>>OK, let's one more time try economic pressure and diplomatic enticements for Iran to cease its satanic efforts.  Well, that's what we are doing now and precisely.  It will not work.  I'd make a bet with anyone.<<

We're not doing it "now and precisely" -- high oil prices provide too much relief for the pressure from the sanctions.  But the opportunity to put immediate substantial econ pressure on Iran has probably passed because Americans wouldn't tolerate a gas tax/oil price floor during a recession.

The logic is definitely there, but my question is: are we prepared?  Would Iran's government just take the blow, happy to stay in power?  Or would they have the power to launch terrorist attacks in the U.S. (and act on that power)?  We have never seen in this country the type of random, small scale, continuous terrorism that Israel and Northern Ireland and the Basque region has seen.  What would the effect be of that and sky-high oil prices (what if the Iranians set some of their own fields ablaze and blamed the U.S. -- who would be believed (thanks Bush)?)  and subsequent deep recession on the nation's psyche.  

The solution of course is for the international community to, er, spine-up.  But if it doesn't, and probably won't, we're not heading for another Osirak.  

Can't wait to hear what Wonder Boy will tell his adoring European hordes regarding what he'll do when Israel asks for the green light.

No way to dodge that one: either you sacrifice your popularity with Israel-hating Euros, or sacrifice Israel.  

Which will he choose, Marty?

I can just imagine the look on the faces of his (German) (French) (UK) listeners when he tells them that Israel's right not to be extinguished includes pre-emptive strikes against a nuclear Iran.

Then again, maybe not. 3-to-1 odds here that no such message is forthcoming. More like continued  mush-from-the-wimp vapor along with healthy dollops of smirking references to le Grand Satan in the White House.

Given the subject matter of Marty's post, and on the assumption that the herd has moved on to this watering hole, I want to clarify that in a previous posting of mine in the "A Process Not Founded in Reality", Dore Gold was misquoted and did not compare Obama to Jimmy Carter.

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

"Eminently doable."

Are your sources on this the same ones that claimed they could degrage Hezbollah's capabilities enough so that a subsequent land invasion of Southern Lebanon would be a simple mopping up operation?  It seems to me that every air force in the whole hisotry of air forces has always claimed that they could take care of geopolitical problems with no muss and no fuss.

I agree that this is a cost benefit analysis.  I also agree that the "economic pressure and diplomacy" is not a viable alternative.  The alternative that has to be explored more seriosly is a MAD scenario played out until the Iranian people get sick and tired of these jerks.  And pointing out that the Mullahs are fanatics doesn't end that discussion.  I remember a similar case being made about Kremlin ideologues.  

I'd also like to see some informed discussion of this "point of no return" sutff.  How is this defined?  How do we go about guessing when it occurs or if it has already?  

Maybe we do have a bit more time to think this through.  The deadline shouldn't be January 20.  If an Obama administration then judges that an attack by Israel would be a bad idea, they might be right.

The question for those who advocate bombing Iran is:  what then?

The world has a vast supply of rogue nuclear bombs.  For, say, $3 billion the Iranians could acquire a few, even if they could not manufacture any.  They could then use those bombs to destroy Isra.el and maybe even a few US cities.

And even if their facilities are destroyed, their know will not be, so they will be at it again.

The only alternative is more and better diplomacy and universal nuclear disarmament.

In the longer run -- say 40 or 50 years -- I suspect that Israel is doomed.  Too many enemies with billions in oil revenues and no incentive to compromise.

Tep, what about McCain then? what the hell is this one sided criticism? And what of Bush, isn't he President now? What you have no criticism of what he should do now as opposed to what Obama might do more than a half a year from now?

If Israel were to do it, it were better to be done now and quickly, Israel couldn't be anymore hated and being that things are terrible now in the US and Bush's own reputation is in the toilet he should give the green light, the time will never be more right. And the best part is that McCain and Obama can vigorously condemn it, so we can have it both ways. In January the world will breath a sigh of relief that Bush is gone and the Iranians ability to build the weapons greatly diminished.

But people like Tep thinks that a new Obama administration should do it. I would not even expect McCain to do it.

Pete - your last comment may inspire me to make aliyah to Israel tomorrow - just to prove you wrong. Apion said something silmilar over 2500 years ago and his empire is long gone.

No one should do it.  The Israelis simply cannot.  Oh, they can drop some bombs on nuclear sites, to some real effect, no doubt.  What the Israelis (or anyone else save the US) cannot do is conduct a 3-6 week sustained bombing campaign of Iranian military/industrial/intell sites that will leave the Iranians without much of a nuclear program, as well as without a Navy or an air defense system or an intelligence gathering system.

I would recommend against the above, based on my own beliefs as to cost-benefit analysis.  BUT, if we're going to do it, do it all the way the first time.

blackton - I have no idea what McCain would do. His admin would be subject to _all_ the same constraints that Obama's would. It seems increasingly clear that the most LIKELY scenario is for the Israelis to strike.

At home it seems increasingly clear that a recession, perhaps a nasty one, is in the offing, which makes a Democratic sweep increasingly likely. McCain's odds are long and getting longer. There's not much point criticizing him anymore.

Combine these two and you get my q for Marty Peretz, or for any Obama supporter. This is a hellish problem, sure, and it will piss on Obama's parade, but it's there and needs to be dealt with honestly, without the usual reflexive kicking at W or McCain.

By the way, don't forget that Israel is still largely led by the same poltroons who marched to whatever in Lebanon in 2006, and who just gave up a bunch of murderers, for . . . what?  All of this is just too painful. I'd feel better if I thought Israel's best and brightest were thinking about this strategy and in a position to act. Instead, it's led by politicians who are under criminal investigation for petty theft and bribery, not to mention rape, or who do not have enough integrity to resign from a government they know has none either. Oh, and don't forget, Israel's swing voters are those who eschew military service for their children, and worry most of all whether gay people have a parade or whether or prospective bride has sufficient proof that her great grandmother whom the Czar chased all the way to America was really Jewish.

