Yesterday, I outlined a possible scenario for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, using the 80’s movie “War Games” as my conceit. It was a fun piece to write, but it also let me highlight just how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran could be, and how bad things could get. And it prompted some great discussions, from folks all across the political spectrum.
I know it’s a bit unfair to use two or three people to tar an entire political faction, but I’m going to do it anyway, because I think these folks do a pretty good job of summing up some of the Lefts’ standard talking points.
First up, chronologically, is SemanticLeo, who meandered over here from Oliver Willis’ site. Leo’s notion:
“Jay is advising caution since the Moolahs are at least two years away from da bomb.”
Leo doesn’t cite a source for this, but I suspect it’s the International Atomic Energy Commission. That’s the same UN body that assured us that Pakistan didn’t have the bomb, India didn’t have the bomb, and North Korea doesn’t have the bomb. Is Leo just being naive, trusting, foolish, and stupid?
There’s an alternative explanation. Two years from now is 2008, and the next Presidential election. Could Leo be hoping that if we delay confronting Iran, the Democratic nominee can hammer the Republican nominee with by tying him or her to the Bush administration, which “let Iran get the bomb.” Great notion there — letting the mad mullahs have the bomb, as long as your side gains political advantage.
Leo also thinks that there is a lot of parallels between Iran’s president and Bush. Because both men state that they have deep religious beliefs, there is a great deal of moral equivalency between the psycho nutcase in Iraq who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, who routinely calls for “death to America,” and who desperately wants nuclear arms, and Bush — who has had control of them for over five years, and has yet to use a one — let alone openly threaten to do so.
Next up, we have good old Mak44. Mak takes a break from his usual tactic of ad hominem attacks and gratuitous personal insults (or, as he put it, “So yes, I feel, on occasion, like a guard in a 1930’s asylum, and every once in a while I find it amusing just to shove a broom handle up some inmate’s ass just to hear you’re (lol) squeal since a reasoned response is not forthcoming.”) to actually bring an argument to the table. Unfortunately, his “argument” (if I may laughingly call it such) is to look at the long history of US-Iranian relations through his own particular filter (also known as “talking out his ass”) and say that every single thing is the fault of Republicans. He blames Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush (I think he means the current one, but he doesn’t specify). Others rebutted with citations of Clinton and Carter, but that is a bad tactic. It buys into his little game.
And just what is that game? It’s called “change the subject.” Mak doesn’t want to have to deal with the FACT that Iran is a looming crisis that is going to get worse, he wants to discuss how it got that way. More to the point, he wants to get everyone talking about whether or not it was the Republicans’ fault that the situation got to this point, because he’s afraid that if the situation is actually RESOLVED, Bush might gain some political advantage.
If Mak were on the Titanic, he would be the lookout who insists that there be a full investigation into why the weatherman didn’t warn everyone that there could be icebergs around. Why the radioman didn’t get any warnings from other ships. Why the engineers didn’t warn everyone to be more careful because of the ship’s vulnerability to collision. Why the designers didn’t give the ship enough lifeboats. In brief, he’d be thrilled if everyone argued back and forth over his blame-throwing right up until the icy waters slipped over everyone’s heads.
So, confronted with the looming possibility of Iran possessing nuclear weapons, weapons it has repeatedly stated it will freely use to pursue its own goals, and those goals having been stated as the removal of all Western influence in the Middle East and the obliteration of Israel, what are the responses these two (and, in other forms, by many of the Left?
1) It’s not an imminent danger, so what’s the hurry?
2) You’re all a bunch of idiots and losers and morons.
3) How can we spin this to make our side look good?
4) Forget #3, how can we spin this to make the other side look bad?
5) BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD! BUSH BAD!
I’m not quite sure how any of these approaches will actually help avert a nuclear holocaust (yes, I chose that word deliberately), but I’m sure that some of those fine folks who are espousing them will explain the subtleties, the nuances, the finer points that will make the whole problem go away.
Mac Lorry,
I don’t disagree with your ideas about ABM, energy independence, and greater security. We should be doing those as a matter of course.
As far as no weapon that can reach the suspected hardened Iranian sites… I have great faith in the people at places like Tyndall, China Lake, and Los Alamos. If they don’t have something already drawn up that could be produced pretty quickly, they’ll come up with it if they have to. I recall that, during the first Gulf War, the Air Force developed a bunker buster using old 8″ howitzer barrels. It took an F-111 to lug one, but it worked pretty well.
Poor mak44. I’m assuming you are a (w)academic, because your debating skills (or lack thereof) would seriously piss people off in the commercial world, at any level above line employee.
Apologies to academics who can refute arguments in a debate without personally smearing their opponents.
Now, from the psychotic rants of your favorite warmonger:
I have to say that (as sad as it makes me feel), I agree with Mac Lorry‘s conclusions regarding outcomes of pre-emptive strikes against Iran.
