The world wakes up to Iran?
If I don't write all that often on Iran, it's certainly not due to a lack of concern about what's happening there. Au contraire; I believe Iran is of extreme importance and danger to the world. It's just that we all have our specialties, and others are covering Iran far better than I.
Recently the situation there has been escalating, both in pronouncements (see this and this, as well as this), and now, of course, in action: Iran's bold and brazen breaking of the nuclear seals.
I wrote back here that I hoped Europe was at least beginning to awaken to the danger. And now someone who knows far more about Iran than I, Dr. Zin of the blog Regime Change Iran, seems to share that opinion.
If you haven't ever seen his blog, now might be an excellent time to take a look. Recently Dr. Zin wrote: "As the world awakens, [there are] signs the regime may be fracturing as it prepares for a confrontation--Iran breaks the seals and the world wakes up.""
Would that it were true--the "world waking up" part, that is.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that if it is waking, it's waking to a nightmare that has been allowed to build for way too long, and one with no easy solution. One thing of which I'm relatively certain: mere words of condemnation are not going to cut it with Iran. This is a moment when a plan and true international cooperation--with teeth--is needed.
Follow Dr. Zin's links and see if you thing such cooperation is likely.
In closing, I'll take some liberties with the final lines of Yeats's wonderful poem "The Second Coming", and alter it a bit:
...vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Tehran to be born?
[ADDENDUM: Austin Bay discusses what's to be done about Iran, with links.]
posted by neo-neocon @ 1:46 PM
35 comments
35 Comments:
Promethea,
"Congress shall have power...to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water."
Arcticle 1, section 8 U.S. Constitution
To Promethea:
There are some things that the Bush administration has failed to do with regard to the war on terror. The single biggest failure has been to drive home to the American public the true nature of the war we are in. The "bully pulpit" has gone largely unused, with the consequence that many Americans don't seem to understand that we are at war, or that the war against us began with the first World Trade Center bombing (or with the Iranian embassy hostage crisis, take your pick).
If we are not soon at war with Iran, one of the reasons will be that we have no good options. It will certainly not be a conventional war, because we don't have the military power to do it, and because Iran's capability to retaliate lies in other means (terrorism, oil, economic warfare, in addition to the risk of nukes).
If war does happen, it won't be a cakewalk, it won't be "limited", and it won't be quick. Perhaps the best option we have is to shut down their economy, which means oil as well as their imports, and that will have consequences for the entire world.
There are a lot of things that we could have done and should have done, especially in not letting our military strength decline after the Cold War, and encouraging internal revolt within Iran with all the money and weapons we could supply.
The number of our allies is small, but not zero.
Bob, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war since 1941. The President is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the power to commit forces to combat.
Diane,
True. And if Iran launched an attack that had to be repelled immediately, bypass congress and let the bullets fly. But if we have a months-long build up to action, why not require the president to go to congress? Promethea seems to dismiss the ligitimate role of congress in making war simply because he/she doesn't like the Diane Feinstein types in congress. I'm not asking for a formal declaration of war, but congress surely has a role.
That's my story.
Why is U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan such an apologist for rogue states? He is constantly on the wrong side of history. Look at his latest comments...
But U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said later Thursday that Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told him that Tehran was interested in “serious and constructive negotiations” with the European countries over its atomic program and favored a deadline.
After over a decade of hiding their program, after two years of fruitless negotiations with the EU-3, when it is clearly obvious that Iran's strategy is to simply stall for time until they have the bomb, he makes that statement! How could such a clueless turkey remain the Secretary-General? I have another name for Kofi... Nero.
I don't like Iran.
As An iranian who came across the comments I feel shocked about the arrogance and naivity of some comments. I actually hate the iranian goverment myself and have been in excile for more than 20 years nontheless I have sympathy with their decision as the west tries to build a monopoly in economy and military power. DO NOT FORGET the most uncivilized action in the human history was to burn to death more than 100,000 innocent human and guess who did it, Yes it was " the most civilized country" in the world the US. I am very pleased if the ayatollah did not wake up tomorrow and all were death but this however does not reduce my anger at people who feel they can have say whenever and wherever they want. They should rather try to undersytand utopic word such as Kyoto and equality of human being despite the luck they have being born in a strong military power zone!
Anonymous at 7:04, I'm not too sure about your knowledge of WWII history. For a little context on that decision, here's some reading for you:
this,
this,
and this.