If Israel wants to seriously confront its threats, it better think about them, and not stupid stuff.

"There's not much point criticizing him anymore." I am sorry but that is silly. After election and if Obama wins, criticize away, until then it is a two man race. Still, you offered no rebuttal as to why it would be better for Obama to do it later then for Bush to do it now. The only plausible reason for Obama is that he alone has the Nixon to China thing, if he were to bomb Iran, then the world will give him far more credence than Bush or McCain. Personally, I see no reason to wait, do it now or don't do it at all. How the hell can Republicans criticize Obama for not doing something that they themselves didn't do when they have to opportunity to do it.

I tend to agree with Butchie cost benefit wise, it is better not to be done at all, but as far as I can see, there is no better time than now.

blackton writes: "If Israel were to do it, it were better to be done now and quickly, Israel couldn't be anymore hated and being that things are terrible now in the US and Bush's own reputation is in the toilet he should give the green light, the time will never be more right. And the best part is that McCain and Obama can vigorously condemn it, so we can have it both ways. In January the world will breath a sigh of relief that Bush is gone and the Iranians ability to build the weapons greatly diminished."

I'm undecided on the conclusion, but I don't think all the premises are right.  Israel isn't hated in the U.S. right now - it has her detractors (including Chuck Hagel if you pay attention) but most like her and many love her.  But if an attack triggered a depression or domestic terrorism, I dunno.  Look what happened in Spain.  (Again, consider the scenario I wrote about where Iran sets a few of its oil production areas aflame and blames Israeli bombs).  Regardless, gas prices will skyrocket and given how fragile the economy is at the moment...  Also, I don't think McCain or Obama would vigorously condemn it -- Obama could go either way.  But your main point is probably right: Israel might not be able to count on Obama or McCains support.  Bush's legacy argument is clear: damn right I tortured to keep America free of terrorist attacks post-9/11, plus I was winning Iraq when we left, and I helped keep that little Hitler from getting nukes when the world couldn't cut it.

Hysteria and nuclear weapons make a bad cocktail. There is not the slightest evidence that Iran has any intention of nuking Israel, and there is a very great deal of evidence that they would not be so foolish. I doubt if any sane Israeli official will ask for a "green-light", and that either Obama or McCain would give one.

Iran can afford to play a waiting game, and nuclear capacity will certainly give them more clout going forward. But the world is not sitting still. We can make a hell of a lot more progress opening that interest section, encouraging more Iranians to come here, and more to do business with the West. We have a tremendous opportunity in that our allies in Iraq have decent relations with Teheran.  They look like much better intermediaries than Nixon found the Pakis to be, and that worked out okay.

Our approach to Iran should be similar to the approach we've taken with China. China still might attack Taiwan, but it seems a lot less likely than it did a few decades ago. Most Iranians are young, secular people who don't give a rat's ass about "Palestine", and they increasingly have access to real power.

On balance, Robert Powell's ideas make the most sense to me. I would add that we and the Israelis should do as much as possible to encourage and empower these young, west looking, secular Iranians who hate their regime as much as we do. These Iranians frequently post about their hostility to their government on Israeli forums such as JPost, so we have to pick up the tempo to the point that they are emboldened to civil disobedience.  

I agree with much of what you say, rp, but do not underestimate the depth of the mullahs grip on power.  They will not let it go, and would likely shoot their people down in the street like dogs (something the Shah refused to do) in order to keep it.

Having said that, person to person contacts, the interest section, etc. all make a great deal of sense.

"There is a now a very broad consensus in Israel that, like with Iraq at Osirak, it will be Jerusalem that will have to ensure its own survival by taking out Iran's nuclear facilities."

Don't forget the Syran Al-Kibar reactor of just under a year ago.

"Hysteria and nuclear weapons make a bad coctail."

Yeah, Robert, but the neo-cons love bad cocktails.  And the McCain camp is stocked full of neo-cons just itching to teach Iran a lesson, proof of nuclear bomb-making or not.

You and butchie make so much sense that they would reject it out of hand, might even sneer at it.

I think Bob Gates could be the firewall for this tragedy in the making, however, I doubt he's able to sway the Israelis if they've determined they have no viable other option.

Robert Powell - Good sense from someone I often disagree with.  Thanks.

Robert Powell's claim that hysteria and nuclear weapons make a bad cocktail is certainly correct. But the claim that "there is not the slightest evidence that Iran has any intention of nuking Israel" is obviously mistaken. According to a NYT transcript of a speech given by Ahmadinejad's to the "World Without Zionism" conference in Oct 2005, he said:

"Our dear Imam [referring to Ayatollah Khomeini] said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

How much weight we should give to this remark is debatable. But it, along with other familiar remarks of Ahmadinejad, certainly constitutes some evidence that Iran does not have benevolent intentions towards Israel. If one thinks, as many do, that Iran does desire the elimination of Israel, then there is good reason to think that it will act on that desire if it can. (As Aquinas remarks, Whoever wills the end wills the means.)

Mr Powell says as well that "there is a very great deal of evidence that they would not be so foolish". What exactly is that evidence? Is it that rational actors would not behave in that manner? In my view, Ahmadinejad's obsession with the "hidden imam" and Mahdaviat indicates that he is not entirely rational.

But, in any case, why exactly does Iran need nuclear weapons? Who exactly is threatening Iran? Or rather who would be threatening Iran if it were not engaged in a nuclear weapons program? The country is going to a great deal of trouble and expense  to secure these weapons. They must have some purpose in mind. In fact, it seems to me that the evidence "that they would not be so foolish" is no better than the evidence that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons in the first place.  But there seems to be a consensus that this is what they are doing.

Israel is a keystone to our identity, history, and policy.  Anything less is just not doable.  Unthinkable to not back Israel to the fullest.  Obviously, if we do, we do soon, before Shrub leaves office.

