Clark on Iran

Matt Stoller does an interview:

Matt Stoller: Can we handle a nuclear Iran? Can we live with that?

Wes Clark: I don't think so. The reason is, there are three reasons. Number one is that I think a nuclear armed Iran would use its clear deterrent to promote conventional or unconventional aggression against other states in the region and believe it could sit back with its nuclear power and not be threatened in return. I think the second reason is you never know how these nuclear capabilities might be smuggled abroad or used in some way. Maybe the way we saw the Israelis strike at this nuclear depot in Syria is an indication of that and apparently that came from North Korea. And the third reason is that once Iran gets a nuclear weapon lots of other countries will want them and the more countries that have them the greater chance a nuke will be used and kill hundreds of thousands of people and so no I don't think you can tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. But I think the right course of dealing with it is to directly engage Iran in dialogue.

The weird thing here is that I totally agree with Clark's analysis of what would be problematic about an Iranian nuclear weapon. This just seems like a strange conception of something we can't live with. The prospect of the Red Army overrunning Western Europe was something we couldn't live with. We formed NATO, provided explicit defense guarantees to our allies in the region, stationed troops in Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Britain and were prepared to wage warfare on a truly massive scale -- just as we had during World War II -- to prevent the domination of Europe by a hostile totalitarian power.

Iran having a nuclear weapon would be bad, for the reasons Clark adduces, and it's worth trying to prevent in just the way he suggests. But one shouldn't suggest that it's some kind of intolerable threat to American security or that we'd have no way to cope with the consequences of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It's just a scenario we'd prefer to avoid.

Comments

It has not been confirmed that there was anything nuclear at issue with the Syria attack, has it? Reasons two and three seem to collapse into each other unless he's suggesting the possibility of nuclear terrorism, which seems unlikely.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 25, 2007 12:17 PM

I agree completely. This just goes back to the same issue of how Americans have developed a completely unreasonable standard for when the use of force in defending their interests is appropriate. Of course, it hinges on what you mean by "can we live with that?", but although Clark advocates a diplomatic path... what is the suggested alternative if that fails? Even if Clark doesn't support aggressive action, the language framework that he accepts grants military action legitimacy.

Posted by mpowell | September 25, 2007 12:18 PM

This is the clearest indication I have seen that Clark expects a high position in a Clinton administration, and possibly to be the running mate, in exchange for his endorsement of her. He has been courageous up to now in leading the opposition to a war with Iran. Up to now Clark framed the issue that way: Are you for a war with Iran or not? Is that justified or not? Now he's buying into the "we can't live with a nuclear Iran" frame, which obviously leads to a different place. He is echoing the Beltway talking points that, unfortunately, have been echoed, weakly or strongly, by all the leading Democratic candidates--but by no one else as strongly as by Clinton. Iran is the place where Clinton has an opportunity to show she really learned something from the Iraq debacle, and Clark's remarks reinforce the evidence that she's letting that opportunity pass by. As of now Clark (whom I like quite a bit) has to be viewed as a proxy for Clinton.

Posted by Doug | September 25, 2007 12:19 PM

"It has not been confirmed that there was anything nuclear at issue with the Syria attack, has it?"

No it has not.

And best I can tell, an educated guess would indicate it was missile technology, not anything nuclear that was the target of the Syrian attack.

Posted by Petey | September 25, 2007 12:21 PM

Good post Doug - I agree. This is cause for concern with both Clark and Clinton.

Posted by ProfD | September 25, 2007 12:31 PM

"once Iran gets a nuclear weapon lots of other countries will want them and the more countries that have them..." -Clark

Um, there's a guy down the street with a Porsche (of course I'm jealous); that doesn't make me much more or less likely to be able to get one.

That's about a step up in logical perception from Jeff Sessions' line about having to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was crowing about not having lost the first gulf war. (the point being that what people say/want is a larger concern when it's more closely connected to what they *can* do/get)

Posted by Chris | September 25, 2007 12:38 PM

All of those reasons applied doubly to Pakistan's nuclear programme, which we (US and UK) brushed under the carpet. Indeed, we know for a fact that Pakistan smuggled nuclear technology abroad, that it threatens its democratic neighbour and that its development of nukes encouraged others to procure them as well.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | September 25, 2007 12:38 PM

Um, there's a guy down the street with a Porsche (of course I'm jealous); that doesn't make me much more or less likely to be able to get one.

