Friday, January 13, 2006

Iran's dirty little weapon

On this thread from yesterday, an interesting discussion is ensuing concerning what could--or should--be done about Iran's nascent nuclear arsenal.

But one point I haven't seen mentioned there, and which troubles me greatly, is the fact that intelligence has it that Iran has oh-so-cleverly built:

...many of their facilities under densely populated areas, and especially under buildings that would make Israel [or the US] look like the international villain if those were destroyed: hospitals, old age homes, etc. Could you imagine what a field day the UN would have after an Israeli [or American] strike ended up causing collateral damage among Iranians (from Iranian nuclear fallout or from the Israeli explosives) in the tens or even hundreds of thousands?

The Iranians are not stupid. The Israeli strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 put them on notice. Sometimes an antibiotic only helps a disease mutate into a strain that is resistant to the drug. In this case, the Osirak attack made it clear to Iran that they needed to diversify their facilities in a way that would make successful repetition of a similar strike very difficult.

And so they have, making for some extremely complex decisions, not just in the tactical sense but in the moral sense:

If the Iranian nuclear facilities were located in one place, away from any civilian population center, it would be moral — and, under any reasonable regime of international law, legal — for Israel to destroy them. (Whether it would be tactically wise is another question.) But the ruthless Iranian militants have learned from the Iraqi experience and, according to recent intelligence reports, deliberately have spread its nuclear facilities around the country, including in heavily populated areas. This would force Israel into a terrible choice: Either allow Iran to complete its production of nuclear bombs aimed at the Jewish state's civilian population centers, or destroy the facilities despite the inevitability of Iranian civilian casualties.

The laws of war prohibit the bombing of civilian population centers, even in retaliation against attacks on cities, but they permit the bombing of military targets, including nuclear facilities. By deliberately placing nuclear facilities in the midst of civilian population centers, the Iranian government has made the decision to expose its civilians to attacks, and it must assume all responsibility for any casualties caused by such attacks. Israel, the United States and other democracies always locate their military facilities away from population centers, precisely in order to minimize danger to their civilians. Iran does precisely the opposite, because its leaders realize that decent democracies — unlike indecent tyrannies — would hesitate to bomb a nuclear facility located in an urban center.

That's the difference between states that act as terrorists and those that sometimes have to cause loss of life with deep regret. The former, such as Iran, not only sponsor outright terrorism of various kinds, but deliberately expose their civilian populations to harm, counting on the reluctance of countries such as the US or Israel to harm innocent civilians. All the while, Iran continues to castigate those states for being bloodthirsty villains. Clearly, the mullahs don't believe their own rhetoric.

States, such as the US will indeed act in self-defense if they see no alternative. But the consequences of killing civilians in this way is likely to be further condemnation from the international community--not towards those who deliberately place the civilians in harm's way, but towards those in the unenviable position of having made the terrible decision to bomb the facilities anyway.

As I said, those mullahs aren't dumb.


At 4:40 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Eric said...

It's a decision we need to make: what happens when we must choose between our code of honor and winning? Do we believe that it's not whether we win or lose, but how we play the game?

Are we willing to settle for defeat with honor? I can't entirely vilify an enemy that opts to exploit a gaping, obvious vulnerability, even an honorable one.

At 4:43 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Pancho said...

Wise words from the past from Gen. Sherman. "War is Hell" [actually the shortened common version of what he actually said]. And when asked what the purpose of his March to the Sea was, his answer was "To make Georgia Howl". Unfortunately that is just what it might come to in Iran.

At 4:50 PM, January 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, based on the NPA, Iran has ever right to build nukes.

Only problem is that we dont trust them even if they were a christian nation.

Second,Iran is in complete control at the moment. they know U.S. wouldn't dare to drop bombs since Israel will be their first target. Followd by U.S. targets in Iraq and the golf. One thing is for certain these are truly the most exciting times.

At 5:11 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger gcotharn said...

As a Christian who fears Hell, I've always been fascinated by the morality of taking life - and never more so than now. From Shannon French's excellent book - "Code of the Warrior":

"Saint Thomas Aquinas [...] laid the groundwork for two prinicples of Natural Law that offer provisions for identifying situations in which it might be morally permissible to take a life[...]
The principle of forfeiture states that a person can forfeit his or her natural right to life by taking or attempting to take an innocent life.

