I think that the Irani are pushing things now because 1) they realize that Bush doesn't want any adventuring between now and next Nov and 2) they're hoping a Dim will get the White House.

This is North Korea 2. But there's oil at stake now.

Good for Iran. If I were Iranian I'd want to a have a strong defence policy as well.

Only solution is to support the pro-democracy movement. Military option won't work in this case.

#3 Daniel
Iran intends to de4stroy Israel. What are you saying?

The excerpt mentions the US occupying Iran. Not sure that this is intended as a statement of aggression - rather a strategy if attacked.

OT: Lileks is in rare form today.

I've been waiting ALL DAMN WEEK for Lileks to write something about Ted Rall's "Why We Fight" oozing pustule of a piece. Thank goodness, he finally has:

These people aren’t the loyal opposition anymore; they’re just the opposition. They may say they love America, but they love some idealized nonexistent America that can never exist as long as there’s individuality and free will. They’re like people who say they love women and beat their wife because she doesn’t look like the Playboy centerfold.

It is one thing for an avowedly godless regime to speak of a "rain of death," but to do so in the name of God is perverted. They have no idea whatsoever of God or of the Creation. They live in a nether plane of existence. If they are the pinnacle of humanity, then humans are nothing more than brutes and beasts. The Iranian people must put an end to that regime.

hmmmm ok who will be first to use the phrase samson option

Hope this is just typical [bigoted word] bluster, but actually I'm kind of afraid.

#5 snopes -

I'm with you - sounds more like "leave us alone or else" than outright aggression.

What the heck is a 20 million demographic reserve?

#6,

Read that this morning. Good job, Lilieks. Rall needs to have his odious entrails spilled. Pure scum is what he is.

#5 and #10
Iran's development of nuclear weapons is the aggression.

jimmytheclaw #8

I will bring up the Samson Option. I have no doubt Iran plans to implement a second Holocaust. The only question is how much of the world can Israel destroy as a last gasp.

Here I openly concur with Bigel, the Samson Option will not be limited to the Islamic World. Israel now sees Europe as an enemy (one that contributed to its destruction), and therefore is every bit the enemy to avenge as the Islamic world.

And I have seen where he even thinks that Israel's goal would be to spawn a total nuclear Holocaust to eliminate civilization. I don't think that would be Israel's goal per se, but since inherent in my nightmare scenario would be an attack on at least one nuclear power (France), the possibility that it could all spiral out of control is definitely real.

If, as bigel sometimes suggests, Russia is also a target (and they have helped contribute to Iran's program, too), then I think a global nuclear war would be sparked. The difference is that I don't think Israel has the means to hit Russia by missile or bomber, while one of its Dolphin class subs, if positioned in the Mediterranean in the Bay of Biscay, with those cruise missiles that supposedly have a range of 350-km (about 200 miles) could certainly hit southern France.

Those fuckwits have to realize we can kill everyone of them 5 times over with no warning. A gravity weapon(s) dropped from a b-2, f-117 can destroy their counterstrike capability allowing complete destruction.

And why isn't this being reported on the front page so that Americans can see for once and for all that we're facing North Korea's twin before it's too late?

It's time to light a fire under the Iranian democracy's movement.

But I have no doubt that Israel is going to do an Osriak repeat, and very soon.

JG

Could we use our DNA knowledge and create a 'smart' weapon that would:

- sterilize or reduce the muslims fertility (one childbirth and the hormone changes causes the fathers dick to fall off, or the mother to become infertile for 10 years). Only the west would have a secret anti-dote, added to, lets say, bacon!

- reprogram their dna, so that their own cells start manufacturing a 'prozac' like chemical, and they all become 'mellow' muslims.

How about using future nano-technology to infect their populations with anti-koranic viruses, so that when they try to chant 'Allaah Akbar' they are forced to sing' If I were a Rich Man' in yiddish!

It appears that crunch time is coming sooner than anyone anticipated--with Iraq, Iran, and the whole rotten bunch.

Bush's obvious strategy of not doing anything untoward during election year has invited an Islamoid counter-campaign of violence and proliferation.

The ball is now in our court in a big way.

I don't think we can afford to be nice anymore, but that's just me talking.

We should let them know that MAD only applied to the USSR. With the Muleahs, it's only Assured Destruction - nothing 'mutual' about it!

JG #15

The problem is that Iran almost certainly learned from Osirak, and dispersed its enrichment facilities. Combine that with the greater travel distance, and the lack of a surprise element, and it becomes more difficult to Israel to pull off.

Also, I think Iranian retaliation might take the form of extermination of Jews, either in Israel or abroad, by use of massive bombing or biological/chemical weapons. Remember how Iranians were arrested taking photos of Jewish sites in the UK as possible terrorist targets?

I got three words for you rat bastard Ayatollahs: Mecca Medina Qom.