It is scary to think that Shrub's neo-ism may actually turn out to be realistic versus Wonder Boy's sunny Idealism.  Wonder Boy scares me as to foreign policy and security.

lymon, I agree with Bob as well, and don't disagree with any of your conclusions either, my only point is if it were done (and I don't think it should be) is that now is the time. And if Israel did do it, then most Americans would understand it was with Bush's approval since the US can easily prevent an Israeli airstrike on Iran.

I'd like to believe that RP is right, and fwiw my own conclusion is that MAD makes the most sense here, but  his analysis forgets that there are two players here (or three, if you include the influence of Iranian proxy Hezvollah). The whole point of analyses by very sane, very shrewd Israeli writers such as Morris and Halevi is that clearly, there are intelligent voices within the Israeli establishment who believe that Israel will soon have no choice but to strike.

Again, that may not be what we wish, or even what is dreamt of in our heaven and earth as we understand them, but there it is. If Israel feels the need to act, then the Israelis will act. The green light will be a formality in that case, and Pes. Obama would have to do a Suez in reverse in order to restrain the Israelis., which brings me back to the core q I posed earlier.  

Mr. Katz--at risk of beating a long-dead horse, Iran's President is a minor figure in their system who has no foreign policy authority, has lost most of his domestic popularity, is in hot water with the real powers that be, and will most likely lose the next election. His party took a severe drubbing in the last ones.

Lots of Muslims would like to see the Levant completely under the control of their co-religionists and Israel politically "wiped off the map; but that's a far cry from actually invading Israel. Please note that there is a significant difference between lacking "benevolent intentions" and launching a suicidal nuclear strike.

The people who actually control Iran have been extraordinarily pragmatic. They certainly aren't going to relinquish power without voluntarily, but they are currently beset by a wide variety of problems domestically that are only likely to get worse, many of which are identical to the things that brought down the Soviet Union. We don't need to panic here, and I don't see any signs that we will.

"But, in any case, why exactly does Iran need nuclear weapons? Who exactly is threatening Iran?"

George Bush identified three countries as members of the "Axis of Evil": Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.  Saddam Hussein didn't have nuclear weapons, and he was living in a hole in the ground until he was hung by the neck.  Kim Jong-il does have them, and he's negotiating with the U.S. as an equal and probably playing us for suckers.  You figure it out from there.  

Mr. Powell, What you say about Ahmadinejad's position and authority in Iran may be correct, but he is far from alone in voicing such sentiments. According to a Memri report, in December 2001, former Iranian President Rafsanjani gave a sermon which touched on this topic. Memri reports:

"Rafsanjani said that Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam."

Perhaps, you will agree that it is a bit of stretch to say that  "there is not the slightest evidence that Iran has any intention of nuking Israel".  I agree that there is a significant difference between lacking benevolent intentions and launching a suicidal nuclear strike or even intending to. If the Memri report is correct, it would seem that Rafsanjani was talking about the possibility of a nuclear attack.

Fwiw, the real danger, in my opinion, is not that Iran wiould try to launch a missile carrying nuclear weapons at Israel. Rather, it is that would provide the likes of  Hamas and Hezbollah with such weapons.

Random remarks to the press or in a nearly decade-old, probably mis-translated sermon hardly constitute "evidence", much less evidence of an intention to launch a nuclear exchange which everyone not living on a desert island for the last half century knows would leave Iran a radioactive parking lot.

Most of the people who would be killed in a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be Muslims, by a very large margin. Nukes have real value to Iran, but only if they don't use them. And as for "why do they need them?", see aarong above, and factor in that not only do Israel and the US have nukes, but so do most of Iran's neighbors--Russia, China, Pakistan, India. And who knows, maybe Saudi Arabia and Egypt at some point.

While bombing Iran is probably irrational, the fear of an Iranian nuclear bomb is certainly not. In particular, as tep implies, an Iranian bomb would provide cover for Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to harass Israel mercilessly. Therefore, it would be more rational for Israel to neutralize those threats before Iran actually has the bomb. But, as pointed out here, the present Israeli government appears to be incapable of successful military action, even with overwhelming superiority.

In my opinion, the best way to stop Iran is to engage Russia and China. Hopefully, the US still has sufficient clout to weigh in with them. I would even urge the Israelis to go this route, and not act as much like a puppet of the US.

Let's see: Khomeini, a former supreme leader, Rafsanjani , a former president and current head of the Experts Assembly, and Ahmadinejad, the current president, have expressed the view that Israel should be destroyed. (I don't speak Persian, but I am inclined to rely on Memri as proving accurate translations.) We know that Iran provides funding, training, and weapons to the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.  And there is evidence that leaders of the Iranian government orchestrated the bombing of a Jewish cultural center in Argentina: witness, Argentina's arrest warrant for Rafsanjani. I think that there is good evidence to suppose that Iran has genocidal intentions towards Israel.

The only reason to think that Iran would not use nuclear weapons against Israel, if it had them, is the idea that everyone knows that it would "leave Iran a radioactive parking lot". Would a dirty bomb detonated by Hamas or Hezbollah leave Iran a radioactive parking lot?

Mr. Powell says, "Most of the people who would be killed in a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be Muslims, by a very large margin". That may be true, but so what? There is little evidence to suppose that this consideration by itself would deter Iran. (Most of the people killed in a military confrontation between Hamas and Israel will be Muslims, but this did not deter Hamas from firing rockets against Israel.)

One final point. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it won't be too long before Egypt and Saudi Arabia do as well, followed by Lybia and Algeria. Under those circumstances, the deterrence equation becomes much more complicated: the region has a low threshold for escalation and a high tendency for crises.

I'm completely with RP on this one.

From what I understand, few people in Iran actually paid much attention to Ahmadinejad's until the west started getting excited.  While I'm not advocating ignoring anything anyone says, everything needs to be taken in context.  The context here is an extremely weak political figure who has found some really great levers to pull to gain attention and develop some cred as "someone who stands up to the west".  The crazed flag burning "Iranian" masses you see on TV likely represent the average Iranian as much as the Republican Rent-A-Crowd that "spontaneously appeared" in Florida during the 2000 recount.

