Thanks. This is a great followup.

Given the known proclivities of the people in this particular administration(and it's supporting party apparat), it's very easy for people to start questioning anyone who isn't as freaked out as they are. These days, it's probably a healthy thing to do, no?

After reading Lang and Johnson's piece in The National Interest, I was simultaneously calmed by their faith in the "insiders" to thwart irrational behaviors and upset at the possibility that the sheer inertia these people have towards irrationality was somehow being ignored. The latter thought, of course, was more emotional than anything.

It would probably serve all of us well if we not forget these irrational actors have put a lot of effort into segregating themselves from the rational. Anyone who has watched any cable tv news lately knows just how much pull these folks have.

The chorus needs to reach a crescendo sooner, rather than later, yes?

Steve,
Great Post. I have to wonder though, do you think that the Democrats are more concerned with winning in November than anything else? That is to say, as imporant as Iran is, are the Democrats not as focused on Iran because they are more concerned with winning in November.
The Democrats are in a decent spot to make a lot of progress in November, but I have to wonder if they may be sacrificing the greater good for a chance at reclaiming power.

Sure, they may be able to have it both ways, but right now it does not look like that will happen, and I say this as a Democrat.

Rogue nation v. Normal one Steve?

I don't think you're naive about much, but I think John Bolton spiked your drink just a little! One lesson that I hope comes out of the Dubya years is that the US is not God, and does not get to define everyone else with the filters of our "interests". It is only the United States that is calling Iran a rogue state, along with the US suburb near Jordan.

Until I see proof - CURRENT, CLEARLY IRREFUTABLE PROOF (and classifying it ain't gonna work no more) - that Iran is an enemy of the US, I'll take my chances trusting Iran's word about their nuclear intentions, yes, even with Mahmoud in office. If I could make some of those "National Security" shirts stop depending on the starch in their collars and sit up and listen, I'd tell them to do the same and back down now, before Iran wins this game of chicken and oil goes on to $300/bbl, aided by the explosive rise in the euro's value against ours. "Some fights you just ain't supposed to win, Goliath."

It may be too hard for Bush, seeing as how his family's mood varies proportionately with the price of oil and it's derivatives. But any politician wanting a sure win in November will guarantee us people, for whom the weekly fill-up is a waking nightmare, that they will either solve this problem or forfeit their right to run for re-election. No excuses, no reprieves, no whining about "Bush/Cheney/Rove are too strong".

Yes, we should be negotiating with Iran, over building refineries there and here. There really is nothing to negotiate in terms of nuclear issues. They have a right to develop nuclear energy, and our fears of the boogeyman in the closet with "Islamic nukes" have nothing to do with it. Admitting that we are wrong, in this instance, would go a looonng way toward rehabilitating OUR reputation and image!

Still spending time on your previous post: "...I spent significant time with Mossad officials in Israel and also the equivalent of Iran-watching State Department INR types -- who work in Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They simply aren't as nervous about Iran as we are -- not because they don't think that Iran won't be a threat down the road but because they know the problem is not imminent and because they seem to have confidence that Ahmadinejad is being deserted by many on the Iranian right who are embarrassed by his brand of populism." - S. Clemmons.

Being "spun" by Mossad? Aka targeted disinformation, allied psy-ops, etc., etc. Why would Israel (via Mossad officials) convey anything to the contrary? Let's get real, Iran attack is forgone conclusion.

Ryan I agree with you, they have the right to develop nuclear energy, and no madman would ever use nukes against the US unless they want to garantee there demise. Therefore to make sure no madman does such, we should stop meddling in other peoples business, and show governments the true American cluture, the true prosperity with capitalism to succeed. Hearts and minds that Bush wanted to capture dosent happen if you bomb the population.

