Kinda reminds me of the juggler with one arm tied behind his back. Now we'll make him hop on one leg, too. Keeps the crowd involved.
Now we'll see where Freedom's friends reside. We ought to get up a pool on these fabled Democrats.
Lieberman? Naw, dual loyalty.
Hilary? Naw, caters to dual loyalists.
Kerry? Let's do it, but, the right way this time.
Hmmm, bad start. How's the juggler doin'?

Sometimes I'm a little hesitant to comment on this blog because of the heavyweights that reside here, but the idea of undertaking another military commitment in the Middle East is sheer insanity.

What happens to neocon hawks between the saber-rattling sessions? Do they go into cold-storage, so that they don't get caught unawares on the street after their little adventures go pear-shaped? They dug out Cakewalk Ken Adelman last week, too, although he was rather less bellicose than last time: no doubt, for fear of having that little epithet thrown back in his face. And I'm guessing, Steve, that you might know whether Frank Gaffney has been let out of his box as well.

[checks]

Ah, he's already been thawed out.

Steve, thanks for your excellent reporting and insightful comments.

Woolsey et.al. are certainly going to continue pushing for war, regardless of time or place; it's what they like. But I wonder if many Americans are going to fall for this trick. This time, that is. I agree they fell for it last time; but the polls appear to indicate that the descent of Iraq into chaos and the continuing loss of life are taking a heavy toll on the President's credibility. And once people begin to believe that they were lied to the last time we went to war, it's harder for the liars to convince them we should start another one. Especially when, as Jon Stewart says, the only armies we have left are the Salvation Army and KISS.

So it seems to me that if they expect to get away with bombing Iran, they'd be better off to do it and try to convince the American public later.

Of course, no matter what order they do it in, they'll never be able to leave the US once they're out of office, based on the Pinochet precedent. (But maybe they don't plan ever to be out of office...)

Steve, you are convincing about the venality of Mr. Woolsey, but I am still not convinced that a strike against Iran won't be necessary one day.

I need more clarity about how else the world can deal with Iran. Their president, after all, advocates the destruction of Israel. Would he attack Israel to save his own political position? When Saddam Hussein fired a few SCUD missiles at Israel in 1991, it certainly won him admirers in the Arab world, even though Israel was not a belligerent in the Gulf War.

What would a deal between the West and Iran look like? And why would the present Iranian government agree to it?

Would Iran get the West's acquiescence to their acquiring nukes in return for tolerating Israel's existence and ending the sponsorship of terrorism?

Is there any overlap between what the West wants and what Iran can and will go along with?

Proliferation per se is a large part, but not all of, the problem. The world is only slightly more dangerous because India has the bomb. India is a status-quo power. Iran is not.

I like the suggestion of tough economic sanctions - which clearly ignores that the US already has a tough economic sanctions regime in place that has significant extraterritorial implications for foreign companies that deal with Iran. This regime has already eroded around the edges, with a system of exemptions for some companies.

Anyone that is still arguing that the US can sponsor regime change is utterly delusional. The Iranians have seen what that means in practise next door in Iraq - where the US has done a convincing impression of the Mongol hordes of 1258, with added hypocrisy, incompetence and a breadth of corruption that shows up Ahmed Chalabi or Saddam Hussein to have been bumbling amateurs.

It strikes me that Iran is actually a pretty stable country - which is more than can be said for Pakistan, for example. But then again, Pakistan doesn't have any oil; oh, but it does have nukes.

I wonder if these top secret briefings also outline the consequences of military actions. Unlike Iraq, any military actions on Iran will have immediate and painful consequences for the rest of us. Oil prices will double very quickly. There will also be negative consequences that will manifest themselves on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, the wider Islamic world and the Gulf region.

Objectively, it's worth looking at sites like Armscontrolwonk to get a realistic appraisal of where the Iranian programme is actually at, and where it might be going. It's certainly much better than the Jack Straw formulation of "I believe that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons but I don't have any evidence for that. However, it is up to Iran to prove that they are not, and I can't tell you how they could do that." Seems like we've been in this position before.

It's also worth while trying to get a handle on the nature of the debate on this issue within Iran itself. My understanding is that the majority opinion is that Iran should stick within its NPT obligations but not brook any restrictions on its legitimate right to master the fuel cycle for its civilian programme; whilst the minority opinion is that Iran should develop a nuclear deterrent. The key to the minority opinion position is the word "deterrent".

That's one worrisome post, Mr. Clemons. Thanks for telling it straight up.

Steve, you are convincing about the venality of Mr. Woolsey, but I am still not convinced that a strike against Iran won't be necessary one day.

I'm not, either, but I don't want this crew initiating it.

Fascinating about Woolsey.

When the German PM was here it seemed to me she was signaling that both Iran and Bush/US were rogue nuclear states needing to be restrained by the international community, I figured they'd talked about an Iran attack then.

I've also read somewhere of high level meetings in Turkey, supposedly preparing the way for US aircraft.

Knocking out their production capability seems pretty easy to me, though I'm a dunce militarily.

Steve, you are convincing about the venality of Mr. Woolsey, but I am still not convinced that a strike against Iran won't be necessary one day.

Given the range of dangers inherent in a military strike on Iran, and the the potential of such a strike to produce momentous and unpredictable consequences for the United States and the rest of the world, the American people should be demanding a thorough public airing of the very best intelligence information available to us. Because of the Iraq fisaco, and the Bush administration's record of distortion and lies in that matter, the administration has forsaken any claim to the trust that might otherwise be granted.

And I don't mean another Colin Powell-style dog and pony show at the UN. I mean a televised conference of several days in length, with representatives of the major branches of our own intelligence services, representatives of the IAEA, representatives of foreign governments, distinguished academic experts on Iran, journalists with expertise in the area, international lawyers, historians and ordinary Americans! Experts giving testimony should be required to submit themselves to vigorous questioning by others in attendance. Any claims made by experts should be subjected to searching criticism and analysis.