I agree w/ Matt's point, but the above is a weak rebuttal. Nations without nukes want them in order to be able to resist nations *with* nukes.

Posted by Anderson | September 25, 2007 12:41 PM

How is it that we have no problem living with a nuclear armed Pakistan and North Korea, but Iran is somehow a major threat? Consider reason 1: The last country Iran invaded was the Ottoman Empire. Since that time both North Korea and Pakistan have attacked other countries (Pakistan more than once). It would seem that Iran is the least belligerent of the three. How about the proliferation issue? Pakistan and North Korea are the world's number 1 and 2 suppliers of illicit nuclear technology, while Iran has never shared nuclear technology with anyone. Perhaps it would be better to reign in AQ Khan. Or question him, at least. On the third issue, the three countries are at least on fairly equal footing. But the issue is questionable at best. The argument was used when Israel was pursuing nuclear weapons. But guess what? The Middle East nuclear arms race never really happened, did it? Why should it happen now? Well, there is one reason: we haven't reigned in Pakistan and North Korea and they are distributing nuclear technology. So, it will be easier for other Middle Eastern countries to get the technology. But it will be easier because of Pakistan and North Korea, not Iran.

Of course, we should keep in mind that we are not trying to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, we are trying to prevent Iran from getting ANY nuclear technology.

Posted by fostert | September 25, 2007 12:45 PM

If Iraq was not a choice between invading and occupying the country for many years on the one hand and allowing Saddam Hussein to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction program on the other hand why is Iran?

Posted by Linus | September 25, 2007 12:53 PM

Regarding Clark's quote: "Number one is that I think a nuclear armed Iran would use its clear deterrent to promote conventional or unconventional aggression against other states in the region...", what countries could he mean? The threat of Iran striking out with conventional weapons against its neighbors sounds pretty laughable. As for unconventional, is he talking about Hezbollah? That's a pretty minor problem. Once people are asked for specifics, it will become apparent how negligible a threat of this kind really is.

Posted by Jim W | September 25, 2007 1:12 PM

What's hilarious is that everything Clark says about why we don't want a nuclear-armed Iran applies equally to why we don't want a nuclear-armed Israel. But pigs will fly before you will see anyone in the Democratic leadership mentioning that.

Nations respond to threats. If we had not allowed Israel to develop nukes -- and if we had not given Israel massive armaments with which to threaten other nations -- then Iraq and Iran might not have been driven to spend money on their military programs.

And there is no guarantee that an Israeli nuke will not one day go off in an American city. Disguised as an Islamic nuke, no doubt.

Posted by Don Williams | September 25, 2007 1:18 PM

By the way, did we ever find out where that anthrax came from? The packs that scared the shit out the Democrats in the Senate at such an opportune moment after Sept 11.

Posted by Don Williams | September 25, 2007 1:20 PM

Absolutely, Doug. This seems like a pretty clear sign that Clinton is looking for war against Iran.

I'm getting more tolerant of the people who say they won't vote for her in the general.

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 25, 2007 1:23 PM

Matthew, I respectfully disagree with your reading of Gen Clark's opinion.

Gen Clark said that we could "not handle" a nuclear Iran. This is the same, in my view, as being "intolerable", i.e., we would indeed be unable to "cope" with a nuclear Iran.

Your reading of this is not accurate, with all due respect.

Posted by Grodge | September 25, 2007 1:33 PM

We can't afford to wait: the smoking gun is going to be a mushroom cloud over L.A. They are going to nuke us in the next 45 minutes. Iran planned 9/11. Ahmadinejad is Hitler. Anyone who opposes immediate bombing and inavsion is Chamberlain.

Did I leave anything out? Oh, torture everyone, the sky is falling, and I just pissed my pants.

Posted by jim | September 25, 2007 1:45 PM

The analogy to the Red Army really only works if Iran is deterrable. That may be the case, and I actually think it's quite likely.

