What you said. I submit that, given the Iraq experience- and the economy- the American electorate will be a lot more gun-shy than it was ten years ago.
At least until the new season of American Idol, by which time we’ll have forgotten about Iraq.
Isn’t this guy promoting a book?
What makes you think military action will prevent it? Iran is a large country, and its nuclear program is dispersed and hardened. So you might delay their program for a while by dropping a few bombs, but the only way to stop it is regime change. And that isn’t going to happen through US military action.
Thing is, if we bomb Iran they aren’t going to sit back and take it, like Libya did back in the 80s. The Iranian people will freak out, and Iran will have to retaliate. It’s an act of war. We’re already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we’re going to add Iran to the list? How’s that going to work out for us?
Let me preface this by saying I don’t think the US should (or is in the process of) bombing Iran over their nuclear program. That said, we absolutely could halt their program. Even blowing the crap out of one of their facilities would put them back months or years…blowing up several would have even more impact. Could they rebuild and continue? Sure…eventually. But look how long it’s taking them even without having their facilities bombed. At some point they would either have to spend a hell of a lot more money and effort to either completely hide the entire program or so harden it from attack that they could continue, or they would have to give up. Either way, it would set them back years, maybe decades…and I seriously doubt the current regime has that long to live at this point.
I am not sure if the Iranian people would ‘freak out’ or not…I think, in general, the answer is ‘not’, but no way to be sure. Certainly the current regime would, so I guess that counts. The thing is, what could they do about it, realistically? How could they go to war with the US…and what would escalation really buy them? You are looking at it from the perspective of the US being involved in a 3rd war (though one that probably wouldn’t involve many or any troops on the ground), but you have to look at it from Iran’s perspective too. It would be just about impossible for them to really strike at the US, while we could strike THEM pretty much with impunity. We could blow the crap out of their infrastructure, their command and communications…all of which would be VERY bad for the current regime which is barely keeping things from flying apart as it is.
Again, I don’t think the US SHOULD do any of these things. But I think you are vastly over estimating the impact if we did. The only really scary thing would be if the current regime completely melted down (which seems likely to me at this point), and a 5th of the worlds oil reserves were thrown into a bigger cluster fuck than Iraq was. THAT would be bad, and that’s reason enough not to mess with the Iranian’s and their lunatic plans to build a nuke.
-XT
If the GOP does as well in the midterm elections as is currently forecast then Barry O’s domestic agenda will have to be cut back dramatically. Historically most president tend to focus on foreign affairs once they lose momentum in domestic policy. Iran is currently the biggest issue in foreign affairs so that will likely be his focus.
He has three options: Accept a nuclear Iran, Military Strike, or try to subvert the government. Subverting the government will be very difficult and most likely will not work. If he accepts a nuclear Iran, then he has to accept a nuclear Saudi Arabia and eventually a nuclear Iraq. If he opts for a military strike it might not work unless our intelligence is really good, and our intelligence has not been good recently.
His best option would be to try and ratchet up tensions so that sanctions are seen as the safe alternative and are approved by the UN. The bad news is that sanctions almost never work and time is on the side of Iranian nukes.
There do not seem to be any good options.
I can’t see them bombing Iran or giving Israel permission to either. The last thing the global economy needs is a spike in oil prices. Iran can cause endless trouble for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’re stretched militarily as it is. All bombing would do is entrench the regime for a generation and put back construction of a bomb a few years at best. It would never get UN approval. It’d mean two US presidents in a row attacking Middle Eastern countries illegally without UN sanction. From a geopolitical perspective it’s not clever at all and would only hasten America’s loss of control over the region. There are far less ideological nutjobs in the Obama administration than there were in the Bush administration, and even the Bush boys decided attacking Iran wasn’t a smart idea. Can’t see the Obama lot being even dumber than the Bush boys.
The problem with that argument is that as Lemur866 says, they hardened and dispersed the facilities from the start, under the assumption that we or the Israelis would attack sooner or later. It’s questionable if we can do it at all short of using nukes or conquering them.
And they have Iraq next door underlining the fact that in the long run they have two choices: nukes, or the ruin of Iran and their own personal deaths. It is both their national duty and in their own self interest to acquire nukes now, while America is unlikely to actually try an invasion.
Hardly; that would help greatly to prop them up. It would serve as great propaganda to convince the Iranian people that we really are the Great Satan after all. People do NOT like having their cities wrecked and their friends and families killed. Yes, even when it’s Americans doing it.
I’ve seen demos of weapons that can go through meters of solid rock and destroy some of the most hardened facilities…and I’m not exactly privy to the most advanced military hardware. Even if a few of their facilities are hardened enough to withstand any sort of US conventional munitions (which I highly doubt), they all can’t be…and even disrupting some of the secondary facilities would set them back.
Again, I don’t think we SHOULD do any of those things…but you are fooling yourself if you don’t think we COULD do them. And it wouldn’t take nukes or invasions to do so.
I don’t think so. My read on the attitude in Iran is that they are pretty sick of the current government and not all that wild about getting nukes in any case. The people who would be all worked up about such attacks would be people who already dislike the US (granted, that’s not a small number of folks).
You are right that people wouldn’t like having their cities wrecked or their infrastructure bombed, but at this point I think that they would turn at least some of that blame right back on their own government, instead of blindly rallying around them. If it came down to the US doing a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and Iran then decided to escalate things (which, again, I doubt they would do so), then my guess is that the end result would be the collapse of the current Iranian government in fairly short order. I think many of the blind ‘follow the government and rally around the cause’ types were killed off (or had such attitudes beaten out of them) during the Iran/Iraq war and the subsequent actions of their glorious revolutionary government. Said government is barely keeping a lid on things now, at least that’s my impression…something like an actual war with the US would push them over the edge. That’s MHO anyway.
-XT
I agree. It’s just like how we all turned our gaze inward and began critically examining our own foreign policy in the Middle East after 9/11.
Under which of those categories does “Talk to them and convince them it’s in their best interests, long term, to not go nuclear” fall? Admittedly, that’s a bit difficult, since first he has to make it true, and the previous administration spent eight years making sure that it was in Iran’s best interests to go nuclear, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t even try.
Under the category of “suicidally stupid”. America cannot be trusted, has been their enemy for longer than most people have been alive, and again, they have Iraq as an example of what happens if you try negotiation or cooperation.
Ah…irony. I love it. 
However, we weren’t (and aren’t) at the same place as the Iranian’s are in their thinking about their own government. I’m not saying that they would be happy with us (like the Iraqi’s, they would most certainly NOT be), but they wouldn’t be particularly thrilled with their own government either, and a lot of them would see exactly who precipitated any sort of conflict between Iran and the US. A lot of Iranian’s wouldn’t even care, since they would see it as an opportunity to get rid of the government riding them.
The flawed thinking that the US had wrt Iraq was that, while all of the above was true for them as well as Iran (maybe even more so), that didn’t mean that they would love us, either. Basically, I think that the Iranian government would disintegrate, and something new would emerge…but my WAG is that whatever DID emerge wouldn’t exactly be looking to embrace the US or greet us with open arms. Pretty much the exact opposite.
The only up side (there would be a LOT of downsides) would be that whatever did emerge probably wouldn’t have the time or energy looking to build nukes. To my mind, the death toll isn’t worth the pay off…which is why I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t think the US attacking Iranian facilities is a particularly good idea.
-XT
I doubt there would be much celebration, if any, over a potential US attack. I think people are miscalculating once again, like Cheney’s “They’ll greet us as liberators” remark.
Any attack will be a setback to long-term peace and will only help the current regime. I think the only option is to have a nuclear Iran, which wouldn’t be too bad anyway
Sure , Iran is a bit different. Russia already attacked Afghanistan themselves. That would make it hard for them to condemn us without condemning themselves at the same time.
China stayed neutral when we went into Afghanistan. Why do you think ,they would stay neutral for Iran, a country which hasn’t attacked anybody in centuries. They may. I don’t know, but Afghanistan is not supplying oil to China . They are supplying drugs though. We keep attacking countries and we will eventually step over the line.
His latest speech is a slamming denunciation of Paul the psychic octopus. You really think the hierarchy in Iran give a flying fuck about the octopus?
(Which is a shame because I reckon it could do a better job of running the country than a load of religious yahoos)
Well, could be that the Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan on completely trumped up charges that were even more flimsy than the ones we used to invade Iraq, while we had completely legitimate reasons for attacking Afghanistan…
Actually, though your ‘logic’ (so to speak) is as convoluted and nearly incomprehensible as ever, there is actually a germ of a good point here. While the whole meme about Iran not attacking anyone in centuries is horseshit and irrelevant, it’s true that the US actually invading Iran would probably have China up in arms, regardless of the provocation, since if memory serves they get quite a bit of oil from them (Russia as well).
Of course, we aren’t really talking about a full scale invasion in this thread (since an out and out invasion of Iran is complete left wing loony fantasy at this point), so the point is kind of moot…but, I have to admit, you DO have a point about such an invasion. Hell, it might rile the Chinese even if we limited ourselves to just air strikes against their nuclear facilities, which is yet another down side to the US taking military action against the Iranians.
BTW, we haven’t attacked a country since 2003, so we don’t ‘keep attacking countries’, nor do I foresee any additional attacks in the next 6 years at least, not unless someone out there does something incredibly stupid…
-XT
I am inordinately fond of this quote from your article -
Regards,
Shodan
I just like the ‘crazy as a bed bug’ look on his face, as he touches his temple…
-XT
The great Iranian game of chess continues…
… and we are all prawns in the game.