Steve, I'm uneasy about the James Fallow reference in the last post about Iran. Nothing ever repeats itself exactly. For example, in 2002, some people might have been aware that equipment and troops were beginning to be moved to the Persian Gulf weeks before Bush gave his famous speech about his preemptive strike principle that June. This time our troops and equipment are already there in the Persian Gulf and around the periphery of Iran. What's there to move? What's there to notice? Except rumors of special forces activity?

I would also be very cautious about assuming that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are bluffing or, that if they are, that they know what they're doing. None of these guys are Kennedy; in fact, they're the kind of guys that Kennedy wound up ignoring. Nixon towards the end of his presidency tried to pull a bluff on the Russians after misreading them and was fortunate that they largely ignored what he was doing.

In 2002, many journalists had the benefit of a lot of leaks coming from State; those leaks have been plugged and it's not clear where Condi Rice is on these matters.

There is a possibility, I suppose, that conservative commentators feel Bush's desperation and are, perhaps on their own, foolishly trying to help him out with war talk (I recently Googled Charles Krauthammer and the first thing I noticed was an article he had written that had found it's way into a newspaper in Tehran; it was about Iran and was one of those end-of-the-universe-as-we-know-it-unless-we-do-something articles like the ones he wrote before the Iraq War). What bothers me is that Bush has plenty on his plate at the moment at a point when Iran may not have nuclear weapons for five-ten years. So why the sabre rattling at this moment?

Actually, from the semi-rational viewpoint of the Bush circle, there might be compelling reasons to launch a bombing attack well after the 2006 elections if Bush can find a way to hang on to Congress. For one thing, he really would be a lame duck by then without any more elections to weather (let's not forget that an attack on Fallujah happened immediately after the 2004 election though Iran is a far different matter). But there's a dynamic at the White House that has felt desperate for months; I would not underestimate that dynamic, particularly if Bush has seriously been thinking all along about Iran. Three years ago, there was more than just a little speculation that we would be in Iran by now.

In your latest post, I pretty much agree with everything after "One of my worries...." I would just emphasize that everyone has to be careful about rationally analyzing an administration with an inner circle that is not particularly rational and not particularly competent. Some administrations are dominated by some combination of policy wonks, visionaries or pragmatists. This administration is dominated by cheerleaders, bullshitters, cutthroat executives, wheeler dealers, gamblers and wildcatters. Those aren't perjoratives; those are just tags that define a lot of what is there.

Iran and Bush's handling of it is an issue Democrats need to take on. Particularly if the Congressional Republicans won't.

We are going to wake up one morning and be greeted with the news that the 'Great Decider has done decided', and the Lugar's et al, with all their tepid caveats can just get on board, salute, and shut up. And they will. And so will the media. And so will Dems, with notable exceptions here and there. The way to stop this bizarre, tragic, little man is to impeach him.

I believe, as sad and regretable as this is, there come certain times in life where you have to sing the old song to yourself, "which side are ya on boy...which side are ya on' and then decide. The American people will have a chance to become the 'great deciders' themselves this Fall. Lets hope they take it. Ya never can tell how often these chances come in life. The Republic does not have to be forever. There is nothing in our stars that says we can't screw this thing forever.

Steve, what is your understanding of what the military plans might be?

I understand that one plan would include occupation of the oil-rich province of Khuzestan, perhaps splitting it off from Iran as an independent country, along the lines of OPLAN 1002-04 - the "Khuzestan Gambit". Khuzestan is Shiite Arab, adjoins Iraq and produces 90% of Iran's oil, and occupation will leave Iran greatly impoverished.

So far the Administration seems to have no legal casus belli against Iran, but it has prepared to use a terrorist attack as justification. According to ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the August 1, 2005 American Conservative:

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections."

Speculation I've read is that the invasion of Iran is considered to the best way to save face over Iraq, and should serve Republican political interests as well. The open question is whether the Administration will find a sufficient legal justication, short of a terrorist attack against the US that can be attributed to Iran. This Administration has made it clear that where there's a will, there's a steamroller. That could hold true for the use of tactical nukes as well - they would "save" lives compared to a massive invasion or any possible nuclear attack by Iran.

