The Gospel on Iran

"There is overwhelming theoretical and historical reason to believe that no country would mount an unprovoked nuclear first strike against a country with a credible second-strike nuclear deterrent."

No. A suicidal leader, by either nature or circumstance.

"There is no particular reason to believe that Iran is especially close to obtaining a workable nuclear weapon."

Yup.

"There is very little reason to believe that an unprovoked unilateral military attack on Iran will substantially delay the date at which Iran may or may not be in a position to build a nuclear weapon."

Meh. I think a sufficiently aggressive strike would have a decent chance at delaying the program, especially if followed by counter-strikes.

"The phrase "point of no return," though often heard in this debate, has no real practical meaning and, in particular, it's worth pointing out that many nations have passed this point without constructing nuclear weapons."

Yup.

"Nothing is more likely to convince future Iranian governments that they should engage in unprovoked "preventative" attacks on other nations in the region than a history of said other nations launching unprovoked "preventative" attacks on Iran."

No. One could make a reasonable case that a nuclear Iran would be freed to be much more adventurous in the region.

"There is substantial empirical and theoretic reason to believe that the Iranian nuclear program is substantially defensive (though probably not "peaceful") in nature."

Yup. But there's also non-insane reason to believe the program is tactically offensive while being strategically defensive.

"The very administration currently pushing toward a military confrontation with Iran has, in the past, rebuffed Iranian peace overtures and consistently refused to attempt good-faith negotiations aimed at resolving outstanding bilateral disputes between the United States and Iran."

Yup.

No. A suicidal leader, by either nature or circumstance.

For which there is absolutely no historical precedent, and no contemporary example. Matt's point stands.

No. One could make a reasonable case that a nuclear Iran would be freed to be much more adventurous in the region.

One could make that case, but you aren't making it. And how does this in any way contradict Matt's point - that an unprovoked attack on Iran will only make future attacks on the part of Iran more likely?

Is this the Book of Cavalier?

You might add that an unprovoked 'preventative' attack on Iran is likely to increase the anger of one billion muslims at the US, with possible consequences for anti-Western terrorism in the US and elsewhere.

"You might add that an unprovoked 'preventative' attack on Iran is likely to increase the anger of one billion muslims at the US, with possible consequences for anti-Western terrorism in the US and elsewhere."

Yup.

"For which there is absolutely no historical precedent"

Not to send the thread into early Godwin-land, but by 1945, Hitler was actively desirous of the destruction of Berlin to punish the German people.

Meh. I think a sufficiently aggressive strike would have a decent chance at delaying the program, especially if followed by counter-strikes.

Apparently you've got better sources than Sy Hersh:

The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

Even if the US could destroy all the facilities, the gain in terms of setting back Iranian capacity would have to be offset against the loss in terms of increasing the intensity of the Iranian preference to have a nuclear capacity.

by 1945, Hitler was actively desirous of the destruction of Berlin to punish the German people

This is highly debatable. And Hitler certainly didn't launch World War II because he wanted to bring about the destruction of Germany (and himself); he launched the war because, like most people who launch wars, he thought he could win. It's not very useful to ask, "what if there's a total loon who just wants his country to get nuked?", any more than it's useful to tool around with hypotheticals like the "ticking time bomb" scenario, because they're not going to actually affect policy. What we actually have is not a pattern of crazy people acquiring nuclear bombs because they're crazy and want to blow everybody (and themselves) up, but a pattern of generally rational actors acquiring nuclear bombs in an attempt to deter others - especially those who have already acquired nuclear bombs.

"Apparently you've got better sources than Sy Hersh"

I don't think what I wrote is in contradiction with that Hersh passage...

Wouldn't it require more than just one suicidal leader? Suppose that Ayatollah al-Scary decides to nuke Tel Aviv, out of sheer looniness -- does he have a single button that launches the missile, or does he have to order some army dude to do it?

Because it seems like there might be a decent chance that the army dude wouldn't go along. Howie Long didn't seem too pleased at a similar juncture in Broken Arrow, though by then Travolta had unilateral power.

Matt

Could I suggest getting a full length version of this into the Washington Monthly or some such soon-ish, to get feedback (good, bad, and ugly) and improve the version which will appear in The Book?

"Meh. I think a sufficiently aggressive strike would have a decent chance at delaying the program, especially if followed by counter-strikes."

Col. Pat Lang, at Sic Semper Tyrannis, has detailed the Iranian attack plan. The Air Force doesn't like to take avoidable chances with its planes and pilots. It would, or will, not be a surgical strike, but a massive infrastructure destruction.

In addition, Bush doesn't have the same motivation he had in Iraq to keep the Iranian infrastructure, industry, economy, society intact. We are not going to occupy Iran and rape the country for Halliburton profits. So he can just destroy everything.

Leaving only 75-x million starving desperate Shia jihadis fleeing the burning rubble into Iraq.

Excellent. Could you please try to get some suitably op-ed ized version of this into the main stream media as soon as possible?

The very administration currently pushing toward a military confrontation with Iran

You may also wish to add that the very same administration is nominally headed by an incurious dipshit and practically run by right wing whackjobs whose foreign policy track record is marked by baldfaced lies and inconceivable incompetence. This really oughtn't be overlooked.

Something that doesn't get pointed out enough is that Jerusalem is one of the holiest cities in Islam. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, as such also holds weight in Islam as Jesus is one of the highest prophets in Islam. Nuking both of these cities would be a perfect way for a radical Muslim to say he doesn't care about his 72 virgins and going to paradise. One would think a suicidal leader would want to go to paradise, with death coming soon and everything.

Also, it is also not said enough how much the Iranian nuclear program is a break with previous policy caused directly by the Iraq War. Khomeini used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as Exhibit A in his arguments against the "Great Satan." He ended the Shah's nuclear program because he found nuclear weapons to be immoral because they were used for the indiscriminate mass death of innocents, including children. The current regime helped us out in Afghanistan, yet has received nothing in return. Instead, that war further convinced the Bushies that regime change was a viable foreign policy tool. We now have active wars in countries directly bordering Iran's east and west. North Korea was saved from being attacked because it had nukes. Iraq didn't and thus lost out. The lesson was pretty clear: one needs nukes to preserve one's regime in the face of American aggression.

The Israel factor is the only way that the defensive Iranian nuclear program can look like it's offense by pointing to A-whatever saying "whipe Israel off the map," which according to Juan Cole may not even be grammatically and theoretically possible to say in Persian. By tying American and Israeli interests together, only then can aggression against Iran look sensible in the least. The US has shown in North Korea and South Asia that we only pay attention when a nation has nukes. Bush has pretty much ignored Latin America in his time in office because they lack a threat besides Chavez's control of Venezuela's oil. If Brazil and Argentina had not given up their nuclear weapons programs, The US and Bush would pay more attention to South America. India and Pakistan had been ignored since the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan until they set off nukes.

I don't think what I wrote is in contradiction with that Hersh passage

Even if the Natanz strike gets taken out with "low-yield" nukes, the larger point remains that there's not much of an Iranian nuclear program to begin with. So if at the cost of a nuclear strike - which would certainly bring near-universal condemnation to the United States while plunging the Mideast into chaos and dramatically increasing Muslim terror across the globe - we push the Iranian nuke program from being "a nuke ten years from now" to "a nuke fifteen years from now," which is a stupidly huge price to pay for not much benefit at all. See also: Saddam Hussein.

But, but, if we pre-emptively bomb the sh*t out of everybody who we perceive as even vaguely threatening, then it's just a given that the rest of the world will cower trembling in fear and respect at our red-white-and-blue feet! Plus Iran is TEH EVIL and TEH CRA7Y.

Sorry, I just felt I should make the basis of the pro-"attacking Iran" position a little clearer. Carry on with the Tom Clancyness, bomb-boys!

Conservatives love to knock Hollywood, yet where would conservatives be without Hollywood making it look like play-by-their-own-rules action heroes who blow shit up until their enemies shit their pants for them to idolize? Hollywood action movies and their logic are what allow conservatives to convince people that their ideas work. Hey, it worked for John McLean and Jack Bauer, it might work for Bush. If our discussions were based on more realistic touchstones further grounded in reality, such as a deep understanding of WWI or the rise of modern nationalism, conservative ideas would fizzle faster than Dick Cheney's erections.

I think the neocon's kill 'em all mentality gives us more insight into history, Reality.

Maybe there's always been people who just like to kill?

It would explain a lot...

For the glory of Bush: imagine laying waste to three quarters of the world.
Gone, but not forgotten.
AuH20

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

I don't know if the Afghan Khans count as Persians. If they don't, the last aggressive war started by Persians would have been... the Sassanian Empire, which ruled from 220 ce to 651 ce, ie pre-Mohammedan.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that Persians, after a millenium and a half, won't tolerate pointless invasions. Americans, on the other hand, seem to get itchy if they go a single year without launching preemptive invasions.

We have nothing to fear from Iran. We have everything to fear from ourselves.

"If they don't, the last aggressive war started by Persians would have been... the Sassanian Empire, which ruled from 220 ce to 651 ce, ie pre-Mohammedan."

Yeah, but there was that whole Thermopylae thing, in which a small dedicated band of men-who-enjoyed-the-glories-of-war (and-it-may-be-added-the-beauty-of-the-masculine-form) held off a whole army of Persian invaders and saved Western civ as we know it. "Dulce et decorum est" and all that crap.

I believe a film based on a Frank Miller comic of the episode is forthcoming, but more significantly, you can bet that all the sexually repressed pudgy Ivy League classics-major neo-cons just are aching to stage their own version with real actors.

There is overwhelming theoretical and historical reason to believe that no country would mount an unprovoked nuclear first strike against a country with a credible second-strike nuclear deterrent.

Really? Overwhelming? No country has mounted such a strike. That's 0 out of 8 in 60 years. Perhaps we should widen the data set:

There is overwhelming theoretical and historical reason to believe that no country would mount an unprovoked war in which a large part of its population is likely to die and a large part of its infrastructure is likely to be destroyed.

Hmm... But surely we can predict something based on logic and experience? How about:

There is overwhelming theoretical and historical reason to believe that persecution and mass murder of Jews will continue forever and the most obvious next step is an Iranian attack against Israel.

Anybody care to explain how this one is less logical or historical than Matt's first point?

Matt's bullet points are conclusions based on a set of assumptions he holds about the nature and motives of the Iranian government. I think it would be more honest, and useful, to state those assumptions explicitly.

Matt,

Here's another bullet point: (are you going all Kaganesque on us?)

There's substantial reason to believe that both the nominal power (Ahmadenijad) and the real power (Ayatollah Khamenei) won't be holding their present positions at the end of 2007.

Isn't there some sort of maxim (that can even penetrate Cheney's thick head) that, if your adversary is imploding, the best thing to do is stand aside, and let the process continue of its own accord?

There is overwhelming theoretical and historical reason to believe that no country would mount an unprovoked nuclear first strike against a country with a credible second-strike nuclear deterrent.

I think your argument would be strengthened by emphasizing that the situation with Iran bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the Cold War balance of power. Back then, both sides had roughly-equal arsenals of long-range bombers and missiles, and the Red Army had a substantial advantage on the ground in Europe. There were war-gamers on both sides in 1962 who thought a nuclear war was winnable.

Iran, at best, might be able in the foreseeable future to cobble together a few nukes and a delivery system capable of hitting Israel or our European allies. The United States, by contrast, could turn their entire country into a radioactive desert in a matter of hours.

Not only do the US and Israel each possess a "credible second-strike deterrent," but the US possesses a guaranteed second strike of complete and utter destruction and total victory. This is a far more powerful deterrent than the US possessed in the early Cold War.

Not only do the US and Israel each possess a "credible second-strike deterrent," but the US possesses a guaranteed second strike of complete and utter destruction and total victory. This is a far more powerful deterrent than the US possessed in the early Cold War.

Excellent point. The key question for Iran, therefore, is: would the US use this capability. I think much of Iran's recent foreign policy can be plausibly explained as attempts discover the answer.

I agree with all of Matt's points. But there's other considerations here. Namely:

* As Petey said, if Iran possessed a nuclear deterrent, they might be more aggressive in asserting their "regional power" (which we've already seen in their support of Hezbollah, for instance).

* Negotiations with Iran will have little chance of succeeding without a credible threat of military force. The only other "stick" we could apply is sanctions, but it's clear that Russia and China are going to block any really meaningful sanctions, so that's unfortunately off the table.

* Some saber-rattling on the part of the U.S. might cause investors to flee the country, and thus might make Iran's more responsible leaders (whoever they are) to wake up and realize that a confrontational, bellicose, anti-Western attitude will get Iran nowhere fast. There's some signs that this is already happening.

So I guess that, while actually attacking Iran would be pointless and counterproductive (and potentially disastrous), saber-rattling, if convincing, might have some marginal beneficial effects. Of course, Bush doesn't exactly have a very good track record of making this kind of subtle distinction...

And you can bet that the declining oil price is causing real anxiety in a nation already beset economically. Keep the nuclear sanctions on, and wait them out.

So I guess that, while actually attacking Iran would be pointless and counterproductive (and potentially disastrous), saber-rattling, if convincing, might have some marginal beneficial effects. Of course, Bush doesn't exactly have a very good track record of making this kind of subtle distinction...

Indeed. As I said on the other thread, this is exactly what happened in Iraq -- the threat (and authorization of force) did great at getting Saddam to readmit the inspectors, and then we went to war anyway because Bush was set on war all along. There's no excuse for repeating this path.

There is no such thing as a point of no return. Just look at the South African program, about the only thing they didn't do is use one on another country.

Rebuffed reasonable peace overtures?

If you can back this up I'll probably change my whole position on this issue. Please cite references.

I imagine Yglesias is talking about this, where Iran asked for comprehensive bilateral negotiations, "acknowledg[ing] that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations," and the Bush Administration rebuked Swiss diplomats for even conveying the offer to them.

Plus the fact that the US is committed to enabling Israeli colonisation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank means that the US is incapable of entering serious negotiations with Iran.

More detail.

My first rule of geopolitical judgment is to not believe the words of a man who desperately wants to invade a given country. Especially if this person has desperately lied his way into war previously. Shame on anybody who's falling for Bush's discourse--he's making the same speeches, and all he's done is cross out the Qs and replace them with Ns.

As a side note, why are the same people who base their actions on fear of a Sharia America the people who want to criminalise abortion, homosexuality, adultery, and sacrilege? Is it that they hate praying 5 times a day? They love every other aspect.

Re: No. A suicidal leader, by either nature or circumstance.
For which there is absolutely no historical precedent, and no contemporary example. Matt's point stands.

Yep. Even Adolf Hitler was foiled by his underlings when he ordered Germany destroyed as the allies closed in.

Re: Something that doesn't get pointed out enough is that Jerusalem is one of the holiest cities in Islam. Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, as such also holds weight in Islam as Jesus is one of the highest prophets in Islam. Nuking both of these cities would be a perfect way for a radical Muslim to say he doesn't care about his 72 virgins and going to paradise.

The most likely target for a nuking in Israel is Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem which the Muslims regard as properly their own.

Re: I don't know if the Afghan Khans count as Persians.

They were Mongol descendants.
But you are leaving out the long and brutal wars between Persia and the Ottoman Empire the 1600s. Both empires were ruined by these contests, which had an element of religious (Sunni vs Shi'ite) conflict in them too. The present divided state of Iraq is largely the product of these wars.

The present divided state of Iraq is largely the product of these wars.

I don't think that's correct. My recollection is that the predominance of the Shi'ites in southern Iraq resulted mainly from more recent conversions. The Kurdish presence long predates the 17th century and probably goes back to ancient times.

Re: I don't think that's correct. My recollection is that the predominance of the Shi'ites in southern Iraq resulted mainly from more recent conversions. The Kurdish presence long predates the 17th century and probably goes back to ancient times.

The Turkish Sultans were recognbized as Caliphs by Sunnis but not by Shi'ites, who were also suspected of divided loyalties, sepcially in Mesopotamia which was on the frontier with Persia. Hence Shi'ites within the Empire came under severe persecution. Previous to this the Shi'ites had generally been wealthier and better educated, but the Turkish policy toward them left them an embittered and suppressed people. Shi'ite and Sunnis had certainly been divided for centuries, but had usually gotten along. It was the Ottomans who stoked the hatreds between the two groups.
As for the Kurds, their history with the Turks is another history of grief and woe with major ramifications for today's politics.
In many ways the Ottomans were more tolerant toward their non-Muslim minorities (except at the end of course) than with Muslims minorities under their realm.

My point remains that Persian don't like-a the war so much. Their evil-crazy leaders, so called by our evil-crazy leaders, are no threat to international peace--unlike us.

Wouldn't it be wild and crazy if anybody in teh Bush administration were familiar with this history?

Of course anything we would do to the Iranians to preempt the nuclear program would not be as damaging to the people of Iran as a retaliatory Nuclear strike.

Also left out of the formulation is the 150K reasons why an attack right now would be a bad idea.

no poroblem

thanks your article ready

Love a you blog

Love me do

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanx

Even had the latest drivers and all and still nothing so I had to poop can it once again

writes a very strong overview article on the

writes a very strong overview article on the

Of course anything we would do to the Iranians to preempt the nuclear program would not be as damaging to the people of Iran as a retaliatory Nuclear strike.

Also left out of the formulation is the 150K reasons why an attack right now would be a bad idea.

daa ii

thanks ;)

thanks ;)

mirc

diyetle zayıflamak

thanks..

thanks you.good site and news.

thanks you.good site and news.

thanks you.good site and news.

sexshop

Great article, thank you.

Hmm.Thanks you for news and site.Very good.

mirc

Thank you very much for this information.
site

sohbet
sesli sohbet
chat
muhabbet
mirc
evden eve nakliyat
mirc
mirc
sohbet
kelebek
chat

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset