Sunday, December 10, 2006
Confronting Iran: Twenty questions that need answers
The Center for Strategic and International Studies has a series of twenty questions(pdf) that we must answer in any confrontation with Iran, and the competing answers to those questions. Typical questions: "Is the Iranian regime likely to collapse, and, if so, under what conditions?" and "Would a sharp drop in oil prices threaten regime stability?" The proposed answers are sufficiently balanced that the authors obviously struggled to present the strongest paragraph-length arguments on both sides of each question. In any case, it is excellent background reading for any discussion of American policy toward Iran so you should definitely read it before your next cocktail party.
27 Comments:
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sat Dec 09, 11:28:00 PM:
excellent background reading for any discussion of American policy
Which is to say it will be completely ignored ;->
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 10, 12:41:00 AM:
To me, the very existence of this document with two answers to every question points up the poor quality of U.S. intelligence on Iran. However, when you consider the options, you can start with one fact about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He took Iran's national university entrance exams in the 1975 and ranked 132nd out of 400,000 students. The man may come across as a loon to many in the West, but he is not an idiot.
By allen, at
Sun Dec 10, 12:59:00 AM:
DEC,
At the Belmont Club, long ago, I asked for anyone to point an instance when the Iranians had behaved irrationally. None could.
By William, at
Sun Dec 10, 01:32:00 AM:
The invasion of Iraq. 1982. Maybe '83.
By Purple Avenger, at
Sun Dec 10, 01:37:00 AM:
The man may come across as a loon to many in the West, but he is not an idiot.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 10, 01:44:00 AM:
That's interesting, Allen.
Iran has some interesting connections in the global economy. Iran is the only nation outside the U.S. that has American-made F-14 Tomcats. (The Shah bought the planes.) It is illegal for an American company to sell spare parts for military aircraft to Iran. Nevertheless, overseas "requests for quotations" for F-14 spare parts occasionally have shown up at my office. (I never respond.) The requests usually come from companies in Taiwan and Malaysia.
That is a nice thing to remember when Taiwan wants American "protection" from China.
By K. Pablo, at
Sun Dec 10, 10:51:00 AM:
William, a clarification from you please. Are you saying that Iran's Ramadan al-Mubarak offensive in July 1982 was irrational?
By K. Pablo, at
Sun Dec 10, 11:30:00 AM:
That CSIS document is very interesting, TH. (BTW thanks for conferring upon me the distinction of splitting off my comment to another post!)
Maybe I'm jumping the gun on the traditional Year End Review and Predictions spasm that folks go through in the last week of the year. But I think it's useful to identify the truly insoluble problems first and then apply the forecast.
For example, the Sunni-Shiite schism is damn near irreconcilable, and no amount of goodwill generated by Iranian safe-housing of Qutbist terrorists is likely to resolve this theological quandary. In fact, any benefits derived from this collaboration are likely to be seriously undercut by fomenting a sectarian conflict, as Zarqawi has apparently advocated, and which the mullahs in Tehran apparently see as advantageous for their near-term regional aspirations.
Mob behavior has its own rules and its own inertia, and both Tehran and whatever remains of the al-Qaeda command structure are betting they can reign it in at will. The dynamics of vengeance indicate to me that there will be a period during which forces engaged in sectarian violence will be unable to focus much thought towards that Ol' Great Satan. That, I think, is the great weakness of irhabist theoreticians such as Mustafa Setmariam Nasar a/k/a Abu Musab al-Suri, who advocate distributed global autonomous cells of "jihadists". Jihad can just as easily be directed at "Innovators", as Shiites and less-radical muslims are referred to by Salafists and their more radical brethren the Wahabbis and Qutbists.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Dec 10, 02:54:00 PM:
"Qutbist, irhabist, Innovators, Salafists"
Nice use of industry buzz words. I'm moderately impressed. :)
"At the Belmont Club, long ago, I asked for anyone to point an instance when the Iranians had behaved irrationally. None could."
Seizing the American embassy and deliberately prolonging a crisis (after the Carter administration had made it clear, multiple times, that the US was perfectly ok with a new Islamic Iran so long as they didn't sell out to the USSR) was irrational, I would argue. When one of the superpowers of the world says, 'hey, we'd like to be as close to you and we were to your predecessor' (which would have been a nice boost to a new regional power) and you say 'go to hell' and start decades of hostility for what are essentially emotional reasons, that's irrational.