And BTW, this current figure is really a creation of the west since we completely failed to support his predecessor and gave him NOTHING to show that repproachment with the West was worth anything for Iran.  Ah, if only we'd had adults in the White house immediately after the invasion of Iraq where we could have negotiated from a position of strength.

As RP noted, Ahmadinejad is not in a position to take the action he is advocating (think Saudia Arabia deciding to attack the US because of something Tancredo said) and those who are have shown a strong aversion to getting obliterated in what would be an inevitable response to any attack on Israel.  

On the other hand, we have a President who threatens to enforce laws he wants if they were to expire (Patriot act) and has a bad habit of making statements for domestic consumption that anyone who actually cares understands will undermine our strategic positions in the world (see Declaration of Axis of Evil, Politics behind & subsequent invasion of weakest member)

This is not to say that we shouldn't vigorously pursue a disarmament strategy with Iran - we absolutely should as it's in everyone's interest.  However we need to be realistic about what Iran is likely to want in return - security guarantees are likely to be high on the list.

It appears that the opiate-like attraction of the military option still holds strong, even in a recovering junkie country like the US.  Since it's not been too successful for us recently, hows about we try some actual adult diplomacy rather than painting Iran as the "next-bad-thing"?

Department of Naivete:

RPowell: "We can make a hell of a lot more progress opening that interest section, encouraging more Iranians to come here, and more to do business with the West."

As (I think) an expert on communism in general and on the Soviet Union in particular, please reflect on how much freedom and influence the US Emabassy in Moscow had to interact & influence the Soviet people?  (hint: about zero)

r-ennis:

"In my opinion, the best way to stop Iran is to engage Russia and China. ...I would even urge the Israelis to go this route...".

How exactly?  And haven't it been tried before (hint: by the current administration), to no avail?  What can Israel offer to Russia and China that the US didn't or wouldn't?

Robert Powell's assuming that our experience with the Soviets and MAD will be repeated with the Iranians. Of course, as in any risk assessment involving the behavior of multiple entities in a complex environment, it's always easy to assume that one's risk models adequately capture and accommodate all possible scenarios. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes the failure of such models ends beautifully, as when the Soviets unilaterally surrendered and (more or less) peacefully dismantled their empire. Sometimes, as in August 1914 (also with the UK and French gamble at Suez), they don't end so well.

The problem with the Iran siuation is that no one has any real insight into the Iranians' own risk-reward assessments. With the Soviets by the time of Brezhnev, we had seen nearly 30 years of Soviet behavior in a variety of very high risk confrontations across the globe. We had a fairly good data set with which to assess the boundaries of potential Soviet behavior. As it turned out, Stalin and his successors were essentially following a conservative policy aimed mainly at consolidating their power in the near abroad and winning legitimacy for their brutal, shambolic, corrupt, failed policies at home. Outside of the lands they captured from the Third Reich, the Soviet leadership took an opportunistic approach to foreign policy, snatching what gains they could where and when the US seemed weak (or inattentive), but backing down whenever seriously challenged.

Robert Powell, even if one were to argue that Iran too is essentially a Soviet-style opportunistic power outside its backyard, the problem is that Israel is right next door. When millions of westerners share the view that TalkBacker Pete Beck, above, expressed-- that Israel is finished, awaiting the dustbin, due to its vulnerability to more powerful Arab and Persian aggressors-- it's a stretch to assume that the men in Tehran do not also view Israel as a very inviting opportunity.

I agree that MAD our best _hope_, but I disagree over the amount of _confidence_ we can have in our risk assessment here. We simply don't know enough about how policy is made in Tehran to be able to make such easy and confident judgments as Robert Powell does.

The very high degree of uncertainty here is precisely what makes Israel more and more inclined to pre-emptively strike. For them the consequences of getting it wrong are catastrophic.

What odds does everyone here put on an Israeli strike in the next 18 months? I'd say it's north of 25%, maybe slightly less than 50%.

The US can exert huge influence on the Chinese and Russians if it had the political will to do so. Israel, admittedly less so, but it is an intellectual property powerhouse and, if seen to be acting independent of the US, could exert much influence where now it has next to none . Maybe this is a naive point of view, but not nearly as naive as believing it can successfully arrest nuclear development in Iran on its own.

"In my opinion, the best way to stop Iran is to engage Russia and China."

I agree. The problem is that Putin's Russia is essentially a gangster regime whose main focus is on looting Gazprom and other resource companies so they can stuff their personal accounts. These men aren't statesmen, or even nationalists, let alone responsible statesmen concerned with Russia's international role. They're thieves who in many cases are now richer than the Google Boys. In fact, Putin's the world's richest man, and closing in on $100B in stolen gains.

How do you bribe someone whose personal cash flow (from his oil trading company alone) is half a billion$ a month?

tep, it's a good point you make about our beliefs as to what the Iranian cost-benefit analysis would be.  As one who believes, like rp, in the MAD approach - and actually, destruction would not affect the US at all, I still find it hard to believe that the Iranians would risk annihilation over tossing a nuke at Israel.

I admit I don't live in that neighborhood, but still sounds like an irrational actor-type thing to do.  As for Israel, the problem for us is that were they to bomb Iran, we and the West generally would pay the price.  The Iranians would then attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and the oil lifeline.  One guess as to which country would have to take care of that problem.

So even if we don't bomb, we may well be sucked into military action against the Iranians anyway.  No question this could all turn out badly.

Oh, BTW, I have been told for awhile now that if only the US had a rep at these conferences with the Iranians, things would go better.  Well, Mr. Burns was there, and the Iranians once again told all and sundry to bugger off.  Maybe we should try it with no preconditions, merely preparations.

Even thieves should have a vested interest in avoiding an economic, even if not nuclear, calamity caused by a middle eastern conflagration of the magnitude that is emerging between Israel and Iran.