You f'ers can and will be reached. Reached so bad your moon gawd cult will end up on the ash heap of histroy along with communism and Hitlerism. To seal the deal we'll demolish every mutant Jihadist madrassa and mosque with cruise missiles and precision guided bombs.

That the mullahs still are in power in Iran means that President Bush no longer believes in the Bush Doctrine.
Iran is far and away the most dangerous Islamic country and should have been the first country to have been attacked. Saddam Hussein was just a thug who could have been taken out at our convenience but Iran, the birthplace of Islamic militantism and it's ideological source, should have been at the top of the target list.
Bush is not only blase about the threat Iran poses to the U.S. , he has also actively discouraged Israel from preparing a pre-emptive attack against the Iranian nuclear sites.

Dennisw #20

The mullahs of Iran are fanatics and nihilists. They know that an attack on Israel will invite a retaliation that will kill millions of Muslims. They do not see this as too high a price to pay for achieving worldwide domination.

If they cannot dominate the world, they would be just as happy then to destroy it.

#21 Bill K.
Looking forward to the Dean doctrine? Or how 'bout the Kerry doctrine?

And why isn't this being reported on the front page so that Americans can see for once and for all that we're facing North Korea's twin before it's too late?

1. Kobe Bryant has a hangnail

2. American people threatened by Iranian nukes might want more money spent on missile defense and the military... instead of funding teachers unions, NPR, unionized public employees, diversity counselors, and free drugs for rich geezers.

3. Who cares if Iran has nukes? It's not like they can sell them to terrorists who would load them into a cargo ship and detonate it in New York, Boston, Baltimore, Seattle, or San Francisco. So, why worry.

#10 flick

What the heck is a 20 million demographic reserve?

Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 20,343,063 (2003 est.)
This is the pool of manpower for their Army
From: CIA Factbook

This is all George W. Bush's fault. We didn't have ANY problems with Iran until he included them in the so-called "Axis of Evil". That hurt their feelings; what do you expect them to do?

/LLL

Daniel is quite right. A military option against Iran is just simply not feasible.

Andrew, "Iran" does not "intend" to attack Israel. Iran does not speak with one mind. You have Khatami on one side and the hareliners on the other controling the power ministries.

Rhetoric in the Muslim world that Israel must be destoyed is just that - Rhetoric. But as long as the intifada, suicide bombings and Israeli retribution continue to play on TV in the Muslim world, there's not a lot they can do.

#21 Bill K.

That the mullahs still are in power in Iran means that President Bush no longer believes in the Bush Doctrine.

The invasion of 2 countries during the span of 3 years is pretty good evidence that Bush still believes in his "Doctrine".

#2 Neo_con

This is North Korea 2. But there's oil at stake now.

Much more than that IMHO. Iran wants to destory Israel and they want to export their brand of Islam. This make them much more dangerous than North Korea.

#12 Andrew

Their nuke program started with the shah. You can change the gov't but they will still go for the nuke.

That's why the best option is support the opposition inside Iran. Iran under a gov't that reflects the views of the majority of Iranians would pose a far smaller risk with nukes then the current iranian regime.

I also don't think they would use the nukes as soon as they get it. If you look at the history of Iran you'll see that they are traditionally a very defensive country. The country has rarely invaded one of its neighbours.

I also think they have the bomb already. They probably have bought at least a couple from some former USSR country that it borders. They probably want to develop the nuclear program so they can be self reliant and not depend on other countries.

That's the only reason I see for them signing the additional IAEA protocals.

#31 Daniel
Self-reliant in what way?

"In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims," Rafsanjani said in a speech in Tehran in October 2000. "Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map."

It must be made abundantly clear to these mental midgets that the cost is 1.3 billion followers of a pedophile, not a mere 100 million. Maybe if they understand that is the true cost for their stupidity, enlightenment might finally arrive in the Islamic world.

"In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims," Rafsanjani said in a speech in Tehran in October 2000. "Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map."

Ummm...OK, there's a winning move. In addition to 100 million Muslim dead, much of what would have been Palestine would become uninhabitable for milennia due to fallout. I guess the good news is that such an attack would likely succeed in evicting Palestinians from an irradiated West Bank and Gaza. Also on the plus side, there's likely to be little damage to the Islamic world's infrastructure because there is precious little infrastructure in the Islamic world. Seriously, the Iranian leadership did indeed absorb horrific WWI casualty levels during the Iran-Iraq war. Rafsanjani's comments should not simply be considered bluster.

#32 Andrew

In their mind it's much better to make your own bombs then to buy them from a foreign country.

#29 Engineer

This make them much more dangerous than North Korea.

With North Korea, we have pressure from the US as well as China, S. Korea, Japan and an impotent UN to get rid of their nukes. With Iran, it's only the US, Israel and a disinterested UN that seem to be willing to mount any pressure. At to that a one crazy Mullah who welcomes 2 cups of death along with 72 raisins, stir, and we have a recipe for disaster.