Provoking a war with Iraq for which they were not ready, and then not preparing for it, was irrational. (and stupid)
Fresh 'Revolutionary' regimes, caught up in their own ideology, often tend to behave in irrational manners.
By allen, at
Sun Dec 10, 03:23:00 PM:
In 1979, Iran was able to declare war on the US by permitting an attack upon American territory by Iranian functionaries, including the present president of Iran. Furthermore, the US was later embarrassed when a rescue attempt utterly failed. That would make it 2 for Iran and 0 for the US. Add to this the prestige gained by Iran in so doing and it becomes 3 Iran and 0 US.
In 1983, the Iranians, using Hezbollah proxies, drove both the US and France out of Lebanon, destroying the only “Christian” country in the ME. What consequences did Iran suffer?
The last two years of the Reagan administration were spent defending the President from Congressional headhunters when it was discovered the administration had exchanged weapons with Iran for hostage releases in Lebanon et al. How was Iran injured here?
I will leave off there.
By skipsailing, at
Sun Dec 10, 04:55:00 PM:
is there supposed to be some correlation between rationality and threat?
are we working up a two by two matrix here? Ration/irrational along the x axis and threat/no threat along the y?
To what purpose?
By allen, at
Sun Dec 10, 06:43:00 PM:
skipsailing,
How often have you read of the "Mad Mullahs"?
I am simply trying to point out that, to date, the reach of the Iranians has not exceeded their grasp.
By William, at
Sun Dec 10, 08:17:00 PM:
Technically, the entire course of Iran has been irrational- they would have been much better served by cozying up to the US and enjoying economic benefits they could have reaped therefrom. But the Iranian gov. and those who control it act not in the best interest of Iran or Islam but rather in their best personal interests. Toward that end, maintaining a fanatical hatred of the US has maintained them handsomely.
That said, the invasion of Iraq remains the most stupid act possible. Saudi Arabia was offering literal billions for Iran to call the war off (Iraq was already ready for peace). Instead they prolonged it for another 6 years, bringing their government and the economy to the brink of collapse.
As iterated earlier, young revolutionary regimes can be very irrational. As I've said before, fanatics are manipulated. They don't rule. When they do rule, they burn out. Fanatics ruled Iran in the aftermath of the revolution, but in the course of the Iran-Iraq war they burned out, losing power to realists who put their own self-interests first while still espousing the radical rhetoric.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 10, 09:30:00 PM:
"...they would have been much better served by cozying up to the US and enjoying economic benefits they could have reaped therefrom."
Agreed. But you are thinking like an American.
Now think like an Islamic leader in Iran.
Would you, as an American, have wanted to cozy up to Stalin in the early 1950s? That decision would have saved all those Cold War expenses. American businesses would have had new markets. American children would have had more carefree lives without fear of nuclear war.
Or would "selling you soul" to the Godless Communists have been too high of a price for you to pay in the 1950s?
Would your rejection of a close association with Stalin in the early 1950s make you irrational?
Stalin was the Great Satan to the Americans in the early 1950s. The U.S. is the Great Satan to the Iranians.
By William, at
Sun Dec 10, 10:28:00 PM:
Nonsense. Stalin was more or less waging a war on our very way of life. To cozy up to him would have been to give him a blank check while the Soviet Union expanded its system of satellite states, effectively blocking markets off to American businesses. Furthermore, he wasn't interested in cozying up. He needed a 'Great Satan' (more accurately, 'Great Capitalist') so as to rally his own people together against.
Which is the same thing the Iranian leadership needs: a symbolic enemy. That way they can persecute their own enemies under the guise of waging a larger war. It's just like 1984- to maintain power, stay at always at war.
The Iranians themselves didn't like the Americans in 1979- or more accurately the American-backed Shah- but I doubt you could find a contemporary Iranian who would complain if we were to drop the embargo. We don't do that because we don't like the leadership, which in turn does its very best to persuade the Iranians that we don't like them.
Thus, it was neither in our interests or even an option to be friendly with Stalin, and, more importantly, the whole of anti-Americanism and extremist Islam is a pr stunt for the powers who are in the Middle East. An effective pr stunt, a dangerous one to, but in the end, not the true motivation that drives our true enemies.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Sun Dec 10, 11:57:00 PM:
"Stalin was more or less waging a war on our very way of life"
What do you think the U.S. is doing in the Muslim world through the export of vulgar American movies, sex-oriented music, seductive female clothing, materialistic attitudes, women's rights campaigns, gay rights campaigns, etc.? More or less the same thing.
