Living With a Nuclear Iran

Retired General and former CENTCOM CINC John Abizaid argues that we could live with a nuclear Iran. And, indeed, we could. Iran getting a nuclear bomb wouldn't be a threat to the United States and wouldn't even be an especially serious problem for Israel or any aspects of American power projections in the region.

Somewhat ironically, I think getting clearer about this might make it easier to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Acting in an unduly paranoid manner about the Iranian nuclear program suggests to Iranians that there are some large gains that might accrue to their country from developing nuclear weapons. In fact, a nuclear weapons program would be a largely useless waste of money. The United States has good reason to worry about nuclear proliferation in general and, therefore, to worry about the Iranian program as an instance of the general phenomenon. But Iranian nuclear weapons, as such, aren't a big problem for us.

Photo by Flickr user Hamed Saber used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

There were three nations named by Bush as the "Axis of Evil." The weakest nation of the three, without nuclear weapons, was invaded and destroyed by the United States. The strongest nation, possibly armed with nuclear weapons, was left alone. What is the lesson for Iran?

Posted by HH | September 18, 2007 9:29 AM

"Iran getting a nuclear bomb ... wouldn't even be an especially serious problem for ... any aspects of American power projections in the region."

This strikes me as prima facie absurd.

I'm opposed to American military action against Iran to stop them from getting the bomb because I think the cure would be considerably worse than the disease. But I think it's absolutely loony to think that an Iranian nuclear arsenal wouldn't be a problem for American power projection in the Mideast.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 9:29 AM

You might think that if Iran with nukes is likely to be a generic problem, the Near Great Powers that surround it (China, Russia, maybe India) would worry more about Iran's acquisition attempts and do more to thwart them. To be honest, I don't really understand why they haven't, and why China and Russia have primarily behaved as allies of Iran throughout this dispute.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 9:30 AM

"To be honest, I don't really understand why they haven't, and why China and Russia have primarily behaved as allies of Iran throughout this dispute."

See my 9:29 am comment, SCMT.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 9:33 AM

I think Matt is using "threat" as shorthand for "existential threat"; Clearly, a nuclear Iran isn't the latter, as our nation would continue to exist after absorbing even a half dozen nuclear attacks. (Israel, of course, can't say the same.) How much of the rest of the world would after our response is another matter...

If he means a nuclear Iran wouldn't be a threat at all, of course, he's nuts.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 18, 2007 9:36 AM

Petey:

That doesn't quite answer the question. Iran's ability to inhibit US projection of power suggests a similar ability to inhibit Chi/Rus projection of power. And that inhibition amounts to an inhibition in their back yards. That has to matter more than whatever inhibition on US power a nuclear Iran buys them.

can't imagine the reverse situation, in which the US welcomed the growth of a serious regional power in Central America or South America, because it inhibited a power halfway around the world.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 9:43 AM

1)Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the Democratic leaders -- who are getting conflicting
advice from Haim Saban and Matthew Yglesias.

2) On the one hand, here is how Haim Saban feels:
"When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."

3) On the other hand, Matthew Yglesias says "Iran getting a nuclear bomb wouldn't be a threat to the United States and wouldn't even be an especially serious problem for Israel "

4) So how do the Democratic Members of Congress evaluate these opposing arguments?

a) Well , Haim Saban is a billionaire who gave the Democrats almost $14 MILLION in 2000-2002, has raised over $1 Million for Hillary this year, and has bought the 5th largest TV network in the USA -- the Spanish language Univision -- which will have a decisive effect on the Hispanic swing vote in California, Texas, and Florida.

b) By contrast, a check of FEC records indicates that Matthew Yglesias gave the staggering sum of $218 to the DNC Services Corp in the 2006 cycle.

5) Any guess re who the Democratic leadership will listen to?

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 9:46 AM

I could imagine arguing that an Iran with nuclear weapons isn't all that much of a problem. But I would then find it hard to argue that any nation with nuclear weapons would be all that much of a problem, and at that point I would wonder why exactly nuclear proliferation is so much of a problem.