The conference must not be organized by the administration itself. It would be best if organized by the Congress. But if the Congress fails to do its job, and does not invite a deep and broad assortment of participants, with the fullest possible range of opinions and perspectives presented, the public should take matters into its own hands. Now is the time for Americans to demonstrate that they are in no mood to be fooled again.

And this time around, we will not take the old "disclosure of sources and methods" excuse as a justification for secrecy. Those who are counseling military action must put up or shut up.

The fact that the same administration scoundrels and outside agitators who peddled disinformation to instigate the last war, along with the assistance and complaisance of the privileged Congressional prima donnas who help to guide our foreign policy, are once again meeting in secret to discuss the options in Iran, should make us all very, very angry. No more! It is time to drag these slithering weasels out of the shadows and force them to disclose themselves and their alleged intelligence information to the sunlight.

Two points, or questions really:

First, Were you in leadership in Iran what choice would you have but to seek nuclear arms? We have reviled them as "evil," pledged "regime change" at least implicitly and already displaced two neighboring governments. We can say that those action were justified, and certainly, regardless of doing so neither had an moral or democratic claim to authority, but certainly the Iranians could not be expected to see it that way. If your premise requires that your opposition acknowldege that t is a force for evil your chance of persuasion are a little bit limited. and

Second, both the Al quieda in Iraq captured communication and the recent UBL tape are quite odd, particularly in their convenient timing which favors the Administration. I assume we have the technological ability to manufacture such a thing, but is there any liklihood that such a ruse would be leaked if that were the case?

I truly regret that such distrust is even remotely plausible, yet the same group that gave us the 1991 incubator story, the forces forming on the Saudi border story, the WMD story, the Al quieda participation in 9/11 story, the Mohammed Atta in Prague story, ad nauseum still stalk the capital.

I would like to know what informed observers think about the possibility of a nuclear strike on Iran to curtail their nuclear program.
I am speaking of nuclear "bunker-busters", of course.

Do such bombs exist now? Do you think Bush would use them?
I am quite worried about this issue, and would like to know more.

http://www.boycott-republicans.com

Tell the speaker of the house you want a better prescription drug benefit.

Click on this link to send the speaker of the house a message that you want a better prescription drug benefit.

"... but the idea of undertaking another military commitment in the Middle East is sheer insanity."

There won't be a military commitment.

The days of rolling American tanks around in the Middle East are long gone. That stupid idea got morphed into a highly broadcasted failure. Only dunces and stooges for Israel continue to advocate that sort of policy.

No, this will be a good old fashioned American smart bomb operation.
One that we can all be proud of.

Especially if you accept these two premises:

1) Iran is just moments away from having the Bomb.
2) Religious funamentalists with the Bomb are super dangerous.

I accept 2) as a given.

Namely:
Never turn your back on a fundamentalist.
He will put a knife in you.

As for number 1)...

Beware the filth that comes out of the mouth of dunces and Israeli stooges....

Having worked in a DOE (nuclear) national lab Congress needs to request their help. By the rules labs and lab personnel cannot come forward on their initiative with information. As an alternative to the heavy hand of this Administration retired experts would be invaluable since nuclear folks are a small passionate community who love to educate the uneducated. I know, I have been the student.

I hope Congress questions DOE experts in both nuclear weapons and nuclear power itself. Those in DOE w/ nuclear power knowledge work hand-in-hand with American and international nuclear power companies on designs for the next generation of nuclear power plants. They probably have good information on how far along Iran is in developing and operating nuclear power and related nuclear weapons technologies. For all I know they have Iranians (outside of Iran) working with them. Also those working next generation nuclear power plants may have ideas on what technologies are coming which can change the diplomatic dynamics (i.e., safeguard the nuclear fuel cycle) so that nuclear power does not have the potential proliferation risk that exists today.

Steve I am assuming you are taking full advantage of your links to at least one weapons lab. An unsolicited piece of advice, national labs' weapons folks tend to have less regard for nuclear power folks, and vice versa, so consider who says what to you. Weapons and power expertise is concentrated in different labs.

Hope those with real knowledge can help us understand reality. Thanks again.

Steve:

You say that your AF sources think it's lunacy to imagine that air strikes are a high-confidence solution. What do they assume are the likely retaliatory consequences of an attack, and how does trying to forestall Iran's myriad options complicate the operational scenario?

Specifically, do they consider US installations in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to be vulnerable; do they worry about Iranian supporters/agents already on the ground in Southern Iraq a realistic danger to the US logistics chain from Kuwait; do they consider US bases in Western Afghanistan vulnerable to Iranian action; do they worry about the instability that this may cause in the Shia majority areas of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; do they factor in the impacts of tanker traffic through the Straits of Hormuz being interrupted for any length of time; do they have a de-escalation plan if things go wrong?

These NeoCon zealots and megalomaniacs are playing a wicked and dangerous game of RISK. I hope they get their collective asses handed to them.

Mr. Grossman thinks maybe we should bomb Iran because they may attack Israel. Israel has plenty of bombs with which to counterstrike. And the US should not take on such major risks to itself -- increase of number of suicide terrorists willing to attack the US, vide Robert Pape -- in order to protect Israel. We also could put nuclear bombs in the hands of such suicide terrorists via a consequent revolution in Pakistan.

The "Committee on the Present Danger". Ah. Now it makes sense.

For those not paying attention to history (what was that Satayana said?) the CPD is a resurrection of a group, also called "The Committee on the Present Danger", formed back in the 1980s to encourage our government to take a hard line on the Soviet Union. They were little warmongering bastards back then, and they're little warmongering bastards now. I'd advise folks concerned to check up on the history of the CPD -- it ain't pretty.

