interesting commentary, if a bit strident. The one issue that Iran can in all fairness use in their favor with the international community is they've never started a war with a neighbor. True they do fund some horrific terrorist organizations, specifically contra Israel, and they have backed Syria heavily for much of the past 30 years, but they've never actually started a war with anyone.

This could be looked upon as a condition of relative weakness in relation to it's neighbors, though through most of the last 30 years they've all been more or less at parity in any number of aspects excepting population size. If that's the case then perhaps the fact that they aren't now and haven't been since the middle ages an expansionist power partially mitigates the danger and rhetoric

I certainly don't want to see that regime backed by nukes, but I don't really want pakistan, which is even MORE unstable and prone to warmongering, backed by nukes either.

I think Dan said it best, there really are no good options in this situation.

It's a pretty silly article. He doesn't even try to make a case that (1) bombing is preferable to the other alternatives or (2) bombing will be effective at all. His argument is that we should bomb because they're bad people and we've never bombed them before. But there's no attempt to explain how bombing them will improve the situation.

Typical neo-con thinking (sorry: neo-con "thinking").

I agree with Adam.

If we accept the argument presented then America has to take action, however he defaults to carpet bombing (or nuking) Iran without any discussion into (1) the long term effects and (2) alternatives to bombing.

To me a "swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation" would likely only lead to another Somalia or pre-2002 Afghanistan, both reported heavens for Al-Qaeda.

You want to give Al-Qaeda a birthday gift? Hand them more states without governments and millions of Islamic youth whose lives have been shattered by US bombs and missiles.

Nuke 'em 'till they glow.

I needn't assume the enemy is decent. Only that it is fearful of retalition in kind.

"I needn't assume the enemy is decent. Only that it is fearful of retaliation in kind."

I wrote a comment about this but you said it much better than I could.

Iran might be idealistic and fanatical but is it not suicidal. An Iranian nuclear attack would have to obliterate the Western world (not just the US) or else face certain destruction from a US sea based and allied nuclear retaliatory strike. Remember M.A.D.?

And it is not like Iran could hand off a nuke to Al Qaeda and then clean its hands of the whole thing. The radiation from nuclear blasts each has a signature which can be used to determine the nuclear plant the uranium was produced at. It would be clear within hours which nuclear plant made the bomb.

A greater danger is if Iran got bought some old Russian uranium and created a nuke for Al Qaeda. Then it would be much more difficult to place responsibility and strike back.

**Off color (or colour) commentary***

You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face ...

I know he's some kind of multi-national anglospheric quadruple threat, but Steyn needs to take care when using Brit argot in American publications. The sentence above has a quite a different meaning in the US of A than it does in Old Blighty.

*** end off-color (colour) commentary***

Adam: Yeah, complain about "neo-cons", and assert that they don't really think.

That straw-man really makes your case strong, doesn't it?

What alternatives do you propose as being better than his solution? Or are you merely claiming he has to present them in order to dismiss them? If so, why bother? And if not, surely you can share some and convince the audience that he's wrong, yes?

Unless it's "typical anti-neocon "thinking"" you've presented?

(Hint: I, at least, could figure out that his argument was that bombing them would improve the situation by stopping them from getting nukes. That might be incorrect; it might be more dangerous than letting them get nukes. But don't pretend it's not obviously what he's saying. An argument (even an implied one) you dislike or dismiss is not identical to no argument.)

Here's a thought.

I have always felt that the worst thing to emerge from a cold war victory was a weak Europe. Since WWII, America has always made the mistake of getting in between Europe and everything that threatens Europe or European interests; the USSR, the Baltic States, etc. This has led to an anemic Europe that no longer properly recognizes threats. Indeed, much the same could be said about the rest of the world as well. So why don't we take another approach?

Let the world know that we are washing our hands of Iran. After all, a mushroom cloud will appear over Israel, Paris or Riyadh before anywhere in the U.S. Without America doing all the dirty work, other Western nations, as well as a few Middle-Eastern and Asian countries, might start to take Iran more at face value. Who knows, a truly diverse international coalition may emerge that may actually be credible.

As an added kicker, before you "wash your hands of Iran", convince China that Taiwan has been talking to Iranian intelligence about the acquisition of nuclear technology...then just walk away.

The results would be more effective than anything we could accomplish on our own.

...just a thought

And it is not like Iran could hand off a nuke to Al Qaeda and then clean its hands of the whole thing. The radiation from nuclear blasts each has a signature which can be used to determine the nuclear plant the uranium was produced at. It would be clear within hours which nuclear plant made the bomb.

While I'm pretty sure the US could do this if the uranium used in the bomb was produced at one of our own enrichment facilities, I seriously doubt that we have the 'radioactive fingerprints' of every enrichment facility on the planet, especially considering that there are certainly a few enrichment facilities US intelligence doesn't know exist.

With that in mind, how can we be certain the nuke is Iranian, Pakistani, the much-rumored 'missing Russian nuke', or came from some other party?

During the cold war, this wasn't an issue. Ballistic inbound tracks would tell us where it came from and who to retaliate against.

It would be a lot better, IMO, to not have to ID where a detonated warhead came from, y'know?

I've read more foolish things, but not often. When someone labels the British decision not to kill millions and destroy one of the ten largest cities in the world in response to the invasion of a small island as "decency" ... well, you have to wonder: does he understand the incredibly wide distance between decency and committing mass murder? And if the person doesn't understand that gulf, you first stop listening and you second ensure they are kept away from positions of influence where that lack of that understanding might be important. Let's say in arts and culture section.

To realize that the leaders of Iran aren't decent is not to come to the conclusion that they are fired up about strapping a nuclear suicide belt around the waists of their 68 million citizens, some of whom are their mothers, brothers, sisters, and daughters.

If the factual calculation is such that Iran is becoming a legitimate threat, logic would conclude that Israel has a larger interest in seeing Iran’s fledgling nuclear program dismantled (by bombings). In fact, Israel has a demonstrated history of resolving such situations accordingly.

Additionally, if Israel has not yet concluded to make the strike, then it is hard to imagine the rationale being used by this administration that would warrant we precede Israel’s often and necessarily preemptive strategy. Certainly the threat to Israel from Iran, when coupled with the Palestinian election of a radical Hamas government, would far exceed any presumed threat to America.

If this administration goes forward with a US assault on Iran rather than to consult with and support Israel (as a silent & out of sight ally) in making any necessary strikes, then I would assert that it may be reasonable to conclude that the decision to initiate a US assault was simply another in a long string of questionable strategic and political calculations that have failed to reverse the ever sliding support for the President’s positions and for his struggling party.

read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Right on Peter. These people are all totally crazy. They have no idea how imperial and vicious they are. they claim that they are defending themselves against a country that they assume (though have no evidence to show) might possibly be trying to get nuclear weapons some 10 years from now. They think they have a divine right to liquidate their enemies (even the ones that are not dangerous to them) and they use fantasy to invent the situation which they define to be suitable to empower themselves to attack. It is sick.

They are so arrogant, so murderous and so compulsive that they see any speck of dirt as reason to rip up the entire carpet.

Their view of the world is so perverted that they see themselves as honestly defending good while they slaughter hundreds of thousands of people around the world. It is like Spaniards going into an Inca village with bible in one hand and sword in the other. "We come in peace, in the name of god!"

I only hope Iran knows what is coming and can fight back. At least, I hope, America suffers dearly for their arrogance. If they think they can go and take over any country and bomb any little place on earth, i hope they get their nose bloodied this time.

Someone in the comments above suggested that Iran would not use the bomb because of fears of massive retaliation. Two things:

1) The whole point of Steyn's argument is that the mullahs don't care. What is rational depends on your world view. If you're a mullah thinking it is your Allah-inspired duty to use that bomb, no matter what the consequences (in fact, those consequences will make you a martyr), then the Cold War MAD logic does not apply. I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand this. Quite apart from the fact that it has been suggested that even the Russians never bought the MAD logic; only the US did.

2) Even if the mullahs accepted massive retaliation, they could still credibly use their bomb for coercion in the region against non-nuclear powers, or against nuclear powers that do not have the means for a massive retaliation (that would be Israel).

3) A nuclear Iran would therefore likely lead to a) further nuclear proliferation in the region, putting bombs in the hands of all sorts of other unsavory types or b) give Iran a lot of opportunity to flex its muscles in the region. Any US countermove would soon turn into a nuclear stalemate. And such a stalemate would not go wrong, let me repeat, only if you believe the mullahs are not willing to take one (or two or three) for their team, i.e. Allah. So, if you think 2,500 dead US soldiers in Iraq is bad, imagine having tens of thousands of them irradiated in one blast.

The mullahs can't be allowed to have nukes. Period. Persians are a great people; their regime is not. If Jimmy Carter had shown some spine and prevented the Revolution in '79 we wouldn't have been in this mess. Now we have to take out their nuclear program potentially alienating a largely pro-US population. A fine mess.

Adam, there are a lot of arguments that he doesn't address. It's an article, not a book. It's an article on the political aspects of the situation, not an article on the military aspects. He barely talks about solutions. The bulk of the article is about the way that the Iranians tend to mean what they say.

That said, what non-bombing options do you feel like he is particularly remiss in ignoring? Land invasion? Sanctions? Strong words? Assassination? Talks? The development of really good ABM systems to be stationed around Iran (and thorough customs agencies to lock up every border)? Kind words, to help the Iranians become more aware of the pain that nukes can cause?

It's not what the article is about and your criticism of him for not writing an article about it is inane. None of us knows of a solution that would fix this and your suggestion that an article that persuasively argues against treating persian rhetoric as metaphorical is a failure because it does not achieve this near-impossible task falls into one of the lowest categories of rhetorical bad faith.

Chris, obviously my response to Adam applies equally to your agreement with him. That said, your additional implication that Somalia represents a greater threat to the west than Iran deserves highliting.

The real addition, though, is your security in MAD, which strongly implies that you didn't read the article. Do you believe that, in response to the nuking of 6 million Israelis, that the US would murder 60 million Iranians? The article notes the reasonable Iranian belief that the Israelis couldn't do it. Perhaps you believe that the French would do it? The Russians? Do you believe that they would do so instantly? The same day, perhaps? Or in cold blood, after some months of discussion, and after many key officials had already moved to their vacation homes in Syria?

Even if it was Seattle that was nuked, you seem to believe that we have a good working knowledge of the Iranian WMD manufacturing facilities, allowing a match to be made, with certainty, within hours. Given the degree of uncertainty that we have regarding whether or not some of these facilities even exist, this seems implausible to me. A couple of weeks later, I can see an invasion, but I cannot see the US, or anyone else, deciding to murder millions of innocent people to deter their leaders from an action that their leaders would not be able to take back (as I understand it, it's tough to "un-nuke" the crater). I can't imagine Bush doing it, and they're building nukes that could be used under an even more nuanced regime. In short, the Mullahs are assured that any destruction will not be mutual.

There may be real problems with the article. I don't know enough about Iranian politics to be aware of them. I'd be genuinely interested in any criticism of the article, if anyone cares to share any, but "the people who disagree with me on Iran policy are all morons" statements seem to add little.

Peter, what word would you prefer to "decent"?

I think that the understatement was pretty clear, but even if he meant it literally, and even if you think that the Iranians are not likely to back up their threats to wipe out Israel (with support from more than your own gut, please), do you not think that the basic point that the Iranians are much more likely than we were to nuke enemies stands?

I, at least, could figure out that his argument was that bombing them would improve the situation by stopping them from getting nukes. That might be incorrect; it might be more dangerous than letting them get nukes. But don't pretend it's not obviously what he's saying.

Well no, that wasn't obviously what he was saying. But since you've brought it up....

First off, I want to point out that this is an insane idea that doesn't actually deserve serious consideration. But OK, let's consider it anyway.

How far can we set back their nuclear program? There's a minimum time it takes to do things, and then there are delays due to mistakes, the learning curve, bad choice of approaches, etc. The minimum is longer if you can't generate a lot of electricity, etc.

I say that if the USA were to somehow lose our entire nuclear industry, all the reactors and everything, but we didn't lose our scientists and engineers, we could fund a new bomb program and we'd have new bombs in 6 to 18 months. Because we know how. It didn't take us all that many years the very first time.

If it takes iran 10 years it will be because they make mistakes and go down blind alleys etc. And if we wait 7 years and then bomb everything, how long will it take them to get their bombs starting from scratch? Maybe 3 years.

They aren't going to make the same mistakes repeatedly. Once they figure things out they'll never be more than 3 years from a bomb. Maybe they can get it down to 18 months. Are we going to bomb them again every 3 years?

The idea that we can stop their nuclear program with a single bombing campaign is ridiculous. At a minimum we'd need to smash their military to the point we could send in special forces to kill or capture the large majority of their nuclear scientists and technicians. Call it 20,000 of them. We'd go through the whole country looking for suspected nuclear technicians and when we find a suspect the easy thing is to just shoot him on the spot, but we could perhaps kidnap a hundred thousand or so suspects and interrogate them just in case.

If they're willing to spend for nukes, we aren't going to stop them with a bombing campaign. We'll have to bomb them every 3 years or less until they succeed.

Bombing iran because you think it will get rid of their nuclear program is like stomping on a fire ant nest because you think it will kill all the ants.

It's an insane idea.

HTH.

J Thomas,

Under your scenario, bombing every three years seems like a pretty good idea if that prevents crazy Mullahs from getting the bomb. You have asserted that this is somehow insane, while in fact providing a great argument for it.

And it is not like Iran could hand off a nuke to Al Qaeda and then clean its hands of the whole thing. The radiation from nuclear blasts each has a signature which can be used to determine the nuclear plant the uranium was produced at. It would be clear within hours which nuclear plant made the bomb.

While I'm pretty sure the US could do this if the uranium used in the bomb was produced at one of our own enrichment facilities, I seriously doubt that we have the 'radioactive fingerprints' of every enrichment facility on the planet, especially considering that there are certainly a few enrichment facilities US intelligence doesn't know exist.

You're arguing from ignorance here. We can do it for every aboveground nuclear *test*, and we can do it for many underground tests. I don't know how many enrichment facilities we can do it for, that's a CIA thing.

If a secret enrichment facility produces an untested bomb, we might be kind of lost. And there might be some bad guys who know how to disguise that sort of thing too.

So there's a chance we wouldn't know whose bomb it was, but the chance that we would know provides a degree of deterrence.

With that in mind, how can we be certain the nuke is Iranian, Pakistani, the much-rumored 'missing Russian nuke', or came from some other party?

I'm guessing it would take a lot of testing to fake somebody else's signature on your bomb. So we'd probably know that we didn't know, if we didn't know.

Would we announce a perp with certainty when we didn't actually know? That's a political choice made by a politician. Or possibly it might be a technical choice made by technicians who want to keep their jobs....

Two things. One, if decency is an issue at all, then ought I not want my side to be decent? Isn't part of any argument that my side deserves to have nukes and the other guy doesn't that I have the restraint not to do things like – well, like my side is saying it might do?

Two, the Argentine example is the right one, used in an ass-backward way. The UK had nukes, and didn't use them. The UK had superior conventional forces, and used them to achieve only the goal that made sense in the context of Argentina's provocation. Casting Iran in the role of the UK? Only because they might get nukes? The weakness of the analogy is just amazing. We should be the UK in this analogy, and even then, it ain't a good one.

What is it about a particular set of folks, that the frustrations of the long haul are just intolerable? Any solution, no matter how harmful to one's own long-term interests, is preferable to grinding away to get the better solution. We had Saddam in a box. He could not threaten us, and sorry folks, but given what has come to light since the war, the nuts in the White House had good reason to understand that Saddam couldn't threaten us. Just too hard to sit there and get the outcome we wanted a day at a time, when we could put our own interests in the toilet, cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, breed tens of thousands of new enemies, so by golly, we took action!

Now, the world's greatest military power, having shocked the muslim world with our willingness to use military might without serious justification, to kill with impunity, to torture, to lie and to run the politics of an occupied country to our own liking (when we can), we turn around and threaten a nuclear strike against a muslim nation for having the temerity to consider becoming just a little more like us? We, the only nation in the world ever to use nuclear weapons on human beings, threatening to use nukes again to see to it that Iran can't make a miniature version of the same threat?

In a world in which sovereign nations are, for now, not thought the greatest threat to our domestic security, what kind of idiot thinks waving nukes in Iran's face makes us safer? We are winning new enemies every day.

The whole point of Steyn's argument is that the mullahs don't care. What is rational depends on your world view. If you're a mullah thinking it is your Allah-inspired duty to use that bomb, no matter what the consequences (in fact, those consequences will make you a martyr),

The illogic in this argument is that the Mullahs have never once invaded a neighbor in the last 27 years. If they felt that their duty was indeed to spread and conquer, how come they didn't do it before ? In any case, most of the mullahs seem to have graduated from theology -- their main occupation seems to be lining their pockets, not spreading the faith.

2) Even if the mullahs accepted massive retaliation, they could still credibly use their bomb for coercion in the region against non-nuclear powers, or against nuclear powers that do not have the means for a massive retaliation (that would be Israel).

What nonsense. Israel has had the capacity for massive retaliation or massive nuclear attacks since at least 1973. Israel's nuclear technology is generations ahead of Iran. Israel most definitely has the means for massive retaliation.

And which Iranian neighbors are going to be threatened ? Pakistan has the bomb. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan are either dejuris or defacto American protectorates.

3) A nuclear Iran would therefore likely lead to a) further nuclear proliferation in the region, putting bombs in the hands of all sorts of other unsavory types or

Worse than the AQ Khan network run by ally Pakistan's top nuclear scientist ?

If Jimmy Carter had shown some spine and prevented the Revolution in '79 we wouldn't have been in this mess.

This is the sort of idiotic statement that convinces me that the writer lacks the intelligence of a bedbug or is purely motivated by partisanship.

Anyone who remembers 1979 remembers that the Iranian revolution against the Shah was a genuine peoples movement with incredible fervor and millions of people in the street. That sort of revolution cannot be dettered by anything short of massive outside military assistance. The Shah's army was falling apart (the officers were pro-Shah, but the regular army was disintegrating). How a much less powerful, ecnomically strapped US was going to stop a massive revolution of that magnitude in a state bordering the Soviet Union is something those wingnuts who yell about Carter allowing Iran's takeover by radicals never make clear.

Today we would find it incredibly expensive to occupy Iran -- in 1979, a weaker US (both economically and militarily) could not possibly have stopped the takeover. It would have been a golden opportunity for the Soviet Union to bog the US down in an unwinnable battle. You don't think those same Iranians who launched massive suicide attacks against Iraqi forces wouldnt have done the same against the US. [ The Islamists and the Soviets never liked each other much, but its easy to see their allying against a common enemy. ]

... How far can we set back their nuclear program? ...

I almost hate to say this, but read the article please. specifically this part:

Once again, we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.

You may notice that Steyn argues, not for some form of coersion to prevent the Iranians building bombs, he infact declares that he thinks such an objective is impossible, but for a decaptitation of the Iranian regime.

So you may wish to address that, rather than the argument you put forward.

If the factual calculation is such that Iran is becoming a legitimate threat, logic would conclude that Israel has a larger interest in seeing Iran’s fledgling nuclear program dismantled (by bombings). In fact, Israel has a demonstrated history of resolving such situations accordingly.

Israel once bombed a civilian reactor in iraq, killing a french technician or two. The israelis claimed there was a massive tunnel network under the reactor where the iraqis planned to do weapons work. The french denied there was any such thing. I haven't heard of anybody excavating the rubble to see.

If it was a matter of delaying an iranian nuclear program for a few months, it might be enough to bomb one key site. They could bomb the single critical weakest link. It appears the american plans involve bombing everything to completely eliminate the nuclear program.

A small israeli bombing raid would be mostly ineffective. And everybody would know it had a lot of US material support, We were very public about giving them the bombs. They only have 8 refueling tankers, they can't do anything like a large raid on iran without our support. We looked into the possibility and decided that involving israel wouldn't give us enough deniability to be useful.

do you not think that the basic point that the Iranians are much more likely than we were to nuke enemies stands?

Countries invaded by Iran post WW-II : 0
Countries invaded by the US post WW-II : too many to list here

Nukes used by the US against enemies: twice
Nukes used by Iran against enemies: zero

WMDs used by the US against enemies who did not use WMDs first: Nukes , possible use of borderline chemical weapons in Vietnam. Several known cases of biological weapon tests in the US.

WMDs used by Iran against enemy who did not use WMDs first: None

Under your scenario, bombing every three years seems like a pretty good idea if that prevents crazy Mullahs from getting the bomb. You have asserted that this is somehow insane, while in fact providing a great argument for it.

If you don't see that the original argument is plain insane, then it would follow that you'd see the reductio ad absurdum to be a good argument for the original insanity. I don't think I can discuss this with you just now.

I suggest you try therapy. What do you have to lose? You might get insights into your condition.

The whole point of Steyn's argument is that the mullahs don't care. What is rational depends on your world view. If you're a mullah thinking it is your Allah-inspired duty to use that bomb, no matter what the consequences (in fact, those consequences will make you a martyr), t

One more point I forgot to mention. Iran very like has bio weapons. Bio weapons, while nearly useless as battlefield weapons, are arguably more potent than nukes against the US now because they can be smuggled in (not requiring missiles) and could cause mass panic and hysteria that exceed even the impact of a nuke. If the mullahs weren't deterrable, why haven't they started using their bio weapons ?

I think, only half jokingly, that the world is doomed.

J Thomas is right. If we are expecting to bomb the Iranians in order to solve the problem, we're not going to succeed-we'd have to bomb them repeatedly as they rebuild and get close to nukes, over and over again. Whether its every three years, or every 18 months, or every 5 doesn't really matter. Regardless, its utterly unrealistic.

Thus, the only solution is what he suggested. Go in and get their nuclear technicians and scientists. In other words, invade. But an invasion and occupation is simply not possible with the current army we have. Aside from the political problems, the pragmatic problem is that the army isn't big enough: the invasion and occupation of Iran would require a draft, and a national commitment on the level of WWI or Vietnam (probably not the level of WWII or the Civil War-but far more than Gulf War, or Iraq War, or even Korean War).

But most importantly, neither will really solve the problem. Because Iran isn't the problem-Iran is just the current incarnation of the problem. The problem is that nuclear technology is getting cheaper and getting more easy-that's why Iran is able to do it. So we wipe out Iran. In ten years, it will be Venezuela, or Pakistan, or Indonesia, or or or. The US is not going to invade the entire Third World as it develops in order to stop the spread of nuclear technology.

So we have really three futures: bomb Iran, alienate much of the third world, and watch as that third world slowly develops nuclear technology over the next 30 years. Draft an army of 2-3 million or so (currently Army + National Guard is about 1 million), invade Iran, and watch as the third world slowly develops nuclear technology over the next 30 years. Endure some form of Cold War with Iran (and hope they are rational enough to appreciate MAD), and watch as the third world slowly develops nuclear technology over the next 30 years.

I just don't see any realistic solution where we all go back to some post-Cold War balance, sit back and sigh, and go back to 'normal' whatever normal is.

I strongly suspect we will bomb Iran. I also strongly suspect this will be good in the short term (Iran no longer gets the bomb), but disastrous in the long term (everyone else does). I also strongly suspect there is no better realistic option.

Note: There are two solutions, neither of which are realistic.
1) Some type of global government that has the power and authority to limit the spread of nuclear technology. Such a government would have to be strong enough to limit scientific growth, which would make it strong enough to do effectively what it wants-it would be a dictatorship, or autocracy, or global empire (and wouldn't necessarily be US). Completely unrealistic.

2) US Isolationism. Seal the borders, limit the crossing of people and goods, develop a reliable Star Wars system, and let the rest of the world go to pot. This is technologically feasible. Technically, we could very easily search every good coming into the US (every shipping container, every truck, etc). It would just make overseas goods very very expensive. Technically, we could seal our borders with long fences. But politically, or culturally, or morally, its not very easy-in fact, is completely unrealistic. Thus, its not going to happen.

Nukes are coming. Whether they are Iranian in two years or Indonesian in 15 or Pakistani in 10, they are in our, and the worlds, future.

Steve

The talk about "Machiavellina mullahs" and an "obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree" (sic) demonstrates the level of analysis here. Of course, if the Iranians are being led by "yobbos" of the sort we meet in British pubs, then none of the arguments for or against a military strike matter, do they? Who, in their right mind would want a Machiavellian loon-yobbo to have nuclear weapons?

This is the tortured logic of the war on terror, where subjective fear is confused with and substituted for objective threat. Being completely divorced from any sense of magnitude, imminence or likelihood, fear of a wild-eyed Iranian nuclear assault is assumed, but not argued. This logic is so extensive as to smother all objective checks on the object of fear. Vague suspicions morph into all-encompassing threats and even become their own reason for action.

Elevating the feeling of insecurity about a nuclear-armed Iran that many readers feel over a requirement for any hard evidence that Iran plans to nuke anybody, transofrms the issue into a political emergency and destroys any rational standards of political judgment.

I think the article is completely wrong, as would be any sort of strike against Iran.

Anyone who is interested in reading more about the argument against the logic of the war on terror can go here: www.againstthewaronterror.com

"Iran might be idealistic and fanatical but is it not suicidal. An Iranian nuclear attack would have to obliterate the Western world (not just the US) or else face certain destruction from a US sea based and allied nuclear retaliatory strike. Remember M.A.D.?"

I remember. And my memories of lying awake at night hoping the bombs werent going to fall isnt as cheery as some people apparently.

The truth is we were very fortunate in the Cold War (remember the nuclear clock?) It doesnt take a mad-man to start a nuclear war. Accidents, miscalculations, mechanical failures... or a madman, lots of different possibilities.

I might be able to live with that vis-a-vis Iran. I might even be able to live knowing the difference between the athiest Soviets, and a religious zealot government that has already declared their willingness to take their chances in a nuclear war so long as Israel gets the finger for sure. Those things werent the really dangerous problem with nuclear weapons.

The really dangerous problem is what happens to nations over the long term. It seems (so far) we have been extraordinarilly lucky that between the collapse of the Soviet block and the various chaos in Pakistan no nukes have floated out of their pens. That has been _pure luck_. Rationale, secular leaders have always had the keys to Pakistan and the Soviet nukes (again very lucky in Pakistan's case). What we are talking about here is allowing, i believe for the first time, a known religious extremist, fascist, messainic regime (skip the Bush jokes, i've heard em and this is too serious for that stupidity) to possess nukes. Again, i dont think they will necessarilly flip out and use them.

Here is the problem: what happens if and when the Mullahs services are no longer required by the Iranian people. When the democratic revolution arrives at the palaces of Tehran, when Mullahs are being hung in the streets, are we confortable with a man like Ahmadinejad cowering in his bunker with his goons holding the nukes and Al Qaeda on speed dial? Worse, if in that case he did nuke London _who do we retaliate against?! the newly democratic Iranians_?

Until someone tells me how that extremely plausible, indeed likely, scenario can be handled, i cannot countenance Iran possession nuclear weapons. That is the cliff we are walking towards. Frame your solutions in reference to that.

I take issue with Mr Steyn/Mr Steyn Jrs assumption that the "crazy Mullahs" are willing to martyr themselves. The Iranian mullahs have shown a disgusting willingness to sacrifice their own people into the meat grinder, but, much like the leaders of Al Qaeda, they generally prefer to celebrate other people's martyrdoms. There is no evidence they would ever knowingly take an action that would result in nuclear retaliation. The Mullahs talk about the next world, but for most of them their primary concern is how they can live better in this world - more power, more luxuries, more perks for their families, more young boys, etc. I've seen no evidence that Iran's rulers have an interest in an apocalyptic end-time showdown.

.. How far can we set back their nuclear program? ...

I almost hate to say this, but read the article please. specifically this part:

I was responding to Sigivald. Somebody else claimed that Steyn's argument was not clear. Sigivald responded that it was certainly clear, that Steyn was arguing we'd be better off with an iran without nukes than an iran with nukes, so if we bomb iran and prevent them from having nukes then we're better off.

Sigivald's logic is clear and simple (as Steyn's is not). But it leaves out some important considerations.

Kind of like the argument that if you rob a bank you'll have money which is a good thing, so you're better off to rob a bank than not to. People are in general better off with more money than less, but there are certain things left out of the logic here....

I want to reiterate what I said above because it probably wasnt that clear:

If we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, we are invested in that particular regime. Just as we must prop up North Korea with aid lest they collapse into chaos, so much more it will be a United States priority that Iran never faces a point where its fanatical leadership feel it needs to use its nukes while they still can. This includes opposing regime change and popular uprising. Anyone who feels we propped up Hussein or any other dictator over the years better take not of this, becuase the single most dangerous circumstance i can think of is a dying Mullah regime with access to nuclear weapons.

Note: There are two solutions, neither of which are realistic.

Here is a third, which comes within shouting distance of being realistic.

The USA announces we will make no first strike, but we will do a second strike on anybody else who makes a first strike on anybody. Perhaps the russians make the same announcement, fine if they do.

Right away, nobody but the USA (and Russia) has any benefit from making ICBMs. Provided they believe us. They don't need their own MAD if they trust ours. And if they don't have ICBMs they can't set them off by accident, and they can be mostly sure we won't mistakenly think it was them who set one off.

It's unrealistic because it requires us not to threaten nukes when other countries disappoint us. But public opinion and policy could change. A further problem, it allows accidents and imistakes which could have very bad results.

Now here's a fourth approach that's more realistic. Suppose we manage to get by without any nukes used until a number of relatively small or weak nations have a few nukes. And then there's a small nuclear war between to minor powers. Everybody would get to see how much fallout resulted. (Consider the fallout from Chernobyl, which was a civilian accident.) The "winner" could proclaim victory, and various uninvolved nations could present their bills for the damages they received. Everybody would get a good look at just how much the winner won.

That ought to do more for nonproliferation than any number of US wars. It might quite likely even get americans to rethink our policies. But we have to find a way to hold off until it's minor powers who can have a minor nuclear war. Get too many nukes going off and it will be *obvious* we can't let it happen again, but it will hurt the whole world too bad.

Just as we must prop up North Korea with aid lest they collapse into chaos, so much more it will be a United States priority that Iran never faces a point where its fanatical leadership feel it needs to use its nukes while they still can.

Not likely. When Nixon was going out, the US military was carefully prepared to disobey any orders he might give to use nukes. When Bush leaves it will be the same way. And it will be that way in iran and north korea too.

Of course regime change is scary when nukes are involved, but the idea that we have to prop up the french government and the indian government and the chinese government because they officially have nukes is just silly.

" And it will be that way in iran and north korea too. "

North Korea, likely true- although the danger there has always been that there nukes will walk off and be sold on the black market. A very real threat. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards will control the Iranian nuclear weapons. There is no historic parallel better than the SS- except with a virgins in paradise complex. They answer to the Mullahs only and are recruited and trained as religious warriors of Jihad. During the Iran-Iraq war hundreds of them literally roped themselves together and rushed the Iraqi machine gun fields specifically to waste the Iraqi ammunition. Personally i am not comfortable comparing those folks to US missile command.

"Of course regime change is scary when nukes are involved, but the idea that we have to prop up the french government and the indian government and the chinese government because they officially have nukes is just silly."

The idea of comparing the French and Indian governments to this fanatical Islamo-facist, terrorist regime is what is incalcuably silly. Are you not listening to what Ahmadnijed has been saying or are you comfortable assuming he is just kidding around?
It seems obvious you arent taking Iranian fanaticism seriously, and that is a fatal mistake.

J. Thomas: Calling Osirak a "civilian reactor" is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

R. Block: I admire your logic: More adjectives are definitely more persuasive. Have you considered obscenities, as well? Nothing's more convincing than a nice obscene outburst, I always say.

Steyn's argument was as incisive as ever. The basic point he makes in the City Journal article, and has been making for some time elsewhere, is that the Iranian problem isn't going away by wishing it were so, and won't be resolved in any useful or acceptable means except by the credible threat, and perhaps the actual use, of force. It's hard to dispute Steyn's point that the long-running negotiations between the EU 3 and Iran have accomplished nothing but the further passing of time during which the Iranian nuclear program has advanced. Nor do I see any sensible explanation as to why the threats by the Iranians -- including as Steyn points out, supposed Iranian moderates -- to wipe Israel off the map or to strike a death blow against the Great Satan itself, should not be taken deadly seriously.

What is new and different here is that a nation seeking nuclear weapons is actively threatening to use them in that fashion. Prior to the dissolution of the USSR, the strategic reality was quite different -- both sides threatened to retaliate massively, but there was never any serious notion of using nukes except in response to an attack. Nor is Truman's use of the Bomb against Japan relevant here -- it's just a rhetorical club and a pretty gross one at that.

Several commenters suggest that, if the threat is as serious as Steyn argues (I agree with him that it is), then the military response (if there is one) should come from Israel rather than the US. Several others, notably Veleztrope, evidently believe that the main threat to peace in the world today is the United States. As they say, it's a point of view.

But however one chooses to read the relevant Cold War history, the key question remains whether it is sensible in a post 9/11 world for either the Americans or the Israels to wait while this mortal danger gathers. The US has the greater luxury of distance from the immediate source of the problem, but for the reasons Steyn sets forth, distance in today's world isn't much comfort. The Israelis don't even have that, and have every reason to expect that, true to their word, the Iranians will act on their threats. Surely it would be folly, verging on a national death wish, for the Israelis not to base their planning on that basis.

As I read his article, it is ultimately irrelevant to Steyn's argument whether the response to the Iranian drive to acquire nukes is delivered by American or Israeli planes. Nor does it matter what particular form of ordnance is used. (For many reasons, it's not likely to be tactical nukes.) Given the current problems in Israel, it's hard to see how the Israelis could take such action without strong and perhaps public assurances of US support and backing. Given the political realities in the US, it's hard to see Bush's authorizing military action by the US or supporting the Israelis in such a venture against the Iranians until at least the Security Council two-step is played out to its inevitably ineffective conclusion. (If it turns out to be effective, so much the better, but don't hold your breathe on that one.) No one really knows how close the Iranians are to developing a deliverable nuke, but whatever the intelligence may show, there's no realistic set of political circumstances that would shorten that timetable for action.

For the reasons sketched above, I expect that the military response will eventually come from Israel, since two nukes -- one in Tel Aviv and one in Haifa -- would essentially achieve the Iranian objective of wiping Israel off the map. Any response Israel might make after the fact would be pointless in terms of reversing the reality of Isreal's utter destruction, although the Israelis might still deliver such a response. The only option left for Isreal is a preemptive strike. I would be astonished if the Israeli government sees the situation differently.

Some of the snarkier comments suggest that Steyn's analysis fails to take into account other "reasonable alternatives" short of the use of force that might bring about an acceptable resolution. No such alternatives have been described, and in all events they all boil down to just some variation or combination of two -- more negotiations, to be followed by sanctions. As Steyn says, negotiations have been tried and are a failure. For political reasons, more negotiations will be pursued -- bilateral, through the EU 3, at the UN, etc. There is no reason to think anything useful will come from them, just as nothing useful has come from them to date. Steyn is right to be dismissive in comparing them to another "peace in our time" deal such as the Clinton Administration thought it reached with the N. Koreans. Sanctions are an obvious bad joke -- even assuming the Security Council would ever consider adopting any, which in itself is an unlikely event.

The one element Steyn did not discuss is the time window here. If Bush is succeeded by a Republican (McCain or Guiliani, say), there is no reason to expect a change in US policy on this point. If it's a Democrat, there's every reason to expect a fundamental change. Indeed, it's hard to think of any Democrat with any chance of winning the nomination who would credibly pursue, either directly or in concert with the Israelis, military action against Iran. That political reality is unlikely to escape the notice of the Israelis or the Iranians. What it means is that the Iranians have ever reason to string out the negotiations endgame for two more years; and the Israelis may be under considerable pressure to act while Bush is still in office. Those two events -- the need to play out the negotiations for domestic political reasons, and the need for Israel to act while it can still count on US support -- define the time frame in which action against the Iranians is likely if, as Steyn predicts, negotiations go nowhere and force is the only remaining option.

Steyn was clearly right in saying that the choices with regard to Iran come down to bad vs. worse. The fundamental policy choice is whether it makes sense for the Israelis or the US to accept the threat posed by the Iranian drive to acquire the Bomb, against the background of Iranian threats and the irrationality of the pronouncements coming out of the current Iranian regime. Those who think the Iranians are a pacific and misunderstood bunch will be opposed; the flip side of that worldview is that the US is the real threat in the world. Veleztrope is a good example. Those like Steyn who regard 9/11 as a wake-up call to accept the new realities and be willing to act on them, have reached a different conclusion. Count me among the Steynians.

What is new and different here is that a nation seeking nuclear weapons is actively threatening to use them in that fashion. Prior to the dissolution of the USSR, the strategic reality was quite different -- both sides threatened to retaliate massively, but there was never any serious notion of using nukes except in response to an attack.

Nonsense. McArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea and certainly the Cuban missiles crisis saw a situation were nukes were implicitly threatened. Israel readied its nukes in 1973.

For what its worth, Pakistan has also made threats against India and has refused to a no-first use policy. So your claim that this is new is bogus.

expect that the military response will eventually come from Israel, since two nukes -- one in Tel Aviv and one in Haifa -- would essentially achieve the Iranian objective of wiping Israel off the map.

Perhaps it would be pertinent to point out here that Israel has had nukes for 40 years, that their technology is far advanced beyond that of Iran. They have a strong air force, far more warheads than Iran could produce in 20 years if they ran all their centrifuges all our. Israel has missiles, anti-missile missiles, ECMs. Yes, a nuclear Iran would change the balance of power in the Middle East, but the fact is that Israel already possses a massive deterrent well beyond anything Iran is likely to get in decades.

Nor is Truman's use of the Bomb against Japan relevant here -- it's just a rhetorical club and a pretty gross one at that.

That came in response to a question asking who is more likely to use nukes.

Those who think the Iranians are a pacific and misunderstood bunch will be opposed; the flip side of that worldview is that the US is the real threat in the world. Veleztrope is a good example.

Don't you get tired of throwing around strawmen ? I made no such extravagant claim. I did point that contrary to the wingnuts hysterical assertions of how the mullahs are likely to promptly toss their nukes, Iran has not invaded a single country in modern history and has only used WMDs when WMDs were used against it first. This does not make the Iranian regime saints, it does mean that all the rhetoric that people toss out about how the regime is determined to spread Islam everywhere and how they regard martyrdom as wise and inevitable is at least deficient.

And no one has yet answered my question - -the Iranian regime very likely has lots of biological WMDs. Why haven't the mullahs been trying to cleanse the West with these WMDs unless they've been deterred ?

Calling Osirak a "civilian reactor" is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

No, it is not.

Steyn convinced me that Iran is a credible threat, that there is a link between their rhetoric and their actions, and that they really, really hate Israel and the Jewish people. What he hasn't done is convinced me that it's America's problem. Israel has shown itself willing to bomb/disarm other Middle Eastern countries. Why don't we wait for them to do it and administer some light slap on the wrist after the fact?

"Calling Osirak a "civilian reactor" is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

No, it is not."

The more I hear from J Thomas, the more the term 'apologist' pops into my head. J, are you or are you not a Karl Rovian mole?

"Steyn convinced me that Iran is a credible threat, that there is a link between their rhetoric and their actions, and that they really, really hate Israel and the Jewish people. What he hasn't done is convinced me that it's America's problem. Israel has shown itself willing to bomb/disarm other Middle Eastern countries. Why don't we wait for them to do it and administer some light slap on the wrist after the fact?"

Answer: because Israel lacks the capacity. Also, if you're willing to be a little less Machiavellian in your politics (ah, morality), because they don't deserve the backlash that will follow (not least from the latently and not so latently anti-semitic Europeans) Israel's saving collective Western bacon.

Perhaps J. Thomas means that calling Osirak a civilian reactor is not just "a bit disingenuous" but grossly disingenuous, indeed an out and out lie. At least I hope that's what he means.

snark>Mark Steyn? What's wrong, wasn't Clifford May available?/snark>

Look, the world is becoming a more and more dangerous place. As it becomes easier to build nuclear weapons, such weapons will inevitably fall in the hands of untrustworthy people -- people who will actually want to use them. Madmen.

Therefore, I suggest that we keep an eye out for countries that might be on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, and bomb them before they get a chance to control them, using nukes if necessary. Only this way will the world remain a sane and safe place, free of lunatic madmen who would drop bombs for no good reason.

And no one has yet answered my question - -the Iranian regime very likely has lots of biological WMDs. Why haven't the mullahs been trying to cleanse the West with these WMDs unless they've been deterred ?

This is a digression from the nuke talk, but I'll run with it.

We've got basicly two kinds of bioweapons. One kind is for military use. You infect enemy soldiers and they aren't available to fight. You don't need to kill them, in fact it's better if they take a long time to die and with intensive treatment they get well -- they use up more of the enemy's resources that way. You want them to get sick reasonably fast. But you don't want them to infect others. Say you capture a few and they infect a whole POW camp, and the guards, and some of your transport guys.... No. Ideally you start with a disease that's spread by insects that don't live anywhere near your battlefield, and you prepare something that can go in artillery shells or something and enemy soldiers get sick by breathing a great big dose. And then the sun kills off the pathogen and it falls out of the air and that whole area becomes safe for your own troops. You want strictly limited effects because literal "blowback" is possible.

The other kind is a terror weapon. You want something that spreads very very easily, but that still kills slowly enough that carriers have time to spread it. A few infected people can start an epidemic. Your logistics are easy, you don't need much, you can smuggle a little bit into your enemy's heartland and -- perhaps -- kill off half his people. Nobody can be sure how well it would work because it's never been tested on a large scale. In general, the easier it spreads the better it is at hurting the enemy and the more likely it gets to your own population too, along with a lot of neutrals. Clearly this sort of thing has limited use. There aren't a whole lot of people who're going to sit down and decide it's a weapon they want to try out. Particularly when there's no way to do large-scale testing without taking the risk you'll kill off a big part of the world population, maybe hurting your own people worse than your enemy. Or it might fizzle.

Iran probably has military bioweapons. They could use them either against military targets or civilians. They would not be decisive. Chemical weapons get quicker results, and explosives are quicker still. Sometimes soldiers can fight for days before they get so sick they must be evacuated. Explosives etc get more immediate fear, and are likely more cost-effective usually. Nobody does biowarfare much and that may be partly because it doesn't work all that well.

Iran might or might not have terror epidemic stuff they've never tested. If they tried it, it didn't work. A powerful weapon that's unpredictable and very hard to control. Once you release it into the world you can't unrelease it. Practically anybody would have twentieth thoughts.

They could apply that sort of thing to our crops and domestic animals. A disease that hurts our corn crops, say. If they don't grow corn themselves then they aren't likely to hurt themselves, and they could cost our economy many billions. But again it isn't decisive. Say a palestinian smuggler brings in a fruit fly that scars orange peels. The oranges are still just as good but they don't look as good. Israel might lose tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions. It wouldn't make that much difference and if someday palestinians inherit the orange groves the fruit flies will still be there.

Bioweapons are great for horror stories but they simply don't fit nations' needs very often. It doesn't say much that iran hasn't used them. There are some risks and the benefits aren't large enough. The risks and benefits are different for nukes.

However, the benefits of nukes are not large enough either. This is the central reason that no one has used them since we did. Nukes are a talking point, you can threaten people with them provided you don't mind backing down when they call your bluff. Nobody uses them, it's just too stupid a thing to do. Nations that are about to get nukes or that have just gotten them sometimes make wild threats. China did. Pakistan did. Israel did. So far none of them have carried out those threats. Iran is unlikely to be an exception. This isn't going to console people who believe iran is different, totally fanatical unlike china or israel. But if it turns out that iran gets nukes and Bush runs like a bunny, there's at least a reasonable chance things will follow the usual path.

ran might or might not have terror epidemic stuff they've never tested. If they tried it, it didn't work. A powerful weapon that's unpredictable and very hard to control. Once you release it into the world you can't unrelease it. Practically anybody would have twentieth thoughts.

True, but Steyn and other warbloggers tell us that the Mullahs are completely irrational, willing to destroy all of their own people just to lob a nuke at Israel. Given that irrationality, one would argue that they should release these doomsday bio-WMDs. The fact that they havent' (and the fact the only time Iran used WMDs was when they were attacked with WMDs) would lead one to indicate that the mullahs are indeed concerned with their precious skins.

@J Thomas,

Nukes are a talking point, you can threaten people with them provided you don't mind backing down when they call your bluff. Nobody uses them, it's just too stupid a thing to do.

You are missing a huge point here: who make the decision? And how rational and/or desperate are they? You appear to be arguing that since US Presidents and the Chinese and Soviet Politburos were stable enough to refrain from using the bomb, everyone is. Not sure that follows.....

Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have used an A-Bomb on London if he had it in 1945? Or the Japanese on the US if they had a delivery system in 1945? Without knowing who in Iran has their finger on the nuclear button it's very hard to know whether it could be used or not.

Saddam may have been too sane to use the bomb if he had it; it's hard to know, because he didn't have any moral quandaries about mass killing. I think his eldest son was just plain nuts enough to do it had he come out on top after Saddam kicked the bucket. Even the younger son might have though he seemed more stable.

I guess I mostly agree with you but that assumes that that whomever controls that bomb doesn't believe they can get clever enough to use it without consequences.

Perhaps J. Thomas means that calling Osirak a civilian reactor is not just "a bit disingenuous" but grossly disingenuous, indeed an out and out lie. At least I hope that's what he means.

http://gnn.tv/articles/614/The_Lessons_of_Osirak
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/633/osirak-revisited

While it isn't possible to know just what israeli intelligence thought they knew, or what they chose to tell the israeli government, it appears they were wrong.

There are various reasons to believe that this reactor was not part of the iraqi weapons program.

I have found no reason to believe it was part of the iraqi weapons program except the claim that unpublished israeli intelligence reports said it was.

Somebody else is lying on this, not me.

However, while the Osirak attack did nothing to slow down the iraqi weapons program, it did have a dramatic effect on israeli public opinion and probably resulted in the incumbent's narrow election win 3 weeks later. Plus ca change....

Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have used an A-Bomb on London if he had it in 1945?

I think he wouldn't, if he thought we had it too.

Note that the germans never used their nerve gas. They made it, they stored it, they diverted resources from the war effort so they could keep ready this weapon that they never once used on the western front. At his war crimes trial Goering said that they didn't use it because they thought our use of it against them would hurt them too much. He went further, he thought we were stupid not to use it on them because it would have crippled them far more than it would hurt us. Because the germans never managed to produce a gas mask for a horse.

I don't know anything about their use of nerve gas on the eastern front.

The japanese logistics system got so chaotic that they couldn't keep track of their chemical weapons. They simply hoped we wouldn't use gas on them, they couldn't hit us back, and for the most part we claim we didn't.

Unless they had enough bombs to destroy us, I don't think either germany or japan would have used them. They both might quite likely have threatened to use them during surrender negotiations, attempting to get better terms.

Mao, who'd already done several mass purges of his population that killed an unknown number of chinese civilians -- probably somewhere between the high millions and the high tens of millions -- is the stable leader you're referring to. He made atrocious treats when he was about to get nukes and soon after he got them. The russians asked us what we'd think if they did a surgical strike and we told them not to.

It's possible the iranians are the ones who're different. But think carefully what we risk by assuming they're crazy and attacking them. The awful outcomes aren't all on one side of this choice.

i think its 'nuke'em till they glow, shoot'em in the dark' robert

but Steyn and other warbloggers tell us that the Mullahs are completely irrational, willing to destroy all of their own people just to lob a nuke at Israel. Given that irrationality, one would argue that they should release these doomsday bio-WMDs. The fact that they havent' (and the fact the only time Iran used WMDs was when they were attacked with WMDs) would lead one to indicate that the mullahs are indeed concerned with their precious skins.

Veleztrope, you have gotten into an argument with crazy people. Naturally they project their own insanity onto others -- who may also be crazy independent of the accusation.

Think about how much effort you want to devote to disputing their babbling. Discussing with them might possibly help you clarify your own thinking. And it might be fun. But notice why you're spending your time arguing with these fools.

So you "don't think" Hitler or Tojo would have used nuclear weapons on us if they had had them? Are you seriously arguing that they were saner and less bloodthirsty than Franklin Roosevelt, who did use them? I think you just lost the argument by self-administered reductio ad absurdum.

As for the claim that Osirak was a civilian reactor, I'm not particularly impressed by a link to a site I've never heard of that calls itself "Guerrilla News Network". Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I think I'll trust the judgment of the Israeli government over some self-styled web guerrillas.

Are you seriously arguing that they were saner and less bloodthirsty than Franklin Roosevelt, who did use them? I think you just lost the argument by self-administered reductio ad absurdum.

Roosevelt never used nuclear weapons. I think you just lost the argument by self-displayed ignorance.

If the US had 1000 times as many nukes capable of obliterating Japan and Germany and neither had any way of attacking the US (as Iran does), then I doubt Japan at least would have done so. Germany -- maybe in the dying days of WW-II, although Germany did not use chemical weapons out of deterrence fears and abandoned bio weapons (although both England and the US had extensive programs).

Weevil, you have appallingly misunderstood my claim.

I doubt that the germans or japanese would have used nukes if they had a few and they thought we had a few. This is far different from Truman (not Roosevelt) who knew that neither japan nor the USSR had them.

For gods sake, read the link before you criticise the publisher. But OK, here's a different link.

http://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/OSIRAK(2)

The israeli government itself has published more recent reports that agree with Harvard physics professor Richard Wilson, who actually inspected the reactor.

Sheesh.

Thanks for the correction: I meant saner than Franklin Roosevelt, who built them for use against Germany or Japan and would undoubtedly have used them if he hadn't died a few months before they were ready, and saner than Truman, who did use them. The point remains: how can you be so confident that a psychopath such as Hitler would not have used an atom bomb if he'd had one? Did he not make remarks about how the German people didn't deserve to survive him? Did he not do other utterly irrational things, like gassing Jews who could have been put to work in his arms factories and given him a better chance of winning the war (at which point he could have gone ahead and gassed them anyway)? He certainly had apocalyptic tendencies, and so did Tojo, with his kamikazes and willingness to sacrifice civilians by the hundreds of thousands even after defeat was obviously inevitable. It seems incredibly naive to presume that neither would have used a nuclear bomb, even if both sides had them.

In any case, I'm astonished that anyone would place the safety of literally millions of people in a long-distance psychiatric judgment that Ahmadinejad (or Saddam, for that matter, or Uday if he had lived to govern a nuclear Iraq) wouldn't use a nuclear bomb if he had one. You can't possibly know that, and the consequences of being wrong in such a guess are far too horrible for me to want to count on your judgment.

As for your link: is it generally accepted that the Osirak reactor was non-military? Or is this something that 2-3 people, one of them a Harvard professor, believe? There's a huge difference. After all, there was one Harvard professor who believed in alien abductions, and I've never been inclined to defer to his authority.

In any case, I'm astonished that anyone would place the safety of literally millions of people in a long-distance psychiatric judgment that Ahmadinejad (or Saddam, for that matter, or Uday if he had lived to govern a nuclear Iraq) wouldn't use a nuclear bomb if he had one. You can't possibly know that, and the consequences of being wrong in such a guess are far too horrible for me to want to count on your judgment.

I'm astonished that someone would propose a course of action that could lead to major casualties, including of Americans at home(certainly Iran will not have the capability to target the American homeland for decades, and possibly never if the strategic defense works), and would radicalize the Middle East even more and could bankrupt the US and present it as some sort of rational solution.

Throughout the cold war, we relied on maintaining deterrence with Stalin, a murderous dictator. We maintained deterrence with Mao, an apocalyptic loony. By your logic, we would have been far better off nuking China earlier in the game.

You talk about placing the safety of millions in the hands of a long distance psychiatric judgement, but the fact is that we've been doing this all the time with Soviet and Chinese dictators, and indeed domestically we do just that with each President who's elected. After all, who knows if we would elect a messianiac President willing to use nukes readily ?

For me, the critical point, as has been mentioned by others, is that Iran has never attacked a neighboring country. Even in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran used chemical weapons only after being attacked. The Iranian regime is no baby faced innocent regime, but it does not seem to possess the megalomania or single center of power of Saddam's Iraq.

By contrast, US ally Pakistan has spread nuclear technology far and wide. President Musharaff actually brought the subcontinent to the brink of nuclear war 6 years back when he attacked India. Based purely on past record, Pakistan is considerably more dangerous than Iran. SOmehow the fact that our President has relied on long distance analysis of Mushraff doesn't bother you.

Steve,

Conquering Iran will be the easy part. There is general agreement that the U.S. could do so in a few months, even from a standing start. The mullahs don't have anything that can stop us - effective ground forces are too great a threat to their regime. That's why they have so many different regime protection forces, and have brought in Shiite Arab mercenaries from Lebanon.

Occupying Iran afterwards is the big problem - that requires a garrison at least 50% larger than what we've had in Iraq for the past three years, and more likely double that size. In addition to what we have in Iraq, though that will probably drop to about half its present size over the next year no matter what else happpens - we've won the occupation campaign.

But we're still looking at ground forces in the Persian Gulf area going from an average of @ 130,000 over the past three years to 300,000 - 350,000 for three years starting with an invasion of Iran.

Which means we'll have to call up most of the Army and Marine Corps reserves for the duration - IMO about three years. That will require special Congressional authorization amounting to something close to a formal declaration of war, and a for-real declaration of war would probably be better.

What we really need are a regular Army and Marine Corps of Cold War size - 750,000 active Army and 230,000 Marines.

But we're at the top of a slippery slope here. If we bomb Iran, we'll end up invading to overthrow the mullahs' regime. And if we invade, we'll end up occupying the place for several years.

There's no way we won't bomb Iran at this point. So we're going down that slippery slope.

1) I don't get these comparisons with other regimes that we allegedly 'haven't done anything about either.' If a burglar enters your front door, should you not try to stop him because there's also a burglar entering the back door? I think not. It would have been great if we could have prevented North Korea and Pakistan getting nukes. We either couldn't and/or didn't. But we did prevent Iraq from acquiring them, as well as Libya, and we can prevent Iran from acquiring them, and as a result, most likely Saudi Arabia, who wouldn't have as much need for them anymore.

2) Mao, for all his insanity, did not threaten to attack the US, wipe a key US ally off the face of the Earth (I guess Walt/Mearsheimer wouldn't care about this one), or threaten to upset US predominance in the major oil-producing region of the world. Neither did Mao provide the headquarters to the world's most active terrorist networks, with a proven record of disrupting the lives and interests of the US and its allies.

3) If massive retaliation is not credible, as it has been rightly argued by people earlier, then an Iranian use of their bomb is much less crazy. Particularly since Iran *has* been waging war. Contrary to assertions by people above, Iran has been waging proxy wars through being the world's main sponsor of terrorism. If you don't believe Iran is actively using violence against US interests I suggest you ask some of the allied troops in Iraq what they think about that. If you don't believe they've been fomenting violence elsewhere, I suggest you ask the people of Lebanon and northern Israel about that. If you don't believe they are willing to use violence against the West, I suggest you ask the US 1979 Iranian embassy personnel about that - or Salman Rushdie.

Mr Holsinger,

Why would a bombing campaign slippery slope us into removing the mullahs through occupation?

Junior,

There are two alternatives when bombing without invading:

1) stop bombing after a while;
2) keep on bombing indefinitely.

If we stop the bombing after a while, the mullahs will start up their WMD and missile programs, and we'll be right back to where we started. If necessary, they can produce their nuclear weapons in North Korea and get them to Iran by air via China and Pakistan. See this story:

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

Furthermore the mullahs will have every reason to provide full state-supported terrorism against us everywhere. With Al Qaeda operating from the Iranian U.N. mission in New York City.

Ditto if we don't stop the bombing.

Tell us how sanctions against Iraq could have been successfully continued forever. Then tell us how isolating Iran will be any different.

As for fantasies about regime change without invading, I am touched, touched, at so much confidence in our wise, all-knowing and highly successful Central Intelligence Agency.

So bombing without invading means endless war with Iran because we're afraid to win. That's just the theme the GOP wants to go into elections with while gasoline costs $6-$10 a gallon.

I don't dispute that the Bush administration will try bombing without invading. I just say that they won't stick with it.

President Bush lacks the expertise or character to resolve major conflicts in the advice he gets, and so goes for the lowest common denominator forming a majority in that advice. That's why our force levels in Iraq were so low after its conquest - those opposed to invading at all, together with rosy optimists like Rumsfeld, wanted the lowest possible force levels there after the conquest, and formed a majority among Bush's advisers. So he chose to do that despite the consensus of opinion in the military that we needed to reinforce the forces in Iraq after the conquest.

The same pattern is happening again concerning Iran. Those who oppose all military action are allying with the rosy optimists who say we don't need to occupy the place afterwards. The former have lost on the issue of not attacking at all, so now they're arguing for a minimal bombing campaign (they'll lose on that too, but AFAIK the issue is still sort of open), and are arguing against invasion, and against occupation if we do invade.

There are lots of others who definitely don't want us to stay on if we do invade.

I thoroughly agree that all this is flaming nonsense. The "slippery slope" argument certainly applies here. If we bomb at all, we'll end up invading, and if we invade, we'll stay on in occupation afterwards. But we'll do each of those less effectively than if we had planned on doing those from the beginning. This is why I predict that whatever we do will result in the maximum duration of the conflict, the maximum casualties for everyone, the greatest amount of destruction and the greatest amount of economic injury.

This is called "Incrementalism on the road to hell."

But there are all these people saying we don't have to bomb, we don't have to invade, we don't have to occupy ...

And President Bush doesn't know s**t from gold.

But we will invade given what I expect the mullahs will do in retaliation for our bombing of them. Their retaliation will just hurt too bad, especially at the gasoline pump in an election year.

When we invade it will go reasonably fast. I'm more concerned about the mullahs hitting us with nukes and biological warfare than about their ground resistance.

Then we'll discover that their real plan is to hide out during the conquest phase, with only useful idiots trying to fight us in stand-up combat, and take us on Baathist insurgency style during the occupation. Figuring that we'll just "butcher and bolt", and that they'll be able to regain control once they get us to leave.

Only we won't leave once we figure that out the hard way.

Why would a bombing campaign slippery slope us into removing the mullahs through occupation?
-Mark Steyn Jr.

...as Tom says above, because the Mullahs will just pick up where they left off as soon as we stop bombing.

Except this time, they'll have much better intelligence on how deep they need to dig the bunkers.

The only long-term solution to this problem is getting rid of the mullahs... or acquiescing to a nuclear Iran (which means a nuclear Saudi Arabia, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear Syria, and very probably a nuclear war in the middle east. Of course, the "why is this a big deal?" crowd never seems to think that far ahead).

Deterrence only works if the people you're trying to deter want to live.

@J Thomas

I wrote: Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have used an A-Bomb on London if he had it in 1945?

I think he wouldn't, if he thought we had it too.

J Thomas I don't think you have read about Hitler's frame of mind in that bunker under Berlin in the last days. He didn't give a damn about Germany by then; he thought Germany had failed him.

There is some question in my mind whether the order would have been carried out but not whether he would have issued the order - he clearly could and probably would have.

That doesn't mean I believe Iran is a good parallel to Berlin in March 1945 - merely that one cannot universally believe that it won't happen merely because it hasn't happened yet.

At the same time I think we have to assume that cool heads will prevail until proven otherwise. But if a mushroom cloud sprouts over Tel Aviv don't expect the response to be a restrained one. Or even necessarily limited to Iran....

Rosignol, it isn't enough to get rid of the mullahs.

Iran has a whole lot of patriots. Or nationalists or fanatics, whatever you want to call them. Any government they get is going to try to get nukes and keep them from being invaded again. Any government they get is going to try to be a strong regional power.

It could be argued that we need to get rid of the mullahs because they're crazy and will start a disastrous nuclear war, while the next government will be sane and will settle for being a regional power with a deterrent. But this means starting an aggressive war based on long-distance psychoanalysis.

To choose this war you have to overestimate the eventual dangers of keeping the peace, and disregard the damage from fighting now.

It's one of those Scylla/Charybdis things. "Scylla is a terrible danger, we have to do everything we can to avoid it. The only way is aim straight at Charybdis and fight our way through."

Answer: because Israel lacks the capacity. Also, if you're willing to be a little less Machiavellian in your politics (ah, morality), because they don't deserve the backlash that will follow (not least from the latently and not so latently anti-semitic Europeans) Israel's saving collective Western bacon.

Mark,

With all due respect, that's a ridiculous argument. First of all, I'd like you to support your claim that Israel doesn't have the capability. Then I'd like you to explain why there would be a backlash against an Israeli bombing campaign if there's such a strong moral case to be made (and no, calling Europe anti-semitic is not an explanation). Finally, I'd really love to know why Israel would be pulling our fat out of the fryer, when you explicitly argue that Iran is "willing to go the extra mile for Jew-killing," a fact that would seem to indicate that Iran is much more of a security threat to Israel than it is to the US of A.

While Iran may be a sponsor of transnational terrorism, there are strong logistical and ideological reasons for nuking Israel before moving on to the Great Satan. In the end, perhaps the simple difference is that you see the US of A as the world's policeman, a view that I have never and will never agree with. That's not to say we should be isolationist, but I do think we need to take down the "PASS BUCK HERE" sign we've been wearing for a while.

J Thomas I don't think you have read about Hitler's frame of mind in that bunker under Berlin in the last days. He didn't give a damn about Germany by then; he thought Germany had failed him.

Hitler wouldn't be in the bunker in the last days with a deliverable nuke.

It's very hard to say how WWII would have gone if both sides had deliverable nukes. But OK, it's a fun topic. Imagine we're sitting around the hearth in a snug house, a roaring fire in the fireplace, brandy snifters, no responsibilities, nothing urgent going on, and we feel like discussing how history would have had to go if things were different.

So let's imagine germany had a nuclear program about on par with ours. About the time we get two to four bombs, they get two to four bombs. My guess is they'd nuke London and Moscow, and we'd nuke Berlin and Tokyo. Then everybody would make more bombs as fast as they could. Japan wouldn't particularly have any good targets within range, but....

Would the germans send a sub on a suicide mission with a nuke? Try to sneak into the Potomac? Or New York? Or some military target, maybe a shipyard? The nukes were little then. A small nuke at the closest spot in the Potomac probably wouldn't completely knock down the Pentagon. But it would scare us. Could the japanese get a submarine into San Diego harbor? Either way it would risk a nuke that was hard to replace.

OK, so pretty quick both sides would be out of nukes, and while we were rebuilding we'd think about it. "Herring doesn't believe in vinegar until it's steeped awhile."

I can't say what Hitler would have done if he survived Berlin. But the war would be going badly. Our war plans might be disrupted if we lost half the Pentagon. Russia had a lot of factories and such in Moscow, but losing a lot of bureaucrats would more than make up for them. It isn't unlikely the germans would be ready to sue for peace, particularly a separate peace with us and against the russians, they'd want an alliance against the russians. At any rate, something less than unconditional surrender. Would we go along with a partial surrender? I think it might depend on whether we'd been nuked or not. If not, we might want to fight to the last british city.

But at the least the germans would agree to no more nukes. They had so many fewer cities than we did, and easier to reach. They'd be worse off trading nukes. And we might agree. We have the advantage either way, but we lose less without nukes. And they couldn't hold out on the eastern front, not enough troops. Lose their cities and it looks grim.

German officers could see it easy. Even if the guy on top wouldn't negotiate, surely they would. They did in reality. They were ready to try a coup but they wanted us to tell them we'd give them good surrender terms, like no war crimes trials and no reparations, and we didn't. They'd already been through one bad surrender that way. Would the nukes have meant we'd agree to a negotiated surrender? Would the USSR agree? If Stalin survived Moscow, who knows? But the doubts about further nukes are more on our side than the germans.

We talk like having nukes means you never get invaded. So far it's worked for USA, USSR, china, india, and israel. Five countries with conventional militaries strong enough to keep themk from being invaded anyway. Oh, and north korea, which also has a nerve gas deterrent (Seoul is too close to the border.) The hypothesis really hasn't been tested. I say having nukes means you never have to do an unconditional surrender. If you think surrender is death, you might as well use your nukes first and then die. But you don't choose nuclear death while you have something to lose. And a negotiated surrender on good terms is something to lose.

We won't see whether this is right until there are enough countries with nukes that some of them actually get into wars.

With all due respect, that's a ridiculous argument. First of all, I'd like you to support your claim that Israel doesn't have the capability.

The Israelis have around two dozen aircraft that are capable of delivering the kind of bombs you'd use for that kind of thing *and* have the range to get to Iran and back (F-15I). The targets are both dispersed and (presumably) hardened, which means you need to deliver a lot of ordnance on-target to be sure the job got done. Most of the extra payload on those F-15I's is going to be used for additional fuel.

Pretty much the only way they'd be able to pull it off would be with US assistance (in the form of tankers they could refuel from in flight), and it would involve the Iraqi government (...such as it is) allowing the Israelis to fly over their airspace. As a practical matter, patrolling the airspace is currently done by the USAF, and nobody's going to believe the Israelis weren't spotted by an AWACS or two enroute, so if they did it, it would be percieved as a de facto 'American-approved' action anyway.

Simply put, the Israelis are not going to solve this problem for us. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't.

OTOH, I don't think the Israelis would give a toss what the Europeans thought of them doing it.

While Iran may be a sponsor of transnational terrorism, there are strong logistical and ideological reasons for nuking Israel before moving on to the Great Satan.

I disagree, there are no logistical reasons for iran to nuke israel.

There are no sane logistical reasons to nuke anybody.

At least look at the game theory logic, that should be accessible to anybody who can do logic. In a multipolar world, where you have more than one potential enemy. You nuke one enemy and they nuke you back. Are you better off or worse off?

You are far worse off because after you've been nuked you're weaker compared to all your other enemies.

It's a stupid thing to do.

On the other hand, if you're a brand new nuclear power you want to make sure everybody knows it. One way to do that is to make a bunch of crazy threats and get away with it. That is, get away with it as long as you don't actually try to carry them out.

Of course we say that the iranians are crazy and they don't do logic. We say that about all our enemies. We said it about china. We said it about the USSR. We talked about insane russian plans to nuke us and the leadership would spend ten years in super-bombshelters until the radiactivity died down and they could come out and take over the world. We said Noriega was crazy. We said the silly communists running Grenada were crazy. We said Saddam was crazy. I dunno. Maybe it's our destiny to find crazy people to have wars with.

The Israelis have around two dozen aircraft that are capable of delivering the kind of bombs you'd use for that kind of thing *and* have the range to get to Iran and back (F-15I).

They are claimed to have eight (8) tankers. So that would give them a few more planes. Not enough to do the kind of job we're talking about doing. I agree with most of the rest of your argument. Particularly, they couldn't do it without US knowledge and approval, so it would get attributed to us anyway. If we're going to get the blame we might as well do it ourselves.

OTOH, I don't think the Israelis would give a toss what the Europeans thought of them doing it.

European sanctions would hurt them. A lot of their sales are in europe. OTOH, europeans haven't put sanctions on them yet for anything else, and this would just be more of the same.

The disagreement in this thread comes down to some simple propositions. Veleztrope and J. Thomas claim, in substance, that deterrence has worked before and it would be irrational to run significant risks now on the hypothesis that deterrence won't work again in the case of Iran. The argument gets fancied up a bit, but that's basically their point.

Perhaps. Without an ability to foretell the future, no one can know. The more or less universal desire to live and survive explains why deterrence has worked in the past and is a reason to think it may work in the future. By the same token, of course, if the will to live were the end of the story, suicide bombers would not arise, and the WTC towers would be standing today. Close inspection of lower Manhattan, from which I am writing this post, shows that they and their tenants are long gone, having been replaced by a large hole and a communal grave for what specks of the former tenants may remain.

Steyn contends (and I agree with him) that the Iranian mullahs give every indictation of thinking and acting (but, given their exalted status, only through surrogates) like the suicide bombers. There was nothing like that kind of behaviour with the Soviet or Chinese leadership (or the US or other Western leadership either) at any point during the Cold War. It's possible, as Veleztrope and J. Thomas say, that in the case of the Iranians it's all just bluster, and probably our own (or better, the Israelis') fault for being such insensitive louts trying to keep them out of a nuclear club that isn't all that exclusive anymore.

I think Steyn's right that the Veleztrope/J. Thomas perspective is a decidedly 9/10 kind of thing -- they might even agree, since the essence of their argument is that there is nothing new here, and the same strategies that deterred the Soviets and Chinese from foolhardy attacks will work with the Iranians. But in a post 9/11 world, I think the greater irrationality would be for Israel or the US to allow the fate of millions to hang on such judgments. The world has changed, and if the choice between bad and worse is to be avoided, the Iranians need to recognize that fact. Having repeatedly and loudly issued threats to destroy Israel, and to murder the denizens of the Great Satan by the millions, the Iranians will reap what they have sown unless they start acting very differently soon.

RHD, you have ably crystallised my argument. However, you are basicly wrong.

The chinese did indeed do a lot of bluster back in the old days. You just don't hear about it any more because it doesn't serve Bush's needs to remember.

And your idea that 9/11 changed very much apart from driving a bunch of americans crazy, is also wrong. Suicide bombers are nothing at all new, as our sailors noticed quite distinctly in WWII.

There have always been people ready to die for their country. There have seldom been people ready to get their countries killed off. I can't think of many examples -- israel under the maccabees comes up. Can you think of a second example?

Our brave soldiers at Fulda Gap expected 98% casualties in 2 days when the russians attacked. Success meant they delayed the russians those 48 hours. They trained to do that job and luckily the russians didn't come. If the will to live was the end of the story, we wouldn't have an army that would take 19,000 casualties in iraq.

The problem here is your pre-Katrina attitude. You're still stuck back in the 9/11 days. Everybody but you sees now that the Bush administration is not capable of achieving workable goals beyond getting elected.

Can you actually hope that we can attack iran and get a result as good as iraq? You are out of touch with the modern world.

I just wanted to say that I'm glad to hear all these counterarguments, and I think I've been proved wrong on some significant points, specifically regarding Israel's military capabilities.

Re: JT -- I fall firmly into your camp, but I was arguing as if Steyn's argument were true. Given his premises, I still don't buy his conclusions. Also, while any offensive by Israel would have to be conducted with our tacit approval, there's a large difference politically between bombing Iran and letting someone else bomb Iran. Anyway, I think this is a dead line of argument, so I'll stop pushing it.

The problem here is your pre-Katrina attitude. You're still stuck back in the 9/11 days. Everybody but you sees now that the Bush administration is not capable of achieving workable goals beyond getting elected.

I may not agree with your argument for containment, but I do agree entirely with your post Katrina analysis, in fact I would argue that the whole mess that Iraq is in today is also good evidence that this has been the case for quite some time.

Adrian, you got me to stop and think. I don't think there's much difference between israel attacking with our support and us attacking directly -- as far as *who gets blamed by the rest of the world*. Except if israel is involved then israel will get some of the blame.

But it would make a vast difference to the american public. We could pretend it wasn't even our decision.

However, it looks like the israelis aren't interested. They don't seem to be nearly as worried about iran as we are. Maybe because they've already had their elections?

"Our brave soldiers at Fulda Gap expected 98% casualties in 2 days when the russians attacked. Success meant they delayed the russians those 48 hours. They trained to do that job and luckily the russians didn't come. If the will to live was the end of the story, we wouldn't have an army that would take 19,000 casualties in iraq."

J. Thomas: While I agree with you to some extent in your overall view of the situation, this statement is delusional. I was one of those soldiers (a junior officer). We had no expectation or sense that there were going to be 98% casualties. Perhaps a Rand study calculated such a number, but it was not part of the planning or emotional expectation of the individual soldiers. No (or at least very very few) Western soldiers expect to die in any incident. We always think its going to happen to the other guy, or that we personally will get lucky, or we just don't think about it. The actual, honest, bravely faced suicide bombers or fighters are very very rare; suicide bombers, kamakaze pilots, perhaps Alamo defenders, Thermopylae defenders, others. Suicide fighting truly is different from dangerous fighting, or high casualty fighting, or brutal fighting.

Which is what your opponents are arguing. Is the Iranian regime truly suicidal? I don't know. But if it is so, it really is a qualitatively different regime than the Russians, or Chinese, or the American Army in the Fulda Gap.

Steve

Steve, the officer who told me that said it about his brigade. Maybe it was just his unit, or maybe you were there at a different time? Or maybe he was bullshitting me....

I want to point out that if the iranian government is suicidal, they don't need a delivery system for their nukes. All they need is to put together a doomsday device and then set it off in a deep bunker in their own country. If it works they kill all their enemies. Much cheaper than a nuclear arsenal and ICBMs etc. No need to give it to unreliable terrorists and trust them to smuggle it someplace. Short and sweet. Kill all their enemies and everybody else with minimal fuss.

And if that's their intention maybe they don't need nuclear weapons at all. How much damage would Chernobyl have done if it was intentionally operated to create maximal damage? A nation that intends to kill everybody can't be allowed any power reactors either. Or access to molecular biology. They could create a virus intended to kill everybody, and release it, and keep trying until they either got a big success or a failure big enough to notice. It isn't enough to knock out their nukes, you have to bomb them back to the stone age and keep them there.

But I just don't believe it. So far I have one single example of a nation intending suicide, israel under roman occupation. I haven't come up with a second example, although perhaps some of the native american nations might fit. The odds are way against it.

"the European Union and others have been fairly craven over those Danish cartoons"

Um, Mark, getting a little amnesic there? Recall that after those cartoons were published, it was largely editors in Continental Europe who reprinted the cartoons and staunchly defended the right of the Danes' freedom of the press there. Media in Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium (all EU) countries stood tough and held their ground, reprinting the cartoons and refusing to wither, while the governments in those countries refused to bash them and continued to stand up for their rights to publish.

In fact, in that case it was the US (and UK) media and government who blinked. US officials also immediately rattled off a sniping little criticism of the Danes, something that the EU governments did not do.

The problem with an example like this, is that you come off as a reflexive EU basher, failing to actually think about and fact-check what you're saying. There is of course a fair amount about the EU to bash, but every now and then they show backbone where the US fails. (I, for one, see their general resistance to the Iraq War as an example of backbone where we failed. Maybe some of them had selfish reasons, but the point is, 3 years on it's the US and UK that are going bankrupt and bleeding to death in Iraq-- precisely what those dastardly French were warning us about.)

Steyn is a funny guy, but his analysis is usually about as deep as a puddle.

Among much else, J. Thomas writes "Suicide bombers are nothing at all new, as our sailors noticed quite distinctly in WWII." This is one of those statements that is technically true but designed to obfuscate. Kamikazes in airplanes and Jihadists with suicide belts do both commit suicide and do both use bombs to kill others, but there is nevertheless a huge difference, as J. Thomas should know if he's going to mention them at all.

Kamikazes generally wore uniforms, flew planes with military insignia that could not be mistaken for civilian aircraft, had specific ranks and reported to a fixed chain of command, and (most important) aimed at legitimate military targets. None of this violates the Geneva Convention. Contemporary suicide bombers (mostly Islamic, but also the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka) do none of these things and violate the Geneva Conventions in multiple ways. Saying that they are "nothing at all new" is therefore either ignorant or dishonest. The main reason the U.S. is taking casualties in Iraq is not the alleged incompetence of the Bush administration but the fact that our enemies there have sunk to new depths of depravity and contempt for international law, while we have not even taken full advantage of our rights under the G.C., for instance the right to shoot those captured out of uniform on sight rather than shipping them to Guantanamo. I've asked this before more than once, and never gotten an answer: how many Americans and allies have been killed in Iraq by enemies who were NOT violating the Geneva Conventions in at least one way while doing it? In other words, how many of our 2300+ dead were killed by Iraqis who were in uniform, reporting to a well-defined command structure, and not hiding behind civilians at the time? I think the answer is probably a few dozen. The rest of our casualties have come from being engaged in a war against an utterly ruthless and barbarous enemy. To put it another way, even I could do some serious damage in a fight with Mike Tyson if you let me (but not him) bring a chainsaw and a loaded revolver into the ring. I should add that the utterly debased filthiness of the enemy in Iraq convinces me that it's all the more important to defeat them.

Interesting discussion. One thing I've noticed, though, is that when people talk about military options vis-a-vis Iran, they always seem to use either Osirak or the current Iraq War as the models. Those are two very different models in terms of scale, of course, but what they both have in common is that they were basically unilateral. Why not consider either Afghanistan or Gulf War I as the model instead? Is a genuine coalition or at least a widely supported attack completely implausible?

Think about it: Basically the whole world is against the idea of Iran having the bomb, not just the US or even just the West. The Arab/Sunni world is inclined to distrust and even despise the Persian/Shiite nation of Iran. The Russians sure don't want a nuclear Iran on their borders, despite their balance of power moves to counter the US on this. The Europeans are reluctant to use force, but they're adamantly opposed to Iran going nuclear too. China's realpolitik stuff with the US would likely be trumped by concerns over the long-term distortions in the oil markets a nuclear Iran could cause. And so on, and so on.

I strongly suspect that the widespread resistance to military action right now is based on two things: 1) hope/faith that negotiations might still work, and 2) fear that another unilateral US action would completely destabilize things. Once it becomes clear that negotiations aren't going to work, and if the US can play the diplomatic game correctly and avoid looking like a unilateralist superpower this time around, I think a true coalition strike might be possible.

- Dave

Dave, if we could get a Gulf War I coalition against iran I expect they'd cave in, and the war would be averted. That would be a great outcome.

However, if that happens before 2009 it would result in a big military coalition with the USA in charge, with Bush as the Commander in Chief. I think that's real real unlikely. These are people who instinctively distrust Bush. They've seen how he treats his allies.

And then, how would it help Bush? He needs a war, not a negotiated settlement. With a big coalition it would even be hard to schedule the war for the best domestic advantage.

China's concerns about oil market distortions from a nuclear iran might be less than their concerns about oil market distortions from a US-dominated iran or a war. They might feel like their best outcome is for the iranians to feel more and more desperate as our attack plans unfold, and then at the last minute china saves them. Of course, it might not work....

A coalition that didn't include the USA might have just as much impact on iran, but who would lead it? China? That's more plausible but still not likely.

Anyway, if the whole world does unite against iran that would be great. My only concern in that case is the whole world might also unite against the USA.

Weevil, most of that isn't worth responding to but I'll mention that the geneva conventions don't give us the right to immediate execution of combatants found out of uniform. They allow execution after at least six months detention and a trial.

Also, they specifically forbid taking citizens of an occupied country out of that country.

Why not read the thing before you spout off?

Way to avoid engaging with my arguments, J. Thomas. Care to provide links to back up your assertions about what the Geneva Conventions say? Be sure to link to protocols that the U.S. has actually signed and is therefore bound by.

It would also be more honest to admit that you were wrong in equating two very different phenomena that can both be described as "suicide bombing". Just because two things can be described by the same two words does not make them equivalent. A "Latin lover" may be an erotic Hispanic or someone who likes to read Cicero and Vergil in the original. An "English professor" may either be English, or teach English. An "animal lover" may be someone who takes in stray cats or someone who likes to have sex with animals. There's a big difference. And a "suicide bomber" may be a suicidal (but not criminal) modern-day samurai wannabe or just a psycho mass-murdering thug. Why not admit that you shouldn't have equated the two?

I'm also still waiting for the evidence that more than two or three people in the world think Osirak was a totally non-military completely civilian reactor. You've quoted a couple of people who say so, including a Harvard professor, and they have some plausible-sounding arguments, but I could quote more people than that who have equally plausible arguments for the idea that oil is not organic in origin but comes oozing up from below in massive quantities. I'm no expert, but I gather that that's still most likely to be false. I want to know just how strong the evidence is that the Osirak bombing was a big mistake. You claim to know about it: please tell us whether it's a minority opinion, whether anyone is arguing the other side or just assuming it, in short what grounds there are for believing it, other than that someone has made a plausible-sounding case.

nteresting discussion. One thing I've noticed, though, is that when people talk about military options vis-a-vis Iran, they always seem to use either Osirak or the current Iraq War as the models. Those are two very different models in terms of scale, of course, but what they both have in common is that they were basically unilateral. Why not consider either Afghanistan or Gulf War I as the model instead? Is a genuine coalition or at least a widely supported attack completely implausible?

Part of it is a tendency among Americans to prefer to do things ourselves when possible. When you have multiple governments involved, you have to get permission to do things from more people, and there are often different rules of engagement, as well as differences in equipment that makes coordination more difficult. An all-US operation makes things simpler (and there have been cases when coalition 'allies' (coughFRANCEcough) have been caught passing intelligence to the opfor).

Besides that, it was the 'multilateral' nature of the coalition that existed in GW1 that led to the decade-long mess in Iraq- GHWB didn't drive on to Baghdad to depose Saddam because the UN mandate was only to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and he thought the coalition would have fallen apart if he had.

And then there was the Balkan mess. Another coalition, another mess of a chain of command, another situaiton where you had to get sign-off on the target list from way too many people, and US forces still wound up doing the bulk of the work.

The American experience with multilateral coalitions in the last decade or so has been quite unsatisfactory.

Think about it: Basically the whole world is against the idea of Iran having the bomb, not just the US or even just the West. The Arab/Sunni world is inclined to distrust and even despise the Persian/Shiite nation of Iran. The Russians sure don't want a nuclear Iran on their borders, despite their balance of power moves to counter the US on this. The Europeans are reluctant to use force, but they're adamantly opposed to Iran going nuclear too. China's realpolitik stuff with the US would likely be trumped by concerns over the long-term distortions in the oil markets a nuclear Iran could cause. And so on, and so on.

Well, in that case, have I got a deal for you- all your government has to do is sit back and be quietly supportive, maybe kick in some reconstruction funds when the shooting is over, and the US will take care of the problem without a single soldier from your country dying, so your politicans won't be facing grieving parents next election. What's not to like?

I strongly suspect that the widespread resistance to military action right now is based on two things: 1) hope/faith that negotiations might still work, and 2) fear that another unilateral US action would completely destabilize things. Once it becomes clear that negotiations aren't going to work, and if the US can play the diplomatic game correctly and avoid looking like a unilateralist superpower this time around, I think a true coalition strike might be possible.

1) such people are deluded.

2) things are already destabilized.

3) coalitions are not a panacea.

Sigh

OK, I'm tired of arguing with uninformed trolls. How about this time you provide the geneva convention links that say we have the right to shoot saboteurs on sight and it's OK to take occupied civilians and soldiers out of the country. I'm OK with providing the links but you first.

Your stupid argument about suicide bombers doesn't deserve a response but it's a slow morning, so I'll point out that no two examples of anything are exactly the same, and so you can make that argument about whatever you like. In the context of "it's a brand new thing that human beings accept certain death to do bad stuff" there's nothing new here. In the context of "it's a brand new thing that people fight out of uniform" there's nothing new here. In the context of "it's a brand new thing that people do atrocities" there's nothing new here. You are being silly.

About Osirak, at least read the links. A professional reactor expert looked at the reactor and said that it wasn't a heavy-water reactor as the israelis claimed, just like the one the french sold israel. It was a light-water reactor that would be ineffective for making weapons. No one who looked at the reactor has claimed otherwise. Half a dozen iraqi nuclear scientists interrogated after OIF said it wssn't part of the weapons program, that it would take decades for it to produce enough material to be useful. Is there any reason for them to lie about it at this point?

It makes sense that the Osirak bombing got Saddam to start his big weapons program. Before, it got a little money like a bunch of other pipe dreams. Then they bombed Osirak and talked at great length about how desperately important it was to keep Saddam from getting nukes. Doesn't it make sense he'd believe them about how valuable nukes would be to him, and how easily he could make them? He increased the funding more than 10-fold after Osirak, but it could possibly have been a coincidence. The iraqi scientists didn't think it was a coincidence but they didn't know what Saddam was thinking any more than we know what Bush thinks.

However, just because they bombed the wrong reactor and sped up Saddam's nuclear program doesn't mean the bombing was a big mistake. Likud won the election 3 weeks later, and they probably wouldn't have without it. If you figure that was the point of the exercise, then it succeeded.

Way to generalize, Ros. I see that America's tendency towards unilateralism extends even unto the written word. I'd like to present my counterargument, in what the Chicago Manual of Style calls "classic Rosignol" format:

You are wrong. I am an expert on these matters, and my broad characterizations are irrefutable.

J.Thomas,

There is NO ONE SET of GC applicable to all countries. There are a bunch offered for ratification, and those were written over a wide period of time.

Each country picks which of the many GC it chooses to abide by, and issues its own reservations, expections, and whatnot.

It is necessary to look at each countries' version of the GC individually, with all the differences each has applied separately.