Iran may not be the single most likely country to hand a nuke off to an untraceable terrorist group (which is the big threat here). But it's certainly up there. Of course, one country that might be more likely to do that would be Pakistan, and our approach to that risk seems to be simply to ignore it, maintain good relations with the current government and hope for the best.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 18, 2007 9:48 AM

"Iran's ability to inhibit US projection of power suggests a similar ability to inhibit Chi/Rus projection of power."

With more than half of all global military spending, the US military can handily defeat the military of any other country, anywhere in the world.

Thus the calculus becomes that Chi/Rus's interest in seeing US dominance over the Mideast checked far outweighs their interest in their own strategic superiority over Iran.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 9:49 AM

The Boston Globe article about Abizaid confines itself to the U.S. being able to live with a nuclear Iran. I think Abizaid is right about this. Iran has been a pretty restrained power since its revolution. It reminds me of the Soviet Union from 1919 to 1939 -- build socialism in one country.

The exception has been occasional Iranian terror attacks, like the one on the Jewish center in Buenos Aires. But they don't need a nuclear program for that.

But is Matt right to add Israel here? Israel's nuclear deterrent dates from the days of Nasser, when the threat was from large conventional armies. The threat these days is very different, but who knows what the future will bring? If a couple of Israel's neighbors invaded, and the IDF failed to gain the upper hand, couldn't Iran neutralize Israel's nuclear deterrent? Doesn't Israel's nuclear deterrent depend on its being the only nuclear power in the region?

Posted by Hal | September 18, 2007 9:54 AM

"Iran getting a nuclear bomb wouldn't be a threat to the United States and wouldn't even be an especially serious problem for Israel or any aspects of American power projections in the region..."

Rather breezily asserted, with no evidence offered (other than the statement of one general) to back it up. I understand that you are very much opposed to any kind of military action against Iran. I am too. There are good reasons to feel that way. But this is a very serious and complex issue, about which our knowledge is imperfect, at best. It deserves--in fact demands--better than your ill-founded sweeping self-assurance.

Posted by Claudius | September 18, 2007 9:56 AM

Doesn't Israel's nuclear deterrent depend on its being the only nuclear power in the region?

Then you start to get into "would Iran sacrifice Tehran to save Damascus?" territory.

I think basically people don't attack countries that have nuclear weapons -- not with the intent of overthrowing their governments. It hasn't happened yet, anyway.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 18, 2007 10:00 AM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams is absolutely correct. Mr. Sabans' contributions to the Democratic party in general and Ms. Clinton in particular give him far too much influence in advancing his left wing appeasement goals of

1. engaging the Government of Syria which, according to the Sunday Times of London, was prevented from attaining a nuclear capability 2 weeks ago by an IDF military operation;

2. negotiating with the Hamas terrorists in the Gaza strip whose goal is the elimination of the very state that Mr. Saban claims to support.

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 10:01 AM

You are all wrong.

Look at it from the viewpoints of the other major powers: EU, Russia, China.

The USA is the global hegemon who is slowing establishing a global government which will inevitably become a global dictatorship. The US dwarfs other nations in size of GDP, in control of the sea lanes, and in world military spending.
(Roughly $500 Billion/year vs only $60 billion each for Russia and China).

If we had been a mild-mannered giant content to remain on our side of the pond, that situation might have been acceptable. But Bush and the Neocons have convinced the other world leaders that the US is ,in reality, a deceptive ,murderous psychopath similar to Hitler circa 1934.

That all our talk of human rights is merely propaganda cover for a relentless,implacable imperialism. That we will kill hundreds of thousands of people when we have no good reason to do so -- when we are under no threat.

The only way to deal with the US militarily --short of a catastrophic nuclear war -- is to disrupt our economy in order to reduce its military spending. Hence, it is in the interest of CHina and Russia to encourage nuclear proliferation among proxies like North Korea and Iran -- because two nukes going off in the oil refinery areas of Texas-Louisiana and in Silicon Valley -- would knock a hole in US GDP. Such proxies also divert the attention of Washington and gives China time to grow stronger.

