At what point will Arab nations and populations in the region cease to be seethingly ambivalent about American interventionalism in the area and actually be angry enough to publicly denounce and/or attack American forces? We've attacked Iraq and Afghanistan; attacking Iran will definitely make it look like we're trying to take over the Arab world one nation at a time.

I'm not saying we should never have attacked Iraq, or that we should never attack Iran; I'm saying that overtly attacking Iran less than three months after we've attacked Iraq could possibly cause us far more trouble than it could help the Iranian people.

Trent, you're right that there's a clock here, and considerations are at play that trump the wish to see Iran's democracy develop from within. I have no idea what possessed Rafsanjani to issue the threats he did, buit there's a Russian saying that "once a word is out of your mouth, you cannot swallow it again." Even without 9/11, the moment he said those things he made ending Iran's nuclear program a top priority for any sensible international players. If the Iranian regime won't leave and won't bend, then there's only one option left and that's force. That may even be what the mullahs hope for, but it can't be helped.

At the same time, ground invasion is not the only military option. It all comes down to the quality of intelligence - is it good enough, and are the key locations vulnerable to air strikes and such? Retaliation isn't much of a concern; given that the Iranians' ability to undertake offensive operations is limited, the NG heavy divisions may not be necessary.

As you pointed out in your "Ground Troop Shortage" article, however, this activation may be justified for other reasons. It's all a military and intelligence judgment. As is the state of Iran's nuclear program. But the need to make some hard decisions is certain, even with incomplete information.

This is not a situation where the USA can afford to be wrong.

Let's be very sure. Ground invasion will take too much time to get the forces in place. We need to deal an overwhelming nuclear blow to Iran now. We wouldn't need to destroy the whole country. Tehran, and the nuclear facilities alone would both remove the nuclear threat and the command and control.

This will really make the Arab world sit up and take notice. It will also put North Korea on notice.

Joe,

The problem isn't the WMD, it is the regime behind them. Irrational regimes become more irrational under pressure. And there is a great deal of pressure in Iran right now even if we do nothing.

If we are going to strike the Iranian Mullahocracy, then the blow must be mortal and that blow must be in the next three years, before the Iranians develope a nuclear tipped IRBM.

The only way to change the regime is on the ground with troops.

The only other alternative to kill the regime is with the genocidal use of nukes. I want to avoid doing that in the war on Terrorism until all the other options have been tried first.

Those who try and avoid a conventional ground war to overthrow the Mullah's make a nuclear war with them inevitable. That is the logic of nuclear preemption when you are dealing with an irrational regime.

The problem is the regime AND the WMDs. Britain has the WMDs. No problem. An Iranian regime with no nuclear program? Just wait for the revolution. It's both, together, at once.

IF you believe the regime is destined to lose its struggle with the people eventually, AND you believe that there are ways short of invasion to derail their niuclear program for a while, then those measures are an acceptable response that buys time for the revolution.

If one believes that the Iranian regime can maintain itself indefinitely, however, then yes, invasion or annihilation are the only serious options left after Rafsanjani's threats (the outcome of which would be a big heap of radioactive glass where the Arab world, Iran, and Israel used to be).

Obviously, my vote in that dark scenario would be for either invasion or a strong program of armed subversion (basically guerilla war or coup) backed by the threat and real possibility of full scale invasion.

Given that I do believe the Iranian regime will lose its fight with its own people, however, and that its decline is terminal, the question then hinges on: do we have the intelligence and the capability to put Iran's nuclear program back to square one without using nukes?

Kenneth--

Iran is part of the Arab world?

Who knew?

I agree with Trent.

As wonderful as a homegrown rebellion - completely instigated, carried out and completed by Iranian civilians and any allies they can scrounge - would be, we may begin to see the prospect fading away into wishful thinking.

In that respect, I fear that modernity has finally galvanized any and all established dictatorships into having the ability to indefinitely quell dissent with globally acquired resources and technological advantages. Perhaps we didn't learn the right lessons from Tiananmen.

I've said before: no judicious man wants war; but then, no judicious man will forego the option when more lives will be lost as a consequence of not taking up arms.

Joe,

As a terrorist supporting regime that has run attacks on the USA for decades, Iran is on the list. As a state getting both IRBMs and WMD (nukes, bugs and gas) it is in the "Axis of Evil."