(BTW, I'm not certain of this, but I'm sure there's some crossover in the memberships of the CPD and that of the Project for A New American Century.)

And in view of the liberals in Russia today, who may rise again, the CPD might well have favored an attack on Russia and all those folks would be dead today.

It always seems realistic to attack, but those who advocate war don't really envision what actually happens during and after the war.

Of course it would be far better to let a messianic, islamo-fascist, genocidal nutcase get nuclear weapons than to take military action to stop him.

Yes Laura it's far better to allow these NeoCon nutjobs with another "War to Nowhere" and lining their pockets even more.

Hal Grossman, you are mistakenly believing that the left actually cares and in fact won't welcome a nuclear attack on Israel. I don't think Steve feels that way, but many leftists do. But wanting to stop Iran from obtaining nukes makes you a "duel loyalist" according to the likes of people who are actually the ones who's loyalty lies not with the U.S. but with it's islamo-fascist enemies.

If it wasn't for the blue and white cotton candy, who'd show up for this circus?

Laura, thanks for clarifying with your last comment that you are someone to be ignored, since your first post left some small doubt.

km4, if Iran is allowed to obtain nukes there will be war, a far worse war in the future then we would be fighting now. Anyhow it would only be neccessary to take out Iran's nuclear facilities and not wage a larger war. But if attacking those facilities does lead to war, then so be it. Better to have a conventional war now, then a nuclear war later. Are you aware of ahmadenijad's messianic beliefs? We have to assume he would use his nukes in a first strike.

Laura YIKES you scared the bejesus out of me ;)

Mr. Grossman thinks maybe we should bomb Iran because they may attack Israel. Israel has plenty of bombs with which to counterstrike.

Israel is a very tiny country, and could be wiped out by a nuclear first strike that employed only a very small number of nuclear weapons. So it's fears of a nuclear Iran are real and justified.

Yet I believe these fears can easily be exaggerated, since Iranian aggression is certainly deterrable. The United States need only say: "Israel is our ally and friend, and the ties between our peoples are very strong. Iran's government and people understand perfectly well that any nuclear attack on Israel would be met with an overwhelming response in kind fron the United States. And Iran knows that, should it choose to go nuclear, and given its support for strident Israeli enemies, it would be held fully accountable for a nuclear attack by terrorists on Israel."

In fact, I believe that M. Chirac's recent reassertion of the threat of nuclear retaliation was designed to remind the world that some of the recent discussion of Iran has been quite hysterical. If Iran goes nuclear, that would be a very bad thing, and pose new dangers. But it is not an automatic catastrophe. Of course it would be good to work out a deal that would prevent all of us from having to face the issue.

Iran is a large and complex country, with multiple centers of power. It is no less deterrable than was the Soviet Union, another country with a very long history of continuous functioning as a strong state, but with a recent revolutionary history. Iran's leadership seems quite committed to building the nation's wealth, securing it against attack, and expanding its regional power. Absurd propaganda from the likes of the Committee on the Present Danger to the contrary, they are not suicidal madmen and idiots.

Of course it would be far better to let a messianic, islamo-fascist, genocidal nutcase get nuclear weapons than to take military action to stop him.

This is a bit of a false dichotomy. It would be good to turn Iran away from the nuclear path, but there are several options for deals with Iran to be explored that fall between letting them go nuclear, and military actions. Nor is it clear there are any realistic military options available.

Ahmadinejad is, in my opinion, a jew-hating populist punk and and demogogue. But I do not believe he is a suicidal maniac out to take Iran down in a storm of fire, as a price for "wiping Israel off the map". Nor do I believe the other powerful people in Iran would let things get that far without taking action.

The computer ate my longish comment!. Anyway, bottom line, someone ought to tell these Woolseys and the like, who put their pants on one leg at a time -- that they are not God and they should stop thinking so. They're part of the problem, not the solution.

I know an oil-producing country with nuclear weapons which is run by a vain anti-democratic leader with messianic delusions.

Laura:

Considering that Iran doesn't actually have nuclear weapons, that there is no observable nuclear weapons development programme, that informed commentators suggest that if Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme that it would still be a good ten years before they were able to weaponise, then your anxieties might be misplaced. Even if Ahmadinejad were to win re-election in 2009, he would be out of office long before Iran actually had a nuclear weapon, if they're actually trying to develop one.

I also suggest that you rather blithely assume that the US could attack Iran and they would just say "ok" - they're not members of the DNC, and they might actually fight back. It might be worth your while to consider the consequences of this. Perhaps you might want to think of some alternatives to this - perhaps direct diplomacy would help?

....."Are you aware of ahmadenijad's messianic beliefs?".....

Posted by Laura

Yes, as a matter of fact. Coupled with Bush's, we have a very dangerous combo indeed.

By chance, I came across an article in the Washington Post date 8/2/05 reporting on a new National Intelligence Estimate about Iran's capability for nuclear weapons. (NEI's are the collective opinion of the various intelligence agencies and in theory represent our best understanding of various subjects.)

The NEI revised the estimate of when Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons from "five years from now" to "10 years from now". Interestingly, we have been predicting that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 5 years since 1995, so they are already well past our previous fears. And this ten year horizon is the soonest possible, or as the article says: "The timeline is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect a program moving full speed ahead without major technical obstacles." In other words, if the Iranians focus on achieving nuclear capabilities, it will take them at least ten years.

Again, this is not a bunch of left wing cranks opining, but the collective opinion of our intelligence community, based on all available information.

So my question is: why is there suddenly so much attention on Iranian nuclear capabilties, and why are we being told we need to act "now", before its too late?

Oh, Laura, Laura, Laura. Could you stop with the reactionary remarks? What you are saying is sooooo childish. But, to your credit, somehow, you spotted the fascism. But it's more a concern with U.S. government fascism for your "antagonists". You see, some of us don't believe you have to fight fire with fire. Some of you apparently do. At least acknowledge that historical difference while YOU fret for the security of a country other than the U.S.
I take it you noticed Mr Grossman deftly danced by Pakistan's nuclear weapons controlled by their democratic government. WHAT? They don't have one to keep all those "islamo-facists" in line? Gee, what was Mr Grossman thinking? How could he have (conveniently) overlooked such an important reality?
And, in case you want to cotinue to heap on the hubris, please remember some of us don't have favorites outside our borders. We wish our government would treat ALL countries equally and if anyone should display enmity towards us, we would first ask ourselves if this hostility was in any way born of a part of our behavior-behavior we can adjust before bombs. They just get so messy. Of course, those who believe in Biblical land grants can be expected to renounce this inquiry. You know, religious extremism, fascism and all that.
I humbly hope I have helped to provide some edification.
Thanks,
Just another(American!) patriot

So my question is: why is there suddenly so much attention on Iranian nuclear capabilties, and why are we being told we need to act "now", before its too late?

Because if Republicans don't find some way of revving the public up into a hysterical national security fervor before November 2006, it will be too late - for Republican electoral fortunes, that is.

BTW, many of us "rational" Jews (who are constantly excoriated as self-haters) resent all manner of Neo-con warmongering, fear mongering and other assorted geopolitcal crap being excused in the name of poor defenseless little Israel, not that Likudniks mind the inference. And now we find we're "islamo-fascists" as well. Life must be real simple inside some people's heads. Good-bad. Right-wrong. That sort of thing

Dan, I have acknowledged that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities may result in leading to a wider war, in fact I would expect Iran to retaliate, but I have also said that would be far preferable than a nuclear war in years to come.

It begs the question how the Shiite leadership in Iraq would react to an attack on Iran. Considering the close ties the Iraqi chief clerics have with the Iranian religious leaders, it could turn into a far worse clusterfuck than we already see unfolding in Iraq. Meanwhile, we are now seeing MASS demonstrations against America in Pakistan. Many times I have felt as though the true intent of the Bush Administration is to force an ESCALATION of military conflict in the Middle East, not only to seize control of the oil assets, but to act in the interests of Israel. Again, as I have stated many times here, I think that we will see this administration be responsible for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of deaths.

The truly scary part is that there seemingly are NO checks and balances on this president's power, and the Democratic leadership is either incapable or unwilling to mount an effective opposition.

Who, five years ago, could have imagined events as they are now unfolding??? Everything I once held dear and respected about our Democracy seems to have been thrown out. Torture, illegal spying, dangerous and inept appointments through cronyism, zero accountability, unprecedented governmental secrecy, executive dishonesty, the list goes on and on. It is OBVIOUS that Bush, and many of his cabinet belong in a Federal Penitentiary. Yet their hold on power grows stronger with every passing day, and the Dems grow weaker and yet more subservient, as ebvidenced by Reid's cowardly apology to the Republicans, and their selection of Kaine to answer the President's SOTU.

Yes, it is rather curious, all this attention on Iran's nuclear weapons possibilities. "Imminent threat"? Or what will they call it this time?

All of a sudden, we're not worried about North Korea, Pakistan, et al.?

Also, where's the troops to fight Iran? The only armies we have left are Salvation and KISS.

yahaddasayit, spare me your phony patriotism. I know where you're coming from. If you were a true patriot you wouldn't be defending an enemy of America like ahmadinejad who could some day give nukes to terrorists who may detonate them in our cities.

I know where you're coming from. If you were a true patriot you wouldn't be defending an enemy of America like ahmadinejad who could some day give nukes to terrorists who may detonate them in our cities.

This is the height of wingnut dottiness and unbalanced jingo superpatriotism. In their eyes, not only are we their critics unpatriotic, but we actually want our enemies to bring nuclear weapons to America, and blow us up along with everyone we love. Laura, can't you accept that we all have a common interest in not getting blown up, and that we simply disagree on the motivations of our rivals, and on the best way to prevent the imagined disasters?

Whoa. Laura, come down.

Steve isnt defending Ahmadinejad.

Steve, you are right on brother with this piece, well put together I thought.

I agree with your "presidential visit" idea, Ive been suggesting it for months. The greatest thing is it would calm tensions for the time being, to hopefully get diplomacy on track. Also, it would put Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah in a tough spot, do you decline an offer of a visit from a distinguished foreign leader, doing so, makes you look bad. Having Bush visit, would also calm Ahmadinejad down a little bit.

That Said.

Iran still is and always has been more of a threat for Middle East stability and nuclear proliferation WMD issues than Iraq. I also cannot discount the possibility of a military confrontation with Iran.

However, it is one which I would wholeheartedly push to avoid. Iran has its hands in numerous terrorist groups around the world, and an attack on Iran would mobilize them. Additionally, it could throw the region into chaos, causing Iran to have a free hand to hit Israel, thus encapsulating a regional war.

IMO, this Iran issue is going to be a front and center issue for the next several years, moreso than the Iraq issue.

Laura,
That's it? At least get a snorkle.

Who, five years ago, could have imagined events as they are now unfolding??? Everything I once held dear and respected about our Democracy seems to have been thrown out.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos--I mean Gore. Domestically, Bush is pretty much on par for what he wanted to do. Foreign Policy wise, Bush chose a warmonger as his running mate, and surrounded himself with neocons. This should have been expected. Thanks a lot, Mr. Nader. Gore worse than Bush, my eye!

---

My Questions:

How much can the administration be trusted? It seems like Europe and the UN are pretty scared so I'm inclined to believe that something ought to be done. Wes Clark says we can engage Iran diplomatically. Is that realistic?

How much would a strike on Iran, even if it is a limited missile strike, give them incentive to work more fully and strategically with terrorists?

Are Iranian terrorist ties (e.g. Hizbollah) on par with the likes of Al-Queda and the completely anti-West?

Is the bin Laden tape real? He seems to be backing down a bit and he seemed to be spewing GOP talking points. Call me cynical, but after the 2004 election all the terror alerts seemed to have disappeard. Now we have another election that the GOP will lose if there is not enough fear among the population.

P.O.'d,
You still searchin' for Democrats? Here's a flashlight. Sorry, but it might have low batteries. If they go out, go look among the Republicans. I believe they are over there.

Yesterday's NYTimes addressed this subject. Here it is:

Why Not a Strike on Iran?
By DAVID E. SANGER
WASHINGTON

"DIPLOMATS around the world keep repeating the mantra: There is no military option when it comes to slowing, much less stopping, Iran's presumed ambitions to get the Bomb. The Europeans say so. The Chinese, who need Iran's oil, and the Russians, who make billions supplying Iran's civilian nuclear business, say so emphatically.

Even the hawks in the Bush administration make no threats. When Vice President Dick Cheney was asked Thursday, in a television interview, if the United States might ever resort to force to stop Iran, he handled the question as if it, too, were radioactive.

"No president should ever take the military option off the table," he said, carefully avoiding the kind of language he once used to warn Saddam Hussein. "Let's leave it there."

Mr. Cheney, it seemed, was trying to sow just enough ambiguity to make Iran think twice. Which raises two questions. If diplomacy fails, does America have a military option? And what if it doesn't?

"It's a kind of nonsense statement to say there is no military solution to this," said W. Patrick Lang, the former head of Middle East intelligence at the Defense Intelligence Agency. "It may not be a desirable solution, but there is a military solution."

Mr. Lang was piercing to the heart of a conundrum the Bush administration recognizes: Iran could become a case study for pre-emptive military action against a gathering threat, under a policy Mr. Bush promulgated in 2002. But even if taking out Iran's facilities delay the day the country goes nuclear, it would alienate allies and probably make firm enemies out of many Iranians who have come to dislike their theocratic government. And Iran simply has too many ways of striking back, in the oil markets, in the Persian Gulf, through Hezbollah.

"Could we do it?" one administration official who was deeply involved in planning the Iraq invasion said recently. "Sure. Could we manage the aftermath? I doubt it."

Similar fears, he said, gave President Bill Clinton pause about launching a strike on North Korea in 1994. Later that year he reached an accord for a freeze on the North's nuclear production facilities. But in 2003 everything unfroze, and now the North, by C.I.A. estimates, has enough fuel for at least half a dozen bombs.

The Iranians took careful notes then, and here in Washington today the Korean experience underlies diplomacy-versus-force arguments that rarely take place on the record.

The problem is not that Washington lacks targets. Many of Iran's nuclear facilities, or at least those that American intelligence agencies know about, are in plain view or in underground sites whose construction was recorded by spy satellites. The problem is the global consequences of an attack to cripple them.

"The irony is that this is the opposite of Iraq," said John J. Hamre, a deputy defense secretary from 1997 to 1999. "We know a lot about what they have because the international inspectors have been there." Those inspection reports have helped Pentagon planners who, in imagining every contingency, have already mapped out Iran's most vulnerable facilities.

"Elimination of the nuclear program is not possible, but with the right strikes you could decisively set them back," said Ashton B. Carter, an expert at Harvard on proliferation problems.

In Iran's case, any attack would almost certainly start at Natanz, where Iran clipped off the International Atomic Energy Agency's seals a week ago and said it was preparing to reassemble a connected series of 164 centrifuges for purifying uranium.

Just beyond the research laboratories is a huge underground chamber, designed to hold as many as 50,000 centrifuges, yet unbuilt. Iran hid its existence for years.

Also on the target list, officials said, would be factories that manufacture the centrifuge components, and a plant at Isfahan where raw uranium is converted into a form that can be fed into the centrifuges.

Then there are research centers and military installations where the United States suspects - but cannot prove - that clandestine nuclear-related activity may be taking place. Given the track record in Iraq, however, there is always the risk that those facilities will turn out to be a watch factory, or, worse, a schoolhouse. (The Iranians hid one facility behind a false wall in a Tehran factory, but the I.A.E.A. found it.)

"You are talking about something in the neighborhood of a thousand strike sorties," said Mr. Lang. "And it would take all kinds of stuff - air, cruise missiles, multiple restrikes - to make sure you've got it all." Other former officials say fewer bombing runs would be needed.

The Israelis, who see Iran's nuclear program as a threat to their existence and have been far more outspoken about a military option, give a similar assessment. But they also say they lack the air power, or the reach, to do the job.

In any event, it is one thing to talk about such strikes in purely military terms, and another to consider the political cost.

"What you do with a bombing campaign is bring a whole country rallying around its radical leaders," said Mr. Hamre. "And that's the opposite of what we are trying to achieve in Iran," which is to convince a well-traveled, well-educated, and in some cases pro-American population to usher in a very different kind of leadership.

But if Iran knows the United States and its allies ultimately have no stomach to put military muscle behind their demands, what is its incentive to give up its weapons program? Efforts by the Europeans and Russia to come up with formulas that would provide Iran with nuclear material that cannot be used for weapons have been rejected, at least so far. And no one wants to threaten truly tough sanctions, for fear that by hurting ordinary Iranians they will only drive moderates into the camp of their leaders. Those leaders have been threatening retaliation, even to measures as weak as a letter of warning from the United Nations Security Council.

They have threatened to cut off oil exports and send the markets into a panic, though most experts said an embargo is not something Iran could execute for very long without damaging its own economy. Iran could also step up interference in Iraq and dispatch Hezbollah on terror missions. In addition, the Iranians often boast that their missiles can reach Israel.

Some of those threats may be inflated. And for now, at least, Iran's centrifuge program appears to have hit some technical hitches. I.A.E.A. inspectors are still in Iran, and the Iranians have not yet dared throw them out, as the North Koreans did three years ago. A senior European diplomat involved in the talks with Iran dismissed most of the country's threats last week as "bluster meant to buy them some time, and keep us paralyzed."

But, he added, "it may work."

Several American officials, when promised anonymity, said they thought that in 5 or 10 years, Iran will most likely have a weapon.

"They have read us pretty well," Mr. Hamre said. "They have skated right at the edge of controlled pugnaciousness."

The debate among the West, Russia and China is whether, together, they are willing to skate to the same edge in hopes that, in a repeat of the cold war, the other side blinks first."

Separated at birth?: Woolsey and
Montgomery Burns

Steve, I hope your Bolton Watch includes a personal trip to Geneva Swirzerland in March for the next session of the UN Commisssion For Human Rights, especially now that complaints have arisen about lower eschalon State Department officals paticipating, instead of the big dog himself. You really need to watch the US in action there to understand how we operate. And Bolton needs to know you are there, watching, first hand.

As for what is coming up with Iran, W stands for
Wall to Wall War. It was ludicrous for Dems to expect Busholini to have an exit strategy. They lied so much to justify invading Iraq, why did anyone think we would ever leave? They need to be in Iraq to justify orossing over into Syria and Iran. Neocons told everyone this is what their plan was, so none of us should be surprised.

Why have a defacto client state, e.g., Isreal, if you won't ask them to do your dirty work for you? If we bomb Iran, won't Isreal get involved militarily whether they like it or not anyway?

Susan,

Great post, thank you.

Dan Kervick yes I can accept that we have a common interest and simply disagree. That is true of people like you, but yahaddasayit has another agenda, with his "dual loyalty" accusations. I know where he is coming from.

JS I didn't accuse Steve of defending ahmadinejad, I just questioned his wisdom over the way to deal with him and his nukes.

I did however say and believe that there are those on the radical left who wouldn't mind ahmadinejad having nukes and using them against Israel. Steve is not among them of course.

I probably shouldn't do this, but I am going to ramble a bit about Iran, Israel and us.

1. Iran's president says that Israel should be wiped off the map. No current nuclear state takes this position.

2. I agree that Pakistan's bomb is scary, especially if there's a revolution there, but what can we do about it at this point?

3. Pakistan as a whole has a lot of nasty and dangerous undercurrents. US policy towards Pakistan verges on the incoherent. But what does that have to do with the prospect of a nuclear Iran?

4. I am a Zionist, but I realize that many Americans are not. Fine. But why should the US "treat all countries the same"? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course, we are and should be closer to other democracies, to other English-speaking countries, to countries we trade with the most, etc. (That Bush has perverted our support for democracy abroad does not negate the point.)

5. Israel is not a US client state, in my opinion. It periodically defies US wishes, especially pre-Bush. It has its own public opinion, and a more vibrant democracy -- among the Jews -- than we've had since 2001. Yes, it still depends on the US, less than it used to but still a lot. But in a life-or-death moment, Israel will do what it thinks it must. Which, in the case of Iran, I hope is nothing.

6. One can be a Zionist without being religious. In fact, secular Jews are the mainstream of Zionism. It needn't be about some biblical land grant. In fact, if it were, Israel would want to keep the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and leave the coastal plain. In the real world, Zionism is about a Jewish nation, in the same way that there is a French nation or a Thai nation.

I guess that's enough for now. The first 20 or so posts were really good.

I won't apologize for caring whether or not Israel is wiped off the map. I would equally care if Britain, Australia, Italy or any other allied country were threatened by Iran in the same way. But for some UNKOWN REASON, people like yahaddasayit only object to the idea that anyone would actually express outrage at the prospect of a madman threatening the anhilation of Israel and want to prevent that from happening. I would also want to prevent that from happening to any country in the free world. But what yahaddasyit doesn't get is that we in the civilized world are all in this together and ahmadinejad is a threat to all of us. But since he can't get past his bigotry, he is unable to grasp that fact and thinks the islamo-fascists will stop at Israel and leave the rest of us alone.

WMDs in Iran is just an excuse for GWB to nuke Tehran. The real reason: Iran is launching its own Oil Bourse in March.

By selling its oil in euros, Iran will force other countries to give up its dollars, which in turn will force the U.S. to confront its $9 trillion debt.

If countries shy away from petrodollars and deal in euros, the U.S. will have to devalue its currency to its true worth, about 50- to 60-cents on the dollar. This will spark skyrocketing inflation ($5 a gallon gasoline), REALLY burst the real estate bubble and send America on the path to third world status.

Laura,
I would say that the threat of Pakistan and India having a nuclear confrontation a few years ago was greater than any danger of Iran using nuclear weapons on Israel. Your imputation of genocidal wishes among your interlocutors here is extremely offensive---and baseless, needless to say.

Here is another take on ME stability: Israel is the 800 lb gorilla in the region, both for conventional military reasons and because they possess hundreds of nuclear weapons. Without saying anything about whether one side or the other is hegemonistic, the military imbalance together with the mutual antagonism seems not to help the cause of peace. In contrast, it seems that now that India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, they are behaving more responsibly about border disputes.

I certainly don't recommend that Iran become a nuclear power in order to balance the equation; however, there is another option.

Steve
The idea that W could make a strategic visit to Tehran and come away with anything is unrealistic. Our Prez just found out how big Brazil was a couple of months ago. He can't go. He doesn't get it. Now Chaney just came from the Middle East on an under-reported trip. I doubt he was in Iran but he may have been floating "options" with their neighbors. Or, maybe he is checking on things for Halliburton.

Laura's use of "Islamo-fascism" is most revealing in that fascism, by definition, bears no relation to the "theocratic" government currently in Iran. The corporate/government collusion necessary for single party fascism is much more at home in the Bush administration than it is Iran -- so you Laura, take that nasty sounding label and project it upon your precieved enemy as if you are fighting against what you seceretly know is yourself. Likewise, the same deceptive reasoning you so well characterize, is evident in calling the president of Iran a crazy maddman bent on nucluar first strike against another sovereign nation, which again is exactly what you are advocating the USA do to Iran. If it quacks like a duck Laura, in your case, its a decoy with a hunter lurking somewhere behind.

I want to thank Laura and the rest of you for making this a genuine debate -- it's passionate but still quite constructive. Laura is absolutely right to worry about the future of Israel; I do too. But she also is right to sniff in my comments a certain amount of realistic assessment that Ahmadinejad with nukes -- ten years from now -- could be "managed". What I don't feel is possible much longer is an ongoing regional nuclear monopoly by Israel. Will Israel forfeit the nukes that it refuses to declare it has? I don't think so -- they are the ultimate deterrent. The question is whether or not another power in the region can be trusted with such nuclear capacity. Laura feels that the answer is no -- because of the nature of the Iranian regime and because of their outlandish thug of a President. One of the things that intrigues me about Ahmadinejad is that he failed in four rounds to get the Oil Minister he chose past his legislature. There are controls on him over there -- and much of his saber-rattling is aimed as much at rival politicos in his country than anyone externally. I do think that he is a complicated, probably dangerous person to deal with -- but he's rational. I'll take rational thug presidents who have aspirations any day over suicidal, transnational, ideological threats.

I have written a long, long piece on this subject that I will post in a few hours.

I want people to welcome Laura to this debate because what we are having here on the blog is pretty close to the real debate, though clearly much more informed here than in most circles.

So, Laura -- I don't mind the critique -- but I want you to try and keep an open mind to the arguments I will lay out later.

More soon -- and thanks for this really interesting discussion today -- about something that "matters".

Steve Clemons
The Washington Note

So, 85% - that's a Gentleman's B. No doubt, that sounds pretty good to the present occupant of the Oval Office. If the AF indeed met that goal, however, that would still leave more than fifty Iranian nuclear sites still operating. As we all should know, Iran has no lack of uranium deposits. A preemptive strike that kills hundreds of their scientists would leave the survivors highly motivated to put their knowledge and talents to quick use.

Anyone want to bet how long it would take Iran to construct a batch of radiological "dirty bombs"? Poor man's neutron bombs -- leaves urban neighborhoods standing but really brings down real estate values. A preemptive strike would therefore only prompt a nuclear strike on American soil, but of only a slightly less destructive type, but years earlier, and much more likely to actually happen.

That plan has an unacceptable cost/benefit ratio. I can guarantee that it isn't anywhere close to a Gentleman's B. The Pentagon and CIA surely know this, but that part's in the classified annex. Mr. Woolsey won't be the one to leak that, surely.

Sure, intelligent debate is good, but what about my 1:22 pm post about Montgomery Burns? I just cannot look at Ex-CIA Director Woolsey without thinking of Mr. Burns!--okay, back to regularly scheduled programming--

Laura my dear,
Thanks for invoking my message so often even if your interpretation leaves a whole, whole, whole lot to be desired. Now, I may be mistaken when I label you as one who is at ease with the military "option" versus Iran but your posts point to that. That whole Israel vs. the Middle East game is rather tiresome and let me suggest that the mutual Jewish-Muslim killing to which you seem to be reacting and contributing with your vociferous cheerleading is juvenile. I have never been to the Middle East but I have run across enough foreign nationals to want to avoid their culture(s)-if indeed there is a difference. I have no dog in this fight, I wish we could fence off the whole area and let them have at it. I, for one, don't need their oil. I don't even own a car and if every American was as oil-product efficient as me and the US government would quit GIVING money to any of them, the whole world would be better off and we'd be sufficient with our domestic supply. Withdraw all influence and let them go at it. And may the best whatever win. I don't care. I am interested in America's interest first and foremost and last. You want to do the bidding of Yemen, Iraq, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, you go right on ahead-but do it OVER THERE. I'll buy you a passport.(But you have to agree to stay until you change your attitude). And you have to claim this offer by midnight EST.

If great powers want war they go to war regardless of the human or economic costs. For example, the modern US doctrine of pre-emptive strike and the reasons given by the US administration for invading Iraq aren't a novelty. The selling point of this administration to invade Iraq was to protect the home land since the Iraqi leaders were a threat and had co-opted with Al Quada. In short, one could translate this pre-emptive strike as a form of defense.

The Romans always maintained that their wars were defensive wars since the opposing people/forces had done harm on the Roman people. The Romans had quite an elaborative ceremony (much like the US has now - a media, congressional and presidential ceremony) to proclaim a pre-emptive strike on opposing people/forces.

So buckle up for your next war. It's only Iran and the people of Iran will welcome you, as Mr. Wolfowitz would say.

Here we go again. Today it's fear of nuclear weapons in Iran and tomorrow (figuratively speaking) it will be "freedom for Iranians". Been there. Done that. Bought the tee-shirt.

Forget Iran. Someone needs to bomb the god-damned neo-conservative assholes who are turning the Middle East into their own personal playground of destruction.

This is just so utterly insane!

Mr Grossman,
Thanks for the response to what I have to say. You are very polite. I have a spotty history of being polite but I'll do what I can.
First, you freely use the word democracy where I would use capitalism. Let's be honest, there are no democracies but there are oodles of like-mined capitalists. When I say we should treat other countries in equal manner, perhaps I have to state that obvious tyrants should be ostracized. If someone is unduly killing their citizens I'd have nothing to do with them. On the other side of the coin are political/economic systems like Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran and Viet Nam upon who we have gone out of our way to inflict pain. Cuba since Castro has never attempted democracy but the others made moves until the capitalists stepped in and started the slaughter. So please spare me the "democracy" shill. I don't care if they are capitalists, socialists, communists, or barterers, as long as they are not killing and torturing us or themselves, I'd treat them as equals.
Then you claim you are not religious but you are a zionist. If you have ever listened to Dennis Prager I believe you would have heard that that is impossible. He doesn't think you are Jewish unless it is a religion to you. He claims Jews aren't an ethnic group. Maybe you meant to say you supported the Zionist movement even though you are not Jewish. That is o.k. by me. Then again, you may have a difference of opinion with Mr Prager.

Beth -- you have a point on Mr. Burns...but let that not lead you into any assertions that I look like his assistant whose name I have suppressed.

best,

Steve Clemons

Oh dear oh dear, I missed the whole Israel debate. So one of the smallest countries on earth having a an enormous religious waterhead should be the main or even an important focus of US foreign policy?

The US should concentrate its soft and hard power on the whole near East and far East region and forget about Israel for a decade or two. The Israelis have a good defensive capability against any enemy and are well capable of making a peace settlement on their own terms in the near future.

Can't pass the opportunity to make some comments on what I regard as the best national security policy site in all of Blogistan. As good at most of the prior debate has been, wouldn't on-going discussion be more constructive, if we could all emulate the cooler heads during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and with the benefit of historical hindsight note that the ones advocating aggressive escalation were playing with a weaker hand than they knew (given tactical nukes were in Cuban & the tactical Soviet commander had release authority)?

One of the most important issues in the case of Iran is to establish credibility for how much time we have before Iran can test a working nuclear device. On the long side we have Mike's reference to the Aug 2005 NIE that mentions 5-10 years, and on the short side we have a current posting at Debkafile that predicts an Iran underground nuclear test as soon as the next 60 days--Mar 2006. It would be useful to know whether the claim is credible that "Western & Israeli intelligence" have known for six months that Iran is capable of an underground nuclear test...or whether this is a reprise of the Chalabi, yellow-cake & "curveball" quality of intelligence in the run-up to the current debacle in Iraq. There is a major difference between 60 days and 5 years on how even cooler heads would debate dealing with Iran as a nuclear power.

lol Steve! Didn't even think about it..Okay, here's a link to Burns--oops, I mean Woolsey--on The Daily Show--not very funny, but it's the most human I've ever seen that guy:
The Daily Show Video of Woolsey

I feel like I've been beaten over the head with Israel my whole life. Can't we be best friends with, say, Ireland or Morocco for a change?

Northern Ireland or the country right below it? You want to buy into that?

On 9/11 and again on 9/12 Woolsey was on ABC, CBS, & NBC spinning the tale that Saddam not Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks. Meanwhile, the control rooms all ran tape of the WTC collapse. The Bush administration could not have paid for better propaganda.

In the midst of the second interview on 9/12 Peter Jennings asked the control room to stop running the tape saying "I want to see this man's eyes." Jennings ended the interview telling Woolsey that "actually no one yet knows who is to blame" or words to that effect.

Perhaps it takes a Canadian to see through the lies.

"I did however say and believe that there are those on the radical left who wouldn't mind ahmadinejad having nukes and using them against Israel."

Such a statement is inflamatory, and cannot possibly be offered with conviction. Do you truly believe that kind of bullshit? Who's the "radical right", Laura?

The fact that Reid, our "minority leader" is right on top of the top ten list for who gets THE MOST money from AIPAC should pretty well flush THAT idea.

Something I haven't seen mentioned here is that ANY COUNTRY in the Middle East, with exception of Israel, knows that if they launched a nuclear attack against ANYONE they would IMMEDIATELY be reduced to silicone dust by the United States, either by massive conventional bombing, or nuclear retaliation. For Iran, or Pakistan, or Syria to launch a nuclear offensive against Israel would be an act of national SUICIDE, as would any nuclear attack directed towards us.

Besides, the Iraq war has been managed ineptly and retro-actively, no TRUE justification, no plan, no exit strategy, no success, and no cigar. Do we REALLY want these bumbling asses cooking up another costly and deadly clusterfuck? We were LIED into Iraq, so why do we believe ANYTHING they are telling us about Iran's nuclear plans or future capabilities??

I don't doubt that these crazy loons are insane enough to attack Iran. What I do doubt is that they will be HONEST with us about why they did it, what it will cost to do it, and how long it will take to do it.

if they really want to make a law applicable to blogs, it should be one to go after people like "posters" above.

LOU MARINO brought up a key that has NOT been discussed but may be the REAL impetus to attacking Iran: The Iranian Oil Bourse. If Iran goes ahead and begins accepting Euros instead of US Greenbacks for its oil, then countries will begin dumping US$ in a hurry. And Lou is spot on about the $8 TRILLION US debt.

From http://tinyurl.com/bn89o "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse" by Krassimir Petrov, Ph. D.

~snip~
Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:

. Sabotaging the Exchange - this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
. Coup d'état - this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
. Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations - this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d'etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
. Joint U.N. War Resolution - this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
. Unilateral Nuclear Strike - this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
. Unilateral Total War - this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria.

Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar.

Got Gold?

Laura:

If we are "all in this together" as you say, you sure coulda fooled me.

Does "You're either with us or against us" ring any bells. That sure scares the crap out of friends and does NOTHING to our foes.

If you think we are "all in this together" than step one is to get rid of Bush and ANY neocon thinker in Congress. THEN MAYBE we have a chance. If we attack Iran, we will lose more than we gain (economics anyone?). Is it worth letting China become the economic 500 lb gorilla and laugh us into poverty...nah.

Sorry, I love this country and refuse to keep selling out the constitution and what it stands for so people like you can keep attacking others when it's much easier for us to find diplomatic solutions.