Your statement:

"... provide the geneva convention links that say we have the right to shoot saboteurs on sight ..."

shows immediately that you have no idea what you are talking about. The reservations and exceptions applied in each countries' ratification of individual GC protocols do not appear in any of the GC - they're national legislation.

You assume things which are not true and reason from those, i.e., "Garbage in = Garbage out" perfectly describes your knowledge of the GC.

You are wrong. I am an expert on these matters, and my broad characterizations are irrefutable.

...just trying to fit in with everyone else, Adrian.

;-)

Compare and contrast:

"Dr. Weevil":
1. Distinctive name, provides link to web-page prominently displaying e-mail.
2. Five comments on one post.
3. Corrects mistakes (yes, of course, Truman, not Roosevelt) even when they do not affect the argument.

"J Thomas":
1. Generic name, provides no e-mail or web-page link.
2. Twenty-three comments so far on one post.
3. Calls everyone else on the thread except Veleztrope "crazy", "babbling", and "fools" and suggests that one of them "try therapy".
4. Thinks that instead of trying to disarm Iran we should just let a whole lot of small countries build nukes and eventually two of them will bomb each other and then everyone will know how bad that is.
5. Insists that Hitler was not insane.
6. Thinks Katrina was a federal cock-up.
7. Provides links arguing that Osirak was unsuitable for weapons production, none of which even implies that the Israelis knew that when they bombed it, but feels entitled to add a sneering remark about how they did it for electoral purposes.
8. Can't think of any example of a whole nation committing suicide except "Israel under the Maccabees", later emended to "Israel under Roman occupation", which makes it sound like he's thinking of Masada. Of course, the Maccabees were roughly a century before Rome ever laid claim to Judea, and two centuries before Masada, whose defenders were in any case only a small portion of the population of Israel. In short, the example is historically illiterate. The Melians in Thucydides committed national suicide as a matter of principle, but mentioning them wouldn't have allowed another nasty little dig at Israel.
9. Most important, refuses to back up his argument with links while demanding links that he knows cannot be provided.*

So which one of us is the troll?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*It has never been considered a war crime to hang spies who wear civilian clothes, like Nathan Hale and Major Andre, though those who do reconnaisance in uniform have traditionally been treated as honorable soldiers. Similarly, those who fight out of uniform or in the wrong uniform (like the English-speaking Germans in American uniforms who infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge) have traditionally been shot or hanged on the spot when captured. "J Thomas" demands that I tell him where in the Geneva Conventions this is allowed. It doesn't need to be mentioned to be allowed, because it was allowed before they were written. He needs to provide the evidence that the Geneva Conventions have changed that particular rule. If they haven't, it's still allowed.

I don't doubt that there is a rule that civilian citizens cannot be removed from an occupied country. But those who kill for a political or religious cause are not civilians. Of course, if they blatantly violate the laws of war while doing so, they're not soldiers, either: they're either terrorists or "unlawful combatants", depending on whether they're targeting civilians or soldiers. In either case, they get very little protection from the Geneva Conventions.

Mark Steyn's article is a heroric effort in analyzing the predicament that a handful of world leaders must consider when dealing with the muck that previous leaders failed to clean up. This writing is a call to arms so that there may be some semblence of unity to contend with an emerging nuclear-equipped Islamic power who has no intention of abiding by international treaties.

The free world's people are tired of conflict and the war against terrorism. But the sad truth of the matter is that we may not have seen anything near as catastrophic as the potential sequence of events that might be triggered by a power play initiated by Iran once they have the capability to strike with nuclear weapons. The world community has way too much to risk to stand by and permit Tehran to emerge as a nuclear power in our world.

Have those of you most keen on a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities ever considered enlisting?

Thought not.

Ah, the chickenhawk canard. Have you even thought about what you're saying, unmuscular nonhypocrite? Did you support the liberation of Afghanistan? Do you recall that it looked at the time as if it could take many years, hundreds of thousands of troops, and tens of thousands of casualties? (That's certainly what the Soviet experience implied.) Did you enlist then? I have yet to find anyone who uses the chickenhawk smear who did. Unless you're the first one who did, that makes you a hypocrite yourself, though probably not a muscular one.

Muscular _ I'm not sure of your point. Is it that you think the US can live with a nuclear Iran and so shouldn't bother trying to prevent that? Or that the costs of preventing Iran from developing nukes is too high? Or do you think that the US should work solely though multinational insitutions like the UN to try to modify Iran's behavior? Or do you think a nuclear armed Iran would be a good thing for the world, inasmuch as it would be in a position to achieve the destruction of Israel that the Arabs and Persians all say they want?

Tom Holsinger, if in fact there is a different geneva convention for each nation that signs, depending on the national legislation they use to say which parts of the convention they sign they choose to ratify, then shouldn't Weevil provide links to the US legislation that says which parts we agree to?

Weevil, I haven't called every poster here crazy, for example I haven't called Tom Holsinger crazy. I've only applied that to people who think it's useful or necessary to attack iran in the near future.

I supply my email address with each post but it doesn't show up. It's a mechanics thing, what would I do different to make it visible?

Thank you for providing the Melian example, which makes at most two so far.

You can't very well provide examples of hanging spies and saboteurs before the geneva conventions to argue what the geneva conventions allow. You are being very silly. Most of your points are too ridiculous, and don't deserve a response, troll.

Anyway, I've provided links on geneva conventions the last half dozen times that trolls have demanded them, and now it's your turn to take the first step. Provide your links or admit you don't have them.

Fine, I give up, I'm a troll. After all, you say so and you're a world-class expert on trolling, so you would know. In fact, you're never wrong: None of the historians know it, but the Maccabees died at Masada, Hitler was not crazy, the Iranian mullahs are not crazy, but Mark Steyn and everyone else who thinks they are too crazy to be trusted with nuclear weapons is himself crazy. Whatever.

Vale, Podex Maxime. Vita longa, turpissima, ac stultissima procul a me fruaris.

J.Thomas,

Links to the GC alone are wholly inadequate in explaining which protocols apply to any given country absent the wording of the reservations and exceptions applied by that country when it ratified those protocols.

Furthermore you will always, always, err in demanding that people any demonstrate that the GC permit a given practice or act. The GC permit nothing. They are prohibitory only, i.e., that which is not expressly prohibited is allowed.

There is no one Geneva Convention. There have been several - the whole process started at the Hague in the Netherlands a hundred years ago - and each "Convention" aka formal meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, of groups of diplomats from many nations has proposed separate and distinct, stand-alone, "protocols".

Each nation chooses individual protocols to accept as binding on it, and it may unilaterally amend those however it wants by issuing reservations, making exceptions, etc.

AFAIK, only a few nations have used this discretion to amend the protocols they choose to ratify. The United States is one of those few, and its reservations and exceptions have materially altered some of the protocols.

The U.S. has also flatly refused to ratify most protocols adopted after 1949 at later meetings of the Geneva Convention signatories.

To determine which parts of the GC the U.S. has accepted, you have to look not only at the GC website to determine which individual protocols the U.S. has adopted, but also at the treaties the U.S. Senate has passed, and the statements issued by Presidents, in ratifying individual protocols. Some. but not all, of those can be found at the GC website.

And properly interpreting all that requires legal training. But legal training won't help unless you have all pertinent documents before you, and the GC website doesn't.

The last thing to consider here is the enormous cloud of disinformation spun about the GC by lefties who are far more interested in scoring political points than in legal truth.

They start by claiming that every single GC protocol ever written applies to every country, which is flat out not true. Each GC protocol is a separate stand-alone document, and only those individual protocols ratified by an individual country are binding on that country.

As a practical matter, American law provides far more protection to any foreigner, including unlawful combatants, than the GC.

Those people who make claims about the U.S. violating the GC in the war on terror can be dismissed as anti-American idiots. American law is where the action really is, and there is a major Constitutional separation of powers fight going on between the judicial and executive branches going on right now.

Tom Holsinger, where would one find the parts of the 1949 convention that the USA chooses not to follow?

Wouldn't they be listed with our ratification of the convention? It makes no sense to sign the document and then over the next 57 years occasionally say we're going to disregard new parts of it. Doing that is like not ratifying it at all.

It makes no sense to say you can't understand the geneva conventions ws have signed unless you're a lawyer. The US military claims that every single US serviceman understands them. What do we tell our soldiers? "You won't know whether you're committing a war crime unless you get the advice of a competent lawyer who has specialised in this topic." Give me a break. There's no reason you and I can't understand the geneva conventions as well as a soldier. How long do they spend studying it during training? Two weeks full time?

The critics of Steyn's piece just don't seem to be catching a clue here; especially those making facile comparisons about the number of countries already nuked by Iran versus the US.

Let me put it to you simply: would you rather live in a Western-style Democracy in 30 years or under the whip of fundamentalist fanatics? The issue isn't whether the US is "good" in the international arena - that's a tough position to take because its a tough world. The real issue is whether you let Iran continue it expansionist fantasies or support the ongoing expansion of the liberal democratic order. *Those* are your choices. Great powers expand and demand obeisance to their sensibilities. While you may not like Western excesses, aren't they infinitely preferable to stoning gays, second-class status for women, Dhimmitude for the unconverted and violent political repression?

Pretend all you want that Iran isn't a serious threat but everything they've said and everything they've done screams out that you are wrong on the most basic facts of this debate. Pretend all you want that the US is a great evil but the basic freedom that you enjoy to simply state this opinion without fear of retaliation proves you wrong.

J.Thomas,

The military teaches its troops what they have to know to conduct themselves properly under all laws applicable to them, which are not limited to the GC. It includes the UCMJ and the regulations of each service. The military teaches its personnel the WHAT. It does not teach them HOW to interpret the GC.

There is a big difference between HOW and WHAT. Law school is for the HOW.

7. Provides links arguing that Osirak was unsuitable for weapons production, none of which even implies that the Israelis knew that when they bombed it, but feels entitled to add a sneering remark about how they did it for electoral purposes.

Moreover, if you look at the two links he provided, an important part of their arguments is that Osirak was unsuitable because it was monitored by the IAEA. But that's only relevant if one thinks that anybody cared what the IAEA thinks. As we've seen from Iran and North Korea, they don't.

Weevil, I haven't called every poster here crazy, for example I haven't called Tom Holsinger crazy. I've only applied that to people who think it's useful or necessary to attack iran in the near future.

Fair enough. And we should only apply it to people who think that Islamic fanaticism is comparable to the Soviet Union or China. Who doesn't realize that Islamic terrorists are regularly suicidal, and that they kill not for any strategic reason, but simply to show that they can. (As Mark Steyn notes with regard to Argentina.)

J Thomas, where would you find the part of the 1949 Geneva Convention, or any other, that forbids hanging spies?

The military teaches its troops what they have to know to conduct themselves properly under all laws applicable to them, which are not limited to the GC. It includes the UCMJ and the regulations of each service.

That's precisely what we're talking about. If the geneva conventions forbid something, the troops won't be told it's OK.

So anyway, do you know where to find the US reservations about the 1949 protocols? Once again, it's absurd to agree to the thing and then spend 57 years changing our mind about what we've signed. Surely the reservations we stated when we signed the document are the ones that count.

J Thomas, where would you find the part of the 1949 Geneva Convention, or any other, that forbids hanging spies?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

This applies to spies, spies are protected by the convention. Unless, for example, it was americans spying for the iraqis and they get caught by the americans.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

This appears to say that IF it's against the GC to shoot a spy on the spot when you find him, but if you don't do it he'll get away or get his data out etc, then you can go ahead and shoot him.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Everybody else is supposed to get the chance to send letters etc. They can tell their families etc where they are. If it's a spy you don't have to let him tell any secrets he hasn't already delivered, and so you don't have to let him get any info out.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

You aren't supposed to shoot a spy without a trial first.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

You can execute them for espionage but you have to give them a trial first, not just shoot them on the spot.

Art. 75. In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve.

No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of a least six months from the date of receipt by the Protecting Power of the notification of the final judgment confirming such death sentence, or of an order denying pardon or reprieve.

The six months period of suspension of the death sentence herein prescribed may be reduced in individual cases in circumstances of grave emergency involving an organized threat to the security of the Occupying Power or its forces, provided [....]

It isn't OK to kill a captured spy without holding him 6 months and giving him a trial and chances to appeal etc, unless letting him live that long is a serious threat to the occupying power.

I hope all this is clear just from reading the text. When you capture a suspected spy you're supposed to take care of him and get him to detention facilities, if you reasonably can. Then he gets 6 months to get the trial and appeals over with before you can hang him. But if you can't do it (like for example you're patrolling deep in enemy territory and you can't drag him home without calling too much attention to yourself and you can't leave him behind without endangering your mission) then you won't.

Did the USA had a reservation about this? Maybe we wrote instead "The USA reserves the right to shoot anybody on the spot if we think he's a spy"?

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument
Here are the reservations the US government expressed when we ratified the treaty.

First, we said we'd been using the Red Cross symbol in ways that were against the treaty, and we'd go on doing it. (I expect this involves things like having the red cross symbol on first aid kits etc. We said we wouldn't break the treaty by putting the Red Cross symbol on buildings, airplanes, vehicles, etc.)

Second, there was a clause that said the occupier can't execute people for things that weren't illegal in that country before occupation, except for a short list of exceptions. We said we'd execute people for things we considered capital crimes whether or not the losers' laws agreed with us.

I did the work and provided the references for it, and no doubt the trolls are laughing at me, all they did was make stuff up. Much much quicker.

Quote`

"You are wrong. I am an expert on these matters, and my broad characterizations are irrefutable.

...just trying to fit in with everyone else, Adrian.

;-)

Posted by rosignol at April 14, 2006 11:34 AM

" end quote

I CONCUR

I will also say that fluorecent blueish fish is better than green marmalade; unless it is processes in a .......

snip...

Isn’t it religious that the cheetos-eating doughy assed fools defile anything they want, refusing to bow to the rules of hungarian grammar. Why are they painting crap up their tutu without question.

I have no idea what you are posting on the second paragraph, not that is some kind of departure from the idiocy emanating from witless reindeers.

In spite of any hard facts to the contrary, the freakozoids were goning to discombulate the swich come hell or high water or vinagar.

Let us rejoice and jump with Mark

J Thomas, where would you find the part of the 1949 Geneva Convention, or any other, that forbids hanging spies?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

This applies to spies, spies are protected by the convention. Unless, for example, it was americans spying for the iraqis and they get caught by the americans.

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

This appears to say that IF it's against the GC to shoot a spy on the spot when you find him, but if you don't do it he'll get away or get his data out etc, then you can go ahead and shoot him.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

Everybody else is supposed to get the chance to send letters etc. They can tell their families etc where they are. If it's a spy you don't have to let him tell any secrets he hasn't already delivered, and so you don't have to let him get any info out.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

You aren't supposed to shoot a spy without a trial first.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

You can execute them for espionage but you have to give them a trial first, not just shoot them on the spot.

Art. 75. In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve.

No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of a least six months from the date of receipt by the Protecting Power of the notification of the final judgment confirming such death sentence, or of an order denying pardon or reprieve.

The six months period of suspension of the death sentence herein prescribed may be reduced in individual cases in circumstances of grave emergency involving an organized threat to the security of the Occupying Power or its forces, provided [....]

It isn't OK to kill a captured spy without holding him 6 months and giving him a trial and chances to appeal etc, unless letting him live that long is a serious threat to the occupying power.

I hope all this is clear just from reading the text. When you capture a suspected spy you're supposed to take care of him and get him to detention facilities, if you reasonably can. Then he gets 6 months to get the trial and appeals over with before you can hang him. But if you can't do it (like for example you're patrolling deep in enemy territory and you can't drag him home without calling too much attention to yourself and you can't leave him behind without endangering your mission) then you won't.

Possibly the USA had a reservation about this? Maybe we wrote instead "The USA reserves the right to shoot anybody on the spot if we think he's a spy"?

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/NORM/D6B53F5B5D14F35AC1256402003F9920?OpenDocument
The USA had two reservations when we signed the treaty. First, we were using the Red Cross symbol in ways that were against the treaty. Like, we tended to put it on first aid kits and such whether they were military or not. We said we wouldn't make that illegal, but we wouldn't wrongly put it on buildings, vehicles, airplanes,etc.

Second, we said we wouldn't go along with the rule that said we'd only execute people we found if it was a capital crime under the losers' laws before they lost to us. If we think it's a capital crime we don't care what the bad guys used to do about it.

So I did the work and provided the references, and no doubt the trolls are laughing at me for it. All they did was make stuff up, which is much much quicker.

JThomas, leaving aside that the provisions you cite apply only to civilians, you also misread them. They apply "in occupied territory."

David, yes. What is your point?

If it's uniformed soldiers they get the other ruleset, and you don't execute them for espionage.

If your point is that a while ago we did a "handover", and so iraq is no longer occupied, that's sort of true. In theory we're now responsible to the iraqi government and so the geneva conventions no longer apply. Geneva conventions apply to nations at war, and to occupations. If you were to, say, send a military patrol into a nation you aren't at war with, kidnap some civilians, and kill them, the other nation's diplomats are supposed to negotiate it and if they aren't satisfied they can declare war.

We have an embassy in iraq, the iraqi government in theory could complain to us about anything it didn't like including things that would otherwise be war crimes under the geneva conventions.

We can do whatever war crimes we want and it's all OK provided the iraqi government doesn't object. We can even say they aren't officially war crimes because there is an iraqi government and we aren't at war with it. We could use poison gas, set up death camps, anything! And it isn't a war crime because the iraqi government exists!

Still, aren't the geneva conventions clear on the point?

I don't know about trolls, but I'm laughing at J. Thomas because he doesn't seem to realize just how trollish his own behavior is. Hint: When wrong, admit it. Here's how it's done:

It looks like I may have been wrong to write baldly that spies, saboteurs, and those who fight out of uniform or in the wrong uniform can be shot "on sight". According to J. Thomas' evidence, I should have written that spies can be shot "on sight if letting them live would be very dangerous to the occupying power, otherwise six months later after a hearing of some sort, except that most non-Iraqi spies and saboteurs apprehended in Iraq can still be shot on sight". It doesn't affect the point I was making, which was the absurdity of claiming that suicide bombers are nothing new, in effect just flightless kamikazes. The latter are still legitimate soldiers, the former thugs who willfully violate the Geneva Conventions in every way they can.

Of course, the situation is much more complex than J. Thomas implies. He admits that American spies caught in Iraq are unprotected and can be shot without any six-month delay, but it appears that citizens of most countries in the world are in the same position. In quoting Article 4, he omits the 2nd paragraph:

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."

In other words, citizens of U.S. allies, like David Hicks, the Australian caught in Afghanistan, or the various British Muslims caught in Iraq, are fair game, as are citizens of neutral countries with which we have normal diplomatic relations: that would include the hundreds of Saudis, Jordanians, Pakistanis, Algerians, Yemenis, Syrians, and so on captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and currently incarcerated in Guantanamo and other places. A quick websearch suggests that there are only five countries in the world the U.S. has no relations with. Four of them (Cuba, North Korea, Bhutan, Taiwan) have few, if any, citizens among the insurgents, so this little exception he fails to mention would include everyone except the Iraqis themselves and any Iranians they import. That's still thousands of people, but far from all the insurgents. Zarqawi, for instance, is a Jordanian, and Bin Laden a Saudi: neither is protected, and neither could demand a six-month reprieve from execution, though I don't doubt that they would get at least that. None of the Guantanamo inmates has been executed yet.

The first sentence I quoted may look irrelevant, since the U.S., Iraq, and Afghanistan (but not of course al Qaeda) are all signatories of the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, the sentence does not say "a State which is not a signatory" but "a state which is not bound". Was Iraq "bound" by the convention? Probably only an expert on international law would know for sure, but Saddam didn't act as if he thought so. We are still missing one P.O.W. from the first Gulf War (Scott Speicher) and several more – the ones captured with Jessica Lynch – were murdered, while she was repeatedly raped. If I'm not mistaken, hundreds of Kuwaitis captured in the first Gulf War were never heard from again, and thousands of Iranians were kept for 10+ years after that war ended. The insurgents, whether Ba'athists, Islamists, or miscellaneous, do not seem to consider themselves bound by the Geneva Conventions either, in which case it could certainly be argued that the U.S. is not so bound in dealing with them. Of course, I may be wrong in this interpretation, but my point is that the Geneva Conventions are not the most perspicuous documents in the world and it would be polite not to sneer at others for supposed ignorance of them if you have only skimmed them yourself picking out the bits that look as if they buttress your case and ignoring the rest.

All this without even getting to the big question, whether J. Thomas even quotes the right convention. The one he quotes protects civilians, and it is arguable that Iraqi 'insurgents' are hardly that. Of course, they are not protected by the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war, which requires (Art. 4) that "militias or volunteer corps, including . . . organized resistance movements" should "fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." The Iraqi resistance is very careful to fulfill as few of these conditions as possible. They are therefore not legitimate soldiers, are not protected by the Geneva Convention on prisoners of war when captured, and can hardly be considered as civilians, either, though many naive westerners think they should be treated as such.

Dr. Weevil,
The war in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime, which I supported, should have been a one-off which the US military was more than capable of accomplishing as it was presently constituted. Since then, sadly (insanely?), the Ledeen Brigade has been campaigning for a perpetual war in the Middle East first against Iraq, now Iran, next Syria, to be followed by Saudia Arabia. Without much fresh blood it seems unlikely to be able to conclude the first of these wars let alone start the others so I am simply stating that those keenest on all of this military action should be the first to sign up for it. There were not recruiting shortfalls in October 2001. There are now. You clamour for war so enlist, faster, please. If you don’t, how can expect not to be thought of as a chickenhawk?

DBL,
We are in agreement that the Iranian regime is reprehensible and do not wish it to acquire nuclear weapons. My point is, however, that the military solution you seem to favour will worsen rather resolve the problem we seek to address so other means must be pursued. I live in Tokyo and am not at all thrilled about N. Korea having nuclear weapons but similarly feel that a military solution is not feasible.

How can I expect not be considered a chickenhawk? It's easy: I'm 53 years old, and no branch of the service will take me for any position, or would have taken me in the last 10+ years.

So how old are you? Even if there weren't any recruiting shortfalls in October 2001, it certainly looked as if there would soon be. One more time: it looked like Afghanistan would be a brutal quagmire, and you didn't join, did you? Why should I believe that you supported the liberation of Afghanistan if you weren't willing to put your body on the line to prove it? See how easy it is to make someone look cowardly by this dishonest and contemptible line of argument? I wouldn't use it on you if you weren't so eager to use it on me without even asking basic questions like whether I'm even eligible for military service.

Here's one more reason why the chickenhawk argument is only used by liars, fools, and hypocrites: a picture of an actual chickenhawk, followed by a representation of the kind of person who goes around calling people chickenhawks.

Dr. Weevil, thank you for showing me how to graciously admit it when you are wrong.

This is entirely a side issue that you have dragged out, but OK, I'll go one more round at whack-a-troll. The geneva conventions prohibit some actions. They only prohibit actions involving nations at war, or occupation.

So yes, the geneva conventions do not apply to citizens of nations we aren't at war with and have regular diplomatic relations with. Let's take an example. Say you go on a vacation to sweden. And during the span of your vacation, a danish diplomat sends a report to the US embassy. It goes something like:

One of your nationals, a Dr. Weevil, was found to be committing espionage in sweden and has been summarily executed.

The US embassy would want to ask some questions. There would likely be a meeting between a US diplomat and a swedish diplomat, likely 4th under-assistant attaches both. And in my imagination the conversation might go something like this.

US: You, ah, say that our citizen Dr. Weevil was doing espionage. When he was issued his US passport he seemed like a fine upstanding citizen, so we'd like to get more information about this.

SW: There's nothing to tell. He was found spying, he surrendered, the soldiers he surrendered to knew he was a spy so they shot him in the back of the head. Rather messy, but there you have it.

US: Could we get a transcript of what Dr. Weevil said about it? Did he confess? Who was he spying for?

SW: He didn't say anything, except they say he sort of grunted when his knees hit the pavement while they were getting him knelt down to shoot. No, no transcript.

US: I see. Well, were there any other witnesses?

SW: No, no witnesses except four japanese spies and an argentine spy who were executed right after him. They were all pretending to be tourists together.

US: Ah. And how did you know Dr. Weevil was a spy?

SW: That is classified information. I am not at liberty to say.

US: Well, this is rather irregular. Why didn't your troops hold him for further questioning after he surrendered? You could have had a trial and such, examined the evidence and all that, now couldn't you?

SW: We have a perfect right to shoot anybody in the world that we think is a spy, unless we are at war with his country. There's nothing in the Geneva Conventions that say otherwise. It is not a war crime.

US: Well. I hope when you mentioned the geneva conventions you were not implying that sweden might soon be at war with the united states. I can't imagine how those conventions apply. I want to stress that my nation values our warm relations with sweden and this incident disturbs me. I must make a full report to the Ambassador and we will eventually have some sort of response. Please, next time you think you have caught a spy who is a US citizen, I hope you will keep him alive and give us a chance to talk with him before you kill him.

SW: We have the right under international law to kill any foreign citizen anywhere in the world that we think is spying on us, unless we are at war with his nation. We will always kill spies on sight, without trial. It is our right.

US: Ah. Um. [gapes] I will deliver that message. [Goes off shaking his head]

About the soldier/civilian distinction, look again at Article 4 of both documents. Any national of the occupied country gets the rights of the civilian section. POWs get extra rights. Like, they get to wear their medals. Officers get special treatment. Things like that. Every national gets some rights, POWs get more. As far as I know the argument that if they fight but aren't full POWs then they get no rights, is brand new with this administration. We went 52 years before we came up with that idea, and the text of the document includes nothing to support it.

You have pointed out a distinction. If we catch a saudi terrorist in the USA, what we do to him can't be a war crime because we are not at war with saudi arabia. The geneva conventions don't apply. It's only iraqi and afghan nationals that the geneva conventions apply to.

And you've succeeded in distracting me onto a completely unrelated tangent -- Jessica Lynch was repeatedly raped? She said she wasn't. Is there trustworthy information about that?

You are an incredibly effective troll. Here we are, possibly about to start a nuclear war, and you've distracted me with war porn.

No, J. Thomas, you are the incredibly effective troll in this particular thread -- effective in trolling, though entirely inept when it comes to arguing:

1. You have repeatedly lied, calling me a 'troll' when I have addressed all your arguments, no matter how lame, while you refuse to address mine honestly.

2. Like all good trolls, you have refused to admit ever making a mistake, not even briefly acknowledging them when they are pointed out. Do you still think the Maccabees died at Masada? Yes or no? Do you truly believe that anyone who fails to qualify as a soldier under the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war must be granted all the rights of a civilian under the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of civilian persons (note: "civilian persons", not "all citizens")? That may a be popular opinion, but it seems to be false. Example: This document specifically says that mercenaries do not qualify as protected soldiers. Do you really think that a mercenary has all the rights of an innocent civilian, even while he is wearing a uniform and shooting at people? No doubt you can find people to say so, but it would be an absurd misuse of the conventions. The administration’s argument that the insurgents in Iraq are "unlawful combatants", who intentionally blur the distinction between soldiers and civilians by pretending to be both at once, and therefore forfeit the rights of both, is the only sensible and moral way to treat them. Otherwise, national and subnational armies have no incentive at all to follow the Geneva Conventions.

3. You pretend ignorance of things you could easily find out. Was Jessica Lynch raped by her captors? Her authorized biography says she was, and I don't imagine she authorized the author to tell lies about her. It took me 3 seconds with Google to find several on-line reviews of the book: what's your problem?

4. You carefully omit facts that would show you to be wrong so you can pretend to win arguments with straw men. Your little skit about Sweden would be quite different if it were about someone who had gone there while Sweden was at war or under military occupation, and taken pictures of military installations. In that case, his captors would have a perfect right to shoot or hang him without any formal trial or six-month wait. Obviously some evidence of spying would help avoid awkward questions, but it wouldn't take much: if the U.S. government protested, handing over a camera with his fingerprints and nameplate on the outside and pictures of military targets on the inside would end the matter immediately. Margaret Thatcher's son Mark recently spent five months in a South African jail and paid a $500,000 fine for plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea. If the Equatorial Guineans had caught him in the country in mid-plot, they most certainly could have executed him, and the British government wouldn't have a legitimate complaint. Do you really not know that?

5. In true troll fashion, you clearly aim not to teach or learn but to have the last word and to push any opponent foolish enough to argue with you into losing his temper.

So congratulations, jackass, you've succeeded in that last pathetic aim. Happy now? Please go curl up under your bridge with your "war porn" (no decent person could have made your last remark) and leave the grown-ups alone.

For the record, Veleztrope's multiple assertions that "Iran has never invaded another country" isn't strictly true. Per http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm 's history of the Iran-Iraq war:
"In May 1982, Iranian units finally regained Khorramshahr, but with high casualties. After this victory, the Iranians maintained the pressure on the remaining Iraqi forces, and President Saddam Hussein announced that the Iraqi units would withdraw from Iranian territory. Saddam ordered a withdrawal to the international borders, believing Iran would agree to end the war. Iran did not accept this withdrawal as the end of the conflict, and continued the war into Iraq. In late June 1982, Baghdad stated its willingness to negotiate a settlement of the war and to withdraw its forces from Iran. Iran refused. In July 1982 Iran launched Operation Ramadan on Iraqi territory, near Basra." [...]

If Iran had stopped at their borders and accepted a ceasefire, there'd be no question of their having the moral high ground as defenders. Continuing on into Iraq after having regained their territorial losses and stopped the Iraqis made their position much more ambigious, flipping it as it did from defenders to aggressors.

Mao, for all his insanity, did not threaten to attack the US, wipe a key US ally off the face of the Earth (I guess Walt/Mearsheimer wouldn't care about this one), or threaten to upset US predominance in the major oil-producing region of the world. Neither did Mao provide the headquarters to the world's most active terrorist networks, with a proven record of disrupting the lives and interests of the US and its allies.

This is so blatantly false and ignorant it isn't even funny. Mao (and every regime in China since) has most definitely threatened to invade Taiwan (a key US ally) and annex it, essentially wiping it from the face of the Earth. Mao mused nuclear war and how he thought China could survive while the West would not.

Mao (and the Chinese leadership) was also responsible for probably around 40-50K American deaths in Korea directly. Support to Vietnam accounted for more American deaths. Maoist organizations operated in numerous countries over the world, carrying out terrorist operations. Heck, there are still Maoist guerillas in Nepal and India.

If massive retaliation is not credible, as it has been rightly argued by people earlier, then an Iranian use of their bomb is much less crazy.

Massive retaliation is most definitely credible.

Particularly since Iran *has* been waging war. Contrary to assertions by people above, Iran has been waging proxy wars through being the world's main sponsor of terrorism. If you don't believe Iran is actively using violence against US interests I suggest you ask some of the allied troops in Iraq what they think about that.

Contrary to your assertions and suggestions, it is far from clear that Iran has been involved with the Sunni insurgents (many of whom slaughter Shia and have killed Iranian pilgrims). We do know they support a lot of the Shia militias in Iraq, but that support was well known before the war -- SCIRI was based in Iran. In any case, there is an unbelievable hyprocisy in assuming that the US has the full right to invade another country thousands of miles away, deploy troops there, even threaten to invade Iran and to assume that Iran has no right to seek allies in Iraq to make it harder for the US to invade it.

[ And for what its worth, Iran was actually helpful in stabilizing Afhgani provinces after the fall of the Taliban]

If you don't believe they've been fomenting violence elsewhere, I suggest you ask the people of Lebanon and northern Israel about that.

I suggest that if you ask the people of Lebanon they would probably have a better opinion of Iran than Israel. After all, it was Israel that invaded South Lebanon.

I would also suggest that if you asked the majority of the people in the world, they would be probably more concerned about US military action than about Iran

If you don't believe they are willing to use violence against the West, I suggest you ask the US 1979 Iranian embassy personnel about that -

I suggest that events that are not 25 years old may be more helpful to prove your point.

I'm certainly not claiming that Iran is a peaceful or benevolent government. However, in recent history, Iran has never initiated an invasion of another country, has shown none of the inclination for conquest and becoming another Saladin tha Saddam did. Iran has only used WMDs when used against them first. None of which gives the indication that it is necessary to immediatedly attack them and bring on the war that Ledeen and Steyn are frothing about.

Tagryn -- your point is valid, but a little pedantic. I think that after being attacked by a neighbor, suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties, Iran was perfectly entitled to continue the war into Iraq.

The US did not become the aggressor in Korea when it repelled North Korea's attack and went beyond the 38th parallel, and neither should Iran be considered an aggressor for retaliating against Iraq.

Do you really think that a mercenary has all the rights of an innocent civilian, even while he is wearing a uniform and shooting at people?

Mercenaries are not citizens of the local nation. Sheesh.

Have you given me the last word yet? I find that's often an effective way to deal with trolls.

*If massive retaliation is not credible, as it has been rightly argued by people earlier, then an Iranian use of their bomb is much less crazy.*

Massive retaliation is most definitely credible.

We have to assume that MAD does not work on iran to justify aggressive war. Particularly a nuclear first strike. If iran can be deterred from nuclear attack then the argument for attack turns into "We can't attack them after they get nukes, so we have to attack them now or we can't dominate them into the foreseeable future."

The more regional powers that we can't attack, the less of a superpower we are. If you're after world domination then a nuclear iran is a very bad thing, just as a nuclear north korea is, and for that matter a nuclear pakistan. As it gets clearer that we feel we have the right to invade nonnuclear nations that don't do what we want, but not nuclear powers, nonproliferation stops working.

But it's hard to sell the american people on the idea that we have to nuke iran for world dominance. So it's necessary to tell them that iran is run by crazy people who don't care if they get exterminated provided they get to use nukes first.

"'Mao, for all his insanity, did not threaten to attack the US, wipe a key US ally off the face of the Earth (I guess Walt/Mearsheimer wouldn't care about this one), or threaten to upset US predominance in the major oil-producing region of the world. Neither did Mao provide the headquarters to the world's most active terrorist networks, with a proven record of disrupting the lives and interests of the US and its allies.'

This is so blatantly false and ignorant it isn't even funny. Mao (and every regime in China since) has most definitely threatened to invade Taiwan (a key US ally) and annex it, essentially wiping it from the face of the Earth. Mao mused nuclear war and how he thought China could survive while the West would not."

1) China has considered Taiwan a renegade province. They've not threatened to obliterate it.
2) Taiwan has not been a key ally as Israel is now. Taiwan has become more important to the US with the rise of China. Unlike Israel, Taiwan was not a liberal democrat ally for most of the period in question either.
3) Mao was bluffing about the nuclear war. How did we know that? We knew that because China never had a serious nuclear force. Nor does it today. Moreover, its nuclear force was directed mostly against the Russians. Mao's quote about population was directly related to this context: the relatively few bombs the Chinese had would be more than enough to significantly damage the much less numerous Russian population; the overwhelming number of Russian bombs would still leave hundreds of millions of Chinese alive after a massive Russian attack. Finally, until recently Chinese nukes could not even be delivered to the US mainland; right now they can perhaps take out LA and Seattle.
4) As a matter of logic, if we made a mistake in the case of Chinese nuclear weapons by not taking them out (and I'm not saying we did), it does not follow we should repeat that mistake today in the case of Iran.

"Mao (and the Chinese leadership) was also responsible for probably around 40-50K American deaths in Korea directly. Support to Vietnam accounted for more American deaths. Maoist organizations operated in numerous countries over the world, carrying out terrorist operations. Heck, there are still Maoist guerillas in Nepal and India."

The deaths in Korea are not relevant with respect to my point about Mao's nuclear threat. The fact that there were Maoist organizations does not mean that they were orchestrated centrally from Beijing, as Iran orchestrates islamist terrorist organizations. There are tons of Marxist organizations in the world, but that doesn't mean that Marx is somehow sitting in his basement co-ordinating them all.

"'If massive retaliation is not credible, as it has been rightly argued by people earlier, then an Iranian use of their bomb is much less crazy.'

Massive retaliation is most definitely credible."

Well, thank you for that 'argument'. Massive retaliation is not credible for the reason that it is at least doubtful. The pictures of dying innocent people, opposed to the regime, on CNN would cause a huge crisis in the US. The fact that the people hit by massive retaliation would have nothing to do with the attack against which we would retaliate would raise the very question why we would retaliate in the first place - and hence the outrage. This very paragraph is the doubt that makes massive retaliation doubtful. Iran knows that. Which gives them an opening. Which ups the ante. D'oh.

"'Particularly since Iran *has* been waging war. Contrary to assertions by people above, Iran has been waging proxy wars through being the world's main sponsor of terrorism. If you don't believe Iran is actively using violence against US interests I suggest you ask some of the allied troops in Iraq what they think about that.'

Contrary to your assertions and suggestions, it is far from clear that Iran has been involved with the Sunni insurgents (many of whom slaughter Shia and have killed Iranian pilgrims)." Etc.

Oookaay... Where do I say anything about Sunni's or Shias?? You're putting words in my mouth mister.

"I would also suggest that if you asked the majority of the people in the world, they would be probably more concerned about US military action than about Iran"

That, my friend, is what we call a non-sequitur. Simply because Johnny believes Jimmy to be x it doesn't mean Johnny is right about Jimmy, or x. It -gulp- requires an argument about x!

Mao was bluffing about the nuclear war. How did we know that? We knew that because China never had a serious nuclear force. [....] Finally, until recently Chinese nukes could not even be delivered to the US mainland; right now they can perhaps take out LA and Seattle.

Well, by coincidence iran has never had a serious nuclear force, and their nukes are harder to deliver to the US mainland than chinese nukes. So by your logic....

Mr J Thomas,

I'm sorry you didn't see that Iran threatens US national security with a nuclear weapon capacity that doesn't include the missiles with a range to reach the US. Putting the Middle East, Russia, Western Europe in range is clearly not enough of a threat to the US in your mind. This in addition to Iran being a nation known for suicide terrorism around the globe, well outside of its own region.

I did not care to explain that because I thought you were intelligent enough to understand it on your own. Actually, I still think you are. I think Dr Weevil is right in calling you a troll. You are being disingenuous in your responses.I think you are right now salivating to type in triumph that Mao never sent a suicide bomber with a nuke to US shores, or ever put a nuke in a container passing through a US port. I can see your fingers itching to add that info to this 'discussion'. No matter that it does not bear on the question of the threat Iran is about to pose.

Why people want to be a troll is beyond me. I'm not in the business of couch psychology. I wish you all the best and good luck. God knows you need it.

Mark, I will spell out my point in greater detail, since you didn't understand it.

Lots of people had just as much concern about china getting nukes, back when it was happening, as you do about iran. At one point the USA considered a strategic strike against china, but chose not to. At a later point the USSR considered a strategic spike, and chose not to -- after discussion with the USA.

You point out in hindsight that china could be deterred. But we didn't know that then. Many people thought that Mao was crazy, that he believed (as he repeatedly publicly stated) that china could survive a nuclear war that the USA and USSR could not.

There were maoist guerrillas trying to overthrow governments, and apparently some of them were getting some funding from china. They weren't urban guerrillas in those days, back then people believed that urban guerrillas just died. I'm not sure what changed,whether the CW was wrong about that or whether something has changed to let them survive.

You of course want to say that iran is completely different, but I was paying attention in those days and it doesn't look that different to me.

Here are some differences I see:

1. The US government didn't irresponsibly hype the threat from china to the US public. That may have been because they thought about war and saw no workable exit strategy. Or maybe they were just sane, responsible people.

2. China had over 800 million people and a large land area. So we could strike at their nukes and we'd start a war we didn't know how to stop. "Land war in asia" was a cliche back then. We could kill something like 80% of their population with dirty bombs near the coast -- most of their people were within 100 miles of the sea -- but we didn't want to. We could have done biowar against their crops and starved them out, but we didn't want to. We couldn't occupy them, they were too big.

3. China was teaching their schoolchildren that the USA was a great devil (but also a paper tiger that they could beat). But they were having major squabbles with the USSR, and if we didn't attack them it looked like they might attack russia instead of us. And with us there to pick up the pieces after a war, both sides might choose not to fight each other since we'd win. So not only was there a strong chance that the coming war wouldn't involve us, there was an even stronger chance that we could head off a war if it started. And we didn't want one.

In contrast:

1. The current administration has intensely hyped the threat from iran, and has made public threats which encourage iran to attempt to defend themselves.

2.Iran would be small enough to occupy if only we had the troops. Iran is easily small enough for china to occupy. And they have oil.

3. Iran has no credible enemy apart from israel and the USA. Perhaps we can stir up enough sunni/shia animosity or arab/persian hatred to give them another enemy. We want a war with iran, and there's some concern that if Bush doesn't get it the next guy might choose not to.

I can't say that iran wouldn't start a nuclear war if they had nukes. But I can say that the arguments they would are no stronger than the arguments china would. Not something to base a war of aggression on.

1) China has considered Taiwan a renegade province. They've not threatened to obliterate it.

They've basically threatened to attack with missiles, occupy it, execute its leadership. That is obliteration.

2) Taiwan has not been a key ally as Israel is now. Taiwan has become more important to the US with the rise of China. Unlike Israel, Taiwan was not a liberal democrat ally for most of the period in question either.

Taiwan is a key ally, as much as Israel. And it may not have been a key ally in the past, but Israel was not always a key ally of the US either (before 1967). Whether its a democracy is irrelevant.

Furthermore, Taiwan had essentially no credible defense against China while Israel has always had a far more formidable army and nuclear deterred than Iran. Israel's nuclear technology is generations ahead of Iran's.

Mao was bluffing about the nuclear war. How did we know that? We knew that because China never had a serious nuclear force.

As opposed to the serious nuclear force that Iran, has today, which consists apparently of a few centrifuges.

Finally, until recently Chinese nukes could not even be delivered to the US mainland; right now they can perhaps take out LA and Seattle.

And after Iran obtains nukes, and missiles, and overcomes anti-missiles, and builds a capable missile force, they still will be well below the technology required to target the US.

China could target US forces in Korea, it could target US allies such as Japan.

The deaths in Korea are not relevant with respect to my point about Mao's nuclear threat.

The deaths of Korea are absolutely relevant since you claimed that Iran should be considered an enemy simply because it has attacked US installations in the past. Well, Iran has not had 1/100th of the body count that China built up against the US. I could go on about their occupation of Tibet and their attack on India.

The fact that there were Maoist organizations does not mean that they were orchestrated centrally from Beijing, as Iran orchestrates islamist terrorist organizations.

1) Iran does not orchestrate Al Qaeda. They were a foe of the Taliban. Remmber AQ, the group that actually attacked us on Sep 11th ? How many Iranians were in that group ? Zero.
2) Iran has supported and helped Hezbollan and Hamas, both terror groups, although its probably an exaggeration to sa y that it orchaestrate them. But if the US wants to attack these groups, it can do so directly, they have governments in 2 countries.
3) Many maoist groups were definitely trained from China. Certainly the ones in Nepal, India, Cambodia and so on.

Well, thank you for that 'argument'. Massive retaliation is not credible for the reason that it is at least doubtful. The pictures of dying innocent people, opposed to the regime, on CNN would cause a huge crisis in the US.

If an attack with enough casualties took place in the US, there would be no crisis. There wasn't much resistance to the US attack on the Taliban.

Furthermore, read todays NYT. Dick Clarke points how a serious enough threat combined with intel ops deterred the Iranians after Khobar towers.

Oookaay... Where do I say anything about Sunni's or Shias?? You're putting words in my mouth mister.

I'm sorry, Iran isn't using Sunni and Shias in Iraq. Whom are they using ? Kurds ? Martians ?

Centcom has captured some outsiders among the insurgents (although the bulk are still home grown). Most are Jordanian, Syrian or Saudi. If Iranians have been captured (and I have not heard so), they represent an insignificant fraction of outsiders.

"I would also suggest that if you asked the majority of the people in the world, they would be probably more concerned about US military action than about Iran"


That, my friend, is what we call a non-sequitur. Simply because Johnny believes Jimmy to be x it doesn't mean Johnny is right about Jimmy, or x. It -gulp- requires an argument about x!

Exactly, my dear halfwit. You made the initial argument that

"If you don't believe they've been fomenting violence elsewhere, I suggest you ask the people of Lebanon and northern Israel about that."

You're the one who claimed that we should ask the people of Lebanon about Iran's fomenting of violence. Well, if you're making such an argument, then one can easily make a counter-argument about asking other people or even the Lebanese (many of whom dislike Israel more than they dislike Iran).

I'm sorry you didn't see that Iran threatens US national security with a nuclear weapon capacity that doesn't include the missiles with a range to reach the US. Putting the Middle East, Russia, Western Europe in range is clearly not enough of a
threat to the US in your mind.

Iran does not have the capability to target West Europe. To the extent it can target Russia, it is probably only a few border provinces. But strangely enough, Russia is a full fledged power perfectly capable of taking care of itself. And again, equally strangely, while it is concerned about a nuclear Iran, it does not seem to regard it as the threat requiring immediate action that you do. Iran can target the Middle East, but Pakistan (which has had nukes for 15 odd years) can target most of the ME as well.

This in addition to Iran being a nation known for suicide terrorism around the globe, well outside of its own region.

Nonsense. Al Qaeda (remember, the group that attacked us on Sep 11) is known for suicide terrorism around the globe. Iran has supported groups that use suicide terrorism (like Hamas), but they are largely Middle East (in Hamas's case, almost exclusively Israel) based. Iran is no boy scout country, but even the groups it supports are almost exclusively Middle East based.

Of course a nuclear Iran presents a threat to the US. And an attack might be necessary. But this should be the last option, and should be executed properly (unlike the Iraq mess), and will full understanding of the consequences. Half-baked calls to attack now based on apocalyptic scenarios will serve us as well as they did in Iraq (i.e. not at all).

ne more time: it looked like Afghanistan would be a brutal quagmire, and you didn't join, did you? Why should I believe that you supported the liberation of Afghanistan if you weren't willing to put your body on the line to prove it? See how easy it is to make someone look cowardly by this dishonest and contemptible line of argument? I wouldn't use it on you if you weren't so eager to use it on me without even asking basic questions like whether I'm even eligible for military service.

Of course you're not eligible -- maybe you could get a transplant of a real human rather than a chicken.

There is a big difference between someone who supports a war of defense (as Afghanistan was) or in retaliation, and between someone who has neocon fantasies of taking over the entire Middle East, whose policies seem basically to call for unending war.

I don't think the chickenhawk argument is good in general. There's a big moral difference between trying to get the best you can for your country, and risking your own skin.

Like, there are some tax laws that I think are stupid and bad for the country. Some of them are IRS rulings and I can ask the IRS to change them. Some of them are tax law and I wrote to my congressman. But should I not take the money myself? I have to pay extra taxes for other bad laws. I can campaign to get these loopholes closed, but why shouldn't I get my share while it's still there to get?

Back before equal opportunity, my family used to hire black people cheap. My father would do professional work for blacks and that cost him profitable business. One of our maids had good business sense; my father got her a job at the country club, and later he cosigned her loan for her motel-and-restaurant, and later still he loaned her money for expansion when the banks wouldn't, at only a little higher rate than they would have if they'd done it. And he did what he could for integration when it got possible. But why should he pay blacks triple the going rate back when that was the going rate?

And during vietnam, my church hired a conscientious objector as a janitor. We didn't pay him enough to live on, but he was glad for the job and he worked hard. If the church reported he wasn't good enough he'd probably go to jail for the duration. Why should we pay him a living wage when he was a CO and he had no choice? We could work to get the system changed, but in the meantime we might as well be among the ones who profit from it.

Similarly, say you're a young stockbroker or an insurance salesman and you think the iraq war will be good for your pocketbook. Why should you fight in it, just because you want it to happen? That defeats the purpose. Let the boys who want to play soldier and the boys who need the money go fight. You provide more value to society selling stocks or insurance. If you were worth more as a soldier they'd pay you more to be a soldier.

Every citizen has the right and the obligation to try to get the government to do what he thinks is best. Whether that's subsidies for his company or navy bases for his town or highway funds for his county or war against his other homeland's enemies. But a citizen has no obligation whatsoever to personally contribute to the nation while it's doing what he wants. You don't have to go help build the navy base or volunteer to work on the highway.

You pay your taxes, and the government will take the money and spend it. It's your responsibility to get the government to spend it on what you want instead of what you don't want. It isn't your place to compete for that government money unless you want to, and it isn't your place to volunteer and do the work without the rewards.

Calling somebody a chickenhawk is just a way to insult them. They have no more responsibility to fight in iran because they support the war, than you do to go fight for the other side because you oppose it.

Tom Holsinger, where would one find the parts of the 1949 convention that the USA chooses not to follow?

Right here:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

Click on 'State Parties' or 'State Signatories' for the details,

Wouldn't they be listed with our ratification of the convention? It makes no sense to sign the document and then over the next 57 years occasionally say we're going to disregard new parts of it. Doing that is like not ratifying it at all.

Where on earth did you get the rather quaint notion that international law had to make sense?

Anyway, the US is party to Convention I, Convention II, Convention III, Convention IV, and Protocol III (all with Reservations), however the US is NOT party to Protocol I or Protocol II.

However, there are several Reservations, one of the more significant of which is:

"The United States reserves the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offenses referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins" (Reservation formulated by the Representative of the United States of America at the time of signature.)

I'm less scared of Ahmadenijad than of kooks like Steyn. I mean, consider it this way-- Steyn is one of US. One of US. If that doesn't scare you, there's something wrong with you.

Steyn is popular with his fellow rightwing loons because his writing's a little more polished than the typical crossburning KKK wacko. Of course, anyone with half a brain can see that Steyn's about as far developed intellectually as those crazies.

He ventured into the Iran debate because that's what rightwing loons ought to be doing. Now that the question of Iraq's been solved. Its a mess, Iraq, so the nuts want to go on to Iran. Just like Osama and his boys don't attach too much importance to any one country, seeing each only as one part of the whole, similarly do Steyn and his bunch of madmen go about their business. And just as 'sama and his boys supposedly attach great importance to historical wrongs, such as the fall of Spain to the crusaders, so do Steyn and his ilk.

Only Steyn's grasp of history is even shakier than Osama's, even though Steyn's bitter memories only go as far as the 1970s. I came across this hilarious article in which Steyn claims that Vietnam did have its domino effect--it led, as you know, to the fall of Iran to 'em moolahs. Well documented, you know. Oh, also Grenada fell by the same theory, as Steyn lets us know. "Globalized dominoes" is Marky's phrase, and it seems that because Vietnam fell, these "globalized dominoes" also fell. Thailand, Malaysia and the Phillipenes didn't fall, but so what, the thing was already global in nature. Man, those commies was already globalizing. They was ahead of us man, we were still focussing on the local and they was already into "globalized
domino" theory. They didn't care 'bout Tie-land 'coz they was thinkin' big man, they was thinkin' of takin' over Grenada man....

Mighty Grenada fell, so even though it was half a world away, it made all the difference. And also Iran, Marky's favorite country of late.

Which brings me back to Iran.