We. Must. Not. Attack. Iran.

I agree that there are still checks and balances within the government, that there are indications that war is not imminent.

This is also what many people believed before Bush ordered the strikes on Iraq.

Given his insistence on his power, and his alone; given that he continues to say that everything's going fine in Iraq; given that he relentlessly pursues Iran as though it were and imminent threat; given that the Democrats (except for John Murtha and Russ Finegold) in Congress have been supine throughout;

We must continue to pressure our elected representatives in every possible way to prevent a major folly in Iran.

A psychiatric evaluation by a non-partisan team of doctors should be a requirement for anyone running for the Presidency/Vice Presidency of the United States. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is a crazed madman and won't be happy until he destroys the world so Jesus can come back and save it. I used to laugh when I heard things like that, but I really think this madman has a death wish and he wants to wake up in a new Jerusalem of rubies, emeralds and gold-paved streets. Maybe some milk and honey, and petroleum too, for him to bathe in.

In all the discussion of war with Iran, there seems little sense than Iran has any military options, other than rouse the Shia of Iraq against us and perhaps mining the strait of Hormuz.

In fact, the American garrison in Iraq -- 300 miles inland -- is supplied over a single road network just out of artillery range from the Iranian border. An Iranian reply to the American bombing campaign would be to push a few divisions into Iraq between Basra and Umm Qasr, cutting supplies to the entire American army. Such a move would turn the British out of Basra without firing a shot and bring down Blair, a la Eden after Suez, in a sort military/political doubleheader.

The Iranian forces would then move into Basra and create an even more powerful roadblock for the American supplies. The could also march into Umm Qasr and seize the port, or content themselves with shelling the docks from the outskirts. Both moves would be intended to completely destroy the American supply lines.

This would leave the American forces in central Iraq in a position where it would be difficult to stay -- reinforcements from the States will take months to arrive (assuming the Kuwaitis will permit the to come). They can try to hunker down, but this would mean giving control of Iraq to whoever can seize the streets. Laagered up in the bases, they would subject increasingly bold mortar and perhaps even artillery fire.

A counter attack would be equally problematic. Most of the equipment in-country is worn out and may not be up for a 300 mile drive through the deserts and the thousand IEDs and snipers awaiting them.

Re-suuply by air is problematic. In the Berlin airlift, transport planes didn't sweat handheld SAMs and flew right into Tempelhof. To get into Iraqi airfields, transport planes must execute flying circus spirals to get onto the ground. That eats fuel and more importantly time.

And while we decide what to do, the Iranians will be digging in in Basra and tearing up the road net leading in from Kuwait.

Bad as the situation of the American forces in Iraq is today, an invasion of Iraq would make it far worse.

check out my blog if you like to know about Iran

Why are people talking about Iranian nukes?

The same reason the talked about Iraqi WMD.

The fact is none are there, but Bush wants "regime change" and that's what he will do unless YOU stop him.

Rampant speculation:

First, read this: http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/clary.pdf

It's a documented and thorough discussion concerning Iran's procurement of nuclear equipment including P-2 equipment.

Here's the speculation part. There may have been a false sense by the US that after AQ Khan was rolled up, the Iranians may have been prevented or certainly slowed in their nuclear procurement abilities. This would allow the US to start dictating to Iran the terms of it's "nuclear surrender."

Under the circumstances, it would make sense for Iran now to balk at any such thing and confirm to the US that indeed their P-2 capabilites are up and running. Now, whether this is for real or not, I have no way of knowing. But the heavy handed, bull-in-a-China-shop approach to Iran was just asking for Iran to over-react, as I believe they have. The real issue, if anyone in the media cared, would be to find out how much of Khan's network died in the purge and how much is still active. That would probably answer the Iranian nuclear capability question in the reality based world.

Reality based world. Hahahaha! I just made a funny, sorry.