The doctrine of double effect [...] in which it may be necessary or unavoidable to take an action that will cause the loss of innocent life in order to achieve some greater good(French now quotes Ronald Munson):

'...such an action should be performed only if the intention is to bring about the good effect and the bad effect will be an unintended or indirect consequence.[...] Four conditions must be satisfied:
1) The action itself must be morally indifferent or morally good.
2) The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved.
3) The motive must be the achievement of the good effect only.
4) The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the bad effect.'"

For me, interpreting these rules is tricky. However, I believe collateral damage to Iranian citizens would constitute an "indirect consequence."

At 5:35 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger gatorbait said...

Think Tokyo, 9-10 Mar 45.

At 5:45 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger gcotharn said...

Eric asks if we believe in the importance of "how we play the game?" We certainly do! We have the inherent right to self-defense. Self-defense is "playing the game" at a high moral and ethical level.

I am perturbed that Christianity is so frequently misrepresented as a religion of pacifism. The VAST majority of devout Christians recognize that Jesus belived in self-defense. Until the proper time for his crucifixion, Jesus defended himself against unjust arrest(John 8:59). Jesus also urged his disciples to carry short swords for self defense(Luke 22:36-38).

Second, Eric, I'm happy to see you identify the Iranian government as an enemy. Its a positive step.

Anonymous, I do not consider it a "problem" that we do not trust an Iranian government which tells Iranian citizens "we must prepare ourselves to rule the world."

Second: I do not agree that "Iran is in complete control at the moment," though they do pose a difficult problem.

Third: the U.S. certainly WOULD DARE to drop bombs, and the sooner you understand that, the sooner Islamist leaders will understand it.

At 5:47 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger ShrinkWrapped said...

If memory serves me, prior to dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, the USAF dropped leaflets warning the inhabitants to get out of town. It seems to me that if/when the decision has been made, the use of such leaflets could be very valuable. It would "powerfully concentrate the minds" of the military without whose support no tyrant can survive; encourage the citizenry to take matters into their own hands; and encourage the people to exit the cities where bombs are about to fall; not great, but better than the alternative.

At 5:55 PM, January 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since they have chosen to bury their facilities deep there is but one way to get them. Don't worry about the facilities themselves, drop several nuc's in a pattern and the radiation will linger for years. No one will be able to enter the area and live to tell about it.

At 5:57 PM, January 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sadly, there are too many world leaders with their hearts set on a new cold war with Islam. It will not turn out like that, but until Iran hits the button, nothing will convince them of their folly.

The real question now is, what will the nations of the world do after Iran nukes Israel and Europe, and gets nuked in return?

What should we do when this happens?

At 6:00 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Huan said...

bombing iran's nuclear sites are only short term solutions, and their collateral damages only complicate and lessen the appeal of such action. a regime change is required, preferably through internal instability.

At 6:25 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger neo-neocon said...

Huan--A regime change is required, but when? And how?

It seems to be a race between the current regime's capacity to develop nuclear weapons (and perhaps use them), and the ability of the Iranian people to effect regime change. Which will come first?

At 6:52 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Charlie Martin said...

"There are more ways to skin a cat than buttering him with parsnips."

Thee are other military targets, and other ways to hurt the Iranian government, than hitting what they want us to hit.

At 7:00 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Tom Grey said...

Neo-- glad you've been infected with the meme: "it's a race -- democratization or nuke suicide first?"

Hopefully the US bombing will target top military and gov't officials -- regime change as the goal, more than just the nuke sites. Unconditional surrender.

Bush needs to be blaming the EU, and the UN, for letting Iran believe they could violate the NPT and be crazy about Israel. But Israel IS, almost, a hostage.

What does the US do, the world do, after a nuke obliterates Tel Aviv?

Perhaps the entire Israeli gov't should resign, allowing martial law -- and any "rogue" Israeli generals to do whatever they feel they must... I don't like this; but don't like Tel Aviv getting nuked even worse -- and the UN / international response to Darfur means the UN will let the nukes be used before action.

Also, the US should be "testing" any and all Patriot / anti-missile defenses. In Israel. Now.