#16 Sol3

LOL

If only something could prevent them from making that horrible ululululu noise.

I went to the International Festival in my city last weekend and I had to put my hands over my ears whenever they started in, which was often. I hate it.

WAayyyy OT, but I thought of LFG when looking at this week's Onion...

The Onion strikes again...

Hilarious.

#35 Daniel
Iran has no reason to develop/obtain nuclear weapons except to be used as first strikes.

Somewhat, though not entirely, OT

Heard a snippet on am radio newscast this morning that CENCOM is planning to re-establish ME military headquarters in Qutar. Stated reasoning is twofold:
1) Demonstrate to ME countries that we (US) is dead serious about building a strong democracy in Iraq.

2) Give Iran the opportunity to ponder the reality of having the world's most effective military peering over their shoulder, just waiting for the slightest excuse to alter their urban landscape.

Nothing at all regarding this on any sites yet. Has anyone heard about this move? Any links?

Why should there be no repeat of what Israel did to Iraq's nuclear program? Why let it come to 100 million dead Muslims and no Israel? Are the US and/or Israel not capable of taking out Iran's nuclear threat without large civilian casualties? I read that the Israelis had a "plan." (Der Spiegel broke the story.) Those Iranian students aren't going to make their country into a freedom-and-peace-loving model for the region very soon. It was an short hop-skip-and-jump from the Saarland and Prague to all out war too.

like i said previously these stories should be forwarded to all the tv/newspaper reporters you can find on the web the lll wants to flood the whitehouse with useless emails to shut their servers down lets flood everyone with these stories so they can read it right from the horses errr dogs mouth anyone have a e-mail/spam list of above type agencies

#39 Andrew

ummm... They had this little war with Iraq in the 80's. They suffered over a million casualties in that war

They also live in a rough area. They have Russia to the north, Pakistan to the east, and Iraq/Saudia Arabia to the west.

The whole nuke program was accelerated in the 80's because the Iranians thought Iraq would not have invaded them if they had nukes

Two interesting things to note. If Iran and Israel ever did go to nuclear terms...

1. Pretty much shows Muslims don't give a damn about the "Holy Land" since such a war would make it uninhabitable to anyone. Likewise, it would also destroy the so-called Palestinians. This shows how they view them as simply tools.

2. ...do you really think, that if faced with it's own destruction, Israel wouldn't lob at least 1 nuclear missile at Mecca? Is that an acceptable sacrifice to Muslims? The sad truth is...I think it is. Their hate has overcome their devotion to their own supposed faith.

#38 newname

LOL!

#39 andrew

Iran has no reason to develop/obtain nuclear weapons except to be used as first strikes.

Possibly, but after we walked all over Saddam's forces, a Nuke for defensive purposes looks pretty good. That's why we can't and won't invade N. Korea. If they really have the capability, they would not hesitate to lob a big boy at S. Korea and/or Japan causing a lot of death and destruction. As well as possibly destablizing the region economically and politically.

#45 RIP Ford
Oh...you're saying they want their own nuclear deterrent - to deter the US from helping them see the light. Is that it?

"Bring it on" Iranian Sh*theads.

We should have taken care of these bastards
back in the late 1970's. They are the cause of
many of the problems we face today. Carter
was too weak & cowardly to take out the garbage
back then, and left us this festering problem.

Bomb'em into the stone age.

"In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims," Rafsanjani said in a speech in Tehran in October 2000. "Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map."

Um, okay. That's 100 mil in the relatively advanced capitals of the Arab nations, and probably Asia too. Who does that leave? Do you think the skinny hungry bastids of Africa will take up the call of jeeehad?

Bonus question: If Israel can bag 100 mil of you... what do you suppose the US' count will be?

#36 RIP Ford

You are reading it the same as I do.

#41 observer

Because in Iraq there was only one well known target. Iran has a number of facilities and some of them are underground and hardened. Without using nukes, taking them out is not going to be easy. It may not even be possible in a single strike. Iran also has long range rockets that they may well use if they are attacked.

(Thanks for the h.t., Charles.)

I am a Cold War baby. Too young to recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, I still knew early on about the nuclear bomb and the damage it could do. At summer camp, we used to sing a rather gruesome song about Hiroshima--a child describes firsthand the horrors of the atomic bomb. In my family's bookshelf was the slim, green volume "Hiroshima" by John Hersey, which I read when I was nine or ten. The tensions of the era manifested themselves in recurring nightmares of nuclear anihilation, and for many years whenever I heard a loud, low-flying plane, I thought it might be the next Enola Gay.

