Article

2006-04-28 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2006-04-28 09:09|| || Front Page|| [12 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 No Steve, pour out all the gasoline then light the fire. It works much better that way.

Posted by Uniting Shirt9124 2006-04-28 09:31|| 2006-04-28 09:31|| Front Page Top

#2 Take a tour through a few Euro blogs and get the pulse of the Europeans. Almost to a man they are ok with a nuclear-armed Iran. Do they reflect the thinking of their politicians? No, but the politicians' initiatives may well be born from the common man's "thinking".

Ahmedinejad scorns the UN because he knows 1) China and Russia won't stop him; 2) the major European players in the UN, a powerful part of that body in terms of international public opinion, aren't serious about stopping him. He recognizes that in the end he'll get his weapons with the "international community's" approval, because of a kind of European "bottom line of fairness":

Common talk on the street: "If Pakistan, Israel, the US, and France can get them, why not Iran?" "We are more afraid of the US using them than Iran using them." Take a tour and see it for yourselves.

So who is with us, besides Israel?

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 09:37|| 2006-04-28 09:37|| Front Page Top

#3 Irans Ahmadinejad pours scorn on UN

I never thought I'd have an opinion in common with him.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 09:41|| 2006-04-28 09:41|| Front Page Top

#4 So who is with us, besides Israel?

India, Japan, Iraq, Saudi, Gulf States, and most of Europe, off the record.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 09:43|| 2006-04-28 09:43|| Front Page Top

#5 NS-A man that takes one step forward publicly and one step backward privately simply appears immobile and impotent in the end-not inspiring of fear or respect by his nemeses.

Does your conclusion mean that you think European public opinion an irrelevant consideration in this issue?

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 10:08|| 2006-04-28 10:08|| Front Page Top

#6 "Saudi and Gulf States"

Right...another deal with the "lesser of evils"-the same ones funding jihadis.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 10:10|| 2006-04-28 10:10|| Front Page Top

#7 Jules, The aristocrats who run Europe have never been blinded by public opinion, at least not until there is violence in the streets. Will the French go into the streets over an attack on Iran? I doubt it. It's not as important to them as maintaining a 10% unemployment rate. So I suspect the leaders of Europe quietly will support us with logistics and intelligence. The Polish and Danes may actually speak out.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 10:20|| 2006-04-28 10:20|| Front Page Top

#8 No, the French won't take to the streets over an attack on Iran, but they will take to the streets if we ask them to allow imports of GM wheat.

Posted by Perfesser 2006-04-28 10:29|| 2006-04-28 10:29|| Front Page Top

#9 So ship them nitrogen fixing GM lawn grass instead.

Posted by 3dc 2006-04-28 10:34|| 2006-04-28 10:34|| Front Page Top

#10 "The aristocrats who run Europe have never been blinded by public opinion"

I would argue that they are even more swayed by public opinion than our politicians are, since firm core principles surely don't inform their policies-expediency and ease do.

Their public opinion merely takes a different form-it's not the grass roots, outraged and going-onto-the-streets form of the American polity; it is a PC-collectivist public opinion that has pulled along so many of their politicians' on a leash and which convinces them that their cultures and countries face no danger if they will only parrot the correct words and curtsy.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 10:44|| 2006-04-28 10:44|| Front Page Top

#11 folks on the street talk about how they actually feel about the issue - which is relative indifference to the Iran nuke program.

Actual political leaders, take into account other factors. Lke the need to improve relations with the US. Like the need to reinforce the US tendency, since Condi became SecofState, to be more multilateral and to work more closely with the EU. Like the need to give the NPT and the UNSC at least SOME street cred. Like the need for US support as Putin goes ever farther from being someone the Euros can rely on. All the kinds of things the bloggers and pundits dont give a damn about, but that a Chirac or De Villepin DO care about.

KInda like here in the US conservative pundits go all Jacksonian in there rhetoric, but the Bush admin uses more diplomatic methods.

Power has a tendency to lead to a certain degree of responsibility. (well at least if youre not a muslim fundie)

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-04-28 10:50|| 2006-04-28 10:50|| Front Page Top

#12 The Un could try a different tact - boot Iran out and pull diplo immunity.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-04-28 10:53|| 2006-04-28 10:53|| Front Page Top

#13 "Power has a tendency to lead to a certain degree of responsibility."

Which explains why President Bush felt the need to hold the hand of a Saudi Prince, probably not long after that prince signed a check to his favorite jihadi fund-a-terrorist program.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 10:57|| 2006-04-28 10:57|| Front Page Top

#14 Naive Euro (and lefty) public opinion logic is as jules said:

1) if pakistan, india, france etc and the US have nukes (and israel they mutter) then why not Iran?

2) We are more afraid of the US using them, US only country ever to have dropped the bomb.

Problem for America:

1) Public opinion would not support a ground war in Iran especially as Iraq still occupied, Afghanistan still a problem. Not enough money and men to sort them all out at once.

2) Allies would drop away.

So, US threats of force against Iran are ultimately impotent and I'm-a-dinner-jacket knows it.

This leads to his pouring petrol on the fire. Do your worst, he blusters, knowing full well UN threats are baseless (when have they ever competently done anything even when they've agreed to it?) and the only credible threat - the US - is bound by popular opinion and Iraq.

Only possibility is a decapitating strike by Israel/ US bombers on Iranian nuke sites.

If Mossad believes Iran is about to get nukes we will wake up one morning to the sight of craters in the ground all over Iran.

Only problem: this will force the public opinion at step 1 further into moral equivalence, condemnation of Israel and America as the great satans, hatred of Israel, anti-Semitism, consiracy theories, sympathy for Islamofascists and propel us even deeper into the public relations disaster that is so helping our enemies.

But if nothing is done, then one day Iran will have the bomb, then it's goodbye Israel.

So I don't know what the best outcome is. And I cannot call this one, it's too much of a mish-mash to me.

Anybody else? Oldspook? Zhang Fei? you're usually pretty on to it, love to know your thoughts.

Perhaps a lot of public blustering only will come of it.

Posted by anon1 2006-04-28 11:04|| 2006-04-28 11:04|| Front Page Top

#15 I would argue that they are even more swayed by public opinion than our politicians are

That's why they're finished with the EU Constitution?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 11:36|| 2006-04-28 11:36|| Front Page Top

#16 Good point.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 11:37|| 2006-04-28 11:37|| Front Page Top

#17 So, NS, you think the politicians of France, Germany and England will ignore the collective, nuanced, humanitarian-minded public opinion and support a military strike on Iran, if push comes to shove? You give them more credit for courage than I would.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 11:39|| 2006-04-28 11:39|| Front Page Top

#18 One pours scorn with a gravy ladle, I believe.

Posted by Chuck Simmins">Chuck Simmins 2006-04-28 11:48|| http://blog.simmins.org]">[http://blog.simmins.org] 2006-04-28 11:48|| Front Page Top

#19 Only problem: this will force the public opinion at step 1 further into moral equivalence, condemnation of Israel and America as the great satans, hatred of Israel, anti-Semitism, consiracy theories, sympathy for Islamofascists and propel us even deeper into the public relations disaster that is so helping our enemies.

It's time for the West to realize that any "public relations disaster" is long behind us. We are now in a pure survival phase, it's just that most people either don't comprehend this or simply refuse to do so. If ever there was a solid candidate for a rogue nation that was willing to place a nuclear device into terrorist hands, it is Iran.

Iran's possession of nuclear arms represents the single most dire threat to regional stability and global security. North Korea pales as a distant second by comparison. The doctrine driven aspect of the mullahs and Ahmadinejad's political strategy are what makes it so.

This one is for all the marbles. Either we go in and cripple Iran's nuclear weapons efforts or we can expect a nuclear terrorist attack upon a major American metropolis within less than ten years. How anyone can think there are alternatives in this situation is simply beyond me.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-28 11:52|| 2006-04-28 11:52|| Front Page Top

#20 That ahMad would be pouring scorn on the UN is no surprise. Hell, the UN was born to be scorned.

What's more interesting is that ahMad would be doing it with Ruskie and ChiCom complacency.

Posted by Captain America 2006-04-28 11:58|| 2006-04-28 11:58|| Front Page Top

#21 The only problem with being in survival phase when large sections of the public just don't get it is that an unpopular military action will see the smart and brave guys trashed at the next election and patsies voted in to appease the enemy.

Then we are back to worse than square 1.

Posted by anon1 2006-04-28 11:59|| 2006-04-28 11:59|| Front Page Top

#22 Bush is term limited.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 12:05|| 2006-04-28 12:05|| Front Page Top

#23 "How anyone can think there are alternatives in this situation is simply beyond me."

Our European allies, who we are supposed to believe will fight for the same interests as we are, and whom we are agreeing to let lead on this issue, think their minor-league bluff is going to convince Iran, which is why I am beating a dead horse on this thread. No one believes them anymore, least of all Iran. Why would Iran believe any meaningful consequence will come from Europe or the UN? Why would Iran be afraid? Tit for tat, Iran and the West can make each other suffer. Who will pay the greater price? If a few countries agree to sanctions outside the UN, do we imagine the financial consequences to the West won't be significant?

