"...whether the threat of Iran has been left to fester while the U.S. pursues the war in Iraq"

I've heard formulations such as this (there are others in this post) many times before. I don't think the grammar of such quips helps to advance clear thinking on the subject.

"has been left to fester while": okay, what policy options is the speaker contrasting the current festering with? There's only two, really.

• Negotiate with the mullahs.
• Military strikes.

Yes, the US or the West can "threaten" instead of "negotiate," but when the mullahs call the bluff, as they do with regularity, it boils down to "negotiate" or "move to strikes." And yes, per Ledeen, "faster please," support the civic resistance within Iran. A worthy and moral venture, but nobody should be under any illusions that success, however defined, can be achieved on a Western timetable, or is in any case likely within the next decade.

So back to the alternatives.

• If "negotiate," what do "we" have that the mullahs want? That they want more than they want missile- and terrorist- deliverable atom bombs? Since the answer is plainly "nothing," what are the prospects for success? (And how do they compare to the temptation that the European Three and the State Dept. have fallen into, of Defining Success Down?) Even if some sensible "success" was within sight, will a cheat-resistant enforcement regime ever be acceptable to the mullahs and Iranian nationalists?

• If "military strike," what is the objective in Clausewitz' terms? Regime change? Delay Iran's joining the nuclear club by 20 years? by 5 years? How many and what sort of sorties would be required to accomplish the task (facilities smashed, knowledge base reduced, meaning nuclear techs and engineers dead)? What about secret and hardened plants? civilians killed? resurgence in domestic patriotism and support for the regime? international sympathy and support?

A not-very-cheering discussion of the topic is available as "Getting Ready for a Nuclear Iran," published in November 2005 by the Strategic Studies Institute of the US War College. Executive Summary with follow-on link to a large PDF is here.

"If only the Bush Administration had the gumption to do X!"
"If only Kerry had won, he would have had the wisdom to do X!"

Even if we can define "festering" -- what is X in concrete, realistic terms?

It basically comes down to this:

What the Iranian regime seems to be moving toward is unthinkable.

What we would have to do to the Iranian people to stop it is unthinkable.

Thus, no one in the West wants to think about the problem at any length. Basically, the West just hopes that nothing unthinkable happens and that somehow or the other everything will work out in the end. Afterall, the alternative to that either way is unthinkable. What else are we going to do? What else can you expect people to do?

I don't see this ending in any way but utter tragedy. This tragedy has been brewing for 40 years now, and it has the inertia of history. And no ones hands are perfectly clean. The Iranians deserve the most blame for letting it happen, but we never really did anything to help the situation either. At this point, too many oppurtunities to stop the process have been missed, both by the Iranian people and the American people and the world as a whole.

We stand like Hari Seldon, able to watch the inexorable movement of history and unable to do anything about it. Only the Iranian people can change things at this point, and only if they raise thier voices together before it is really too late. It is afterall, they who have the most to lose. They need to bring back the ideas of 'Republic' in the term 'Islamic Republic' very quickly. Right now it looks like the Republicans lost and the Islamists won, with the sort of consequences one might expect.

We all know what's going to happen:

Iranians will complete "Hitler's Job" as one Lebanese College student put it. Of course six million Jews will be wiped out. That's the whole point of Iran's nuclear program. They operate out of a religious frenzy and theocracy.

Along with wiping out Israel, Iran is certain to launch attacks, likely with Al Qaeda support, against the US. Expect 300K - 3 million dead in the US.

Of course Israel will retaliate as it's population dies; Iran and Ahmadinejad believe that their big population will allow them to take horrific losses and still survive. Mao felt the same thing about nuclear war. The usual views of tyrants.

The US will retaliate for it's own losses; we are also targets and Ahmadinejad has talked of destroying us as well, egged on by defeatist and surrender rhetoric by idiots and fools from Bill Clinton, Johnn Kerry, Joe Wilson, Joe Biden, John Murtha, Howard Dean, and the Media and Hollywood.

Ahmadinejad and others argue that we can be "broken" by large terror attacks (this is bin Laden's argument) and that if enough of us are killed we will simply surrender to be ruled as slaves. Joe Wilson believes that "constructive engagement" will solve everything (ala Madeline Albright or Clinton). This is lunacy but typical of DC and Hollywood where everything is solved by lawyers and agents. As bin Laden says "you submit or we slaughter. As simple as that.

We have been lucky that nukes have not been used in war since August 1945. Luck won't hold forever and wishing and hoping is not a plan. Sadly it's all over but the killing and the horrible new world that will come forth. Yes this is the third conjecture of Belmont Club/Wretchard.

Finally, there is a significant portion of the Democratic Party that actively wishes for the destruction of Israel. If one listens to the rhetoric of Howard Dean, Moveon, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, etc. there can be no doubt about that. Under Howard Dean's watch the DNC put out flyers blaming Israel for 9/11. Joe Wilson blames "Israel for having American boys die for them." Many in the Democratic Party (a small minority would be horrified) would be pleased to see Israel wiped off the map.

The deafening silence in Democratic Circles to Ahmadinejad's determination to wipe Israel off the face of the map, and Holocaust denial, and nuclear weapons acquistion is telling.

Let me remind: Iran may have a couple of fission weapons (A-bombs). Israel has dozens of fusion weapons (H-bombs). If Israelis were nuked they would not limit their response to Iran. (Think Michael Corleone settline scores.) Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others also could expect locally elevated temperatures.
Also, Mr. Ledeen's point about Christians and Jews seems most apt. When (or if) the Jews are sold out, it will be secular Americans, not Christians, who do the deal.

"Panelists Daniel Pipes, Mona Charen, and Michael Ledeen (all members of the Board of Fellows of the JPC, a non-profit Washington think tank that takes a Jewish and conservative perspective), grappled with the question raised by moderator Michael Medved who asked, aping the tone of liberal arguments, whether the threat of Iran has been left to fester while the U.S. pursues the war in Iraq."

Just for posterity's sake I am checking in. This post would seem to be lending evidence to some of what I have said regarding a zionist element in our government/neocons that would influence our policy to the benefoit of Isreal.

I would note the use of the word "Jewish" for which I was chaticed in another thread for being un-PC.

Generally, I am simply noting that this post has been read by me, and I am more convinced that ever that you people are liars (see multiple denials here and elsewhere that neocons and Isreal have any alliance) and/or have failed to be honest about the snakes in youir head.

Save your warning about being banned. I'm done.

re #2 celebrim:

I'd agree that pretty much sums up the state of mind of most westerners - most possibilities at this point lead to a very bloody conflict, and those that don't are exceedingly unlikely to occur. Not pleasant to think about.

But, as far as thinking about the unthinkable goes:

The 'do-nothing' approach will lead to, if we take the Iranians at their publicly stated words, a full nuclear exchange. Many Israelis and most Iranians would die, along with unknown numbers of people from neighboring countries. I cannot think of a possible worse result from any other course of action, which I think serves as a de facto justification for military action if no other solution can be found. Another war is pretty much inevitable, barring something surprising happening and soon.

That still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. North Korea has been making similar apocalyptic noises for decades, and yet they still seem to be deterrable in the old-fashioned manner, or at least bribable. Is the Iranian government bribable by anything less than nukes themselves or military equipment? Do they have any allies we can induce to intervene and talk them down? NK is in a much more dire economic situation than Iran, so there may simply not be much leverage there. However, anything that can give us more time should be tried.

What would any military action mean to the Iraq occupation? Short of a draft and massive tax increases, we can't afford another invasion without basically withdrawing from Iraq, and even with that, wouldn't it take six months to a year to get our forces back up to combat readiness?

If we had to, would the Iraqis tolerate us launching an invasion from their territory?

If Israel does what everyone expects and launches a strike of their own, who would the Iraqis side with?

re #3 Jim Rockford:

Finally, there is a significant portion of the Democratic Party that actively wishes for the destruction of Israel. If one listens to the rhetoric of Howard Dean, Moveon, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, etc. there can be no doubt about that. Under Howard Dean's watch the DNC put out flyers blaming Israel for 9/11. Joe Wilson blames "Israel for having American boys die for them." Many in the Democratic Party (a small minority would be horrified) would be pleased to see Israel wiped off the map.

What a pile of nonsense.

This post would seem to be lending evidence to some of what I have said regarding a zionist element in our government/neocons...

So avedis defines as 'zionist' opposition to the elimination of the state of Israel. 'Tis an odd and confused mind indeed that operates in such extremes, for (s)he obviously believes 'zionism' is evil. Such a belief must perforce, therefore, define the very existence of Israel as evil.

Sounds to me like we need more zionist influence in Washington, not less. Democracies are rare and endangered in that part of the world: Turkey, India, Israel, and (now)Iraq. Two Muslim democracies, a Hindu democracy, and a Jewish democracy. All aided and encouraged by a Christian democracy. How horrible.

avedis and others of that mind set oppose democracy in places like Israel and Iraq not because they want to live under a socialist tyranny ... but because they want to run one.

Bart Hall:

You can read through the comments in this thread to get a good idea as to avedis's views. The remarks that provoked a great deal of anger there had to do with the fact that he seems to view Israel and "the Jews" as being more or less interchangeable. Failing that, he seems to simply be a troll by his own admission (again, see the thread) and should probably be best ignored as such.

#3 Jim Rockford

I always enjoy your comments. I agree with your assessment on Iran but I tend to be a little more optomistic as to the outcome if we can kick our government into action.

The clear and present danger is quite clear. The current administration should not be hampered by the LL, MSM, and the EU in what we do to protect the American people.

We must win this war of information to win the GWOT. The LL and the MSM are squelching and filtering information that the world and the American people need to here.

The Blogos has the ability to fill this gap and to unite the American people and wipe this evil of Islamofascism from the face of the earth. Further to force the remaining moderates into a transformational period of reformation akin to similar times with the Protestant faiths and Catholicism.

See this comment thread over at Roger L. Simon's and my post:

Rift Now Opening within Iran's Ruling Megalomaniacs

Here

Don't miss this link to The American Thinker:

Information war gearing up

Here

and the key to winning the war of information is to drive this point home through the goal posts.

Read this post and comments at Alhouse:

"In Islam, there is no place for feminism."

Here

which comes full circle back to WOC:

Just two women changing the world

Here

Celebrim,

(a) "What the Iranian regime seems to be moving toward is unthinkable."

(b) "What we would have to do to the Iranian people to stop it is unthinkable."

The Atlantic Monthly published an article last year concerning an exercise involving Democratic party specialists in foreign and military policy concerning our options towards Iran. This exercise concluded that use of American military force to overthrow the mullahs' regime, and destroy their nuclear weapons program, was not merely feasible, but would be quick and easy. They were terrified of post-invasion anarchy and prolonged deployment of American troops. Here is the URL and pertinent excerpt from the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

"The overall plan of attack was this: a "deception" effort from the south, to distract Iranian troops; a main-force assault across the long border with Iraq; airborne and Special Forces attacks from Afghanistan and Azerbaijan; and cruise missiles from ships at sea. Gardiner presented more-detailed possibilities for the deployment. A relatively light assault, like the one on Afghanistan, is depicted in figure 4. A "heavier" assault would involve more troops and machines attacking across two main fronts (figure 5). In all their variety, these and other regime-change plans he described had two factors in common. One is that they minimized "stability" efforts—everything that would happen after the capital fell. "We want to take out of this operation what has caused us problems in Iraq," Gardiner of CentCom said, referring to the postwar morass. "The idea is to give the President an option that he can execute that will involve about twenty days of buildup that will probably not be seen by the world. Thirty days of operation to regime change and taking down the nuclear system, and little or no stability operations. Our objective is to be on the outskirts of Tehran in about two weeks. The notion is we will not have a Battle of Tehran; we don't want to do that. We want to have a battle around the city. We want to bring our combat power to the vicinity of Tehran and use Special Operations to take the targets inside the capital. We have no intention of getting bogged down in stability operations in Iran afterwards. Go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement, and get out quickly after having destroyed—rendered inoperative—the nuclear facilities." How could the military dare suggest such a plan, after the disastrous consequences of ignoring "stability" responsibilities in Iraq? Even now, Gardiner said after the war game, the military sees post-conflict operations as peripheral to its duties. If these jobs need to be done, someone else must take responsibility for them."

