astralis

lwarmonger,

yes, i think the latter point is what the administration is considering. however, they also know that the costs of military action, even now, are high, and not just because we have iraq as a millstone around our necks...

i think there's a big trade-off to consider, if we're looking at the military option.

we're looking at delaying or obstructing the production of nuclear weapons (with only a slim possibility of eliminating the threat altogether, given that we don't know where everything is), in exchange for completely alienating the iranian populace and driving them into the hands of the heretofore hated mullahs. THAT will reduce the chance of either 1. regime change, 2. regime reform (aka china model).

it's just part of the calculus here. obviously if we're dealing with a complete crazy who's just waiting for a nuke to push the red button, it's time to go in, the iranian people be damned. but if we're dealing with a rational actor who can be expected to generally follow the rules of "the game", then...

Amled

Right !
The old ostrich defence theory, Stick your head in the sand and all your problems will just go away.
Like Chamberlain when he came back from Munich!!!
Appeasement never have and never will be the solution.
The action to remove Saddam was correct.
If errors were subsequently, then it would be better to rectify those errors. Not by pulling out and leaving chaos behind.
That would be the greatest error of ALL!
Your are probably correct in this if Mr A and the Mad Mullahs were rational pragmatic politicians.
So the big question must be …are they?
In the closing days of WW II, when Japan’s cities were being wiped out by constant fire bombs, the leadership refused to give in. Even after Hiroshima was turned into atomic ash, they refused to give in. It was only after Nagasaki that a modicum of reason filtered through.
So one cannot always depend on reason winning out!

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

lwarmonger

This assumes that either is likely in the next 20-30 years. I don't think either really is, as differing circumstances (namely a lack of the massive competetive advantage in labor that China possesses) make regime reform along the Chinese model (increasing riches followed by increasing freedom) unlikely, while regime change discounts the still substantial support that the Mullah's possess in the countryside.

It depends though. While the Supreme Leader may or may not be rational, we aren't playing against solely a nation state here. Were a couple of other nations to acquire nukes within the next ten years (or were Pakistan to come apart), a "reasonable" conclusion for Iran's leadership might be that covertly giving nukes to a Shia extremist group (perhaps one not even supported by Iran) could be pinned on someone else. It is only illegal if one gets caught.

astralis

amled,

the leadership refused to give in because of the belief that if they just held on a BIT longer, and forced the americans to come to shore, they could inflict enough casualties for the americans to take a conditional surrender as opposed to the unconditional surrender the americans were demanding.

a mistaken calculation as opposed to an irrational act (although it is true a LOT of the IJA officers were irrational. but the very top honchos, including the ones in the navy and the diplomatic corps, weren't- after all, they surrendered).

but i'm veering off-topic. where i was going with this was, based upon past history, do we see irrationality? iraq was the one that invaded iran, after all; iran has yet to "pull a japan" and go around invading other countries left and right, irrespective of their own capability for doing so. the mullahs are hardly in the middle of the same "emperor cult" that infected so much of japanese culture/politics of the time...

you are right in that we cannot always depend on reason winning out. but in iran's case, unless you have other evidence to show me, it seems to me that their actions have been dangerous, yes, but rational.

astralis

lwarmonger,

the "chinese model" actually isn't very exclusively "chinese". in fact, south korea, singapore, taiwan, japan, and (to a point) indonesia adopted it [more accurately, the export-led growth model] a good deal earlier than the chinese. and one cannot argue that the likes of singapore has a "huge competitive advantage in labor".

as for regime change, well, the likelihood of regime change is a great deal higher now than it was 15-25 years ago, no? there is nothing that says that given continued mullah poor leadership- something that hasn't changed in the past 25 years- that the boiler won't go boom. in fact, a-jad is busy alienating himself from the very poor that elected him, with his incompetent handling of domestic affairs (not that his socialist policies is going to help iran much, even if they WERE successes).

letting nukes float around with no direct control is usually not the act of a rational political leadership and given how quickly the US figgered out who pulled 9-11, it's a bit hard to believe that even the iranians could be so dumb as to think they could pin such an act on someone else (ESPECIALLY given the heightened attention on iran regarding this matter).

as a quick example of this, has there been any evidence to date that hezbollah has been even given mini-WMDs, aka chems?

it seems to me that for iran, nukes are going to be used as they usually are in power politics. more for domestic rah-rah purposes, and most importantly, for nuclear deterrence. for me, actually, one of the most worrying aspects of iranian nukes is not that the iranian leadership will give it away to the terrorists, but that if the regime falls, those nukes might...disappear.

lwarmonger

I'd say the italicized words are the key elements of that though. Now that the Chinese (and possibly soon the Indians?) are dominating the lower end manufacturing, can a nation with as many disadvantages as Iran make an entry into those "industrializing" industries like textiles and steel?

But look at how long it took for the Shah to fall, and the Shah had a fraction of the support that the Guardian Council has.

What if Pakistan begins to come apart?

Does Hezbollah have the experience or equipment to handle chems?

Expat Canuck

Funny how the middle east doesn't feel so far away for me here in Amsterdam. Sympathetic Germans all over the world, have you not watched the world lately? Those bombers in London which I was there for where British asshat and the plot foiled once again they where British accent and all. I'd say there are some sympathetic muslims all over the world, they do not identify with their country, Arabs see themselves as Arab.

Pull your head out.

Expat Canuck

Money is power and the Jewish people have a lot of that, this is not a steriotype just the way it is and has been for 1000's of years.

Expat Canuck

Do you really believe that? The Taliban and Saddam have killed just as many if not more than the wars have caused and we will never know the full extent of the murders commited. It's hard for the dead to complain you silly man.

Also, now that the war in Iraq is going right or wrong we can not just quit, it doesn't work like that.

Expat Canuck

Take one glass jar of Amonia and seal it, place it in a larger glass jar full of bleach and you have a home made chlorene gas bomb. Also, in a world of the un-educated does it really matter if they have the equipiment? All you need to do is say hey Omar go grab that canister over there will ya no it's completely safe don't be silly or Allah will send you to hell...... but in Arabic.

astralis

lwarmonger,

both chinese and indian manufactures/exports are evolving. as stated in another thread, china seeks to move out of these lower-end manufactures and get integrated into the information economy- more profits to be made, more prestige, and besides, educated people generally do not like to spend their time stitching clothes for 5 cents an hour. so yes, iran can make an entry, given that the likes of vietnam and thailand are making good inroads into these areas of manufactures.

that is debate-able. by the way, the shah didn't last all that long, even by global standards; 20-25 years. in the end, his final mistake was that he pushed too hard at the wrong people, and not hard enough (ironically) on others. he relied too much on military strength, continually asking america for arms, when america was busy telling him to spend his $$ on social services and not on missiles which he didn't need.

well now, from what it seems, a-jad is trying to provide for social services, and he's failing. not a good sign, and if oil prices fall, things should get a bit more dicey for the leadership.

if THAT happens, our worries won't be on iran slipping a nuke to the terrorists. our worries will be terrorists, or at the very least religious extremists, taking over pakistan...and pakistan's fine collection of nukes.

hey, aum shinrikyo, an unheard-of group, could handle chems...albeit rather incompetently. hezbollah has been fighting israel for years, and the last fight showed that they were well-funded, organized, and could at least fight the israelis to a standstill (fully understanding that international/domestic pressures acting on a state- pressures that they did not face- could shape a battlefield to their advantage).

so yes, i believe if hezbollah were given chems, they probably could use it. the question is, why haven't they?