The Strike On Iran: A Done Deal?
Kevin Drum is picking up lots of buzz regarding a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities; that’s not new, but what is new, perhaps, is a sense of inevitability. Kevin seems to think Bush would play this for electoral advantage; I think that’s an unfair charge to make towards a man who is sticking with a politically unpopular war. Bush isn’t going to play political games with this issue – indeed, the political fallout will probably be negative.
My fear is not that strike aren’t justified; rather, I question how effective they will be. Let’s see how things go; this issue probably has another month or two before it reaches the boiling point, at a minimum…
UPDATE 5:35 p.m.: More from Crank at Red State on this issue…
Iran has been taunting the West and the US for weeks now, hoping for just this outcome. A survivable strike will do nothing to the program (it is well protected), and will reinforce both the Ahmedi-Nejad presidency at home and Iran’s position as the leader in the Islamic revolutionary movement worldwide. Only a large-scale invasion would be effective, but this move is highly unlikely given our lack of troops (thanks, Rummy) and likely violent opposition from Russia. Nixon in China it will have to be…
You are an IDIOT.
Notwithstanding the prior enlightened comment, we do know that there are two carrier battle groups lurking nearby, which would lend support in case a strike was authorized. We also haven’t discussed the new bunker – busting munitions that have been effectively deployed in the mountains of Afghanistan.
I’m not suggesting that a strike is a good idea, but that we have the means to launch one immediately if so ordered.
Iran has been testing weaponry near the Strait of Hormuz — given this area’s strategic importance, my guess is that what you are seeing is saber-rattling, but not the prelude to a military strike –
I agree with Peter. There is a great deal of “mother of all battles” style posturing going on. As for the possibility of actually destroying the nuclear facilities – one must first know where they are (which we do very imperfectly after it was dispersed following Israeli strikes on Iraqi facilities) and be willing to inflict large collateral damage (because Iran has demonstrated a willingness to situate them in the midst of population centers). An ineffective strike would be more damaging to US interests than no action at all. I just don’t see it.
…”one must first know where they are…”
Chances are very likely that we know where all of the sites are located, via the extensive coverage and ongoing surveillance by agents of the Mossad. This has been extensively covered previously on this blog.
Yes, our extensive humint network on the ground in Iran has them all nicely pinpointed, complete with GPS coords. That will be the day. Last time we relied on foreign intelligence sources, they told us all about the Iraqi WMD.
But seriously now. Invading Iraq only made geopolitical sense in the context of our resulting ability to create a credible threat aimed at neighbors like Iran. I am not sure whether it is working, but I strongly suspect that behind all the saber-rattling there are intensive negotiations going on. The reality is that we are not in the position to invade Iran and that air strikes are notoriously ineffective and taking out dispersed targets. On the other hand, we can make like very uncomfortable for Iran by cuttings is oil pipelines, and that is probably our best negotiating point right now, at least until we can build up troop strength.
All this heavy talks that we can damage the nuclear site and we will trumph………..
DO WE REALY want to take this chance after seing how badly we failed in Iraq? This is no kids play, or street fights……………
There would more inocent lives taken. Don’t we have any consions? Forget about Irani lives, what would happen after is unthinkable. More Western inocent lives will be secrifised……..
ah,
1st: Learn English. “Really” has 2 l’s. “Innocent” has 2 n’s. “Seeing” has 2 s’s. People from Iran are called Iranians. By “consions” did you mean, “conscience”? “Sacrificed” is spelled . . . well you can see it.
2nd: It wasn’t up when you posted this, but read the “Declining Casualties” post. Iraq is hardly a failure.
“Last time we relied on foreign intelligence sources, they told us all about the Iraqi WMD.”
This is quite a specious and unproven statement of fact. The final story on the WMD question will not be written for many years from now. Witness the new revelations from the recently – exiled VP of Syria – too many conflicting stories at this time to make any type of conclusions here.
To upend the mullahs nuke dreams it is not necessary to pulverize every element of their program. Yes, enrichment has been dispersed, meaning they don’t have one central site but how many could they have? Four or five maybe? This is big scale industrial mojo here and the realities of the physics and economics involved just don’t allow the thing to be spread out into garages and backyards, unlike bio. Also the materials necessary for bomb making have a nasty habit of giving off radiation. Sure, you can shield to a certain extent but our capacities for divining data from very low levels of radiation (above background and geologic sources) have been highly refined. We see these skills and technologies on display in telemetry from deep space probes as well as your downloaded, encrypted Missy Elliot ringtones. HEU facilities just cannot be hidden completely like a punk band just cannot practice secretly. The geopolitics are another matter, natch, but we are near to the point where even the Democrats think something must be done. The formation of the will is all that lacks, perhaps properly so to this point but it cannot go on indefinitely. These guys are laboring mightily night and day and have clear plans for their own future. Note: Those plans include us, whether we want them to or not.
megapotamus, of course the Democrats think that something should be done – it is their chance to keep getting to the right of the Republicans as an election wedge. Whether they would actually pull the trigger is another matter.
You may or may not be right about our ability to detect nuclear sites with elint. The Russians were able to hide theirs, as were Israelis, Indians and Pakistanis, but this was a long time ago. Regardless of this, and even of our ability to take them out completely, geopolitical considerations should prevail. I stand by my assessment that a survivable strike will play into the ayatollahs’ hands.
To briefly respond to dmac, information is beginning to emerge that the WMD intelligence was in fact misinformation routed to us by Iran’s intelligence service. It would have very much in Iran’s favor if we took out Saddam for them but then failed to pacify the country. So far things have not played out according to their book, and this is the real reason for their saber rattling. As you say, time will tell as to what really occurred.
Credit where credit is due: I get much of my information from Stratfor, which is a excellent resource for insightful analysis. I am not a paid shill for them.
“So far things have not played out according to (Iran’s) book:” sure seems to me that Iran was the big winner here. I doubt they could have hoped for a better outcome thus far than what has happened.
peter, I think, is counting the chickens a little early. The game in Iraq is far from over, and Iran right now does not look like a winner. The Iraqi Shi’a have mostly steered a US-led course, leaving Iran’s agenda in the lurch. Al-Qaida has the clear mantle of revolutionary leadership in the Islamic world, which is to Iran’s detriment. The outcome may still change, but right now the US is, precariously, winning.
If the US is winning, I sure would hate to see what losing is like. If we are winning “precariously,” then the Detroit Tigers have a precarious lead in the American League Central division.
Iran is more belligerent than it has been since the Ayatollah, and its belligerence is not being challenged. They are doing everything they can to build nuclear weaponry, and we are unable to credibly threaten them for doing so (and, not surprisingly, the Europeans and the Russians lack the will to do so). They are able to exert substantial influence in Iraq, which of course has been an enemy of theirs for decades. Their President can threaten to destroy Israel, and the reaction has been a lot of finger-pointing. Do you seriously think they could do these things if we had not gotten bogged down in Iraq?
Aaron, What has the spelling got to do if you can get the message across. Presumeably you understood what the massage ment.
“Declining Casualties” does not say how many lives would have been saved if the lies of Bush administration and the so called neo-cons would not have gone to war. We have lost so many American boys and thousands of inocent Iraqi lives. Was is worth it?
“’Seeing’ has 2 s’s.”
Actually, it has one s.
peter, Iran’s belligerence is exactly the evidence of their poor position viz their grand strategy. When you can’t get wheat you want on the ground, play crazy – the tried and true tactic long used by the North Koreans. We are far from the end-game in Iraq and we sill have many opportunities to lose, but I am more comfortable now with the state of our position there than I was before. The trick will be to trump Iran’s nuke card without giving up anything of real value. We may still see a real war there, but I rather doubt it.
peter, I realize that I failed to actually answer your point of what losing really looks like. That’s easy – losing looks like Vietnam, where we cut and ran despite defeating the enemy on the ground. Losing can look like Korea, where we gave back all our gains even as we were negotiating the shape of the negotiating table. Losing can look like the Cuban missile crisis end-game, where we gave up our missile bases in Turkey that were there since 1952 in trade for the Soviets giving up missile bases that were in place for less than a year. Losing can look like Mogadishu. Losing can look like Suez Canal. We are nowhere near losing.
1) If you think that “Iran’s belligerence is exactly the evidence of their poor position,” would you say the same thing about Iraq before the invasion? If not, why is Iraqi belligerence any different than Iranian belligerence? And if so, what does this say about the purported magnitude of the Iraqi threat?
2) When the (current) justification of the invasion is the establishment of a peaceful and democratic Iraq, losing can look a lot like the way it looks today. Having said that, I am not arguing that we pack up and leave. One the one hand, it is better to admit a mistake late than never at all. However, I think that is overshadowed by our responsibility to do everything we can to fix the place now that we have broken it. We are in a position where there are no good options, and the object is to find the least bad option. I think the least bad option is to have a plebiscite where the Iraqis vote on whether we stay or go, and then we go whichever path the Iraqis decide (although with a reasonable end date if they decide the former).
peter, as we all know, Iraq’s strategic position before the invasion was laughably weak, and inversely proportional to their belligerence. Your comment reinforces my point.
As for justification and its attendant reality, it is important to separate real objectives from window dressing. Democracy in Iraq is not actually a desirable outcome for the US, no matter how much does Bush protest that it is. Iran has a democracy, and we want nothing like it in Iraq. The real objective was to put and keep troops in a central position where they could be quickly deployed to address threats from Iran, Saudi, Syria, or Israel. The secondary objective was to weaken Arab nationalists by destroying their most powerful sponsor. With respect to these objectives I stand by my assessment. As for the window dressing objective – who cares, it can always be changed.