At 7:06 PM, January 13, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is no different than stock piling weapons and using mosque for an operations center to conduct war. For a muslim country it will ralley the troops ... the rest of the world will comdenm such actions.

Only good to come of the whole iran mess is that even though the US will have to do the heavy lifting in this conflict "hopefully" the EU will do their part.

GW is no Winston Churchill, but he will have to do ...

At 7:28 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

The mullahs are both scared and not scared. They are scared of Afghanistan and Iraq on both sides of their borders. But they are not scared of American diplomacy and soft power, and American ruthlessness. Since obviously Bush ain't got any and even if he did, he'd probably get impeached.

Bush is trying to negotiate with Iranian terroists, just because he lets the Germans and British do the negotiating while Bush stays in the shadows, doesn't mean it is going to work.

Especially when the mullahs don't fear Bush. They do fear Afghanistan and Iraq. ANd just because Iran thinks America and israel won't do it, doesn't mean that they think Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't blow up their reactors even in cities.

If Neo wants options, there are plenty of options.

There is diplomacy, in which we threaten to arm Iraq and Afghanistan if Iran doesn't do what we tell them to do.

You can bluff, by nuking terroists in the middle of no where and have cameras record it ala Los Alamos. You use this then to bluff the Iranians into thinking you'd nuke them as well.

Or you can do a military naval blockade. The military is being used, it is not being stretched beyond its bounds. Having a platoon hold a hill against a battalion is being overstretched, it sure isn't Iraq.

A military blockade will stop all commercial airliners, every ship in the Persian gulf to Iran, and so on. That would cripple a nation, and in any other world would be an act of war. Except Iran doesn't want a war and can't fight a war, unless Congress declares one. Which we wouldn't. So no Americans die, a lot of Iranian ships get boarded, evacuated, and sunk. And we get control of iran's oil. Everyone wins.

Bush just doesn't use these options. And that is why the military airstrike will fail, the diplomacy will fail, the UN will fail (like that's a surprise) and Iran will go nuclear. Bush doesn't know how to negotiate, even if he knows what he is negotiating for. Clinton knows how to negotiate, but he's negotiating for himself not the nation.

This failure makes our real allies, the Iraqis and Afghanistanis, really confident in American power.

The prediction of what Iran will do, rests upon who is in power at the time and what Iran wants. What Iran wants is a protection against US interference and Iraqi democracy. With a nuclear arsenal, Iran can pressure Iraq, and recieve concessions. Concessions that a refuddled Bush will stutter over and complain about, but won't do anything about.

This is not good for the US and for the allies, which is why Iran wanted the nukes in the first place. They probably announced it even, because they knew the US would "negotiate" and allow them enough time.

While their President may be fanatical enough to use nukes on Israel, I am unsure whether he has that actual power.

At 7:36 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Shrinkwrapped's propaganda suggestion would have a chance to work. But Bush sucks at propaganda, bad, real bad. So that's not an option he would choose.

It's too bad too, propaganda tends to have the lowest fatality rolls. In this age of American fear of our own power and leadership position, it should be used to its full extent. Because if it isn't, then people will die.

At 8:11 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Huan said...

neo-neocon--A regime change is required, but when? And how?

It seems to be a race between the current regime's capacity to develop nuclear weapons (and perhaps use them), and the ability of the Iranian people to effect regime change. Which will come first?

as long as there is effective internal pressure against the current regime, there remains a chance for a peaceful (by that i mean non-nuclear) chance for resolution. i do not know what programs are currently active in undermining the current regime from within, but i am certain there are a few.

current likely candidates are the Baluchis and the Arab minorities. both have mounted insurgent actions in the past few years. i hope we are arming them and providing them with actionable intelligence.

in addition, we also need to sway some within the theocracy from the revolutionary guards. i do not believe the mullahs are primarily behind the current regime. as typical of most theocracy, when the first generation that comes to power start to die, the militants who put them into power will believe they should be the inheritor of the reigns of power. the current government, if you have been following news from Iran over the years, has done this. members of the revolutionary guards have replaced political governors over the past years. there is a growing schism within the government (as opposed to the current regime) along this line. however, the mullah may come to realize they have lost power after it is too late.

the most important faction to support are the Iranians themselves, who are largely western friendly, partly because they are young, partly because theocracy has failed to provide for them, and partly for what they see in both the Kurds and the Shia in Iraq.

what ever external sanctions must be levied against the regime while increasing support through back channels for these factions of opportunity. but we do need to ratchet up the external pressure two fold for every item of non-compliance.

will regime change occur before the deployment of nuclear weapons? probably. for Iran to use nukes would be national suicide. a new regime could be either more responsible with their arsenal, or could agree to disarmament as others have.

