Any nation that has the ability to enrich Uranium to 90% (or even close to that) 235U can build a nuclear weapon.  The expertise required once you have the highly enriched Uranium isn't hard to ocme by.  So in a sense, this article is stating a done deal - Iran already has the capability of building a nuclear weapon, they just need time to get there.

Of course, to get an IRBM deliverable weapon, they need more than time - they also need the expertise related to the A.Q. Khan plans, so they can build an implosion bomb of manageable size, rather than a the cruder gun type bomb which rather automatic once you have the enriched Uranium.

Still, it's not that hard.  Iran will get a nuke if they want one, short of Israel or the US committing to destroying their capability on an ongoing basis, or the world talking them out of trying.

Iran should strive for not developing the “bomb”, but instead  find a solution to the worlds energy needs such as advanced “solar” technologies makes more sense for a country that doesn’t have the golden egg (oil) in their back yard .   My point here is to awaken the world to not pursuing ways to destroy ourselves but to gain knowledge that may in fact improve our existence on this planet.   For example, Iran could become a leader in new technologies that would pay a much greater return for them in world status as a technological leader rather than just one more entry into the nuclear club.  It seems to me that many of the Middle East countries are more interested in destruction of themselves and others than working out their own problems.   Neither Israel nor Iran is the soul problem maker but they also shouldn’t be left along to determine a deadly solution to their own existence.   The US and the rest of the world community should be doing all they can to find an amiable outcome for both sides.   Remember  in nuclear war the country with the most bombs wins—that of course is us.

mrtbob said:    Remember  in nuclear war the country with the most bombs wins—that of course is us.

But former Iranian president rasfanjani addressed this vis-a-vis Israel:  with nukes, he argued, Iran could take out all of Israel, Israel couldn't take out all of (I think he said Muslims/the Middle East, maybe Iran).  

Terrifying. Herman Kahn has jumped to the top of the summer reading list.

Iran will go nuclear, and there's practically nothing Israel or the United States can do about it except perhaps launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes that would kill tens of millions of Iranians, and might still miss the actual nuclear program. Please note from Epstein's linked article that we don't have a clue where the presumed project is, but the odds are good that it's split up into many parts well hidden in places jammed with civilians. This kind of action would be totally unjustifiable, as the only indication we have that Iran wants nuclear weapons as anything other than a deterrent is utter bullshit like random quotes in the media from the essentially powerless showboating Achmadinejad, poorly-understood out-of-context sound bites from an old Rafsanjani sermon, and credulous "analysis" of selected passages from the Koran.

On the other side, we have actual data on Iran's behavior, which has been singularly pragmatic expansion of its influence through proxies and two-step-forward, one-step-back negotiations.  Iran wants respect for its traditional role as a regional power, an improved economy, and leadership of the Muslim world, It's hard to see how reaching any of these goals would be helped by instigating a nuclear exchange which, Rafsanjani notwithstanding, would leave Iran a radioactive hole in the ground.

There was a pretty good discussion on this below under the heading of "Israel's Growing Consensus..." but the whole bottom of the thread, including a number of comments, simply disappeared from the website yesterday. It continues to be a source of amazement that a reasonably respectable journal like TNR could continue to present itself with what is surely the most stupid and disfunctional website this side of Outer Mongolia. Is it because the tech guy is the brother-in-law of the CanWest ceo? People should go to theatlantic.com to see what a real website looks like. This clunker should be a source of deep embarrassment for the TNR staff.

He's baaaaack:

Robert Powell said: "Iran will go nuclear, and there's practically nothing Israel or the United States can do about it except perhaps launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes that would kill tens of millions of Iranians, and might still miss the actual nuclear program."

You keep posting the same nonsense which has been answered time and again.

Again,

"Iran will go nuclear, and there's practically nothing Israel or the United States can do about it except perhaps launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes that would kill tens of millions of Iranians, ..." Robert (all knowing) Powell

Bob, say if one kills ten million Iranians which is hardly realistic you would still only kill a fraction of the total number of Iranians.

On the other hand if you kill half that number of  Jews, five million, you would kill almost 100 percent of the Jews of Israel and about half the Jews in the world. Given demographic and political realities It would mean the end of the Jewish people.

This may be an acceptable alternative to the "death of ten million" Iranians to you and to Rafsanjani, but it is not to the Jews of Israel.

They have a right to fight for their survival and after what happened during WW2 when Hitler who had said he would annihilate the Jewish people and almost did the Jews of Israel they have no alternative but to take Iranian comments at face value.

Oh yes, did I mention that people like you in the 1930's said that Hitler would never act on his promise to destroy the Jewish people?

Sorry, Robert, people like you have no credibility on this issue.

Part 2

“Look, we know for sure that striking Iran would create a conflagration, quite possibly one that would kill more people than some kind of a crude nuclear device of the sort Iran might, someday, actually have.”

I don’t know this for sure and I wonder how you “know” that the Iranians would come up with a “crude nuclear devise.” Moreover even a primitive nuclear bomb dropped on Tel Aviv could kill hundred so f thousands of people and devastate the country. We are not talking about a country the size of Texas.

We are talking about a small country whose population is concentrated in an even smaller area. Besides, how do you know that Iran would use a “crude” devise on Israel? It is more likely that they would wait to develop more than one bomb and to perfect it’s lethality before the attacked Israel. The point is that to allow them to build even one bomb would be like crossing the Rubicon: there is no way back.

You go on:

“We also know that Israel by itself probably has enough retaliatory power to erase Iran, and the US would almost certainly pitch in as well.”

Again we know nothing of the kind. First, Israel is not concerned with “erasing Iran. (The Iranian leadership is concerned with erasing Israel from the map, not the other way around.) Second, going by published reports Israel preemptive strike would be aimed only at the reactor sites and not at Iran as a whole. Third, given the alternatives of an initial limited strike and massive retaliation, it would be far less deadly to go with the preemptive strike than wait till you are attacked and then launch a counteroffensive.

You also say,

“Additionally, we have excellent evidence from observed behavior that the Iranian leadership, while ideologically different from us, is not now and has never been remotely suicidal.”

What evidence is that? The regime sent thousands of its children to their death during the Iran Iraq war.  Children are a nation’s future. Besides Ahmadinejad has said that he was prepared for martyrdom:  

Here are some quotes about the view of martyrdom by Iranian leaders:

“Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini, the Islamic regime’s founder and first Rahba-e Moazzam (Supreme Leader), wrote, “Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another’s hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom.” “The martyrs,” said Khomeini, “are the quintessence of our strength.”

"Khomeini’s successor and current supreme leader, former president Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Khamenei, who is incomparably more powerful than Ahmadinejad, has said, “Martyrdom operations are the pinnacle of a people’s strength and the pinnacle of an epic.” "

"Ahmadinejad on the subject of art: “Art reaches perfection when it portrays the best life and best death. After all, art tells you how to live. That is the essence of art. Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity.” "

"When a decrepit Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) transport plane crashed in Iran on January 9, 2006, killing 108, after it was ordered to fly despite warnings by its pilot, Ahmadinejad said, “The government will hold a serious investigation… . But what is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow.” “

politicscentral.com/.../suicide_superpower_martyrdom_a.php

The point about art above, Robert should remind one of the Italian futuristic (and other fascists') notions about art.

Part 3

“We also know that there is nothing Iran could possibly gain from a nuclear strike on Israel that would in any possible way compensate them for the cost of such an act.”

Here you are using a non Iranian cost analysis. I am not sure it is valid in the case of this particular regime.

“On the other hand, we have hysterical speculation about what Iran might possibly, someday, maybe, under undisclosed circumstances do based on the analysis of ancient texts and random remarks reported in the media. This is analysis by voodoo, and hardly appropriate in matters of life and death for millions of people.”

This is more rhetorical flourishes on your part. It is the Ayatollahs who use the analysis “of ancient text” as a guide to present and future behavior.) In any case, one can hysterically demand action and one can hysterically demand that we do nothing. In most cases of real hysteria patients tend to freeze and are unable to function rather that react in any manner at all. Not all hysteria is denoted frenzied activity.

“I expect that the leadership of Israel, even in its current inept manifestation, knows all this perfectly well. It makes some sense to keep the Iranians guessing, although there is a risk involved here too.”

I am glad you said that there is a risk in doing nothing.

As I said above there is not easy answer but I do think that letting Iranians have the bomb under this regime would be extremely dangerous if not suicidal

For some reason Part `1 keeps being rejected.

I'll split it in half:

Part 1

blogs.tnr.com/.../israel-s-growing-consensus-bomb-iran.aspx

Robert Powell said:  “Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong?”

This reply is sheer rhetoric. An equally rhetorical answer would be ‘Do NOTHUNG, even if it’s wrong?”

Part 1 b

Now, let’s get down to the issues.

Your last point first, “It certainly makes sense to keep everything on the table while attempting to negotiate--first a freeze on enrichment, followed by a plan for a new, more pragmatic relationship with the West on the model of the one we now have with China. Actually carrying out a strike? Sheer madness.”

Leaving the last rhetorical flourish, the analogy with China is patently inadequate as Benny Morris among others has shown.

First, China under Mao was murderously confrontationalist,it was not suicidal. Mao was supposed to have said that in a nuclear war because there were many more Chinese than Americans they would prevail; still the accent was on prevailing on earth. They had no notion of an afterlife of bliss with virgins to be had at the asking; nor of any other kind of beatific view of paradise. Their emphasis was materialistic and worldly. This is why they were amenable to Western and especially American blandishments.

Not so with Iran whose regime of Ayatollahs is above all concerned with conformity and ideological purity and an emphasis on the other worldly. Iranian society may not be in the main extremely religious but its leadership surely is.

This in itself could be of concern if you like historical analogies.  It has been argued persuasively that the Hitler regime (another regime obsessed with purity on all levels) during the final assault on Germany by the allies refused any offer of surrender as a punishment for the German people for letting the “fuehrer” down.  

My point here is that we are in uncharted territory with the regime of the Ayatollahs and that comparisons to Communist China are not apt.

Jackson--

As noted above, I didn't reply to your thoughtful points yesterday because they were blocked from the website. I read them and responded today below on the original, "Israel's New Consensus" post.

I'd appreciate it if you'd scroll down for my reply. We can continue here if you like, but I don't have the will to retype or the technical knowledge to link back.

Respectfully,     Bob

Bob,

I just so your reply.

I will respond later here and set up a link to your previous post.

R.Powell's "analysis" starts with the conclusion -- "we (or Israelis) shouldn't bomb Iran under any curcumstances", then employs known, unknown, and twisted facts to arrive there.

So, we shouldn't bomb because:

1. we don't know all the locations

2. there are likely civilians in all those places

3. there's no evidence that Iran wants nuclear weapons for anything other than deterrence, whatever evidence to the contrary is cited is pure BS

4. all the existing evidence shows Iran to be a pragmatic state seeking expansion of its role as a traditional regional power through proxies, better economy and leadership in the Muslim world

from his previous posts on the same topic:  

5. Iran has 70 mln mostly normal people, it's a democracy albeit with a theocratic fascist regime

6. the solution: we need to work with the Iranian people (via different channels) to help them get rid of the mullahs

Looking closer at his these arguments:

##1,2:  yes, but these are not going to be the decisive factors in go/no-go on bombing.  The main facilities are known, and the military assessment might be that it would be  enough just to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities and send a strong signal.  Having civilians near military targets hadn't prevented the US bombing of Iraq (Baghdad in particular) when the two Bush administrations decided to confront Saddam militarily  (Clinton too ordered airstrikes against Iraq, but I don't remember the target locations).  As I recall, RP  was, and remains, a firm supporter of that war.

#3:  no evidence that Iran's nukes might be offensive?  So why then the UNSC, the EU, the US all  have gotten involved, with countless meetings, carrot offers, threats, UNSC sanctions, etc.?  Why, by all accounts, are the Arabs so worried?

Why dismiss A'jad and other Iranian leaders' threats so easily using rhetoric instead of actual, evidence-based arguments?  Why not at least acknowledge that, because of the obscure nature of the Iranian regime, its hateful propaganda and relentless proxy war on Israel,  the latter has valid reasons to take Iran's nuclear threat seriously?  And, given the history of Arab/Muslim wars against Israel, they'd be at the very least stupid not take Iran seriously.

So when Israel does take it seriously, what are its options, given that the international community so far has done nothing even remotely effective to stop Iran's nuclear drive?  Sit and wait hoping that RP is right?  

#4: Are Iranian rulers really rational judging by their words and deeds?  Hardly, as we understand rationality.  RP himself described Iran as an economic basket case yet their leadership has been doggedly pursuing very expensive nuclear and missile programs(and nothing of the kind on the economy), despite the economic and political costs at home and a potential disastrous military confrontation in the near future.  And at the same time,  they have been turning down all proposed carrots from the Euros (lately openly joined by the US) and playing for time in negotiations -- for at least 5 years now.

Then their relentless anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denial campaign that took on the new, international level under A'jad openly taunting not just Israel but the West as a whole -- how rational is that?

It may be "rational" from the standpoint of seeking regional domination and leadership in the Muslim world -- nothing unites Muslims more than open hatred od Israel, calls for "struggle" and promise of  close "victory" (with well-known results).  But this isn't something Israel and the US (and even the EU) can simply overlook or appease.

After all, not all "traditional regional powers" seeking power are compatible with the US/West's interests.  Take, eg, Iraq.  Or the Nazi Germany from earlier times.

And here's what Obama (RP's choice for president) just said in an interview to Jerusalem Post:

Can you assure the people of Israel, and beyond, that as president you will prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons?

...

One of the failures, I think, of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime. But I have also said that I would not take any options off the table, including military.

I agree completely with your last paragraph, sabaka, and will attempt to deal with the squad of straw men you deployed above it briefly:

There may well be circumstances under which we will need to bomb, perhaps to the point of near-total destruction, Iran. Israel, and everybody else, has valid reasons for taking Iran's nuclear threat seriously. I have not and will not suggest that our strategy should be to "overlook or appease". But no one has made a case I find remotely convincing that we are at or even very near that point.

I think at the point we have a nuclear test in Iran, which they can't hide, we're talking causus belli. Starting a war under the illusion of some kind of "surgical strike" scenario would be premature, and wildly counterproductive. To do the kind of bombing that would really be required would kill huge numbers of Iranians and start a war.  Israel would be immediately hit with sustained bombardment. Many thousands of US service personnel would probably die in the Persian Gulf almost immediately, and Iran would then exercise it's capacity to as one intelligence officer there said, "Burn Iraq down around our ears". Oil would immediately go north of $200/bbl with a resulting world depression of incalculable proportions. This to prevent a deeply implausible Iranian suicide attack on Israel?

I have seen nothing remotely like evidence to indicate that Iran's rulers are deranged. Rhetorical excess is not an unknown thing in the culture of the Middle East as I'm sure you know. It hardly constitutes evidence of anything much, especially when it comes from a guy with a rapidly eroding power base, apparently in no small measure exactly because of his rhetorical excesses. Iran's actions, while often obnoxious, have not in any case reached the level of irrationality--clumsy, blinkered by goofy ideology, contradictory, sure. Just like most of the world's governments.

There's not going to be any support for Israel to launch a pre-emptive war against Iran. None at all.

RP:  "The [current Iranian] regime indeed sent thousands of children to their deaths as has nearly every industrialized nation, some repeatedly over generations"

Care to give any examples?  I'm only aware of the Nazi Germany recruiting teenagers in the last year of  WWII,  but even that wasn't exactly sending unarmed children in frontal attacks.

"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that if Iran attempts to eliminate Israel as a nation with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will eliminate Iran as a state. Israel could do it right now with sub-launched missiles, and the US is already committed to having Israel under the same nuclear umbrella that saved Europe."

As Jackson wrote earlier, it would be of little-to-no consolation to the remaining Israelis that they (together with the US, perhaps) eliminated Iran in the 2nd, retaliatory strike.  Also, I'm not aware of the existing US commitment to extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel.  Recently  I've heard some commentators suggesting that US give an explicit guarantee to Israel which makes me think that there's nothing formal yet.  Also, Israel is not a NATO member, so an attack on it wouldn't automatically trigger NATO's response.

"The suggestion that Stalin, Mao, et al were not "interested in conformity and ideological purity" won't wash. They were to an extent that was absolutely "other worldly".  There is no difference in the phenomenon whether God is Jehovah, Allah, The Nation, The Party, etc"

Yes, there is.  While communists at their peak didn't tolerate any opposition and treated  The Party as some sort of Supreme Being, they were also materialists by their own definition.  The idea that they would risk destroying everything, including themselves, in the name of triumph of communism in the "other world" wasn't part of their doctrine.

Historical context also matters a great deal:  when the USSR got the bomb in the late 40s,  it was still in ruins after WWII, with the population decimated and the survivors greatly tired.  Then Stalin died in 1953, and his successors were decidedly less bloodthirsty, even though Stalin's immediate successor, Krushchev, overplayed his hand in the Cuban missile crisis, and was removed by his comrades two years later.

As for communist China, it had a great fallout with the USSR, right after Stalin's death, to the degree that the two had a little shooting border war in the 60s, and their relationship never recovered afterwards.  So Mao would've been on his own in attacking the West, and from what I know about him, he wasn't a great and bold military leader in his war with the Japanese.

Which is to say, these two examples are not so great in predicting Iran's behavior.  It's natural, and tempting, to think that the mullahs are "rational", but I'd say, after Jackson, we are in rather uncharted waters here -- esp. given the rise and the cult of the suicide bomber in the Islamic world.

“I hope nothing I wrote really suggested that there's not danger in doing nothing. This is a damned dangerous situation, maybe less so than Pakistan, but damned dangerous.  I certainly don't advocate inaction, but I think it's fair to say that the wrong action would be guaranteed to have disastrous consequences for Israel, Iran, Iraq, the United States--the whole world. I am convinced that an attempt to subdue Iran with airpower would be among the most ill-advised actions imaginable.”

This is a truism no different from what you said before:

blogs.tnr.com/.../israel-s-growing-consensus-bomb-iran.aspx

The real question is to figure out how to stop Iran.

“Attempts to psychoanalyze the Iranian leadership is probably a worthwhile project, but I'm not really satisfied with the validity of the results so far. The regime indeed sent thousands of children to their deaths as has nearly every industrialized nation, some repeatedly over generations. No important Iranian officials  were leading charges against Iraqi defenses any more than they started the war.”

Bob, I don’t know what you are saying. Do you know what psychoanalysis is? If you do, how can you say that stating what “the leaders of a regime do is psychoanalysis?”

Your added comments are also only partially true. What “industrial country” has sent “thousands of children to their deaths,….over many generations?”  Iran has sent young as nine or ten into battle as human cannon fodder and used them to clear mine fields during the Iran Iraq war. See  Afshin  Molavi’s book  “The Soul of Iran” ( W.W. Norton 2005)

“The Iranian leadership has clearly-discernible goals, not one of which would be advanced by provoking a nuclear exchange with Israel that would probably include the US. They've got a lot of mileage out of "martyrdom", and may continue to do so. But they were never talking about martyring the entire nation including themselves beyond the kind of rhetorical flourishes that put mine to shame.”

This is wholly speculative, Robert.

“I said "a crude device", because that's the only kind Iran could develop within the "ticking clock" scenario which I believe to be hysterical.”

This is still in the realm of speculation. “Hysterical” cuts both ways.

“So, given the time developing the crude device would take, plus solving the serious technical problems of a reliable delivery system, and "perfecting " it, we're talking about years and most importantly TESTING. If Iran doesn't test a nuke, they don't know if they have one. If they test it, they've crossed the Rubicon, and Katy bar the door. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that if Iran attempts to eliminate Israel as a nation with nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will eliminate Iran as a state. Israel could do it right now with sub-launched missiles, and the US is already committed to having Israel under the same nuclear umbrella that saved Europe.”

You are still day dreaming, Robert. How do we stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

“I freely concede that Iran is not China, Khomeini was not Mao, Mao was not Stalin, Saddam was not Hitler, etc. etc. But the idea is to work toward a relationship with Iran that is based on the same principles, or lack of them, that made it possible for us to develop a pragmatic relationship with a loathsome regime. The suggestion that Stalin, Mao, et al were not "interested in conformity and ideological purity" won't wash. They were to an extent that was absolutely "other worldly".”

You are getting drunk on words. “other worldliness has a specific meaning. No one who is a dialectical materialist can be said to be “other worldly?” Have you read anything they wrote?

“There is no difference in the phenomenon whether God is Jehovah, Allah,  The Nation, The Party, etc.”

Of course, there is a huge difference. There is even a difference between the Muslim conception of God and Jewish and Christian conception of god. But we are not talking theology here.

The notion that “the Nation, or the Party” can function as a transcendental entity is fantastic. From a Jewish and Christian (and I believe even a Muslim point of view) such a notion is idolatrous.  But, again, we are not talking theology here.

“The device of postulating the Iranian leadership as some kind of bizarre freaks of nature is cartooning worthy of the "Mr. Jap" efforts of WWII Hollywood. They have given every indication of being fairly typical of the kinds of thugs who traditionally conflate State and Party for their own power.”

Well, it’s not an either or. Both the Japanese during the 30’s and the Iranians today were ruled by rulers who as you say conflated “State and Party for their own power.”

But if this is the case then to say so is not cartoonish.

Remember too that the Japanese rulers were willing to sacrifice all in order to achieve their ends. It was the reality of an atomic response which stopped the war at that time.

“Every speculation bubble from tulips to internet shares to sub-prime mortgage insturments has relied on the idea that "we are in a totally new situation here! The old rules don't apply!"  Yes they do.”

I have no idea what you are talking about, here. You do tend to let your rhetoric get away from you, Bob.

“Starting a war with Iran is a far more certain mistake than continuing to pursue more sensible means to modify their behavior.”

That would depend on Iran, Bob.

You are one of those people who fetishes the notion of peaceful resolution that you don’t care who gets hurts if you cautious remedies don’t work: as long as it’s not you, or your family, I assume.

"You are one of those people who fetishes the notion of peaceful resolution "

Not quite -- RP supported the US military action against Saddam primarily, as I recall,  on the basis of the US national interests in the ME and the incorrigible aggressive nature of the Saddam's regime.

Re Iran, though, his position is wait and see, work long-term to change the Iranian regime from within.  Apart from the fact that the Iranian nuclear weapons may come before the regime change, here's something President Obama (if elected) might consider.

www.newsweek.com/.../148932

How Obama Could Tame Iran

By Selig S. Harrison, NEWSWEEK

Assume that Barack Obama is elected U.S. president this fall and makes good on his promise to negotiate with Iran without preconditions. How will Tehran respond? Recent interviews I've held with three authoritative Iranians suggest that Tehran will have preconditions of its own.

...

"Signals have come to us about negotiations before [Obama] is in the White House," I was told by Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the powerful Foreign Affairs and Defense Subcommission of Iran's Parliament and a close ally of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "They have sent messages through friendly ambassadors that they are willing to talk to us." But "the ball is in [Washington's] court," he emphasized. "It is the United States that severed the connection with us, and the manner in which relations are restored should reflect that."

...

Asked about Obama, Hossein Shariatmadiari, editor of the hard-line newspaper Kayhan, was reticent, observing that "anyone replacing Bush will be an improvement. I won't rule out that Obama does want a new approach to Iran. But we have to see whether he is genuine or is controlled by the same Zionist forces behind the curtain that have controlled Bush," he said. Even if Obama wants to talk, Shariatmadiari asked, "do we want to talk to him?"

...

Ending the Bush administration's regime-change policy toward Iran is probably key to holding productive nuclear negotiations and would be an acceptable price to pay. But will a President Obama stand up to entrenched forces in the Pentagon, the CIA and allied intelligence services that are already engaged in covert action against Iran? That won't be easy; the next U.S. president will face tough adversaries in Washington as well as Tehran.

...

sabaka, I am not clear about your view of the article. Do you endorse Harrison's call suspend the

"...Bush administration's regime-change policy toward Iran?"

in a way Harrison seems to go along with (albeit in different language) Hossein Shariatmadiari view that Obama will have to face a powerful "Zionist lobby..." when he concluees his article with:

 "But will a President Obama stand up to entrenched forces in the Pentagon, the CIA and allied intelligence services that are already engaged in covert action against Iran? That won't be easy; the next U.S. president will face tough adversaries in Washington as well as Tehran."

So he is assuming that policy in Washington is being made not by the President (with the support of Congress) but by " entrenched forces in the Pentagon, the CIA and allied intelligence services."

Harrison has been reading too much Seymour Hersh.

I agree with you about Harrison's last paragraph Jackson and expect that Sabaka, who recalls my views accurately, does too. In general the article provides useful information and I appreciate the link.

"How do we stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" is indeed the question, and I rather expect that the answer will be "we won't". This is a Bad Thing, but under the circumstances it's probably not as bad for anybody concerned as the results of starting a war with Iran right now. There is a slim possibility that we might be able to negotiate some kind of a game-changing deal based on policy compromises on both sides that wouldn't amount to appeasement on either. It's hard to fix the odds on such an eventuality, but I believe them to be much more favorable than for the likelihood of our subduing Iran with air strikes. Idle threats make the odds of a deal longer. We're much more likely to get actual regime change if we're not making it an explicit policy goal. Any Iranian dissident will tell you that.

Attempting to leave all rhetoric aside Jackson, let me just say that if "we're not talking theology here", I think it would be fair to expect you to desist from trying on the basis of really shaky theological speculation to depict the leadership of Iran, and presumably millions of its people, as suicidal maniacs. My observation that the Iranian regime has clearly-discernable goals that would not be advanced by nuking Israel is based on actual Iraninan behavior, not speculation.

Iran had a hideous civil war into which was interjected an existential crisis for the regime in the form of Saddam Hussein's invasion. Child soldiers played a role, as they have in the Napoleonic Wars, the American and Russian Civil Wars, probably all the wars that preceded them, and of course most every other war that was existential in nature. Polish boy scouts and "Ghetto Rats" played a vital part in the anti-Nazi underground and died in droves. And etc. There are so many examples it's hard to stop, but the point remains--if the goal is to characterize the Iranian leadership and a significant percentage of its population as lunatics, one could do the same for lots of other societies with such examples. This is hardly a serious basis upon which to base a war.

I don't know if anyone will ever see this--the website here was only displaying gibberish that looked like computer code earlier. It would be funny if this weren't an allegedly serious organization.

Jackson:  I think Harrison's article is a useful reminder that there are significant forces behind anti-Western, anti-Israel, pro-nuclear weapons policies of Iran. It's not only A'jad with his regular crazy pronouncements on all these topics and who, if you believe Robert Powell, is simply a puppet about to be voted out of office.  

In all our domestic discussions whether the next US president should meet A'jad (or his successor) unconditionally or with some "preparations", the real Iran and its rulers are totally and curiously absent.  We talk between ourselves, often in symbols, and mostly about ourselves.

So if Harrison correctly describes prevalent Iranian thinking, a US president willing to meet his Iranian counterpart unconditionally, may be in for an unpleasant surprise -- the Iranians may have a few really tough preconditions of their own.

What's even more important, and gets to the heart of whether the mullahs are rational, is their worldview.  If they truly believe that Zionists control the White House and thus the world, and are the mortal enemies of Islam, President Obama will have an impossible task of  "disproving" that, and Iran cannot be induced or persuaded to abandon its nuclear weapons drive.  So they will continue playing the US/West for suckers as they have been for 5 years now.

Then Harrison's advice to the next administration -- come groveling to Iran with gifts and apologies ("finding an acceptable price to pay") is nothing but utter rubbish

"What's even more important, and gets to the heart of whether the mullahs are rational, is their worldview.  If they truly believe that Zionists control the White House and thus the world, and are the mortal enemies of Islam,..." sabaka

Unless you think they are cynically trying to pretend that they are ant Zionists then you have to believe that they do believe that Zionists control not just the white house but the media as well as the financial institutions of the West.

I can’t imagine what they would gain by pretending to be anti-Zionists or to pretend to believe that Jews have more power than they actually do.

“Attempting to leave all rhetoric aside Jackson, let me just say that if "we're not talking theology here", I think it would be fair to expect you to desist from trying on the basis of really shaky theological speculation to depict the leadership of Iran, and presumably millions of its people, as suicidal maniacs.” Robert Powell

Well, Robert, I was merely citing the historical record.

Since the Khomeini revolution the regime has engaged is some pretty unorthodox behavior.

Iran has said repeatedly that it wants to destroy the State of Israel. It has supported two extremist antisemitic organizations with training and weapons, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and Hamas.

Its leaders, and even “moderate ones” like Rafsanjani, have said that it would be willing to risk a nuclear exchange with Israel in order to destroy the Jewish State. By his reasoning Israel would be totally destroyed while Iran even if badly hurt would still survive such an exchange.

“My observation that the Iranian regime has clearly-discernable goals that would not be advanced by nuking Israel is based on actual Iraninan behavior, not speculation.”  

Well, a prominent Iranian theologian would disagree with you:

Mehdi Khalaji has written:

“Apocalyptic Politics: On the Rationality of Iranian Policy”

Here is his conclusion:

“Contemporary Islamic fundamentalism in Iran—

and even generally in the Islamic world—finds its

representatives not in the traditional seminaries but

among modern educated engineers and doctors. One

of the remarkable consequences of this fact for Western

policy makers is that while Shiite traditionalist

theologians are thinking and acting within a specific

theological framework which makes their behavior

highly predictable, the new fundamentalists do not

follow any established theological system and model.

Therefore, understanding their rationale as well as predicting

their political actions becomes very difficult.”

www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php

and here is brief resume of the author’s credentials:

www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC10.php

From what he says the fact that such apocalyptic thinking is not systematic makes all the more dangerous because it is impossible to predict.

I have more to say about this issue, but nor enough time to say it right now. I will also answer the rest of your post later on.

Anti-semitism in general, and anti-Zionism in particular, have thrived in many places because it is a useful conceit for governments interested in distracting attention from their failures. It is a consensus among experts on Iran that it has fallen flat with the current generation of youth who represent a significant majority of Iran's population, as has the relentless anti-Americanism. The leadership probably believes its own bullshit to a certain extent, as most leaderships do, but I don't think this is a deal-breaker when more concrete interests are under discussion.

Obama will not meet with A'jad because the two positions aren't remotely analogous as the two systems are organized; and because by the time Obama is in any position for a summit, A'jad wont' be in office.

"Anti-semitism in general, and anti-Zionism in particular, have thrived in many places because it is a useful conceit for governments interested in distracting attention from their failures. It is a consensus among experts on Iran that it has fallen flat with the current generation of youth who represent a significant majority of Iran's population, as has the relentless anti-Americanism. "

Antisemitism in Iran ought to be a non issue because there is only a handful of Jews left there; in any case, Iran is not a democracy and you keep analyzing the political situation there as if it were one.

Besides, it's hard to tell how a regimes propaganda will play long term.

Bob, as you probably know I have no faith in Socialism, but I found it interesting that at least one socialist web site seems  not to  oppose  (for their own reasons) an Israeli strike on Iran:

"What if Israel bombs Iran? A Discussion Article"  by Sean Matgamna

www.workersliberty.org/.../discussion-article-what-if-israel-bombs-iran

Robert:

I think we started going in circles in this discussion, so I'll try to distill it to a few main points.  First of all, I don't see any military strikes, Israeli or American, on the horizon.  I think Israel doesn't have what it takes to sustain a prolonged bombing campaign and will not get a US support for that. Not from Bush, not from the next administration for at least a year, if ever.

Furthermore, politically and militarily, Israel now is in a morass (not the kind the Arabs dream of, but still... it'll take them some time to sort it out.)

For our own reasons (Iraq, Afghanistan, extremely low popularity of Bush and the R's, domestic economic problems), its the same with the US.  The Euros in this equation are good for nothing, well, maybe for some limited sanctions.

So all this talk about Israel's "growing consensus" to attack Iran on its own is just that,  Plus, perhaps, an attempt to push the West to get serious.  

So we'll all continue drifting along, and maybe it'll somehow blow over.  Maybe indeed the disaffected young Iranians will rise up and stage their own colored revolution against the mullahs.  But I think not -- the most likely outcome that Iran will get its nukes first.  And then we'll find out what that means.

I too don't expect Iran to drop t a nuke on TA ASAP.  However, there are other very nasty scenarios that might upset the very fragile ME  (and isn't it precisely why we had to take down Saddam?).  For instance, Iran might get really emboldened and go too far, like having H&H stage a coordinated rocket attack on Israel, hitting all of it from both north & south.  Then it might be a rapidly escalating chain of uncontrollable events -- but with nuclear weapons on both sides (in Israel and Iran, that is).  Or Iran  might stir up trouble in the Gulf.

Finally, I find your rhetoric about the mullahs being rather rational while dismissing the religiously extremist underpinning of their policies unpersuasive.  It's of course very unpleasant to consider that they may indeed think differently from us, with all potentially horrifying consequences, but that's not a "hysterical" reaction, esp. from the people on the receiving end of it.

Many in the West are still grappling with the nature of al Qaeda, for instance, comparing it to the IRA.  Maybe it is indeed the hardest thing to comprehend the mindset of people still fighting the Jews and Crusaders and dreaming of caliphate.

Very sensible, sabaka. I concur. To the extent that Israel and the US are essentially playing "Good cop/Bad cop" with Iran and the Euros, it may be an effective strategy for pressuring both, but in practical terms a strike is almost certainly out of the question and it's hard to see why the Iranians don't know it as well as we do.

I'm prepared to accept the fact that the Iranian leadership has a different mind-set and world view than does The West, but I still haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that they are suicidal nuts. Rather the contrary. Iran has in many respects been very patient and deliberate, no doubt because from their perspective time is on their side. They believe Islam will ultimately triumph, and the demographics of the region tends to support that view absent some kind of game-changing deal.  Initiating a direct confrontation, especially a nuclear one, would be to throw away what they surely see as their main advantage.

Thanks for the link, Jackson. Very interesting...

Robert Powell I still don't have a lot of time, but I did want to point out that your comparison of the use of child soldiers in the Napoleonic wars (hardly and industrial State) as well as the Warsaw, etc. is unconvincing for many reasons.

I'll elaborate later on.