Start an insurgency in Iran. Arm the millions of disaffected youths, sick of the mullahocracy.

They (the mullahs) have actively been working to destabilize Iraq, it's time to do the same to them.

It would be much more effective than tomahawks and B2 raids.

"A bombing raid might through a wrinkle or two into Iran's nuclear program."

Or, perhaps, "throw" a wrinkle or two.

If only the "editor" who appears occasionally on this site were more often on the ball.

dan,
in your radio interview you said that if the USA attacks Iran, then you would begin to believe that the Israel lobby is indeed a major factor in American FP. When i was listening to the radio show i was wondering whether you considered a limited strike against Iran to be enough proof? so, if these talks about a possible plan to bomb some facilities in Iran are true, would you attribute them to the Israel lobby? It seems to me that the only people who are gun-ho for an attack are the typical pro-Israel neo-con like bill Krystal, Richard Pearle and, of course, the AIPAC...

One of the other things you said in the radio show was that a major reason you think the Israel lobby theory is bullcrap is because people consider the Israel lobby so well oiled and powerful domestically, yet the policies they advocate seem to be so consistently bad. and that you didn't believe it made sense. well, i think this type of action is typical of the republicans or any other radical lobby. Often they have very short term immediate goals and that is all. the republicans cut taxes no matter the cost, the Iraqi community in the USA was for the Iraq war before it without considering how bad things could become, and likewise, the Israel lobby is reactionary and violent in its support for Israel. but it does so with a very brutal philosophy of liquidating its enemies regardless of what happens as a result. The problem is that the average pro-Israel faction considers Israel as the ultimate victim in the world, and that it is always under attack and that all its actions are in defense of itself. The average pro-Israel view is that Israel is not responsible for the suffering of the Palestinians and that, basically, the Palestinian existence is simply a “problem.” With a mentality like this, it is obvious that trouble will result. The real sad part, or the irony, is that I (and other Arabs like me) would be a strong supporter of Jewish rights and a defender of their history as a suffering people if not for their utter arrogance toward and destruction of Palestinian society (plus, their denial of even doing it). It is like how the world used to be sympathetic of the USA after 9/11, yet now it is hated for its reaction.

In terms of Iran specifically, I think it is pretty clear that Iran does not want to fight the USA or Israel. It knows it will be crushed. But, unlike other countries, what is unique about Iran is that they are not going to be bought off and are not going to bow to pressure. considering how disproportionate the power of the USA is to that of Iran, the USA can put a tiny fraction of its power and influence forward in an effort to make life hard for Iran, while Iran has to use all its might to defend itself from that type of pressure. it seems to me that such a situation makes it fairly easy for the situation to get out of hand, even if neither side wants that to happen.

I am not sure if the USA and Iran can get tolerate being mutually hostile to each other without it degenerating into something more hot, but i believe that the USA has the power and responsibility to keep the situation cool. Over the past 30 years Iran has been an irritant to the USA, but has never really been a threat to America. There is no solid evidence (much less proof) that Iran is any more of a threat to the USA now then it has ever been. But the USA has closed Iran in and has troops on both its borders, not to mention trying to muster sanctions and other such pressures for Iran's attempt to continue nuclear energy projects that the USA itself started in Iran in the 70's. Basically, the increased pressure is senseless and it is pulling both sides into more open confrontation. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Iran can actually fight back. And that is a true danger for everyone in the world.

Iran's status as a threat to the US, both directly and indirectly, changes dramatically the moment it obtains its first nuclear weapon. That's why this crisis is occurring now instead of at any other time over the last 27 years.

Where exactly in the Constitution is the authority found to start ordering the lives of people in a soverign nation 10,000 miles from our border found? Right next to the descripion of the Unitary Executive(tm)? Or perhaps in the Amendment that grants us the right to suck down all the world's oil? Policy options? Unprovoked bombing attacks on a nation that _might be_ seeking to nuclear weapons - of which WE currently hold 8,000? And the keys to which we have entrusted to a man who says God speaks directly to him?

Cranky

I don't think military strikes will be a solution in and of themselves to the Iran problem (unless things escalate a very great deal, and we decide to go for forcible regime change). All the same, I suspect the military will be a big part of the ... what's the vogueish term these days ... *process* of dissuading Iran from acquiring nukes.

Cranky -

Since you asked.

Section 2: Presidential Powers
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Section 4: Obligations of the United States
Clause 1: Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

Clause 2: Protection from violence
... and [The United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

By the way, the Washington Post published an editorial by Elliott Cohen today in which he writes:

"One of Mearsheimer's University of Chicago colleagues has characterized this as "piss-poor, monocausal social science." "

Any idea who that colleague might be?

Caramba.

To Andrew Steele: From what I see, Drezner's spelling isn't usually that bad, and today's sample ("through" vs. "throw") doesn't significantly change his meaning, does it? What's up with the malice? You might as well beat up on "joe m" for his uneven use of e.e.cummings' style.

To Conscious at the Senate: I think I'm missing something: Cranky is venting about one thing, but your answers don't match up with his questions. Or do they?

I notice that there are people who're actually taking seriously this fantasy about attacking iran.

But it's absurd. There's no way in hell any sane american would consider attacking iran within the next 3 years. It's an opium dream.

There might be a serious question whether Bush is crazy enough to do it. But rational people aren't going to discuss whether it's a good idea.

This is just plain silly. It's a total non-starter. Maybe we're trying to persuade the iranians that we're crazy enough to do it, and so they should humor us to avoid the inconvenience. But they don't believe us, reasonably enough.

What are the russians doing? At this point they're giving us plenty of rope. They'd have to work at it to avoid profiting from our mistakes, whichever mistakes we happen to make.

The chinese? Probably their first priority is that nothing interferes with the flow of their oil. Remember when iran and iraq were at war, and we moved in to the Gulf to make sure they didn't disrupt shipping? We were glad for them to kill each other all they wanted, provided they shipped us our oil. Like that. They surely want the iranians to like them, so they'd like to get the credit for stopping us. And unless we actually attack, the chinese can probably get the credit for stopping us.

Moral? Don't bluff unless you don't mind backing down. This is one of the stupidest bluffs we've ever tried.

Assuming Bush isn't insane.

I am not sure if the USA and Iran can get tolerate being mutually hostile to each other without it degenerating into something more hot, but i believe that the USA has the power and responsibility to keep the situation cool.

Sure, just as soon as Iranians stop chanting "Death to America" and referring to the US as "the Great Satan".

How is it that the responsiblity to 'keep the situation cool' is entirely the US's?

-----

Personally, I prefer that the mullahcracy be deposed by an internal revolt, but I don't think that's likely to happen before the mullahs build a nuke.

Airstrikes wouldn't stop Iran's nuke program, but it would delay it, buying time for the other approaches to work.

If worse comes to worst and there is no internal revolt, it might even buy enough time for Iraq to settle down, and then we'd have the forces avaliable for other means to become avaliable.

Thanks Conscious, but although I have been reading those words since 4th grade (a looooong time ago I am afraid) I don't see anything in there about forming an uninvited empire 11,000 miles from the closest contiguous shore of North America. Iran has not invaded the United States, nor formented an internal revolt (if you tell me that funding Hamas is either, then we have another issue to discuss).

Jefferson smacked, and IRRC Teddy threatened to smack, the North African pirates/rogue states. And by a weird twist of fate Reagan did the same. Jefferson /bought/ a big chunk of North American empire (we will leave the Indians out for this discussion). And yeah, the Phillipines and the Pacific trusts are an oddity which may or may not count in our favour.

But invading and conquering other lands? Unprovoked preemptive attacks against sovereign states? The US can have 8,000 nukes not under any control but no other state on Earth is allowed (and some wonder why the French not only maintain 3 ballistic missile subs but build them from scratch themselves rather than buying from the US)? I guess I still don't see that in the Constitution.

The stench of fear that permeates the Radical party is sickening to me as a Citizen.

Cranky

There might be a serious question whether Bush is crazy enough to do it. But rational people aren't going to discuss whether it's a good idea.

Good idea? No, of course not. But rational people can certainly discuss if attacking Iran is less bad than the alternatives, some of which are pretty damn bad.

I don't know about you, but I'm not inclined to consider someone arguing "Iranian mullahs + nuclear weapons = something the US can live with" to be rational.

> I don't know about you, but I'm not
> inclined to consider someone arguing
> "Iranian mullahs + nuclear weapons =
> something the US can live with" to be
> rational.

What do you think the average Iranian citizen's (just a citizen, not a "mullah") opinion is concerning "Dick Cheney + tradition of military obedience to orders + backed up by nuclear weapons"? Is that of any concern to a moral citizen of the United States?

Cranky

Is that of any concern to a moral citizen of the United States?

No.

Right on, Cranky. And where the hell did *this* guy come from?

"Start an insurgency in Iran. Arm the millions of disaffected youths, sick of the mullahocracy."

Makes about as much sense as "start an insurgency in America. Arm the millions of disaffected Blue-Staters, sick of the Bushocracy."

If freakin' Pakistan and N. Korea can have nukes, Iran doesn't particularly scare me.

>> s that of any concern to a moral citizen
>> of the United States?

> No.

A position I would argue against (speaking as a Citizen), but it is at least a coherent and arguable position.

So my next question: why don't the Radicals have the balls to state explicitly that that IS their position, and run it during their Presidential campaigns? Why do they always have to hide their Cheneys behind a nicey-nicey front man ("compassionate conservative, no nation-building" Bush for example)?

Cranky

Rosignol, there are some options we could follow that are just as crazy as attacking iran this year.

But none of them are on the table.

Attacking iran is the only crazy option that's being discussed. The fact that we could come up with some that are even crazier doesn't enter into it. This is a nonstarter. It's insane. Anybody who seriously considers it is being insane, and is not an acceptable discussion partner.

A lot of people here seem to be making a lot of false assumptions, mainly that we can't attack Iran. Regardless of whether its a good idea, we have the capability to do so. It may (almost certainly would) require taking many troops out of Iraq, but while this may be unacceptable for many reasons, it is certainly possible. Especially if you take the view that many of our problems in Iraq lead back to Tehran. Whether this view is correct is impossible for me to know, but at the least, al-Sadr, the "Mahdi Army," the Badr Brigades and admissions by people that Pasdran officers were behind many assassinations and death squads would seem to at the least provide reason for further inquiry. The contention by many others (including critics of the current Admin -Robert Baer is the 1st that comes to mind) that Pasdaran officers were behind acts of terrorism against US interests, most notably the Beirut Barracks and the Khobar Towers in addition to its recent threat to use terrorism in the US would also seem to be worth investigating before allowing Iran to have a nuclear shield that protected it from attack.

I'm not advocating any course of policy here, I'm just saying that people basing their arguments on the assumptions that A)we can't attack Iran and B)we can live with a nuclear Iran; and dismissing anyone arguing we can as irrational or insane should do more homework.

So my next question: why don't the Radicals have the balls to state explicitly that that IS their position, and run it during their Presidential campaigns?

I wasn't aware there was a Presidential campaign in progress at the moment.

On a more general note, 'the Radicals' (of either party) are far from being a monolithic bloc, and it's up to the candidate to decide if they're going to listen to any particular faction... which makes it basically impossible to determine what 'their position' is except in the most general terms i.e., "genocide is bad", etc.

Why do they always have to hide their Cheneys behind a nicey-nicey front man ("compassionate conservative, no nation-building" Bush for example)?

It probably has to do with advice from some consultant about what kind of person is most likely to win an election.

Personally, I think that if the 'frontman' was someone considered a ruthless SOB, we'd have to actually *be* ruthless SOBs less often. Deterrence isn't 100% reliable, but if it didn't work at least some of the time, nobody would use it, right?

