We always wondered what would happen if an irrational religious zealot got control of the bomb. Ironic that the US would be the test case. Does this mean that realists, idealists, and constructivists might be getting empirical evidence they've always wanted to see who's right?

Oh give me a break. Any president would be deeply concerned with Iran getting the bomb. And he would have to truly be an idiot not to realize Iran _will_ get the bomb unless stopped.

Hersh is playing games here. He knows darn well that the Pentagon comes up with contingency plans for anything you can think of. Why does this exact conversation come up every 3 months? The media finds out we have a contingency plan to invade country X and goes nuts, then the grown ups have to gently remind them that we have contingency plans to invade Canada if necessary, and have for decades.

And who is this nameless government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and how is he privvy to the President's inner thoughts? This just screams of gossip and hearsay. And then we have a nameless 'former defense official'. Who's that, Warren Christopher? This whole story is beyond hysterical.

For the life of me it looks like Bush is doing exactly what his critics had urged him to do, courting allies and trying to put Iran in a diplomatic box before even contemplating other courses of action. All these unsourced whispers of 3rd hand sources not withstanding.

The question, as always, is "What is Seymour smoking?" With his hallucinatory unnamed "high (government, Pentagon, administration, Illuminati, Bilderberger, etc. takeyourpick) sources," Hersh never fails to tell a story that even Lewis Carroll couldn't keep straight.

Okay, but if Bush did decide to nuke Iran, would you guys oppose it?

Yes, unabashedly.

We must take the president at his word and that war is always his last option,

And we're winning in Iraq. Victory is just around the corner. Total and complete unabridged VICTORY!

Bombing Iran would be a piece of cake, easier than a cakewalk. We'll use nukes to assure total and complete VICTORY again.

We must blindly trust our President or we are helping the terrorists win.

db:
Sieg Heil...

"Here's another question for readers: even if the intel on Iran is a slam dunk -- is anyone else bothered by the prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons as bunker-busters to ensure that Iran doesn't acquire nukes? "

I'm terribly bothered, or would be if there was a shred of evidence this was a realistic option now on the table aside from muckraking by a NYT journalist who knows better.

There have been some valid points made about Bush's (and the government in generals) credibility on the WMD issue. I agree and I am skeptical of intelligence reports. But, that being said, Bush has been subjected to so much irresponsible and unfair attack in a demagogic vein that it seems like his critics are starting to believe their own B.S. It may be fun to paint Bush as a shoot from the hip warmonger who doesnt listen to anyone but that simply does not reflect in any way how he is treating the Iran crisis. When characature doesnt match up to reality, its probably best not to abandon reality. I suggest we deal with the current Iranian crisis assuming we are all rational adults with the best interest of the US at heart, and that goes for both sides.

Sorry, Mark, in order to see what Bush is like, you only need to look at the collection of lies, half-truths, fearmongering, racism and war profiteering that is the Iraq boondoggle to take some "valid points" about Chimpy's credibility, especially when it comes to showing up his father, or keeping the base foaming at the mouth. You must have a couple of cases of the koolaid at your desk in order to be so wilfully blind to the man's lack of morals and character. Would you have voted for parole for Dahmer, too? This is a dangerous criminal enterprise that has stolen billions and killed thousands, broken dozens of domestic and international laws, ignored treaties, and spied on and mistreated innocent Americans to achieve its psychotic goals. and the "muckraking journalist" has been right far more often than not, and the real shame is that he's alone out there, while the shillionaires for Bush own the airwaves and print outlets. You're a sorry-ass excuse for a citizen.

Thanks Ronjazz. Its so much simpler when you flush your own credibility/impartiality/sanity down the toilet. Saves everybody else the effort. Get back to work on your Kucinich in 08 bumperstickers.

Hersh floated the "U.S. Special Forces in Iran" story a few months ago to general derision, and repeats it now based on the same information, i.e., none.

This is reasonable grounds to believe that he has similarly made up all of this story which he has not cribbed from other more credible sources.

The two stories in yesterdays' Sunday Times of London on Iran, and yesterday's Washington Post story, should be given more weight. Hersh these days is right about as much as a stopped clock.

The one thing of note in Hersh's story is his recognition that the Bush administration's objective is regime change. The more people who see such stories, the better.

Likewise Hersh's contentions about planning for American nuclear weapons use on Iran will IMO have the opposite effect of what he intended - people will link "Iran" with "nuclear weapons" with an "oh s***t! meaning.

P.R. flackery is not needed to convince the public that Iran's mullah regime is a threat to us. Likewise no P.R. flackery is required to convince the public that we should use military force to stop Iran from having nuclear weapons.

But it does help to remind the public that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Hersh's article does a fine job there.

My deeper concern is that when the U.S. is hit by another terrorist attack, we'll wake up to find that we've used nuclear weapons to attack Iran's nuclear sites. I can't imagine anything more likely to a) turn the rest of the world against us (as we lap the field as the only nation to use nuclear weapons, twice), and b) emasculate U.S. opposition (presumably there will be *some* link to Iran trotted out).

I think Mark's right. This kind of hysteria is exactly what happens when the press finds out about war plans. What's worse, if we did have to invade Iran (or any other country) and they found out we didn't have a war plan, they'd go apeshit about that, too. This is a non-story.
I tried to read Ronjazz's comments, but there appeared a thick layer of bile over my screen, which obscured what he was trying to say. Weird.

"Hersh is correct as much as a broken clock"...which make him correct on military matters two times a day more than the president.

Mark,
you and i had an exchange about this subject some months ago. we both agreed that the USA was not interested in dealing with Iran or Syria and that "regime change" was the only thing they would be satisfied with. Hersh reports it more crudely, but that is obviously true. We all know that the USA is not going to engage in serious discussion about Iran's nuclear program and that the quote from Robert Joseph in New Yorker article was an accurate representation of the American policy: Joseph’s message was blunt, one diplomat recalled: “We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran. Iran is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and our allies, and we will not tolerate it. We want you to give us an understanding that you will not say anything publicly that will undermine us.” Now, i disagree with this view, i do not think Iran is a threat (unless the USA forces its hand and makes it one) and i do not think Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons, but those views don't matter. The Bush view is plain as day. They will not negotiate with Iran and they are taking a hard line on how to deal with Iran. The Bush administration, whether right or wrong, does indeed makes it view into the reality of the situation (remember that quote about the "reality-based community"?). They pushed the Iraq war not because they had seriously thought Iraq was a threat, but because they had a philosophy of getting rid of Saddam. Same with Iran. whether they have weapons or not is completely beside the point (as their own 10 year estimates prove). the reality is that they want to take on Iran. and they will do it.

Now, I don't know whether i believe that even the Bushies are crazy enough to use nuclear weapons in Iran, but i do believe that they are seriously planning an attack. And it is not just some contingency plan to invade Canada, they ae serious about it. They know that Iran will not give in to pressure, and they are not even going to present an option that would make it worth it to Iran to make a deal. So I don't see any other viable option then for the USA to do some type of attack on Iran. Especially if Bush does view it as his divine right or as his religious duty or whatever that Sy Hersh has been saying.

To me, the one thing that this whole deal has proven beyond a doubt is that the Europeans are complete idiots. I have been brushing off the right-wing argument that they are spineless for some time. Usually they have been defending countries i have sympathy for in their spinelessness, so i actually thought they were sticking up for principle or something. But that they have allowed themselves to be dragged in as cover for yet another American attack proves to me that they are the pathetic grabage that the right has been saying for a long time. At some point there is going to be a rhetorical break between them and the USA, but that is all they will do. At least Turkey denied the USA the use of its bases for a couple weeks. Europe will not even do that.

Seymour Hersch?

Unnamed sources of unspecified access?

Wild claims?

And anyone should believe a word of this... why?

Post from both Buehner and Joe M?

Hilarious thread.

What have YOU guys been smoking? Iran has built long range missiles capable of delivering nuclear cargo in Europe and Russia. It took them 20 years. They are steadily working on producing nuclear bombs. They are approaching a situation where they can decide and implement in one shot the demolition of Ankara, London, Moscow or Tel Aviv.