Which is why I think Osama Bin Laden is as likely to be hiding out in western China as he is likely to be in northern Pakistan. The areas connect.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 10:02 AM

Re SLC's comment "Mr. Sabans' contributions to the Democratic party in general and Ms. Clinton in particular give him far too much influence in advancing his left wing appeasement goals of "
------------
Oh bullshit, SLC. The record is clear.

Haim Saban funded the Saban Center at Brookings which beat the drums loudly for war on Iraq in 2002 --including claims that Saddam was working feverishly to get nukes and was probably close to obtaining them.

Haim Saban was also clear in his Dec 2006 Haaretz interview that Iran must be destroyed. While providing no more evidence of Iran's nuclear capabilities than his lackey Kenneth Pollack provided re Iraq's nukes in the 2002 bestseller
"The Threatening Storm".

Your IRRELEVANT Red Herrings don't contradict DOCUMENTED FACTS. You are just making yourself look foolish. Or maybe deceptive. Or maybe, both.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 10:15 AM

The only way to deal with the US militarily --short of a catastrophic nuclear war -- is to disrupt our economy in order to reduce its military spending. Hence, it is in the interest of CHina and Russia to encourage nuclear proliferation among proxies like North Korea and Iran -- because two nukes going off in the oil refinery areas of Texas-Louisiana and in Silicon Valley -- would knock a hole in US GDP.

Yup. Blowing up nuclear weapons on American soil is definitely going to get the US to reduce military spending.

Posted by Jasper | September 18, 2007 10:19 AM

With more than half of all global military spending, the US military can handily defeat the military of any other country, anywhere in the world.

I thought about that. The problem is that nukes remain a deterrent forever. So fifty years from now, Iran would still have some deterrent effect on China. That seems like a big bet, particularly in the face of US inability to manage Iraq.

I gather that the Russians helped NoKo get the bomb, but I'm not sure that has worked out the way they'd hoped.

But your explanation at least makes sense of what appears to actually be happening.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 10:22 AM

Re Jasper "Yup. Blowing up nuclear weapons on American soil is definitely going to get the US to reduce military spending."
---------
You can't spend what you don't have. Especially if you are paying interest on $10 TRILLION of debt at the same time. Military spending has to be supported by an equally strong economy.

Military spending beyond what's necessary weakens a country just as much as any other form of wasteful consumption. Look at Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". Or the Soviet Union in period 1960-1989.

If the US doesn't gain control of IRaq's oil, Bush's little adventure --with its cost to our economy --will be judged an extremely poor investment. Some argue that Bush's response to 911 has hurt us just as much as the 911 attack itself.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 10:32 AM

I think Matt's statement, that Israel would not be endangered by a nuclear Iran, assumes that Iran's stance toward Israel is a means to an end. The existance of Israel is a boon to Iranian foreign policy. It creates common cause with Arabs and Sunnis for Shiite, Persian Iran. It would be nuts to do anything that destroys it. However, tomorrow's leaders may make today's propaganda their policy.

Believe it or not, nations sometimes do stupid things. A nuclear Iran has access to a much more destructive mistake.

Posted by Njorl | September 18, 2007 10:32 AM

"Government of Syria which, according to the Sunday Times of London, was prevented from attaining a nuclear capability 2 weeks ago by an IDF military operation"

According to a post at Andrew's, this is bs, basicly.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/what-the-hell-j.html

Syria had a primitve nuclear progam for decades. Even if it would seriously try, it would be decades away from a bomb.

Posted by Patrick | September 18, 2007 10:33 AM

Another factor in the runup to a bombing campaign against Iran is the apparent 180 by the French
Government where Sarkosy and Co. are suddenly sounding more belligerent then the neocons.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,506396,00.html

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 10:48 AM

The most frustrating thing about foreign poilicy discussions is the vagueness of so many claims.

Petey & Brett,
Could you be a bit more specific about the dangers a nuclear armed Iran would pose to the U.S.?

What would a nuclear armed Iran do that Iran could not do today?
Brett you seem to be implying that Iran would use its nukes against the U.S. or Isreal. That assumption seems absurd to me but I'm no foreign policy expert.

Posted by WillieStyle | September 18, 2007 10:54 AM

RE Don Williams

Mr. Don Williams has a very short memory. The same Haaretz interview which he quote mined for quotes about Iran is the same article in which I quote mined for quotes about Syria and Hamas. Therefore, it is Mr. Williams who is prevaricating. At any time he wants to stop quote mining the Haaretz interview to support his contentions, I will do the same.

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 10:54 AM

You can't spend what you don't have. Especially if you are paying interest on $10 TRILLION of debt at the same time. Military spending has to be supported by an equally strong economy.

Don: the US was spending something like 40% of GDP on the military during WWII. I confidently predict that, in the event of a nuclear attack on American soil, we'll undergo a militarization of US society the likes of which we've never before seen.

Posted by Jasper | September 18, 2007 10:56 AM

Deterence is the name of the game with nukes. The US and Russia were at war with each other for 40 years but US and USSR troops never engaged. Iran is not going nuke Israel because Israel will nuke Iran back. Both would cease to exist. Iran isn't going to nuke us because we would annihlate them. The reason Iran or any other small country wants a nuke is that it a last resort protection from regime change. It doesn't give Iran carte blanch to invade other countries. Two countries with nuclear weapons can still fight conventional wars. Deterence still exisists. If Iran invaded Iraq we could resist them and if they started losing and decided to nuke US troops then they get nuked. THey gain nothing.

Nuclear proliferation amoungst states actually prevents wars. If Iraq had a nuke we would not be there now. THe only problem is if you break the deternece handcuffs. If stateless actors put a nuke in a container and it went off in boston harbor. Who then do we nuke? How would we nuke al q? And the more nukes out ther in the world the more likely terrorists will get one.

Posted by cw | September 18, 2007 11:09 AM

What would a nuclear armed Iran do that Iran could not do today?

I think the idea is that a nuclear-armed Iran worries less about invasion, and can therefore increase the intensity of its other military/foreign policy actions. That seems right, but it's hard to measure.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 11:14 AM

SLC: "Therefore, it is Mr. Williams who is prevaricating."
-------
I cited Haim Saban's words re Iran from an interview he gave to Haaretz. I gave a citation to the article. People can see for themselves that Haaretz printed what I reported.

Please explain exactly How that is "prevaricating"???

You seem to have constructed a rich inner life for yourself, SLC. The way to see if it has any connection to reality is to look at the Haaretz article and see if it says that Haim Saban did NOT call for an attack on Iran.

maybe crossing your eyes without wearing your spectacles will help.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 11:17 AM

Clearly, a nuclear Iran isn't the latter, as our nation would continue to exist after absorbing even a half dozen nuclear attacks.

There's no reason to think that a nuclear Iran would lead to our nation absorbing any nuclear attacks. First, Iran has no incentive whatsoever to use nukes aggressively against the U.S. Second, nuclear Pakistan, North Korea, China, and Russia didn't lead to a nuke attack on the U.S., and Iran has a more moderate internal and foreign policy history than any of those states.

You can't spend what you don't have. Especially if you are paying interest on $10 TRILLION of debt at the same time. Military spending has to be supported by an equally strong economy.

The U.S. is not even close to its total military spending capacity, especially if we are really willing to make sacrifices in other areas. Check military spending or national debt as a % of GDP compared to WWII or Korea.

Posted by mq | September 18, 2007 11:22 AM

I think the idea is that a nuclear-armed Iran worries less about invasion, and can therefore increase the intensity of its other military/foreign policy actions. That seems right, but it's hard to measure.