At 8:58 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Sabre rattling is when Bush says the British, the Germans, and the UN Security Council will deal with Iran.

What it smacks of is people who care more about what others think of America than what things may help to protect Americans from the enemy.

Psychological war experts are called Black Ops operators and Special Forces operators. Not psychologists.

Bush is fine with sabre rattling, he just don't do it in a way that will accomplish anything.

At 11:40 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger Papa Ray said...

Here is what one person has to say about this:

Our bad and worse choices about Iran.

I don't think anything is going to happen Military wise this year unless Iran does something really foolish outside of it's own borders.

I think it will develop just like the lead in to the Invasion of Iraq did, including letting the UN get involved and slow down the process and accomplish little.

I don't think the Administration wants to just set back the nuke weapons program for a few years, I think they want to eradicate it completely.

But not necessarily the Power plants. The fuel can be supplied by someone else and they can have their electric power supplied by atoms.

To do this, the US will have to have the assistance on the ground of Iranians to find all the equipment and labs that are buried around an area that is the size of Texas.

That is going to take a lot of time and effort and it all depends on the Iranians being willing to go along with it. The opinions I have seen are split about 50-50 that we will be able to get that type assistance.

if we have to fight "freedom fighters" while looking for all these buried treasures, it will turn out to be a long long nightmare.

Another solution given was to just bomb them about every five years. That sounds a little too simple to me.

Everyone says the young kids are unhappy with the present Iranian goverment. Well, the same can be said about other ME states, and so far no one has seen any real resistance or revolutions. Why? because the Arab and Persians are used to being ruled, being told what to do and not do and being afraid. They are not used to standing up for themselves and putting themselves in danger for something so abstract as freedom (which they have never had, so they really don't know what they are missing out on).

Oh, by the way, there is another discussion about this very suject at Chester's.

Papa Ray
West Texas

At 11:57 PM, January 13, 2006, Blogger gcotharn said...

Who is the "NCA"?

At 4:51 AM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Putting aside the very interesting political, strategic and tactical issues being discussed here, it was the very first comment which really struck me:

Eric said...
It's a decision we need to make: what happens when we must choose between our code of honor and winning? Do we believe that it's not whether we win or lose, but how we play the game?

Are we willing to settle for defeat with honor? I can't entirely vilify an enemy that opts to exploit a gaping, obvious vulnerability, even an honorable one.

Thinking this through: First, we must be more concerned with winning, because losing really won't do. But we must also be secondarily concerned with how we play the game. The development of 'civilized' warfare and rules of war were tremendous advances for civilization (which is one reason terrorism is such a direect attack on civilization at every level), so we cannot simply 'go Roman' on Iran, however, if we allow ourselves to be overly concerned about the how of warfare, we may inadvertently create a situation which results in greater casualties at home, or by trying to spare Iranian lives, get pushed into a situation we can't back out of and have no choice but to kill a whole mess of Persians... as a wise man once said, those who try to be kind to the cruel often end up being cruel to the kind. Let us be prepared to make and defend the difficult decisions, as in the end, they usually save more lives than they take (i.e. Hiroshima/Nagasaki).

Ultimately it comes down to this- there is no "defeat with honor" when battling the dishonorable, for if they are victorious, honor dies with the defeated.

At 8:28 AM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doesn't the Iranian situation make y'all wish for the days of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi? Oh, I forgot, he was MEAN and killed a lot of people. Life's been so much better for Iranians since, hasn't it? Why look at all the progress and freedoms the Iranians have been afforded since Ayotollah Khomeini assumed power.

At 9:26 AM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The powers that be in Iran care very little about human life -ours or their own. However,they should not assume that we will refrain from bombing nuclear facilities even if they are in populated areas.

At 9:29 AM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It has been a staple of the left that the US overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran, replacing it with the Shah.

I recall watching a C-Span program in which somebody said, "You know, Mossadegh wasn't elected."