And yet, in retrospect, those anxieties seem to be small potatoes compared to what we face today. At least with the Soviets, there was some idea that they, too, didn't care to mutually ensure everyone's destruction. With this new enemy, we don't have the same assurance. In fact, it's just the opposite. We are facing an enemy who, if denied the right to conquer the planet, is perfectly content to destroy it and take his chances in what he thinks is the world to come.

Adults are struggling to assimilate the reality of this new enemy. How can children possibly cope with it? What kind of nightmares are they having; what kind of anxieties are crippling them? As the parent of a young son, I long for those bubble-like Cold War days of uncertain certainty with a fierce and almost painful nostalgia. In retrospect it seems almost a paradise, even if it was just one for fools.

#23 Andrew
A Democratic President might actually be a good thing.
Why? Because the Republicans would be on his case 24/7 about why he was not pursuing the WOT more agressively. Right now the Republicans are silienced by misplaced party loyality.

#28 RIP Ford
Bush's kinder, gentler brand of warefare in Afghanistan and Iraq is not hacking it. In Afghanistan al-Qaeda operates from Pakistan with impunity. These refuges should have been eliminated long ago.
In Iraq it has finally dawned on the Administration that we are still in a war and that attacks on our military need a much more agressive response. Syria and Iran's part in undermining our occupation still goes on with no response from us.

#49, Engineer

So I've read. But is it worth the risk soon vs the consequences later if we/Israel don't act? You can't talk "mutually assured..." with people willing to sentence 100 million of their own faithful to death just to wipe away a Jewish speck. And the alternatives are?

Does anyone really doubt that while the mullahs may spew their hateful rhetoric, and while there may be real political divisions in Iranian decisionmanking circles, that given a certain set of domestic Iranian political events, the hardline mullahs wouldn't act to carry out the rhetoric?

The mere fact that Iran even got to the point of likely having nuclear capabilities is an absolute failing of the international system, run by that useless organzation known as the UN, to control nuclear proliferation.

Something must be done, and I am afraid we may be near the point of no return. A nuclear armed Iran should eb absolutely unacceptable. As between Iran and North Korea, I would much rather deal with a nuclear North Korea, and not because one is in the far east and one is so close to Israel. It has to do with the rationality of the regimes. Ceratinly Kim Jong Il is a loon of the first caliber, but his foremost mission is to preserve his regime, and he knows that any nuclear strike would be the end of the regime his father built for him.

On the other hand, we have the whack job clerics in Iran, who apparently think nothing of having 20 million men in reserve to commit to cannon fodder, or that Israel will annihilate 100 million muslims, but such trade offs are mere numbers if the ultimate objective of wearing down and annihilating the Great Satan and its ally the Zionist Entity are achieved. To the Iranian mullahs its all just a numbers game. Even Saddam would acknowledge this. His 10 year war with Iran was a stalemate because while the Iraqis killed millions of Iranians, those bastards just kept coming and coming.

As between a nuclear regime bent first and foremost on self preservation and one bent on some perverse notion of preemption without moral consequence, I would take the former.

We can all expect the El-Bahredi IAEA to issue a weasely report that will give the world no reason to specifically take action against the mullahs, and it will be the one last chance the world had to decapitate the specter of a nuclear Iran, and that is a most frightening proposition.

I wonder if it would be possible to actively contribute to the downfall of the mullacracy in Iran by organizing a grass roots style Internet campaign of some sort.

In effect, could the citizens of one country bring about the liberation of citizens in an enslaved country by using technology that is readily available ???

It is becoming clearer to me everyday that our government is not going to deal with Iran until its already too late.

There are alot of us intelligent, technologically skilled, highly motivated and politically saavy folks who form communites around great sites like LGF.

Any thoughts ?

During the World War II, some 550,000 Jews served in the U.S. Armed Forces. That's more than three times the number of soldiers in Israel's current standing army. That was 11 percent of the total U.S. Jewish population at the time. Half of all Jewish men ages 18 to 44 were in uniform. And they were among the most heroic — more than 52,000 American Jewish servicemen were decorated for gallantry. At least 40,000 were wounded. Some 11,000 lost their lives.

Learn more by visiting this article about Jews that fought in WWII

Exhibit web site

#27 Eric

You have Khatami on one side and the hardliners on the other controling the power ministries.

Sorry Eric, that's BS. Khatami is not a "moderate". He, like all Iranian Parlimentarians and Presidents, is pre-approved by the "hardliners". If he wasn't anything more than the Iranian good cop he wouldn't be president of Iran.

Besides, if you actually read his rhetoric he's hardly the moderate he's been portrayed as by the hopeful West.

#14 Radian

Those fuckwits have to realize we can kill everyone of them 5 times over with no warning. A gravity weapon(s) dropped from a b-2, f-117 can destroy their counterstrike capability allowing complete destruction.

Except that we won't do that, for the most part. A civilian might get killed. And it would destroy some infrastructure, which would be bad for the children (TM). So instead we take thousands of military casualties, and let deadly enemies work on nuclear weapons, and risk the lives of millions of Americans.