I am much less optimistic about the military challenges in eliminating the mullah regime, primarily due to logistical issues inside Iran. IMO it would take at least eight weeks, and possibly 3-4 months. I do not expect significant ground resistance, but there is twice as much terrain to cover and it is rather mountainous. I did preliminary work 25-30 years ago on a board wargame for Jim Dunnigan on this subject (a replacement for his Oil War - the eventual replacement was done by a much more capable designer - Mark Herman - and called Gulf Strike). My studies showed truly formidable logistic problems for an American invasion.

I agree witht the Atlantic team that an occupation campaign in Iran would make Iraq's look like a walk in the park, but disagree that it would last as long as Iraq's. My opinion here is that Iran already has a functioning civil society, which Iraq didn't, and that the Iranian army need not be entirely disbanded and so could serve as a nucleus for the security forces of a more easily created freindly democratic government.

If you have a rational basis for your assertion that an American invasion of Iran to overthrow its mullah regime would do something "unthinkable" to the Iranian people, now is the time to explain it.

From a military POV, it is almost impossible to invade Iran without a logistics base in either Iraq or Turkey. The US just doesn't have the capacity to sustain enough troops over a beach to do the job.
Politically, Turkey isn't going to allow the USA to use their soil for staging an invasion of their nuclear armed neighbor. I don't blame them. So that leaves Iraq. Since Iraq has a lot of OIL and was ran by a nasty tyrant, Invading Iraq first made a lot of sense. If Iran isn't invaded, then the Liberation of Iraq was a waste of time, money and troops.
Iran is NOT going to be negoiated out of having Nuclear weapons, and they will use them as soon as they get the word from Allah (God). Anyone who thinks otherwise is as delusional as the Mad Mullahs of Tehran. Military action of some sort will be required to prevent a medium sized exchange of Nuclear weapons in the ME. That is the reality of the situation, and all the wishfull thinking of the Left won't change anything.
So the questions become what type of military force is best suited to the problem (solving a problem with military force ALWAYS creates more problems, so it's a matter of which type of military force will cause less problem later). There is the indirect approach such as a Kosovo type air campaign.
This could work, since Iran does have infastructure to be attacked, and the AD will have to be taken down anyway. The Problem is that air power alone won't get the mullahs out of their palaces and back to their mosques, which is what has to happen in Iran. It can help the Iranians to encourage the mullahs to relocate. This approach has a huge danger of mission creep creating more issues then it resloves, issues that will be much harder to deal with.
I take the 70% anit-mullah number with a huge grain of salt. Even then 30% of 74 million is a lot of IED's, RPG's and Kalashnakovs. The best time to start an air campaing against Iran was Last summer. There will be NO political support from anywhere for was against Iran until after the mullahs use a bomb. I doubt if their usage will be overt.

A strategy more likely to succeed would be for Israel to threaten to take out Iran's oil industy (fields, ports, pipelines, etc.), UNLESS Iran is disarmed. Japan, Europe, and others might get the point.

Halcyon -- see Avedis. He believes that any effort to thwart nuclear attacks by Iran on Israel is "a neocon Zionist conspiracy." Was it not under Dean that those flyers were put out? Did not Joe Wilson say that "American Boys" were "dying for Israel?" Did not Democratic Poster Woman Cindy Sheehan say the same thing? Didn't Howard Dean pose with Code Pink (to the approval of the Dems)? With the exception of Joe Lieberman and a few others most Dems would be happy to see the destruction of Israel believing that will make Muslims happy.

At a time when Israel our one ally in the region of secular orientation (gay pride festivals in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, topless beaches, a secular tradition of politics despite yes religious parties) and general reliability is threatened with nuclear ahniliation, what is the Democratic response to this? WHAT do Dems propose to do? NOTHING. Be assured that just as the Bojinka plot featured a planned assassination of the Pope and airliner bombings and one crashed into Langley, we ourselves will also be inevitable targets in such a Ahmadinejad operation. To which Dems have nothing to offer but ill-contained glee at the prospect.

Go visit Daily Kos if you need persuading. Speaking as someone who voted for Clinton. Twice. The Democratic Party will not support military action at any time, any place, any where. That's just the way it is. That's what happens when your DNC chair poses with the group that sent 600K to the terrorists in Fallujah to fight the Marines, and not a peep is heard from the Party.

Sometimes when people are lying to you, right there in pixels, it might pass you by. So here goes:

Go visit Daily Kos if you need persuading. Speaking as someone who voted for Clinton. Twice. The Democratic Party will not support military action at any time, any place, any where.

Clinton's Democratic government, with the support of the Democratic Party leadership in the Congress, bombed Kosovo. Remember that? Do I need to supply a few links to the limp-wristed, dictator-coddling comments of Trent Lott, or Dick Armey, or Tom DeLay from that time? All that whining about "exit strategies" and "nation building" and all the other things those isolationists whimpered about back in 1998?

Maybe Jim Rockford has never heard of Harry Truman. Or John F. Kennedy. Or Lyndon Johnson. Or Bill Clinton.

Or, maybe, Jim Rockford is a bald-faced liar.

stickler,

You know, I'm right there with you on Kosovo. And double shame on Lott for insinuating "wag the dog" with operation Desert Fox. Surely you remember that as well.

But Jim Rockford didn't say "has never", he said "will not". Now Jim might be claiming perfect prescience. (Which, in light of his earlier comment, I'll be excused for hoping he does not posess). Or, he might be forwarding an opinion. And the darned thing is that it seems when folks offer opinions like this, even ex Democrats, they get shouted down quite rudely.

Which you just demonstrated nicely.

I'm not as certain as Jim but I see where he's coming from. And to put it in terms which you just used, I would love it if the Democrats were as hawkish as they were under Clinton (i.e. Clinton circa 1999). And if they were as hawkish as they were under Truman and Kennedy, they would have swept the last election. (Yes, another opinion grammatically masquerading as a fact).

But to return to the topic at hand: where are the Democratic leaders with sound and reasoned positions on Iran - positions which are neither limp wristed, nor dictator coddling? With a line drawn as firmly and implacably and resolutely as Clinton drew in Kosovo? I'm marking this with an explicit "no sarcasm" tag: I really would be pleased to see some. I've been busy with other stuff, help me out here.

Rockford is a bloviating cartoon character. He frequently misrepresents what people have said, erects straw men, makes ad hominem attacks, argues via reductio ad absurdum and false dichotomies. But then there's a lot of that on this blog.

For the record, I did not say we shouldn't do anything about Iran's nuclear ambitions. I just don't want to do things the way that JR and others here want to. Therefore, they accuse me of wanting to do nothing.

Similarly, because I don't think that the US should be led around by the nose by Israel (or any other foreign government) and I think that Israel is as culpable as the Palestinians - and as in equal need of reforming their policy - I am called an antisemite.

You get the point - or you should.

Interesting aside, Arabs are semites too.

The difference between the two groups is religion, culture. One group is moslim and the other is Jewish. Same genetics, different religion.

Yet when I say "the Jews" referring to one of the two sides in the conflict I am, again, labled antisemite.

Bizarre.

Some people here are more Hyper-PC sensitive that a tenured womens studies prof. at Berkely.

Me thinks they doth protest too much

avedis, I'll happily map Israeli influence on US policy against Saudi influence, and suggest that you ask yourself which, in fact, is more closely aligned with real U.S. interests. I haven'e seen any israel-funded educational materials advocating suppressing or murdering goyim lately.

As to the problem of Iran - I'm working on a long post, but the short version is this: the Norks are deterrable because, simply, their highest ambition is to stay in power and survive. Elements of the Salafist world - which may or may not include elements of the leadership of Iran - have different values. To they extent thhat it is settled (which it isn't to me) that they are clearly willing to die for their values, we have a huge problem.

Because once they are nuclear-armed, their ability to do unacceptable damage - which they will likely die for, but it won't be like they make a decision based on that risk - will be unacceptable.

Interesting problem, no?

A.L.

Avedis:

You might have some points. Unfortunately you also seem to show that there are plenty of "snakes in the head" to go around. Not all the posts to threads are of excellent quality, but I think you miss the wheat for the chaff. It's a not uncommon problem, and might be why you were banned (if, as you imply, you are indeed the "avedis" who was banned--I can't tell).

Also: I'm not a Marshal, so this is not a warning, but just a question: what's the deal with the #5 "I'm done" post followed by another post in #16? Banned-ness aside, I mean.

Methinks thou protesteth too much, also.

Cheerio,

N

A.L,
It is an interesting problem. And, for the record, I don't totally disagree with your stance (as least as far as you have presented it here).

I am in disagreement with those advocating a military solution, either by us or by Israel. In the long run we would lose and lose bigtime. Regardless of what Hollinger thinks, an Iranian insurgency (post invasion) would make Iraq look like a stroll through Disney Land. Additionally, at this point we do not have the resources - economic nor military - to even successfully complete the invasion phase (a reason I was opposed to dedication of substantial resources to an Iraq invasion). It's all just a mad dream brought to you by the same lunatics (Ledeen and Co.) that sold us on Iraqi candy and flowers and down to 30,000 troops in a few months and financed by oil revenues, etc, etc, etc scenario.

Additionally, even if you are talking about finely targeted tactical strikes against nuclear related facilities in Iran, there are issues that become difficult if not insurmountable. First, the Iranians may have fairly advanced and fairly effective anti-aircraft systems strategically installed. Second (and worse) the Iranians can definitely play the card of spoiler in Iraq as a deterrent to destruction of their facilities (this is just another of the reasons I opposed the invasion of Iraq).

I think there is ample opportunity for an effective diplomatic carrots and sticks approach and, at this point, there really isn't a viable alternative.

I would point out that there is some reason to believe that the Iranians are not the completely irrational actors that you fear them to be.

Already, today, Iran is backing off and softening the holocaust statements made by their prez. By doing so, they are to some extent showing some sensitivity to world opinion and some instinct toward self-preservation.

My guess is that if their elected leader insists on making radical threatening public statements directed at Israel, he will be taken out by the Iranians themselves.

N.M,
Points taken.

"I'm done" was referring to speaking to the hypocrisey and dishonesty (as well as generally poor debating technique) of calling me an antisemite for the resons I was called such.

Also, refered to a little thing between Dan and I wherein Dan flat out denies and lables as paranoid any suggestion that Zionist politics and US foreign policy are intertwined. He and Ledeen both disparage anyone who suggests that Ledeen and/or other neocons are involved in rightwing Isreali politics. Ledeen said I was "deranged".

Of course. I am not really concerned about what a criminal has to say about me. I just liked to point out the crude and obvious dishonesty in Dan's interactions with me.

I really don't want to go back to this stuff because - as you pointed out - it drags the thread off topic and it's not fair to those posting and commenting here.

A German attack on Poland is simply unthinkable.

"Elements of the Salafist world - which may or may not include elements of the leadership of Iran - have different values."

Good grief, Marc! Salafism is a Sunni subset, not a Shi'ite one!

I would point a couple things out here:

Avedis is deeply concerned about the influence of Zionism within our own government. So be it. I assume that he's correct about Zionist influences in America -- we did, among others, have much to do with Israel's creation and subsequent preservation. It's reasonable to assume that 'Zionism' -- a political movement that promotes a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel -- has DNA floating around within out own political system.

But let's look at other influences on our government. How about Saudi oil money? Or Ba'athihst Iraqi? Or Chinese business ties? Certainly, one could identify hundreds of foreign influences on our government.

I am far more comfortable with a symbiosis between the US and 'Zionists' than I am with the sticky snares created by billions of petrol dollars that keep us entwined with Wahhabist fundamentalists -- who, unlike most Zionists, share no values with the West. I am far more concerned at how our government and industry inadvertently or intentionally funds the totalitarian mindset of radical Islam, which emanates from Arabia.

Of course governments are influenced. The question is, by whom? Chinese dictators? Saudi Islamofascists? Palestinian nihilists? The Zionists aren't in those antidemocratic leagues, and therefore they have my support.

Avedis should spread his obsession for external influences on American policy to more than Zionism.

With respect to Iran, in the scenario of their taking the first-strike against Tel Aviv, the discussion has been limited to Israeli and Western responses. I think that Ahmadinejad does not have the true support of Iranians, in spite of the 'election' that put him in power. It's debatable if he even has the unswerving support of the Mullahs, which seems conditional.

If somehow his regime managed to lob a nuke at Israel, the response will not be limited to the West. I think the killing blow to the Ahmadinejad regime will come from within Iran, particularly if the Ahmadinejad regime perpetrates nuclear barbarity. After Ahmadinejad's nuking of Tel Aviv, Iranian nationalists would scramble to prevent a retaliatory strike. The way to do that would be to revolt against Ahmadinejad's theocratic regime, and appeal to the West that he did not represent them.

I hope, like everyone else, that Ahmadinejad's unhinged verbosity might trigger a reformation before any nukes are launched. But that isn't for us to say, unfortunately.

avedis,

Did you read what I said? My emphasis

Me - "I agree with the Atlantic team that an occupation campaign in Iran would make Iraq's look like a walk in the park, but disagree that it would last as long as Iraq's."

You - "Regardless of what Hollinger thinks, an Iranian insurgency (post invasion) would make Iraq look like a stroll through Disney Land."

In what way do our opinions here differ? It looks mighty like your posts are based on what you wish people had said, rather than what they actually said. This is called a "straw man" tactic. You can't beat up on the real man so you beat up on one made of straw - a scarecrow - to show how tough you are.

If I am incorrect here, please explain how.

Note that the Iraq occupation campaign has gone on for 32 months now and, while it is visibly tailing off, should last at least another 12 months. That is almost four years.

I just predicted at least two years of hell for us in Iran, following our overthrow of its nutball regime, should we invade.

News reports are coming out that the Iranian president narrowly survived an assasination attempt. The Jawa Report has more.

avedis:

One of the problems in discussing this with you (and this goes back to what I said in the other thread as far as language is concerned) is that you seem to use Jews, Zionists, and Israelis more or less interchangeably whereas they in fact mean very different things. You can be an Israeli or a Zionist without being Jewish, as can be seen from the fact that there are a lot of non-Jewish people who fall into the former categories. Moreover, to conflate Israeli government policies, particularly those you see as involving theft or murder, as being "Jewish" policies doesn't really do your argument much service.

The problem with your argument is that you regard anyone (or at least anyone who's Jewish) who advocates in favor of certain Israeli policies or to actions that might benefit the Israeli state as actively working at the behest of a foreign power, which indicates that you can't understand a difference between advocacy and conspiracy. I'll also stress once again that not all Israelis are Jews and not all Palestinians are Muslims.

Furthermore, there is a big difference (abeit one that you don't seem to appreciate) between advocating in favor of Israel and actively working at its behest. One can disagree with you on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and advocate in favor of Israel for reason x, y, and z without working at the behest of the Israeli government, it happens all the time online unless you believe that there's even more of an Israeli conspiracy afoot than you have as yet indicated here.

The primary reason that both Ledeen and myself disparage the notion that neocons are involved (I'm assuming you mean currently) in Israeli politics is because regardless of what you may believe, it simply isn't true - the neocons at AEI and other think tanks do not sit up late waiting for marching orders from Tel Aviv before drawing up their policy preferences. It's a vile McCarthyist smear of both dual loyalties and treason (both of which you embrace with regard to the neocons, just as you have no problem describing Ledeen as a criminal while resorting to righteous outrage when I dared to assert the same as to Sami al-Arian), the whole purpose of which is to serve as an ad hominem attack on the individual making the argument rather than any kind of substantive policy analysis.

Of course, as I noted before, whenever confronted with these unpleasant realities "your preferred MO here on WoC has usually been trying to change the subject and/or resorting to ad hominem attacks, righteous indignation, and moral equivalency."

I eagerly await you disproving me.

"News reports are coming out that the Iranian president narrowly survived an assasination attempt."

Here's the news link. Assuming the report is credible, I can't say I'm surprised. Considering that he's pissing off just about everyone, I don't expect this guy to last more than three years.

If somehow his regime managed to lob a nuke at Israel, the response will not be limited to the West....After Ahmadinejad's nuking of Tel Aviv, Iranian nationalists would scramble to prevent a retaliatory strike.

Hmmm. Is it reasonable to assume that when/if the time comes, Iran would lob just a single nuke at Israel?

And is it, further, reasonable to assume that after having done so (should they have done so), they'd be claiming that they didn't really mean it? ("Sorry, but our wacky government---against our wishes---got carried away by its own rhetoric"?)

Given Israel's response capabilities, Iran can be expected to be hit and hit hard. However, as said above, they may be willing to absorb certain losses. Perhaps.

There are several reasons for the current spate of extreme rhetoric (though to be sure, not all that different in kind from former Iranian nuclear threats), none of them benign. The best case scenario(!) is that it's merely masterful brinksmanship: an attempt to force the Europeans and the US to finally make Israel scrap its nuclear deterrent. Europe is, of course, ever willing; but the US here holds the key (not that Israel will agree; but once again, it merely increases the pressure on the Jewish state).

Another reason, aside from the genuine desire to see the Jewish state incinerated (presumably, the Palestinians will all become shahids, which suits Iran fine, anyway), is the numbing effect of the constant threat. If a country is threatened with destruction once, it's a major story. If it's threatened on a constant basis, the threat becomes a rant that is no longer taken seriously. Moreover, any Israeli response to it, would be viewed as over the top, uncalled for, misusing power, paranoia. The West, especially the western press, is very good at that.

Noting that the constant threat, in the form of army maneuvers that stay maneuvers until they quickly convert to offensive attack, is one of the reasons the October 1973 war was so successful for Egypt. (And this was standard Soviet military doctrine for its Western front as well.)

Overall, the situation demonstrates just how important for Iran is Hizb'ullah's control in South Lebanon and the Ba'athist regime in Syria. Which control is being emulated in Gaza, as we speak. Since the Iranian rhetoric is also intended to prevent pre-emptive strikes on these allies.

I disagree intensely that any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would be "Futile" or "Counter-productive."

The whole political dynamic changes if the Israeli strike releases Iranian nuclear materials that American "national technical means" gets a good whiff of.

America has been "CSI-ing" nuclear materials from every source it can find since the Cold War ended, and America gained access to the ex-Soviet nuclear cities via the Nunn-Lugar Amendment nuclear weapons safety program.

Just as the US Navy maintains a sonar and magnetic sensor profile of every submarine on the face of the planet, the Department of Energy maintains a "recipe book" of the trace impurities of every nuclear weapons grade material run in the world.