Thank you Robert, a voice of sanity amongst the chest beating armchair intelligence analysis.

It's not about MAD or an Iranian nuclear strike. The whole point about Nukes is that they project the power of conventional weapons. Marty's reference to Hez and Hamas is a hint about that.

Let's be clear, a strike would mean a protracted conflict and would send the global economy into a depression. And that could mean my job.

There would be nothing surgical, or quick about it. At least come out and say that it's all about regime change now Marty, the nukes are a sideshow.

Also, please stop referring to the Russian or French or Chinese business interests in Iran as valid evidence. We're not allowed mention the US/BP oil deals in Iraq, and anyone who does is called an anti-pro conspiracy nut because we know the US is fighting for "democracy and security". Which means the Chinese and Russian's are against a strike because they want to "preserve peace in the Middle East".

Robert Powell:  "Most of the people who would be killed in a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be Muslims, by a very large margin. Nukes have real value to Iran, but only if they don't use them."

This of course assumes that we are dealing with rational people and not with folks in the grip of a deadly and suicidal religious ideology.

“None of this would matter, however, if Ayatollah Khameini wasn't also determined to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Some members of the government have even boasted how they would use them: to destroy Israel. "Islam could survive the retaliation," they insist, "but Israel would be gone forever." The thought of ayatollahs with nuclear bombs should terrify everyone – especially in Europe, because the Iranians could soon put those bombs on the top of rockets that could reach European capitals.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../main.jhtml

Remember that during the Iran Iraq war Khomeini sent tens of thousands of Iranian kids to their death in suicide attacks on the Iraqi forces.

People in the throes of a religious mania are not able to calculate rationally the resultsof their actions.

There was another bulldozer attack in Israel by a Hamas fanatic today. He wounded a number of people:

www.jpost.com/.../Satellite

Do you think that he stopped to ask those people he attacked if they were Muslims or Jews?

“Sixteen wounded in copycat bulldozer attack in Jerusalem”

“The vehicle reportedly left a construction site near the Yemin Moshe neighborhood and set off towards Liberty Bell Park (Gan Hapa'amon), near the corner of Keren Hayesod and King David streets. It drove a distance of approximately 160 meters, attempting to overturn a bus and crashing into four other vehicles - one of which it flipped over. The man was then shot dead by a civilian and a border policeman.”

….

“The perpetrator of the attack, Ghassan Abu Tir, was a relative of Muhammad Abu Tir, a Hamas parliamentarian jailed in Israel.”

I think Israelis are right to be concerned about a nuclear attack from Iran and trying to prevent it through a preemptive attack would be worthwhile. Of course, it all depends on how it is carried out.

what teplukhin2you said in his latest post which I just read.

butchie - let's at least be fair: as the inimitable Dana Perino categorically said, Mr Burns was NOT in Iran  to negotiate.  So unless you're saying that the administration have pants on fire or are simply unable to understand words with 4 or more syllables (appeasement only has 3!), lets assume he was sent there as a token gesture.  And who is seriously going to negotiate with a lame duck?

The opportune time for negotiation was immediately after the invasion of Iraq.  However, apparently our leaders were so intoxicated with the success that they immediately started looking at Tehran or Damascus as the next pit stop before reality smacked them in the face and so  the opportunity was wasted.

The E3 negotiation was unlikely to succeed as they really don't have much the Mullahs want - but the US does.  We just have to be willing to actually offer it rather than making demands.

Noted w/o comment:

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, ...Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears."

Teplukhin makes some excellent points.  We know very little, and understand even less, how Iran works,  so any  assessment of their intentions is nothing but guesswork (where does your aplomb come from, Robert Powell?).  What we do know is this:  theirs is an Islamic revolutionary regime that is engaged in a proxy war with Israel (and with the US in Iraq, to an extent),  was (is currently?) engaged in international terrorism directly, is pursuing nuclear weapons no matter what cost, and seeks domination of the ME.  It's also the main state purveyor of anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying propaganda.

So what to do about all this?  The diplomacy/carrots approach was tried and failed, the latest one with a really sweet deal for Iran and the direct presence at the table of  the US 3rd ranking State Dept official.  Where do you go with carrots from there -- a President Obama unconditional  meeting with A'jad preceded perhaps by equally unconditional, good-will economic gifts to the "Iranian people"?  I'd love to hear somebody explaining just how that would work.

Military options, either by Israel or US (make it by US in any case, for even if  Israel attacks alone, the Iranians will assume it's a joint attack anyway, with all the consequences)  are extremely unattractive for all the reasons mentioned in other posts.

If we, or Israel, do nothing, Iran will get its bomb(s) in due course, and then we'll find out whose crystall ball was the clearest.  The only problem is, for some, having been wrong, would be fatal, for others -- merely catastrophic.  But we can always hope for the best (MAD, Iranian rulers are really rational, etc) to justify doing nothing.  That is, to continue the current course.

mmathog, do you have a source for the quote?

nari, of course he wasn't there to negotiate - there is NOTHING to negotiate about.  The US, the EU-3, indeed the rest of the world have made it clear to the Iranians that unless they stop enriching uranium, they'll get more sanctions.  This isn't merely that nasty, stupid, evil george W. Bush talking, it's even the sainted Hu Jin-Tao and Gordon Brown (no rogues, they).

BTW, what is it you think that we have that the Euros don't that the Iranians want so much?  Have they told us, and I just missed it?

Sabachka - there are no good options.  In my view, deterrence plus is the best we've got.  We could in fact go after Iran, but it will take a 3-6 week sustained bombing campaign that destroys their Navy, AF, Air Defense and intell sites. Oh,and the nuke stuff, too.  President Obama will never, and I mean never, authorize such an effort.

Ignorance strikes again:

" We're not allowed mention the US/BP oil deals in Iraq, and anyone who does is called an anti-pro conspiracy nut because we know the US is fighting for "democracy and security". Which means the Chinese and Russian's are against a strike because they want to "preserve peace in the Middle East". "

This is pretty ignorant, even by Ignramus' standards.