Interesting. So I started looking around. I checked with contemporary sources which I figured would not be accidentally or purposely contaminated with the left's wishful thinking.
The closest thing I could find to how Mossadegh got to be in charge was "Mossadegh assumed power" after some chaotic conditions.

The Iran-Iraq war got so many Iranians killed that the regime instituted a program of incentives for large families, similar to and for the same reason the USSR had after WW II.
So they have a huge cohort of young people, and a gaping hole in the cohort of men of middle age.
I am told this tends toward either instability or innovation.
They may be used to being ruled, but they can see others getting loose. It's a habit they can shake.

At 10:12 AM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

talkinkamel, yup. Recall all the talk of the Shah's death squads? I don't think anybody can say the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran is an improvement.
It's a bit curious that our 40th president effectively pulled the rug out from under Pahlavi, when it seems ever since he hasn't met a dictator since whose butt he woudln't kiss.

At 10:15 AM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Uhm, drop the second "since."

At 1:20 PM, January 14, 2006, Blogger gcotharn said...

Housekeeping: Carter was the 39th President

Its interesting that Carter's 1979 choices can be compared to the difficult choices we face today. After his mistake in allowing the Shah to be deposed, Carter refused the harsh "Chicago Way"(from "The Untouchables") threat which later worked for President-elect Reagan in resolving the hostage crisis.

Carter considered himself a humanitarian, yet his brand of "humanitarianism" legitimized a shaky Ayatollah Khomeini's grip on power, and helped birth an Islamic fundamentalist movement which has murdered and OPPRESSED huge numbers in the ensuing 26 years, and has become a huge problem for the entire world. Rather than being humanitarian, Jimmy Carter's policies have resulted in a type of slow-motion butchery, rape, and OPPRESSION in the interim.

Looking at Truman w/Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and at Reagan's resolution of Khomeini's hostage crisis, one can see that the vigorous exercise of power - even violent and deadly power - can be the most humane course of action.

In the current Iranian situation, exercising too little power will be just as bad(or worse) as exercising too much.

At 1:37 PM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

gcotharn, thank you for the correction.

At 6:46 PM, January 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There you go again opening your mouth not knowing the facts.

Look I suggest if you want to get the scoop visit one of these countries fist before you buy the crap thats put on cable TV.

Second, dont buy the crap thats being put on TV. I do know that Neo-cons are not the brightest but give yourselves a fighting chance. READ BOOKS LOTS of BOOKS.

One world governemnt is not easily accomplished and uless your a willing subject, there is no reason for you to contribute to it.

At 7:27 PM, January 14, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

US doctrine has been very clear for many years. It is massive retaliation against the use of WMD's if they are used against the US or US targets. Period.

That's the policy, but that doesn't mean people won't try to cover up the possibility that Saddam had used chemical weapons on our troops, leading to Gulf War syndrome. Since it is policy to retaliate against WMD use on our soldiers, then it only fits that the State Department spinsters will come up with a way to make the the aggravating incidents disappear.

The military would also want to cover it up, because they don't want to appear to be breaking policy. And yet, the truth is that this policy is not enforced, in the history of Bush's administration nor his father's administration.

The problem isn't as the Left portrays it, crazy Republican Presidents pushing the button. It's people who try and bluff that they're going to retaliate with nukes, when everyone knows that that just ain't going to happen. Iran knows this, and they're going to call our bluff soon.

As I pointed out to you Motor, pointing out psychologists is an invalid reasoning because Bush can use military talent only.

This isn't teaching you to suck eggs, it is telling you that you are wrong in your reasoning, both in your specific complaints and in your analysis of Bush's options.

If you know that Psychological Warfare experts are in Delta and the Special Forces, then so does the President and nobody can force him to use psychologists somewhere else. It isn't wise to teach the President how to extract egg yolk, especially since one of the reasons Bush doesn't use psych-ops is because he doesn't like the entire field. Probably due to bad advice or people telling him that he has to deal with psychologists. Which isn't true at all.

Whether the Iranians believe anything we tell them doesn't rely upon the person. It relies upon the actions of that person and the behavioral perceptions that the Iranians have of him. This seems to be basic psychology here. A howler monkey has a big voice to cover up a physical weakness.