I also agree that the weapons development labs may yet find a way to take out hardened deep underground sites. Just remember, those sites have to have a door somewhere, and a thermobaric weapon does wonders to enclosed spaces.
I wouldn’t have such a problem with Iran going nuclear for electrical energy production if it a) made financial sense (which it doesn’t, given Iran’s oil reserves); b) wasn’t in the context of Madman Ahmadinejad’s statements about wiping out Israel and sharing nuclear technology throughout the middle east; and 3) if Iran, like Israel, Pakistan, and India, could treat nuclear technology with respect.
Unfortunately, Iran funds its “sock puppets” of Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to conduct a proxy war in Palestine against Israel, and funds an “insurgency” proxy war against the US in Iraq. Furthermore, while GWB may believe in Christian eschatology, he doesn’t make policy based on those beliefs, unlike Ahmadinejad, who believes he personally will help bring about Muslim eschatology.
Funny how the same people who complain about US “invasion” and “occupation” of Iraq and Israeli “occupation” of Palestine don’t complain about Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
Nor do they complain when Iran makes threats against Israel, when Saudi Arabia bans the practice of any religion other than Islam, or when Palestinians ban Jews from living in Palestine.
So why would they worry about Iran having nukes? Peace in our time, right?
mak44:
You make a lousy arm-chair general.
What I was referring to wasn’t the loss of Iranian oil. Try the closing of the Straits of Hormuz and/or an attack on Saudi Fields or a Shi’ite Iraqi uprising foreclosing Iraqi oil to the US.Only in the short term my friend. During the 80’s tanker war oil flow was only reduced by approx 25% thru the Straits of Hormuz. If a shooting war broke out today Irans assets it would use to close the Straits would cease to exist within 28 hours.
And BTW I wasn’t in the Army, my 20 plus were spent in the Navy. (including thousands of hours patroling the Straits of Hormuz and bird dogging the Iranian navy – “arm chair” my aching ass!)
Secondly Iranian missle threat to the Saudi oil fields is very small. In case of hostilites the air cover provided by the carrier battle groups in the Gulf plus the Patriot missle emplacements on Saudi soil will catch any residual Iranian “leakers.”
In addition the US, (contrary to the “war for oil” BS), doesn’t get a single drop of Iraqi oil. It all goes to the EU.
And fanally this quote of yours: “Take the fruit patch off your uniform.”
Thought you “turned over a new leaf?” Guess the old saying is true: a leopard can’t change it’s spots. And I feel, in light of the above, justified in saying this: get your head out of your ass.
Opps, movabletype shit canned the ending blockquote tag, sorry.
Shall I continue? While all this was going on, folks like Mac Lorry, James Cloniger, and even mantis and Muslim Unity were conducting a (more or less) civil discussion of the issues.
Well, more or less.
And it’s CloniNger, by the way…common mistake.
I expert that Israel has a dooms day plan that includes targeting every major city in every Islamic nation that has not made official peace with Israel.
It does: The Sampson Option…
I wouldn’t have such a problem with Iran going nuclear for electrical energy production if it a) made financial sense (which it doesn’t, given Iran’s oil reserves); b) wasn’t in the context of Madman Ahmadinejad’s statements about wiping out Israel and sharing nuclear technology throughout the middle east; and 3) if Iran, like Israel, Pakistan, and India, could treat nuclear technology with respect.
Well, for a), it may actually make financial sense, especially with today’s oil market. If Iran were to provide some of it’s own energy needs with nuclear power, it could sell more of it’s oil for an overall profit. For b), good point, but it is also important to remember that the President in Iran’s political system does not exactly wield a great deal of power. In fact he does not control the military at all. For 3), who’s to say that they won’t? I remember all the worry about Pakistan getting the bomb and nuking India, but so far that hasn’t happened. Let’s not forget that Pakistan is an Islamic state, and produces quite a few radical Islamists, including the Taliban.
Anyway, here’s my take on Iran. I wish there were an easy solution to this problem. However, Iran is not Afghanistan, a country full of poor and tribal people with an oppressive theocratic regime. In contrast, Iran is a country with a large educated middle class, a sophisticated and growing economy, and an oppressive theocratic regime. For years I have been saying that the two countries in the world that could emerge as legitimate liberal democracies are China and Iran. The elements are there if the ruling parties could be displaced or overthrown. We have already seen what democracy means in places like Afghanistan: Islamic law and the oppressive policies that go with it, largely in my opinion due to an uneducated an poverty stricken populace (it is easy to rule the poor and uneducated thru tyranny). I believe that this would not be the case in Iran if true democracy, not controlled by the Ayatollahs, were to emerge. Every single Persian expat that I have met testifies to that, and I have known quite a few. Anyway, the election of the nutbag Ahmadinejad has not helped the situation any, and our own adminstration’s stance on Iran is certainly not helping.
Anyway, what to do about nukes and Iran? I think the diplomatic route is the best one (and please read Mac Lorry’s posts on why a military route is not a real option). We should allow Iran to develop nuclear energy and insist, along with the UN or the EU, on strict oversight by the IAEA. Iran, unlike Pakistan and Israel, is a signatory on the nonproliferation treaty and we must hold them to it’s requirements (and we ought to abide by them ourselves, which this administration refuses to do). If Iran will not comply and allow oversight we must make clear that economic sanctions will be implemented (these will in fact have a dramatic effect). We must work diplomatically with Iran by cutting out this silly saber rattling about military intervention, and they must quit with the anti-Israel saber-rattling. It is my belief that this can be done, for a few reasons, first among them being that it is in the Iranian rulers interest to maintain trade relations with Europe, and control over their own people.
It should not come as a surprise (but may) that Iran has a huge blogger population (over 70,000, see here for some). These people, as well as the press in that country, are routinely censored and/or jailed for so-called subversive behavior. This is bad, but what it reveals is that this is a country that embraces technology, that is interested in economic and technological progress (they also have a burgeoning biotechnology, nanotechnology, and pharmaceuticals industry), but wants to stifle dissent. They do this because they are interested in maintaining power while increasing profit. These are not the actions of people bent on bringing about the apocalypse or their own destruction. They are very similar to the Chinese in that the rulers want to keep a tight grip on power while increasing the economy and prestige of the country.
Promoting democracy in Iran is very difficult from our position, we have a bad history with this country and are seen as the enemy by a good deal of it’s population. It is very easy for the leaders there to condemn reform movements as puppets of the US, this goes over very well with the poor but not so well with the middle class who are largely sympathetic to western democracy. We cannot be obvious in our attempts but we will not help things by ignoring them and will only worsen the situation by threatening Iran. We should be firm diplomatically without too much military posturing, and support clandestine reform networks thru Europe, where many middle class Iranians are educated. I know this may be a bit too “nuanced” for those who see bombs as their hammer, and the whole world full of nails, but bombs will not work in this case, they will only create more problems, for us and for Israel.
(I should also point out that the current administration’s diplomacy has worked pretty well with that other Islamic state, Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons)
JC,
Sorry about that.
docjim505,
That’s the crux of the problem; the Bush administration abandoned research into a nuclear “bunker-buster” warheads last fall and with good reason. The Physics Today site states that “Taking into account realistic materials strengths, 10–20 m is a rough ceiling on how deeply into dry rock a warhead can penetrate and still maintain its integrity.” It then talks about needing a 100 kt warhead to reach bunkers 1,000 feet deep and the Iranian facilities could easily be 5,000 feet deep. The real problem is that a shallow (10–20 m) ground penetrating warhead produces a huge amount radioactive fallout that will travel well outside the borders of Iran. Given that Iran has spread out it’s nuclear facilities into many locations, many of these super dirty nukes would be needed to do the job. releasing so much radioactive fallout on neighboring nations is simply untenable short of responding to a nuclear attack by Iran.
You need to take a pragmatic view of your option 3. It means a ground invasion and there’s insufficient political support for Congress to authorize and fund such action. Bush simply cannot do option 3 and the Iranians know it. That’s why it’s imperative to move to option 4, which is to develop the means to deal with a nuclear armed Iran as well as other nations as they acquire this 60 year old technology.
James Cloninger,
And here I’ve been calling it the Trinitite Option. Maybe it’s the same thing.
With the help of many others on Jay’s two peaces on this topic I have reached the following conclusions.
Given the current weapon and political realities, Bush is powerless to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would require a ground invasion and without some dumb action (not words) by Iran, Congress won’t authorize and fund such an invasion. Bush is commander in chief, but Congress holds the purse stings.
Given the current U.S. and Israeli air and anti-missile defenses, Iran can’t deliver it’s nuclear warheads in a militarily effective way. That’s really a very important point because Iran can’t destroy Israel’s nuclear arsenal with a preemptive strike. That means Iran can’t use it’s nuclear weapons and survive as a nation. Even the fools in Iran know that the reason to use their nuclear weapons must be more important to them than the nation of Iran itself. Other than self-defense, there is no sufficient reason. Any ultimatum from Iran can be met with the simple statement “go ahead; we’ll survive but you wont.”
The reality of nuclear weapons is that they have only one use in the world today and that’s self defense. As we have seen throughout history, nuclear weapons have a way of moderating and maturing the leaders who control them. The existence of Israel’s Arrow 2 anti-ballistic missile system greatly reduces the risk of an out war due to an unauthorized or accidental launch.
U.S. policy should be to formally inform Iran and the world that any nuclear attack on the U.S. or it’s allies will be regarded as coming from Iran unless there’s clear and immediate evidence to the contrary (such as a missile launched from China). Energy independence should become part of our national defense. Find the means to inspect cargo before it reaches U.S. shores. Expand our research, development and deployment of anti-missile systems.