Chinese and Russians want to "preserve peace in the Middle East?"

The two most egregious abusers of human rights in the world (Chechnya, Tibet) are for peace while the US is a warmonger only interested in oil profits.  China and Russia are not interested in profits of any kind, just peace.

"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave.

...I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war -- and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task...Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable -- that mankind is doomed -- that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view...

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue."

Amen to that.

Jack, just this once. Are you that stupid?

It's from the ny times, can't find the link, it was in october of '07...

mmathog said:   "It's from the ny times, can't find the link, it was in october of '07..."

I'd like to see the link, mmathog.

Ignorance asks:  "Jack, just this once. Are you that stupid?"

I am may be stupid, but not stupid enough to believe anything you post.

butchie - do you really view international negotiations on par with 3rd grade bullying?  There's "NOTHING" to negotiate?  GIVE ME WHAT I WANT!!  

There is plenty to negotiation - we want them to stop developing nukes and they want a plethora of things, probably starting with security guarantees (such as those we gave Castro), a relaxation in sanctions and a path to normalisation of relations.  And those are things the US can offer that no-one else can.  I think we're all agreed that the Iranians are unlikely to be too worried about an EU army arriving on their doorstep any time soon.

There are plenty of reasons for the Iranians to want nukes (such as those that we share that keep us in violation of our NPT commitments) but I'd imagine that large among them is that they're a proven deterrent to US.  If it is possible (and that's admittedly an if) to allay that concern then there are numerous possibilities for moving forwards without large numbers of people getting killed.

If you're disinclined to accept the USSR analogy, surely Libya and North Korea (the former I well remember being described in exactly the same terms used for Iran today) are valid analogies where we largely got what we wanted.

Of course if you only really want regime change and security at a price we're willing to pay isn't the highest priority then all of this is obviously moot.

The Ignorant Populist said  “No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue." “Amen to that.”

Taking quotes out of context is a sign of mendacity.  Hoping that all the readers will believe them is a sign of profound stupidity.

The Ignorant bigot quoted Kennedy but leaves out the context of the remarks:

“Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements-in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.”

www.fordham.edu/.../1963kennedy-peacestrat.html

I am doubt the mendacious Bolshevik would assent to the assertion about “communism being repugnant.”

Besides, substitute Islamicist for Bolshevik and an American President could deliver a similar message today. I also don’t think he would have delivered that same speech in say 1939 after the Moscow Berlin pact. Context is all!

Btw: I take it a sign of honor that you hate replying to my comments. Now, go fuck yourself.

"There are plenty of reasons for the Iranians to want nukes (such as those that we share that keep us in violation of our NPT commitments) but I'd imagine that large among them is that they're a proven deterrent to US.  If it is possible (and that's admittedly an if) to allay that concern then there are numerous possibilities for moving forwards without large numbers of people getting killed." Nari224

Getting one or even ten nuclear weapons wouldn't be a "deterrent to the US,” though it would be a threat to its Arab neighbors and to Israel and perhaps even to Europe.

It is not naivete to refuse a cartoon version of reality. There are plenty of facts available to those who aren't ideologically stuck with Iran as a parody nation overrun with screaming lunatics.

Iran is a nation of 70 million mostly-normal people, an ancient civilization and a traditional regional power. Its current regime maintains an abhorrent fascist police state, but it has real elections, multiple parties, and a population that is overwhelmingly young, reasonably well-educated, and profoundly  disenchanted. Their economy is hobbled by a corrupt command system based on a looney ideology that everyone recognizes as a failure, and the aging ruling clique is as out of touch as the Kremlin of Konstantin Chernenko.

The one thing that would rally Iranians around the government most of them manifestly hate would be air strikes on the heavily-populated areas in which all the important nuclear facilities have been secreted. If we're prepared to pre-emptively kill tens of millions of Iranians with nuclear strikes, we can be reasonably confident that they won't continue to pursue nuclear power for a long time. Otherwise, starting a war with Iran by some kind of "Shock and Awe" bullshit wouldn't solve the nuclear problem, but would be a blunder that would make the invasion of Iraq look like a day at the beach.

Fortunately, the only people crazy enough to consider strikes on Iran a rational option are flying keyboards instead of making strategic decisions. This is an idea so stupid even George Bush won't go along with it.

butchie, I agree that this combo:  (no good options + weak leaders) rules out any military strike against Iran.  By weak leaders I mean either those to whom "the war is never the answer" (all Euros, quite possibly - Obama) or just very unpopular ones, eg, Bush and  Olmert.  Which leaves Israel/the West without a stick, or the credibility that "all options are on the table",  which, in turn, strengthens the real crazies in the Muslim world.  Thereby increasing chances of a bigger blowup down the line.

Similarly, if you are all carrots and no stick,  you ain't gonna get no respect from the same quarters ("weak horse" and all that...).  So you are forced to either concede that your approach isn't working (thus shattering your worldview which is just horrible), or keep moving your goalposts and sweetening your offer (enter the Euros + now Condi Rice/the State).  Which, in turn, only whets the appetite of your "negotiating partner" and further convinces him that you are even a weaker horse.

Here's your fucking link Jackson, it's from ha'aretz.

www.haaretz.com/.../916777.html

You know, so far I haven't taken a position on this issue either way. Maybe people would stop calling you 'fucking asshole' all the time if you didn't imply they were liars.

Dickhead.

mmathpig's link is to a hearsay article in Haaretz which doesn't quote her directly. Moreover it is from last year.  The actual quotes given in that article deal with issues other than Iran. (I happen to agree with much of what she is quoted as saying there, btw.

In yesterdays’ editorial Haaretz on the subject of Iran the paper seems to take the threat very seriously and while noting that there is no easy answer they do see the threat as real and merely an Olmert ploy to get himself out of political difficulties:

Here are some quotes:

“Talking and suspecting  By Haaretz Editorial”

“Nonetheless, these positive signals cannot camouflage Iran's determination to attain the status of a nuclear power.