Dear Steve:

I met you a long time ago in California. As an Iranian expat and an ex-shi'ite, I highly recommend you and your readers to research the ideology of the regime and it's founder (Khomeini)and read the constitution of the Islamic Republic where it clearly states it's hegomonic goals comensurate with shi'ite worldview Caution: This is Khomeini's version of Shi'a Islam also called Hojatieh. Also, this version is practiced by Ahmadinejad and his spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi who is groomed to be the Next supreme leader replacing Khamenaie soon. Mesbah Yazdi is also a disciple of Heideggar. More on that later.

For us Iranians Ahamdinejad recent tirades against Israel are nothing new. The two main goals of the IRI since it's inception in 1979:

1- Exporting Islam and the revolution in the region and throughtout the world
2- Conquering or re-conquering Jeursalem (Quods in Persian).

Motivated by their own economic interests, the two former Presidents (Millionare Mullash of Iran Rafsanjani and Khatami who had created the "dialogue of civilizations" (Ahmadinejad since has cut the budget)in order to hoodwink the Western powers and the Arabs into believing that the regime was burying its Khomeinist ideology for good. And I might add they were very successful to fool the EU and the democrats and republicans--but not the Iranians--pretty effectively until the recent election/Coup of Ahamdinejad.

Ahmadinejad is reviving the original revolutionary discourse of Khomeinism without dissimulation.

Khomeini's concepts and ideas that Rafsanjani and Khatami treated as mere metaphors are being redefined as literal truths under Ahmadinejad. One key concept is that of the Hidden Imam, the awaited Mahdi of the Twelver Shi'ites. To Rafsanjani and Khatami, this has little immediate relevance to the actual life of society. Ahmadinejad, however, has restored it as the central truth of Iran's political, cultural, economic and social life.

The new president who hates the capitalist mullahs has written and signed a pact with the Hidden Imam — and has asked all officials to do so. Taken to its logical conclusion, this move dispenses with the need for any mullahs — including the "Supreme Guide."

This reinterpretation of Twelver Shi'ism excludes not only any form of rule by the mullahs but also any form of electoral democracy. In this way, Ahmadinejad hopes to outflank the two principal political forces that have been fighting for power in Iran since the middle of the 19th century. His message is: Neither mullahrchy, nor democracy. Ahmadinejad has also changed the Islamic Republic's international profile.

Rafsanjani and Khatami spoke one way inside Iran and another way outside; Ahmadinejad uses the same discourse everywhere. He addressed the United Nations just as he does a gathering of Jihadists in a Tehran
suicide-bomber training camp. Where Rafsanjani and Khatami tried to redefine Islam to please the modern world, a world that is shaped and dominated by Western ideas, Ahmadinejad is trying to revive the purest definition of the faith. He asserts that Islam is an alternative to the current global system, not a candidate for becoming a small part of it.

Those who have tried to build a life on the basis of a little bit of Islam and a little bit of Western modernism are made uncomfortable by Ahmadinejad — who is forcing everyone to take sides.

Like all totalitarian systems, the Islamist regime in Tehran needs to expand in order to survive. Mr. Ahmadinejad has worked to become more popular on the Arab street than he is in Iranian homes. His instruments of oppression – special units of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basijis – feel intensely disliked and find their morale eroded while on patrol in major Iranian cities, but they walk ten feet tall in the souks from Mindanawa to Damascus.