It's not that we upset the public, Zen, but what effect that public opinion has on European judgment and decision-making, that concerns me.

Posted by Jules 2006-04-28 12:43|| 2006-04-28 12:43|| Front Page Top

#24 The diplomatic play by Bush here was good. Let the EU and Iran talk and try to solve the problem diplomatically while our forces are otherwise occupied in Iraq. One party or the other will change its mind. If the Iranians, thank the EUros and defang Iran. If the EUros, they're on board for action now, by us with no involvement or protest from them, that talking failed and we've settled things in Iraq. It's coming together.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 12:49|| 2006-04-28 12:49|| Front Page Top

#25 Then we are back to worse than square 1.

However repugnant the notion might be, four years of democratic party government in the United States cannot do the same level of harm as an unfettered Iran. A subsequent administration can appease a crippled Iran all they want and no extreme harm can come of it. A nuclear armed Iran is another matter entirely.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-28 13:02|| 2006-04-28 13:02|| Front Page Top

#26 Well, Jules, as far as I'm concerned Europe can go hang. They won't be part of modern civilization for that much longer anyway, so their unwillingness to defend even themselves is immaterial.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-04-28 13:24|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-04-28 13:24|| Front Page Top

#27 "Irans Ahmadinejad pours scorn on UN"

Damn! Something I agree with this nutjob on.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut"> Barbara Skolaut 2006-04-28 13:34|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-04-28 13:34|| Front Page Top

#28 Zenster is dead on concerning this. The balance of the globe has shifted against us, just how it is now. So who gives a damn about global opinion.

We've got to accept NOTHING the US does will be acceptable again. That is until another 'good' war (WWII) or crisis on a global scale arives and the world actually realizes, then, suddenly the US will be acceptable again.

Therefore we foregoe the pleasantries and Rage.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-04-28 13:53|| 2006-04-28 13:53|| Front Page Top

#29 "Why would Iran believe any meaningful consequence will come from Europe or the UN? Why would Iran be afraid?"

Because Irans economy needs to grow rapidly to employ a growing young labor force. When their economic growth stops, they have a BIG problem on their hands. I think the Mullahs would rather have a US air strike than effective economic sanctions. OTOH they dont think we have the ground troops for a regime change, and that a bombing of the nuke sites actually strengthens them at home.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-04-28 14:08|| 2006-04-28 14:08|| Front Page Top

#30 Let's find out.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 14:17|| 2006-04-28 14:17|| Front Page Top

#31 As VDH keeps saying -- there is much we can learn from the wars between Sparta and Athens.

It is very hard for a democratic form of government to find, elect, reward, and keep in place the kind of men who will design and wage a long war so as to save us. Especially in modern times when the "intellectuals" are overwhelmingly opposed to Western civilization.

My prediction now is that we will see a nuclear war within the next few years and tens of millions will die. WW I, and WW II, will pale in comparison. Because Iran wasn't stopped in time. It's terrible and it's being forced on us by Islamofascists and our leftists.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-04-28 14:23|| http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/]">[http://radio.weblogs.com/0103811/categories/currentEvents/] 2006-04-28 14:23|| Front Page Top

#32 LH makes good points. We are not going to occupy Iran and strikes may actually be what Iran wants to as to take their population's mind off of a woeful economy. For this reason, we can at least hope that sanctions could in fact force some sort of reform.

I think we can wait until Iran gets new SAMs deployed and integrated into their air defense system. I believe this is about a year but am not sure. During this time we need to squeeze them economically as much as possible and also see what, if anything, these resistance groups can do.

That said, in the likely event we need to attack we need to try to have at least France and Britain on board. The reason being is that their support -- wrongly in my opinion -- helps us have more domestic concensus (i.e. the dems think France is some sort of moral arbiter) for a PROLONGED campaign designed to destroy not just the nuke sites but key economic infrastructure and regime targets.

The message to the wussy Iranian public, which whines about the Mullahs but does nothing about it, needs to be: "we warned you that this would happen if you kept letting Amadinemajad threaten us and ignored your NPT obligations, we waited a year for extra diplomacy and you did nothing, now you will suffer."

Ideally we convey these threats effectively to the the Iranian people during the next year. Iranians need to be fearful that their President's boasts and threats may lead them to experience severe discomfort and/or death from the West, which is would otherwise be quite happy to treat their country with respect.

The bottom line is that the Iranians, despite the claims of people like Ledeen, are probably too cowardly to do anything about the hated Mullahs. This is understandable. We need to at least consider the benefits of making them fear us more.