One cannot overstate that it was during the period when the voices of Iranian moderation were heard, when Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami occupied the president's chair, that Iran's nuclear program was allowed to develop with no interference from outside.

We ought to welcome all attempts at substantive dialogue that can lead to a suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment activity in a way that provides enough reliable safeguards and supervisory measures.

At the same time, Iran's deceptive behavior and policy of buying time constantly warn against any efforts to pull the wool over our eyes.”

Read the whole piece here:

www.haaretz.com/.../1003493.html

This, btw, is what the “moderate” Hashemi Rafsanjani said about Iran’s pursuit of a bomb:

“If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”

www.globalsecurity.org/.../011214-text.html

Finally, mathpig I couldn't care less what you and people of your ilk think or say about me.

Robert Powell said: "It is not naivete to refuse a cartoon version of reality."

Are you sure that it's not you who is stuck with a "cartoon version of reality"?

"hearsay article in Haaretz which doesn't quote her directly. Moreover it is from last year."

I fuckin' SAID it was from last year, jesus.

Jackson you're so deluded and insane over the notion of an alternate opinion that you can't actually address a perspective from a very smart and informed observer.

Anyway, she said it. It was quoted everywhere (including the Times), it might be more interesting to actually address HER perspective, she being Israel's foreign minister, she having a 1 in 3 shot (at least) of being the next PM, and considering that even you'd probably admit that she's not an 'anti-semite.'

Go ahead, stick your fingers over your ears and yell 'LA LA LA.' Pathetic.

Rather than address her interesting quote, you'd choose to sit and wank wank wank. I'd imagine that even someone as old as you jackson would've ejaculated by now.

Jackson hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

An argument can be made (by sane people), that since last October, Livni has reversed her position (although I'd like to see evidence of that).

Whether she's reversed it or not, we can discuss it.

Or, deluded people can pretend she never said it ('EVERYONE'S LYING!').

I think it would be far more interesting to discuss her quote, her perspective, than hurl epithets and bury one's head in the sand. If that's what you prefer Jackson, have fun, although I don't imagine you'll be all that convincing, so it'll make me wonder why you even bother.

jackson-

"Getting one or even ten nuclear weapons wouldn't be a "deterrent to the US,” though it would be a threat to its Arab neighbors and to Israel and perhaps even to Europe."

Perhaps then you can explain the logic that went into invading the weak and contained country as opposed to say the country that has ICBMs that can reach the continental US with nukes on top?  

And are you saying that whether a state we're planning on invading does or does not have nuclear arms would have no bearing on you plans??

"I fuckin' SAID it was from last year, jesus."

You are an idiot mathpig.  You also said... "Yso far I haven't taken a position on this issue either way."

And yet you remembered a quote from a year ago on an issue you haven't taken a position.  A quote that argues that the whole issue is a sham and that Iran is no threat.

What a fucking liar you are.

SHMUCK!

MathPig:

"Whether she's reversed it or not, we can discuss it."

No "we"  can't, not with a lying jerk like you.

"Perhaps then you can explain the logic that went into invading the weak and contained country as opposed to say the country that has ICBMs that can reach the continental US with nukes on top?" Nari,

what country with ICBM's should we have invaded? Russia, China?

Why?

"And are you saying that whether a state we're planning on invading does or does not have nuclear arms would have no bearing on you plans??"

This is incoherent, as well as illiterate.

Where did I say or imply any such thing?

Robert Powell:

"Iran is a nation of 70 million mostly-normal people, an ancient civilization and a traditional regional power. Its current regime maintains an abhorrent fascist police state, but it has real elections, multiple parties, and a population that is overwhelmingly young, reasonably well-educated, and profoundly  disenchanted.

Their economy is hobbled by a corrupt command system based on a looney ideology that everyone recognizes as a failure, and the aging ruling clique is as out of touch as the Kremlin of Konstantin Chernenko."

Excuse me, but all this amounts to is a rather incoherent mush.

Is Iran pursuing nuclear weapons or not?  If it is, what will do with them?   Is their in-your-face constant Israel-bashing and threats to wipe it off the map just an overheated rhetoric for internal consumption or an open expression of real intentions?

And their "abhorrent fascist police state"  -- is it about to crumble or will it hold its grip on power?  Are "mostly normal" Iranians going to vote the mullahs out of office in their "real elections" any time soon and elect somebody at least not as crazy as A'jad?  

These are some of the real questions policy makers in US and Israel are grappling with, not whether  Iran is  an ancient civilization -- of course it is, but so what?

In the late 50s - early 60s, another big and important country had over a 100 million people, many of them young and educated;  it had a long history, great traditions and culture.  It was also a police state with a "looney ideology",  but its leader began to liberalize the conditions, and there arose a tremendous hope among the people of that country  for freedom and economic prosperity.

Yet at the same time, the same leader plunged the country into a horrible international crisis  that could have obliterated it.

The country was the USSR, the leader - Nikita Krushchev, and the crisis -- the Cuban missile crisis.

Your evasions are pathetic jackson, you're a small child, so sad for an old man incapable of a hard on.

Keep evading the issue, loser.

"ilk like me...." oh, you mean smart sane people, right. I know I'm out of your league pal, no worries.

Fair enough, sabaka. I get pretty regular information from friends in Teheran, and have followed events there as closely as I can for decades,  but I don't kid myself that this is scientific data to support infallible prognostication. The point I'm trying to make is that among all the various unknowns, we can "know" with pretty good confidence that launching strikes into heavily populated areas in Iran will touch off a chain of events that will very likely be devastating for all concerned. Such action should be the absolutely last resort, and based on much more concrete threat assessments than we currently have..

I think the evidence supports the assumption that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power, and there is very little that we can practically do about it. There is no evidence at all that the leadership of Iran sees nuclear weapons as anything other than a deterrent,  Various  "quotes" about theoretical positions in the Koran, ancient Rafsanjani remarks, and obnoxious grandstanding by Achmadineajad are very poor guides to actual Iranian policy. If we look at what Iran has actually DONE over the last couple of decades we see a very pragmatic, incremental approach to increasing its influence by means of proxies and two-step-forward, one-step-back negotiations.