Witness the Islamic Republic’s ally (Translation:Oil dollars for Hamas and Islamic Jihad, poverty and destitution for the people of Iran)
Hamas’ victory in Palestinian elections. It is the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iran who for twenty years was nurtured and prepared for his present role by the leaders of the Islamic Republic. Nor is Iran limiting its bet to one option. When Iran's protégés have the money, information, and support from those who are masters of manipulation, intimidation and violence against their political opponents, they have a strong upper-hand against their rivals in a nascent democracy such as Iraq. In Lebanon, if Hezbollah can spend more money than the government building schools, mosques and hospitals – thanks to generous Iranian contributions – don’t be surprised if they win elections.
A "triangle" from Iraq to Lebanon to Palestine is being taken over by Iran’s allies through the ballot box. It could pull in the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, and when it does the same to the Shiites of the oil-rich Eastern province of Saudi Arabia, the encirclement of the Persian Gulf will be complete. Islamists will have achieved what the Soviets could not, namely complete control of the Persian Gulf oil and the jugular of Western economies. They would then have a latter day Caliphate to lead all the forces that are against the post Cold War vision of the free world. All the Islamic Republic needs in order to achieve this goal is to be able to use low intensity violence to supplement its financial, intelligence and organizational support for its allies. That is why Iran needs the bomb and-- had concealed it's nuclear program for 18 years--: to neutralize the conventional military superiority of the West, and continue to use terrorism and low intensity violence without the fear of escalation to high intensity conventional warfare. We carpet weavers of the Persian Empire are very patient and we think centuries ahead while the West’s vision is limited to a fixation on tolerance, freedom and democracy in the present. This aspect alone makes the West completely vulnerable and inferior in the conflict.

We have to face the fact that the Islamic republic’s ideology and doctrine is and has been moving toward fulfilling it's original goals for over 27 years now to be a Supremacist power bent on acquiring domination over the world as it's required by Khomeinism who made no secret of his conviction that his supremacist ideology should subjugate not just America, but the entire world: “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam (Nab-e-Mohamadi "utopian society")is obeyed in every country in the world... Iran is not attempting to acquire nukes for the purpose of protecting the people of Iran, but rather to "keep on augmenting their oppressive power against their own subjects as well as against the neighborhood States."

An outstanding blog by an Iranian blogger inside Iran:
http://broodingpersian.blogspot.com/

Another blog by an Iranian woman:
http://zaneirani.blogspot.com/

P.S. I certainly don't want the country bombed or god forbid nuked while I still have family living there. But the day of reckoning is inevitable...Sorry for the long post.

Try this link. The other one in the text doesn't work:

Iranian group seeks British suicide bombers

Dear Chris's x :

Please, by all means, if you object to Mr. Ahmadinejad, feel free to go back to Iran and straighten out your country.

American needs to get out of the business of overthrowing country's for the sake of all our exile community residents.

A very cogent point is that Iran does not vest a great deal of political power in the office of the president. US, like it or not, is an important player in global politics, both through covert and overt interventions and disinterest, and a country with a powerful executive when it comes to foreign policy. The electorate, on the other hand, is totally uninformed about the world. Coupled with a mainstream media controlled by corporate bottom line of what sells, it is a situation that costantly threatens to compromise the exercise of democracy aligned to popular aspirations which remains uninformed (a polite term for ignorant). This threat is not unique to US democracy. In other countries, however, public debate on issues of relevance is far more vigorous.

Another issue that SC raises is that if Iran does indeed go nuclear one day, however distant, we need to learn live with that reality, rather than wish to impose a US ordained dictat as to what reality should look like.

A point that Chris' x makes is that the presidents of the Iranian Majlis often rely on rhetoric to shore up their domestic base. In essence, the majlis is a body that is the public face for dealing with the world at home and abroad. Real seat of power is the spiritual leader.

Ahmadinejad's predecessors have followed domestic economic policies that were at best top heavy. The result is growing inequalities among the wealthy elite which has prospered and the majority whose poverty has ben exacerbated in both absolute and relative terms. Many recent economic reforms under both Rafsanjani and Khatami disinherited the traditional systemic socio-economic structures but failed to build a safety net or economic opportunities for the dispossessed.

A lot of the Islamic rhetoric is essentially a game the politicians play to divert attention from the real problems that need to be addressed - in the west we call it spin.

There has also been a lot of misinformation and misleading translations of Ahmadinejad's speeches. There is an english translation of an article that appeared in Kein Krieg! and is worth a read. The translation is not very good to make for easy reading but the essential message comes through. And this is from german to english! The link to the translation is: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

And beofore Carroll advises me to go back to Iran, I am not Iranian and have never been there.

This statement is oddly coldblooded coming from an Iranian ex-pat.

"I certainly don't want the country bombed or god forbid nuked while I still have family living there. But the day of reckoning is inevitable."

Some portions of that post read like they could have been written by Michael Rubin.

When Ahmadinejad first started spouting his stuff about Israel, the initial Israeli reaction was.....ho-hum....yeah what else is new....the Iranians have been blithering this stuff forever....

That was for domestic consumption .It didn't take long for the politicos et al to sound the alarms and activate the echo chamber.

Steve, you said "-- then a pissed-off, hostile-to-America, democratically legitimate, nuclear weapons nation is the worst outcome. What are some of the better outcomes?".

While it is an understatement to say that I question the wisdom of any attack in the near future against Iran I have to call you on that statement. Democratically legitimate? How can a country whose candidate pool has to be vetted by a hyper-conservative theocratic council be considered democratically legitimate?

And don't forget, folks, that Iran doesn't have to attack the U.S. in any way that can be traced back to them directly enough to justify military force on our part in the eyes of the world. They have "friends".

Wow, I didn't know that I couldn't read or speak Persian and that I was completely and utterly ignorant about the religion, the culture, the politics, of the society I grew up in. I'll be sure to learn those facts by reading some of your breathtakingly informed and politically observant comments here in this blog. And yes, lalla, I'm sure you care about my mother more than I do. I applaud your incredible insightfulness....I thank everyone for enlightening me and rescuing me from my utter delusions. I didn't realize truth was this frightening...

My last post on this blog:

The Power Structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Jim S - like you I do not wish to see a mayhem of either nuclear or bunker buster (covert nuclear) shock and awe unleashed on Iran or any other country than those already subjected to Depleted Uranium warheads (nuclear, nevertheless, in consequent radiation that persists in the food chain for 4,500 years) and that includes ex Yugoslavia and Iraq.

You raise the issue of democracy in a theocratic polity. I would like to point out that the Augustinian tradition in Christianity advocated exactly that form of social and political control that eventuated in the Spanish Inquisition and the 30 years' war in Germany, the Hundred Years' War across Europe.

The Enlightenment was born in the wake of generations of pain. The US Constitution is a product of that. It is not perfect as we can see in our current troubles without informed exercise of democracy by the electorate.

Islam needs to have an internal debate re accomodation of pluralities just as the Vatican had to face the realpolitic. That debate will be best informed without crusades or nuclear devastation.

We couldn't shape Afghanistan's Constitution or Iraq's for that matter. We should not even attempt to. In another environment, we could have exerted influence for Islam to accommodate pluralism. That, however, is a long term perspective and I am afraid that we lost a window in failing to focus.

I am not Muslim, so please do not berate me because you disagree with what I am saying. Fundamentalism that seeks to control is not peculiar to Islam. Bush prioritising T Schiavo but not Katrina speaks volumes. Bush was just being the Ahmedinejad in the US for his political base.

Great followup posts, Steve.

Steve wrote:
"Some commenters despair that I'm urging some caution about Sy Hersh's general conclusions -- based on the fact that James Fallows and Juan Cole are not in sync with Hersh's assertion that Bush is set on war with Iran. I'm not sure that it matters all that much -- this difference -- because it is essential that people are vigilant about inspecting and overseeing everything this White House does."

Good point.

I think the posters who take issue with the Hersh-Cole/Fallows difference of reporting or interpretation, do so because they hold the same bottom line that you state in the passage I quoted above.

At least, that was also the point of my posted comment: "it is essential that people are vigilant about inspecting and overseeing everything this White House does."

Just an observation -- If I recall correctly, John Murtha has also stated that top military officials are dissatsfied, shall we say, with the current state of affairs. Such opinions aren't likely to be universal, so there's bound to be disagreement. Murtha has been both direct, and circumspect, in that he's not named names, nor listed specifics.

But that seems to suggest that there is at least dissatifaction and disagreement at the Joint Chiefs. I'd have to review Murtha's statements to nail down the specifics.

Also, Tim Russert verified Murtha's statements in an appearance on Imus's show. The video is posted on Crooks&Liars, which is the only reason I'd know. Russert said that after Murtha's appearance on Meet the Press, he'd gotten a bunch of phone calls from inside the Pentagon, from high levels, saying that "Murtha was right." It raised Russert's eyebrows, no matter what anyone thinks of him.

Again, I'd have to review available press accounts, interviews, etc., to nail down the specific relationship to Hersh, Cole, Fallows, and their sense of what's on the horizon in Iran and/or re Rumsfeld's tenure.

But it seems to be another piece of the puzzle.

Murtha may well have some insight into the question's you've raised.

Thanks.

Steve:

Unfortunatley your thoughts (and relative optimism) about a possible war with Iran are based entirely on logic and rational thought. That type of analysis is fairly useless when attempting to read the tea leaves of this administration.

You have to weigh the inclinations of two individuals, Cheney and GWB. Cheney would attack Iran tomorrow if he could, facts and repercussions be damned. Bush talks to God and knows what is right.

Logic and rationality will have nothing to do with the course of action this administration takes.

I hear a lot of buzz about what Iran can do to respond to a US attack, especially if the US is so dense as to attempt the use of nuclear weapons like the "bunker busters". Sometimes there is discussion about the reponse of the Russians, the Chinese, but no one says much about Pakistan, the "other" Islamic nation bordering Afganistan, and one that is likely to fall into radicalism should Musharraf fall. What better way to assure that fall and enrage the Mohammedons than to bomb Iran, especially with ANY kind of nuclear weapon.
Within hours, Pakistan's ready nuclear weapons would become available to Jihadists salivating to use them on Americans and their allies! (Nuclear material would also become available from Pakistan's reactors and waste facilities.) But there's no way to get such weapons to America or even to Israel; Pakistan has no missiles with range or offensive aircraft that are really capable against defenses, and the time of voyage is too long to risk onboard ship except by some precarious scheme. At least, the nuclear bombs are really too valuable as terror devices to lose to capture in such rickety operations.
However, next door and bordered by Iran are lots of Americans and their allies on desert-located, concentrated bases that an atom bomb could really be effective against! And such a statement a successful attack would make! Since these bases would likely be participants to some degree in an Iran attack, the encouragement to the Iranian resistance would be considerable and would tend to assist in the unification of Jihadi cooperation region wide. One only requires a nuclear bomb bedded in a truck, parked on the chosen side of some mountain facing an American base! This seems to me a considerable sacrifice for attempting to deny Iran its potential for producing nuclear weapons in the extended future!

Ahmadinejad and his in power party "Abadegarane Irane Eslami" plan and work for a "clash of civilisation" paradigm. He believes he is one of the 36 "nails" in contact with the hidden 12th Imam of Shiism. He is to prepare a way thru conflict to ease the way for the revelation of Imam-e-Zaman. If one has no clue about such powerful unshakable concepts I understand the call for dialog. But as reality stands diplomacy is futile, conflict is the doctrine, paving the way for the 12th imam is the precept and global Islamic domination is the Ahmadinejad?s apocalyptic dogma.

This is not an over the top view. As an example German Chancellor Angela Merkel understands this. Please read this brilliant article by one of Iran?s most respected journalists with over 30 years of experience.

http://pasargadae-institute.blogspot.com/2006/04/frightening-truth-of-why-iran-wants.html

and Chancellor Merkels comments if you wish

http://pasargadae-institute.blogspot.com/2006/04/iran-as-bad-as-nazis-merkel.html