Iran Pushes the Envelope
As Iran claims for the first time publicly to have enriched uranium, Mark Steyn says decapitate, but don’t occupy:
we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.
The cost of de-nuking Iran will be high now but significantly higher with every year it’s postponed. The lesson of the Danish cartoons is the clearest reminder that what is at stake here is the credibility of our civilization. Whether or not we end the nuclearization of the Islamic Republic will be an act that defines our time.
Seth Jones also invokes the cartoon controversy, but takes another lesson entirely from it:
In the final analysis, the most significant cost of an attack would not be a result of Iranian military or economic retaliation. It would be a worsening of US relations with Muslim nations that would severely impact America’s global war on terrorism.
The reaction to the cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad starkly illustrates the speed and explosiveness of anti-Western and anti-American sentiment among Muslim populations in the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa. In several countries, such as Afghanistan, jihadists took advantage of the situation to stir up crowds, incite violence against Westerners, and recruit members. An attack against Iran would create another opportunity to accomplish these objectives.
Anti-Americanism is already high in the Arab world, according to opinion polls conducted by Zogby International. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two major allies of the US, 85 and 89 percent of the populations respectively view the US unfavorably. More than 60 percent of those from Morocco, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon also view the US unfavorably.
Iran’s foreign policy behavior and nuclear program are deeply troubling. But a preemptive attack against Iran today would go against US political and strategic interests in the Middle East. As US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently noted, the US is faring poorly in its effort to counter ideological support for terrorism. If America is serious about countering this support and winning hearts and minds in the Middle East, it needs to continue pursuing policies that encourage support rather than further hostility, in the region.
Part of me hopes the Israelis bail us out here – but that’s hardly the basis for a coherent policy…
One would hope that if nothing else, Iraq has taught us that forcing simplistic military solutions on complex problems is not helpful. One would also hope that the doctrine of pre-emptive war has been discredited. Well, perhaps this is not the case.
Bombing a second country which has never attacked us would be a disaster on many fronts. First, any delay in the Iranian nuclear program would be temporary. Secondly, there are plenty of opportunities for the Iranians to take revenge on American soldiers in Iraq through Shia proxies. Third, any hope we may once have had of being perceived as a benevolent country to the outside world would be shattered. Fourth, no other serious options (such as a trade embargo or a naval blockade) have been seriously discussed. Finally, what gives us the moral authority to bomb other countries at will?
It is regrettable that the technology and material to form nuclear weapons is available to countries which are repugnant, but that does not give us an automatic cassus belli. There was a similar debate when China tested its first atomic bomb, as Barry Goldwater and others urged a pre-emptive strike. China was run by a madman, starved its own people, and had opposed us in the Korean War. Of course Russia also had the bomb, and Joseph Stalin made Saddam Hussein look like Pat Sajak. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and we did not attack, and now Wal-Mart shoppers everywhere can buy their underwear for $1.99. Let’s hope that cooler heads will also prevail now.
…try selling that polemic to the Israelis, Peter.
[...] Mark at Decision ‘08 notes Iran’s approaching nuclear status, hoping: Part of me hopes the Israelis bail us out here – but that’s hardly the basis for a coherent policy… [...]
Dmac’s right, Peter.
The Chinese at their worst never called for the total annihilation of any nation/ethnicity. Let’s face it, the whole reason your “cooler heads” theory has prevailed in regards to North Korea is that Kim Jong Il is not actively threatening harm against the South (at least, not right now).
The Iran situation is far more volatile in that even if the United States hesitates with your “moral authority” and other political questions, the Israelis will not hesitate to protect themselves if the opportunity presents itself (maybe even if it doesn’t).
No one is claiming a “simplistic” military action would solve the problem, but it might end up being the only way stop nuclear proliferation into Iran. New problems would certainly arise out of such action, but like Mark Steyn said, the choices here are not “good” vs. “bad” but “bad” vs. “worse”. Ultimately, the question becomes “how much do we want to keep nuclear weapons out of Iranian hands?”
Iran’s leader is headed to Germany sometime soon. Perhaps someone will see this as an opportunity….
I don’t think their leader is really the problem here, Fred. He’s just a front for the ruling Mullahs, as they’re the ones who are pulling all the strings in this affair. Also – his own security service has attempted to take him out on at least two prior occasions, but no dice.
I don’t know whether Mao or Stalin explicitly called for the annihilation of another country, but as world domination is one of the central tenets of communism, I don’t think that they had to make their intentions known to the Western media. After all, we fought wars against Chinese proxies in Korea and VietNam, and we nearly had a war with Russia over the Cuban missile crisis. In addition to having vast nuclear arsenals, both countries had the means to deliver the weapons and huge standing armies to support a war effort. So I don’t think that the argument that Iran is more dangerous today than Russia and China were during the cold war is a convincing one.
Israel is in a different position than we are, and if there is ever a case to be made for a pre-emptive war, this would be it. That is a decision for Israelis to make.
As far as our putative moral authority goes: I don’t see what principle gives us the right to attack countries which have never attacked us to prevent some presumed action from occurring at some point in the future. Given that we used this principle to attack Iraq with disastrous results, I don’t think many people will accept the argument that we ought to do it again in Iran. The Iraqi invasion was wrong on the facts, wrong on the strategy, and wrong on the execution. What confidence do you have that we would do any better this time?
[...] Decision ‘08 [...]
“Given that we used this principle to attack Iraq with disastrous results…”
In your own opinion, Peter – we will not know the final result from Iraq for many years from now, and anything else is pure conjecture and armchair quarterbacking at this point.
Out Of Time Part II
As I have said before we are Out Of Time. It has become increasingly obvious that when Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad fails to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment program, a strike will indeed become necessary, and assessin…
I don’t think taking out the Iranian nuclear weapons program is a “good” option, but it is the “least bad” option we have. Leaving Iran alone to develop their own program would be insanity. First of all, I don’t have to speculate about Iran’s intentions, their intentions to use a nuclear weapon are already a matter of public record. Furthermore, even if by some miracle they never used, the mere existence of their nuclear arsenal would serve as a shield to allow Iran to redouble their worldwide funding and aiding of terrorist organizations (that’s why I consider Peter’s point regarding further Iranian reprisals, while probably true, to be unpersuasive). Occupation would probably be the more humane option in the long run, but we do not have anywhere the million plus soldiers we would need to do so effectively. Supporting pro democracy/secular elements in Iran would be the best option if we had made more than a token effort in that front in the past few years, but at this point such an investment appears unlikely to reap the desired benefit soon enough to stop Iran. That leaves strikes as the best of four bad choices.
Peter-
I’m going to play on semanitics here a little bit, so bear with me. The facts surrounding the invasion will continue to be debated, and the success of the strategy of occupation, quite frankly, still remains to be seen (as dmac pointed out). However, the execution of the INVASION itself (not occupation, invasion – they are two separate things), was a stunning success by the U.S. millitary. The 3rd Infantry Division’s push on Baghdad was a stroke of military genius, and the collapse of the Iraqi communication and logistics infastructure can be directly attributed to the outstanding performance of the men and women of the coalition armed forces.
My point in making this distinction is that I’m extremely confident the millitary could take out Iranian nuclear facilities and capabilities. The debate then, is whether it’s a feasible option to perform some kind of INVASION without OCCUPATION, which is what Mark Steyn’s article was all about.
Futhermore, I’m not ready to discount the U.S. experience in Iraq as disasterous. Nobody misunderstood that many would die in the course of invasion and occupation, but the fact of the matter is that people were dying under Saddam’s tyranny. The voter turnout in the recent elections alone should negate a notion of total disaster. What remains to be seen is if they are willing to keep fighting for that freedom of choice. If they remain democratic, the investment of and for American interests will not be in vain. Moreover, I will never say that leaving a monster like Sadaam in power would have been a better alternative to what is happening now. The Iraqi people are better off without him – period.
1) True, we will have a better grasp of Iraq in the future than we do now, but that’s a cop-out. Chiang Kai-Shek, when asked in the 1950’s his opinion of the French Revolution, famously said that “it’s too soon to tell.” You have to look at the facts you have currently and make a judgement. If your team is behind by ten runs in the seventh inning, you might decide to leave the ballpark. Based on what we know now, it seems pretty evident that the likelihood of success in Iraq is very slim.
2) Picking the least bad option is always difficult, and I certainly respect the opinion that a pre-emptive strike is the best of a bad lot, but I still would weigh things differently.
3) The distinction between military success and the occupation is very valid, and I was thinking of the Iraqi occupation as being hopelessly botched up, while the military invasion itself was spectacular.
…”Based on what we know now…”
Yes, but based on what we know now, reasonable people can disagree about exactly what constitutes success in this endeavor, both for the present and in the future. Most military observers estimated that the timeline for Iraq’s complete transition into a fully functioning democracy would be a minimum of 10 years, at the initial onset of hostilities.
You quote Chiang, let me remind you of Mountbatten’s miscues regarding the British exit of India. He believed that a rapid pull – out of all British forces was the best way to go, in spite of dire warnings from both Gandi and Nehru that immediate civil war would result. The bloodshed on both sides (Hindu and Moslem) was horrific, numbering in the hundreds of thousands within months.
Iraq may yet endure a civil war, but most democracies go through that bloodletting at least once in their lives.
I’m not suggesting an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, because I agree that it would precipitate a carnage of enormous dimensions.
My guess is that Bush is not seriously considering a war against Iran, especially with nuclear weapons. I suspect that the purpose of the leaks was to incent the Europeans to unite in favor of meaningful sanctions in an effort to forestall a war. If they perceive Bush and Cheney as gun-slinging cowboys who are itching to drop bombs, they are more likely to accede to non-military options as a way to pacify the Americans.
That’s a good guess, in my opinion. I also think someone in the administration played Hersh big – time, and he willingly went into the tank on this one. Mission accomplished.
I keep saying it, invade, destroy their military capacity, then withdraw to fortified bases in the desert, within Iranian territory. Tell the Iranians that you’ll withdraw the forces once a properly elected Iranian government tells you to, but you’ll take no orders from the scumbag mullahs, who’s day is done.
As for:
“it’ll make muslims hate us” : They already do.
“Iranian proxies will attack us” : Yes, so what. They’re weak. Iranian terrorist proxies have been attacking us and the Isrealis FOR THIRTY YEARS. Once the Iranian regime feels invulnerable due to its atomic deterrent, what do you think those proxies will do then? Send us flowers?
“Islamists will use this as propaganda”: Yes they will, too bad.
“Iran hasn’t attacked us” : WHAT? Hello, hostage crisis, barracks bombing? The whole reason the mullahs think they can get away with this is they weren’t punished befor.
The alternative is proliferation. Nuclear development won’t end with Iran, Saudi Arabia and half a dozen other countries will follow. It’s a nightmare and,sooner or later, one of those nukes will go off in Israel or Washington, then 300 million muslims will die. See how they like us then.
This has to stop, no matter what the cost, now. People bitch endlessly with hindsight about how Europe did nothing while Hitler was weak and accuse them of being appeasers who brought on ww2. Well it’s happening, now, and we need to developed some spine and stop it, NOW.
Comrades,
The big difference between our Cold War antagonists (Soviets and Chinese) and the current Iranian leadership, is that the former could accept the concept of MAD (mutual assured destruction). The Soviets and Chinese wanted to rule the world, but realized that they could not do so if they died in the process. The loss to their struggle would be too great, and not worth the risk, thus all the “little wars” we fought between ourselves and our proxies.
Now comes the Iranians, to whom death in Jihad is a reward. They do not fear death, but rather welcome it, as their reward will be in the afterlife. They seek death as a means to salvation, whereas our Cold War antagonists saw death as the end of their dreams and policies. MAD will not work with the Iranians, nor will any other means of diplomacy. The Iranians seek world domination on behalf of Islam, but if everyone dies in the process, well, Allah will reward his own and so be it.
We could deal with the Soviets and the Chinese. Each had something to lose. No one wanted to push that button. The Iranians, however, have nothing to lose. If they win, they get to rule the world. If they lose, they go to heaven and become rewarded for being mujahadeen. You cannot treat them as the old world politicos. They msut be destroyed. Either that, or they will destroy us.
Like I said, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Respects,
Gwedd
Gwedd – you may be correct in your assumptions here, but you may also notice that the people dying for the chance to go to the heavens with a multitude of virgins awaiting them are never the religious leaders. Arafat was a good example of this dynamic – while he preached and exhorted suicide bombers, he stole millions from the PLA, and had sumptuous quarters in Paris for himself and his wife.
The mullahs don’t seem to be in any great hurry to die – this crisis could well be another attempt by them to appeal to Iranian nationalism, thereby distracting the population from the abysmal economic conditions, and also forestalling their eventual demise.
The people who do the talk rarely walk the walk, so to speak.
Comrade Dmac,
Very True. I would add that’s it’s not unlike the Japanese Officers who came up with the concept of Kamikaze. They wanted OTHERS to die for Nippon, so that they could continue the struggle. the leaders never want to die, they are always far to narcissistic for that. The leaders want to LEAD, therefor, they must survive.
And yet, Iranian President ImanidiotIam may well believe what he is preaching. It’s just too hard to NOT accept his word at face value.
In fact, we would be foolish NOT to accept his claims and pronouncements. I’m glad I have a good set of survival equiment and a stock of supplies on hand. If Iran creates a bomb (or maybe already has a few, thanks to the North Koreans) We may be in for a bleak few years.
Respects,
Gwedd
The invasion of Iraq was not spectacular in any sense of the word. Iraq’s military was all about wiped out by the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Almost all of their manpower minus the Republican Guard was untrained, unmotivated. A good analogy for the invasion of Iraq is running over a spider with a bulldozer.
“First of all, I don’t have to speculate about Iran’s intentions, their intentions to use a nuclear weapon are already a matter of public record.”
Thats ridiculous.
“MAD will not work with the Iranians, nor will any other means of diplomacy. The Iranians seek world domination on behalf of Islam, but if everyone dies in the process, well, Allah will reward his own and so be it.”
Thats also ridiculous. You all are assuming the leadership are insane, fanatical extremist based on rhetoric. Show me a psychological evaluation for one of these guys and I might believe you.
Israel can take care of itself.
No sovereign nation is going to use nuclear weapons offensively.
You all are also not thinking about the ramifications of attacking Iran. Want to pay $30/gallon for gasoline? I don’t. I heard an analyst on CNBC talking about how oil could go as high as $200-$300 per barrell. If you are so hell bent on attacking Iran, go invent an alternative to petroleum first.