Just thinking out loud.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-28 14:29|| 2006-04-28 14:29|| Front Page Top

#33 "The message to the wussy Iranian public, which whines about the Mullahs but does nothing about it,"

some of them have died for their opposition, some been beaten and some jailed. Its not that easy gathering enough people together at one time against a regime willing to use brutal means. In eastern europe the regimes were finally brought down, but it took a long time till the moment was ripe.

I find this kind of epithet, for people living under an authoritarian regime, from people sitting in safety behind a computer, (unless youre actually with the armed forces or otherwise exposed) to be inappropriate.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-04-28 14:35|| 2006-04-28 14:35|| Front Page Top

#34 LH has a wonderful point here. 9 out of 10 resistance movements fail because of efficiant government crackdowns. What the people of Iran need is a sponser, like France did for the US during the revolutionary war. This is Iran's weak point. A good and sponsered uprising and resistance movement will bring Iran down a lot more efficiantly than general invasion. However, I fear our leaders don't have the spine or the will to do this and I fear many just don't trust it to work.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-04-28 14:45|| 2006-04-28 14:45|| Front Page Top

#35 France did not do squat until after we had shown we demonstrated we could win at the Battle of Saratoga. (La Fayette was acting on his own)

Playing the uprising game is dangerous as Hungary and the Bay of Pigs demonstrated. It is unreasonable to expect people to "rise up" just because we think they are oppressed. They may have made the real calculation that they prefer being oppressed to being dead. Look how long it took those living under Communism to get thoroughly fed up. Yet once that point is reached for enough people, the regimes fell. If it weren't for the nukes, I'd let the MM run Iran till the Iranians got fed up.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 15:09|| 2006-04-28 15:09|| Front Page Top

#36 Well, Jules, as far as I'm concerned Europe can go hang. They won't be part of modern civilization for that much longer anyway, so their unwillingness to defend even themselves is immaterial.

Absolutely. By their collective inaction alone, Europe has marginalized itself. Russia and China must be laughing up their sleeves at the West's stupidity. Neither of them would hesitate to glaze Iran like a honey-baked ham if it suited their purposes.

Much like the folks who worry about lobsters feeling pain when being boiled, we prink about with cautious concern for those who seek our ultimate demise. Here's a hint, lobsters would chow down on us like a cheap buffet if they could. If we continue to let world opinion paralyze us, we will deserve Ahmadinejad's scorn. He will have been right. Were the situation reversed, Iran would have attacked us decades ago.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-28 15:10|| 2006-04-28 15:10|| Front Page Top

#37 Kalle is correct. How I wish it weren't true. I don't see any way around the rush toward Islamo-directed world genocide and ultimate power grab.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-04-28 15:11|| 2006-04-28 15:11|| Front Page Top

#38 LH has a valid point, and I'd actually agree in most cases, but we've already crossed the threashold.

At this point it is Utopian to believe the US can count on global support of any kind in most things. The econmic threat requires a wide acceptance and we already have ample evidence this cannot happen. Russia will cheat, China will cheat, on and on.

Again valid point, but in today's world it is not likley we could affect such a threat of enough scope to matter.

We crossed the line these days from where the US could use words to affect change to power is now required.

The world has grown tolerance to our words, not to mention hostile and cynical. Action is now necessary to really get things done in the current landscape.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-04-28 15:22|| 2006-04-28 15:22|| Front Page Top

#39 As much as I hate to say it, there will be no effective action. No meaningful sanctions will be imposed and we will see a nuclear-armed Iran soon. US and Israel will stand alone.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2006-04-28 15:35|| 2006-04-28 15:35|| Front Page Top

#40 One pours scorn with a gravy ladle, I believe

Close, Chuck. Scorn is presented at the dining table in a dedicated, covered soup tureen with matching soup ladle. Dedicated, because the stench can't ever be totally removed after. And covered for the same reason. A gravy ladle just isn't big enough for the quantities involved, and there is the off chance that someone might grab it for the extra giblet gravy at Thanksgiving -- and what a disaster that would be! ;-)

As for an economic boycott of Iran: France, Germany, Belgium, and Russia demonstrated conclusively in the situation with Iraq that even those boycotts they sponsor will not hold them back from breaking them. I see no reason to believe that under the current circumstances they and China wouldn't be signing contracts to supply Iran with goods and munitions in return for oil before the ink was even dry on a UN Security Council boycott.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-04-28 15:37|| 2006-04-28 15:37|| Front Page Top

#41 As to the Iranian people rising up, sometimes people put up with a LOT of oppression rather than rise up -- as example #1a, I give you Iraq under Saddam. People hated the man and they were certainly sorely oppressed.

They even tried to rise up -- the Kurds tried a couple times, the Shi'a tried as well. But they weren't successful, and they didn't keep trying because, when confronted with a slim chance of success versus a very high chance of death, people will put up with oppression a while longer.

If still in doubt, check out Hungary and other East European countries.

The Mad Mullahs know this. They've calibrated their oppression skills pretty well. They're using, in effect, a #5 truncheon on their people because that's what it takes. If necessary they'll pull out a #6 or even (gasp) a #7. Unless the Iranian people see some reasonable chance of success, they'll put up with it.

Why don't we foment a revolution? Gee, great idea, and just how, exactly -- with our CIA? How long would it take Ms. McCarthy or her pals to torpedo, and then leak, that one? With our words? Dubya can get the message out there, but words alone would take years to build up the courage of the Iranians (I'm not saying they're cowards, but they have some inertia to get past), and we don't have years. Ronald Reagan's words took a decade to percolate in Eastern Europe, after all, and Iran is a tougher case. Words alone won't work, and we don't have a competent intel organization that can do the quiet, dirty organizing and skull-duggery required.

So the notion of fomenting revolution in Iran, something I've pinned my hopes on in the past, looks increasingly less likely.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-04-28 15:42|| 2006-04-28 15:42|| Front Page Top

#42 people point to the cheating on sanctions in Iraq.

Iran,bad as it is, is NOT as tight a place as Saddamite Iraq. People talk in private about how they hate the mullahs. People who openly defy the regime get beaten up, jailed for a spell, and released. In Iraq theyd have been shot. In Iraq foreigners couldnt meet with locals without a minder. This is not, IMHO, cause the mullahs are lovers of moderation or liberty, but just cause the sequence of events in the Iranian rev of '79 never got them that much power, and they havent had the strength to impose that much control.

Iraq under sanctions had an economy in collapse, with massive unemployment despite the cheating. Saddam held on, barely, cause of a much more efficient security apparatus and tighter control than Iran has.

I cant guarantee, of course, that sanctions will lead to revolution. But I dont think we can rule it out.

As for how much time we have - I for one, dont know. Shortest Ive heard from a reasonable source (israeli military guy) was one year. The NIE says about 10, shortest 5, but thats dated. Ive also heard 3.

We MAY reach the point where we cant wait for an Iranian revolution any longer. We're not at that point yet - and the steps we take now can advance, or retard that process. We certainly should NOT toss it out of our cost benefit considerations, even as we dont count on it.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-04-28 16:01|| 2006-04-28 16:01|| Front Page Top

#43 There are several ethnic areas of Iran where a defacto revolt could start.

It would begin with a few dozen Iranian soldiers being captured or defecting. A few more soldiers sent in. A few months later another wipeout.

Then the same thing happens in another ethnic enclave.

A some point a large chunk of the military revolts. Then the cities rise up.

maybe not soon --- maybe in another two years or so

Posted by mhw 2006-04-28 16:13|| 2006-04-28 16:13|| Front Page Top

#44 maybe in another two years or so

Are you willing to gamble that Iran will not have built a nuclear device within that 24 month timespan? If not, please explain why you bother mentioning this?

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-28 16:30|| 2006-04-28 16:30|| Front Page Top

#45 I'm not necesarily talking about cheating on sanctions like Iraq. No need, that is moot, because it won't happen.

Then the next threat could be an embargo of the willing, not large enough in scope.

Either way, Russia, China and all the others are going to talk the talk, play both sides, and not give a damn about US. That is the rub, we are already way past that point.

Action is the only thing that can stop this, either now at painful levels or later at very painful levels.

I think we need to accept some reality now, the US is the biggest scapegoat in history and will remain for a long while to come. We are already past the threshold. We are on our own, and must accept, that many will obstruct what is right, just to smite the US.

I am saying that the we won't have cooperation for sanctions or the lot from the UNSC / World again ... they already accept as universal law the US has evil motives for everything.

Many countries activley block any move we now make. Propoganda against everything we do is ever present and we've done nothing to combat it. 9/11 has emboldened many. Iran, NK, Venezuala et al mouthing off every day probing the the threshold of tolerance everyday. Signs of buckling on the Hamas embargo, etc, etc, etc.

Soft power has gone the way of the DoDo, we won't have help in sanctions, we won't have a global conviction or unanimous voice.

That is until something really big goes down and everyone wakes up out of their 'since the USSR is gone there is nothing to fear, nothing to see, please walk by and log your official protest of the Big Bad US today' - once they feel the pain or the threat for real we'll be able to adopt the softer approach.

For now, all we have, that we can truly count on, is the US military.

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-04-28 16:37|| 2006-04-28 16:37|| Front Page Top

#46 LH, I am indeed writing from the comfort of a computer. I take your point.

I did say it was "understandable" that the Iranians did not want to risk it. To elaborate, I'd add that I am not sure how I, myself, would deal in their situation. I do not mean to expect superhuman courage from anybody.

So, I regret the term 'wussy' which was written in haste. What I do not regret is venting frustration with the overhyped Iranian 'resistance' which is all talk and no action. Unlike the Eastern Europeans and Iraqis they did not really TRY to overthrow their oppressive theocracy. Everytime there is an incident at a soccer game or some students get together for a demonstration people like Michael Ledeen imply that the seeds for a revolt are sown. However, it always turns out to be underwhelming thanks to the efficiency of the police and the lack of serious or organization of the 'resistance'.

Like Steve I have given up on an overthrow of the Mullahs from within. Still, as stated in my post, I think we need to use the remaining year or so before the Iranians get their new SAMs up to redouble our efforts on this front just in case. I still harbor a smidgen of hope that the regular Iranian military retains a few people who do not want war and are open to cooperation with Western powers. Hopefully the CIA or the Brits are talking to them if they exist.

We have to assume, though that, at this point, it's all about the nukes. Our strategy should be to exhaust sanctions and diplomacy while we can still afford to do so with an eye towards accumulating domestic and potentially internal support for a sustained campaign against the Iranian regime as well as it's military capability and to prepare for the terrorist onslaught that will come after it.

There are no good choices. If the Iranians were more like the Poles, Hungarians and Czechs -- who we could not help because of the Soviet nuclear threat -- or Shia in Iraq after GWI -- who we shamefully allowed to be massacred by Saddam -- the situation might be different but for a variety of reasons they are not. It's understandable because of the effectiveness of the Mullah's police state. It's sad because Iran ought to be a natural ally of the US in a perfect world. But it's reality and we better deal with it before they have nuclear capabilities.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-28 16:38|| 2006-04-28 16:38|| Front Page Top

#47 NS: Look how long it took those living under Communism to get thoroughly fed up. Yet once that point is reached for enough people, the regimes fell.

SW: sometimes people put up with a LOT of oppression rather than rise up

I'd like to point out that in Poland, the country that got the ball rolling in eastern Europe, the goal initially was not to effect regime change. The Solidarity Trade Union was mainly concerned with workers' rights, work conditions, wages, right to independent unions, etc. See: 21 demands of MKS Unfortunately for the communists, yielding to any of these demands essentially resulted in the weakening of the regime.

By the end of the 80s, when Solidarity demanded partially-free elections (even at this point the goal was not full regime change, but to have more say in economic planning), it was essentially over for the communists. After all, communism survives on iron-fisted rule, not some power-sharing approach with a trade union. Most communists were deafeated in this election and shortly after, the whole thing collapsed for the communists with the announcement "today communism is over in Poland" on state television (which after 25 years still brings a tear to the eye, lol).

So what was the spark? Basic economics. You see, in a planned economy you still have the basic business cycles. There are times when things are good and people are happy, even praising the powers that be. But there also comes the time to pay for all the good times, and then things are not so good. To pay for the good times, a planned economy often raises prices, depresses wages, introduces rationing, etc. And that's exactly what happened in Poland. By the late 1970s, people were concerned with putting food on the table, and there's nothing like personal hardship to create the fervor for change. The rest is history.

So back to Iran. While things like democracy, basic freedoms etc, are always popular ideals, they are somewhere on the bottom of the ordinary person's list of essential items. As long as an unpopular regime can provide economically for their population, there is little fear of regime change. Start tinkering with a person's real well being, and that's when trouble starts.

Unfortunately Iran has oil, and they are not even a strictly planned economy. The trick is to find another spark. Perhaps religious authority infringing on people's right to make money is the key. In this light, maybe sanctions can indeed work. Or maybe not.

Posted by Rafael 2006-04-28 16:39|| 2006-04-28 16:39|| Front Page Top

#48 That said, in the likely event we need to attack we need to try to have at least France and Britain on board. The reason being is that their support -- wrongly in my opinion -- helps us have more domestic concensus (i.e. the dems think France is some sort of moral arbiter)
I'll swamp France for India in that case, that said...

NS it was only after Saratoga that a formal treaty was signed. The King of France was supporting the rebel forces in the US out of his own pocket prior to that. Silas Dean extracted 3 million livres from the gent at one point.

Posted by 6 2006-04-28 16:45|| 2006-04-28 16:45|| Front Page Top

#49 Swap he sed, swap France for India... jeebus.

Posted by 6 2006-04-28 16:46|| 2006-04-28 16:46|| Front Page Top

#50 I would swap India for France too. However, France is more important for getting domestic buy in. That will change in time. India is a critical new ally and apparantly beginning to cooperate more on Iran.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-28 16:48|| 2006-04-28 16:48|| Front Page Top

#51 The best thing would be if Japan, Taiwan, Germany and Israel announced that if Iran is allowed nuclear weapons they will develop and test them also.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 16:57|| 2006-04-28 16:57|| Front Page Top

#52 Irans Ahmadinejad pours scorn on UN

Reminds me of a very old Pogo strip where two of the characters (Miz Beaver and Pogo, I believe) were having a discussion on the garbage barge, and Miz B is shouting out, "Scorn! I scream!" Another character on shore hears her and thinks she's offering corn and ice cream and rows out to get some.

/I guess you hadda be there

Posted by Xbalanke 2006-04-28 17:09|| 2006-04-28 17:09|| Front Page Top

#53 That would be good to announce. Then add, any CBN attacks and Iran and NK get hit instantly.

They'll spend a large amount of time on 1) not fair 2) what is someone else does, not fair 3) oh crap

Posted by bombay">bombay 2006-04-28 17:10|| 2006-04-28 17:10|| Front Page Top

#54 "This one is for all the marbles. Either we go in and cripple Iran's nuclear weapons efforts or we can expect a nuclear terrorist attack upon a major American metropolis within less than ten years."

Indeed. Not only is it for all the marbles, it's also for keeps: what we do-- or shrink from doing-- will determine whether our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will live in a constant state of seige, or live in peace.

Crippling Iran's nuclear weapons efforts is an urgent, immediate necessity. It absolutely MUST be done, and done soon.

The regime must also be removed from power, preferably by force of American arms, and with a sufficiently unnerving level of violence that the demise of the Black Hats will serve as a deterrent to future Islamic "Nuclear Club" wannabees for a long, long, LONG time to come.

And finally, like it or not, if the Western world wants to survive much longer, it is going to have to articulate and enforce a new policy: No Islamic nation shall be permitted to possess nuclear weapons or the technology to create them. No exceptions, no excuses, and to hell with any soft-headed liberal notions of "fairness" or appeals to the outmoded strictures of the existing non-proliferation regime which has been so absurdly ineffective at stopping lunatics from gaining nukes.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-04-28 17:57|| 2006-04-28 17:57|| Front Page Top

#55 Word, Dave D..

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-28 19:03|| 2006-04-28 19:03|| Front Page Top

#56 To be clear, I have not given up on an internal revolution in Iran; I am afraid that there isn't enough time for one to be had that will stop the Mad Mullahs from getting a nuke and a missile delivery system mated together. I would like to be proven wrong, and I agree with LH that it would be the best solution.

In the absence of an internal revolution, we will need to stop the MM's from getting a nuke. I don't know how best to do that, and I understand the concern that doing so with a big air strike will cause much of the world, including people who know consider themselves to be our friends, to condemn us. That wouldn't stop me from doing it (if I were Dubya), but I'd sure be looking whether there's another way to get it done.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-04-28 19:05|| 2006-04-28 19:05|| Front Page Top

#57 It would be a great solution to my financial woes, too, if Michael Anthony would ring my doorbell right now.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-04-28 19:24|| 2006-04-28 19:24|| Front Page Top

#58 No Islamic nation shall be permitted to possess nuclear weapons or the technology to create them.

How about we just burn every physics textbook in the world? That oughtta stop them!

Posted by mad I tell ya 2006-04-28 19:35|| 2006-04-28 19:35|| Front Page Top

#59 It's time for the West to realize that any "public relations disaster" is long behind us. We are now in a pure survival phase

Hear, hear!

Posted by gromgoru 2006-04-28 20:58|| 2006-04-28 20:58|| Front Page Top

#60 Let's start with drugs.
A high percentage of Iran is on drugs...
Get the BZ out and make it all of Iran.

If that can't clam stuff down then go the bomb route. Just do the BZ now. No perm effect on the the infra-structure but it will get their attention.

BZ Bombs Away
BZ Bombs Away
During the early 1960s Edgewood Arsenal, headquarters of the US Army Chemical Corps, received an average of four hundred chemical "rejects" every month from the maior American pharmaceutical firms. Rejects were drugs found to be commercially useless because of their undesirable side effects. Of course, undesirable side effects were precisely what the army was looking for.

It was from Hoffmann-La Roche in Nutley, New Jersey, that Edgewood Arsenal obtained its first sample of a drug called quinuclidinyl benzilate, or BZ for short. The army learned that BZ inhibits the production of a chemical substance that facilitates the transfer of messages along the nerve endings, thereby disrupting normal perceptual pattems. The effects generally lasted about three days, although symptoms--headaches, giddiness, disorientation, auditory and visual hallucinations, and maniacal behavior--could persist for as long as six weeks. "During the period of acute effects," noted an army doctor, "the person is completely out of touch with his environment."

Dr. Van Sim, who served as chief of the Clinical Research Division at Edgewood, made it a practice to try all new chemicals himself before testing them on volunteers. Sim said he sampled LSD "on several occasions." Did he enjoy getting high, or were his acid trips simply a patriotic duty? "It's not a matter of compulsiveness or wanting to be the first to try a material," Sim stated. "With my experience I am often able to change the design of future experiments.... This allows more comprehensive tests to be conducted later, with maximum effective usefulness of inexperienced volunteers. I'm trying to defeat the compound, and if I can, we don't have to drag out the tests at the expense of a lot of time and money." With BZ, Dr. Sim seems to have met his match. "It zonked me for three days. I kept falling down and the people at the lab assigned someone to follow me around with a mattress. I woke up from it after three days without a bruise." For his efforts Sim received the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service and was cited for exposing himself to dangerous drugs "at the risk of grave personal injury."

According to Dr. Solomon Snyder, a leading psychopharmacologist at Johns Hopkins University, which conducted drug research for the Chemical Corps, "The army's testing of LSD was just a sideshow compared to its use of BZ." Clinical studies with EA-2277 (the code number for BZ) were initiated at Edgewood Arsenal in 1959 and continued until 1975. During this period an estimated twenty-eight hundred soldiers were exposed to the superhallucinogen. A number of military personnel have since come forward claiming that they were never the same after their encounter with BZ. Robert Bowen, a former air force enlisted man, felt disoriented for several weeks after his exposure. Bowen said the drug produced a temporary feeling of insanity but that he reacted less severely than other test subjects. One paratrooper lost all muscle control for a time and later seemed totally divorced from reality "The last time I saw him," said Bowen, "he was taking a shower in his uniform and smoking a cigar." During the early 1960s the CIA and the military began to phase out their in-house acid tests in favor of more powerful chemicals such as BZ, which became the army's standard incapacitating agent. By this time the superhallucinogen was ready for deployment in a grenade, a 750-pound cluster bomb, and at least one other large-scale bomb. In addition the army tested a number of other advanced BZ munitions, including mortar, artillery, and missile warheads. The superhallucinogen was later employed by American troops as a counterinsurgency weapon in Vietnam, and according to CIA documents there may be contingency plans to use the drug in the event of a major civilian insurrection. As Major General William Creasy warned shortly after he retired from the Army Chemical Corps, "We will use these things as we very well see fit, when we think it is in the best interest of the US and their allies."

Posted by 3dc 2006-04-28 21:04|| 2006-04-28 21:04|| Front Page Top

#61 That would be good to announce. Then add, any CBN attacks and Iran and NK get hit instantly.

What you suggest is reminiscent of Mrs. Davis's plan that all rogue nations and terror supporters be put on notice that a single NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) attack upon American soil gets all of them glassed over and Windexed, regardless of where the attack originated.

I approve of such measures. The notion that these psychotic mass murderers can hide behind the skirts of "non-nation" status is a bit too much. We know which nations are sponsoring terrorism. The nations that sponsor terrorism know who they are as well. Drop the effing charade and call a spade a spade. "Axis of Evil" was a good start, now it's time to make good on our ability to deter. I've long discussed deterents to terrorism at these boards. Perhaps this one might be the most functional. It certainly might force the terror sponsors to go scrambling after all of the loose cannons they've unleashed upon this world.

Posted by Zenster 2006-04-28 21:39|| 2006-04-28 21:39|| Front Page Top

#62 Steve, did not mean to misquote you. And, as I too said I think we should try our level best to give an internal revolution the best chance for happening. So, I agree with you and LH though I am more pessimistic and believe that the deployment of new Russian SAMs rather than nuke capablity is the clock we now need to watch. Bombing will be the 'least bad' solution if we have to do it. Unfortunately doing nothing will be worse.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-28 22:19|| 2006-04-28 22:19|| Front Page Top

23:45 Valentine
23:28 tu3031
23:26 SteveS
23:23 Frank G
23:17 Halliburton Earthmovers, Inc
23:16 SteveS
23:12 SteveS
23:12 DanNY
23:05 twobyfour
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:19 JAB
22:16 JosephMendiola
22:15 Ulomons Snugum3975
22:08 JosephMendiola
22:03 tu3031
22:03 Zenster
22:02 JosephMendiola
22:01 3dc
21:59 Dave D.
21:58 tu3031
21:58 xbalanke
21:58 Zenster
21:57 Danking70