On The Table

In an interesting parallel with politicians' insistence that military options be kept "on the table" in dealing with Iran, the more hawkish Iran-policy hands (represented at today's events by people from WINEP) appear to be taking a rhetoric approach that involves loudly agreeing with mainstream analysts that diplomacy is the way to go and then later slipping all kinds of war-oriented assertions into the mix. Michael Eisenstadt was really good at this, offering a presentation that emphasized diplomacy but, in fact, involved diplomacy aimed at conditions Iran will never accept. He praised David Ochmanek's restrained-but-convincing account of what would be problematic about coping with a nuclear Iran, but also added "tens or even hundreds of millions could die if Iran gets nuclear weapons and decides to use them."

Similarly, US airstrikes would probably prompt a rally-round-the-flag effect in Teheran but, hey, "the Bolshevik revolution was brought on in part by the pressures of world war one." The most notable thing, however, was the nature of Eisenstadt's bottom-line objection to military options. Attacking Iran would, he said, greatly expand the scope of the war on terror. This, in turn, he said would be a bad idea primarily because there's no political support for it in the United States, which would make it impossible to pull off effectively. That, clearly, is true, but it's about the shallowest possible source of opposition to a proposed war.

3/21/07 1:28PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

"...and decides to use them..."

So how many people would die if the US or the UK or France or China or Pakistan or India or Israel--all of which have nukes--suddenly decided to use them? What do we think the probability of that is? (In the case of Pakistan or India, I'm afraid it's higher than we want to admit.) What do we think the probability that Iran is likely to use nukes is?

Posted by: Donald A. Coffin on March 21, 2007 01:45 PM

so... Thinking a war couldn't possibly be successful is a crappy reason to oppose that war?

Posted by: soullite on March 21, 2007 01:48 PM

Opposing a war because the war would be unpopular indicates to me that you're someone who's going to be investing his time in trying to make the war option more popular, rather than someone who's going to be trying to prevent the war from happening.

Posted by: Matthew Yglesias on March 21, 2007 01:52 PM

It's extremely unfortunate that we don't hear anything about building on common American/Iranian interests. The U. S. and the Iranian both want a secure Shiite government in Iraq, the end of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, and stable oil markets worldwide. We should be building from there.

Posted by: Ric Caric on March 21, 2007 01:53 PM

The comment that "the Bolshevik revolution was brought on in part by the pressures of world war one" represents a preposturous comparison.

The Bolsheviks capitalized on dissatisfaction with a caretaker regime that refused to end Russian involvement in a war entered by their own government. Many Iranians are surely dissatisfied with their government, but to minimize the internal solidarity produced by an attack by an external enemy is to ignore history and sociology (see Lewis Coser on this subject).

Posted by: dolphy on March 21, 2007 01:56 PM

"Attacking Iran would, he said, greatly expand the scope of the war on terror. This, in turn, he said would be a bad idea primarily because there's no political support for it in the United States, which would make it impossible to pull off effectively. That, clearly, is true, but it's about the shallowest possible source of opposition to a proposed war. "

Except in democracies, of course.

Posted by: Sk on March 21, 2007 02:09 PM

Except in democracies, of course.

No. See, being in a democracy means (mostly) that on a great many issues we accept that the outcomes of certain procedures for aggregating preferences are the law (or the national policy) until a different majority decides otherwise. It doesn't mean that we accept that the aggregated preferences are a good idea.

Posted by: washerdreyer on March 21, 2007 02:44 PM

The fact that it is still off limits to just come out and say the obvious -- that war with Iran is a horrible idea that is completely against the interests of the United States -- is what is problematic. It is nuts to imply that war with Iran is like, a good idea that the American people for some strange reason won't support.

Also, second Ric Caric's statement above -- the U.S. and Iran have many common interests we should be pursuing.

Posted by: MQ on March 21, 2007 04:43 PM

Polls show little enthusiasm for attacking Iran tomorrow. They also show widespread acceptance of the ideas that will lead with inexorable logic to war with Iran.

Posted by: David Tomlin on March 21, 2007 08:43 PM

The good thing about the session was that everyone, even Danielle Pletka of the American Empire Institute, said that attacking Iran was a bad idea. Whether that translates anywhere else, I don't know.

BTW, Matthew, thanks for posting the link. They decided to let walk-ins um, walk in, which was nice.

Posted by: Tom Scudder on March 21, 2007 10:30 PM

You must have left too early and missed some truly enjoyable moments. None more so than when the Iranian ambassador to the UN favorably quoted John Bolton disparaging the UNSC and giving a reason for why Iran is not cooperating with UNSC mandated weapons inspections.

Posted by: DS on March 23, 2007 01:19 AM

thenks..

Posted by: evden eve nakliye on October 1, 2007 09:26 AM

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

Posted by: muhabbet on December 25, 2007 09:13 PM

Posted by: hikayetube on January 29, 2008 01:39 PM

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
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

Posted by: mirc on December 12, 2008 12:38 AM

simdi biz bu siteyi kasarken cinsel sohbet birde sohbet odaları
olarak kasmaya calıstık guzel sozler de ilerleme var ona birde mirc yaptık gun gectikce
kelebek script olarak hit alamaya basladık oda olmadı birde kelebek
radyo muz olsun dedik iyi kotu muhabbet oluyordu ama baktık kadınca
çet cet üniversite odaları
nda is yok donduk mirc indir e ondada tat tuz kalmamıs rüya tabirlerine zipladık izmir de oturuyorum iste ..
sonra da yavas yavas ilerlemeye basladık operserv chanserv memoserv nickserv komutlarını yazdık .. bir sonraki hedefimiz sohbet yada chat olacak insallah ..sex seks demi kassak acaba :)