The answer isn't to get a different person that may be believed, the answer is to get better psychological attacks in the arsenal.

If you want to disbelieve that Bush may be convincing, it isn't going to be because it can't be done, but because Bush won't know how to do it right. Assuming he does any bluffs or real threats in the first place. The Iranians will not believe Bush's bluffs nor his real threats, because the Iranians already think they know what America is willing to do or not do.

And that's based entirely on Bush's foreign policy actions. Change the foreign policy, and you change the perception. Once the perception is changed, the reality becomes a lot more feasible to modification.

You don't seem to see that thinking outside the box is the solution here, Motor, it is not relying upon what we and the iranians already know.

If Hanson thinks there are no good choices, then it's time for someone to think one up.

At 5:21 AM, January 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, yeah Pappa Giorgio, going to a country and touristing around, even talking casually to a few people will certainly teach you all you need to know...really? I've been to Turkey, had a great time, met lots of wonderful people, but I would not be so arrogant to think I understand all there is of importance regarding Turkey. Travel is good, but it alone means nothing.

I'm no fan of cable tv, but your statement that 'cable tv bad, books good' is about the most obtuse thing I've read in posts here. There are no crappy books? There is no good cable tv? (okay, there certainly isn't much, but none?)

Lastly, your statement "I do know that Neo-cons are not the brightest but ..." lovely sentiment there. We disagree, therefore we're dunces... Brilliant!

p.s.- you might want to identify more specifically who the 'you' is in your opening line... there are many posters above you.

At 6:59 AM, January 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your memory serves you wrong. No leaflets were dropped onto Hiroshima or Nagasaki prior to the dropping of the bomb. In any case Nagasaki was the secondary target (Kokura was the primary).

You may be thinking about earlier in the war when leaflets were certainly droppped on Germany threatening conventional bombing. Or perhaps, the Potsdam declaration, which made the ultimatum to Japan explicit.

At 7:19 AM, January 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I checked (properly) and a leaflet was dropped between 8-10 August 1945 all over Japan. This called for surrender and Nagasaki would have received it.

At 4:09 PM, January 15, 2006, Blogger Alexandra said...

All Things Beautiful TrackBack The Rules Of Engagement

At 4:09 PM, January 15, 2006, Blogger Alexandra said...

All Things Beautiful TrackBack The Rules Of Engagement

At 6:29 PM, January 15, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nuclear Iran: A matter of time
Opinion piece from

It is not a matter of if Iran will have the bomb - it is a matter of when. With that in mind, the US needs to re-examine its current policy towards Iran.

Iran's motive for becoming a nuclear power is not purely political. Its desire to become the next nuclear power stems from a strong sense of nationalism and an equally strong distrust of US intentions.

Since Iran's revolution, the US has predicted that secular Iranians would eventually reclaim their country from the mullahs.

Well, we are still waiting and the latest election actually brought an even more radical leader to Iran's presidency.

Even more telling is that secular Iranians are as adamant as radicals about their country having every right to nuclear technology. This same nationalistic pride is also fuelling Iran's ambition to become a regional power.

... continues on

At 7:56 AM, January 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TK, 100% agreement. What we won't hear is the fact that the current situation can be laid at the feet of Mr. Carter. He's a "revered" (by some) ex-president. One has to wonder if his Habitat for Humanity arose out of guilt for the critical foreign policy blunders he committed. All the houses for the poor he'll ever build won't make up for this mess, however.

At 1:02 PM, January 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What we won't hear is the fact that the current situation can be laid at the feet of Mr. Carter. He's a "revered" (by some) ex-president. One has to wonder if his Habitat for Humanity arose out of guilt for the critical foreign policy blunders he committed. All the houses for the poor he'll ever build won't make up for this mess, however.

Wow, that's pretty cynical.

At 6:47 PM, January 17, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

Iran can't destroy American cities, they can destroy European ones. Nobody believes that if America alone was in range of Iran, the French, British, or Germans would give a rat's ass about it.

Nobody credible that is.

A lot of Democrats don't think terrorism is a threat because they don't see how terrorism can destroy their way of life. They do see how Bush can destroy their way of life. Therefore to follow the logic, perhaps they might realize that terroists with nukes would make America destroy our civil rights because of fear and death.

But they are not usually competent enough to realize that logic.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger