Iran and the United States

Sean-Paul asked me to post this, it was originally written in as a response to the idea of bombing the hell out of Iran's nuclear program (massive conventional air sorties, in other words) and pulling back to defend Israel from the backlash.

Oh wow.

Go ahead. If you're willing to lose most of your troops in Iraq. That's an act of war. You do that, you are declaring war on Iran, and they will respond that way. That is a DECLARATION OF WAR. And your economy will crater and your allies will abandon you, you will be all by yourselves. Oil will soar to $150/barrle and the world economy will crash. And people won't blame the Iranians, they will blame you.

Now: let's deal with the specifics:

1) Iran doesn't sponsor terror against the US, at least not recently. You do this, that'll change. You do this, you will come to see 9/11 as the good ol' days when you only lost a couple thousand people. Because Iran is much better at terrorism than al-Q'aeda is. Much, much better.

2) Israel is the nation which spies most on the US. They are not your friends, whatever you may think. Of course, given the power of the Israeli lobby, and the specter of being called an anti-semite, no one is willing to say this. Let them deal with their own damn problems, it's their bed, let them lie in it.

3) List the negative consquences of Iran getting nukes. (Probably in ten years). Then list the consequences of DECLARING WAR on Iran. Compare and contrast.

4) Bush brought this on America by invading Iraq. The lesson of Iraq is this: if you have nukes you won't get invaded. If you do, the US will (compare and contrast: North Korea/Iraq). Iran is acting entirley rationally. And moreover the US reelected Bush. You endorsed him. From a foreigners point of view, you are a rogue nation. I think Canada should have nukes, because I know you invaded Iraq based on lies. Americans knew Bush was torturing people and they reelected him. I don't want Iran to have nukes, but if I were the mullahs I'd be doing
the exact same thing.

5) I have to tell you that from a foreigner's point of view, and this is true even in your closest allies (the majority of Britains, for example) you are a rogue nation. You invade people based on lies. You have no credibility on Iran. You are the boy who cried Wolf. You don't obey the Geneva conventions. You have secret prisons. You torture people, including the citizens of your allies. You have abolished habeas corpus for certain classes of people. You could produce pictures of nukes and missiles and half the world wouldn't believe you. Even if we do believe you, we don't care enough to endorse going to war with Iran.. There are only two nations in the world who constantly talk about how they're willing to nuke people without even being attacked: The North Koreans - and the UNITED STATES.

You gave up the ability to stop countries like Iran from getting nukes when you invaded a country like Iraq which had no nukes and no real possibility of getting them. That was your wad, and you blew it. You chose to be weak. At this point, for you to stop Iran would involve you in a war you cannot win. You cannot win it. You cannot occupy Iran. You would lose your troops in Iraq OR you would have to kill tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to save them. You'd better think real carefully about what you're willing to do. If you withdraw your troops from Iraq first, then you give the Mullahs warning (because it ain't an overnight operation) and everything else still stands - you will still destroy your economy, the Revolutionary Guards will still activate their operatives in the US. Look at a map, and see how much oil goes through what areas right next to Iran.

Get rid of George Bush. Try him for war crimes. Stop building nukes. Stop talking aobut using nukes pre-emptively. Come back to the UN, and we'll talk about doing something about Iran. Since there is still quite a bit of time before they get nukes, there is still time. But your first job is to clean up your own house. No one trusts you to clean up anyone else's anymore.

Ian Welsh April 14, 2006 - 1:23pm

Ian Welsh's diary | printer friendly version |

on neil young's new song...

http://harpmagazine.com/news/detail.cfm?article=10623

flambeee April 14, 2006 - 1:52pm

Flamb-e-e-e is back!

Where was he yesterday? Figuring out his capital gains, no doubt. Guess what happened while you were gone, Flambeee? Gandalf scooped your favorite "guru" with a Bloomberg article about the economy. Congrats to Gandalf!

P.S. As far as Iran is concerned, more than likely, Bush is going to go after them, and there's absolutely nothing that we can do about it. And anyone who thinks Bush can't or won't do it needs to go back to the drawing board and do some serious rethinking.

cardinal April 14, 2006 - 7:56pm

[i]You gave up the ability

[i]You gave up the ability to stop countries like Iran from getting nukes when you invaded a country like Iraq which had no nukes and no real possibility of getting them. [/i]

I have a hard time believing you so blithely dismiss Saddams known nuclear programs and his ambitions.

The rest of you post isnt worth responding to.

Mad Dog

MadDog April 14, 2006 - 2:03pm

Thanks for that view from

Thanks for that view from outer space. Meanwhile...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

"Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future."

Oh boy, too bad the Iranians and the North Koreans, you know, actually had programs, rather than just plans to perhaps, at some point, start the 15 year process of trying to make nukes again.

Ian Welsh April 14, 2006 - 2:41pm

no shit....

Thanks for that view from outer space. Meanwhile...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
"Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

Wow. Thanks for telling us what we already knew, Ian. I didnt say Saddam had a WMD program _during_ the invasion, now did I ?

Saddam did have a WMD program (nuclear), and fully intended to reconstitute it after sanctions were inevitably "whined away".

Gee whiz, just like I said. A-maz-ing.

Oh boy, too bad the Iranians and the North Koreans, you know, actually had programs, rather than just plans to perhaps, at some point, start the 15 year process of trying to make nukes again.

Take a moment and think really hard: "Why arent NK and Iran being treated the same way as Iraq ? (i.e., the "military solution")

If you cant come up with the (obvious) answer, I will be happy to enlighten you.

[as an aside, I thought the big-bad-bully-USA was tormenting poor little never-had-a-bomb-program-Iran ?]

Mad "Not Quite In Outer Space" Dog

MadDog April 14, 2006 - 10:03pm

Tell me how, Maddog

Saddam could have enriched enough fuel for a weapon program anytime in the foreseeable future ? By using mass spectrometer to separate the fuel like they did before ? You are nuclear chemist right, you know like me this is not the most effective method... And it is a method that is easily found by inspection, as found the last time they used them. There is actually cool science/spy story about this involving hidden CZT detectors in shoes ...

Communist in heart, socialist in the head, capitalist in the pocket ...

Mathieu April 18, 2006 - 8:31am

It is not disputed that Sadaam wanted to acquire nuclear technology.

It is clear that Iraq had no nuclear arms, and no discernible program for developing them.

Baillie April 14, 2006 - 2:45pm

After Colin Powell waived his vial of cocaine

...in front of the UN, claiming it was anthrax, I stopped believing anything these BushCo scammers say.

Like a lot of Americans, I was fooled by the sheer magnitude of their lies. How could such enormous claims--250 tons of anthrax, mobile biological labs, nukes ready to deploy in 45 days, UAV's ready to spray the East Coast--how could all that be utterly false?

Well, it was all a huge pack of lies, and the proof is in the ruthlessly suppressed evidence garnered by people on the ground who tried to report the truth, but then were ignored or threatened into silence.

Defending Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Powell and their henchmen is looking more and more ridiculous. These people lied to you; it's time to get mad at them, not at people who are telling you the truth. Get past that fact and let's move on to the impeachments.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

Jimbo92107 April 14, 2006 - 3:14pm

anthrax

....250 tons of anthrax, mobile biological labs, nukes ready to deploy in 45 days, UAV's ready to spray the East Coast--how could all that be utterly false?

In the case of the chem and bio, Saddam never complied with his obligations to prove he destroyed his stocks.

Mad Dog

MadDog April 14, 2006 - 10:05pm

I think the point...

is that that there are lots of people outside North America who feel, and see things this way. The real striking feature of this article is the anger behind it, and(our society) being dismissive about it would not be a wise move.

Leaftree April 14, 2006 - 2:44pm

Thank you Ian Welsh

Best damn thing I have read. You summarized it well.

Bucksouth April 14, 2006 - 6:13pm

Jeez Ian, I hope that was cathartic for you.

Suggesting that Canada build its own nuclear deterrant? Yeah, let's undo the last 35 years of Canadian grand strategy at a single stroke - a single stroke that will also simultaneously drive the final nail into the coffin containing any means of enforcing nonproliferation using a laws based approach and drive the Yank whack job fringe into frothy rage. Any industrialized middle power that develops and maintains its own nuclear deterrant is either prisoner to an established Cold War infrastructure or isn't thinking very clearly, MNSHO.

A minor quibble but by any reasonable stretch of the imagination Israel is not the country that spies the most on the United States. That crown is still held by the Russians. The Israeli IC, in comparison is very small - what they are, however, is very successful at gathering the int that they task themselves for; they are probably more successful than any other single player that I can think of (except maybe, strangely, us). However, both of these examples aren't very good points of comparison due to the fact that our collection is much, much more narrowly focussed.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave April 14, 2006 - 7:28pm

Now that I think about it, one might want...

...to add China to the list; they've certainly been going after the quantity awards lately. I get the impression that their collection isn't very focussed, however.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave April 14, 2006 - 7:30pm

Thanks Ian

That pretty much sums up the overwhelming, mainstream, sentiment outside the US

Asylum April 14, 2006 - 7:30pm

Speaker For the World (tm)

That pretty much sums up the overwhelming, mainstream, sentiment outside the US

Ah yes, lets us hear the grand wisdom of the elected Speaker For the World, Mr. Asylum.

Mad Dog

MadDog April 14, 2006 - 10:07pm

ha ha

gold bath taps, wmds, shredders, inspectorzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Asylum April 14, 2006 - 11:15pm

Thanks Ian

I would only add that Bush would be starting a war with a very low approval rating. Can anyone think of a historical example of this situation. What if, then, he uses a nuke? Just imagining this seems scary in terms of what might happen domestically given his already low approval.

We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. - General Education Board Letter #1, 1906, Rockefeller Foundation.

Joaquin April 14, 2006 - 10:00pm

I think it would cause the administration to...

...fall,frankly. I'm quite unconvinced by the belief that a war on Iran is being embarked upon as a means of shoring up domestic support.

I tend to see this administration as dominated by a group of guys that have convinced themselves that only they have the stones to do what they view as the hard necessary thing against Iran - if they can read a poll they also know that there's a real good chance that none of them are going to be in power after the next election even if the GOP should win. That might well go a ways to explaining the urgency of their timelines - certainly the physics of the situation suggests that there's less urgency than being played at right now - any sane pol would be going "whew, not my administration's problem" at this point, but they ain't.

"We declared war on terror, it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui." - Jon Stewart.

JustPlainDave April 14, 2006 - 10:48pm

Money

I was willing to be money there would be no invasion of Iran many years ago. I won the bet.

I am still willing to take the bet. Anyone ?

Mad Dog

MadDog April 14, 2006 - 10:08pm

Invasion by bombs

or troops? Semantics suck.

happy easter maddog, don't bite all the heads off the peeps :)

Tina April 14, 2006 - 10:12pm

MD, without Bernadene

you're just all bark, no bite.

Eat a peep, you knucklehead. Happy Wester.

- Rick
_{"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" - George Clinton}

Rick April 14, 2006 - 11:06pm

ROTFLMAO!!!! n/t

Love Firefox, Hate IE

Sean-Paul Kelley April 14, 2006 - 11:34pm

ug.

The presence of Bernadene or the lack thereof has no effect on Mad Dog.

Woof.

Mad Dog

MadDog April 15, 2006 - 9:40am

devil in the details

We would have to agree precisely before taking the bet to make sure neither party has any weasel room.

Mad Dog

MadDog April 15, 2006 - 9:38am

Ian

I too get angry when I see articles that America might attack Iran. I direct mine at this administration and don't include the people of America. Yes he was elected for a second time, but they didn't sanction everything he has done.

As an example ... look at our recent election. People voted for Harper, not because they wanted him as our Prime Minister, but as a reaction against the Liberal party. IMHO, he's proving not to be trustworthy and I'm hoping the electorate won't vote for him the next time. I have but one vote, if the majority votes for something I really don't agree with, it is my obligation to work for change. It would be futile to whine that my candidate didn't get elected. Many Americans have adopted exactly that position and are working to get Democrats elected for 2008. I respect that!

America can't bomb Iran, because that would put their troops at peril in Iraq. Iraq as bad enough as it is, is possibly deteriorating further and developing into a civil war. What I fear is the troops will get caught in a cross fire and their supply lines in Kuwait could get cut off, trapping them in the Green zone. How would they get supplies if that happens? If anger was directed at the troops under those conditions, that would further isolate and imperil their safety.

The troops don't deserve to die in a foreign country. They were sent there by this administration.

If you're going to be angry, as are millions of Americans, write about how poorly this administration's policies are not working out. You're too good a writer to let emotions dominate your logic.

I have many, many American friends, and without exception, none of them agree with what is happening in Iraq. They absolutely do not support an invasion of Iran. I believe you know there are good people here at Agonist that are as much against the current holder of office as you are.

How helpless would you feel if you were an American and didn't vote for Bush, yet have to live with his lies, his incompetence, etc. Some that have been sent to Iraq have committed suicide. What a tragedy to be their Mother, Father, brother, sister, cousin, member of his/her family or simply to have been an acquaintance. That and other deaths are haunting those families and friends.

If Iran is attacked, it will be the neocons that launch it. The deaths of thousands and the consequences, could very well destroy America. Pray that it doesn't happen. It will be far-reaching and affect the entire world. Whether there will be trials at the Hague isn't known at this time IF it happens. It will cause great change on this planet.

See Huffington Post 64% want all or some troops home

canuck April 14, 2006 - 11:17pm

deja vu

aaaaaaah, deep breath, comments like they used to be, rabid ripostes, and curdling claims. I love it!

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.

- A.J. Liebling._{<Hence my love for the Agonist.>}

Graham April 15, 2006 - 2:33am

My comments were in no way meant as an admonishment

and it was not my intent to sound preachy, I had my 'rant' the day before, so knew exactly where he was coming from. Actually, I had not one, but two that I now reget!

We all have our level of frustration. If we didn't express them from time to time, IMHO, it would mean we didn't give two hoots.

canuck April 15, 2006 - 4:12am

ahh rant on canuck

it happens to us all :) Well at least to those of us with a conscious:D

Tina April 15, 2006 - 8:10am

the same crap occured around

this time last year. we were supposed to be going to war w iran by june. i remember because while all the lefties on this board were pumping doom and fear i wrote that i was willing to bet all comers 1k (or was it 10k) that there would be no war with iran by june.

and there will be none this year either. the v bottom line as i.w. alludes is that we are unable to attack them. iran understands this which, in part, provides them the allowance to talk so much smack...

i make the same bet today... any takers?

flambeee April 15, 2006 - 10:11am

While I believe this admin

is totally nuts I don't see it happening. It has however done a pretty good job of pushing the news away from Bush's failures in the Iraq and domestic policies. They change the subject well.

Tina April 15, 2006 - 10:16am

This is going to happen, Flambeee.

Write it down, read it, and get over it. I don't remember having any thoughts whatsoever that the U.S. might go to war against Iran until the first of this year when I heard a Pentagon employee sitting behind me on a plane saying that Iran was all the Pentagon was preoccupied with. (I posted that comment on the Agonist right after I got home.) Nevertheless, I didn't believe it even then. But after Seymore Hersch's article, I believe it now.

By the way, this isn't a left or right, conservative or liberal issue. This morning on the Fox business block the discussion among the conservatives was as if an attack on Iran is a done deal.

cardinal April 15, 2006 - 8:54pm

giong to happen ?

If its that sure, are you going to take a bet ?

Mad Dog

MadDog April 16, 2006 - 9:40am

No, I don't bet. And if I did, it wouldn't be

over an issue of war. It would be like taking blood money to me.

cardinal April 16, 2006 - 4:44pm

blood money ?

Whether you bet (if you were the type who would do so) has no impact on the probibility of it happening, so its not blood money at all.

Mad Dog

MadDog April 17, 2006 - 7:04pm