Commando

This is all economics. The world is economics. The future of the world is economics.

Archer

The original article has shades of hyperbole. Israel contemplating a unilateral nuclear strike on Iran? Sure, sure.

Conventional munitions, yes. Nukes, no way- it will lead to an immense international backlash against Israel, and the Israelis are anything but dumb.

__________________
Karmani Vyapurutham Dhanuhu

My bow is stretched for its task

Tronic

Also, will lead to a more intense Jihad and possibility of Pakistani nukes being stationed with the Saudis....

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Swift Sword

Bluesman,

Per your admonition, I read the article thouroughly and with a critical eye.

It has a few problems.

First, the construction of the essay does not do anything to support the conclusion.

Secondly, an examination of the end notes is interesting. On the one hand, what is not there speaks more than what is. On the other hand, some of the end notes appear to contradict the author's own conclusion and his use of other people's opinon pieces might not be such a hot idea.

Thirdly, the conclusion was written long before the essay was even conceived of: it is a verbatim rehash of the same drumbeat that has permeated Bush Administration propaganda for many years now.

Fourth, look at the author's C.V: it does explain the slant of his work quite nicely.

Fifth, the forementioned slant in general involves creating a monolith of myriad enemies. This is a well known tactic of political psychiatry among those who use foreign enemies in attempts to gain influence at home and its use makes the author seem more interested in propagating his agenda than educating an American audience to the nature of a highly nuanced enemy.

The fact that this material is being peddled in the first place might be an indicator of a deeper problem amongst the American public with regards to being able to define the enemy.

One thing I found interesting is how the author barely skimmed the surface of Whahibbism given its direct bearing on the current troubles. Fascinating subject...but when you work for the President, you cannot delve too deeply into things that might make people question some of the Boss's policies.

Too, fixating on "Twelver Shi'ism" is not a very accurate or useful position, especially considering the link between Iran and Lebanon. There is much room to manuever; perhaps we should acknowledge it and get down to business.

We should not let sycophants try to lump all of our enemies together when we shold be trying to use their divisions to our advantage.

Anyway, Bluesman, if you want your ship to sail tall, fast and far, I would not use Mr. Whener's work for your masts. Go a little deeper into the forest: check our Giles Kepel's "Jihad: On the Trail of Political Islam".

Kepel's conclusion is debatable, arguably: he is either dead wrong or remarkably far sighted, depending upon who you ask or how you read the Post 9-11 tea leaves. However, the wealth of research and information is boon for anybody who wishes to learn more about the enemy, how he came to be and how he operates.

Getting back on topic, I think the idea of nuking a few Iranian facilities is not really going to get them very far and most certainly would be detrimental to American interests in the region.

Ultimately, the debate seems to boil down to this:

Do we take the high opportunity costs and questionable chances of success inherint in making war on Iran or do we let things play out a little bit and use the lower costs of some combination of balance, containment and roll back which have proven successful in other instances?

Talk now, bomb later or bomb now, talk later. Either way, we have to have the right kind of talk or the right kind of bombs and the right kinds of targets for them.

How does our score card look on both accounts?

Oh yeah, if ya'll have not read R.W. Chandler's Tomorrow's War, Today's Decisions: Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Implications of Wmd-Adversaries for Future U.S. Military Strategy, you might want to do so for it highlights the challenges inhereint in what many in Israel and the United States would like to do in Iran.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Swift Sword

Hi Guys,

This story would tend to indicate that a no power or soft power solution might be much more attainable and effective than a costly hard power solution:

Source: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayA...n=opinion&col=

astralis

Bulgaroctonus,

well, to begin with, i don't think you need to fear NYC going up in nuclear fire- NYC is huge and would require rather more than suitcase nuke.

but i see where you are getting at. i was using a rather extreme example, of course- but the fact still remains, if the terrorists conduct a hit on us, the ONLY effect it will have is to increase national morale. will it hurt our economy? nothing more than in the short-term, as demonstrated by the incredible growth of the US and world economic systems, despite increasing terrorist attacks, a huge spike in the price of oil, and general instability. will it hurt our political system? we have gone through worse, and the constitution has come off no worse for wear.

as for the cities themselves, the worst that will happen is not the destruction of the buildings, nor the monuments, all of which can be rebuilt or replaced. it will be the deaths of innocent americans. sad as that is, though, it does not change the fact that this is a war that we cannot lose.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

InfiniteDreams

Why didn't they accept the proposal that enrichment activities take place outside Iran and all spent fuel is returned to Russia? That would have made transparent their true ambitions but they refused to do that. Draw your own conclusions...

No comment about Pakistan. It's a nightmare.

What am I emphazisng which is frustratiing to me is that: DPRK borders with China and Iran borders with Russia. The regional hegemons need to police their own backyards and they aren't.

What are you advocating in regards to Iran?

__________________
The purpose of all war is ultimately peace. - Saint Augustine
For it tis' the doom of men that they forget. - Merlin the Magician
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. - Albert Einstein

astralis

infinitedreams,

that is because neither china nor russia feel truly threatened by DPRK or iran. if this were to change, their responses would change too.

Bulgaroctonus

Sir,

A scholarly discussion of the destruction of New York City is not necessary. However, a suitcase bomb could irradiate the city enough to render it uninhabitable for several decades. I speak on this without having done recent research. I'll look into the matter.

A biological attack could cause damage beyond the economic pale.

I think our political system has been adversely affected by 9/11. Bush abused the trust of American citizens and the institutions of the government. To name a few examples of government malfeasance:

The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act,
Faulty justification for invasion of Iraq,
Wiretapping scandal,

I think that is a pompous attitude that is ripe for dissapointment. I believe Islam is the most dangerous ideology America has faced. Nazism as Communism had more powerful nation-states than Islam has. Indeed, both seemed poised to take over the world. However, Islam has greater numerical strength, a longer historical presence (therefore legitimacy), and has a stronger base among its population than Communism or Nazism ever did.

I agree with Huntington. 9/11 was not an isolated incident of Muslim terrorism, but is a continuation of the same clash of civilizations that has been occuring since 632 AD. Since America doesn't realize this, it is prone to being lulled into a false sense of security by quick victories. Jihadists see the struggle against America as long-term, and that is one of their strengths.

If Islam does triumph over the United States, it may be a gradual victory. That is exactly the kind we are ill-prepared to defend against.

Bulgaroctonus

Members of the World Affairs Board,

Please take a moment to examine a brief Council on Foreign Relations piece on arms trade between Russia and Iran at:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11869...rms_trade.html

Regards,

Bulgaroctonus

Khan Sahab

Those F-16s and other stuff r of no threat, They won't sell it to the terrorists, wud they?

"Is tarha to hota hai phir is tarha k kamoon mein"

__________________
Break the temple, Break the mosque, Break whatever besides!
But do not break a human heart, because that is where the GOD resides!

smilingassassin

Looks like Iran is heading for this very senario! Iran gives nuke to terrorists, terrorist nuke New York, U.S. turns Iran into worlds largest sheet of glass, remenants of Islamic nations surrounding Iran survive and learn to co-exist to survive.

InfiniteDreams

Astralis,

And the US doesn't feel threatened by Mexico but we don't want them building nuclear weapons.

highsea

Last summer, we said we were ready to help Iran develop a modern nuclear power industry. We also offered to hold off actions in the SC. We offered guaranteed supplies of fuel, help building power stations, and cooperation on research. We offered other trade benefits, lifting of sanctions, help in civilian aircraft tech and IT. Things that would be tremendous benefit to Iranians.

All they had to do was to demonstrate that their intentions are peaceful.

All offers were refused. Iran strung out Russia on the fuel deal purely for political gain in the SC.

The enrichment facility at Natanz was hidden from the IAEA, against NPT rules, as was the heavy water reactor being built at Arak. Iran only admitted to their existence in the face of incontrovertible evidence. They have yet to offer a convincing civilian-use rationale for the reactor at Arak, which can be used to produce Plutonium. They acquired UF6 from China outside the IAEA guidelines- not enough for a bomb, but enough to test their cascades.

Questions remain, such as why is the Iranian Military involved in the nuclear program? Why won't Iran give a full account of their dealings with A.Q. Khan? Why was Iran experimenting with Polonium-210, which has no use in power generation (but can be used to trigger a fission reaction)?

Iran is still some way from having the bomb, but there is no doubt in my mind whether or not that is their intent.

If the case against them wasn't stong, there is no way the SC would have voted unanimously against them.

Iran learned from Iraq. They watched as the US struggled for 13 years to enforce the sanctions They saw the power struggles in the SC, and how Saddam successfully manipulated the council. They have shown that they are quite adept at playing the big powers against each other for their own gain.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

astralis

Bulgaroctonus,

i doubt it. generally, the more lethal a disease is, the faster it burns out. therein lies the weakness of biologicals as a weapon.

and i think- as do the vast majority of academics- that huntington's theory is full of crap. it's full of generalities and contradictions. he views very distinct states as monolithic blocs, something which one would have thought that the experience of the cold war should have taught otherwise.

for example, both "islamic civilizations" of saudi arabia and iran hate each others' guts, and would not take much for them to start up a fight as they did back in the 1980s. "confucian civilizations" of south korea and china have argued countlessly in the past, with fellow "confucian civilization" of vietnam actually waging war with china twice in the last thirty years. we needn't go into the differences that france has with the US, or how in the early-mid 1990s "japan threat" was in the vogue here in the US- despite all of them being "western civilizations" according to huntington.

and your statement about the millennial clash actually contradicts what huntington says- his belief is that the clash of civilizations is only a recent phenomenon, with "civilizational" aspects only beginning to supercede clashes based around ideology/nationalism/resources in the last three decades or so.

as for jihadists thinking in the "long-term", that is precisely what they do NOT do. they're not thinking, they're fantasizing. osama bin ladin called for a worldwide caliphate. seeing how that was not garnering him much support, notice how he's suddenly changed his tune to supporting the "islamic brothers in palestine". the terrorists don't have enough competence to even overthrow one of their immensely corrupt and unpopular tyrant-rulers. they have no economic game-plan, and furthermore, little structure, given their isolated cell-based organization. their ideologies and beliefs differ. in short, the only thing the terrorists have got going for them is the siren-call of "desperate times call for desperate measures," and feeding off feelings of inferiority, poverty, and lack of respect.

that's enough to keep terrorism alive, yes, but that is nowhere close to enough to upset the current world order of nation-states. if the terrorists want to win, they need to make their own state (if not a nation). and if they do, they just put themselves out in the open for annihilation by the vastly wealthier, vastly more united, and vastly more capable non-terrorist states.