RSS
Using PayPal
On Iran: "Rewarding the Hysterical at the Expense of the Calm"
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Monday, Jan 23, 06, 6:41PM
Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report runs one of the single best daily US-Asia policy and national security issues analysis letters in Washington. Normal beings can't subscribe, and it's not available on the web.
Whenever I get asked how to get on his list by TWN readers, my response is that 'hiring' Chris Nelson via his consultancy at Samuels International is probably the only sure way. A second approach could be a subscription fee equal to about a dozen high end sushi dinners (with sake. . .from Niigata, heated) for two people over a year. The other is to have information that one can 'trade' with Chris to earn one's way into his network. His stuff is great; typos and all. (He and I have bonded over typo tantrums from our readers).
On occasion, I will repost the entire Nelson Report with Chris Nelson's permission because they are just too useful and important not to get very broad play.
Today's entry is about Iran and North Korea -- but really, mostly about Iran.
THE NELSON REPORT -- Friday, 20 January 2006IRAN AND KOREA. . .NASTY PEAS IN THE SAME POD
SUMMARY: This week, we've featured long quotes from patient Loyal Readers who have the advantage of long experience in thinking and dealing with non-proliferation issues, with a focus on Iraq. As an Asianist, we don't pretend to enjoy waxing (word inserted by TWN) on the Middle East, the olympian self assurance on Korea which no doubt many find irritating. So we will continue to offer informed commentary from the proven competent.
In that regard, Carnegie's Joe Cirincione, and Arms Control Wonk Jeffrey Lewis, have been instructing us all on Iran et al, and the gist of their thinking, below, has been posted on Carnegie's website. To start tonight's discussion, here is Joe's version for the Loyal Readership, followed by Jeff's reaction, and finally, a brief critique from a Loyal Reader we've been relying on for similar commentary, if sometimes differing conclusions.
Please note especially Cirincione's point that this is not a nuclear bomb crisis, but a nuclear regime crisis, and that press accounts of an Iranian bomb being "imminent" are dangerous nonsense from the same folks who brought us the political sales job (our phrase, not his) on Iraq WMD:
"Chris, are we seeing a coordinated [scare] campaign on Iran? The same neoconservative pundits who championed the invasion of Iraq are now beating the drums on Iran. They all got the same talking points this week. On Monday, urging us to keep military options open, William Kristol claims Iran's 'nuclear program could well be getting close to the point of no return.' Wednesday, Charles Krauthammer said, 'Instead of being years away from the point of no return for an Iranian bomb. . .Iran is probably just months away.
"This is complete nonsense. There is no need for military strikes against Iran. The country is five to ten years away from the ability to enrich uranium for fuel or bombs. Even that estimate, shared by the Defense Intelligence Agency and experts at IISS, ISIS, and Carnegie assumes Iran goes full-speed ahead and does not encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague such programs. In the next few months, they will be lucky to get a test centrifuge cascade up and running. Hardly a "point of no return."
"This is not a nuclear bomb crisis, it is a nuclear regime crisis. US Ambassador John Bolton has correctly pointed out that this is a key test for the Security Council. If Iran is not stopped the entire nonproliferation regime will be weakened, and with it the UN system.
"But it will have to be diplomats, not F-15s that stop the mullahs. An air strike against a soft target, such as the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan would inflame Muslim anger, rally the Iranian public around an otherwise unpopular government and jeopardize further the US position in Iraq. Finally, the strike would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up. That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981. Israel knocked the Osirik reactor, but Saddam went underground, expanding from 500 to 7000 workers on a more ambitious program that escaped detection until 1991. By then he was closer to producing a bomb than he ever would have been with Osirik. It went from a side project to an obsession.
"Your other Loyal Reader is correct that we could not destroy it in 1991 war. Even 43 days of coalition bombing failed to destroy the program, which ended only when U.N. disarmament teams methodically destroyed the equipment on the ground. This is the lesson to keep in mind as simplistic 'solutions' to the Iran program come churning out of the neocon machine."
-0-
Arms Control Wonk Jeff Lewis comments on his frequent-collaborator: "Joe is dead-on correct. I have one comment -- I don't like saying this is a crisis. As Joe noted, we have lots of time. More important, we are so focused on the question of when Iran could have a bomb, we underestimate the real depth of our interests here. The current situation, where Iran does not have a bomb -- but gives everyone the impression it is moving in that direction -- is almost as bad as an Iranian deterrent -- the day in, day out haggling creates a slow, steady erosion of confidence in the Nonproliferation Regime.
"Moreover, talking about this as a crisis leads to hasty conclusions about what happens if Tehran "gets" the bomb -- the world will not end, though we will be less secure. Assuming that Iran masters enrichment, we have a variety of interests to protect even if Iran stockpiles a few nuclear weapons. I would rather Iran have one, than ten. I would rather Iran have fuel, but not assemble the bomb. I would rather Iran not test it nuclear weapons or master the process of miniaturization that would allow delivery by ballistic missile. Most important, I want Iran to understand that it's deterrent is only good for retaliation, not coercion; that transfer of any of its nuclear materials to terrorists would result in the elimination of the Islamic Republic and its elites; and the use of nuclear weapon would be a prelude to the historical conclusion of Persian civilization.
"My advice, not fashionable these days, is to take a page from LBJ after the Chinese nuclear test. We need to act confident that the acquisition of Iranian nuclear weapons does nothing to enhance their security and everything to further isolate and weaken them.
"But our political system tends to reward the hysterical at the expense of the calm."
-0-
To close on this subject for tonight, commentary on Cirincione and Lewis from an informed Loyal Reader we often quote: " 'The point of no return' is a great phrase. The Israelis are quite fond of it, and it doesn't surprise me to see pundits cribbing it. I have no idea what if anything it is supposed to mean in technical terms, but the Israelis routinely put it forward before IAEA Board of Governors votes. It won't surprise you that Joe C.'s reasoning by analogy doesn't work for me. I haven't arrived at strongly determined views on the question of bombing, so he's not appealing to my prejudices. A strike on Iran's nuclear facilities would cut both ways: it would presumably end all restraint on the regime's part, accelerating their efforts. It would also reverse a lot of their labors to date."
Think about it, this critique continues, "It is not at all obvious to me which effect would overwhelm the other, but I do note that Jeff and others have written a fair bit about the difficulties Iran has experienced in trying to master conversion and enrichment. It's difficult to work out the kinks in large-scale operations when you no longer have facilities to operate! So there is a potential rationale here that should not be dismissed. The less restraint the Iranians show in operating their facilities, moreover, the better such a move for short-term advantage looks, since there is less to lose by it. There are also some uncertainties in the 5-10 year estimates for Iran's going nuclear that we could discuss at greater length later. These questions cut both ways when it comes to arguments for military action -- it's not cut-and-dried..."
-0-
Obviously, until we know if the Iranians will re-seal Natanz, and what, if anything, the IAEA will do in two weeks, this critical debate can but continue. Many thanks to the many informed Loyal Readers who have taken the time to help us Asianists navigate these highly relevant, but dangerously obscure waters.
Joe Cirincione and Jeffrey Lewis have offered blazingly logical, unsentimental assessments of America's current Iran problem.
In my own view, Iran's nuclear pretensions are a direct result of America removing Iran's chief antagonist in the region, Iraq under secular (and yes, fascist) rule -- as well as from the sad fact that America's mystique of power and capability has been greatly damaged by bogging down in the Iraq quagmire. When the perception of American power declines, allies are prompted not to count on the US as much and enemies have an incentive to move their agendas.
Other factors that Charles Krauthammer, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, Clifford May, Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives fail to mention in their commentary is that Iran's current president had his preferred Oil Minister rejected four times by Iran's National Assembly. What was that about? What system of checks-and-balances exists in Iran (that seems to be less evident in America of late) that we are not discussing? Does that tension inside Iran's political system between the assembly and president offer any opportunities? Is Ahmadinejad attempting to outmaneuver his legislative shackles with his "wipe Israel off the map" jingoism, and is this having a positive or negative effect on his executive authority?
Iran's president is not a monarch -- and as nasty a character as I feel he is, he is not a Saddam Hussein. He's teasing deeply held theocratic convictions to try to legitimate himself and thus is doing what any rational power-maximizer would try and do when constrained. We need to apply our intelligence and thinking to this puzzle and familiarize ourselves with the factors that are driving his behavior.
We need to become more knowledgeable about Iran's internal government processes that enhance and constrain his abilities to move.
All that said, I do believe that Iran's nuclear pretensions run deeply and are morphing into a benchmark of ascendant nationalism. Even "healthy" nationalists in Iran would have robust nuclear power -- and perhaps even nuclear weapons -- on their list of what a "great nation" must have in its tool kit.
I believe that there are a great many options between war with Iran and doing nothing regarding its nuclear activities, but I am also convinced that Iran -- in the long run -- will probably have nukes. Iran has 70 million people and is a rich nation with a great past. As China reclaims some of its historical prestige, others who aspire to past glory also will -- and there is little that America or the world can do to permanently preempt such pretensions.
Economic sanctions, political and econoic carrots -- even harsher sticks -- can slow Iran's nuclear program, but the blowback from a harsh, military intervention will produce the single worst outcome in such an encounter: a significantly isolated, angry, democratically empowered hypernationalist nuclear power that will be focused more on the emotional need for revenge than on the pragmatic objective of regional balance with Israel, and general order and security.
Recently, both Senator Hillary Clinton and newly inaugurated Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine spoke about Iran -- and argued for a "tough policy." What does this mean? Their prescriptions are not only shallow on the facade -- but dangerously weak conceptually because Iran is a far more complicated and dangerous threat than Iraq was to the US.
America's objectives are to hopefully preempt Iran's move to nuclear weapons, but if this proves impossible over the next five to ten years -- which is the amount of time the intelligence community believes exists between today and when Iran could conceivably process the fuel and overcome technical handicaps in assembling a warhead -- then the better option is to find some way, either directly or through proxies, to slow Iran's progress towards a robust system that it will eventually develop.
One objective might be to keep Iran's program covert and undeclared, much like Israel's. And in the interim to begin cultivating a rhetoric and language of regional balance of power, and of nuclear deterrence in the region.
These are radical ideas -- but if Israel's regional nuclear monopoly is going to end, as America's nuclear monopoly once did, it is vital to educate all parties about (as Jeffrey Lewis states above) nuclear weapons in their "deterrent role", not as an instrument of coercion.
The only presidential candidate who has been talking semi-sensibly about the "realities" in the Middle East as they are and not in some fictionalized sketch is Wesley Clark.
While Clark believes that we need a great deal more diplomatic effort to redirect Iran from its current nuclear course, he also knows that one can't deal with either Iran or Iraq in a bubble unto themselves. General Clark has stated publicly that America needs to do a deal with Iran. He believes we cannot manage Iraq and potential explosive realities in the region without buy-in from Iran. In that, there may be opportunities to appeal to Iran's desire to be less isolated on the international stage and dealt with in a more dignified way given its size and importance in the region.
This is no proposal to appease Iran -- and no call for America and Europe to "bless" Iran's nuclear activities. The truth is that American military power, allied with our allies' military capacity -- properly and lethally constructed -- should be in our "last resort tool kit" if Iran shows no interest in negotiating on any front -- and is demonstrably bent on using its eventual nukes actively rather than holding them for security. But the James Woolsey types of this era want such military options much higher on the list, without much regard for consequences to America's overall security or the viability of its military and foreign policy objectives.
A strong, visionary U.S. president would go to Iran and do a deal akin to what Kissinger and Nixon accomplished with China. Maybe such a deal involves a covert nuclear program and maybe not -- but what is extremely important for US policy makers to know is that a replay of the mistakes that America made running up to our Iraq mess may finally be the punctuation point that ends America's role as a globally powerful, mostly benign hegemon.
America loses if it forfeits its ability to marshall like-minded powers on objectives the US feels are important to its own and global security.
Woolsey and his colleagues from Scoop Jackson circles are doing serious harm to America's national security portfolio -- and they will not stop, not ever -- until the Congress, rational parts of the Bush administration and Pentagon, civil society and the American public shut down these dangerous pundits.
-- Steve Clemons
Also, lets face it, Iran has every incentive to NOT cooperate now rather than later, and to get a bomb sooner rather than later.
Now, rather than later, the US military is in a position of weakness, where a strike on Iran might have disasterous consequences in Iraq and throughout the middle east.
Now, unlike 4 years ago, Oil is in tight supply. As ~5% of worldwide production, Iran is in a much better position to break an embargo or make an embargo very costly for the US.
Also, there is the lesson of North Korea. IF you are in a position to retaliate, the US is less likely to attack. The best position is with a Nuclear weapon, although being able to cause damage where a lot of US troops are (So Korea/Iraq) is a good second.
