third-party jets under that scenario?

That's a two-part question, BA. Yes, it does. But I don't think we are (prepared that is).

We'd certainly do that in any event if we were bombing.

But while I'm engaging in a free flight of fancy let's extend the fantasy a little to include the UNSC (including Russia and China, of course) imposing a full-fledged trade ban on Iran. A blockade would just be enforcement and any third party aircraft shot down, turned back, or grounded would, of course, be renegades.

Dave,

I seriously doubt we could even prevent the importation of gasoline from neighboring countries. But it would definately make the rich folks in Baku much much richer.

That and depending on the reaction of the Saudis, we'd likely end up having to beg Chavez for some slippery stuff. That's not a pleasant thought.

Of course that's an aspect of all of this that hasn't been discussed. Seeing America literally brought to it's knee's without so much as nuclear medicine being applied.

Trent and Joe,

I think it is time to lay a formal warning on Davebo.

Of course that's an aspect of all of this that hasn't been discussed. Seeing America literally brought to it's knee's without so much as nuclear medicine being applied.

Our biggest sources are Canada and Mexico and if Canada and Mexico stop selling to us we've got other problems.

What would happen if the price of oil tripled? I don't know that anyone really knows. The impact would probably differ regionally.

It's possible that nothing much would happen. The price of oil has already tripled over the last six or seven years IIRC.

No need Tom.

Sorry if I somehow offended you're sensibilities by asking how a blockade affects Iran or how cutting off a big chunk of the world's oil supply would affect the global economy.

Later folks and thanks for the discussion.

If we are going to blockade, we might as well bomb right away and get our licks in. Iran is certain to retaliate against a blockade via missiles at least, and hence we will end up with our aircraft over Iran hunting down missile launchers regardless. If force is implemented (and an economic blockade is force) we shouldnt hand the initiative to the Iranians. We should hit them hard and fast and then try to set terms before things really escalate. Probably wont work, but its worth a try.

Once the Iranian nuclear and missile infastructure is hit, they have little left to defend but pride. That will still be a big problem, because they also have little to lose but pride. It is at that point that we would threaten there oil infastructure, not just with blockades but via cutting their pipelines and mining their harbors should they attempt to interdict Gulf oil flow.

Again, this is a last resort once diplomacy has run its course and before Iran can field a nuke- which of course is dicey in itself, but again none of our options are good and assuming the worst is as bad as assuming the best. This plan splits the difference and goes along with the best intelligence estimates available.

Worst case scenario (to follow me own rules) Iran gains a bomb before we act and we are in a similar, if more critical situation as we currently are. We could try to strike and hope to take out the nuke or at least they wont use it (Iran with a bomb is still preferable to Iran with a bomb factory.), or we accept nuclear Iran as fait accompli (and risk all the risks of nuclear Iran), or we invade (creating the largest risk of that bomb being used). Not much differnt than what some are presently assuming.

Tom, I have no intention of warning Davebo. In fact, I don't see what I'd warn him for.

I'll add that Trent like all our authors has invite/disinvite authority for his own posts. If he chooses to exercise it, I'll back him whether or not I agree; that's Winds policy. Seperate issue.

From my own POV, however, Winds is a place of discussion and debate as well as sharing and discovery. Sometimes that debate will be blunt, and that's OK. In fact, I like it that way. Welcome to the big arena - everybody take notes and learn what works, what doesn't, and how to compete. Indeed, I'd say that the return of this capacity via the return of the Public Square in virtual form may be the biggest gift the blogosphere has given to the public at large.

Having said that, let's be clear that our writers and comment regulars have priority here. Their needs/ desires for a quality forum trump the right of any idiot to come here and just spew whatever in a demonstration of Gresham's Law. Clay Shirky has done some fantastic virtaul community analysis in this area, explaining why it's necessary. Or, you could go visit the comments sections at Calpundit or LGF to see for yourself re: the effects of traffic power laws and what happens with a more 'hands off' approach.

The kind of people we've banned like Joseph Mendiola and Tony Foresta (and recently, that JT neo-nazi guy), are a good deal past where Davebo is at. You may find Davebo annoying given his views and debating approach, but frankly that's pretty much your cross to bear. He's not even close to dragging the site down in a big way and that's the key filter I use.

Do not Fear Elbardi is Here weeee wee we w e
“UN nuclear watchdog chief Mohammed ElBaradei said he did not see diversion of nuclear material for weapons purposes, although “the picture is still hazy.”
In the 20 years of the Iranian program, he said, “lots of activities went unreported.” ElBaradei nonetheless said there was "ample time" to solve the crisis by diplomacy. Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said in a joint news conference with ElBaradei in Tehran Thursday that the UN Security Council demand to halt uranium enrichment was not an option. “

Ehhhhh Hazy, ample time ehhh, diplomacy, and the Iranian negotiator said what at a Joint conference right in front of El Bardei. Damm that must be embarrassing.

I hope after the Utter failure of the UN this time around we follow through and just scrap the group. At a bare minimum we better cut all funding to the worthless organization. In my dream world I would like to see all funding cut and re-devoted to a new United Democratic Alliance of nations with like-minded goals and to join you had to meet certain standards of economy, and social government freedom.

By the way did anyone notice the new Human Rights council in the UN was named yeah off the top of my head it was China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, their was even more all known human right violators but what the hell at least they will vote in unison against the real threat those evil US.

un freekin beleivable the world we live in

Mark Bruener: After watching the Cuban embargo and the Iraq embargo and so forth drag on and on without achieving positive results, I've come to the (admittedly bizarre) conclusion that economic embargo's and blockades are less moral than war.

My reasoning is as follows:

1) Embargo's can cause just as much suffering as war. It's just not as obvious and direct as a bomb going off. For example, I don't really doubt that the economic embargo of Iraq could have indirectly caused the death of an additional 500,000 Shia children in Iraq. It's not that the embargo directly prevented medecine or food from reaching these children, its that it marginalized them even further in the eyes of the power brokers in Iraq. Which brings me to the next point...

2) Tyrants do not suffer under embargos. Only the innocent suffer. Embargo or no embargo, nothing prevented Saddam Hussein from enjoying a sumptous lifestyle. There is no level of poverty and misery to which you could have plunged the whole of Iraq to which would have been sufficient to prevent Saddam Hussein from living comfortably. Witness Cuba. Better yet, witness North Korea. Which brings me to the next point...

3) Embargos don't really attack a dictators source of power and authority. A tyrannical regime thrives on scarcity, because it gives the tyrannical regime greater control over who has access to the scarce resources and its this control which is the source of thier power. At best, an economic embargo reduces the absolute power of a regime, but it actually increases the relative power of a regime within its own domain. The lesson here is that tyrants do not care much about thier absolute power, but they care greatly about thier relative power. We can see in places like North Korea that the regime is powerful precisely because North Korea is so impoverished. Time and again when the issue of facism is discussed, I'm reminded of the story woven by Vernor Vinge in 'A Deepness in the Sky'. I'll have to find my copy of it and quote the relevant passage for you, but my basic point is that economic embargos do not actually discomfort fascist tyrants. We in the West keeping hoping in our blind way that by impoverishing the people, in essence punishing them for having a tyrant as thier leader, that we will some how discomfort the tyrants. But as logical as it may seem to a Western person living in a prosperous democratic society that that would occur, in fact after a long emperical trial we've produced absolutely no evidence that that occurs.

4) Economic embargos are a coward's way of conducting war. The attempt to obtain concessions through the 'soft' application of force is I'm convinced less a result of the desire to minimize the sufferings of people of the target country, than it is a desire to avoid shedding ones own blood to obtain that end. It becomes far too easy of a decision, which causes deaths that are far too invisible - more invisible even than those that occur through a bombsight war. Economic embargos are based on the assumption that you indeed do know what is morally right, and indeed you are confident enough in your beliefs to desire to impose them, but that you can't be bothered to make any sacrifices to do anything about it. Some of this might be justifiable if embargoes actually worked, or if in fact the 'soft' application of force was less destructive to the innocent than the 'hard' application of force - but I've about come to the conclusion that the reverse is true. In the hard application of force, its principally those in power which are discomforted simply because the powerless have no military significance. Embargoes reduce the population to living in flea infested holes. Wars alone reduce tyrants to living in flea infested holes. Just because the consequences of embargoes are less politically troubling, and less likely to come home to roost for a politician is no reason to support them and in fact something of the opposite might be true.

None of this is to say that I support doing business with murders, practicioners of genocide, tyrants, thugocracies, kleptocrats, or democides. What I am saying is that if you think an embargo against such is warranted on the grounds of thier immoral behavior, then what is really warranted is a war instead. If you can't stomach a war, don't lie to yourself and say you can stomach an embargo just because deaths from starvation and disease are easier on your disgestion than death do to eviseration and trauma.

Finally, I'd like to say that if North Korea can build a nuclear weapon in the midst of the crushing poverty in that society, then there is no reason at all to suppose that even crushing poverty would itself prevent the Iranians from building a bomb. And that's assuming that the blockade would be in some fashion effective, and based on recent history thier is no reason to imagine that it would.

I generally agree with all that. I dont count on embargo to do much. Thats why air attacks are they key- blockades are probably a better threat than a weapon. Threatening to strike Irans oil infastructure is clever because we can hit pipelines with no collateral damage, but the regime must maintain the pipelines in order to survive. So that is a punishment that does indeed affect the regime.

"Iran has been threatening Israel ever since there has been an Israel, along with many other countries in the region."

Davebo,

They have acted on those statements by supporting Hezbollah's attacks on Israel and Hamas' attacks on Israel. They have also attacked Jewish targets throughout the world such as the bombings of Jewish community centers in Argentina in the1990's.

The fatwa condemning Salman Rushdie and anyone associated with the publishing of the Satanic Verses came from the Iranian ayatollahs. They were unable to kill him but did kill or wound translators in countries as far apart as Norway, Japan, and Italy.

They have also acted on their threats against the United States. This includes supporting the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983; the kidnapping, torture, and in several cases, execution of American hostages in Lebanon; attacks on US shipping and US naval forces during the Iran-Iraq war; the bombing of the US Air Force barracks at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, in 1996; the harboring of many Al-Qaeda and Taliban refugees from Afghanistan since 2001; and substantial financial, materiel, and technical assistance to the anti-US/Coalition forces in Iraq.

The Iranian regime doesn't just "talk the talk" of militant Islam. They also "walk the walk" in their actions.

The weight of evidence over the last 25+ years supports the opinion of Trent T. and Tom H. that the Iranians want nuclear weapons for the purpose of attacking the US and/or our allies either directly or indirectly. They also propose that we deal with the developing Iranian threat by decisive military action now rather than waiting until Iranian nuclear capabilities make decisive action much more costly.

This is a very credible argument, if you accept the premise of implacable Iranian hostility toward the US/Israel/the West and a long-term intent to act on that hostility with any weapons available. Celebrim and Dave Shuler have pointed out that you may disagree with the timing of the actions proposed by Trent/Tom, but you cannot credibly attack the validity of their main argument without first refuting their core premise.

You have attempted to side-step the difficulty in refuting the premise of implacable hostility by Iran’s militant Islamic regime by stating that:

“Should Iran be decapitated another group or country will become the leading source of Islamic terror.”

This statement is correct. Militant Islam is a systemic threat that is not confined to one nation and requires a systemic response. However, it is not a logical argument for not attacking Iran. It is a logical argument for full-scale war against militant Islam until militant Islam has been completely defeated.

Joe,

Note that I had complimented Davebo in another thread, and agreed with him. His response in his post No. 47 in this thread was to claim that I advocate genocidal nuclear attack on Iran.

Either that is acceptable or it isn't. I can live with it either way. You and Trent might not like what happens if it is acceptable.

I will not tolerate such conduct from anyone in the future.

Tom,

I was guessing. I'm sorry if I guessed wrong.

So what was your alternative solution which is "more certain, thorough, immediate and far less expensive in terms of casualties and financial cost to us"?

Joe,

Given what Tom Holsinger said here:

#44 from Tom Holsinger

Invasion and occupation is not the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. There is a more certain, thorough, immediate and far less expensive means in terms of casualties and financial cost to us.

RE: #72, #73& #74

Tom and Trent, genocide is a strong word. I just read Tom to mean nuclear anihilation, which I suppose comes to the same thing, but not as frought with significance.

Like Davebo, I too wonder what he meant then, if it wasn't the use of nuclear weapons.

I've read his comment several times and I don't see any alternative that meets the criteria he lays out except for 'certain', 'thorough', and 'immediate' anihilation by nuclear weapons.

Perhaps he was being a little too strong and didn't really mean what he wrote. But you should not blame Davebo for that.

In your own introductory post Trent you, after all, put nuclear war on the table for discussion.

And note that even Boxing Alciabedes in #58 assumes one of the options presented above his comment is for total nuclear anihilation ("Wipe them off the map, and become the world's official bad guys")

So what else could he have meant? Serious question.

Trent,

Tom and you are the only two playing the "genocide" card here.

I could have been totally wrong. Perhaps Tom didn't mean nuclear strikes at all? But I can't imagine what else he was describing.

Got any ideas cause I sure as hell don't.

Invasion and occupation is not the only way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. There is a more certain, thorough, immediate and far less expensive means in terms of casualties and financial cost to us.

You won't like that either.

Based on previous posts on WOC, I assumed you meant using nuclear weapons too. What did you mean instead?

Again, the problems with sitting on our hands are obvious, and well posted here. What about the problems of a massive air strike in Iran?

The first thing I see happening is the destabilizing of Iraq by Iranian and Shia forces. This will also put us on the bad list in Afghanistan, where the warlords will use popular sentiment to throw us out of the country (thus becoming afghanistan of old).

The next thing I see happening that Musharaf will either have to oppose the United States or be toppeled by mob rebellion in his own country, basically assuring that terrorists will get a hold of a nuclear weapon. If enough anti-US sentiment were generated, it could even cause the falling of nations like Saudi Arabia, which has been predicted for some time.

Basically I see the Bush legacy of 'democracy in the middle east' dissolving over the next 3-5 years, with Taliban-like groups controlling each of these countries, and all squaring their targets on us.

Anyone disagree with that outlook?

On last thought and I'll just check in to see if Tom explains his comment.

How exactly do we sell the world, much less the American people, on the idea that we have to pre-emptively nuke a country because if we don't, they might otherwise aquire nuclear weapons?

Think about the logic behind that one for a second. And then consider trying to co-exist with all the other countries on the planet after making such a decision.

You think cab drivers in Paris are obnoxious now? (and trust me, they are)

I'm familiar with Tom's writings going back 15 years.

When Tom wrote that there were less expensive ways to address the problem of Iran, implying the option of nuclear strikes, it does not take a high degree of familiarity with Tom to realize that he is contrasting his advocacy of an invasion to the option of nuclear strikes, as an argument in favor of invasion.

It is simply neither honest nor adult to misrepresent that Tom is advocating nuclear strikes.

Davebo;

Your post (#77) highlights an important point:

These warmongers have us playing on their turf with this talk about using Nukes pre-emptively against Iran because they might acquire their own weapon/s soon.

Civilized and level-headed folk must prevail in this: This policy is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and against every convention, treaty and law of human rights that has been established to date.

To initiate first-use of nuclear weapons will be THE precipitating event that makes it more likely they will be used again in the future. The barn door will be open.

The Nuclear Club grows larger all the time.

What the rubes here don't realize is that the discussion of attacking Iran, and attacking Iran with Nukes, should be two totally separate considerations.

And what scares most rational peace- and freedom-loving persons is that the Bush adminstration does not seem to get this.

Yes, Joe, that makes them a bigger danger, potentially, than Iran AT THIS VERY MOMENT. Bush is the one with his hand on the Red Button, as it were.

And I really couldn't care less whether you get it or not, in the end. There have been and always will be people like you, Telenko, and Holsinger around to make life hell for everyone else. There's a word for people who are both paranoid and aggressive at the same time: Sociopaths.

I curse the internet for allowing the transmission of your foul thinking, visceral hatred and anger into my living room.

Trent, re: Davebo #47: He said optional... if he had said optimal then I would agree with your reading (and Tom's) that #47 accused Tom of advocating nuclear genocide. As it stands a literal reading of #47 merely accuses Tom of raising the possibility of a nuclear attack against Iran, which is not the same as advocating one.

That said Trent it is your thread and like Joe said, it's your call.

Wizener,

I'd say that as blogs go on the internets, this place is about as rube free as you'll find. And to call folks sociopaths is way way over the top.

Robin, of course Tom was arguing for invasion rather than nuclear strikes. And I never thought otherwise.

A military conflict with Iran has to be on the table, otherwise diplomacy really would be a waste of time.

However, other options do exist. Remember, Iran has only been under US sanctions, which is why only oil companies who create a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands were able to do business there, and why Total has enjoyed a profitable relationship with Iran along with other companies that Iran postively relies on to exploit their oil wealth.

I'm not at all sold on the idea of getting cooperation on complete international sanctions with Iran, but again, it's a tool that we must keep in our arsenal. But to claim that I inferred Tom was seriously suggesting nuclear strikes, and I mean real nuclear strikes, not tactical nukes, is totally wrong.

Davebo #81, you write:

But to claim that I inferred Tom was seriously suggesting nuclear strikes, and I mean real nuclear strikes, not tactical nukes, is totally wrong.

From your comment #47:

But given that within 200 years the country could well be inhabitable again...

A reasonable reading would be that you assumed Tom to be speaking of something more potent than tactical nukes, no?

Re: #71/73... Tom says:

"His response in his post No. 47 in this thread was to claim that I advocate genocidal nuclear attack on Iran.

Either that is acceptable or it isn't. I can live with it either way. You and Trent might not like what happens if it is acceptable."

Trent gave his reply for his own threads, which was to say that it wasn't. So, warning given by one in a position to do so for his own threads.

My reply for Winds as a whole and in my own threads as well is that it is acceptable. Davebo is free to ask about this or even to claim that this is your position, just as he is free to claim that this is mine.

Indeed, Aziz Poonawalla has done precisely that, extrapolating from my gloomy prediction in Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War that my prediction of 10-100 million dead within the next 2 decades was something I sought, rather than something I saw as the result of seismic, long-standing, and ongoing failures on the twin issues of Iran and nuclear non-proliferation.

To which the proper response is a strong defense of what one did in fact say - or my preference, a pointed counterattack that goes right after the deceptiveness of the argument and (rather explicitly) the arguer.

I have no idea whether that counterattack changed Aziz's mind, nor do I really care. Debates are about convincing listeners rather than opponents anyway (as a rule, convincing one's opponent in an ideological debate is a lottery-odds outcome), and I had an airtight case for anyone with basic reading comprehension. I do not think Aziz helped himself by making those charges - and good, that's the way it's supposed to be.

Now, someone who continues to simply repeat such accusations without argument or proof, even after their question/charge is explicitly addressed, might become a matter for the Marshals at some point. Probably (but not exclusively) after third party onlookers begin to complain, which they would here because many of us work to keep the standards high.

But that doesn't seem to be what was going on in this case.

I think the subsequent discussion reveals that we're looking at an honest question/doubt from Davebo, and that a reply of "no, that isn't right, I'm referring to X" is all that's required to allow the discussion to continue. Which it has, and in an interesting and expected twist note comment #82, where Davebo too is being asked for clarification re: what he was alleging.

To my mind, this is the way that things are supposed to work.

I'll add this: as the communicator, the fact that this question is being asked of you might also prompt efforts toward even more clarity in future. Especially if you forsee a larger audience for this debate, and recall that many people would not have any prior knowledge of you under that scenario. If that is what you're aiming for, Davebo's question may have been, in effect, a favour. Unintended, to be sure, but a favour nonetheless.

I wonder what the hell is wrong with some of you all.

Iran is of course extremely close to nuclear weapons, extremely hostile, and has openly declared it will win in a nuclear war against us and Israel.

OF COURSE we should use whatever military power NOW instead of later. Leon Blum was proud that France did nothing in response to the 1936 Re-militarization of the Rhineland. And all that got them was war later, on the worst possible terms. When Germany was strong and France weak.

NPT is a joke. Not worth a roll of used toilet paper. Why not wave a piece of paper and proclaim peace in our time? The technology is there. It's understood and relatively straightforward to achieve. Trying to stop it from spreading is like keeping teens from downloading porn. You have to pick your spots and worry about the true lunatics and dangerous ones, and ignore the Brazils and South Africas which won't be nuking anyone. Repeat after me: NPT is dead, the UN and IAEA worthless, only what America does to deter it's enemies from nuking us matters. Everything else is useless claptrap.

Bottom line is that Wizener and Davebo prefer to trust to the tender mercies and compassion of Ahmadinejad for their own survival, or that of say the people of San Diego. It's not like I've seen anyone on the Left actually believe America is worth defending. The soppy, maudlin "give peace a chance" ideology has so destroyed the Left that it's unable to think ANYTHING is worth defending, from free speech to the nation itself.

Seriously, the Left are more than willing to let Iran nuke us. Which they will as soon as they can.

We have been extraordinarily lucky. Luck is not a strategy.

"Civilized and level-headed folk must prevail in this: This policy is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE and against every convention, treaty and law of human rights that has been established to date."

This statement IMHO is so much twaddle. We live in a world objectively where treaties and human rights laws have no effect whatsoever: ask the relatives of all the people bin Laden or Iran have killed in terror attacks around the world how much a useless piece of paper worked. A set of rules no one follows and never will follow is nothing but claptrap. Wizener as I understand him states Iran will stop it's intentions of killing as many Americans as possible because of ... treaties it never signed and wouldn't honor anyway (the Kaffir is to be fought always). IMHO this betrays an unwillingness to actually defend this country and it's people by killing (some) of our enemies.

Losing San Diego (as an example) in a nuclear attack would REQUIRE us to totally destroy to the point of killing at least half the population of Iran. Otherwise we will be simply nuked by others who see no penalty to be paid. Once we get nuked only a massive strategic level response will prevent it from happening again and again.

I would submit that compared to this scenario of sitting on our behinds and letting Iran attack us because "war is bad for children and living things" an invasion and strike against Iran to destroy the regime is far preferable. Doing nothing inevitably leads to the scenario above because Iran is determined to have war. Thus the only rational choice is to make war on our terms not theirs. Particularly since we can demonstrate our massive conventional strength and make the point ... which would be well observed ... that we took out Saddam AND Iran. The two strongest.

Or we could hold hands and sing Kumbayah.

Jim Rockford #84:

OK, but how about tackling the strongest arguments of the Doubters. Alchemist #74 said:

• What about the problems of a massive air strike in Iran? The first thing I see happening is the destabilizing of Iraq by Iranian and Shia forces. This will also put us on the bad list in Afghanistan, where the warlords will use popular sentiment to throw us out of the country (thus becoming afghanistan of old).

• The next thing I see happening that Musharaf will either have to oppose the United States or be toppeled by mob rebellion in his own country, basically assuring that terrorists will get a hold of a nuclear weapon. If enough anti-US sentiment were generated, it could even cause the falling of nations like Saudi Arabia, which has been predicted for some time.

• Basically I see the Bush legacy of 'democracy in the middle east' dissolving over the next 3-5 years, with Taliban-like groups controlling each of these countries, and all squaring their targets on us.

And buried in his rhetoric, Wizener #84 says

• To initiate first-use of nuclear weapons will be THE precipitating event that makes it more likely they will be used again in the future. The barn door will be open.

In other words, the question isn't "can we delay Iran's production of atom bombs for 5 to 10 years through the use of force?" Because we all know the answer is "yes." The vexing problem is to figure out whether such a policy could be carried out in a way that wouldn't deliver a Pyrric victory--a victory that is too costly to bear.

It would be very bad if a consensus Muslim view solidified around the notion that the US is spearheading an anti-Islam Crusade. A common enemy sufficient to unite Sunni and Shia, mullahs and Wahhibs, moderates, conservatives, and Qutbists. This, of course, is one of AQ's medium-term objectives.

It would be very bad if Pakistan's miserable, corrupt government fell to the ISI, or worse, to the AQ sympathizers and agents that are present throughout that country.

It would be very bad if US-Iran relations spurred nuclear proliferation in other countries.

These and other dark forecasts are likely outcomes of a military solution. So what the hell is wrong with people urging such a course without a full and frank discussion of such problems beforehand? I, unfortunately, don't have the sword that will cut this Gordian knot.

Assume, arguendo, that when all is said and done, invasion is the least worst of some very bad policy options. But if we take that step, our country will pay internationally. And domestically, the people who disagree with this strategy will be joined by the folks who don't follow international affairs closely in cursing the results (high gas prices,etc.) and cursing the people who advocated the strike.

There are enough extreme scenarios flying around here as either vague proposals or extrapolations for confusion to be expected. God knows i've added more than my share. Believe it or not i think this conversation is actually going somewhere, and say what you want about Davebo he is engaging and advancing the conversation. He is certainly not a troll! I suggest we give each other the benefit of the doubt. I will do my best to do so, for one, starting now.

AMac,

There is another side to the destabalization argument.

Consider the prestige the Iranians will gain by defying and humiliating the US by testing a bomb, and using their new status to project terror without fear of reprisal.

Musharraf and Karzai and the Saud's may be victims of mobs who wish to emulate Iran rather than appease the US. Sadr's gangs in Iraq will be emboldened. Our allies in the region will be discredited and Iran may run the board without hardly firing a shot.

Being hated is bad. So is appearing weak. The diplomacy has reached a stage where one party or another will be forced to climb down. All those leaders and countries which you mentioned, and their internal opponents, will be watching closely.

"What about the problems of a massive air strike in Iran?"

These are very good points, and i will try to address them:

"The first thing I see happening is the destabilizing of Iraq by Iranian and Shia forces."

Could well be. But consider that if Iran has this kind of influence in Shiia Iraq, that is an arrow they can sling at their discretion. If we are assuming Iran is enough of an immanent threat to bomb, we must also assume they will use their levers in Iraq at some point, to our detriment. In other words if Iran will play this card sooner or later, perhaps better to do it on our time table than theirs.

"This will also put us on the bad list in Afghanistan, where the warlords will use popular sentiment to throw us out of the country (thus becoming afghanistan of old)."

Afghanistan has a complex relationship with Iran (read- not good). I'm not an expert, but from my understanding Iran could go hang and 90% of Afghanistan either wouldnt realize it or wouldnt care if they did. I think the Middle Eastern nations would be a bigger problem in this regard.

"The next thing I see happening that Musharaf will either have to oppose the United States or be toppeled by mob rebellion in his own country, basically assuring that terrorists will get a hold of a nuclear weapon. "

Well... a lot of things have happened in the last 5 years and this hasnt happened yet. Im not entirely sure Pakistan will be unhappy to see Iran go as a regional powerplayer either.

"Basically I see the Bush legacy of 'democracy in the middle east' dissolving over the next 3-5 years, with Taliban-like groups controlling each of these countries, and all squaring their targets on us."

Plausible. But again, hasnt happened yet, and bombing Iran isnt exactly nuking Mecca. That region of the world has always been a tough neighborhood- but one that respects power more than anything. Slapping down Iran is just as likely to cow the neighborhood as rile them. We invaded and occupied Iraq, and we drew out a number of local jihadis (many are dead). I dont know that a raid on Iran will suddenly push a significant number more over the edge.

Im not discounting the possibility, but i think there are so many other factors involved that stinging Irans nuclear program probably wouldnt bring the roof down on our heads (again, hasnt happened yet).

"The vexing problem is to figure out whether such a policy could be carried out in a way that wouldn't deliver a Pyrric victory--a victory that is too costly to bear."

Exactly, and that is the key question.

"It would be very bad if a consensus Muslim view solidified around the notion that the US is spearheading an anti-Islam Crusade."

As opposed to now? You have to admit, every time we so much as spit in the ME pundits claim this is the final straw that will explode the Muslim world against us. It would seem the Arab street is more complex than that. They seem to be waiting and watching by and large. Letting Iran bully us around cant help our case.

"A common enemy sufficient to unite Sunni and Shia, mullahs and Wahhibs, moderates, conservatives, and Qutbists. This, of course, is one of AQ's medium-term objectives."

Funny way of showing it, murdering Shiia by the bushel. Seems more like AQ is seeking to divide and conquer and hope the West runs when it see's blood flowing. Taking on Iran shows the opposite- that we are in it for the long haul.

"These and other dark forecasts are likely outcomes of a military solution."

Hmm... not sure about that. Plausible, but likely? Which one, all of them? At once?

" I, unfortunately, don't have the sword that will cut this Gordian knot."

Interesting allusion. The knot seems to be Iranian nuclear weapons. Every other issue seems peripheral to that. Destroy the weapons, cut the knot. The perspective on everything changes at that point- the overriding crisis is removed (or delayed)

How come no one speaks of Pakistan? If their internals rage because of our actions, and their nuclear arms fall into a fundementalist government? Or Saudia Arabia - rumoured to have a nuclear base bought from Pakistan?
My local paper prints ALL letters, limited to 200 words. Here's my latest :

Iranian Grand bummer strategy 1

Looks like we’ll attack Iran with a sustained bombing campaign late summer, leaving time to rally around our war-time president at election time. A B2, B52 and cruise missile frenzy. Everything but Army; they‘re busy.

Iran, sitting on a jackpot, is surrounded by nuclear powers. They’re specifically threatened by Bush, who has proved to invade on hearsay - especially if you don’t have nukes.

Radical president Ajamawhatshisface rose to power due to our external threats, neutering internal political movement our direction. The Iranian presidency isn’t powerful, he’s somewhat restrained, but the opposition is just as dedicated to nuclear power.

Most intelligence has Iran 5+ years from a weapon. Their present program is legal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, from which they can legally withdraw. Bush rewards India for not signing, Pakistan for rule-breaking, and punishes legal Iran. Policy based on his attitude.

Our attack will form alliances worldwide to contain us. A Pakistan rebellion or vote gives hard-line fundamentalists a nuclear missile arsenal. Iran gets nuclear arms anyway. Secret nuclear programs proliferate - secret being the only way.

Is it better to have a nuclear armed Iran as a (hopefully) responsible interactive world citizen, or a battered and angry armed Iran?

***** there ya go. PEACE.

Joe,

You are naive.

The calculated misstatement of their opponents postions are a standard tactic of the Freedom of Speech Haters everywhere and it is the first resort of the Left.

It is the first step on the path of demonizing a opponent. Which is the opposite of open, rational and free discussion.

Take for example the following untruth that has been used through out this thread, which I just caught after reading all the comments posted here:

#18 from celebrim

It's well known that Trent advocates preemptive nuclear strike. That's nothing new. I don't agree with Trent for reasons of my own, but before I go into them let me ask his critics here what they advocate. Criticizing a plan is easy. All plans have weak points. What I would like to hear from the critics is an alternative plan. If you feel that Trent's plan is a bad one, fine. But stick your necks out and tell us definitively what you'd rather do.

There are six steps to war using Kennedy's doctrine of Flexible Responce, which the White House has been using pretty religiously.

1. Ask for what you want
2. Have another person ask for what you want.
3. Pay for what you want.
4. Have another person pay for what you want.
5. Threaten to withhold something for what you want.
6. Threaten war.
7. War.

Russia and the EU were step three.

Step three and four are tough because what do you get the terror exporting, neighbor destabilizing, oil rich theocracy that has everything? Maybe Sqval torpedoes? Notice that we didn't get too upset about that technology transfer.

Step five: blockade what? And what if other countries decide that they don't want to honor a blockade?

So now we're down to threats and fighting because there is nothing left, for love nor money. How do people think a nuclear capable Iran will act?

Closing down the Straight of Hormuz? Using Nukes as a strategic umbrella to do anything convetionally that they want? Maybe piracy? Maybe regime destabilization in Saudi Arabia? What if they simply broker the prestige of having nuclear weapons and therefore a strategic equal to the Great Satan? What if they were kingmakers in places like Egypt? There are lots of options that they tried and failed at before they had nukes. Their only options aren't "Nuke Israel," and "Give to Terrorists."

By the way, in terms of Pakistan and North Korea, remeber that that they have handles. Pakistan and North Korea are proxies of China. Strategic decision making has to go through them. So if we want to get some security, we go to China. Remember when Pakistan and India almost went to war again a few years ago? Pakistan said they would use Nukes. India replied they could survive a first strike with enough firepower and infrastructure left to win and have it be worth it? China and Russia cordially "invited" them to a peace summit. Things settled down. North Korea is at step 2. We don't need to go any further, although we are blockading them.

But back to Iran, they've been on blockade for over 20 years. It is no longer effective.

I'm going to reply to Trent and have a bit of a meta-discussion about effective debate. Part of what I hope to do with Winds is foster improved skills among its readers, so kindly bear with me here. If that doesn't interest you, recommend skipping ahead to the next comment.

[ 1 ] RE Trent's: "The calculated misstatement of their opponents postions are a standard tactic of the Freedom of Speech Haters everywhere and it is the first resort of the Left."

Actually, I can find that debating tactic fairly universally, including among some lovers of free speech. The Left does use it more often, and that has been true historically as well as currently. The term "low, dishonest decade" has been justifiably applied to the left in decades long before ours. But this does not remove the need to answer the characterization in argument. Especially since it can also occur via simple misassumption or misunderstanding.

Celebrim has read your pieces that discuss the potential reality of pre-emptive nuclear strikes (especially from Israel - recall that we've disagreed on that subject before), and inferred that you support them or see them as potentially justifiable and good policy in some scenarios. He may not be alone; this is an occupational hazard when delving into such scenarios, just as one advocating abortion rights may be branded as an advocate of baby-murder, or an advocate of euthanasia risks being compared to the Nazis.

And in fact, there are legitimate arguments that say pre-emptive nuclear strikes absent nuclear attack are both justifiable and good policy in some defined situations. The more one is faced with an existential threat, the more evil or indecent one's opponent, and the fewer alternative options there are, the more likely one is to find oneself in a situation where all options are unreasonable and the enemy has forfeited both the presumption of reasonableness and any claim to civilized consideration. Whether this applies to any specific case, and whether nuclear strikes are the "best unreasonable option," are of course a matter for discussion. As is this framework itself. But note that it is a matter for legitimate discussion.

To be somewhat mean all around, the analogy that comes to mind here is the Left's "how dare you question my patriotism!" huffing. The answer "because sometimes it's warranted, and I think it is so in this case, and here's why" forces a debate the Left may not like. To which I say "tant pis (too bad), and note that it's an entirely legitimate debate they may then win or lose on the facts, on skill, or by successfully persuading the audience that the debate itself is irrelevant. Alternatively, one could respond to "how dare you question my patriotism" with "No, I'm not questioning your patriotism and you're just ducking the question." Also fine.

The threat to ban is an overt show of force rather than debate, however, and is thus s