The mullahs' ability to stop an American invasion is effectively nil. Their ground forces would just be speed bumps. Iran's mountainous terrain and large area is a greater obstacle to invasion - the logistics problems from those and the fact that even utterly inept ground forces can defend mountain passes for a while will make American conquest of Iran a matter of months rather than weeks as in Iraq.

Our major problems in invading Iran will occur after the mullahs are overthrown, and IMO an American occupation of Iran would make our occupation of Iraq look like a walk in the park. This is IMO the biggest obstacle to any military action. We'd have to call up most or almost all of the Army and Marine reserves for several years, which for legal reasons would require either a formal declaration of war by Congress or something close to it.

The mullahs have considerable ability to cause trouble for us, including a great deal of economic injury, if we simply bomb them without invading. IMO they'd hurt us so much that we'll invade anyway.

IMO this is also the most likely scenario - we bomb Iran's nuclear weapons facilities, they retaliate, which in particular would entail closing the Straits of Hormuz and cause the price of gasoline in the U.S. to exceed $6-$7 a gallon, and then we'll invade.

The possibility that we would do nothing is IMO very small. I see far too many indicators of American military action - even the British govt. is trying to prepare public opinion in the U.K. for this (IMO they won't succeed, but they are certainly trying).

IMO it is more likely than not that an Iranian nuclear weapons test will be the factor which ultimately triggers American military action.

The scariest part of this is that IMO Iran already has a few working nuclear weapons, either made from fissionables and components obtained from North Korea, or weapons fully assembled in North Korea. See this January story in the Times of London:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2014464,00.html

"THE drab compound that houses the Iranian embassy in Pyongyang is the focus of intense scrutiny by diplomats and intelligence services who believe that North Korea is negotiating to sell the Iranians plutonium from its newly enlarged stockpile — a sale that would hand Tehran a rapid route to the atomic bomb.

...The Americans were aghast to learn last year that while engaging in disarmament talks, North Korea had made enough plutonium to amass a stockpile of about 43 kilograms, perhaps as much as 53kg. For the first time since the nuclear crisis began in 1994 it has sufficient fissile material to sell some to its ally while retaining enough for its own purposes.

Plutonium is the element used to fuel the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki in 1945. Between 7kg and 9kg are needed for a weapon. According to Siegfried Hecker, the eminent American nuclear scientist, officials in North Korea intend to restart a reactor that will produce 60kg a year.

Iran already has a nuclear programme devoted to plutonium research, according to John Bolton, US ambassador to the United Nations. In a 2004 speech Bolton said the Iranians were building a research reactor "optimal for the production of weapons-grade plutonium".

> IMO this is also the most likely scenario -
> we bomb Iran's nuclear weapons facilities,
> they retaliate, which in particular would
> entail closing the Straits of Hormuz and
> cause the price of gasoline in the U.S.
> to exceed $6-$7 a gallon, and then we'll
> invade.

Wow - so that is what they meant by restoring dignity and moral clarity to the White House. Glad my citizenship is being used to support such a course of action.

Cranky

BishopMVP, of course we can attack iran.

Similarly, it goes without question that we can also attack russia and china. Simultaneously.

There's no question that we *can* do it. The question is whether it's a crazy idea. And the answer is that yes, it's utterly completely batshit insane. Anybody who seriously considers attacking iran this year is a lunatic who should not be taken seriously.

Unless it's Bush, and we have to take him seriously.

Cranky & J.Thomas,

I see a definite "slippery slope" here. Once we get on it, by use of military force against Iran, I think we'll go all the way to the bottom in terms of conquest and occupation.

While I think that the result in terms of Iran will be a good thing - regime change - IMO the Bush administation will get there by the worst possible route for everyone - one which maximizes the duration of the conflict and thereby the casualties, suffering, destruction and economic injury.

Which would still be less in the long run than the casualties, suffering, destruction and economic injury ensuing from the mullahs having nukes for a few years before their own people throw them out.

But the hubris of thinking that the mullahs can't hurt us back if we bomb them will give them the chance to get off some of their nukes in the area, and certainly let them do the maximum harm in all the more expected ways.