In a way, the Hollywood liberals who hate war played a major role in bringing about the war through the export of "America's decadent culture."
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 11, 12:21:00 AM:
There seems to be some confusion as to what 'rational' means. It doesn't mean 'successful.' Iran could be 15-0, but it doesn't mean that they behave rationally. It just means that they haven't failed yet.
Rationality is the pursuit of policies according to the measure of cost-benefit analysis. i.e. If I did this it would cost me X, but I can expect to gain Y. Since X>Y, I will not do it.
Someone who doesn't follow this formula (including democracies, who occasionally do incredibly stupid things for domestic political reasons) is considered irrational. However, this basic formula operates only from a single perspective; that of hard nosed reality and reason. Unfortunately, that doesn't consider all possibilities.
To slip into an Iranian Twelver mindset, consider this: If I obliterate Israel with atomic weapons I can expect a retaliatory strike that will destroy such and such, but I can also expect such an act to trigger the arrival of the 12th Imam (President Ahmedanijad belongs/ed to a pseudo-mystical group whose goal that is) and thereby bring about the final salvation for Muslims and Day of Judgement. Since the payoff is ultimately greater than the cost, I will pursue this course of action.
What seems bizzarre or ridiculous to us could be perfectly logical to someone else. Like devoting significant portions of one's manpower and industrial ability to exterminating ethnicites while you're fighting a war on three fronts, for example.
As a 2nd step in the logic, someone who believes that triggering an atomic war would result in a divinely ordained Day of Judgement and is therefore a good idea, and has or is striving for atomic weapons, is a danger to the entire international order. Except, of course, those who also believe it will trigger the Day of Judgement in their favor.
By William, at
Mon Dec 11, 06:07:00 PM:
DEC- We don't force these parts of our culture down others' throats (as did communism). We merely offer them for sale. The only change we want Iran to make for us is to be more democratic and less antagonistic. There is no proof that the Iranian people would have any problem with these 'American exports'. There is considerable proof that the Iranian leadership, whose power would be imperiled by such changes, do have problems with them.
The core point here is that Iran is not an enemy because it is Islamic. It is an enemy because it is ruled by selfish men. Those men try and make their people believe the former- they'd like to make the Iranians believe we are making war on them and not just their leaders. We need to make it absolutely clear that the case is only the latter. The Iranians have their leaders, not their culture, to blame for America's estrangement.
Dawn- First, the Iranian government has owned extensive stockpiles of other highly destructive 'WMD's, such as biochemical weapons, and has not yet used any of them or given them out to proxies. They have also compromised considerably on the more onerous points of the Sharia, allowing freer displays of public affection, for instance. Both of these moves show a clear willingness to put continued power before religious duty.
Second, were they to use such a nuclear weapon, the end result would be the best development for American foreign policy in 60 years. Where there is currently gray everything would be cast in a stark black and white. After the smoke clears, America would have an unquestioned hegemony in the Middle East. The human cost would be unacceptable, but it is not a situation we need to fear. And what makes you think that Ahmedanijad believes using a nuclear weapon would do bring about this 12th imam?
Of course, the damage they would do by merely having a nuclear weapon still makes such a reality completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, there's no indication that they can be stopped. Perhaps they really are just developing it for power uses (ha. ha. ha.)
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Dec 11, 07:11:00 PM:
"We don't force these parts of our culture down others' throats (as did communism). We merely offer them for sale."
It's not like America gives many countries a choice. Basically the U.S. government says, "If you don't want us to put high import duties on the products you sell to America, you have to allow our creative products--movies, music, TV shows, etc.--into your country."
In other words, the government is saying, "Take our creative products or endure a lower standard of living." The export of creative products such as movies has become increasingly important to the U.S. with the decline of other manufacturing areas. The U.S. government is simply trying to correct the country's trade imbalance and keep the U.S. economy healthy.