The ancient and respected Persian people has no enemies. President Bush, by defeating Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq, did a great favor to Iran by eliminating its last potential adversary. What, then, is Iran trying to achieve by acquiring the means of killing millions of far away peoples?

The answer is obvious. And if Iran is allowed to do it, everybody will follow. If America is unwilling to carry on this burden and fill the role of policeman, (1) chaos and violence will reign, (2) many millions will die and (3) the survivors will welcome anyone, but anyone, willing to impose order. An order that will be far worse than the celestial peace and harmony we do live today.

R. Kipling said it well, in a very unfashionable poem I shall not quote.

, or would be if there was a shred of evidence this was a realistic option now on the table aside from muckraking by a NYT journalist who knows better.

Hersh is not an NYT journalist.

And Hersh has been guilty of some muckraking and has been wrong in the past (largely on matters related to the Kennedys), he was right on My Lai and he was largely right on Abu Gharib.

So he may be wrong, and exaggerating on occasion, but he has come up with solid scoops.

Joe, I largely agree with what you just said. But it does not then follow that the only two options are nuclear assault or invasion (or both).

Everyone has ideas about what Bush really intends, but the guy is constantly fooling people by doing the unthinkable and actually doing exactly what he says he will do. In this case he is rounding up the Western alliance to see whats left of it. I think you are incorrect that no deal would be acceptable- there are deals on the table right now that Iran has walked away from. If Iran came to their senses and accepted one there is little reason to believe Bush would spurn everyone on the planet and go to war with only himself in agreeance. Its just not realistic. In all probability he would declare victory and try to find another way to undermine the regime internally.

If you listen to the Bush rhetoric (again, always a good idea which is rare in politics), you wuold come away with the impression that they would love for this thing to go away but are unwilling and unable to close their eyes to it and pretend.

That being said, the reality of the situation is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are not going away, and either the US must act or accept an Iranian arsenal. Bush did not create that dynamic, it has been Irans course for the last 20 years. Where we part company is assuming an air campaign combined with economic strangulation cant be tried once negotiation has completely broken down. It makes no sense to skip right over the viable and practical military option in favor of the drastic and earth shattering.

Okay, but if Bush did decide to nuke Iran, would you guys oppose it?

That is the wrong question.

Try this question instead:

If the USA did make a sneak attack on iran, what would you do then? Would your response be different if our sneak attack involved nukes?

I'm glad we all agree that it would be insane to actually attack iran this year.

I also would prefer to believe that Hersch's reports are all wrong and the US government is not actually planning to do anything so crazy.

erg,

Hersh tried to peddle the "U.S. Special Forces in Iran" story months ago and was laughed at by everyone who bothered to respond to it.

He repeats that story here without showing how he has any different information than before.

Hersh invents stuff. He's been caught lying. He's been less credible than Debka for years now.

This seems pretty absurd. I would not support a sneak attack against Iran - nuclear or otherwise. I would, however, support impeachment at that point.

I don't think this is reasonable being considered. We need to consolidate, or try to, our positions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Could the people trying to smear Hersh show a bit more class, please.

You're talking at least as much bullshit without a trace of an argument.

Tom,

I'd be saying the same thing about Debka if Daniel Drezner had created a thread based on a Debka story.

A better thread starter would have been the following by William Arkin, who is a former researcher for Seymour Hersh:

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/04/goldilocks_and_.html

"... If I believed in conspiracies, I'd almost think that the articles were planted by the administration as part of the ratcheting up of threats to dissuade the Iranians from going forward with their clandestine nuclear developments. But I know the reporters involved all too well -- I once worked as Sy Hersh's researcher and we've been friends for decades -- and I dismiss this possibility.

I find much wrong in detail about the two articles -- and I'll write about the facts this week -- but I don't want to end up being some predictable MSM basher.

... Second, the public needs to know that the train has left the station on bigger war planning, that a ground war -- despite the Post claim yesterday that a land invasion "is not contemplated" -- is also being prepared. It is a real war plan; I've heard CONPLAN 1025 ..."

Hersh tried to peddle the "U.S. Special Forces in Iran" story months ago and was laughed at by everyone who bothered to respond to it.

Was he right? Was he wrong? Do you have any evidence either way?

Here's another question for readers: even if the intel on Iran is a slam dunk -- is anyone else bothered by the prospect of using tactical nuclear weapons as bunker-busters to ensure that Iran doesn't acquire nukes?

Arken also says,:

"I know Iran is as much as a decade away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but the stand-off has also produced its own tensions and thus additional contingency planning"

so i'm not sure what to think of his reporting. Everybody with a dog in this hunt seems ok with cherry picking analysis and intelligence tidbits to bolster their own conclusions- but ignore that which is counter to their claims. A lot of this stems from a very rational skepticism of our intelligence capabilities (i've had very good success with the Costanza-CIA method, ie, believe the opposite of everything the CIA thinks).

Is there any evidence of Hersh lying? I mean, actual evidence, not just that the things he is alleging are hard to believe. Abu Ghraib was hard to believe.

Personally, I hope he made up his sources. But he did break My Lai and Abu Ghraib, and his stuff about the Kennedys has held up too.

It looks to me like somebody at the Joint Chiefs is alarmed at the way the President, the Vice President and the civilian Pentagon leadership thinks, and talks to Hersh.

It is obvious why the military leadership is worried: a first use of nuclear weapons would be the end of the post-WWII order. The US would be completely isolated internationally, and the Coalition would have to get out of Shi'ite Iraq very fast.

Of course, none of us really know. But SH's record is better than the White House's.

"Is there any evidence of Hersh lying? I mean, actual evidence, not just that the things he is alleging are hard to believe. "

I dont think anyone is suggesting he is flat out fabricating. There are a lot more subtle ways to get your agenda across. Hersh has been around the block long enough to know what a contigency plan looks like. Some source (who has an agenda of his or her own, perhaps truly afraid Bush is a nut, or perhaps just unhappy they didnt get that promotion) leaks to Hersh that their is a plan to nuke Iran floating around. Hersch knows full well there are many such plans for many places, but that doesnt a good story make. So he runs with it as a cog in his 'Bush is out to get Iran' story. It is very likely true, just utterly taken out of context. The point is SH knows better, and his stories seem to be consistantly alarmist in that direction. The argument that even paranoids have enemies doesnt seem to strengthen his credibility much in my eyes.

Hersh reported that the Administration is considering the preemptive use of tac nukes against Iran.

I see 2 criticisms on this thread: (1) Hersh lies, don't listen and (2) Hersh is telling the truth, but it's just a plan, so don't believe him.

I have a hard time reconciling these two.

But the point of the article, which I see no reason to disbelieve, is that the plan for tac nukes on Iran is much more on the table than, say, the Pentagon's back-of-the-drawer plans for invading the United Kingdom or Mexico.

Mark,
I see it as basically an irresistible force meets the immovable object type situation. To its core the US administration sees Iran as a danger. Equally stridently, the Iranians believe they have the right to produce nuclear technology (again the Robert Joseph quote, "We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran." shows that the USA will not accept even confirmed peaceful technology) and see the USA as a danger. It doesn’t actually matter whether they are producing nuclear weapons or not or whether they represent an actual threat, the Americans are fighting the ideological battle over Iran's position as a player and a possible threat. In this respect, the Iranians are not going to back down to a degree acceptable to the Americans. The only thing acceptable to the Americans is either that Iran stay in the Stone Age or that there is a regime change. Even the basic pride of any people would not allow that, let alone the Iranians who have a great history and national pride.

I ignore the possibility of a deal being worked out because, like it or not, Iran does have a legitimate right to nuclear power and technology. Iran has offered that the staff for the plant is American or Russian, but that was rejected. It seems clear that Iran rejects the option of not having the technology on their own soil. No country would allow themselves to be completely emasculated in this way, and no country should. So that leaves us with not much room to move. I am not optimistic. In my view, at its core this is a debate over regime change in Iran and the nuclear issue is just what is bringing it out into the open. The USA will not allow a strong Iran, and Iran wants to be strong. Neither side is reasonable; from their own perspectives they see themselves as right and have no reason to change their views. I am not sure what will happen at the extreme end, when Iran is literally facing attack or after the USA has done some covert military operations in Iran, but at that point it seems like at least small scale war could break out.

Maybe if the USA and Iran were actually in open discussions with each other and seemed serious about coming to a negotiated solution then I might think otherwise. But the way things are going, I don’t see much hope for anything but war. I don't know what shape it will take, but that seems the most likely to me.

Why do these imminent nuclear threats from the axis of evil always seem arise right before a mid-term election? It's just stumping me and I can't figure it out.

I have always disliked invoking the Hitler comparison, but there is something so earily Hitlerian about a national leader asserting he has to do something because no successor would be "courageous" enough, i.e. radical enough, to do it. Hitler repeatedly invoked precisely the same logic in explaining the war, both before starting it and after. I do not want to suggest GWB is a genocidal maniac, just that this attitude, if true, has very, very bad antecedants.

"But the point of the article, which I see no reason to disbelieve, is that the plan for tac nukes on Iran is much more on the table than, say, the Pentagon's back-of-the-drawer plans for invading the United Kingdom or Mexico."

Step back and think about that for a second. Would you really want to have an administration that wasnt more prepared with its contingency planning against Iran than Mexico or the UK?

Mark,

Unless, Hersh is outright lying, then he has a number of (albeit anonymous) sources confirming this.

I assume that there are very few pinko anti-Americans at the top of the US career military. I also assume they are aware of the difference between an "option" and a plan to militarily occupy Toronto.

So it worries me when they are worried. I hope you're right that there is nothing to this, but I don't know where your confidence comes from.

What I do know is that if the US does this, it's the end of the de facto acceptance of the US military presence in Iraq by the Shi'ite population, which means total defeat in that war. It's the end of the Western alliance, as every other NATO country would distance themselves from this pronto. And it is certainly the end of the NPT regime, which the Bushies seem determined to kill anyway for ideological reasons.

There is a radical Islamic nation that already has nuclear weapons. Call me crazy, but I think its existing nukes are more dangerous than Iran's hypothetical future ones. It's true that its current leader is moderate and more or less friendly to the U.S., but it's also true that he's had to survive five or so assasination attempts largely motivated by that moderation. If there's anything more suicidally crazy than making his continued moderation and good will impossible by launching a nuclear sneak attack on another Muslim country, I'd prefer no one mention it, because you nevr know what highly-placed idiot might decide it's a good idea.

"I ignore the possibility of a deal being worked out because, like it or not, Iran does have a legitimate right to nuclear power and technology."

According to who? Who determines such things? Do they also have a legitimate right to nuclear weapons? Why or why not? Lets be realistic here- the only true international law is what you can get away with. Always has been, probably always will be. You could say, oh but there are nonproliferation treaties against nuclear weapons but not against power. Perhaps so, but they are so much paper because the UN will not enforce the NPT. So Iran can have nukes if it wants and the only consequences are what the US (and a handful of allies) make them. Is that any more just?

"No country would allow themselves to be completely emasculated in this way, and no country should."

No country with so great a history of supporting terror and attacks against the United States and the West has an inherent right to its martial pride.

"In my view, at its core this is a debate over regime change in Iran and the nuclear issue is just what is bringing it out into the open. The USA will not allow a strong Iran, and Iran wants to be strong."

Iran also wants to use nuclear weapons against Israel and assumedly the United States if it gets the chance. Do you sell a loaded rifle to a convicted felon you hear yapping in line about shooting up a synagogue? His rights end where the rights of others to survive begins.

Man, i can in no way condone a known fascist-terrorist state from obtaining nuclear weapons. If it hurts their feelings and they feel slighted, we're going to have to live with that. We arent living in the Model UN here, these are bad guys with bad ambitions and if anybody wants to debate that- find somebody else, its a given with me. This is the Post 911 world we're talking about. Iran's so called rights dont much interest me compared to the threat of a nuclear weapon slipping into the wrong hands. We've talked a lot about a democratic uprising. Well somebody run the scenario of what happens if the Mullahs are overthrown _after_ they gain nuclear weapons? Anybody want to contenance what Ahmadinajed would do with his back against the wall, rebels at the gates, and his finger on the trigger?

"And it is certainly the end of the NPT regime, which the Bushies seem determined to kill anyway for ideological reasons. "

How allowing Iran (and assumedly anyone else that wants them) to have nuclear weapons with no realistic punishment allows the NPT to survive in any but the most Orwellian fashion is beyond me. The NPT is dead and the body is cold. Not because of anything Bush has done, but because of everything the UN hasnt done.

Attacking Iran is consistent with the White House National Security Statement that says the US will attack any country that could become a threat in the future. (Think: Minority Report or abortion for national-states.)

When Bush spilled the beans on Valerie Plame and her front group BrewsterJennings, he compromised the only intelligence gathering on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Why? To eliminate any source of information to contradict his claims against the Iranians. Kevin Phillips is probably right about Bush's messianic, Armageddon beliefs informing his policy decisions.

But, woe unto us, if Bush goes ahead with this first strike approach; because, all the other countries would love to do the same to their adversaries.

It is time to head to the bunker or border) when the first neo-con starts saying how the Iranians are going to welcome the Americans/Great Satan with flowers and sweets.

Another thing that is really over my head is why we didn't bomb Iran first, before Iraq. I understand that some say it's because of bad intelligence the president got stove-piped to him. But come on, how could they be so wrong? If Iran could have a bomb in a year, or five, or even ten, they posed a far greater threat than Iraq ever did.

It does not inspire confidence in their current assessments, particularly in the face of dissent from the military and from the UK. I would not bet my house let alone my son's life that they got it right this time.

Mark,

The NPT regime lasted three decades. Bush decided to kill it by invading Iraq on a non-proliferation theory and then more recently by giving India everything the NPT denies non-signatories.

If you think there is a "UN" out there for you to get mad at, you are mistaken. But there are iterated non-zero-sum games, which generate norms, which you ignore at your peril. The whole world warned you, but you ignored us.

That being said, the reality of the situation is that Iran's nuclear ambitions are not going away, and either the US must act or accept an Iranian arsenal.

Suppose this is correct. Then Bush must either back down or attack.

Suppose that Bush refuses to back down. Then he must attack.

Suppose that technical advice says he can't reliably take out the iranian WMD program with conventional weapons, but nukes are required. Then his choice is to back down or use nukes. Isn't there a strong chance Bush would choose to use nukes?

He could of course start with a conventional attack and only go to the nukes when assessment shows the conventional attack has probably failed.

What is the likely result of US airstrikes on iran? Would iran throw out their government and set up a new one friendlier to the USA? Would they lick their wounds and try to pretend it didn't happen? My guess is they'd declare war. Say we hit them so hard they essentially lose their whole army. Would they still declare war? I think so.

When iran declares war, the USA can freeze their monetary assets in this country, and we can confiscate real assets. They'll do the same. We'll have a million-plus iranian-american civilians to deal with somehow, along with a moderate number of iranians here on visas etc. We'll probably have to detain them. This is no problem, Bush will unquestionably have complete war powers -- we will literally be at war.

Other muslim states will have an incentive to side with the iranians. There's some question whether we've pushed at the sunni/shia split hard enough to get sunnis to stay out of it. Presumably the iraqi parliament will immediately vote to tell us to leave iraq -- which will at least solve the iraq problem for us. Would saudi arabia or kuwait do anything about our oil imports? They might have to, to stay in power. Or maybe not.

The UN couldn't do anything. We have a veto.

China could do economic sanctions. I'm not sure what that would involve. They could outbid us for various oil contracts, but it would be oil from places like venezuela, that would have to cross oceans that the US Navy owns. We could just void the contracts and take the tankers. We could blockade China, cut off most of their oil. China could stop selling to us, but south korea wouldn't stop. Japan might try to have it both ways, keep trading with us but tell us to leave our japanese naval bases. We could of course tell the japanese that we're not leaving and there's nothing they can do about it.

I find it extremely hard to predict. But in six months we'd be living in a whole new world, not a brave new world but much more like 1984.