As An iranian who came across the comments I feel shocked about the arrogance and naivity of some comments.
Yeah, they're bastards and they don't even seem to know it.
In the case of strikes which are not attributable, I personally, would urge my government to hold hostage the Islamic religious sites and the capital cities of regimes who have not signed agreements and put into action, creditable plans to reduce Islamic extremism.
The irony is killing me.
i am always amused but the naive ignorance when body counts are taken in themselves to drive debates of morality, when intent of the action is intentionally left out of the argument.
I don't think holding religious sites or capital cities hostage would work. These people (Iranian Mullahs) are power-mad, but not insane. They would welcome holy sites being destroyed, and would probably strike using some organization which would give them plausable deniability in order to provoke an attack, thus giving them reason to wage full jihad on their enemies. This is the same type of ruse Hitler used to justify a war with Poland.
Covert action to train a revolutionary paramilitary force funded, trained and equipped by us in combination with air strikes and air support for the revolutionary forces when they attempt to wrest power from the Mullahs seems like the only solution to me.
Any way you look at it, its a horrible situation that we've found ourselves in though.
If it hasn't been made clear, let me try.
We are the folks who nuked two cities, after having burned out another forty in firebomb raids in Japan. THere were Hamburg and Dresden and other places.
We felt bad about it afterwards.
But we struggle on.
Do not make us mad.
God bless the USA.
Thank you for your kind words.
Regarding your questioning that the world is awakening, I follow the international news very closely and their is a growing and noticeable shift in world opinion on Iran.
The bashing of Bush is almost non existent in the European press and now Iran is the focus of concern.
They should be concerned since Iran has threatened to cut of their oil shipments to Europe if they are referred to the Security Council. Since Europe has only a three month supply of oil in reserves, such a move by Iran could force a very strong reaction by Europe.
Europe may surprise us all.
Recall this date January 12, 2006. A redeployment of assets started mumble hours ago and will complete in the early AM Zulu time. This information has been gained through open source intelligence. However, details will not be posted here.If you know what you're looking for you might find it.
The clock is running. Godspeed and good hunting.
Well, I see the MSM has already broadcast the information. Google 122nd Fighter Wing in Google News.
In 1942 the reporters would have been in jail already.
Bush is preparing the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If a cakewalk means less than 1000 US soldiers killed, invasion prolly won't be one -- but it might.
A massive bombing of military installations and suspected sites will prolly occur, first.
Bush's biggest mistake, and weakness, is poor publicity. Yes, the press will twist it -- but Bush should be pointing out how the "alternative" to US action is UN responsibility. And reminding folk about how responsible the UN is in Darfur -- not very.
Bush wanted Saddam to surrender/ prove he had no WMDs. Bush invaded because Saddam refused.
Bush wants Iran to NOT make nukes. Bush will bomb, then invade, because Iran insists on making a nuke AND claims a willingness to bomb Israel.
I disagree with Anonymous on how morally horrible the US was in murdering Japs with nukes -- I actually think the (Vonnegut version of the) Dresden firebombing was worse. Murdering civilians is why war is hell -- those leaders who do NOT have democracy, free press, and free religion, yet push for war (like in Iran), are terrible. [But I'm glad he wrote his ideas; I think some attacks on his ideas are too dismissive.]
As for morality, the end-of-Vietnam War Dem Party vote in favor of commie victory was the most immoral action of the USA, directly allowing Viet and Cambodian Killing Fields. Next was Clinton's "NO genocide" policy in Rwanda. Today it's the UN's acceptance of genocide in Darfur.
DoctorZin: Europe may surprise us all.
You mean by once again appeasing dictator?
I remain deeply skeptical Europe will mount much of a response beyond well crafted words. Masacres in their Balkan backyard and all they could mount was more talk.
There won't be troops going into Iran because there is no need for it. Air assets coming from Iraq, the gulf via carriers and Afghanistan and mostly likely from the north, if Europe is serious about taking out this dire menace, will destroy their nuke capability/potential, all of it. Once their 'eyes and ears' are taken out via stealth technology, it will be routine bombing of their sites. Their airforce will be pretty much taken out as well and some key ground forces sites. Where would Iranian jets go, except up to engage and that would pretty much be a turkey shoot on the part of NATO forces.Where could they flee to save their planes? What sorties could they launch and where? They can launch some of their long range missles but the anti-missle technology as it exists today for the most part negates that threat too. I expect there would be a reasonable effort to kill the rabid leader of Iran as well. Totally destroying Iran's nuke program and potential would also open up the door for some major reform rrom within.
What's most interesting to me is the pervasive denial that most of us have vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear ambitions. We ignore, we pretend, we deny- fascinating stuff. Does being progressive, humanistic and modern (so called "reality-based") mean not facing unpleasant realities? Apparently so.
The prospect of war against Iran is daunting, especially since many Iranians abhor their own leaders. But the civilized world can't relax idly while a Holocaust-denying Iranian president cobbles together nuclear capability. It's alarming and sobering. It's much easier to entertain ourselves with irrelevancies.
Doctor Zin- I hope against hope that you're right about a strong European response. I'm skeptical- but I've been wrong before.
There is no need to damage the energy production capability of Iran once they are attacked by air. Nor will civilians suffer much from direct hits. Nuclear potential is not developed in a matter of months, rather years, and once destroyed via air assault in a matter of weeks, the world is safe for quite some time. There isn't a whole lot Iran can do about it either. If they start to move men and material towards Iraq or to the north for some type of conventional action in response to having the nuke program attacked, then their infrastructure and economic future will be seriously crippled and crippled for a long time. That would gurantee internal rebellion and they know it. Ahmanadinejad is out of touch with reality. Afghanistan and Iraq mean nothing to him, nor Libya's positive actions when it comes to having nukes. He is a fool to think Bush/NATO won't pull the trigger on him.
Allowing the leaders of a country who end every meeting with the statement "Death to Israel. Death to America." to build a nuclear weapon would be an error beyond comprehension. Those who would wait until after that bomb goes off in some city before they believe that Iran's leaders mean what they say are the true murderers of this story. The action of non-action will kill far more innocents than any action the U.S. or other free nations may take to stop an out-of-control government.
One of the few pleasures these thug regimes give their people is tbat of showing off militiary muscle. It gives the slaves a real morale boost to see how great and terrifying they are. Maybe Iran can be declawed, and beheaded, without great loss of life, but I'm not at all sure that the Iranians would be at all grateful to us or rush to be the poster kids for peace and democracy. In Iraq that particular experiment seems like it can go either way.
Who knows? In the end the lesson may be that in order to mend a nation's character you must first and with massive violence level everything to ground zero. And thereby force the beaten, cowed, homeless, starving, utterly helpless population to literally start from scratch.
Believe me, it gave me no satisfaction to write that, and even less to write this: If we must deal with Iran, we better do it but good.
Have no illusions this one can be won nicely.
Oh, I really hope you guys are ready when the draft is restated.
Because other then air strikes, you can't do jack.
U.S. empire is spread out to thin
and any attempt to invade the country will result in harsh resistance by 2 million iranian soldier.
Looks like history is repeating it self. The New Rome Vs. the New Persian Empire. This is truly exciting fight when it starts.
P. G.
To declaw Iran, air strikes are all that are necesary.
To pound the country down to the ground and grow a new one would look like Germany and Japan. More boots needed for that.
No doubt Persian self-identity is stronger than other national identities in the area, but if the government is weakened, perhaps the people will take care of it themselves.
It's possible the pessimist is too pessimistic and the Iranian people would do better if they could.
That would be nice. And if declawing and decapitation happen more or less together, then the good folks get another chance.
God Neo-cons such imbacles.
Earth to Motor; Irans minister of defense gave out the numbers.
Bottom line U.S. doesn't have the man power so we have no choice but to bomb. And if you think Iran will just sit there like Iraq to get bombs dropped on his head think again. Oh by the way did mention
The U.S ships in persian golf are sitting ducks. Oh yes since U.S. will give up every thing to protect Israel, its safe to say they will be the first target.
A country filled with over 50 million populations. I think its safe to say raising 4% of the countries populations for defense isn't a problem.
I like what goesh says but I don't have a clue what the administration thinking is. Bush's failing -- for me -- is not using that bully pulpit to gear things up.
Iran has several options, like closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would badly cripple the oil flow.
Wretchard said today that Iran was the issue, and Iraq had only ever really been the key to turning to lock on Iran.
It remains to be seen. Some Iranians I know were once Bush supporters and are now so angry at his failure to move in way back when that their hatred of him is quite intense.
I think Bush's itenerary has been correct: Afghanistan, Iraq, and then let the other dominoes fall. Or maybe it's more like pick-up sticks and you take first what's most easily retrievable.
For me, it's a toss-up as to where the most world instability originates: Iran's nuclear capability or Saudi oil money corrupting everything, including American educcation at every level.
Yeah...it's not dominoes, it's pick-up sticks...
Hopefully the grown ups will find a diplomatic solution and spoil your bloody party.
Anonymous. The grown-ups prevailed before. See "Munich, 1938".
Or see the failure to end Nazism in the Rhineland in 1936.
Iran? I've been so focused on U.S. depredations on Iraq for so many years, Iran has escaped my notice -- except for the fact that Iran and North Korea were far more deserving of U.S. opposition -- perhaps militarily -- than was Iraq. Now that Iran seems to be the next nation in America's sights, I guess I'll have to give it some attention.
I'm jumping in at the end of this 44-message thread, so forgive me for not being up to speed; I'll go back and work my way through it. One thing I'd like to estabish, though: Are we all agreed that Iran, as a sovereign nation and signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has an absolute right to exploit its uranium resources and develop nuclear power for peaceful domestic purposes? It must be only when they move on to weapons development that they're crossing the line?
One thing's for sure: Even if the Bush administration didn't lie about Iraq, they cherry-picked and exaggerated and misled to such a degree that they have forfeited any right to be believed on the Iran situation. I'll ignore everything they have to say, and I'll go with the IAEA and Al-Baradei, thanks.
tequilamockingbird
PG. I'm not mixing wars.
I'm comparing ways to address potential wars.
Let's presume that stopping Hitler in 1936 had cost 5000 lives. How many of that type of op would you be willing to see if the result was that one of them, but you didn't know which one, would prevent WW II? 50,000 lives?
It was tougher in 1936, since WW II hadn't happened, of course.
But we do have the benefit of experience.
Since we can't even agree on how a dictatorship and theocracy is "sovereign", it tends to follow that agreeing on anything else is counter-productive.
It's funny, Tequila thinks a theocracy has a right to do anything that appears innocent while oppressing their people, while the leader of the free world doesn't have the right to be believed.
That's one way to side with terroist sponsoring Iran and another way to hit one against Bush. If one wants to keep score, and certainly Tequila is appearing to, that is.
Hey, Motor 1560, here you are, putting forward positions (open for others to comment on and discuss) rather than just condemning everyone whose beliefs are different from yours! Good for you! Well done!
tequilamockingbird
Ymarsakar: You said, "Since we can't even agree on how a dictatorship and theocracy is "sovereign", it tends to follow that agreeing on anything else is counter-productive."
Sorry, but I was going on the assumption that Iran is a sovereign country entitled to make its own way, whether or not that way is friendly to U.S. business interests. Your message is such an oversimplification of my post I don't think it deserves discussion.
In your eyes, does Iran not have a right to develop -- PEACEFUL, PEACEFUL -- nuclear power? If you're rational, I think you have to agree that it does.
Can you admit that, and can the debate progress from there?
I'm certainly open to your arguments; I don't want a nuclear pistol aimed at Israel's head.
Western intelligence was so unbelievably unintelligent that Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons came as a complete surprise.
Damn! I know you won't admit any kind of failure, because you guys never give a inch. (I know it's not grammatical; read the book.)
tequilamockingbird
Nothing Tequila has said disproves my point. Portraying Iran's theocracy as sovereign is one position, I think sovereignty comes from the people, however, not from dictators, theocrats, or the elites.
Trying to obscure this fact with subtlety is not going to work. Not against me, at least.
I have the best interests of the people in mind, applying free will. Tequila has the interests of the nation in mind, as in nationalism.
With that kind of difference in opinion, it isn't surprising there isn't any agreement between your position and mine.
No nation has a right to do anything it cannot enforce with military might. The only things that have rights are individuals. People forget that for a reason.
It has always been the case that weak nation A has the right to declare independence, while strong nation B has the right to stop that declaration. International law over who is right and wrong, is arbitrated by pure naked force between nations.
Israel isn't something that I worry about. They can take care of themselves now, and they are beginning to understand that to theirs and the Palestinian's benefit.
My loyalty is to the US, not to Israel. People don't understand that Iran needs nukes to stop Iraqi democracy, not Jewish siege mentality.
Post a Comment
<< Home