It's little good to have military power if our perverted morality prevents us from using it.

#51 Bill K.

Because the Republicans would be on his case 24/7 about why he was not pursuing the WOT more agressively

Forgive me, but I get the image of this: a man, faced with an intruder in his home, urging his whimpering dog to "bark at him, dammit".

JAX

To be clear I'm speaking of a strike to prevent further use or confirmed emminent use of nuclear weapons.

The US would and should never make a nuclear first strike. However in response to an attack, the result should be complete destruction with high yeild airbursts and multi megaton groundburst to kill hard targets. A 300 foot deep crater and the resulting precursor wave is sufficent to kill bunker around. They should understand tha radiological effects from this alone would be a slate wiper. The bunker buster should be off the table in a counterstrike.

It would be most difficult for Israel to do this alone. Using bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with carriers in the Indian Ocean and B-2s/B-52s flying from Diego Garcia, the US could probably conduct a multi-day/multiweek series of strikes, probably going after air defenses and the highest priority weapons sites, then evolving to strikes against Iran's methods of retaliation, and other sites that support WMD research and development.

I have been doing some reading, and from my time chillin' in the Straits of Hormuz back during Operation Earnest Will in the 1980s, I know that Iran has older US fighters ( F-4s and F-14s), which I have seen estimates suggesting about 30% readiness due to parts constraints, plus the Iraqi planes that relocated during GW1 and some other Soviet planes. These would be taken out early, but might be able to fly a mission against Saudi oil facilities.

We did many "MOPP" exercises back in the 1980s, because we were pretty certain Iraq had chemical weapons. We know they have missiles. "Friendly" Arab regimes would be targetted, meaning chemical missile attacks against Baghdad, Kuwait City, The Emirates and probably cities in the Saudi entity would be targetted. Do I even have to mention they'll try to land some nerve gas in Tel Aviv.

Iran has 3 Kilo class subs, armed with 18 antiship torpedoes and various antiship missiles each, and while our submarines in the Gulf would be comparatively safe trying to neutralize them, surface and airborne ASW assetts would be operating in a hostile environment. The sinking of several large oil tankers is almost a certainty.

Iran has Chinese "Silkworm" missiles, carrying a 1000 pound warhead with sufficient range (~60 miles) to hit almost any tanker, or at least threaten, any allied warship in the Gulf. Air strikes would probably miss at least some of these initially.

Iran has used "civilian" ships to deploy antiship mines ( which were most effective, almost sinking the USS Samuel B. Roberts during the tanker war).

Finally, repeated and constant air strikes would be required to ensure Iran didn't use conventional artillery near the choke point at the Straits to attack ship traffic.

I believe it is essential for western survival for Iran's nuclear capabilities to be destroyed, but it will require all the resources we have, almost all oil exports from the Persian Gulf region will stop for at least several weeks, and thousands ( if not more ) civilian casualties would result from chemical attacks.

Of course, the temporary interruption of oil exports would stop the economic recovery dead in its tracks. I'm sure the administration is aware of this, and I'm not sure if this would prevent action. It would be almost inevitable that when Iran does develop a sufficient number of nuclear weapons to have a retaliatory capability, they'll at the minimum ratchet up support for terrorism, knowing they are safe from the consequences, and may pass weapons to their terrorist proxies to use against one of the "satans" ( ie The US or Israel)

#46 andrew

you're saying they want their own nuclear deterrent

Yes, in my own convoluted way, I am.

#51 Bill K.

Bush's kinder, gentler brand of warefare in Afghanistan and Iraq is not hacking it.

It's a fluid response, situations change and we adjust and learn from each set back. We can not afford to take on the whole ME at this point. Our military, as great as they are, can not handle the entire region. Political situations with the UN and along the homefront are shaky at best and we can not look to others to join the fight. With all do respect to the Brits and Aussies, we would probably be alone on any further action involving the Syrians and Pakis.

#60, Ed Moran

"I believe it is essential for western survival..."

Yes, but for Hanson and posts on LGF, who's talking that way? "Western survival" will get you a pc snicker on campuses and a glazed-over look at the supermarket. Other than another, more devastating 9/11, what could propel what's left of the West into awareness, first, action following?

#53

How do you reach the conclusion that somehow N Korea is more stable or more predictable than Iran?

As between a nuclear regime bent first and foremost on self preservation and one bent on some perverse notion of preemption without moral consequence, I would take the former.

Where do you get "bent on some perverse notion of preemption without moral consequence"?

Do we have names of these "wack jobs"? Do we know who they are, or are we just imagining that they must exist because their existance fits into the parameters of what we think we know?

May I ask what is so unusual about having a reserve of 20 million when you've just gotten the living sh*t pounded out of you my a US armed Iraq? If all you've got is manpower, then thats what you go with.