So, let's say that somehow we win this war. Iran sues for peace and agrees never to make nukes. Maybe they even get a regime change. What then? Will we be in any shape to attack the next country that tries to make nukes? Brazil? Indonesia? Nigeria? Ukraine? Not likely. After iraq and iran we've shot our bolt. And if we don't stop the next one, nobody does.

That tells me that nonproliferation is dead. Whether or not we stop iran we can't stop any others. Nonproliferation is dead.

Given that we're likely to face a dozen or 3 dozen new nuclear powers within the next 20 years, how much is it worth to us to stop this one?

That tells me that nonproliferation is dead. Whether or not we stop iran we can't stop any others. Nonproliferation is dead.

Only if you rely solely on military action as the solution. This is why Bush's plan as reported would be foolish, hasty and counterproductive, just like his India treaty is. I know the mid terms are important and bush is in a death spiral, but we already fought one unnecessary war for similar reasons, and to disasterous results. The stakes are much higher this time around.

I don't know what the President is going to do, any more than the rest of us do. I would say two things, however. First, we cannot and should not attack Iran this year. Most likely we will not be in a position to do so for several years if at all. We are terribly exposed in Iraq and, even if we were not, it would be extremely difficult (some would say impossible) to to mount a bombing campaign that would truly knock out Iran's dispersed, fortified, and well-hidden apparatus. (I suppose that's where the talk about tactical nukes comes in.)

Second, it is not "irrational Bush hatred" to see that this Administration went to war with entirely too much eagerness, and without a clearly conceived plan for dealing with the consequences. Thereafter, it was highly resistant to learning new information that might have improved the situation in Iraq.

All that said, I see a great virtue in putting down a marker against a bombing campaign or an invasion in the foreseeable future. I wish I saw a way to do it without calling the Administration out in public, but really, they have to be made to fear the political consequences of a rash decision in order to focus their minds and think harder about whether this makes any sense. Bottom line, we don't know whether they're planning something like a bombing campaign or (God help us) actually committing troops. If you think that would be a really, really bad idea right now, you should speak out against it.

Mark,
basically, you and i agree on their ideology. and with that, it flows naturally that there is going to be a war.

I will say it again, it is not about actual nuclear weapons, it is about the idea of regime change. Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Robert Joseph said it all when he said: "We cannot have a single centrifuge spinning in Iran." They don't want Iran to have the technology, no one thinks they have weapons.

and, db, they attacked Afghanistan and Iraq first because they are the weakest, not because they were the most dangerous. They have an ideology of taking down these governments, and those were the easiest (re. wolfowitz at the senate saying it would pay for itself...). They are working behind the scenes on Syria now (they can't do it in the open because there is still too much Arab solidarity and anti-Israeli feeling for that), and they will outright confront Iran.

couple of thoughts about the story itself:

this sounds like a lot more than just the sort of endless contingency planning that any agency does.

i'm not sure about consistent 100% accuracy in every statement in Hersh's article ... it's not that he's ever invented stuff out of whole cloth, but there's always a lot of bold statements followed by the CYA of ", according to a senior/former/high-ranking whatever." But, I believe most of what I read in there, and that's more than I can say for the administration.

If we use nuclear weapons against Iran we will not be "lapping the World as the only nation to use nuclear weapons--twice" but trice.

Two things:

First, I don't get this "but they are at least a decade away from making the bomb" argument....so what should we do? wait 9 years and then bomb them? Iranian regime won't go away in a decade if they are left alone....anyone claiming otherwise has no idea about Iran or Middle East. So why wait?

Second, what if we nuke them? Say we use tactical nukes and threatened to use strategic nukes if they attack our troops in Iraq, the ships in the Gulf etc etc. Who would oppose? Who can do anything about it? What did the world do after we nuke Japan? Russians or Chinese will risk nuclear war with the US over Iran? I doubt...our so-called allies in Europe will cry out and bitch about it..but that would be it. Yeah yeah there will be some bitching all around the world...but time heals everything...eventually what it would come to is the fact that no country (including muslim countries around the world) will lift their fingers to protect Iran. The US is too powerful right now to balance against...and balancing is not automatic..people, statesmen, decide to balance...I do not see any leader right now that has the incentive and, to be blunt, the balls to actually engage in hard balancing against the US.

So we introduce the use of tactical nukes, so what? It is bound to happen anyway at one point in time. Better us nuking them than vice versa.

"The NPT regime lasted three decades. Bush decided to kill it by invading Iraq on a non-proliferation theory and then more recently by giving India everything the NPT denies non-signatories"

Oh? Did Bush hand India or Pakistan nukes? NK? Was it the NPT that took Libyas nuclear research from Tripoli to Tennesee, or was it Bush's actions in Iraq that scared them into it (Or just marvelously magical timing as some suggest)?

B.S.

The UN did nothing substantial to prevent an Iraqi nuclear program, aside from starving civilians and enriching Baathists. The UN has done nothing to prevent NK from obtaining nukes- somehow the 'multilateralism' goes out the window for KJI and it is America's problem again. The UN has done and will do nothing substantial to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I dont know of anyone who is arguing that if America steps aside, the UN has any intention much less capability of preventing Iran from developing nukes. It seems plain that our choices are allowing Iran to have them, or the US (and friends) stopping them. Or is there some diplomatic alternative i havent heard of that you are suggesting the UN will live up to?

"The NPT regime lasted three decades. Bush decided to kill it by invading Iraq on a non-proliferation theory and then more recently by giving India everything the NPT denies non-signatories"

Oh? Did Bush hand India or Pakistan nukes? NK? Was it the NPT that took Libyas nuclear research from Tripoli to Tennesee, or was it Bush's actions in Iraq that scared them into it (Or just marvelously magical timing as some suggest)?

B.S.

The UN did nothing substantial to prevent an Iraqi nuclear program, aside from starving civilians and enriching Baathists. The UN has done nothing to prevent NK from obtaining nukes- somehow the 'multilateralism' goes out the window for KJI and it is America's problem again. The UN has done and will do nothing substantial to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. I dont know of anyone who is arguing that if America steps aside, the UN has any intention much less capability of preventing Iran from developing nukes. It seems plain that our choices are allowing Iran to have them, or the US (and friends) stopping them. Or is there some diplomatic alternative i havent heard of that you are suggesting the UN will live up to?

I think I'm at the point where I don't want any more legacies from the Bush administration.

I, too, am of the opinion that Bush has got more than enough foreign-policy legacies and he doesn't need to go looking for more. If he wants to reform Social Security, great, maybe do something about illegal immigration, wonderful, but I'd prefer to let things settle down a bit in the middle east before we shake it up again. But what I want and what is going to happen are two very different things.

Iran is going to get the bomb if the mullahs aren't stopped, and any President, Republican, Democrat, or Other would be very concerned by this. Far too many people are refusing to quit the partisan BS and treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves.

As far as using a nuke to disrupt the Iranian nuke program is concerned... eenh. I would prefer it be done some other way, but it must be done, one way or another.

A nation that is the leading sponsor of terrorists (now that the Soviet Union is gone) and refers to the US as "the Great Satan" must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons for reasons too damn obvious to state.

-----

What is the likely result of US airstrikes on iran? Would iran throw out their government and set up a new one friendlier to the USA?

Unlikely. Nationalism can cause people to take the side of groups they wouldn't normally support when the nation is under attack by an outsider.

What is almost certain to happen is an internal crackdown on pretty much anyone suspected of being less than militantly anti-american, Iran's various terrorist pets being told to hit the US as often and as hard as possible, Iran's special ops provocateurs in Iraq assassinating any pro-western political types, and Iran's military avoiding a direct confrontation with the US military (this is certain death for them), but trying to close the Strait of Hormuz to tankers and possibly firing missiles at Saudi oilfields to disrupt production.

All fairly predictable stuff, really.

When iran declares war, the USA can freeze their monetary assets in this country, and we can confiscate real assets. They'll do the same.

The US froze Iranian assets back in the 70s. US companies have been forbidden by law from doing business in Iran for decades. Don't you know this?

We'll have a million-plus iranian-american civilians to deal with somehow, along with a moderate number of iranians here on visas etc. We'll probably have to detain them.

Why? Most of them are here because they didn't want to live under the mullahs.

[rest of the poorly-informed speculation snipped]

The "plan to use nukes" aspect is hyped reportage of contingency planning, and obviously so.
Why?
Because though a military planner might include nukes as an option, it would only be to discount them.
They have an obvious downside of fallout both literal and political; and they simply are not needed.

If airstrikes as a means of terminating the Iranian missile programme are decided upon, they are unlikely to be some 24 to 48 hour timescale operation. Despite the political downside, they will likely be sustained, at varying intensity, to ensure effect, over days to months. And not restricted to nuclear-related sites, either: air defence would certainly be hit, and naval and missile assets targets too, at the least. And sustained conventional strikes are perfectly capable of ripping the Iranian nuclear infrastructure to shreds, especially at its unavoidable points of maximum technical vulnerability. (Bombing does have other problems, but they're not really the issue in this context.)

The advantage of a nuclear strike is speed. That can do the job in a day, or less. But it has even more political downside than sustained bombardment. There is only one argument that might outweigh it, that would absolutely require speed and maximum assured destruction: if Iran was thought to actually have, or be on the point of assembling and deploying, nuclear weapons.

And Iran is at least three years, possibly more, from having the that capability. Estimates of ten years are over-optimistic, but it does take time, inescapably, to set and run a uranium super-enrichment cascade and/or plutonium production reactor and fissionables processing.

Absent some very unlikely possibilies - (a) Iran has a second, more advanced secret nukes programme or (b) entire US govt made up of loons - nuclear strikes can be discounted. Even conventional strikes are probably right off the agenda until 2008 earliest, given that two years delay would give time to stabilise and disengage in Iraq, chance possibly to remove one of the key Iranian pieces from the board i.e. Syria, and even a possibility that sanctions could undermine the Iranian regimes economic vulnerabilities.

What's up with you guys and the pissy attitudes (rosignol et al)? Is this a serious exchange of ideas or are we in effect trying to say, "Hey, I am the intellectual equivalent of a 9-incher. Obey my reasoning."

Anyway, if you strip away all the testosterone in these posts, I see some interesting ideas. But reading through them I think I see something many of you many not: the positions are so very American-centric, with little thought to the merits (or otherwise) of other cultures. I'm not arguing that Europeans aren't weenies or the Mullahs aren't Bad Guys, but note the underlying idea that it is up to the US to decide who is "worthy" of the A-bomb and who isn't, who we'll let into the club and who must be shunned.

Sounds like God is American.

Iran is going to get the bomb if the mullahs aren't stopped, and any President, Republican, Democrat, or Other would be very concerned by this. Far too many people are refusing to quit the partisan BS and treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves.

I agree. Everybody ought to be concerned about iranian nukes. We were concerned about russian nukes, and chinese nukes, and pakistani nukes, and we should have been extremely concerned about israeli nukes but we weren't. We should be concerned about iranian nukes too.

As far as using a nuke to disrupt the Iranian nuke program is concerned... eenh. I would prefer it be done some other way, but it must be done, one way or another.

No, you're looking so hard at one horn of the dilemma you're impaling yourself on the other horn. People who say "We can't tolerate iranian nukes so we have to do whatever is necessary to stop them" have gone temporarily (I hope) insane.

Attacking iran this year is insane. This isn't a question of looking at the risks and the benefits and making a rational choice. This is plain crazy.

A nation that is the leading sponsor of terrorists (now that the Soviet Union is gone) and refers to the US as "the Great Satan" must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons for reasons too damn obvious to state.

Insane.

We'll have a million-plus iranian-american civilians to deal with somehow, along with a moderate number of iranians here on visas etc. We'll probably have to detain them.

Why? Most of them are here because they didn't want to live under the mullahs.

Because we won't know which ones are the saboteurs. So we can't have any of them walking around, not unless they're special people we know we can trust. Don't you recognise the logic? If we can't trust iranians in iran with nukes, we can't trust iranians in the USA with personal freedom.

[rest of the poorly-informed speculation snipped]

Tell us your insane speculation. What assumptions can you make that will give a result that's even better than iran with nukes?

[shrug]

If you see problems with the ideas I'm tossing out, point to them and say what the problems are, or throw out some ideas of your own.

As far as deciding who's worthy of the A-bomb is concerned, that was decided back in 1968. Iran's not on the list.

I'm not arguing that Europeans aren't weenies or the Mullahs aren't Bad Guys, but note the underlying idea that it is up to the US to decide who is "worthy" of the A-bomb and who isn't, who we'll let into the club and who must be shunned.

We used to mask that better. The claim with NPT was that everybody's better off without nukes, that nations are stupid to get into nuclear arms races, that nations that don't have nukes should agree not to get them while nations with nukes should agree to disarm. It might possibly have worked.

http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf

Note that a nation such as iran can withdraw from the treaty at any time, on 3 months notice.

The world was pretty sympathetic to NPT. They're a lot less sympathetic to us deciding nukes are fine for our friends and not allowed for our chosen enemies. Since in general our friends are not their friends....

This whole exercise is based on the idea that we are the only superpower, that we can do what we want and nobody can stop us. If that turns out not to be true we might discover unpleasant ways to find out it isn't true.

does Hersch lie to get his point across? mislead? unintentionally? intentionally?

From his article:

"The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency's officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but "nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran" the high-ranking diplomat told me."

Of course, this fits with his thesis that only the neo-con, military freaks in the Bush administration believe there's a danger from Iran. yet...

UN officials find evidence of secret uranium enrichment plant
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 07/04/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/07/wiran107.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/07/ixnewstop.html

United Nations officials investigating Iran's nuclear programme say they
have found convincing evidence that the Iranians are working on a secret
uranium enrichment project that has not been officially declared.

Suspicions were raised after officials from the UN-sponsored International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) travelled to Pakistan at the end of last year to
interview A Q Khan, the atomic scientist who masterminded the successful
development of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal.

does Hersch lie to get his point across? mislead? unintentionally? intentionally?

From his article:

"The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency's officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but "nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran" the high-ranking diplomat told me."

Of course, this fits with his thesis that only the neo-con, military freaks in the Bush administration believe there's a danger from Iran. yet...

UN officials find evidence of secret uranium enrichment plant
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 07/04/2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/07/wiran107.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/07/ixnewstop.html

United Nations officials investigating Iran's nuclear programme say they
have found convincing evidence that the Iranians are working on a secret
uranium enrichment project that has not been officially declared.

Suspicions were raised after officials from the UN-sponsored International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) travelled to Pakistan at the end of last year to
interview A Q Khan, the atomic scientist who masterminded the successful
development of Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal.

Uh, Dan, wasn't Sy Hersh the guy who said he didn't really feel the need to always get the facts exactly right???

If you see problems with the ideas I'm tossing out, point to them and say what the problems are, or throw out some ideas of your own.

OK.

What is almost certain to happen is an internal crackdown on pretty much anyone suspected of being less than militantly anti-american,

Yes, and a similar crackdown in the USA.

Iran's various terrorist pets being told to hit the US as often and as hard as possible,

Iran doesn't have much in the way of noniranian terrorist pets, that won't be much of a problem. But a very few incidents in the USA will be enough to put our iranian/american citizens at great risk.

Iran's special ops provocateurs in Iraq assassinating any pro-western political types,

What pro-western political types? It's political suicide to be pro-western in iraq.

What's the chance the iraqi Assembly votes to tell the Coalition forces to leave iraq quickly? Could iran or somebody else bring in special weapons that let them disrupt our convoys or air supply? It wouldn't have to be iran doing it, we have lots of ill-wishers these days.

and Iran's military avoiding a direct confrontation with the US military (this is certain death for them),

Sure, but how can they avoid us? Once their air defenses are neutralised we can strike anywhere we can spare a plane. Putting stuff in cities wouldn't help much, we showed in iraq we'd bomb stuff in the middle of civilians. (Saddam's announced plan to hide his military stuff among civilians so we'd have to kill civilians to get it was not a good one, while we might have slowed down to find a humane way to deal with it, we sure weren't going to let it stop us.) So anyway, iran should spread out their forces as much as feasible and try to make them harder targets. And they might as well try to make little raids on fuel depots etc in iraq, turkey and afghanistan. Not much they could do about the carriers.

but trying to close the Strait of Hormuz to tankers and possibly firing missiles at Saudi oilfields to disrupt production.