"If you're going to shoot, SHOOT! - Don't Talk! - Tuco in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

Wow - so that is what they meant by restoring dignity and moral clarity to the White House.

Dunno about you, but I interpeted that as "interns are off the menu", not as a guiding principle for foreign policy, domestic policy, or governance in general.

Context matters, y'know?

Got it. Context. Dignity and moral clarity regarding interns. No dignity or moral clarity about foreign policy, domestic policy, or governance in general.

Glad we could clear that up for you, J Thomas. Don't the last 5 years make a lot more sense now?

If you listen to the neo-cons..."Iraq is going great...except for Iran meddling". The ultimate fall back position. When in trouble, Bush jr is all about the double down...let it all ride. He is doing gods will, why worry?
If we were, or are serious about the "long war" iraq, iran, syria, securing the oil fields WHEN the house of Saud falls...we need a draft and get the military to Viet Nam war personel levels...maybe more. The nation has a much larger population now. All of this is crazy...and then to do it in half ass fashion is sheer folly.

Centrist,

We won't need a draft. We had no problems maintaining an all-volunteeer Army of 750,000 and a Marine Corps of 225,000, in addition to a larger Air Force and Navy than we now have, during the period 1975-1995.

I agree that our ground forces must be increased beyond what they are now when the collapse of Saudi Arabia requires a generation-long occupation of the oil producing areas along the south side of the Persian Gulf. That is something we won't be able to avoid - the Saud regime is going down for reasons we can't influence or control, and it will take all the small Gulf states with it except for Kuwait.

But IMO our Persian Gulf garrison at that point need not be any larger than the one we had in Europe for fifty years - about 200,000 - 250,000 total. That we can manage with the Navy and Air Force we have now, plus ground forces at Cold War force levels - 750,000 regular Army and 225,000 Marines.

This will be something we have no choice about regardless of which party controls the White House.

Tom, why would we need a generation-long occupation of the oilfields when the oil mostly won't last that long?

Also, it's easier keeping a large volunteer army in peacetime.

J.Thomas,

a) 20 years is a generation & I think the known oil reserves of Saudi Arabia will last that long;

b) IMO the Saudis have considerable as yet unknown reserves;

c) We won't be there for just the oil. I don't think we'll stay "lucky". IMO we'll be hit again at home worse than 9/11, and probably several times. President & party will affect how many times we'll be hit again at home, and how hard, but not whether it happens at all. Consider how far 9/11 has taken us, and then imagine what something an order of magnitude or more worse will do to our behavior towards the source of the problem.

d) I don't think our occupation of the south side of the Persian Gulf will be "lively" the whole time. Initially yes, but consider just how uninhabitable most of Saudi Arabia is. It will become a population control issue in refugee camps along the coast, and that is much easier to handle.

Look at how effective our forces in Iraq have been in using "social networking" software to track terrorist networks, and then consider how much more effective it would be if we had real-time tracking of every man, woman and child via remotely readable electronic ID chips embedded in their butts or their ears or something (similar to pet ID chips). IMO we'll use such methods when we take over what had been Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil states. This and other things are coming which would make Big Brother in Orwell's 1984 envious.

I see a really scary future coming at us, and it won't be from just our foreign enemies. The means we'll end up using to deal with them can be used on us at home.

Again, it doesn't matter which party has power when this happens. Whoever has power will want to keep it and be tempted to use these things to do so.

Tom Holsinger, wouldn't a draft be needed? And, ah, concentration camps for the many dissenters?

It would probably wind up with a minority of the country supporting the government, a disaffected majority, and a large enough minority of saboteurs that we'd need a whole lot of homeland security -- the sort of thing we haven't started because it would cripple the economy. A lot of workers pretending to work while we pretend to pay them.

Wouldn't it be better to work on alternate energy? Instead of destroy the country to get the dregs of the saudi oil?

Your scenario looks eerily plausible. But I'd sure like to believe it might be avoidable.

dan, did you see this article in the New Yorker?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact