Iran

Thanks Ted, looks like a good read. But I wouldn’t be quite so cynical about this Administration’s ability to manage this near-crisis. For one thing, I don’t know of anyone (neocon or not) who really advocates the use of force against Iran. As these authors say, both all-out invasion and something more targeted carry more risks than potential benefits. And as demonstrated in both Pakistan and Libya, the Bushies are willing to strike a deal with a less-than-perfect regime if there are no better alternatives. The key difference between those two cases and North Korea (and Saddam’s Iraq, and Iran up till now) is trust: if your adversary can’t be trusted to follow through, even the best deal is DOA.

Perhaps I should say at least one thing in light of my snark towards Ken.
You are no longer credible as an “expert” when you have to go around with “sucker” written on your forehead. I’m no expert and even I saw throught that gambit Mr. Pollock.

Absent the lion lying down with the lamb, or a coup in Iran that eliminates not only the mullaocracy but also the strong nationalist feelings of more moderate Iranians, I don’t think it’s going to be possible to bribe or threaten Iran into giving up its weapons. An anti-mullah coup which left any shred of the strong nationalist feeling in Iran intact would still leave a regime likely to pursue nuclear weapons.

I think it is nearly inevitable that Iran will become a nuclear power. What we should aim for then is graceful accommodation of that, combined with reducing the harm of it as much as possible.

I think the time is ripe for a Grand Deal.

Iran gets a blind eye turned to its nuclear ambitions and the US restores normal diplomatic and economic relations with it.

Iran must drop its support for Hezbullah and other terrorist groups and become a constructive partner in a two-state solution in the IP conflict.

“I think the time is ripe for a Grand Deal.

Iran gets a blind eye turned to its nuclear ambitions and the US restores normal diplomatic and economic relations with it.

Iran must drop its support for Hezbullah and other terrorist groups and become a constructive partner in a two-state solution in the IP conflict.”

Why in the world would Iran do this? They can easily get all of the above without dropping its support for terrorist groups or becoming a constructive party in the Israel conflict.

You have already concluded they are going to be a nuclear power. Europe has signalled its disinterest in long term sanctions, hell they want to engage in high-tech military trade with China, what are we bargaining with? Under this scheme they have almost no incentive to do anything but pursue nuclear power, continue supporting terrorism, and continue pretending that nothing is happening.

Darren,

What do you mean?

>they unquestionably are willing to tolerate considerable hardship to keep their nuclear hopes alive

Man that line makes me sick. I AM questioning that. It stinks of Muslims-are-less-than-human elitism. Un-freaking-believable.

Now, I would believe that of the ChiComs, for sure, the Great Leap Foward wasn’t that long ago.

In fact, looking at the very, very sorry record of humanity over the last millenium, who really would like to bet against Islam when it comes to humane treatment of, if not their fellow man in general at least their fellow Muslim?

You got the Judeo-Christian West, kicking off an almost constant bloodbath with the Spanish Inquisition and nicely bookending it with the meatgrinders of WWI and WWII, producing Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin and the Soviet Union. Persuing the middle we find France and England fighting a 100 Years War over what, I still haven’t really figured out, Napolean freezing his soldiers to death in Russia, again for what serious purpose I really can’t ascertain, and the US Civil War, a horror of men dying slowly from Mini-ball and bayonet induced gut-wounds. At least I know why they did that.

Meanwhile turning our History Channel to the Far East we find the Chinese fighting each other to keep a country of people with apparently little in common together (yes, they all look alike to us but they ain’t) culminating with both the aforementioned Mao and a bloody clash with the Japanese. Said Japanese deciding, like a favored David E. Kelley actor, to show up in both Far East and West ensembles by happily becoming a major player in WWII at the same time.

And the Middle East, er…, well they had their tribal spats. But sad suicide bombers and knocking down a couple of really poorly-protected skyscrapers – hell, they’re pretty late to the party I’d say.

Props to Jim Harrison. Did it ever occur to people that, when you look at the evidence, Islam quite likely isn’t so much antagonistic to the West on differences of societial structure but quite logically scared to fucking death of us? You can’t exactly go out to the troops and say “Hey, they gutted everybody else they came across like fish and here they come for us” so you tell them we’re evil and unclean and Allah
will help them overcome us, and even get yourself to believe it on most concious levels.

That would be a pretty human thing to do. Oh, but they’re not really human, sorry. Good thing I don’t have to physically report to a Re-education camp, LGF and Powerline can brainwash me at the flick of a URL.

“Nuclear weapons proliferation is a technological issue; not a political issue.”

“Darren, What do you mean?”

Well I won’t venture to speak for Darren, but we are now 60 years after the first nuclear explosion and the technology is no longer a mystery. Everyone knows the basics of how to build a nuclear weapon. Anyone with the capital and sufficient motiviation will get one, sooner or later.

It doesn’t seem all that surprising to me that Iran is unwilling to give up its nuclear ambitions when asked to by a country with 10,000+ warheads. Plus there’s Israel not too far away – if I were an Iranian leader, I’d be testing my nukes right now. The US will not be able to convince anyone to renounce violence unless it makes concrete steps to do so itself, and persuade its allies to do likewise.

Sy Hersh’s last article is also very relevant and scary.

How about D. Since the Iranians aren’t nuts, they don’t nuke anybody. Meanwhile, an America with a rational foreign policy begins to treat the Iranians as a self-governing people and negotiates with them in good faith.

It should occur to everyone that the Israelis aren’t notorious for listening to either Republican or Democrat administrations when it comes to serious national security concerns. And Iran with a single nuke is a serious Israeli security concern (duh), especially in light of the Syrian pact. Israel already made it clear during the Iraq invasion that it’d view the use of ANY WMD attacks as grounds for wholesale reprisals, and I don’t think anyone doubts that they’re serious. I think you all have forgotten that it’s the Israelis, not the GOP, that are in a zero sum situation if Iran get its nukes.

So before you all start plotting a US invasion of Iran for the GOP, maybe it’s worth considering that the last thing the Bushies want is Israel playing MAD with Islam. The Israelis don’t care about what the Europeans or UN think, nor do they trust either the EU or UN to do them any favors. And were they to pay attention to EU and US intellectuals, they might even suspect that more of you would cheer than weep upon hearing they’d been nuked to dust (yeah, yeah, we all know hating zionism isn’t the same as hating Jews; don’t thou protest too much).

The ideal Israeli policy is to blackmail the Europeans. It’s one thing for Israel to destroy Mecca, Medina, Demascus, Cairo, and etc., which might seem a fair trade to some in the EU. But were Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Brussels, and London to be included in an Israeli MAD final solution… who knows.

jet: ‘they unquestionably are willing to tolerate considerable hardship to keep their nuclear hopes alive’

A different Chris: ‘Man that line makes me sick. I AM questioning that. It stinks of Muslims-are-less-than-human elitism. Un-freaking-believable.’

ChrisPer:
Friend you are missing something important. You speak in the rest of your comment as though Islam is monolithic. In fact a power elite in Islam is different to the ordinary people, and the Iranian one is different to any other. Iran is a different country and a different people to Saudi et al.

It is not slandering the Iranian power elite there to assume they have the capability for mutually assured destruction; their religious attitudes make it quite likely. They are historically shown to be quite ready to ally the assured destruction of others, including their own citizens, on matters of principle.

A bit of historical perspective might be in order. This is the same government who created special units of suicide human wave units (roping together the scared to the brave) meant to disorganize and confuse Iraqi units so that the next wave of regular Iranian infantry and armor would meet less resistance. And it worked.

The Iranians sent hundreds of thousands of their people to charge tanks, machine gun nests, and mine fields in WWI human wave style. Wouldn’t they accept the loss of a few million of their own if the gains were that much greater? And wouldn’t the destruction of Israel be much greater than the mere regaining of a few miles of desert from Iraq?

Hell, Kruschev was relatively sane, and he almost ended the world over Cuba. The Iranian mullahs are both less sane than Kruschev and more fired up over Israel.

I’m thinking Iran’s nuke plant is going to be bombed. Especially since the damned Russians gave them one that can run on well over 30% enriched Uranium/recycled plutonium, making it an “experimental” or “weapons production” plant. And anyone who still believes this plant is only for power should ask themselves why Iran won’t agree to return spent fuel to Russia.