Those Kooky Iranians at it again

[jeff]

Maybe when you have more time to read what people say instead of what you think they say, you'll be less inclined to claim as you do. Mis-characterizing or ignoring what Inq and I write makes this a useless conversation. At least give the impression you've read the posts and references. For example: you accused Inq of ignorance for his remark "The whole Palestinian people seems to be possessed of a culture of suicide". He brought up a bunch of citations showing exactly that - including from Palestinians and Muslims, and changed the subject with a dismissive one-liner. Did you read them? If anyone showed ignorance - and a closed mind, it was you, and hardly for the first time.

You express a lot of unwarranted assurance that Iran doesn't represent a threat despite their bellicose statements while making nuclear facilities _NOT_ needed (or suitable) for power generation - and rejecting alternatives that could get them the power without the bomb. When I quote non-US sources that see them as a threat, you simply ignore them.

In any case - "it" is not going to be conveniently redefined to the narrowly defined context you might like, nor can you use the tired excuse that US war mongers with their black and white view of the world are the root of the problem. If it was only us, you might have a case - but there are other countries that are highly alarmed.

Is this a call for invasion? Inq has already suggested how it might be military without being an invasion (including relevant precedents) and occupation. You can argue it wouldn't be effective, but you can no longer say that invasion and regime change is the inevitable conclusion.

As far as my contributing to a case for war: rather than lump me with other people based on your assumptions: I don't think I've specified a remedy. To the extent of what Inq has said I think he's right, though I think it would be apalling, and it would be idiotic to attempt occupation and regime change. See my Talleyrand quote again.

I harbor a dim hope that the Europeans will get serious for a change and make a diplomatic solution. It's a dim hope, since it doesn't seem to happen very often. But since the subject has been raised and you're so convinced that we're warlike jerks, I hope you can demonstrate an effective solution through the channels you prefer. Oh, do Darfur and the Congo too as warmup jobs. I'll be out in the garden. (and the next US president will too. We will probably more isolationist next administration, so get used to fixing problems we don't plan on intervening in)

I've used the word "risk" and "threat", to indicate potential, not certainty, of nuclear attack (directly or not) and blackmail by Iran. You've never responded meaningfully to points Inq and I have raised except to repeat unconvcing arguments that Iran's leadership shouldn't be taken at their word. You seem certain they represent no nuclear danger, despite their words and deeds. How can you be so certain? In the meantime, plenty of grown-ups, around the world and not just in the US and Israel, pointedly feel that a nuclear Iran is a serious risk. Why don't they share your assurance?

I think you are pro-Iranian. You have consistently defended Iran or minimised their culpability or refused to see the connections between their secret police, religious prejudice, sponsorship of terrorism, suppression of rights, and their external aggressive programs. Talk to me again when you are willing to discuss these issues, and how they related to the geopolitical implications

[Inquartata]

Damn- drawn in again.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

The difference between supporting suicide bombing and support for a nuclear holocaust eliminating their entire people and all the land they are trying to recover.

They think that suicide is a small price to pay to kill a few Jews. Indeed, they think it's not a price at all, but a reward. So which difference is that, again? The one of degree rather than of kind?

"O people of Palestine, o ye faithful followers of Allah! You have the chance to rid the world of the wicked Zionist oppressors, those hated conniving leeches who are sucking noble Islam dry, in a single stroke! You will thereby win back the lands shamefully stolen from you, and win a battle in the name of God, the just, the merciful! Some of you will die, but it is a small sacrifice to make for the future of your people and the faith! Withdraw as far from ( city X ) as you can. You will have some cleanup and decontamination to do starting next week, but the land can be made fruitful again, once the Jew yoke is shrugged from your backs! Allah akbar!"

I think they would find it all quite plausible. Acceptible causalties; collateral damage.

When did you tell me how Israel could knock out the Iranian nuclear programme without air strikes?

Notice the part where I talk about submarines in the Indian Ocean or the Gulf? But perhaps you were answering this as you went and hadn't read that far down yet.