That seems stupid to me. They'd lose more in good will than they could gain against us. But they might do it. Better to attack US ships than third-party tankers, and better to aim at US assets in saudi arabia than oilfields. Arab governments might face internal problems if they're insufficiently anti-american, but not if iran is shooting at them.

What about the rest of the world? We seem to be assuming the rest of the world will stand by and wring their hands and do nothing. That worked foro the nazis for years, but then it stopped working. I can't see many nations standing up and doing much for iran's right to have nukes, but if it gets framed some other way.... What could china do to us? Is it something that four carrier groups could stop?

Picky details aside, here's the big picture. We're afraid for iran to get a nuke because they have it in for us. They have it in for us mostly about the things we've done to them over the last 60 years or so. So we have to keep doing worse to them so they won't be able to get us back. But in the long run, when we act this way everybody is going to have it in for us. Is that an acceptable result?

Picky details aside, here's the big picture. We're afraid for iran to get a nuke because they have it in for us. They have it in for us mostly about the things we've done to them over the last 60 years or so. So we have to keep doing worse to them so they won't be able to get us back. But in the long run, when we act this way everybody is going to have it in for us. Is that an acceptable result?

J Thomas, I have to assume that the disagreement comes from types who think that "everybody" *already* has it in for us.

They're mistaken of course, but I don't think they'll realize that until it comes to pass.

Excellent statement of "the big picture," btw. Nobody seems to have a grip on what preemptive nuclear aggression would do to the U.S. around the world, for years to come. For one thing, the number of terrorists trying to nuke an American city would go up by one or two orders of magnitude.

Its this kind of self-hating thinking that got us where we are. In one breath we're talking about the arrogant america-centric worldview, and in the next wringing our hands that its all our fault there are Islamo-fascist maniacs denying the holocaust, vowing to wipe Israel from the map, blowing up cultural centers in South America, taking American civilians hostage on soveriegn American soil, and funding groups that commit terrorism around the world. Please.

We need to get past the hand-wringing blame America first mentality first thing. _This isnt about us_. There is an idealogical movement is the world today that has risen up to challenge the West. Much like old school fascism and communism, it survives only by spreading. Our enemies are telling us straight up who they are and what they are about. Yes American arrogance plays into this- the arrogance of modern Western nihilistic guilt culture smug enough to believe our capricious ways are the root of all that is wrong in the world. Our enemies are telling us what is wrong- Britney Spears, Danish filmmakers, Belgian cartoonists. But we are too arrogant to hear them.

These people are our enemies. We need to decide real quick whether our society is worth saving, because Iran and their allies have already made up their mind. All this comparing a nuclear Iran with a nuclear Israel or India or anyone else is just a symptom of this sickness- a fundamental unwillingness to face up to an evil in this world even worse than the big bad United States.

The likelihood of the U.S. doing a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran is about zero. We don't have to use nukes to achieve our objectives there.

The benefit of Iran thinking we are contemplating a pre-emptive nuclear strike on them is enormous. It's probably the only thing keeping them near the bargaining table.

Is there a plan for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran? Of course there is. Just as there is a plan for one on all of our enemies and potential enemies. We have thousands of war plans - it's largely what the war colleges exist to do. It would be entirely irresponsible for the U.S. not to have these war plans.

Here's a scoop for Mr. Hersh that will shock the world - the U.K. no doubt has a war plan for a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the U.S. EVERYBODY PANIC!!

_This isnt about us_. There is an idealogical movement is the world today that has risen up to challenge the West. Much like old school fascism and communism, it survives only by spreading. Our enemies are telling us straight up who they are and what they are about.

That's exactly what we faced with china. Maoist china had a bunch of crazy people, they were led by a crazy fanatic who talked about nuking the USA. We didn't nuke china, and look at china today.

The fanatics you're worried about are a whole lot weaker than china was. So far they don't run a single nation. (Iran is trying to become a regional power that can influence its neighbors, they want to be a counterweight to the guys you're talking about -- supposing those guys ever get a nation. The arabs are not going to get unified behind persian rule.)

These people are our enemies. We need to decide real quick whether our society is worth saving, because Iran and their allies have already made up their mind.

As did china. We survived maoism handily by being the USA. We don't need to shrink ourselves to something far less to survive islam.

"The fanatics you're worried about are a whole lot weaker than china was. So far they don't run a single nation. (Iran is trying to become a regional power that can influence its neighbors, they want to be a counterweight to the guys you're talking about -- supposing those guys ever get a nation. The arabs are not going to get unified behind persian rule.) "

First off- I dont by any means advocate nuking Iran. I hold bombing as a last resort to prevent Iran from gaining or posessing nuclear weapons.

We did in fact fight China, as veterans of the Korean War will atest. Had we not turned back communist agression in Korea there is no reason to believe it would have ended there. China became a secular communist power it was (and is) possible to deter via the MAD doctrine. Even so they managed to bog down over a billion people in the chains of fascist communism. Our problems with North Korea and hence Iran itself stem largely from China. I dont think we need more friends like that.

It is hideously dangerous to automatically assume Iran is deterrable in conventional ways. The fact that you dont consider the current regime fanatical is distressing. Again, who are the arrogant ones here when we arent even taking what these people are flat out telling us seriously? Its not like we havent been warned- straight from our enemies lips. Repeatedly. Even if Iran isnt suicidal, look at how Iran has utilized terrorism around the globe already. Do you really want to see what they are willing to do once they have a nuclear deterrant capable of raining destruction down on Europe? Again, the only way to feel ok about this is to on some level believe we are getting what we deserve. Thats suicidal. Whoever's fault this is doesnt matter anymore.

"This isn't about us." - Mark B.

I disagree. The West, and specifically the US, started this whole party. We have expanded like any other empire throughout history as fast and hard as we could and will pay the consequences.

Latin America (not to re-direct too much the conversation) is going seriously Left these days because of us: the US pushed the Washington Consensus hard in the '90s, forced it down everyone's throat (privatize everything and grow grow grow!) and lo and behold the experiment failed. And please don't go the route of blaming lazy corrupt Latins alone for that. The US as actually brought Commies back from the dead down here.

What we have now in Latin America is the reaction to that arrogance. Ditto the Middle East.

The fact that you dont consider the current regime fanatical is distressing. Again, who are the arrogant ones here when we arent even taking what these people are flat out telling us seriously?

Well, I'll tell you straight, Mark.

It isn't that the iranian regime isn't fanatical, or that there aren't fanatical iranians.

The problem is that the US regime is fanatical. And you are fanatical.

Given two awful threats, it looks better to do more about the closer one, the more imminent one, the crazier one.

Iran may get a few nukes in a few years. They may get a long-range delivery system in a few more years. Bush has 10,000 deliverable nukes right now. By great good fortune none of them have been used yet, and with very good luck maybe none of them will be used during his lifetime. Iranian leaders make empty threats that they might be able to carry out some years down the road. Bush makes threats he could carry out in hours. The iranian leaders look crazy. Bush looks crazier.

The iranians talk like they aren't deterrable. So does Bush -- though it appears he backed down on north korea.

Whoever's fault this is doesnt matter anymore.

I agree. Listen, there's no easy way to tell you this. But you aren't responsible. It isn't your fault. You have been driven insane by events, and you'll be a lot happier when you get out of denial and into therapy.

"I disagree. The West, and specifically the US, started this whole party. We have expanded like any other empire throughout history as fast and hard as we could and will pay the consequences."

I guess you could argue Mohammed started the whole party, because he and Islam fit that definition as well. Regardless, it is not the United States that condemned the extrimists in the Islamic world to pursing a Taliban like system across the globe. Again, this is in its own way the height of self-importance, thinking we are the alpha and omega of all cultures and all idealogies.