But one has to be willing to consider the counterfactual, that the religious beliefs of the Iranian leadership make them invulnerable to the deterrence strategies that were effective against the politburo. If that is the case, and accepting the truth of the rest of what Clark says, then we truly will not be able to cope with their nuclear capability.

Posted by southpaw | September 25, 2007 1:48 PM

One additional thought about the deterrence issue that Clark raises:

Maybe Iran plans to use force against some neighbor; if so, then having nukes obviously does make that easier, since the fear of a US strike in response (or in advance) would disappear. But as others have said, Iran has no track record of attacking other countries in the recent past. So that's a maybe, but a pretty weak maybe.

If you look in Chalmers Johnson's _Sorrows of Empire_, you'll see a map of US military bases in the Middle East and basically it looks like a sea of such bases with Iran as an island within them. It's the only big space on the map of that part of the world without US bases. Now, you can say this looks like the US is planning a huge assault on Iran from all sides. Or you can say that Iran just looks like the hole in the donut because we haven't been able to put bases there; it's just a coincidence that it turns out looking that way. But the presence of US bases encircling Iran seems like a point against the thesis that Iran plans aggression against any of its neighbors. Even if it had nukes, if Iran invaded a country where the US had a big military presence, a conventional conflict, at least on a small scale, between the two countries might be unavoidable, and both countries' military commands would hold their breaths and hope it stayed conventional. Scary thought, yes?

But overall, the likeliest reason that the Beltway doesn't want Iran to get nukes is simply that this would deter unprovoked US aggression against Iran. Even if US leaders don't really want to invade (or bomb) Iran, a nuclear deterrent in Tehran, taking US aggression off the table, would reduce US political maneuvering in the Middle East because we couldn't rattle the saber against Iran. The issue then is more clearly what inhibits the US than what inhibits Iran.

I'm no game-theory expert, but I think Wes Clark probably is, or close enough. I'm sure he's thought through the truly plausible scenarios and that just means that he knows better.

Posted by Doug | September 25, 2007 1:48 PM

"But one shouldn't suggest that it's some kind of intolerable threat to American security or that we'd have no way to cope with the consequences of an Iranian nuclear weapon."

Isn't that exactly what that warmonger Clark is saying? I agree with Clark and I agree with him that dialogue is the only way forward. Bombing Iran would be a disaster.

Has Juan Cole defended Iran's president yet? That he really didn't say that Iran has no gays, he was just misinterpreted?

I actually think we'll be able to see what happens with Iran with WMDs, so it won't be some academic exercise. I bet it won't be pretty.

Posted by Peter K. | September 25, 2007 1:55 PM

Has Juan Cole defended Iran's president yet? That he really didn't say that Iran has no gays, he was just misinterpreted?

Has Peter K. defended pederasty yet? Said that of course real men enjoy sex with little boys?

No? but I can still attack him for it anyway, right?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 25, 2007 2:13 PM

Part of negotiating is posturing.

Clark now is part of a Presidential candidate's team.

He simply can not speak in the same way as he could before.

Posted by Armando | September 25, 2007 2:19 PM

If and when Peter K dealt in Internet pornography, and if some of that was kiddie porn, is not really pertinent to a discussion of Peter K's ideas. If it's proven he doesn't traffic in kiddie porn that's fine, but until we know for sure, with 100% complete certainty that he isn't a pedophile I think we can only assume that Peter K is making points we need to consider carefully.

ad hominems, always better after breakfast.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | September 25, 2007 2:24 PM

Here is the French Foreign minister on the same subject:

BLITZER: He said Israel is a very strong and firm ally. He was referring to the threats from the president of Iran against Israel. And in fact, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on September 12th, "We think Israel is an invader, and it's cruel and it hasn't got a united public. All other countries, neighboring countries, are against it. It cannot continue its life."

KOUCHNER: Yes, I know.

BLITZER: Those are strong words from Ahmadinejad. And so your reaction as the foreign minister of France.

KOUCHNER: I know that. It is absolutely, absolutely impossible to accept, and this is part of the threat, and this is part of the tension.

Not only they declared very openly that they want to destroy the state of Israel and eventually other states in the surrounding, but they will get atomic bombs.