Tyrannies survive unless they are killed or there is a collapse of will at the center. The Mullahs have proven they have the will to maintain power, at least for a little while longer.

The timing of our action against them is predicated upon thier capabilities and not their intent because they are irrational to begin with by definition. That they might fall eventually is irrelevant beside their capability to pass WMD to terrorists going after us.

The failure of the July 9th movement means we don't have the luxuary to wait for events. We must act and to act decisively later means we have to activate the National Guard heavy divisions now.

trent, a ground invasion takes time. it may be needed at some point, but it would take such a long amount of time to line up the political will and the military preparations that it is not the immediate solution you make it out to be. i understand your desperate desire to have a stronger military position than we do, but our troops are not just pieces on a game board. our actions have implications for our troops, our domestic politics, and our international strategy. attacking iraq against "international opinion" was a good thing. it shook things up. attacking iran may indeed be needed, but we cannot do it yet. there is too much strain, too much war fatigue at risk. what exactly makes you think the administration could even succeed at getting authorization for a ground war against iran so soon after the battle over iraq?

of course the iranian people need more support than just words, but lets not overextend ourself and believe we are capable of things that we are not.

i really should be a little more awake before i comment. otherwise i would have noticed that you yourself gave the perfect words for why we cannot yet attack iran:

"The timing of our action against them is predicated upon thier capabilities and not their intent"

you just got one thing wrong.

the timing of our action against them is predicated upon our capabilities and not only our intent.

Rand: Perhaps not, but do you not think that the Arabic world identifies more with Iran than, say, Bolivia?

Also: damn, but that was annoyingly nitpicky.

1. Only 2% of Iran's population is Arab. Most Arabs, whether Islamist or secular, supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and most Iranians have contempt for Arabs, at least on a collective basis.

2. An invasion isn't needed to take out the nuke facilities. Being a bit less totalitarian than North Korea, we've already managed to ascertain where they are in Iran. A few dozen GPS-guided cruise missles would be more than enough.

3. Militarily speaking, I hope you realize all the huge differences between Iran and Iraq. Iran's population is 66 million, compared with Iraq's $23 million. Their per capita GDP is much higher, and they do have a bit of an industrial base. Their military, unlike Saddam's, hasn't been crippled by sanctions, and they've been able to buy a lot of stuff from Russia and China. And we're just about certain that they have large stocks of biological and chemical weapons on hand.

I think the mullahs will still be gone within a few years, and at least by the end of the decade. The real problem with the student uprising wasn't the mullahs' brutality; it was the existence of a "silent majority" in Iran that isn't yet willing to shed blood, or even go on strike, in the name of regime change. It was only a couple of years ago that they were throwing their weight behind Khatami, and you just don't move from placing hope in the system to violently removing the system that fast.

The fact that the regime has had to hire Arab and Afghan thugs, that the police often restrained the Basijis, and that everyone and their sister is willing to talk candidly about their hatred of the regime shows that the mullahs' grip on power is still nowhere as strong as Saddam's was. The Chinese example also doesn't apply because the mullahs still haven't done anything on par with Tianamen Square, and because, since 1978, China had been seeing a gradual economic revolution that made large swaths of the public at least somewhat satisfied with the status quo. Iranians, by contrast, are more dissatisfied than ever with the mullahs.

Much of that silent majority will eventually come around in Iran, and when it does, the regime is doomed. It just looks like we'll have to wait a while. For now, our best bet is to provide moral and financial support to the opposition, do a cruise missle strike on the nuke facilities, and brace for the nationalist public opinion backlash that will come from the latter move.

Eric, your scenario would certainly be the best of all futures. But how long would it take, we'd have to wonder; in the meantime, the mullahs would be free to coordinate terrorist activities. Strikes against atomic abilities and not the establishment itself might delay a nuclear standoff but wouldn't necessarily introduce any pause into covert operations from Tehran. Again, I'd have to agree with Trent that it's not the weapons so much as it is the regime. (I wouldn't mind a pro-Western, pluralist, stably democratic Iran [an ally] with nukes at all.)

Like both the Ba'athists and al Qaeda, the cockroach doesn't stop twitching until it's completely dead.

With regard to the re-revolution, does anyone have any idea what the are actual positions of the would-be revolutionaries? Is there any reason to believe that they would be less hostile to U.S. interests in the region, to say nothing of Israel? What intellectual basis is there for this revolution -- are its advocates pro-Westernization, pro-U.S., pro-religious freedom? Or are they looking to "maintain their Islamic identity," albeit allowing women to wear make-up? Is the aim of the revolution to make Iran more like eastern Europe, or Egypt?

I'm just saying, even if the revolution succeds, and anti-mullah forces take over, I rather doubt they'd be keen on letting go of the nuclear program, what with Pakistan, India, China, Israel, and their new neighbor, the United States, all being nuclear powers. Yet I see precious little in the rhetoric of the students and their supporters that would lead me to breathe easy at the idea of nuclear-tipped ICBMs under their control. Am I missing something?

"Rand: Perhaps not, but do you not think that the Arabic world identifies more with Iran than, say, Bolivia?

"Also: damn, but that was annoyingly nitpicky."

It wasn't nitpicky at all; it was an error on par with, for example, saying that Ontario is an American state instead of a Canadian province.

In other words, it's the sort of mistake that makes you wonder whether the person making it has a clue in hell what they're talking about. And then you compounded your mistake with lame, self-pitying whine instead of owning up to it.

No, Harry, it neatly avoids the issue I brought up entirely in favor of a nitpick-fest.

But fine. I'll get my answers from someone who actually cares.

eric is about as right as anyone in his assessment, but micheal brings up the central point. the question we all have to ask is just when action on our part would be needed. when exactly are we talking about? how long can we stand back and hope for an internal iranian revolution..?

i think we have more time than trent and others are suggesting, but that still doesnt mean we have very much.

also the suggestion by trent and others that we cannot afford to leave the regime in place for even a second based on their continued support of terrorism is not one that is based in anything other than principle. there are many sources of terrorism in the world, and yes we should attack each and every one of them in their own way at their own time. but we cannot just do it all at once no matter how much we may want to. we must proceed intelligently and not only act on what our fears demand.

A friend has politely pointed out to me (since I asked him, after getting pretty damn pissed off at Harry) that it would be the Muslim world, and not the Arab world, that would react. So, if you were to replace any word "Arab" in my original request with "Muslim", can someone please answer my question?

Eric answered it in terms of the Iran/Iraq war, but perhaps the prevailing attitude has changed in the past few years. This is the question I am posing.

Kenneth: isn't this the old "Arab street" argument? Based on the experiences of the past few years, I'm not sure the "Muslim street" HAS a boiling point. Indeed, experience is showing us that it seems to go very quiet after vigorous action, and get louder the more we hesitate.

Come to think of it, this is normal when you couple a supremacist ideology, a culture with no hard dividing line between war and peace, and acknowledged military weakness.

Eric states my views well, and Balagan also has some good points.

As for Iran's continued support of terrorism and covert action in Iraq, I take that as a given. Question is, what's the best response to that given the USA's capabilities and commitments?

Full scale invasion would be massively taxing, requiring a full war mobilization and very possibly withdrawal of American commitments in Korea. On the other hand, IF the USA can put Iran's nuke program back to square 1 with precision bombing, they can then use a combination of cutting their regional bridges to Syria, covert action in return, and developing intelligence to nail the mullah's key functionaries and agents in the aftermath of the revolution. Not to mention, provoking and supporting said revolution. Not ideal, but tit-for-tat in an imperfect world and probably effective in the medium term.

Finally, E. Nough raises some excellent questions worth answering.

It's my personal belief that Iran's nuclear program will continue at some level under a new regime. Their own long history as an Empire will make them want to be a player on par with regional neighbours Pakistan & India, and it also offers them important leverage in their jousts with Russia over influence and pipeline politics in Central Asia. I'd be willing to bet on a goodly measure of public support, too, and the level of Iran's oil reserves means the odds aren't good for a successful sanctions regime aimed at changing that public calculus (the French would break it, for starters).

Given that, will this be a quiet program of research around the edges, or full-scale development of atomic bombs? The key variables as I see them are how [1] willing the USA is to destroy such facilities and continue showdowns with a new Iranian regime over the issue, [2] how good the USA's intelligence on these matters is and remains, and [3] how Europe and Russia react to being within IRBM range.

Bottom line: we may have options short of full-scale invasion to derail Iran's program right now; but I see nukes in Iran as a long term issue.

Let's get back to graph 1:

...It will take a ground invasion to deal to death the Iranian Mullahocracy, its terrorist infrastructure and its WMD programs.

Could the U.S. invade Iran and destroy the regime, thereby ending the regime's support for terrorists and ending it's WMD program? Better minds than mine seem to think so.

But then what?

Is there any kind of suggestion at all that American forces marching through Tehran would be welcomed more than they have been in Baghdad? About the same? What about the possibility, given the history of U.S. intervention in Iran, that the latter-day revolutionaries are not interested in having one regime they didn't choose replaced with another regime they didn't choose? How would the currently-silent majority react?

The question to Trent is, if you're going to propose a war, how to you propose to win the peace? How do you ensure that the new Iran doesn't wind up being even worse than the old one?

Thanks Joe — I personally don't know, because I don't know how powerful the nations outside of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are; if we do have to invade Iran (which I agree is looking more likely by the day) at some point, I just don't want us to start World War III doing it.

Clearly, the "Arab Street" was frustrated about Iraq, but didn't do anything (yet) about it. I wanted to know if the Muslim world would care about the fate of Iran. The sentiment seems to be here that "they do nothing other than make a lot of noise and then go back to quietly starving," and if that's the case, then I think we have nothing to worry about.

joe is absolutely right about iran (again). so to me the question becomes: what can we do to help this revolution become a reality in the short term?

beyond providing the kind of destablization of the mullocracy that joe rightfully suggests, what can we do to further engage in direct discussion with iranians over what their future will be and how they want to get there?

what can we substantively do to strengthen the populace against the thugs who are maintaining the status quo?

The Iranian Government is currently involved in funding terrorist networks worldwide, cracking down on dissidents back home, arming Afgan warlords along their Eastern border, and (I suspect) arming extremists in Iraq along their Western border. And whatever money is left has to be used to buy the loyalty of the military, clerics and bueracracy. All of the above has to be substantially draining the resources of the Iraninan Government.

Given how stretched thin the Iranian Government probably is, perhaps the best means of bringing down the government would be to up the ante in proxy war the US and Iran are waging against each other in Afganistan. Increase our troop presence to 50,000-100,000. Expand the crackdowns to include warlords the Iranian Government is suspected of aiding.

A few successfull raids and weapons seizures would place significant pressure on the Iranian Government to double up their support for their Afgan allies, which the Iranian government can ill afford to do at the moment. Either the Iranian government doubles up their support and bleeds their own country dry, or it retreats and suffers a serious loss in credibility, thus undermining the regime further in its own country. This plan would have the added advantage of greatly assisting in restoring order in Afganistan, which is something we should have done a long time ago. It would appear to be a win-win situation all around (at least where the US is concerned).

Joe, thanks for answering my query. It seems that we are in agreement that Iran will work on nuclear weapons no matter what its government. Which makes me all the more concerned as to what kind of society these demonstrators would want to build, if they won.

Though I can hardly imagine a worse government than that of the mullahs, at least the mullahs are an easy target to sell at home. I'm just thinking that, for all the enthusiastic support the demonstrators get for being against the mullahs, I'd hate to see some kind of mullah-lite or otherwise anti-American populist regime emerge in their place.

Not trying to delegitimize the genuinely heroic people suffering for their opposition to the mullahs, mind you. Just thinking out loud, curious what is behind Door Number 2.

Reuel Marc Gerecht and other observers have been saying for months that the Iranian nuclear weapons development program is widely popular.

I've been saying for months that Iran is not going to have a revolution.

If we want to stop Iran from going nuclear we have two options: invade or do airstrikes. Invasion seems unlikely to me. Our military is too small and an invasion would cost a lot of lives and money. We are busy dealing with Iraq. Plus, we have North Korea to worry about. Plus, various people are promoting the Liberian intervention because it makes their consciences feel better to do completely altruistic things at the expense of protecting our own vital interests.

Airstrikes have a better chance of working against Iran than against North Korea since we don't even know where North Korea is hiding its uranium purification centrifuges.

My best guess at this point is that the US will not stop North Korea or Iran from becoming nuclear powers. I do not see preparations underway on a sufficient scale to make attacks big enough to stop them. The only factor I could see changing that would be another big Al Qaeda attack. If another big terrorist attack happened to an American target then the American public would cross a mental Rubicon and a lot of courses of action would become possible that are not now possible.

i agree with the afghanistan approach sean, although i dont know if we need that large a troop size. hell, id be happy with the 10,000 that karzai has asked for... although if our objective is to drain irans influence in the region then maybe a larger number would be in order. i dont know. it would depend on the question of effectiveness. im not sitting in centcom, so that question is not something i have access to good information for answering.

i agree with e-nough about the mullah-lite concern. a not quite so bad iran is still a bad iran. lets see if we can not sell the iranian people short and actually reach for a good life for them.

i would remind randall about the slow boil followed by fast strike approach used with iraq, and that has been in evidence in most of our choices of action when it comes to terrorism with this admin. i agree that action is necessary on north korea and iran, but the question is when and how. the defining policy has been one of leaving the target to stew and squirm while we make our own preparations and choose our moment to strike for ourselves. there is a lot of fly paper action going on. a lot of gambits intended to draw out our opposition or lull them into any exploitable overextension on their part. i believe the same is the case with he rove approach to the democratics who are now scrambling over each other to "blame bush" for iraq. just because action on iran or north korea is not obvious, it does not mean none is taking place. although there is the obvious risk that this admin will drop the ball, we have many reasons to believe they have not done so yet.

oh and randall, some of us support the idea of a liberian intervention because of the clear sign it would send that america is a) not only attacking the muslim world and b) genuinly interested in africa.

this isnt a feelgood thing. it is strategic. one of the big problems with islamist terrorism, is the deep seated notion that we americans are weak and will not have the heart to attack, or will not sustain our presence, or are too spread thin, or simply dont care. so the fantasy has spread that terrorism and terror statism can be engaged in with no concern about us thwacking anyone on the back of the head with a huge stick for what they do to us or to their people.

the same obviously holds true for africa right now. there is no sense that we are serious about anything in africa, so the impression is that they can do whatever they want as long as they keep it out back. liberia would be the easiest choice for challenging that assumption. it says that we are willing to put teeth into what our president is proposing for africa.. we are not just turning our backs to what is going on in the shadows.

liberia has a direct relation to what is going on throughout west africa. west africa is a strategic concern. maybe not as big as the middle east, but since when do we have the luxury of fighting this war in some regions but not in others?

liberia also has a direct connection to our nation, and a highly pro-american population. yes the problem would be the longterm labor intensive cost of nationbuilding, but if we can spread that burden internationally and among the nations of the west african region, then the cost for us will be much lower.

a conservative liberian intervention plan meets the test for deserving a fraction of our resources... it would serve to shatter one more bit of fantasy in the terror driven world.

the feelgood factor is just a bonus.

Balagan, The long running intervention in the Balkans has been meant to show the Muslims that the US will stick up for them. But it has not had that effect.

Genuine interest in Africa: Bush is increasing spending in 3rd world AIDS assistance and also arguing with the Euros to lower their agricultural trade barriers with Africa. Amazingly, Bob Geldof has stated that the US has a better policy toward Africa than the Europeans. But since Bush is supposedly an evil Republican the Left totally ignores this.

A really cheap way to improve Africa would be to send a hit squad into Zimbabwe to kill Mugabe.

The slow build-up on Iran and North Korea: Well, we need to tell them to put off making nuclear weapons until we are ready to deal with them. Do you suppose they would be willing to wait for us to get ready?

Rove and the Democrats: Rove is a fool. He thinks he can convert the Hispanics into Republican voters. A population group with 42+% illegitimate births and two and a half times the rate of medical uninsurance (fill in assorted other social pathology measures here) is not going to vote for Republicans.

Hey, what's with the dispagment of Hispanic "population groups" and "social pathologies"? Last time I checked, most of the military casualties from California would be considered Hispanics -- which, in my book, makes up for a hell of a lot of "social pathologies", real and/or imagined.

Rove is many things (Machiavellian, a bastard, etc.) but a fool isn't one of them. There is a surge in patriotism in this entire country --Hispanic citizens included, which I can personally attest to, given the number of American flags flying in the barrio neighborhoods in California the last couple of years, and the tone of the Iraq War coverage on Telemundo and Univision (even more shamelessly flagwaving than Fox, and I mean that in a good way).

The tone-deaf approach of the Democratic Party towards the American mood has the potential of alienating Americans of all stripes, including Hispanics Americans, provided the Republican Party doesn't screw it up by giving into the temptation to recycle the "illegal immigration is ruining America" canard that turned the Hispanic community against the Republican party ten years ago.

I could go on, but this post is WAY off topic, so I'll stop now.

Sean, Some population groups have higher rates of social pathologies than others. Some have more poverty, higher rates of illegitimacy, higher rates of crime, higher rates of high school drop-outs, and other measures. Rove is dreaming if he thinks he can convert them to Republicans.

So people with high rates of "pathology" vote Democratic, and people with low rates of pathology vote Republican? Hey, I'M a Republican, and I take issue with that assesment.

Besides, it wasn't too long ago (1990 to be exact), that Pete Wilson carried 41% of the Hispanic vote in California in his Gubenatorial election against Dianne Feinstein. And don't forget the 1997 LA Mayoral election, where Richard Riordan carried almost 60% of the Hispanic vote, or the 1998 Texas Gubenatorial election, where a fellow named GW Bush (perhaps you've heard of him) carried 44% of the Hispanic vote against a Hispanic opponent. Even Bill "Ubermoron" Simon did fairly well among Hispanic voters in his otherwise disasterous challenge to Gray Davis in 2002. What all of those candidates had in common was an ability to see Hispanic individuals as just that -- individuals -- as opposed to a faceless blob that was somehow obligated to vote for a Democratic candidate.

well im a hispanic-eastern european mutt, and my very hispanic grandfather was a reagan democrat, so from my personal experience i think rove has a much better chance to be right about this than you realize. my experience with hispanic voting habits is quite far from being in the minority of this "minority". the hispanic population as a whole isnt as intrinsically pro-dem as you seem to believe. there is a much greater likelyhood that there will be about an even split among basic ideologies. if anything, hispanics are more likely to vote for those candidates that are a mix of the republican politics of personal responsibility and the democratic pro-immigrant social positions. in other words this voting block is up for grabs. welcome to swing-vote politics.

as for the intervention in the balkans, i do not think the muslim world thinks much about this small sliver of european land. i think the root issue in the balkan conflict is the return of ethnic cleansing in europe on a mass scale for the first time since hitlers holocaust. it is disgusting that the world waited so long to intervene, and it is terrible that the un played the role in allowing the slaughter that it did. i do agree that a neverending mission in the balkans is not a solution to the problems of the region... what we need is to revisit the balkan issue with fresh eyes and ask ourselves just what would be effective in breaking out of the peace only at gunpoint that there has been, and finally seeing the emergence of genuine sustainable selfgoverning nations. we have left the balkans on the back burner and forgotten of their existance for too long.

on africa, i agree about mugabe. that does not mean we should ignore liberia. you want to take the genuine caring intelligent young supporters of freedom in the world away from the lie they are living with their current commitment to the radical anti-american left? how bout showing that the rest of us have the foresight to care about west africa, conflict diamonds, tribal slaughter, and the connection failed nation states have to being used as havens for al qaeda and other fantasy addicted fundamentalist terrorists. this war we are in has many fronts, not least of which are the war over support in europe and here at home. i am not suggesting sending in tens of thousands of troops to liberia. just to have a genuine commitement to instigating real change.

on slow buildup, it all depends on what slow means to us. im not advocating waiting forever on iran and north korea. i dont personally think we have the option for war with north korea before oct (based on the assortment of logistics involved), no matter how much we may want it. that would change of course of nk attacked first, because we could count on a much greater amount of support and would be much less limited in the actions we can respond with. i also think that the ideas being floated by the pentagon and by glenn reynolds, among others, of a not-quite-war are very much worth more attention. for iran, i think the facts on the ground are changing before our eyes. we should let it simmer a little more before commiting to any one course of action. check back in sept.