J Thomas, our conversation is obviously coming to a close. All i can say is, who is the crazier one here? The guy who blames America for all the ills of the world and fears a president who has brought freedom to 50 million people from the most brutal fascists on earth, more than a terrorist sponsoring state with the stated goal of starting a nuclear war. Look in the mirror my friend, you are the one unhinged. You idealogies have lost their footing and you have no safe harbor, so all you can do is lash out and grab on to conspiracy theories. Many people like yourself were in the same breathless tizzy about Ronald Reagan. Always its easier to pretend there is some terrible monster at home instead of growing up and facing our responsibilities in the world by making tough choices. Running away from them and playing dress up with your straw men here in America isnt going to save you if the grown ups dont deal with a crisis like Iran.

"I dont by any means advocate nuking Iran"

Speaking of crazy, Buehner, weren't you the one suggesting on Winds of Change or some other blog that the US should nuke regime targets in Iran pre-emptively to bring Iran to its knees. If it was some other lunatic, my apologies.

St. James the lesser:
"We have expanded ... as fast and hard as we could and will pay the consequences."
Really? A bit of historical perspective please. In the all-time imperialist stakes you Americans are, frankly, no-hopers.
In any case, even if this were true, would want yourself, and your fellow citizens, to pay the consequences, if those consequences were quite hideous? A bit masochistic, surely.

Personally, if informed I must accept such risk to atone for a (debateable) collective historical fault I'd be inclined to reply: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Regarding the Washington Consensus, it was called "consensus" for a reason: it was broadly accepted internationally that protected and directed markets and inflationary economics were not viable, and had been seen to fail after being applied in Latin America, India and elsewhere in the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
Arguably the consensus was insufficient. Certainly it often failed to address the crucial problems of domestic elites using the state to protect and enrich themselves.
Certainly any country is entitled to elect governments that advocate alternative courses, and to undertake social reforms. However, reversion to an earlier failed economic model is unlikely prove a viable alternative in the longer run, initial popularity notwithstanding.

And I seriously doubt many within the Iranian regime spend much time pondering the iniquities of the Washington Consensus.

John F., I mentioned the Washington Consensus not because I feet it plays any possible role in what's happening in Iran, but rather to make a point regarding the US's imperial (over)expansion. And I think you helped make my point: Latin America is too often at the whim of the winds blowing in the US. The move to the Left in the region is a reaction to an earlier shift to the Right, and I also suspect it will end sadly. Latin America needs to grow up some day and begin taking responsibility for itself, but that is no easy task with Goliath next door and that unwavering Monroe Doctrine thing.

But "no-hopers"? That's too much. I think we Americans have done the imperialist/empire thing better than anyone in history. What other empire grew as rapidly, as expansively and had the military might we enjoy (and I mean allowing for comparable technology at different times)? And I'm counting only from 1945-present, although it really started at the turn of the 20th century. Damn, it's a unipolar world!

I do not wish suffering for my country as a whole, or any other country, for that matter. I do thing you reap what you sow, and America has committed the classic mistake of overextension typical of late stage empires: note that we are leveraged to the hilt both as a nation and individual consumers at a time of low interest rates that have to continue to rise, thus setting the stage for much pain in the medium term. We blame others (the Chinese) for our own economic maladies. We have also gotten involved in unnecessary wars (plural) and are apparently pondering yet another. No, I am not a masochist -- but my country seems to be going that way.

And to me, the "Frankly, my dear" thing don't come across as Tough Leadership or Common Sense Realism or whatever point you are trying to make. It comes across as callous.

Mark, you are the crazy one here. You believe we are the superpower, who can mold the rest of the world, force them to do what we want by sheer military might.

But we pay for our bombs with borrowed foreign money. Our military is good at destroying other armies and navies but it isn't very good at molding and forcing beyond that.

Until we find new technology for molding and forcing, we're better off to let the fanatics kill each other and we move in and fix things up after they get tired. That worked for us in WWI and WWII, we had light casualties and minimal expense. It doesn't work for us to be the fanatics the other fanatics go after.

But when you are a fanatic yourself this simple good sense sounds crazy.

But "no-hopers"? That's too much. I think we Americans have done the imperialist/empire thing better than anyone in history. What other empire grew as rapidly, as expansively and had the military might we enjoy (and I mean allowing for comparable technology at different times)? And I'm counting only from 1945-present, although it really started at the turn of the 20th century. Damn, it's a unipolar world!

You're using such a fuzzy definition 'imperialist' that damn near any Great Power qualifies, and limiting your data set to exclude evidence that contradicts your belief, and even then you get it wrong. The US's borders stopped expanding in the 1800s, and shrunk in the 1900s (Philippines independence, 1946). How do you reconcile that with your self-imposed "1945-present" timeframe?

As far as comparable growth is concerned, there were the Spanish, who basically conquered Mexico (and everything south of it) by shooting whoever survived smallpox and was still fighting- that was back in the 1500s and 1600s. Then there's the British, who ruled what, around 1/4 of the planet (both in terms of geography *and* total population) back in the 1800s. And the Russians, who pretty much ignored everything east of the Urals until they decided they wanted it, and had the largest nation on earth when they were done. The US, for all it's direct power and indirect influence, actually has a much lighter touch than just about all of the historical 'empires', both with regards to the territory it governs directly, as well as it's neighbors.

That's the real factor that's led to the 'unipolar' world- many people may resent or envy the US's power, but not so much that they're willing to give up their friendly relations, favorable trade terms, and security guarantees... and even when the US does something they consider ill-advised and generally obnoxious, what the US is doing is not crushing a democratic state or extorting trade concessions by force (the traditional 'empire starts throwing it's weight around' stuff), it's knocking over someone widely recognized as a brutal despot.

But that's quibbling. This is the important part: "I do not wish suffering for my country as a whole, or any other country, for that matter. I do thing [sic] you reap what you sow,...

Translation: 'we deserve it'.

However nice it would be to believe that there's some kind of great karmic wheel that balances everything out in the end, the real world doesn't work that way. Examples of nations being bastards and getting away with it are numerous, as are examples of fairly inoffensive governments getting screwed.

Open a history book that isn't about the country you're from sometime, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Two words: Mohammed Mossadegh. He was abrasive, but he was democratically elected and he was doing what any other leader of a resource-rich nation, responsive to populist opinion, would do-- trying to ensure that his people benefited from the sale of his country's resource. But Churchill was arrogant and stupid enough (his last gasp as prime minister) and duped pretty-boy Dulles into the coup against Mossadegh back in '53. That was an incredibly stupid, gratuitous move that got this whole Persian Gulf mess into motion.

Without that, Iran might have been a friendly nation to us, and a democratic example for the rest of the region. But now we're reaping what we've sown. I don't believe that we somehow "deserve" to get hit by the Iranians, but we have to have some perspective here and stop with this idiotic, "we're on the side of right and justice, the Iranians are the loopy madmen" act. We're the ones who went in and screwed them in the first place, and some awareness of that can help us to see where much of their hostility to us is coming from.

That's the real factor that's led to the 'unipolar' world- many people may resent or envy the US's power, but not so much that they're willing to give up their friendly relations, favorable trade terms, and security guarantees... and even when the US does something they consider ill-advised and generally obnoxious, what the US is doing is not crushing a democratic state

That has happened occasionally. Mostly cold war, and mostly with some subtlety. The recent thing in venezuela was distressingly inept.

or extorting trade concessions by force (the traditional 'empire starts throwing it's weight around' stuff),

We've done things that could be interpreted that way, that come kind of close. After the saudis jacked us their king got killed by his nephew back from UCLA, and they thought it was CIA mind control. It might have been sheer coincidence, but they've been extremely cautious around us ever since. Various times and places our guys have had private negotiations with other guys, and they wind up doing what we say. Were there threats involved? Who knows?

it's knocking over someone widely recognized as a brutal despot.

That doesn't seem so bad. But when you look at how much it cost and the people killed and all, it might have come out a lot better to just buy the country from him. Morally it wouldn't be great for him to get away unpunished, but in practical terms....

But that's quibbling. This is the important part: "I do not wish suffering for my country as a whole, or any other country, for that matter. I do thing [sic] you reap what you sow,...

Translation: 'we deserve it'

Not necessarily. The words do have those overtones but he may not have meant them that way.

Actions do have consequences sometimes. Like, if you drive aggressively and cut people off etc, you're more likely to have an accident. Not that you deserve it, you just make it more likely. But then you can drive defensively and still have an unavoidable accident with an aggressive or careless driver. You don't get what you deserve, but you can affect the odds both by driving conservatively and by being generally competent. To some extent the bad drivers tend to have their accidents with each other and you can maneuver past the wreckage or stop and help in the rescue operations.

Sometimes our rhetoric has sounded like we think it's our responsibility to stop bad people everywhere in the world. But we aren't strong enough for that. Some of our recent rhetoric has sounded kind of like going into a rough bar and saying you'll take on all comers. You can get away with that sometimes when you're strong but it's generally a bad idea. Not that you deserve any particular result....

The terrorism thing showed that we're vulnerable in lots of ways that we didn't particularly think about before. Here's a different sort of vulnerability -- our international trade system and international banking system etc are kind of fragile, they depend on the participants cooperating to make them work. If other nations stop cooperating with us, the system will break down. That hurts them too, not just us. But we might feel like we have more to lose because we're used to having more stuff. If we persuade the rest of the world to stop cooperating with us, a wide variety of bad things could happen to us and to them. Not that we morally deserve it, just consequences for persuading people that we aren't somebody they ought to look out for. If you're driving and you give 50 or 60 guys driving old junkheaps that you want to play chicken with each of them, who benefits? I say nobody benefits, but the more of them you successfully face down the better your claim to be king of the road....

I say nuclear nonproliferation is dead. Never mind arguing about who killed it, it's dead. And in the medium run we're going to be better off if the various regional nuclear powers play chicken with each other instead of with us.

It could also be taken as evidence that we haven't screwed with them enough yet.

Out of all the countries on this planet, the ones that have been screwed with the hardest and most often by the US are in Central and South America.

Compare and contrast with how much we've screwed with countries in the Middle East and how much trouble we get from that neighborhood, and maybe you'll see that there's a logical basis for thinking maybe the problem is due to the US being too restrained.

As far as Mossadegh is concerned, the guy wasn't just 'abrasive', he was an idiot. Besides expropriating British oil assets in 1951 (keep in mind that the British were Iran's primary customers for the stuff), he tried to collectivize Iranian agriculture and abolished the Iranian Parliament, governing via emergency powers. IMO, that puts more than a little tarnish on his democratic credentials, and makes me seriously wonder if what Churchill told Eisenhower about Mossadegh going communist was exaggerated.

I say nuclear nonproliferation is dead. Never mind arguing about who killed it, it's dead. And in the medium run we're going to be better off if the various regional nuclear powers play chicken with each other instead of with us.

I'm afraid the US's financial interests have gotten to the point where regional nuclear powers playing chicken with each other would have fairly bad consequences for the US, even if only in economic terms.

Seriously, who do you think could toss nukes at each other without serious repurcussions for the US? It's a pretty short list, and most of the nations on it are in subsaharan africa, which can't afford to build nukes anyway.

So what would end up happening is that these regional nuclear powers would end up playing chicken with us.

I would prefer to avoid that. Sooner or later, someone's going to not blink, and we'll lose a city, followed by us vaporizing a nation.

IMO, it is better (both for us and for them) to fight a long, low-intensity war with a non-nuclear power now than to fight a very short, very high-intensity war with a nuclear power later.

This is one of those situations where there is no good option, only ones of varying badness. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the call.

Sooner or later, someone's going to not blink, and we'll lose a city, followed by us vaporizing a nation.

I hope it doesn't come to that. When it was just us and the USSR, we kept lists of populations and military and economic significance of soviet cities. And we kept computer programs ready, so that if it happened that the russians accidentally (or "accidentally") nuked one or more US cities, we could immediately figure some combination of soviet cities that had about the same population, economic and military significance, and nuke just those in retaliation.

If somebody nukes one of our cities wouldn't it be better to just nuke a comparable city there instead of vaporising their whole country? Fewer nuclear side effects too....

IMO, it is better (both for us and for them) to fight a long, low-intensity war with a non-nuclear power now than to fight a very short, very high-intensity war with a nuclear power later.

You phrase that like it's either-or.

But we could easily do both. A long, low-intensity, extremely expensive war until they get their nukes, and then the high-intensity war later, in addition.

And is there any particular reason to think iran will be the only one? It's harder for us to attack iran while we're bogged down with iraq. It will be harder for us to attack indonesia while we're bogged down with iraq and iran. If nuclear nonproliferation is dead, how much good does it do us to whomp on one particular example? We attack iraq and iran and ignore pakistan and north korea, and reward india.

We've given up on nonproliferation and now we just want to stop our enemies from getting nukes and never mind about our friends. But look at the last 60 years, how often have our friends turned to enemies?

This is one of those situations where there is no good option, only ones of varying badness.

Agreed. Wasting our strength early is particularly bad.

Can we stop playing the blame the messenger game? Bush and Cheney perfected it and man, you guys got it in spades.

Hersch broke My Lai (Pulitzer) and Abu Graib. Can we agree that at least he got the basic story right?

When it comes to foreign affairs, Bush and crew are fundamentally incompetent. After screwing up so badly in Iraq, do you trust these guys to use good judgement in deciding to bomb Iran and then carrying it out, along with the aftermath? Can you imagine the aftermath? Is there any evidence whatsoever that these guys are capable in this regard?

No, I don't think so. These guys are idiotic zealots. There is nothing more dangerous to the country than zealots with their fingers on the button.

And is there any particular reason to think iran will be the only one? It's harder for us to attack iran while we're bogged down with iraq. It will be harder for us to attack indonesia while we're bogged down with iraq and iran. If nuclear nonproliferation is dead, how much good does it do us to whomp on one particular example? We attack iraq and iran and ignore pakistan and north korea, and reward india.

The others who might be tempted saw what happened to Iraq*, and are watching what is going to happen to Iran. Making it clear that trying to build nukes gets you whomped makes building nukes look a lot less appealing.

As far as Indian and Pakistan (and Israel) are concerned, they never signed the NPT**, and IMO, letting North Korea get away with it was a big mistake that resulted in Iran deciding that nukes were the US's kryptonite.

*For example, the Libyan nuclear program was crated up and shipped to Tennesee shortly after Saddam was pulled out of his hole.

**I hope that explains a bit of why the US's position on that isn't quite as hypocritical as you seem to think.

Curse those Tennesseeans. See? Anybody can get the frickin' Bomb these days.

Serious again: Does the US "deserve" to suffer? It's a fine point and you've made me think. I work on the assumption that most people don't wish suffering on a people as a whole. But at the same time I see a society that is ridiculously wasteful in every possible way, convincing itself that separating glass from plastic from paper at home is good enough. We pollute like no one else, then export the pollution when we can't do it locally, shaking our heads sadly at how dirty and undeveloped other countries remain. But then we write a check for some kid in Asia and feel better about ourselves. We continue to buy and drive Hummers... anyway, everyone has heard this line of thinking before. Sooner or later it will bite us in the ass.

On the "history-seen-from-another-country's-perspective" thing: my kids are in high school here in Argentina. What Social Science textbooks say about the role of "rich nations such as the US" in exploiting "poor Latin American countries" would make your hair stand on end. Worse yet, they have some valid points. It certainly isn't what you'd read in an American textbook.

But makes for great discussions at dinner.

The others who might be tempted saw what happened to Iraq*, and are watching what is going to happen to Iran. Making it clear that trying to build nukes gets you whomped makes building nukes look a lot less appealing.

We're broke and going deeper in debt. I don't think many nations will be convinced we can keep doing this sort of shit. Iran is likely to be our finale.

As far as Indian and Pakistan (and Israel) are 0concerned, they never signed the NPT

Yes, and each nation that does sign the NPT can drop out of it on 3 months notice, any time. You want to argue that having signed once is a good justification for bombing them while sucking up to india, pakistan, and israel?