And---was the Osirak operation "regarded as an American strike by proxy" by anyone who mattered? If so, what were the consequences, either to Israel or to us? None in particular that I can recall.

That's your explanation of the the most likely way Israel will take out the Iranian nuclear programme- over land or hidden on ships? What?

How do the Iranian arms come into Lebanon? Through Syria, do you think? And is Turkey "US controlled airspace? Saudi Arabia? Since when?

Do you think that Israel couldn't transport a few cruise missiles secretly by ship to a point adjacent to Iran? That they are incapable of employing a method which only those brilliant Iranians could think up? That they couldn't hoist them on their own petard?

With all of the minds in Tel Aviv at work, are you seriously arguing that they could none of them think of a way around the obstacle ( or objection ) "US-controlled airspace"?!

What's that got to do with the logistics of an Israeli strike?

I give up. You're right, it can't possibly be done. Israel should just surrender right now, obviously the Iranians have a monopoly on creative solutions so there's nothing for it but to pack up and move out, to the jubilant accompaniment of ullulating Palestinian women.

And the Israelis would believe this and hold fire with their own strike?

Meh, now not only do you know what the Iranians think, you know what the Israelis think, too! And how they would think! Congrats on that crystal ball, it was a bargain whatever you paid for it...

Your just guessing now.

Uh...that's...all that is possible to do when it comes to things that have not happened yet...is it not?

Almost certainly I would have thought. Especially if Israel had just been hit by an Iranian strike.

http://www.russfound.org/Launch/webb.htm

"Despite the "state of the art" technology installed at Fylingdales, there have been a number of false alarms. A flock of geese and (on 5th October, 1960) the rising moon (at Thule) have been mistaken for incoming missiles only on last minute checks was the firing of several missiles avoided. On 24th November, 1961 all communication links went dead between SAC HQ and the three BMEWS sites. Was it enemy action, or the coincidental failure of all the communication systems? All SAC bases in U.S. were alerted and B-52 nuclear bomber crews started their engines. Eventually, radio communication was established with a B-52 on airborne alert near Thule. It contacted the BMEWS station by radio and could report that no attack had taken place.


In 1979 a full alert was sounded when a ‘War Games’ simulation tape was loaded by mistake into NORAD computers. Fylingdales warned that a salvo of missiles had been launched against B52 bases from a Soviet submarine in the Pacific. ‘Things got very tense’. But no radar targets appeared in the ‘threat azimuth’ (the angles of the horizon at which a Soviet missile would normally be launched to attack Europe or North America). Details of this error are only known because a reporter witnessed the late stages of alert in a Virginia Air Traffic Control Centre and asked questions."


http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...-accidents.htm


"June 3, 1980
A 46-cent computer chip fails, causing the mistaken detection of a Soviet missile attack by the NORAD system. About 100 B-52 bombers were readied for take off along with the President's airborne command post before the error is detected."

Are you willing to bet that the Soviets had no such system-failure-based incidents? That the state of readiness and expertise, the resources devoted to detection facilities and personnel have not deteriorated since the fall of the Soviet Union?

That is just not possible though is it? Simply not a scenerio that requires contemplation.

Meh, why not? Because Israeli ground missiles would have to fly west to get to Iran????

No- sorry still don't think that the Russians would launch a tactical nuclear stike on America

Er---do you know the difference between a tactical and a strategic strike in the nuclear context?

"Tactical" means "for use in theatre". http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/pro.../tnw/chap2.pdf

Or are you saying that you think that if Russia saw nuclear missiles headed for it and thought they were an American first strike it would respond only by hitting nearby installations and not launch on the Continental US? Why would you attribute such restraint to them under those circumstances?

Iran doesn't border on Russia so its actually not the same as Mexico or Canada.

Yes, right, the analysis changes so dramatically if it said it was firing on Guatemala instead of Mexico...