In trade negotiations, the U.S. government is often very heavy-handed in its approach.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Dec 11, 08:16:00 PM:
DEC,
Our position is never that other countries must buy our entertainment products. It is that they should not by their laws discriminate against them, which is an entirely different point. We simply say that people should be able to choose which speech they consume. The fact that Hollywood generates more entertainment that more people want to see than, say, the French film industry is quite irrelevant to the point.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Dec 11, 08:44:00 PM:
"First, the Iranian government has owned extensive stockpiles of other highly destructive 'WMD's, such as biochemical weapons, and has not yet used any of them or given them out to proxies."
I know it's common and simple to group together chemical and biological weapons as if they were all the same thing, but they aren't. Nuclear arms are in a category of their own. A chemical rocket might panic a city or paralyze a battalion, and a biological device might shut down (quarantine) a province or a division, but modern nuclear arms can neutralize whole armies and vaporize metropolises and render them uninhabitable, essentially forever. There's a reason to pursue them; they're very powerful.
So basically, if they haven't used their little guns yet, we can expect that they don't intend to use their big ones? That requires a level of trust and precognition that I don't have.
"Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world."
The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/
Yeah, he should get nuclear arms because we can rely on his sense and good judgement to not use them.
"the end result would be the best development for American foreign policy in 60 years. Where there is currently gray everything would be cast in a stark black and white."
Wow. I figured two things from this statement. 1) you didn't think this all the way through. 2) You think that moral clarity is very important in international policy.
Say Iran does use a nuclear weapon or three. Their most likely target, given their rhetoric in the past (part of which I referenced above), would be Tel Aviv or, if that's too close to Jerusalem, Haifa. Israel would retaliate and, I would predict, with more force than with which they were struck in order to reinforce their deterrent. (which is, let's face it, the only reason they still exist)
Now, two nations have ceased to exist as coherent entities with numbers of dead in the millions. Much of the Levant is contaminated with nuclear waste, and the roads and coasts are packed with refugees trying to escape the toxic winds blowing east. Most of them will probably die within weeks if not from radiation then from violence (you think that Israeli/Palestinian thing will go away? No sir, they'll see it as divine judgement and use the opportunity to slaughter as many Jews as they can) or lack of supplies and shelter. Iran's major Persian cities and military complexes would be incinerated, with much the same scene as in the Levant. Iranian oil production would cease; dead stop, instant price escalation. Additionally, the other states in the region would probably invoke martial law to maintain order and control their borders which, depending, on the country in question, might be flooded with radioactive refugees; their economies will freeze up as well because no one whose allowed to be out (what with mandatory curfews and all) wants to risk breathing radioactive wind.
Stock markets might crash and the cost of petrol would make the spike this last year seem like a speedbump, possibly throwing much of the globe into a new Great Depression. Cities and lakes and rivers and irrigation and crops of all kinds across the whole of the formerly-Fertile Crescent would be irradiated to some degree. With the collapse of central authority in Iran, the regional rural separatists which exist there will assert their newfound independence, possible leading to new rounds of ethnic cleansings and revenge killings.
This is not the best thing for American foreign policy in 60 years. It's a disaster that will affect every part of this globalized world. Unless of course the 12th Imam does show up as promised, and usher in a new age of righteousness atop the atomic ash. Then it might not be so bad.
"And what makes you think that Ahmedanijad believes using a nuclear weapon would do bring about this 12th imam?"
Kudos for asking. It's a possibility, and unfortunately not without reason. Witness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hojjatieh_Mahdavieh_Society
Quotation: "I was looking for an analogy to try to explain to Americans what it is that is so dangerous about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. You remember those crazy people in Waco, Texas?... this is that kind of cult. It`s the cult of the Mahdi, a holy man that disappeared a thousand years ago. And the president of Iran believes that he`s supposed to -- he was put here on Earth to bring this holy man back in a great religious war between the true Muslim believers and the infidels. And millions will die in this Apocalypse, and the Muslim believers will go to heaven.... Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is first trying to develop nuclear weapons and then going about his mad fantasy of global conflict."
Also here: http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/understanding-ahmadinejad/
"Ahmadinejad is a true ‘1979 revolutionary radical’ who is in many ways in opposition to the mullahs of the Guardian Council, which hand-selected and approved his own presidential candidacy, as he believes they have lost touch with their revolutionary roots. He is opposed by the Mejlis (Iranian parliament) while he openly awaits the return of the 12th Imam.
It is the latter, the radical religious aspect, that makes Ahmadinejad potentially dangerously unpredictable in an international conflict/crisis management scenario."