To often, thoughtful analysis is replaced by emotion.

Do we want an Iran that is armed with nucs? Of course not.

Do we want Israel to be forced into a war with Iran - even when we know that they would win? No, of course not.

Iran is in the middle of some very big internal changes. People are openly challenging the structure that has controlled the country since 1979. If we get involved in their internal politics it's quite possible that it could blow up in our faces.

This is one of those times where our interests are better served by watching and waiting.

#62 observer

Other than another, more devastating 9/11, what could propel what's left of the West into awareness,

I think another attack is what it is going to take. Unfortunately, the Islamabots are more than happy to accomadate...and this will get messy as all hell. A secondary problem with another attack is attaching responsibility to a specific state or states in the ME, but once that is accomplished the "Jacksonian" Americans will be hell bent on retribution and the LLL will vanish. And, it will not be a measure response like Afganistan and Irag. I'm thinking more along the lines of Dresden and Tokyo. Any one got a good, slightly used, crystal ball they would like to part with?

Iran is preparing for nucular war. They need to be preparing for nucular defeat. I don't care how many of them there are...those remaining are going to end up camel herders for centuries to come if they persist.

#6 Occasional Reader ... thanks for the Lileks nod today. I've stopped checking in every day because of the diapers and bounties.

#55 Kelly 11/14/2003 09:11AM PST

my great uncle (grandmothers brother) was one of them

#53 observer

Ed Morgan in #60 wraps up the problems well. Now I don't trust the leadership in Iran one inch and I doubt Bush does either, so we are probably going to have use the military option instead of trusting them regardless of what they say. The question is when.

From what I know of the subject, the bombs Iran will have will be straight old unenhanced fission devices with a yield of no more than 100 kt. That’s bad, but not the city killers the USSR had. They means they will need more than a couple of them.

Also, having a bomb and having a weapon system are two very different things. There is only one weapon system that is going to work for them: long range missiles. How long it will take them to mate the warhead with their missiles I don’t know, but it won’t be overnight.

Ed Morgan is right about what would happen if ME oil is cut off. I think Bush has a plan for this. See my post here.

#58 Andrew
Besides the Republicans acting in a more principled manner, the Democrats would no longer be able to act so irresponsibily. Realizing that the electorate regards them as wusses on defense matters and that a setback on the WOT would cost them dearly in the next election, I believe the Democrats would become more hawkish.

#61 RIP Ford
Without braggadocio or bravado the U.S. military could take on the entire Islamic armies of the ME and destroy them in months. To say we do not have enough men or material to do this is an excuse for inaction. Our enemies are incredibly weak as our fighting in the region has shown.
I noticed you did not mention Israel as one of our allies.
In the Yom Kippur war they took on Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt and with a little help from the U.S. defeated them quickly despite being taken by suprise.
The so called "political considerations" are just artifical restraints on our fighting ability.

#64 RIP Ford

Another attack will not make the LLL vanish (unfortunatly)IMHO. Some idiot is sure to come out with the "it's a result of American foreign policy that ________ (fill in the blank) was hit with a nuclear strike yesterday.

I saw anti war protesters by the tens of thousands in Manhattan just two miles from where 3,000 people were slaughtered. I guess the memory of scores of people jumping to their ends, the endless firemen's funerals, and the stink that permiated the island for more than a month had faded in their heads.

#25 Engineer

"Demographic reserve" and "manpower" give them too much credit.

The correct term is "fodder". As in cannon fodder, but more specifically:

AC-130 fodder
MOAB fodder
Tomahawk fodder

and maybe eventually

Minuteman III fodder

#68 Bill K.

Without braggadocio or bravado the U.S. military could take on the entire Islamic armies of the ME and destroy them in months.

I fully agree. We would have no problem crushing the regular armies of the ME, but the populus of those countries would be difficult to control with our Army spread so thin.

I noticed you did not mention Israel as one of our allies.

Nothing sinister implied, it was an error on my part. I was considering the armies that are currently involved in Afganistan and Iraq. No doubt the Israelis would be involved and would more than pull their own weight.

#63 Eric

Thanks for your response, but you are giving too much credit where none is due.

How do you reach the conclusion that somehow N Korea is more stable or more predictable than Iran?

I dont reach such a conclusion. In fact, the exact result of my words that apparently slipped by you was that as between two identified evils (N. Korea and Iran) I would choose a nuclear North Korea because Kim Jong Il, unlike the mullahs in Iran, is more concerned with preserving his regime and is less likely to launch a nuclear attack, as he most assuredly knows it would be the end of his regime. The mullahs--whom you seem willing to give some benefit of the doubt to--do not have the same appareciation for institutional or, for that matter, societal survival. A nuclear launch by Iran would be a means unto itself--the destruction, presumably of Israel, regardless of consequence; hence me statement

As between a nuclear regime bent first and foremost on self preservation and one bent on some perverse notion of preemption without moral consequence, I would take the former.

You then ask whether "we" have the names of the whack jobs who may be inclined--for whatever sick reason--to launch a nuclear armed strike. Well...no, but whereas you seem to believe that Khatemi is a reformer who may just yet harness the necessary political reins and bring Iran back into the modern era and become a positive contibutor to global society, I am more inclined to agree with #56 James who notes that:

Khatami is not a "moderate". He, like all Iranian Parlimentarians and Presidents, is pre-approved by the "hardliners". If he wasn't anything more than the Iranian good cop he wouldn't be president of Iran.

The whack jobs who run Iran are ill-distinguished by convenient labels that the west vainly hopes to pin on them. Moderation in Iran, like anything else, is a matter of context. The mullahs are intent to view the world through the prism of Islam v. everyone else. The Islamic Republic is a societal, economic, and political failure because it cannot disassociate itself from its own twisted view of morality and its mistrust, no, lets call it what it is, hatred of the west. A regime so bent on ill-will, and so driven by the righteousness of cause can blithely say "we have 20 million souls that we can send against our enemies as cannon fodder, and, if nothing else, this will wear our enemy down, and we will ultimately prevail." Where am I missing something? I am frankly stunned that you can ask:

May I ask what is so unusual about having a reserve of 20 million when you've just gotten the living sh*t pounded out of you my a US armed Iraq? If all you've got is manpower, then thats what you go with.

That is rather besides the point. In fact, the context of the quote by the Mr. Taheri was to point out three "trump cards" that Iran feels it can use in any conflict with the United States that should lead to the retreat of the Great Satan:

The first is that Iran has a demographic reserve of some 20 million people and is thus capable of sustaining levels of casualties unthinkable for Americans.

With a mindset like that, I am not sure we are dealing with a regime that operates according to international norms of rationalization.

Sorry if I don't share your cautious conclusion that:

Iran is in the middle of some very big internal changes. People are openly challenging the structure that has controlled the country since 1979. If we get involved in their internal politics it's quite possible that it could blow up in our faces.

And:

This is one of those times where our interests are better served by watching and waiting.

I don't share the view that watching and waiting for Iranian moderation--whatever the hell that may mean--is sound foreign policy by the United States and the rest of the global community. I am of the opinion that Iran is an inherently dangerous nation that shamelessly meddles in terrorism, allows its interpretation of Islam to justify the harrassment and murder of those who don't share these same interpretation, and, to put it bluntly, is simply a cancer on the face of this earth. Is Iran the only "bad actor"? No, Bush rightly labeled it, along with other countries an Axis of Evil and it is a label that the Iranians rightly deserve.

You may believe what you want, but I think the evidence against the Islamic Republic is pretty damning, and when they cast the "Great Satan" label about, the only place that label really fits is right on their own nation.

#71 RIP Ford
Once we destroyed the armies, the terrorist camps and in the case of Iran the nuclear facilities we wouldn't have to occupy those countries. We could leave and warn them we would come back if necessary.
Some countries like Iran are ripe for a revolution to overthrow the Islamic state. Once we've deposed the mullahs the pro western populace would take over.
We could leave Syria and Lebanon to the Israelis and pressure Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to clean out the terrorists or we would do it for them.

I think a decapitation strike against the Iranian Supreme Revolutionary Council using low-grade nukes would be just the trick to get things moving over there. Khatami, from what I understand, is the foil to the mullahs. He is actually in favor of reforms, both market and social, and its the mullahs that are restricting him. Now I don't think he's the Fonz or anything, and the mullahs are trying to make him Richie Cunningham, but I think it's a start. Plus seeing the mullahs incinerated might make him think twice about things.

I also had a thought about something. If Reagan would have beaten Jimmuh Carter in the 1976 election, can you imagine the telephone call that would have been made from DC to Tehran after those Americans were taken hostage? "Hello? Ayatholla Assholla? This is President Reagan. Release the hostages within 48 hours or we're going to bomb the ever loving shit out of you." It makes me think further about whether Khomeini would have actually complied or stood up to the Great Satan. In my mind he's taught a lesson and Tehran gets fubared. Maybe that Larry Turtledove guy who writes those sci-fi stories about the South winning the Civil War should look into this. I doubt the Soviets would have stayed 10 years in Afghanistan, and doubt there would be a theocracy in Iran right now.

#75 Andy

The real error IMHO was Carter cutting off support for Muhammed Reza, the last Shah of Iran. If we had continued to support him, the ME might be a very different place today.

One other tiny point. If a nation such as Iran were to reach the point where we felt they were on the verge of an attack against Israel or another ally, there are other options. Iran, or any similar country, as be isolated almost completely from the rest of the world. There are ways to detonate a weapon in the atmosphere that will render all their electronics useless, including cell phones, telex, fax, TV, radio, etc. They can be embargoed rather easily as Hormuz is their only way out. We can control their airspace and refuse to let any planes in or out. If someone tried to bluff past our planes, such as an Air France passenger jet, it would only take one downed jet to make it clear we were serious. In short, Iran could have this happen to them, and we would make it clear that either they back down or we will begin surgical strikes against every facility they have until they do. The mullahs may declare their jihad but their people will most likely not follow.

On the other topic, a nuclear strike against us by Iran or anyone, would so enrage our people that it would be just too awful to contemplate the revenge. At that point, there would be no talk and no warnings. Game over.

# 75 Andy:

If Reagan would have beaten Jimmuh Carter in the 1976 election

Carter defeated Gerry Ford in '76.

One other tiny point. If Israel were to be hit by an Iranian missle with chemical weapons or an low yield nuke, the first time I heard about an Indymedia or other Leftist demonstration either against Israel, or in support of its attacker, I would personally be there to do as much damage to as many faces as I could. I simply could not restrain myself. (and it would feel really good)

#22  fireman  11/14/2003 

The mullahs of Iran are fanatics and nihilists.

Nihilism and anarchism are most descriptive words for Iran's brand of Islam. And extremist Islam world wide. They destroy because they cannot build. These morons even fail at their goal of building Islamic societies of the 13th century.

The situation now in Iran is really scary. If they are allowed to get nuclear weapons, we can be almost 100% sure that someone will actually use them within the next 20 years or so.

[Link: www.faithfreedom.org...] Islam is the Matrix. We hand out red pills.

jimmytheclaw#8/fireman #13

Damn! I wanted to bring up the Samson Option first!

So, where is Reaganite to bash Fireman?

Bigel,

It would even be appropriate...

It is clear that the answer cannot come from the IAEA.

Israel/Israelis should act as though she/they are on her/their own behind the curtain.

Ugly but true.

I believe the US is committed to Israel's survival, as I am, but "timing is everything". The US may well be a dollar short and a day late.

Israel should act accordingly.

The Samson option, the freaking Samson option. Everyone always trots this nonsense out. Freaks. Maybe Israel would be better served by asking to be under the US nuclear umbrella instead. That will be all the retribution you need and then some.

Don't pull a France and think the US won't nuke people who nuke you on your behalf because os some sort of PCish streak; we put it all on the line against the Soviets for, what, 50 years? The various mullahs in the ME don't nearly have the retaliatory ability of the USSR, and better, they really honestly believe the US and Israel are always in cahoots. They would believe we'd crush them if they lobbed a pre-emptive nuke at Israel even if we were bluffing (we're not, but the point is that deterrence depends on your opponent thinking you really will carry out your threat).

The mullahs are pretty sure they can destroy Israel and only have 100,000,000 casualties on their side. Let them think about taking on the superpower and see what casualty figures arise.

Now, this won't change their goal (kill the infidel). You might see them try to give a nuke to Hamas (end result: 500,000 dead Israelis set against the entire population of Iran and Syria). Or maybe they'll try to arm up to the point where they can wreck much of the US with warheads as well. Fat chance; if the Russians couldn't do it, I don't see the Iranians developing the economy to outspend the US.

The main problem I see for the future (besides some unknown number of dead people in the near future from war) is that certain countries think they can get away with a terrorist nuking. I think the response to such an atrocity will convince people of the error of such an opinion.

Just something i heard the other day..to add to the concerns...(sigh)

this came from "Israel Insider" Feb 5, 2002 '(Iranian) Transportation Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israel Radio Tuesday that Iran's goal was to "wipe Israel off the map." Iran's leaders believe that "from a religious point of view, Israel has no right to exist.'

#86,
Ephraim Sneh is an Israeli, not an Iranian.

Iran's Ayatollah Rafsanjani has threatened Israel with annihilation by nukes
[Link: www.iran-press-service.com...]

The article quotes Rafsanjani as saying

application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world

A comment on this, given in the article:
"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State wold also mean the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

If Israelis dare to think the unthinkable, they may come to the conclusion that the most likely targets of Iranian nukes would be (1) Tel Aviv, (2) Haifa and (3) western Jerusalem.

Thinking the unthinkable, there would be a surviving "Country B", which would involve the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. This "Country B" could provide the seed for regenerating Israel. During the time in 1948 that five Arab armies invaded Israel, it was defended by a population that was merely about half a million Jews.

"application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel" said Rafsanjani. Not quite, if Israel does not invite a nuclear attack by getting rid of the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.

The Iranians would very much like for Israel to get rid of the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. But doing so would increase the temptation for Iran to attack.

"Britain, France and Germany agreed to provide technical assistance for civil energy production, understood to include supplies of fuel." (Middle East Online)

see also: Leo Bauer: Europe appeases theocracy in Iran. So what?