This judgement has to be made by people who understand Iranian politics, nothing you have said makes me believe you know the first thing. Saddam's blustring rhetoric contributed to the belief that he had WMD- he did not

Heh. I keep forgetting that you have a deeper understanding of what the opponent really intends, Mr. Chamberlain! ( Winking smily denied! But I trust you don't think I'm getting waspish. )



Stay tuned for Part II...

[Inquartata]

Part II, The Revenge of the Excess Characters...

( On the plus side, I get 4 more smilies. )

And I maintain that any strikes would lead to escalation beyond this,

And so I ask again: Which is it? The Iranian leadership are pragmatists who would not put their nation at risk over a trifle, or they are idealogues who would gladly do so out of pique, anger or, oh, let's say, the lust for religious glory?

and indeed would require follow up strikes because, as you admit you don't believe Iran's nuclear ambition will be halted and have no idea how long intial strikes would disrupt them for.

Very possibly. It might take them a while to learn. Che sera, sera.

What a nice image.

Indeed.

has?

What?

I'm sure there must be a Latin quote for this one- suffice to say that Iraq 1981 is not a suitable analogy for many reasons- indeed I think you are only using it because Iraq is the closest neighbours.

Just pointing out by example that "escalation" is never a certainty. You seem to be proceeding from the assumption that it's invariable and inevitable when a nation is attacked. I can provide others if you'd like, but I'm sure that a few moments of thought will summon them to your mind as readily as to mine.

There is never an exact analogy for ANY unique thing. It's all guesswork when we're talking praxeology. But you will agree that it is not a foregone conclusion that a strike of Iran's nuclear facilities would mean automatic "escalation". Especially not if its leaders are as sober, as prudent, as sagacious, as rational, as interested in self-preservation, as you insist they are.

I'm afraid I believe experts like Gary Sick ahead of you

Or you might even try thinking for yourself. What a concept.

(although I'm sure your invitation for the Council on Foreign Relations is in the post),

Meh. Very droll.

both in terms of the inevitable escalation after strikes and the greater difficulty of embarking upon a ground war in Iran.

Sigh. You WILL insist on a land war, won't you?

what?

Examples of countries hit with limited strikes which were NOT followed by escalation. ( Hence, nothing is "inevitable". )

Retaliation in the form of missile strikes on Israel, attacks on oil interests (which could be disruptive beyond all comprehension), greater chaos in Iraq.

How very "pragmatic" that would be of them...

Invasion maybe- but I don't think Iran fears that.

Most of all because they realize we don't have to try it, maybe?

I take it that neither you nor your favorite expert think that the actions you name would hurt Iran worse than it would hurt us, in the long run? We can survive $100 a barrel oil; can Iran* survive without refined fuels, foreign exchange, etc? Or do you think we couldn't interdict things going into Iran as completely as they could interdict things going out of the Gulf?

( * Or rather its regime, once their "escalation" began to pinch too hard on the people? )

So we are basically threatening invasion and regime change then? Make up your mind.

What, you don't remember my "Shock and Awe Part Deux"? And I thought it was such a clever trope, too! How disappointing.

Clearly not.

So when you lumped them together with an Iranian, you meant...?

I think that the Iranians want a peaceful nuclear capacity for economic reasons and the option of a weapons program that could be achieved more quickly because of it.

Finally, progress!

Really, the economic argument is unconvincing, for a country which could build gas-fired generation plants vastly more cheaply and efficiently, and run them for centuries on its reserves. More cheaply even if it did not take inton account the costs that sanctions will inflict upon it.

Besides, the Iranians themselves have been moore inclined to talk publicly about "national pride" as a rationale than economics. Who goes around thumping his chest about economics?

Jeff- it's not about being pro-Iranian. It's a belief, expressed in so much of the literature (even Pollock's Persian Puzzle) that highlights America's obsession with characterising Iran as a pariah state, combined with a long history of Americans failing to understand Iran or the Iranian state of mind.It works both ways- Iran is obsessed with America, they see malevolence in every act and they are unwilling to drop the baggage of history.

So rather than being pro-Iranian you're just anti-American in the geopolitical sense? Anyone America says is bad must be allright, because America is as it is? A sort of sympatheic contrarianism on your part?

Are Sudan and North Korea thereby rehabilitated as well?

[introspective]

What is the answer. jeff, pigeon. What is the answer.

I sat today and watched a tv documentary about Iran's recent history with the USA and the Carter Administration and it's just a mess. Backing the Shah from the beginning may have made sence at one point, because in essence the people then were saying that they wanted a secular leader. We'll probably never really know if he was indeed the tyrant that he was, but the point that I derived from this program was that their religious leader had to flea and was given sanctuary in France - that being the Alytollah Kohemeni. Who lived in France for 20 years as an exile [and btw - Idi Armine was also exiled to France around the same time].

But it appears that he was missed by thousands and thousands of people and all I could come up with when I watched was: imagine how people would feel if the Pope were to be exiled from the Vatican. It's almost of the same calibar. When the Ayllahtolha returned to Iran, he was not only warmly greeted, they literally thronged the streets in greetings, apparently, the people there really and truly felt close to him. He quickly asserted his authority as as religious leader and that was that. They took over the embassy - which is really the right of any nation to say, 'sorry we really don't want to continue relationships with the USa at this time" It really is a right, it's sort of like breaking an engagement or leaving the piste for good reason or telling someone that they can't fence today because their socks are not good enough. It's the Directors perogative. And, if the USa, can't realize that we can't force people to have a 'relationship' with us, then we are mere stalkers.

[jeff]

I just heard this on NPR's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me": -- I kid you not: Iranian Police Smash Squirrel Spy Ring:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...,00.html?f=rss
http://forums.ebay.com/db1/thread.js...=1184297436924

Funnier than most news from the region

Please submit your Rocky and Bullwinkle jokes!

[Inquartata]

I think the Iranians have been hokey-smoking something.

[Epee_Pox]

Oil's well that ends well, as we leave our heros dancing sheikh to sheikh.

[Inquartata]

Tune in next time for "Scheherajihad", or "I've Got a Lovely Bunch of Korananuts"!

[Capt. Slo-mo]

"Fan Fatwah from a Flounder?"

[Inquartata]

The Ruby Yacht of Omar---oh, wait, that's a real Rocky-and-Bullwinkle title...

[Epee_Pox]

Iran has announced that they've finally managed to accomplish the extremely difficult task of machining a bank of uranium-enriching centrifuges. This was the biggest hurdle they faced in getting a nuclear-weapons program off the ground, and the smart money was on it taking them a few more years.

So what time do you think Israel and/or the U.S. start bombing?

[Philistine]

Iran has announced that they've finally managed to accomplish the extremely difficult task of machining a bank of uranium-enriching centrifuges. This was the biggest hurdle they faced in getting a nuclear-weapons program off the ground, and the smart money was on it taking them a few more years.

I think you are misreading Iran's announcement. The announcement was that they have 3000 up and running, though the IAEA puts it as closer to 2000. They have had centrifuges in process and running for a bit now. Gas centrifuges are, after all, 1940's technology.

So what time do you think Israel and/or the U.S. start bombing?

Nothing has changed over the past several months other than an increase in the number of centrifuges.

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

You're no fun. I stick my tongue out at you and go "nyaaaah." Pbpth.

[Lemonaide]

I have no problem with Iran. I like the garbanzo bean thing with the little flat breads. I don't scream that those poor ladies should take off their veils, I think it looks nice and it's their thing. It keeps the hot steaming sand out of people's eyes and I wish we could understand that once and for all.

And I wish we could stop talking about them, as it appears that a very nice man was killed recently.

When you watch the News of the various countries in the middle east, notice the way a person walks, it tells you if they're afraid or not.
You can tell when a county is in trouble when the people have trouble walking. They they stumble in fear and fall over things.