Iran wants security, prosperity, and respect for its status as an ancient civilization and regional power. Moreover, they want to assume leadership of the Islamic World. From where they sit, time is in many ways on their side. Provoking a nuclear exchange makes no sense at all in terms of Iranian interests.

From my perspective, increasing Iran's isolation plays into the hands of the Iranian leadership, which has used the traditional fascist meme of wartime measures because "we're surrounded by enemies". With increased contacts, my view is that the situation reverses--time becomes our friend and THEIR enemy. I don't think that just having an embassy does much by itself, any more than more student visas, cultural, and non-military scientific exchanges, tourism, trade and etc. do. But all together, such an approach has proved far more effective. Specifically, the Soviet Union and Red China couldn't both sustain their systems and engage in increasingly vital contacts with the world. Same for Iran.

I agree with rp above.  We should pursue interest sections, people to people contacts, all sorts of things below official gov't to gov't contacts.  Our beef is with the mullahs and their stooges (Pres. Nutjob), not with the Iranian people.  Need to start cultivating contacts in their military, if possible.

But, nari, what you contemplate would show us to be the "weak horse" that sabaka referenced in his posts.  The whole world has insisted that the Iranians stop enriching uranium as a precondition to allowing them to rejoin the family of nations.  Again, not just the US and that nasty GW Bush - the whole world.  Why, then, should we unilaterally give the Iranians security guarantees?  Aside from the fact that W has been savaged unfairly for 5 years for "unilateralism," why give the Iranians something they want (apparently) for nothing?

I believe in deterrence, and don't believe that the Iranians are irrational actors, and if they are, nothing we can do will stop them from using nukes.  But if they are not crazy, deterrence will be as effective against Iran as it was against the USSR.  And, as in the Cold War, we wait.  We wait until a new generation comes to power thaht is more enlightened, we wait for better conditions.  We are the strong horse.  They are not.

mmathPIG

you are about as smart as broken tv set, and as crazy as a soup sandwich.

As for the rest, don't care what your opinion is, on any topic.

What's a soup sandwich?

Anyway jackson, Livni said it, you won't discuss it, the rest is just conversation.

mmathog said:  "Anyway jackson, Livni said it, you won't discuss it, the rest is just conversation."

The article said she said it, but did not quote it directly.  That's called hearsay evidence.

I have my doubts about it and in any case Haaretz which published the article you mentioned didn't seem to believe that the notion that Iran is not a "real threat" is false.

"Talking and suspecting   Haaretz Editorial"

www.haaretz.com/.../1003493.html

Robert, I'm just as horrified as you, or anybody else, by the perspective of airstrikes against Iran (is there anybody out there, save a few bloggers, who relishes that?).

But here are the basic facts, again:  the real power in Iran belongs to fascist theocrats who use atrocious bellicose rhetoric *and* are developing the deadliest weapons.  Your friends, as decent as I'm sure they are, have no power to change that any time soon.  All the solutions to change the regime by soft power -- US interest section, people-to-people contacts and such are/will be controlled by the mullahs, and they will not allow them to proceed because they are not stupid.  Just like the Soviet rulers in the recent past.  Besides, we really don't know how much the mullahs are hated or supported by the Iranian people, when it comes to nuclear weapons and foreign adventures (it's safe to assume that on the economy the mullahs are very unpopular).

Taking the former USSR as an example again, most everybody either disliked or hated communists, but that didn't endear everybody to democracy or the US,  that's why Putin became so popular among ordinary Russians -- he was perceived as standing up to the West.

So if you live in Israel, esp. if you are responsible for your country's security and very survival, you must weigh the horrors and concequences of a pre-emptive strike on Iran vs. quite possible (from your point of view) nuclear attack by Iran or its proxies on you.  Perhaps the mullahs are bluffing, but can you, as a responsible leader,  take this risk?

The emphasis then should be (should have long been) on the international community to deliver a strong and consistent message to Iran that their behavior is totally inacceptable and there would be real, and increasing, price to pay for it.  Instead, we've been witnessing something truly pathetic.  If I were A'jad,  I'd have concluded that I'm dealing with a paper tiger, and all the West can muster is endless talking and offering progressively better deals, followed by a better deal still.

All this simply increases chances of  self-reinforcing miscalculations, with consequences one prefers not to imagine.  But imagine we must, or else...

I find the position that she never said it (or said something just like it) to be delusional. Sorry. Haaretz's position on the matter of Iranian nuclear armament is of separate interest, but irrelevant to this particular discussion.

It's not like Haaretz was re-quoting some off-hand phrase and maybe 'got it wrong,' they wrote at some length about her position.... 'not only does she think it's not such a big deal.... BUT she also thinks Olmert and co. are using it to blah blah blah...'

"That's called hearsay evidence."

You know, we've had several discussions jackson, and this is the first time I've ever out and out smoked you, normally it's more balanced (or you kinda win). I know you 'don't care what I think' but now that I'm for once on the other side, I'm rather astonished that you're willing to rest your arguments on such thin reeds. ('IT'S HEARSAY!' and 'YOU LIED ABOUT YOUR POSITION!')

I'll confess that generally, your challenges have focused my mind and sharpened my writing, it's disappointing that, now that I'm for once on the other side, to see you cling so desperately to so little.

sabaka--I'm sure we're not really very far apart here. I don't see you as advocating airstirkes willy-nilly, and I'm not advocating caving in to Iranian proliferation. The key point for me here is resistance to the "ticking clock" scenario that injects panic into a process that needs to be as deliberate and fail-safe as we can make it.  Attacking Iran would be a perfect fit for Bismarck's description of pre-emptive war--"Suicide from fear of death."

If we accept that there is no practical way in which an Iranian first strike against Israel could be anything ot