So if you were president of Iran, wouldn't YOU want a robust nuclear program?
I still haven't gotten an answer to my question from earlier today.
I would like to know what experts think of the possibility that Bush could use nuclear bunker busters to take out Iran's nuclear program.
I don't even know if these bombs exist, though I do remember Rumsfeld going all Strangelove over the prospect a few years back.
Many of you probably think this idea is too outrageous to consider. Maybe so.
If you are convinced that such bombs don't exist or that Bush would not use them, I still would like to know if any warmongering Neocons are suggesting such a plan of attack against Iran.
Anyone else having trouble posting comments?
Ah there it is.. sorry. It took me 3 tries to get that up.
From:
Walker's World: Living with Iran's nukes
By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor
"There may be one or two more moves to be made in Tehran's cat-and-mouse game with nukes. But few serious observers can remain in much doubt that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power, and that its current government is prepared to lie, cheat, smuggle, obfuscate, bully, bribe, threaten and resort to just about any maneuver in order to win nuclear status.
Who can blame them?
The Iranians are surrounded by nuclear powers. On the eastern front, Pakistan has nukes and missiles to deliver them. Just beyond Pakistan, India is another nuclear power, and this is a dangerous neighborhood. The part of Pakistan that borders Iran is Baluchistan, and the Pakistani government is currently accusing India of stirring up separatist militants -- just as the world was breathing a sigh of relief that the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir was easing.
To the North lie two more nuclear powers, Russia and China, whose current intentions toward Iran seem entirely amicable. Russia is prepared to sell Iran just about anything, including nuclear reactors, Kilo-class submarines and the very latest S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. Russia also last December signed a billion-dollar deal to sell Iran the new Tor-M1 air defense system, designed to shoot down cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs.
And China is prepared to buy just about anything that can help fuel its booming economy, witness Sinopec's 30-year deal to buy 250 million tons of Iranian natural gas, to explore and develop Iran's Yadavaran field and buy its oil. When announced in November, 2004, it was said to be worth $70 billion. It is now worth over $100 billion, and will take Iran from a 13 percent share of China's energy imports in 2003 to a 20 percent share by the end of this decade.
To the West lies the undeclared nuclear power of Israel, the only Middle Eastern country that has nuclear weapons, and also one of the few with the full triad of delivery systems. Just like the really big boys, Israel can deliver its nukes from land-based Jericho missiles, from its F-15I long-range fighter-bombers, or from the cruise missiles aboard its Dolphin-class submarines.
This means that Israel has a wholly survivable deterrent, capable of delivering second and third strikes even if Israel itself were destroyed. (One complication for any imams or mullahs pondering Israeli target options would be the theological implications of destroying the al-Aqsa mosque in the heart of Jerusalem, the most holy site in Islam after Mecca and Medina.)"
[snip]
"If Iran, as an oil-rich sovereign state, is determined to become a nuclear power there are no obvious steps short of all-out war and occupation that could prevent it eventually from doing so. So just as the world has learned to live with the Soviet-American nuclear balance, and with the Indo-Pakistani nuclear balance, it may soon start to accept that it will probably have to live with the balance of nuclear terror between Tehran and Tel Aviv.
Curiously enough, with the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem giving the Mullahs pause for thought, until the Iranians become very certain of the accuracy of their Shahib missiles, the Iran-Israel standoff may ironically prove to be rather stable"
More:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060111-051246-6378r
From:
Walker's World: Living with Iran's nukes
By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor
"There may be one or two more moves to be made in Tehran's cat-and-mouse game with nukes. But few serious observers can remain in much doubt that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power, and that its current government is prepared to lie, cheat, smuggle, obfuscate, bully, bribe, threaten and resort to just about any maneuver in order to win nuclear status.
Who can blame them?
The Iranians are surrounded by nuclear powers. On the eastern front, Pakistan has nukes and missiles to deliver them. Just beyond Pakistan, India is another nuclear power, and this is a dangerous neighborhood. The part of Pakistan that borders Iran is Baluchistan, and the Pakistani government is currently accusing India of stirring up separatist militants -- just as the world was breathing a sigh of relief that the Indo-Pakistani dispute over Kashmir was easing.
To the North lie two more nuclear powers, Russia and China, whose current intentions toward Iran seem entirely amicable. Russia is prepared to sell Iran just about anything, including nuclear reactors, Kilo-class submarines and the very latest S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. Russia also last December signed a billion-dollar deal to sell Iran the new Tor-M1 air defense system, designed to shoot down cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs.
And China is prepared to buy just about anything that can help fuel its booming economy, witness Sinopec's 30-year deal to buy 250 million tons of Iranian natural gas, to explore and develop Iran's Yadavaran field and buy its oil. When announced in November, 2004, it was said to be worth $70 billion. It is now worth over $100 billion, and will take Iran from a 13 percent share of China's energy imports in 2003 to a 20 percent share by the end of this decade.
To the West lies the undeclared nuclear power of Israel, the only Middle Eastern country that has nuclear weapons, and also one of the few with the full triad of delivery systems. Just like the really big boys, Israel can deliver its nukes from land-based Jericho missiles, from its F-15I long-range fighter-bombers, or from the cruise missiles aboard its Dolphin-class submarines.
This means that Israel has a wholly survivable deterrent, capable of delivering second and third strikes even if Israel itself were destroyed. (One complication for any imams or mullahs pondering Israeli target options would be the theological implications of destroying the al-Aqsa mosque in the heart of Jerusalem, the most holy site in Islam after Mecca and Medina.)"
[snip]
"If Iran, as an oil-rich sovereign state, is determined to become a nuclear power there are no obvious steps short of all-out war and occupation that could prevent it eventually from doing so. So just as the world has learned to live with the Soviet-American nuclear balance, and with the Indo-Pakistani nuclear balance, it may soon start to accept that it will probably have to live with the balance of nuclear terror between Tehran and Tel Aviv.
Curiously enough, with the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem giving the Mullahs pause for thought, until the Iranians become very certain of the accuracy of their Shahib missiles, the Iran-Israel standoff may ironically prove to be rather stable"
More:
http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060111-051246-6378r
Steve:
You should link to and quote from the full posts this week on Arms Control Wonk on Iran's nuclear stuts. They might just be the best policy analysis ever written on a blog.
I can't stand pundits in general, but I'm uneasy about the notion that the group you mention, excepting "American public" should "shut them down." Not the way to go!
Also I think we have to extend our understanding when it comes to Iran. Iran is living in the shadow of something and we're not. They border a nation which is militaristic and which not only has nuclear weapons but another huge military and nuclear power ready to spring into action on its behalf. And they've been living with this for years.
Like Cirincione, I also worry about the integrity of the non-proliferation regime. And if a signatory to the NPT like iran successfully goes nuclear, it will indeed undermine that regime.
But isn’t the integrity of the NPT also threatened by flimsy cases brought before the Security Council, and attempts by the major powers on the council to ram through an understandable, but fundamentally self-interested sanctions program under the spurious cover of the NPT? Iran’s suspension of its enrichment program was voluntary, and so far as I understand the situation, it has every legal right to start it up again – however unpleasant the possession of this right might be for us. Unless the interested outside parties can prove, at least by a preponderanbce of the evidence, that Iran is using its civilian program as a cover for a military program, I don’t see from where a credible legal basis for sanctions arises. Of course, I may misunderstand the legal situation. Could somebody please explain this to me?
I am entirely prepared to believe Iran is cheating. But what is the evidence? Shouldn’t we be demanding the details from independent experts before the Bush administration stages another Security Council magic show? One would have thought the public had learned something from the colossal national embarrassment of the run-up to Iraq, and the spectacular failure of the deliberative and information-gathering agencies of US society – including our intelligence agencies, our congress and our media. But the punditry and pols have once again allowed themselves to be manipulated into adopting a posture in favor of hasty and ill-considered action, based on innuendo, ignorance and a primitive and crude deliberative process.
Secretary Rice said today that the time for talking to Iran had ended, and it is now time for action. Now perhaps I missed it, but isn’t it the case that talks between Iran and the United States have never taken place? The talks she refers to were conducted through European proxies. The United States does not talk to Iran – it has no diplomatic presence in Tehran.
So how could the US possibly make a credible case, at some point in the near future, that it has exhausted diplomatic options when it refuses to undertake diplomatic relations with Iran? This ridiculous circumstance has gone on long enough. Iran is a major regional power, perhaps the dominant power in the region, and a country of growing wealth and influence. It is no longer acceptable that the United States makes momentous policies toward Iran and the region without talking to the Iranians themselves.
Unlike Steve, I am not at all fatalistic about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. But we will not prevent them from acquiring these weapons through sanctions, and there are no realistic military options. The amount of military damage that we would have to inflict on Iran and its people in order to assure ourselves that its nuclear program had indeed been set back is so great that it could never be justified before the court of world opinion. The hawks can start bleating all they like about “permission slips”, or “outsourcing” our foreign policy. But the degree of opprobrium they would have us incur is so intense, and the costs that that opprobrium would exact so enormous, that I can’t believe serious people would recommend that path. There is indeed a fair amount of Western unity in favor of doing something to thwart the Iranian nuclear program, but that unity doesn’t go so far as a movement in favor of laying waste to Iran. And in the end, the military option would only delay, not eliminate Iran’s acquisition of nukes.
The only realistic option here is to make a deal – one that will be both historic and far-reaching. That will require that US officials and Iranian officials sit down face-to-face, and talk.
Like Cirincione, I also worry about the integrity of the non-proliferation regime. And if a signatory to the NPT like iran successfully goes nuclear, it will indeed undermine that regime.
But isn’t the integrity of the NPT also threatened by flimsy cases brought before the Security Council, and attempts by the major powers on the council to ram through an understandable, but fundamentally self-interested sanctions program under the spurious cover of the NPT? Iran’s suspension of its enrichment program was voluntary, and so far as I understand the situation, it has every legal right to start it up again – however unpleasant the possession of this right might be for us. Unless the interested outside parties can prove, at least by a preponderanbce of the evidence, that Iran is using its civilian program as a cover for a military program, I don’t see from where a credible legal basis for sanctions arises. Of course, I may misunderstand the legal situation. Could somebody please explain this to me?
I am entirely prepared to believe Iran is cheating. But what is the evidence? Shouldn’t we be demanding the details from independent experts before the Bush administration stages another Security Council magic show? One would have thought the public had learned something from the colossal national embarrassment of the run-up to Iraq, and the spectacular failure of the deliberative and information-gathering agencies of US society – including our intelligence agencies, our congress and our media. But the punditry and pols have once again allowed themselves to be manipulated into adopting a posture in favor of hasty and ill-considered action, based on innuendo, ignorance and a primitive and crude deliberative process.
Secretary Rice said today that the time for talking to Iran had ended, and it is now time for action. Now perhaps I missed it, but isn’t it the case that talks between Iran and the United States have never taken place? The talks she refers to were conducted through European proxies. The United States does not talk to Iran – it has no diplomatic presence in Tehran.
So how could the US possibly make a credible case, at some point in the near future, that it has exhausted diplomatic options when it refuses to undertake diplomatic relations with Iran? This ridiculous circumstance has gone on long enough. Iran is a major regional power, perhaps the dominant power in the region, and a country of growing wealth and influence. It is no longer acceptable that the United States makes momentous policies toward Iran and the region without talking to the Iranians themselves.
Unlike Steve, I am not at all fatalistic about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. But we will not prevent them from acquiring these weapons through sanctions, and there are no realistic military options. The amount of military damage that we would have to inflict on Iran and its people in order to assure ourselves that its nuclear program had indeed been set back is so great that it could never be justified before the court of world opinion. The hawks can start bleating all they like about “permission slips”, or “outsourcing” our foreign policy. But the degree of opprobrium they would have us incur is so intense, and the costs that that opprobrium would exact so enormous, that I can’t believe serious people would recommend that path. There is indeed a fair amount of Western unity in favor of doing something to thwart the Iranian nuclear program, but that unity doesn’t go so far as a movement in favor of laying waste to Iran. And in the end, the military option would only delay, not eliminate Iran’s acquisition of nukes.
The only realistic option here is to make a deal – one that will be both historic and far-reaching. That will require that US officials and Iranian officials sit down face-to-face, and talk.
Marky,
I got a response from my Navy neighbor about the bunker busters. Here's what he thinks:
"My educated guess is that the only bunker buster that can reach the seriously dug-in facilities are shaped nukes...and they are unusable for obvious reasons. We could easily do a lot of damage to various facilities, kill a lot of Iranians, but my guess is we could not knock out the program ala Osirak in Iraq in 1981.
I cannot make it make sense myself, but guess I should not try and predict what a neo-con would think and do...
Spooky."
Susan,
Thanks for that info.
I don't know anything technical on the subject, obviously, but I'm just looking ahead and wondering when we will see columns by conservative pundits saying,"... well yes, nuclear weapons are bad, but a nuclear bunker-buster that takes out Iran's program might be necessary---it might really be the cleanest, most humane thing to do in the long run. We know that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, a terrorist WILL get a nuclear bomb, and there WILL be a nuclear explosion in Israel. Isn't it better to send a decisive message now ---at really a minimum cost of lives (these nukes are very clean)---that will prevent Iran from achieving its demonic aims, and also send a clear message that no nuclear proliferation will be allowed. In many ways Bush is like Truman.. blah blah.. [stay on auto-pilot, pick up $25,000$ check from Mehlman's brother's sister-in-law's "apolitical" peace foundation]"
These guys are pros at breaking taboos... hmm, I guess I mean that literally, payola-wise.
OH yeah, the title of my column is "A plan for peace"
The ONLY way to shut them down -- is to shut ourselves up, pronto.
Yes, the neofascists WILL attack Iran if not stopped, the bullet is already chambered. I'd be mildly suprised if it doesn't begin BEFORE the SOTU.
But this has NOTHING TO DO WITH the many, many brilliant insights and theories of a geopolitical/strategic nature being posted here and elsewhere.
They laush at all this chatter. Please stop talking and remember.
They committed the MOST HEINOUS ACT OF TERRORISM IN HISTORY when they falsely threatened the American People with "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes." (Anything 20 guys with boxcutters could do pales in comparison. Even a "dirty bomb" is less threatening.)
The PNACons' "bomb threat" on our nation was only perpetrated to advance their own domestic-political, ideological, and profiteering wet-dreams.
This was clearly premeditated criminal intent, leading to willful criminal acts, that in the context of national security can only accurately be called HIGH TREASON.
Rationality and risks/rewards don't enter their calculations. The polls go low enough to support impeachment (already there) and they pull the trigger. Get it?
The only useful activity is to try to remove them ASAP, and in the face of anything they do to distract and (yet, again) terrorize the public into acquiescence.
Please stop whatever else you're doing and help us defend our (once great) nation from this intenal menace.
----
www.january6th.org
Marky,
I feel just as cynical about Bush as you do. However, when I think about a war with Iran, I think about this little fact:
Twenty million barrels of oil per day pass through the narrow Straits of Hurmuz! This represents a quarter of the world's traded oil.
Do you know how fast the Iranians would close the Straits of Hurmuz, if we attacked them? And, once closed, the entire world would become instantly destabilized.
I think what Bush is really worried about (if he has the capacity to worry) is a euro-based oil transaction trading system. A potentially significant news development was reported in June 2004 announcing Iran’s intentions to create an Iranian oil Bourse. This announcement warned that competition would arise between the Iranian oil bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). It should be noted that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.
The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian bourse are noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U. accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East (2002 data).
Acknowledging that many of the oil contracts for Iran and Saudi Arabia are linked to the United Kingdom’s Brent crude marker, the Iranian bourse could create a significant shift in the flow of international commerce into the Middle East. If Iran’s bourse becomes a successful alternative for oil trades, it would challenge the hegemony currently enjoyed by the financial centers in both London (IPE) and New York
As you know, the oft repeated goals of freeing people from evil tyrants and spreading God's blessing of democracy throughout the world are bogus. Bush's real objective has to do with preserving dollar hegemony over the global oil market.
Steve, you mentioned that Ahmadinejad's oil minister nominee has been rejected four times. The reason, apparently, is that Ahmadinejad wants to tap into the oil revenue reserves for a massive infrastructure improvement program. Apparently there's a cap on the percentage of those revenues available to the budget, and his programs would require exceeding the cap or jiggering the projected price of crude to accomodate the spending increases. I'm no more than superficially conversant with Iranian politics, but to me it sounds as though he's in a similar situation to that of Hugo Chavez: a populist president who wants to spend oil revenues on programs aimed primarily at his base, which is overwhelmingly the rural and urban poor, and is opposed by the cultural and economic elite of his country.
All of which is to say that yes, it seems reasonable to think his Jew-bashing and ultranationalism is aimed at least in part at rallying his base against his opponents.
I can't find the story I read, but I'll post the link if I run across it again.
Susan, I remember very well conversations with informed people in 2002 who were very worried that Bush would be crazy enough to attack Iraq. It looked like a horrible idea then--very scary.
I know that war with Iran is supposed to be impossible on many practical grounds.. but i am not convinced any of these reasons will be articulated to Bush, or that he will care even if he does hear them.
In addition, I detect a great deal of optimism about attacking Iran among many right wing pundits.
Perhaps only the first part of the 2002 game plan will be deployed---using the threat of Iran to win elections this fall. I don't buy it. Bush is
Dumbetheus unbound,IMO
"Bush is Dumbetheus unbound..."
Being an incurable optimist, my hope is that "Dumbetheus" will one day realize that the desire and ability to dominate others stems from selfishness, and he will undergo a moral transformation. However, the realist in me mostly scoffs at such a thought.
Maybe we should just tie him to a rock for the next few years!
Steve and Steve's readers--I would really like to see more discussion of the whole concept of and rationale for nuclear non-proliferation here, including that part of the equation that seems to be completely missing from the American debate: the commitment by nuclear powers to REDUCE and eventually eliminate their stockpiles as part of the deal. NPT was a pact whereby non-nuclear powers agreed to refrain from trying to acquire nukes in exchange for existing nuclear powers to gradually relinquish theirs. What do we have instead? The U.S. regime actively developing them (and other WMD)and threatening to use them against other nations. So where does the U.S. get off trying to tell other nations whether or not they're allowed to develop nuclear power? Give me a break.
"Just How Dumb Do They Think We Are?
Cheney's War Workshop Plots Another Attack
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
[Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com]
2006 is a dangerous year for Americans. The Bill of Rights and Americans' civil liberties are being sacrificed on the alter of unaccountable executive power, as is the separation of powers, the foundation of our constitutional system.
The Supreme Court is being packed with a majority that favors more expansive executive rule.
The economy is in danger as the real estate boom unwinds and reduces the asset base of consumer demand.
Political money scandals and evidence of Republican vote fraud in the 2004 presidential election threaten to undermine confidence in American democracy, which President Bush is committed to export by force of arms to the world.
The Republican plan for amnesty for millions of illegal aliens looms as the final blow to US borders and the concept of US citizenship.
Perhaps the greatest threat of all is Israel's determination to attack Iran, either directly or indirectly through its surrogate, the Bush administration.
We are witnessing the same drumbeat against Iranian WMD as we witnessed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Fox "News," which in fact is the most thorough-going dispenser of war propaganda since the Nazi Third Reich, provides a parade of bought-and-paid-for-consultants who assure credulous audiences that Osama bin Laden has forged an alliance with Iran, which will soon be providing al Qaeda with nuclear weapons.
Even the Bush administration's chief warmonger, VP Dick Cheney, found the Fox "News" charges too absurd to be useful propaganda. Cheney disavowed close relations between al Qaeda Sunnis and Iranian Shi'ites: "there's not a natural fit there."
The New York Times, prostituted itself by permitting Judith Miller to use the newspaper as a tool for neoconservative war propaganda against Iraq. The Times prostituted itself a second time by withholding for an entire year the information that President Bush was illegally spying on Americans in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and a third time by not reporting Al Gore's challenge to the Bush administration's criminal behavior. Now the Times is prostituting itself a fourth time in serving as a Bush administration propaganda organ against Iran.
Unlike Israel, which does have nuclear weapons, Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Under the treaty countries are permitted nuclear energy. Inspections make certain no weapons are produced. Iran agrees to abide by the treaty and to have the inspections.
Israel, however, and its neocon allies in the Bush administration, claim without any evidence that Iran is making a bomb. The nuclear inspectors find no evidence of a weapons program. Israel and its neocon allies reply that once Iran has the know-how for nuclear power, it will be able to make the material from which to make a bomb, therefore, Iran must not be permitted its rights under the non-proliferation treaty. Since Iran refuses to give up its treaty rights to develop nuclear energy, Israel and the neocons maintain that Iran's facilities must be bombed and destroyed.
Americans will pay a heavy price for Israeli paranoia.
The entire world knows that Israel cannot bomb Iran without US weapons and cooperation.
A US attack on Iran would be another instance of naked American aggression against a Muslim country. Aggression is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the US. Such an attack would further isolate the US as a rogue country. It would further inflame the Muslim world against the US and Israel, making any settlement of the Palestinian issue emotionally impossible for Muslims.
If tactical nuclear weapons are used in the bombing of Iran, as the neoconservatives advocate, America will be reviled throughout the world. Americans will never recover from the burden of shame and war crimes inflicted upon them by the Bush administration.
An attack on Iran could be the death knell for our troops in Iraq and for our puppets in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The majority Iraqi Shi'ites have tolerated the US occupation because the majority Shi'ites are the gainers from the US insistence on majority rule. The Iraqi Shi'ites are allied with Shi'ite Iran. They will recognize an attack on Iran as a blow struck against Shi'ite power. If the Iraqi Shi'ites turn on our troops, US casualties will soar.
The best way to ensure US defeat in Iraq is to attack Iran.
Would Bush and the neocons accept embarrassing defeat or would they escalate the conflict?
Would a sane government pursue a policy that has no favorable outcome?
Some analysts believe that Russia and China will protect their Iranian energy and trade agreements by vetoing UN sanctions that the Bush administration seeks as a pretext for its aggression. These two powers, however, might abstain as it is in their interest to let Bush dig a deeper hole for the US. Disruption of Iranian oil supplies increases Europe's energy dependence on Russia and serves to further weaken US influence in Europe.
The American people need to understand that with its massive budget and trade deficits, the US is able to go to war only because the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and oil producing countries finance Bush's war by purchasing US debt and holding dollar denominated assets. Once Bush has the US over-extended, it will be the end of the American superpower if one of our bankers decides to rein in the rogue American state by dumping dollar holdings.
Indeed, a number of thinkers (William Clark and Krassimir Petrov, for example) have concluded that the reason that the Pentagon has plans to attack Iran is Iran's intention to establish an international oil exchange in which anyone can buy or sell oil in any currency.
Such an exchange, it is argued, would spell the dollar's death as the currency in which oil is billed. With countries no longer needing dollars in order to pay their oil bills, the demand for dollars and dollar denominated assets would decline. The dollar would further depreciate, bringing crisis to import-dependent America."
More here:
http://www.counterpunch.com/
Wesley Clark is spot on...
For the reasons mentioned here, AND for a deeper reason:
Iran has an incredibly youthful population.
The last thing you want to do is isolate that youthful exuberance and force it to hunker down with the mullahs.
American policy should aim at capturing the fancy of that youthful population rather than bombing it into radical Islam.
Iran is only going to be this demograpically young once... and if you put a frown on the face of its youth, you will suffer the consequences for generations.
Marky, an answer to the bunker-buster question: The United States currently has one nuclear weapon that can be delivered as a penetrator; it is the B61 mod 11 gravity bomb. It can penetrate a few meters in hard soil. We do not have a weapon that can penetrate deeply into reinforced concrete. The weapon you are thinking of, when you mention Rumsfeld's support, is the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. At the present time, it does not exist, but, for the past few years, DOE has been trying to fund a study into a new casing that would be able to penetrate into reinforced concrete before exploding. Congress has objected, DOE has stopped asking for funding, and the test program for the casing has been moved to DOD. It could be years before this produces a new weapon that could be delivered to penetrate to a hardened target.
Note that this is would not be a small weapon. It would be a ROBUST nuclear earth penetrator. It would produce large amounts of fall-out and collateral damage.
Marky wrote:
"I would like to know what experts think of the possibility that Bush could use nuclear bunker busters to take out Iran's nuclear program."
Nuclear bunker busters- RNEP's or Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators) do not yet exit. Sen.Domenici has stopped funding the design of RNEP's for FY 2006.
see: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/152.html
Anyone needing any convincing on how bad an idea this was, try : http://tinyurl.com/7jzkb
or the animation, both from the Union of Concerned Scientists :
There are indeed realities (penetrating earth with a metallic projectile w/o vaporizing container) that spin and propaganda can't circumvent. The
consquences are disatrous, although the animation will show that due to the earth's rotation, the US falls outside the area of most significant impact.
This may well be what is involved with Rumsfeld's insistence that he be allowed to decide whether to use existing nuclear weapons
For a variety of reasons, Iran and the US should be allies and not enemies. Rebuilding Iran's neighbor Iraq and ridding it of Salafis, Stabilizing Iran's other neighbor, Afghanistan and preventing the return of Iran's enemy the Taliban, having a positive influence on western Pakistan, another Iran neighbor and area that is difficult for the Pakistanis to control.
"The only presidential candidate who has been talking semi-sensibly about the "realities" in the Middle East as they are and not in some fictionalized sketch is Wesley Clark.
While Clark believes that we need a great deal more diplomatic effort to redirect Iran from its current nuclear course, he also knows that one can't deal with either Iran or Iraq in a bubble unto themselves. General Clark has stated publicly that America needs to do a deal with Iran. He believes we cannot manage Iraq and potential explosive realities in the region without buy-in from Iran."
Wes Clark's willingness to talk about this publicly is a large part of the reason I supported him during the 2003-4 primary season, and still find him of great interest for 2008. He's the only candidate whose statements on U.S. policy in the Middle East reflect any serious strategic thinking -- rather than simply calculating the domestic political effects.
For a variety of reasons,
Iran and the US should be allies and not enemies.
Yeah but...
In a military-industrial-religious complex
you consolidate power by creating enemies,
and seeing treats behind every bush and shrub.
To tie this post in with my preceeding one:
Bush & Co. would be more than happy to turn
Iran's hopeful youth into raving fundamentalists.
They need the enemies.
Jean:
You hit the heart of the problem by recognizing that the NPT is being interpreted by the neocons as ignoring the US committment to reducing nuclear weapons, while focusing on the non-nuclear countries - and then by morphing their role into something quite different. But then this was also done with UN Resolution 1441 - what was passed and what was presented to the American public differ as do black and white. The Committee for Present Danger has been committed to thwarting arms reduction since its inception, and the present administration is composed of those individuals from the CPD wishing to make the US the major player and holder of nuclear weapons. They see possession of nuclear weapons as the means to American Empire, and Rumsfeld, Bolton, Cheney , Woolsey, Lieberman, et al has sabatoged every attempt to reduce that stockpile. IMHO, this is what the military fight is ultimately about.
For those interested in pursuing the folly of the RNEP and US nuclear dominance, I suggest contacted Dr. Robert Nelson, Senior Scientist for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists at rnelson@ucsusa.org, or 609-688-9595.
Samuels Associates website design needs some serious updating. Steve, do they need design help?
Thanks very much to the commenters who answered my questions about nuclear bunker busters.
I find this analysis to be very trenchant:
he makes the point that the Iranians were never in a big hurry to get n. weapons even though they have had ample resources and knowledge.
For Iran n. weapons fall into the "nice to have" column.
As a game player myself, if I were Iran, I would say that this is probably the best situation that I could hope for. There is maximum uncertainty with few or non-existant consequences, no matter what people say. All this stuff just plays well with the US and Iranian populations and for Iran there is only the upside of possible concessions.
Points I ponder.
1. Extremism fuels extremism. As we have seen in South America, our drift to the right is countered by growing left-wing extremism. So too, as we drift toward evangelical militarism, the targets of our biblical thunder evoke their own gods. Maybe if we were less militant our enemies would be also. 2. The Bush doctrine of preemption applied across the board suggests that Iran should act before we or Israel strike. 3. The other (unstated) Bush doctrine, the "Madman" in the White House doctrine a la Nixon, counts on the ambiguity of Bush's mental state and how dangerously out of control he could be. They have their mandmen, we have ours. 4. We assume that Iran will not get any outside help to bypass the hard work of enrichment. As we are a heartbeat away from Pakistan becoming the nuclear armed menace we fear in Iran, maybe it is not such a good idea to trust and depend that Pakistan (or North Korea) will not some day pass nuclear material to Iran. 5. Maybe working to resolve some of the issues in the Middle East that fuel terrorism could bring Iran to the point that it has no need or desire to pass nuclear material or devices to terrorists.
Steven Clemons of the Washington Note blog believes that this whole Iran thing is the product of Neocon "hysteria" (read Jewish conspiracy). It was only a few days ago that Iran broke the UN seals on their nuclear facilities prompting those "always-hysterical? and "hawkish" Europeans to cancel all further talks and attempt to expeditiously refer the matter to the UN Security Council. Clemons? website lost no time, immediately complaining about too much anti-Iran hysteria generated by that ?Neocon Machine,? such as this site, and proceeded to pooh-pooh any idea that Iran might be close to developing nuclear weapons.
A simple question: Is Steven Clemons a Nuclear Physicist, plugged into the Iranian nuclear program in a way that the CIA might want to pay him a visit? Because if he?s not, what is the basis for his assertion that Iran is far from a nuclear weapon other than his suspicion of Neocon motives? His big source it turns out is a super-duper-secret, exclusive, multiple-sushi-dinner-expensive newsletter from one of those many Washington ?consulting? firms. Wow! OK, we can all relax now; Did you hear that Mr. President?
Mr. Clemons bristles about how we got our intelligence wrong in Iraq, and then waives intelligence sources (un-named of course) as presuming that we are five to ten years away from an Iranian bomb. Hopefully he's right. The bigger question is what if he and his supper-duper newsletter buddy are wrong?
Is it really unreasonable to air on the side of cautious on such a monumental life or death issue? Is it unreasonable to raise alarms and call for preparedness and possible pre-emptive action when it comes a nuclear bomb in the hands of nutcase-Mullahs with a love of suicidal martyrdom? Or perhaps we should all just take Mr. Clemons and his super-duper newsletter buddy's word for it? I?ll let you the reader make up your own mind without building up all kinds of hidden "intelligence sources" and "Secret newsletter buddies" to reinforce my argument.
Steven Clemons of the Washington Note blog believes that this whole Iran thing is the product of Neocon "hysteria" (read Jewish conspiracy). It was only a few days ago that Iran broke the UN seals on their nuclear facilities prompting those "always-hysterical” and "hawkish" Europeans to cancel all further talks and attempt to expeditiously refer the matter to the UN Security Council. Clemons’ website lost no time, immediately complaining about too much anti-Iran hysteria generated by that “Neocon Machine,” such as this site, and proceeded to pooh-pooh any idea that Iran might be close to developing nuclear weapons.
A simple question: Is Steven Clemons a Nuclear Physicist, plugged into the Iranian nuclear program in a way that the CIA might want to pay him a visit? Because if he’s not, what is the basis for his assertion that Iran is far from a nuclear weapon other than his suspicion of Neocon motives? His big source it turns out is a super-duper-secret, exclusive, multiple-sushi-dinner-expensive newsletter from one of those many Washington “consulting” firms. Wow! OK, we can all relax now; Did you hear that Mr. President?
Mr. Clemons bristles about how we got our intelligence wrong in Iraq, and then waives "intelligence sources" (un-named of course) as presuming that we are five to ten years away from an Iranian bomb. Hopefully he's right. The bigger question is what if he and his supper-duper newsletter buddy are wrong?
Is it really unreasonable to air on the side of caution on such a monumental life or death issue? Is it unreasonable to raise alarms and call for preparedness and possible pre-emptive action when it comes a nuclear bomb in the hands of nutcase-Mullahs with a love of suicidal martyrdom? Or perhaps we should all just take Mr. Clemons and his super-duper newsletter buddy's word for it? I’ll let you the reader make up your own mind without building up all kinds of hidden "intelligence sources" and "Secret newsletter buddies" to reinforce my argument.
Joe Gelman, you're out of line. Lots of us have
criticized Steve from time to to time. But
most people stick to criticizing Steve's views or
facts. Your cruising in and insulting him does
nothing to help your argument. Nor does the
sarcastic grade school tone. And the assertion
that Steve asserted that there was a "Jewish
conspiracy" is unwarranted.
After the infamous blow-up on the Washington Post
ombudsperson blog it occured to me that the
commentary on The Washington Note is generally
pretty good (although we all have had our
moments). So how about contributing to the
discourse rather than stooping to silly attacks.
What if we simply said yes to Iran? Not only yes, but "Yes, and now you bear the burden of responsibility." It's the tactic any good parent would use with a headstrong teenager. But alas, the problem is that America is as much the teenager in this drama as is Iran.
It is clear that any US policy (negotiating strategy) will depend on how much the US can trust Iran, not only to be a responsible party to negotiaions, but to be a responsible nuclear power. By Iran, I mean the leadership of Iran, those making the inflammatory public statements, the religious officials, and the economic elite. So, do we trust Iran?
Do we trust Iran? If we can live in a world where Pakistan has the bomb, we can live in a world in which Iran has the bomb. Or, at least, we should be able to. But the reality is that Iran's pursuit of national self-esteem (i.e. The Bomb) is good politics for demagogues both in Iran and in the United States.
So, why don't we trust Iran? Is it because we don't trust the Iranian government to handle nukes responsibly? ...And we somehow trust the Pakistani government? Is it because of Iran's support for "terrorist" groups? If so, we need an intelligent discussion about what terrorism is, the differences between Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and whether the different strains of terrorism should continue to be conflated for political uses in domestic US politics. But it's clear that we don't really want to solve the Iran problem. It's politically useful to have enemies in the world. Iran fires up the GOP base. Dems like Iran (and N.Korea) as a cudgel with which to beat the Bush Administration. It's good politics. Too bad it's terrible foreign policy.
Another argument (scare tactic) by the right wing websites is the threat of an EMP (elctro magnetic pulse) device being used on the U.S. -perhaps lauched from off shore- to knock out computers, transportation etc.
Could someone speak to this? It seems to me that this would be the least wise decision by Iran. Would not such an attack mobilze American forces deployed around the globe? Iran would face swift certain devistating military response, wouldn't it?
Am I way off here or is this EMP scenario just a very silly fantasy designed to create hysteria?
Anyone with some real knowledge on this, please dismantle either my amateur theorizing or the EMP theory.
Thanks
newly inaugurated Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine spoke about Iran -- and argued for a "tough policy."
A quick Google didn't turn up anything; Steve, could you provide a link or cite?
If it's true, it should be the last foreign policy statement of Kaine's term. We elected him to govern Virginia, not to spout off on volatile issues about which he knows nothing.
OT/Admin:
Steve, ever since the redesign (which is good-looking), it has become impossible to copy selected text from the blog. Any effort to select text gathers all the text from the beginning of the page to the cursor. I'm using IE 6 on a PC.
I hope there's a fix. On this thread, there are so many worthwhile comments (Dan K, Weldon Berger, Jean, marky's Q & helpful answers on bunker busters, among others) that I'm willing to use the tedious workaround (save the whole page and cut out what I don't want).
I hated the electricity and magnetism part of
physics in college. Actually, I hated most of
physicis, I'm sorry to say. Today I'm a computer
scientist, not a physicist. With this caveat...
The only way that a massive EMP weapon can be powered
is by a nuclear explosion. Back in the Star Wars
days of the Reagan administration there was work
done on EMP and all of the large scale devices
(that could knock out a city) where based on
air burst nuclear weapons.
One of the things that I've found very irritating
about the discussion of Iraq or Iran for that
matter is the idea that these countries are
"a clear and present danger to the United States".
If this is so, then then those of us who pay
taxes are wasting our money building up one
of the most powerful militaries in history.
An attack by Iran on any US city would be met
by massive retaliation. Few people in the US,
either on the right or left, would argue against
retaliation and an invasion of Iran
if such an attack were staged. The US has the
capability to take over Iran or any other country
of that size. It is just that the cost would
be prohibitive under normal circumstances. But
an attack on US soil would change all that. And
this is just convential weapons. An attack with
nuclear weapons would probably
result in a tactical nuclear response.
One of the reasons to fund a large powerful
military is so that you will not be attacked.
What this logic ignores is that the fear of
an external enemy and is politically
useful. G.W. Bush has built his entire administration
on fear. In fact, we are quickly becoming a
"republic of fear". It is time that we, the
citizens of the United States, got some spine
and stopped living in fear. It is time that
we stop trading our freedoms for protection
against imaginary threats. So yeah, the EMP
"threat" is just another paranoid fantasy.
The Bushies have never been able to get their
minds around the idea of stateless terrorism.
Their whole view of terrorism is the old
cold war state sponsored terrorism. The actual
terrorist threat is Non-Govermental Terrorism
(tm) (NGT). Loosely associated terrorist groups
that may be based in failed countries or regions
where anarchy reigns. If the Bushies were to
publicly admit that this is the real terrorist
threat, they would also have to publicly admit
that Iraq was not only a huge mistake, but that
the invasion of Iraq has done nothing but fund
NGT. The other problem with self-organizing
terrorism is that it does not use weapons that
large militaries are designed to deal with. So
it is not that there are not potential threats
out there. But the threats are not from Dr.
Evil and his EMP device.
Ian
Reader Comments (40) - post a comment