"It is said that, as mayor of Tehran, he had city plans drawn up for the return of the 12th Imam."
"Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ‘potentially’ irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam."
In essence, he is a crazy messianic fanatic who, if given the opportunity, will do something terrible. Just like the last one that everyone ignored...
DEC: "If you don't want us to put high import duties on the products you sell to America, you have to allow our creative products--movies, music, TV shows, etc.--into your country."
That sounds like free trade to me. It's not unreasonable to insist that if they want their goods available here then our goods should be available there. No one is forcing their people to buy our stuff; if they don't like it, they won't buy it. But obviously, they do like it because they buy it all the time. Yay for everyone. I don't understand why this should be condemned. Do you also condemn Japan for exporting sushi, Pokeman, Dragonball Z, Digipets, Hello Kitty, and all their other little cultural doohickeys to the US? Why would you? We buy it willingly. Same concept.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Mon Dec 11, 09:05:00 PM:
TH: "Our position is never that other countries must buy our entertainment products. It is that they should not by their laws discriminate against them, which is an entirely different point."
I didn't say they must buy them, TH. I said, "...you have to allow our creative products--movies, music, TV shows, etc.--into your country." You and I are saying the same thing.
However, you might find that some countries have been "forced" by trade negotiators to carry American cable TV networks on their state-owned systems. (I have heard this secondhand. I have no firsthand knowledge. I am not in the TV business.)
By William, at
Tue Dec 12, 12:43:00 AM:
Dawnfire- You are assuming that Israel would take the lead in the fight against Iran and that all other nations would stay uninvolved. I would argue quite to the contrary. The US, being the most militarily capable power in the region as well as a close ally of Israel, would take the lead in the even of a nuclear attack. It would have unquestioned foreign support and would be able to use very heavy handed methods- as I said, a very gray conflict would become starkly black and white. We would do whatever is necessary to destroy the regime in Iran, and would probably commit slight overkill, especially in the initial stages when we are wiping out their nuclear abilities. After that either a new, reformist government would come into power in Iran with a deep respect for American might and apprehension of extremism, or an American led occupation force would ensure that a new, reformist government came into power. Unlike Iraq, it would be of sufficient mass (even Europe will contribute), the population would be willing (there is a strong reform movement already in Iran), and we would have unquestionable public support for a clear goal.
The time to decimate the regime would be at most a month. The time to get Iranian oil production back up again would be at most a year. There would be a significant price spike, but our Strategic Oil Reserve would ensure that the market is still supplied.
When the smoke clears, our largest antagonist in the ME would be naught, and our hegemony there would be not only unchallenged, but supported by many states, especially a cowed Russia & China (it would be fairly embarrassing to have indirectly assisted in the murder of 1+ million civilians).
We certainly would not give Israel a blank nuclear check, and would not let events unfold haphazardly.
As for your 'proof' that the Iranian President believes using nuclear weapons would bring about the 12th iman, you merely listed a half dozen others with the same opinion as you. None of your citations were from, say, advisers of the President, or, best, the President himself. Yes, he speaks a more radical talk, but that's perfectly rational as it has allowed him to build an independent power base and greatly boosted his poll numbers.
Thus, certainly, by virtue of size, an impressive argument, but I still believe that Iran having, not using, nuclear weapons is what we need to fear, and that the Iranian leadership has no intention of using them anyway.
DEC- Even were such a thing true, one can still change the channel.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Dec 12, 08:22:00 PM:
My 'proof' contained several quotations of the President. Hence the little "'s. I didn't just make up this opinion and decide that it's true; it's the result of gathered data and probability calculation on my part.
"Yes, he speaks a more radical talk, but that's perfectly rational as it has allowed him to build an independent power base and greatly boosted his poll numbers."
That's the same kind of thinking that accompanied the Nazis' rise to power. 'Oh he doesn't really mean what he published in his silly little book, it's just a political ploy. Peace in our time!' He has talked publically about hastening the arrival of the 12th Imam. He has talked publically about Israel being destroyed soon in 'a single storm.' He openly fantasizes about defeating the US. He was an original member of the revolutionaries who attacked the American embassy. He ran for office as a conservative religious candidate. What has he done to make you think that he's only kidding?
I'd like to see a link to credible Iranian polls, too. All the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence I've seen implies a polarization of Iranian society with the youth (i.e. the majority) and various minorities aligned against him. Witness the protests from yesterday. Do you know what kind of balls it takes to shout down and burn pictures of the Iranian President in public? Those people are tortured and killed in Iran.
"The US, being the most militarily capable power in the region as well as a close ally of Israel, would take the lead in the even of a nuclear attack."
If you think that Israel wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike... well... I'm sure you've heard the one about ocean front property. "Just take the hit, lose some cities; we'll take care of it" is not what the Israelis are going to want to hear.
Plus, if things actually DID roll out the way that you described, there's also the problem of setting a precedent. They used an atomic weapon, the ultimate no no, and no one hit back. Rather, we're going to mass our conventional forces and invade them. What's to stop them from nuking our army? The threat of retaliation? Why? It didn't happen before. So now Tel Aviv AND the cream of the US Army/Marine Corps are smoking ruins. What now?
There are a lot of assumptions in your scenario, some of which are patently unrealistic.
By William, at
Wed Dec 13, 01:06:00 AM:
The guy just held a conference with Orthodox Jews (Holocaust deniers, but Jews nonetheless). Limited communities of Jews still reside in Iran. They have been harassed, but they certainly have not been eliminated. If he's going to take out Israel, why not start at home?
Furthermore, to ameliorate the angst of the youth, the more onerous social restrictions have been eased. Clearly these people are more interested in power and stability than religious 'truths'.
Finally, you still have not presented any proof that he would use nuclear weapons. Against Israel or against anyone. Yes, he has called for Israel's destruction, but he has not said that he's going to step up to the plate to do it. He's dangerous, but he's not crazy.
Israel also is not crazy. They would consult us before going gung-ho nuclear. I did not rule out the nuclear retaliation- of course that will happen. I'm ruling out mutual destruction. We would begin to amass an invasion force with all haste, (calling up all the national guard + Europeans should place us well over 500k, Israel will be occupied beating the hell out of Hezbollah & maybe Syria) but in the meantime we would unleash all the fury of our air force. 2-3 nuclear strikes aimed at the major facilities accompanied by hundreds of 'smaller' strikes would immediately take out any nuclear and offensive missile/ military ability they have. These would be followed by, as said, very callous air-strikes aimed at anything government while the invasion force builds up. Mosques would probably no longer get a freebee. A marine force would secure most of the maritime oil facilities. By the time the main invasion force would be full strength, there probably won't be much of an Iranian gov. left to resist it.
They would learn their lesson. It's just that most of the populace would survive to tell the tale and the aftermath would be a US hegemony, not a complete breakdown in the ME as you predicted (and certainly not a 12th imam, as you claim the Iranian P believes). I'm sorry I did not fully explain what the implications are of a conflict cast in stark black & white.
Trying to forecast the future is fairly enjoyable, but I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on a core point: we shouldn't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons.
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) the main difference is that you believe the US should launch some kind of extensive military pre-emptive attack because you believe the Iranians would use them (as, say, England & France should have taken down Germany when the invaded Czechoslovakia, to use a favorite analogy), whereas I do not believe the Iranians would use the nuclear weapons, and thus, unless a military strike were given guaranteed results, am inclined to pursue a more rational approach to the situation.
I am also inclined to believe that the core problem is the nature of greedy men, not the nature of Islam.
Feel free to critique my forecast of a nuclear war, but would you agree that this is the actual argument?
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Dec 13, 01:42:00 AM:
Unbelievable that William would use the attendance of the crackpot anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect as some kind of Jewish support fot the abominable Holocaust denial conference. As for Iran's Jews, Hitler didn't start killing Jews either until 1939 when he could do it under cover of war.
By William, at
Wed Dec 13, 04:49:00 PM:
Sorry Gary, that was not the point I wanted to make. Trying to at all cast such a conference in a positive light is unacceptable. Full apologies.
The point is that a Jewish population in Iran persists despite the rhetoric. Hitler may not have begun to kill until '39, but there was certainly heinous and obvious acts of oppression before then (the yellow stars, night of broken glass).
The man is certainly greedy for power- power for himself, power to safeguard his elite supporters, and power for his nation, but he is not an Islamic fanatic. He manipulates. He's a skilled and ambitious dictator, not a jihadist.
Skilled and ambitious dictators still pose problems (in the long term, usually larger challenges than fanatics), but they are rational and must be treated as such if we are to avoid playing into his hand.