This is impossible, unacceptable. That's why the situation is serious, but that is not to say that we are forced to use preventive force.

We have with all our allies and the surrounding people -- because the threat is mainly on the neighbors, Arab moderate countries, others, so we have to negotiate and to be very serious. That's why we have to offer with our allies real sanctions, effective sanctions, very efficient sanctions . . .

I am curious to hear reactions to this statement compared to General Clark's.

Posted by Armando | September 25, 2007 2:25 PM

Re: "...when Peter K dealt in Internet pornography, and if some of that was kiddie porn...".

Shouldn't people who do stuff like that be banned from the comment section?

Posted by Jim W | September 25, 2007 2:48 PM

I'm getting more tolerant of the people who say they won't vote for her in the general.

How much more?

On the other hand, I guess it's a useful "negotiating" posture. If enough expected Democratic voters credibly say they'd burn their votes in the general if she's the candidate, it does make it less likely that she'll be the candidate.

Posted by washerdreyer | September 25, 2007 2:49 PM

How is it that we have no problem living with a nuclear armed Pakistan and North Korea, but Iran is somehow a major threat? Consider reason 1: The last country Iran invaded was the Ottoman Empire. Since that time both North Korea and Pakistan have attacked other countries (Pakistan more than once). It would seem that Iran is the least belligerent of the three.

In a thread full of the naive, the insipid and specious, this comment deserves a special kind of award for inane irrelevance. I shouldn't have to explain why, but:

--North Korea and Pakistan were born out of war, partitioned violently from a territory in which they were adversaries;

--Iran is, today, at arms against the US, has sworn to destroy Israel, and going back to when most of you were in pre-school, invaded a sovereign US territory, our embassy, and held it for over a year.

As for the rest of these stupid comments, I'm struck by the idea that we should be opposed to Israel's nuclear capability but not Iran's. We should let our enemies get stronger, but our friends should be weaker. And Clark is a bad guy because he buys into "the frame" that a nuclear Iran is an undesireable thing.

You guys have everything backwards. You don't want war with Iran, so therefore, we should pretend that dangerous developments in Iran aren't happening or aren't a concern, because to do otherwise might make some people feel justified in considering military options. We need to remove that justification, and if we have to twist facts to do so, that's fine, because it's in the service of peace.

This doesn't even rise to the level of "reasoning." It's pure spin. Thank God, none of you are going to get anywhere near the White House, nor will any of your candidates.

Posted by Baranca | September 25, 2007 2:52 PM

Re Baranca's comment "Iran is, today, at arms against the US, has sworn to destroy Israel, and going back to when most of you were in pre-school, invaded a sovereign US territory, our embassy, and held it for over a year. "
----------
The "arms against the US is unproven", the "sworn to destroy Israel" consists of saying the nation of Palestine should consist of both Jews and Palestinian citizens, and the US embassy seizure occurred after the overthrow of a dictator imposed on the Iranian people by a CIA coup in the 1950s.

A Dictator whose SAVAK secret police tortured and killed. Oh, but I suppose the Shah was the "good dictator". Just as Saddam Hussein was the "good dictator" so long as he was massacring hundreds of thousands of Iranians in an unprovoked war on our behalf.

Saddam only became the "bad dictator" later -- during the Reagan administration his hand was shaken by all kinds of people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Saddam_HusseinDonald_Rumsfeld_handshake.jpg

Of course, the American people won't hear any of this mentioned on Fox News, by the Neocons, or by the Israel Lobby. Which is kinda the point.

Posted by Don Williams | September 25, 2007 3:29 PM

um, Don, the "sworn to destroy Israel" consists of the president of Iran vowing to wipe Israel off the map and saying--just weeks ago--that Israel "cannot continue its life."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/12/ahmadinejad.itn/index.html

Posted by southpaw | September 25, 2007 3:34 PM

maybe this is just me, but i don't think the US can 'live with' iran smuggling the nukes, possibly to terrorists-it's one thing to say that we can deter this, which is the argument you have to make if you do think we can live with the iranian bomb.
but if you don't think we can deter nuclear smuggling, then why on earth would you risk an american city being turned into a mushroom cloud?

also, if you don't care that Iranian nuclearization leads to a lot more nuclear weapons in the world, remind me why the US should attempt to strengthen the NPT again?

Posted by jamie | September 25, 2007 3:54 PM

There are currently about a dozen countries with nukes. I don't think we can live with any of them smuggling nukes to terrorists. Which one should we attack first?

Posted by Jim W | September 25, 2007 4:04 PM

Re: "...when Peter K dealt in Internet pornography, and if some of that was kiddie porn...".

Shouldn't people who do stuff like that be banned from the comment section?

Jim W., I completely agree. But for some reason Matt is willing putting up with Peter K.'s presence here.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 25, 2007 4:07 PM

How much more?

Not hugely. The Republicans are slavering warmongers too.

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 25, 2007 4:20 PM

What I really mean is "Can we pleeeease nominate Edwards or Obama or maybe Richardson?" I guess I should get myself over to NH.

Posted by Matt Weiner | September 25, 2007 4:23 PM

the point is, if we THINK that countries with nukes ARE smuggling nukes to terrorists, that ISN'T something we can live with.
now, what 'not being able to live with' means in the context of iran is up for debate.

Posted by jamie | September 25, 2007 4:26 PM

"Iran is, today, at arms against the US, has sworn to destroy Israel, and going back to when most of you were in pre-school, invaded a sovereign US territory, our embassy, and held it for over a year."

Indeed sir. I can say with some certainty that I was in pre-school at the time. We had a jolly time playing with dinosaurs like it was 3500BC.

What I don't know however (and perhaps you can enlighten me) is which part of these United States - the homeland or elsewhere - "Iran is, today, at arms against."

It's clear to me that when the Soviets invaded Colorado in 1984 it was a violation of our sovereignty and although I haven't been to southern California lately I read the papers and I can't recall reading about the 4th Iranian Marine Division landing on the beaches of Malibu.

But you are right my friend: this Ahmadinejad fellow is quite a shit.

It's also the case that Saint Rudy is liable to be our next president taking the bitchen war in Iraq to Iran.

And my cohorts on the left are pathetically reduced to demagoging pederasty in a vain attempt to make this looming confrontation go away.

But just remember: Iran is as divided against itself as Iraq.

And every empire eventually dies.

Posted by Linus | September 25, 2007 4:49 PM

"There are currently about a dozen countries with nukes. I don't think we can live with any of them smuggling nukes to terrorists. Which one should we attack first?"

Britain. Because the British government is just as likely to give nukes to Hezbollah as Iran is.

Posted by Fred | September 25, 2007 6:38 PM

But one shouldn't suggest that it's some kind of intolerable threat to American security or that we'd have no way to cope with the consequences of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It's just a scenario we'd prefer to avoid.

I suggest that the consequences of an Iranian nuclear bomb are intolerable because Iran has an erratic leadership with a "Doomsday will Cause the Return of the 12th Imam" faction. They export terror and have armed Hezbollah with their most advanced weapons to fight the Zionist entity, including the Chinese C-802A anti-ship missile. Given Hez nukes would be a huge leap from that, Iran is more like than France or Russia to give nukes to Islamists. Pakistan is under control of the military and judged by India, the most affected adversary, to have complete control of it's nukes and chem weapons so it doesn't rise to the threat Iran would be.

The other problem Clarke describes is the ME arms race that would start. Saudis, wealthy Gulf States, Egypt and Turkey would want their own.

That Iran is a legitimate threat to the region and to the world if a nuclear arms race starts scares the crap out of anti-war Lefties who are now desperately defending an adversary of the US currently killing US soldiers, wrapping Iran in their protection, aid and comfort as "morally equivalent" to America, only being a problem because of events 2,000 years ago or 50 years ago, unlikely to want a bomb because global intelligence agencies fell for Saddam's insane bluff on WMD.

I think the mainstream of America, and Centrist Democrats are - despite how upset all are with Bush's incompetence in Iraq and the mess we and sectarian Iraqis have made of it - now aligning against the Far Left's efforts at aid and comfort to Iran.

You guys have everything backwards. You don't want war with Iran, so therefore, we should pretend that dangerous developments in Iran aren't happening or aren't a concern, because to do otherwise might make some people feel justified in considering military options. We need to remove that justification, and if we have to twist facts to do so, that's fine, because it's in the service of peace.
This doesn't even rise to the level of "reasoning." It's pure spin. Thank God, none of you are going to get anywhere near the White House, nor will any of your candidates.
Posted by Baranca

Posted by Chris Ford | September 25, 2007 9:03 PM

Paraphrasing Rich Lowry:

This summer, Iranian-backed Shiite militias have been determined to have inflicted 3/4ths of the killings of Americans in the Baghdad area. Iranian weaponry has been found in the hands of dead, wounded, and captured Al Qaeda fighters by US and Sunni fighters in Al Anbar. The Iranian weaponry is coming in from Syria.

Liberals like to say of the Bush administration's allegedly militaristic foreign policy that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Likewise, if the only tool you (support using) is dialogue, everyone, (even a deadly foe now killing your people and actively undermining your efforts to stabilize Iraq) - looks like a reasonable interlocutor.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 25, 2007 9:34 PM

I think it's clear that Clark has reneged on his "StopIranwar" Web site.

Let's analyze his arguments point by point:

"Number one is that I think a nuclear armed Iran would use its clear deterrent to promote conventional or unconventional aggression against other states in the region and believe it could sit back with its nuclear power and not be threatened in return."

Bullshit. The ONLY party who is threatened by that process is Israel - and that only because Israel - through its proxy, the US - intends regime change in Iran. This is the ONLY reason Iran would ever want a nuke at all - to prevent regime change by being able to threaten Israel. Iran would never in a million years try a first strike on Israel or anyone else UNLESS they were convinced they were about to be overthrown in the first place.

Second, Iran has NEVER promoted "conventional or unconventional aggression" against ANY other states in the Middle East with - again - the sole exception of Israel - and that solely by its support of Hizballah - which itself is a Lebanese nationalist movement which does not take direct orders from Iran.

Take Israel out of the equation and who do you think Iran is going to try to pressure with its nukes? Saudi Arabia? They don't need nukes for that.

And not be threatened in return just because they have a nuke? What happened to the thousands of nukes in the US arsenal? They just disappear? The US can threaten Iran any time with its nuclear arsenal - and is doing so. The same applies to Israel - just to a lesser degree because Israel cannot withstand a nuclear first strike, even it has a second-strike capability. But as I said, Iran would never first-strike Israel for exactly that reason - unless they HAD NO CHOICE.

"I think the second reason is you never know how these nuclear capabilities might be smuggled abroad or used in some way."

Bullshit again. NO state with nuclear weapons will allow the weapons themselves (if not the technology) to be "smuggled abroad or used in some way" - not deliberately. Iran would be completely insane to do that since any weapon developed by them and used by someone else would immediately be forensically connected to them and would result in immediate and very serious international repercussions.

Second, where was Clark when Israel was allowed to develop 100-400 nuclear weapons completely outside any international inspection or control?

If Clark is arguing that military security in any country is a joke - which is true - and that therefore any nation with nuclear weapons is a potential source of nukes for terrorists, then why is Israel - surrounded by terrorists - given a free pass?

Iran doesn't even HAVE a nuke to be stolen, and WON'T have one for at least another five or ten years even if they start NOW! And that nuke is likely to be a two-ton monstrosity that can't even be effectively moved, let alone stolen!

It's bullshit...

"And the third reason is that once Iran gets a nuclear weapon lots of other countries will want them and the more countries that have them the greater chance a nuke will be used."

Again - one word - Israel.

Without Israel's nuclear arsenal, absolutely no Arab nation would bother trying to get nukes. It costs too much and causes too many problems in terms of international condemnation. A few "nut" countries like Libya might try - but how far did they get?

Clark's "analysis" is the sort of one-dimensional thinking that passes for thought in the Beltway. That Matt buys into this lame excuse for thought doesn't make Matt seem particularly intelligent, either.

Matt IS correct when he says we could certainly live with such a situation - but then that was Clark's whole point, wasn't it? That he has decided that the US CAN'T live with it - which by definition means either that Iran has to be convinced not to make a nuke - or Iran has to be invaded and overthrown.

There are only those two options. And option one entails everything I've said before - disarm Israel, give non-aggression guarantees to Iran, agree to allow Iranian enrichment, and move on the Israel-Palestinian situation. Is Clark going to stand up and demand that Israel be disarmed of its nukes? Is Hillary? Or any of the the other parts of the real solution?

Right. Email me when this happens.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 25, 2007 10:34 PM

"that the religious beliefs of the Iranian leadership make them invulnerable to the deterrence strategies that were effective against the politburo."

Given that Communism was as much a "religious belief" as Islam is, I don't see the point.

Not to mention that there is ZERO evidence that the Iranian rulers have any interest in dying tomorrow by throwing nukes around haphazardly.

Not to mention that the SAME religious beliefs that this individual refers to justify the Iranian ruler's fatwa against nuclear weapons being possessed by Iran.

Unless you assume that the Iranian ruler's religious beliefs also justify issuing LYING FATWAS to the religious faithful.

I might buy the latter concept, given the history of the Catholic Church...

In other words, the whole thing is an exercise in "we don't like Muslims because we don't believe their religion is 'real'" - as opposed to the bullshit WE believe in...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 25, 2007 10:43 PM

.

Given that the United States can elect a nutjob like Bush President, everybody needs what North Korea has, the ability to take out an aircraft carrier.

A small nuclear weapon and a short range missile is a weapon of peace. Think of it as a Second Amendment for the world.

Corollary: no American has the right to demand disarmament of another country until Americans have re-entered the world's polity by impeaching and jailing George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Posted by David Lloyd-Jones | September 25, 2007 10:55 PM

Maybe they didn't cover this in that Stephen Peter Rosen class Matt took that he apparently thinks qualifies him as anything approaching a foreign policy expert. I suggest he read up on the Stability-Instability Paradox, and specifically why such a situation with Soviet Russia differs from today's Iran.

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2007/09/different-kind-of-paradox.html

The Soviets had conventional superiority for most, if not all of the Cold War. They didn't need to take it nuclear, because they knew if they cared enough about something they'd dedicate the conventional resources to winning it.

There was, as such, actually a fair amount of stability at the nuclear level so long as we kept our nuclear forces at such a level to maintain an effective deterrent. Such stability allowed the revisionist power with greater convention superiority (the Soviets) to go about fighting wars and proxy wars with little worry that it would escalate to the nuclear level.

The situation with Iran is more similar to that of India and Pakistan. India has conventional superiority, but Pakistan is the revisionist power. As such, they have little else to work with besides making India think it might be willing to take things nuclear. Meanwhile, they achieve their foreign policy goals through things like support for terrorism. To make sure India doesn't respond conventionally, they make it seem like they'd be willing to escalate to the nuclear level. This was played out in Kargil in 1999 - when they whole world was sure we were about to have our first full-out nuclear war.

Iran has foreign policy goals that they are usually able to carry out by supporting terrorists. But every now and then the int'l community responds, forcing them to pull back their support for terrorists. This happened after the Khobar Towers bombing, it happened recently when (according to Petraeus) they (temporarily?)pulled Quds Force out of Iraq when the US threatened to designate IRGC a terrorist organization. They'd really love to be able to operate without worrying about what the conventionally superior US might do in response to an attack. Maintaining instability at the nuclear level will allow them to do just that. I suggest reading S. Paul Kapur of the Naval War College and Stanford for more on this.

I'm a big fan of blogs (I have my own modest blog myself). But this is the problem with SOME full-time bloggers. No real world experience and an income to write down opinions can make you think you know a lot more than you actually do.

Posted by Alenda Lux | September 26, 2007 12:19 AM

"Corollary: no American has the right to demand disarmament of another country until Americans have re-entered the world's polity by impeaching and jailing George Bush and Dick Cheney."

Ahh, lovely. I'm so happy that this is apparently what passes for intelligent political discourse these days.

Posted by Alenda Lux | September 26, 2007 12:22 AM

"...would use its clear deterrent to promote conventional or unconventional aggression... and believe it could sit back with its nuclear power and not be threatened in return."

Um, isn't that exactly what the U.S. government has done over the past sixty years? What is the overthrow of Bosch and Mossadegh, the support of Contra terror against an elected government, the support of Salvadoran death squads (hell, training them at Ft. Benning) against peasant organizers, repeatedly raining death from the skies on the "Hitler" of the week, if not a superpower engaging in systematic state terror and aggression behind a nuclear shield? The U.S. government has probably overthrown more governments than any other power in human history, all in the name of fighting communism, narcotrafficking, or terrorism--and all really for the defense of a global corporate political and economic order.

If those fucking pigs in Washington and Wall Street, those tapeworms on the colon of the American people, can have nukes, then ANYBODY can.

Posted by Kevin Carson | September 26, 2007 1:14 AM

I think Neocons try to prepare opinion to a war with Iran to keep power next year.
Especially if an economical crisis happens.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Oldline_Republican_warns_somethings_in_works_0719.html

Look at this interview of Paul Craig Roberts, not really a leftist.

Posted by JLS | September 26, 2007 2:48 AM

Alenda Lux - Good postings.

Given that the United States can elect a nutjob like Bush President, everybody needs what North Korea has, the ability to take out an aircraft carrier.
A small nuclear weapon and a short range missile is a weapon of peace. Think of it as a Second Amendment for the world.
Corollary: no American has the right to demand disarmament of another country until Americans have re-entered the world's polity by impeaching and jailing George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Posted by David Lloyd-Jones

1. Taking out a US aircraft carrier with a nuke would assure that another naval asset the NORKs could do nothing about, the Trident sub with 200 D-5 400-600KT warheads would become engaged.

2. If you wish to employ a 2nd Amendment strategy you best not engage a SWAT Team with a 9mm pistol. The outcome is very predictable. In war or police combat, there is no "proportionality" - the side with more firepower will use it to win.

3. Simple possession of WMD does not make you invulnerable to invasion or attack. It may cause pre-emptive attack in itself.

4. Claiming the US has no ability to influence others until its leadership is in jail marks you as a Left-Wing looney.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 26, 2007 8:37 AM

"Re: "...when Peter K dealt in Internet pornography, and if some of that was kiddie porn...".

Shouldn't people who do stuff like that be banned from the comment section?"

Apparently this was responding to my post about Juan Cole, who had written an infamous blog entry defending Ahmadinejad and explaing that he didn't really say "wipe Israel off the map." So I was asking if Cole had written something saying Ahmadinejad had been misinterpreted again, regarding the nonexistence of homosexuals in Iran. Not totally unrelated.

But I seem to have drawn blood ... to judge from the hyperbolic response.

Posted by Peter K. | September 26, 2007 10:37 AM

Logic check. I always opposed the Apartheid government of South Africa. I wanted regime change and dreamed of wiping Apartheid South Africa off the map. And it has happened. Who knew I was actually guilty of wanting genocide against white people because I wanted an end to White Rule?

Wanting an end of the Zionist regime and its replacement by a State of All its Citizens is not genocide.

How much longer must Zionist nitwits keep this phony argument going?

Posted by Matthew | September 26, 2007 2:26 PM

"Wanting an end of the Zionist regime and its replacement by a State of All its Citizens is not genocide."

Logic check. "Wanting an end of the Zionist regime" is putting an end to the democratic, multiparty Israeli government. Doesn't seem analogous to South Africa in that respect.

No one said it was genocide. Amadinejad at the UN made the analogy with the U.S.S.R. regime. Again I think there's a logical difference.

Wanting an end of the Zionist regime, or as Amadinejad put it: "wiping Israel off the map", is not the same thing as wanting a peace settlement that is just and fair to the Palestinians.

The argument will go on as long as people try to put over BS and treat other people as if they are stupid and can't read.

Posted by Peter K. | September 26, 2007 4:34 PM

Peter K: I am taking this comment as a tacit commentary on your own post: "The argument will go on as long as people try to put over BS and treat other people as if they are stupid and can't read."

Try reading my post again. This time you might want to diagram it, but, please, don't use your good crayons.

Posted by Matthew | September 26, 2007 4:50 PM