America's Dept. of Energy don't have the Chinese, North Korean or Iranian processes or recipe books...but it does have Pakistan's and Libya's nuclear materials samples, plus a working Chinese nuclear weapons design, which gives insight into both.

America also have a very good idea of the Iranians enrichment process steps from the IAEA and Pakistan's "States Evidence," so America can always nail whoever was responsible for making a ISO container nuke or aiding in its production, because the Dept of Energy can model how each process step will change the nuclear fingerprint of source nuclear material trace impurities, given the technical specifications of the enrichment equipment.

Or in the aftermath of a an Israeli strike, who has been providing the Iranian pre-enriched nuclear materials to speed Iranian nuke production.

Is it any wonder that the French, Russians and Chinese are against any strike on Iranian nuclear facilities?

People who pretend that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would not help the cause of counter-proliferation are either engaged in fantastical thinking on the subject of nukes or on the side of the enemy.

Dan, no one disputes Ledeen's role in the Iran Contra criminal enterprise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Maybe some of the technology that Ledeen sold the Iranians will be used against our boys over there (or, heaven forbid, against an Israeli).

You can click the Ledeen link on the Contra page and follow to a sort of bio. Let the reader be the judge. I say he has more than just a casual synergistic relationship with hard right Israeli politics.

As far as other countries exerting an influence on our policy, yes, of course they do. However it is a matter of degree and it is a matter of what we get in return.

".....Saudi Islamofascists?....." Where did that term come from? Those "islamofascists" speak our language very well. They understand cool hard cash. You can blah blah about this and that virtue or ideal all day long. The bottom line of America is MONEY. Money is everything in American society and especially at the highest levels of politics. The Saudis are the same. We can relate well and we can deal.

Hollinger, yes you did say something that seems to jibe with I what said, but then you followed with how a democratic conversation in Iran would be speedier than in Iraq because of cartain demographics. The later is what I was refering to to.

"News reports are coming out that the Iranian president narrowly survived an assasination attempt"

Just as I predicted (though much sooner).

Relax, the guy is history. There will be no nuclear attack against Israel.

You said intensity the first time.

Now you try to hide that by blurring the distinction between intensity and duration.

Why not admit that you made a mistake?

avedis:

My point is that you characterize Ledeen as a criminal due his involvement in Iran-Contra but then launched into all manner of self-righteousness and tirades concerning the views of myself and more than a few others when it came to Sami al-Arian.

And that doesn't even begin to address any of the other points made above.

Obviously we can return to the earlier theory of Avedis with more confidence.

avedis said:

Hollinger, yes you did say something that seems to jibe with I what said, but then you followed with how a democratic conversation in Iran would be speedier than in Iraq because of cartain demographics. The later is what I was refering to to.

Avedis,

People might take you marginally more seriously if you actually got around to reading and repeating Tom Holsinger's name rather than your repeated misspelling of "Hollinger."

If you can't even read and repeat the proper name of the person you are arguing with after repeated exchanged, people will mark you off as an energy creature only useful as a foil to be manipulated.

I am curious to see how you manage to mangle my name, assuming you actually read my post at all.

Fanatics with nukes

If you've been reading other threads there apparently was an assassination attempt on the Iranian President. A body guard was killed.

The Jawa Report, LGF, and the Ace of Spades have some coverage.

It could be the "moderates" [I use this term loosely] are attempting to "take him" out before he and his fanatical mentors can consolidate their power base.

Dr. Zin says bad karma if the Israelis or we had anything to do with the attempt. Probably not optimal if "moderates" were involved either unless they take out all of the extremists.

Besides the "moderates" have a way of blending in with the West and would give false hopes of any real change. Their goals may not be all that different than those of the nutcase Ahmadinejad albiet for different reasons. Besides Ahmadinejad is doing a good job of atracting attention to the Iranian issue which is a good thing.

Dr. Zin's post

Perhaps hopeful thinking but this goes along with what I've read about a rift developing within the ruling theocracy.

Enough said - we should be driving Mt. Rushmore into this rift zone.

The American Thinker has some good thoughts on what may be occuring within the theocracy:

HT The American Thinker

Fanatics with nukes

The debate over what to do about Iran’s pending acquisition of nuclear weapons is one of the most important issues of the moment. On the one hand, James Lewis has argued that inasnity among leaders of great nations is not so unusual as we might like to believe, and that the fanatical religiosity of the mullahs is cause for alarm. On the other hand, Tom Milstein has argued that beneath the bluster from Iran lies a hardheaded calculus of power within the Islamic world.

Patrick Devenny brings some new information to the puzzle with a revealing article on a strain of mssianic thinking within Shia Islam. A straif thinking embraced by the current President, and which sees as desirable a state of chaos, hearliding the messiah – in this case the 12th Imam.

Not very reassuring at all.

Thomas Lifson 12 17 05

[...]

Read more with hot links

Here

"Turkey isn't going to allow the USA to use their soil for staging an invasion of their nuclear armed neighbor"

What is the relationship between Kurds in northwestern Iran and the government? Since the US and the Kurdish people generally have a good relationship, that might be some help.

Overall, Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq. They have a bigger and better equipped military. We could go in from Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time but not without cost from both Iraqi and what is left of Afgan Shiites.

I can't see how we would do it alone, it would have to be a group effort. I don't think it is likely any time soon. I believe what we are more likely to see in the next couple of years is a greater support of democratic factions in Iran and an attempt to reduce Iranian influence in the region outside Iran.

The Iranian administration is doing a pretty good job of alienating itself from the general world community, much better than outsiders could probably do in such a short period of time.

Syria is Iran's best ally and they are having their own trouble with the investigations into the Lebanese bombings. They aren't making many friends in the international community either.

In a strategic sense, we and other countries should be making a full court press in Lebanon to support Lebanese nationalist factions and reducing Syrian and Iranian influence there. The key is having Syria and Iran portrayed as thugs using Lebanon for their own national interests. Something along the likes of portraying Iran as being willing to fight Isreal to the last Lebanese might be useful. Showing Lebanon in the light of being proxy pawns for more powerful countries that are more willing to risk the lives of someone else's citizens could incite regional distrust and cynacism toward the two countries. Basically taking their political stock in the region down a few notches would be most helpful.

One one hand Iran wants to be cast in the role of the Muslim with the Nuke. But on the other hand, they could just as easiuly be cast as the puppet master who wants to use their power to manipulate weaker countries in the region to do their bidding. Sewing some seeds of distrust between the Persians and Arabs is helpful here.

Iran also has, I believe, the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. While that population is nowhere near as large as it was during the Shah's time, it is still significant. There is the potential for having in excess of 10,000 hostages already in place if any action is taken. That must also be considered.

Military intervention in Iran would not be a "cake walk" by any means. We could bomb the living pee out of them, but at some point we would need to physically go in. And honestly, I don't see how the US could ever put together an attack without the Iranians finding out about it in advance. Some "senior administration official" or "senior pentagon source" would be blabbing to CNN as soon as the ops plan was filed. Our people in government run their mouths too much for us to ever do anything significant in secret and an operation of that sort would require surprise. I don't see how we could keep something of that magniture quiet. Too many people would need to know about it and we can't keep our damned mouths shut.

No Stickler, all those people you mentioned are anathema to Dems. Truman and Kennedy and Johnson are derided for using military action.

Bill Clinton's principal use of military force was to run away in Mogadishu, which as we know from bin Laden convinced him that the US was a weak paper tiger. Clinton refused to intervene in Rwanda, out of fear of US casualties by his own words. He refused to intervene in Bosnia to stop the killing other than near risk-free bombing. Clilnton refused to retaliate for the bombing of the Cole; and limited his responses to the Embassy bombings to missile strikes that would not kill anyone.

Howard Dean posed with the group that sent 600K to terrorists fighting Marines in Fallujah (Code Pink) and John Kerry called the troops terrorists. Joe Lieberman is getting kicked out of the Party for siding with the Troops. That's the Dems these days. We KNOW WHERE BIN LADEN IS according to an interview with Porter Goss. Yet not a single Dem will call for whatever it takes, including war with Pakistan or Iran (he's one of those places) to get him. Avedis who is typical of Dems can't conceive of a single instance where WAR can do good. It certainly is the only way to stop the slaughter in Darfur. Or many other places. He makes the fundamental mistake of Wilson, confusing success with South Africa already looking for a way out with brutal thugs like Ahmadinejad.

And note the quick and ugly ad-hominen attacks. This is because his naive and foolish religious faith in "negotiations" where people rush around like a West Wing episode (fairly reflective of Dem's world views) is negated by actual reality which I pointed out. His god of "peace" is dead and I told him so. Thus the hatred and spewing.

"Led around by the nose?" Was it not Bill Clinton who pushed Ehud Barak to the mat on concessions, by his own statements, at the Wye River meetings? Giants are not led by tiny countries.

"Moral equivalence" is the standard tactics of the Liberal Dems to avoid calling the Palestinians both evil and stupid which their actions certainly mark them as. Bill Clinton by his own words said that Barak was committed to a deal and asked Arafat to counter-offer but was rebuffed (and Clinton felt betrayed). Anyone with a lick of sense realizes no peace will come until Palestinians understand that the Israelis are not going away, Ahmadinejad's fantasies and their own fantasies not withstanding. At any rate the record of US-Israeli relations suggests that the US makes certain demands and Israel complies, relying on the US for key military items. An example would be not retaliating against Saddam's Scud attacks during Gulf War 1. Giants are not led by tiny countries. Avedis' assertions are that US politics and "Zionist" politics (i.e. the existence of Israel) are entwined in some evil conspiracy. When in fact it is our policy to support the existence of Israel as a nation and has been since 1948. The parallels between the various Dem conspiracy theories of "the Jews" being behind 9/11 (as seen on flyers circulated at DNC HQ under Howard Dean, for which he issued a belated apology ONLY after it was reported by the Press) are telling.

[Libs cannot conceive of anything evil unless it is ordinary working men and women in this country. "Jesusland?" anyone ? Thus the hysteria over GWB labeling certain countries and actions such as terrorism evil. I have nothing but contempt for Avedis's carefully constructed reasons for avoiding calling brutal actions such as murdering a vacationing wheelchair bound American citizen for being Jewish by evil monsters as "evil." He leans on the moral crutch of equivalence to preserve his god "peace through negotiations."]

We will get war with Iran wether we like it or not. The failed assassination attempt was a desperate attempt to forestall this war. It failed like Hitler's Prussian Generals failed. Ahmadinejad is determined to have war with us thinking that John Kerry, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the White Flag Democrats are willing to surrender at the first blow (shared by bin Laden btw). It's coming. Either by using freighters as missile launching platforms, or more likely smuggling nukes in.

Note that the defeat of the Patriot Act, and fuss over wiretaps of people who chat with Al Qaeda figures makes success more likely for the Iranians. We of course will lose several cities. Iran will lose everything. This is utterly predictable. Wretchard's Third Conjecture coming true because of lack of elemental common sense and political will.

A REAL Opposition Party would have raked Bush over the coals on the failure to stop Iran's march to nuking us. But they worship the "god of peace" a washed up reject from the 1968 generation.

All interesting talk over whether a military strike would ever happen and/or work and an initial suggestion of negotiations.

No talk of finally churning assets into the already existing oppostion groups inside Iran?

Sure, they're ten strands torn into ten different directions, it seems. But who knows the hand-holding that may go on if they sense concrete support? You'll never know until you try. It should have been richly in place for no less than a decade.

With certainty, it is far more complicated than that. But that this consideration has yet to even be discussed after 37 comments is disappointing.

Notes on the reported assassination attempt on Iran's nutball terrorist president:

1) The guy was a motor-mouth even by mullah standards;

2) Iranian domestic politics is true hardball;

3) Iran is in a pre-revolutionary state. Such things happen in that situation. He had lots of enemies and it is toss-up as to who got to him first. And it's not just those who oppose the mullahs. Nutball regimes become more so under pressure. It might have been a dispute over sharing. He had been trying to take over some major Iranian banks, and the mullah factions controlling those might have been defending their turf.

Speaking of turf:

Steve,

The pre-attack planning for Iraq showed that the United States government, at least under the Bushh 41 administration, does not have the political ability to make effective use of dissident political groups in a tryanny we are invading.

It boils down to turf wars. Each major faction in the U.S. national security establishment insists on sole and total control of such dissident groups as it favors, and acts as though any dissident group favored by rival factions is evil, nasty, rotten, illegal, immoral and fattening. And dissident groups which resist total ownership and control by a U.S. national security faction are deemed not to exist.

As long as we have a President who refuses to punish anyone in the government for anything save for loud, public, overt disloyalty to him (covert is okay - ask former CIA Director Tenet), such games will be played.

It's worth noting that Ahmadinejad was targeted while in Baluchistan, a region of Iran long known to hold the country's central government (particularly under the current regime) in low regard. Most the drug transit from Afghanistan are controlled by local Baluch leaders and the mullahs' attempt to suppress the trade led to a low-level conflict throughout a lot of the 1980s.

Given recent government-on-minority unrest in Iran's Khuzestan and Kordestan (Kurdistan) provinces, it is entirely possible that the attack on Ahmadinejad was perpetrated by one or several of the local drug lords to let him and his Abadgaran buddies known that they aren't returning to the 1980s any time soon. Failing that, if it was a move against Ahmadinejad by his internal enemies, they almost certainly used Baluchs to do it - there are a lot of Baluchs in that province who wouldn't need much to take a shot at the Iranian president.

"Avedis,People might take you marginally more seriously if you actually got around to reading and repeating Tom Holsinger's name rather than your repeated misspelling of "Hollinger.""

Gosh you guys are touchy about the littlest things.

I knew someone named Hollinger once. I don't type well. There's a disconnect between brain and hands. I'll make an effrort to Hoslinger's name correct in the future.

I would think I would be taken more seriously because I am the only one on this thread that has actually gotten it right and that, presumably, would at least suggest that I understand the region better than 100 armchair warriors.

BTW, where are you people getting the news. I am not seeing anything about the attempted assassination on CNN or most of my other regular sources.

You have links?

#41 avedis

Read my comment at #35 and follow the links especially to Dr. Zin's. PJM at www.osm.org has a collection of links. Dr. Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report, Ace of Spades and others in the Blogos are talking about the implications.

You don't get out much :-)

avedis, it's not my thread but I'll suggest that suggesting that "you've got it right" and everyone else in the room is an "armchair general" isn;t the kind of tone that provokes useful discussion.

So, one alternatie is to ask whether you can point me at what, exactly, you've "got right" that the rest of the room has got wrong? Another is to understand that all of us are operating on too little data, and that real decision in the real world get made on too little data. But they have to be made.

So how do we improve them?

A.L.

".....Saudi Islamofascists?....." Where did that term come from? Those "islamofascists" speak our language very well. They understand cool hard cash.

The Saudi government enforces Sharia laws that are in many ways more strict than the laws enforced by the Taliban. There is no real difference between their goals and bin Laden goals. The only point on which they disagree with bin Laden is the question of who should be in charge of the caliphate. In any case, they're not our allies. The fact that their government is sending young Saudis into Iraq to be martyrs in the fight against America is, like their financing of 9/11 and most terrorist attacks worldwide, proof that we are not relating very well.

Otherwise, it's difficult to make rational points with someone who talks about snakes in heads.

A.L. Don't get me wrong, I put you squarely into the armchair general camp. Even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

Mary, do you drive a motor vehicle than runs on fossil fuel?

If so, I'll bet youu're burning product that was delivered to you as a result of a long chain of long standing and completely honored agreements between good old American capitalists and your "Islamofascists".

So either buck up and get with the program or do the honorable thing and forgo use of your vehicle (that provides funding to the "islamofascists" that then take the money. allegedly, and do all the horible things you say they do).

Face it, if you're correct, then we (and you) are the ultimate funders of the terrorism because we are the biggest consumers of Saudi oil. And oil is about all that country has going for it.

Mary, you should arrest yourself and send yourself to the Gitmo. You are as guilty as Dan says Al Arian is of funding terrorism.

Good bye.

Mary, do you drive a motor vehicle than runs on fossil fuel?

If so, I'll bet youu're burning product that was delivered to you as a result of a long chain of long standing and completely honored agreements between good old American capitalists and your "Islamofascists".

I recently moved to the city and I drive a Prius, but, like every human being around the world, I use some fossil fuels.

American capitalists, British capitalists, German capitalists, French capitalists, Chinese commies and Russian whatevers have made agreements with the Islamofascists. There's no reason to honor agreements with fascists. The world needs oil, but no one needs the Wahhabis or the Iranian mullahs.

Roadmap for Avedis

Avedis,

Here's a roadmap for you. It wasn't until the last century did this evil rise up from the Arabian Penisula.

From a link in my comment at #9:

The ideology of Islamofacism is destined for failure as it does not recognize the fundamental truth of the free will of men and women.

A a key facet in the war of information is to drive this point home. Certain pathological practices of radical Islamic culture have roots which predate Islam to the nomadic Bedouin tribal cultures of the Arabian Penisula and Northern Africa.

These abhorent practices that include pedophilia and male dominated theocratic hegemonies do not foster good trading relationships within the modern world. The treament of women as nothing more than chattel is one of these pathological practices.

Our strategic foreign policy for the last freaking 50 yrs has been one of governmental stability in this region for the purpose of having a stable flow of oil. We have not "raped" the ME of its oil. We have generally paid a prevailing "market" price.

The problem is some of these "governments" (I use this term loosely) have exploited these resources to the detriment of their people. Some of these governments as you correctly point out are very despotic and impose inhuman treatment on their people.

The difference now is President Bush has made a fundamental shift in our strategic foreign policy. We will no longer tolerate despotic governments to ensure the stable flow of oil.

I just ran across an astute perspective circa the 1860's that was dead on the mark:

If ever an oppressed race existed, it is this one we see fettered around us under the inhuman tyranny of the Ottoman Empire. . . . These people are naturally good-hearted and intelligent, and with education and liberty, would be a happy and contented race. They often appeal to the stranger to know if the great world will not some day come to their relief and save them. The Sultan has been lavishing money like water in England and Paris, but his subjects are suffering for it now.

Here

Good Nite Avedis!

AFAIK, Iranian people have nothing against the Jews and the state of Israel.

This selected president of Iran is mentally ill, if you ask me.