Like what? Give an extra $10 million to Hamas?
What military/foreign policy actions will a nuclear armed Iran engage in that would be a threat to us?

I guess I just agree with Matt that everyone is dramaticaly overestimating the benefits of gaining nuclear weapons.

Posted by WillieStyle | September 18, 2007 11:29 AM

I'd say that Don Williams' analysis is right on the money...

Incidentally, here's a fascinating additional detail. A very well placed DC-area friend of my recently mentioned that Putin's American agents-of-influence have begun a (very quiet) behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign in SUPPORT of an American attack on Iran. Offhand, this sounds completely bizarre since Russia is nominally quite friendly with Iran right now and Putin was certainly a leading international opponent of our attack on Iraq.

But thinking a little more makes it rather logical. Putin opposed the Iraq War partly because he thought it might be successful and enhance America's international power. Instead it was a total disaster. Now anyone with half a brain knows that an attack on Iran would be an order-of-magnitude greater disaster for America, America's power, and also America's position in the world. It's hard to imagine anything which would so sharply damage America's interests and weaken America's military/political/economic threat to Russia. Plus, the likely resulting chaos in the Mid East would hugely increase oil/energy prices, thereby tremendously boosting Russia's primary source of international currency.

Putin really is a pretty shrewd and ruthless Russian leader, working very effectively for the interests of his own country and his own people. It's quite unfortunate that the policies of America's own political leaders are much, much closer to those of Boris Yeltsin, who spent most of his term in an alcoholic daze, while his entire government was being bribed or manipulated by "special interests".

Posted by RKU | September 18, 2007 11:29 AM

The reason the US gov't is concerned about Iran getting a nuclear bomb is not because anyone with half a brain thinks it will make Iran a threat to the US, Israel, or anyone else.

The real reason the US gov't is concerned about Iran getting a nuclear bomb is because it will prevent the US from invading and occupying Iran whenever the US decides doing so is more convenient than actually paying for the increasingly expensive oil we need.

We aren't trying to prevent a threat; we are trying to ensure our ability to threaten doesn't evaporate.

Posted by swellsman | September 18, 2007 11:35 AM

We aren't trying to prevent a threat; we are trying to ensure our ability to threaten doesn't evaporate.

Same thing.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 18, 2007 11:42 AM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams appears to have a reading comprehension problem. At no time have I ever claimed that Saban did not endorse military action against Iran. What I have claimed is that Mr. Williams has quote mined to Haaretz interview and neglected to include Mr. Sabans' comments on Hamas and Syria. It is my contention that these quotes relative to Hamas and Syria constitute appeasement of those entities. Period, end of story. I would agree with Mr. Williams that Mr. Saban does not, repeat, does not favor appeasement of Iran. I hope this makes him happy.

By the way, in an earlier thread, Mr. Richard Steven Hack stated, in response to a comment made by Mr. Williams, that the former need not have any loyalty towards the USA, even though he lives here in San Francisco. Since Mr. Williams is so concerned about alleged dual loyalty of Mr. Saban, I wonder how he feels about this comment from Mr. Hack?

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 11:49 AM

Re Patrick

One thing is very clear about the incident in Syria 2 weeks ago. Nobody outside of the Israeli and Syrian governments has the faintest idea what it was all about or what happened and those governments aren't talking. However, it is noteworthy that North Korea, for some reason, denounced the attack more stridently then even Iran did. This certainly suggests that it was more then an overflight and that some sort of installation in which North Korean personnel were involved was attacked.

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 11:57 AM

If Iran invaded Iraq we could resist them and if they started losing and decided to nuke US troops then they get nuked. THey gain nothing.

Sure, but that only holds if the leaders of Iran are rational actors and not Insaney-Bo-Baney Hitlerpants, which I'm told they are.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 18, 2007 12:01 PM

I believe that a hostile nuclear Iran likely would be a significant threat to Israel, at least eventually, though not to the US. That is because Israel is such a tiny country, and is located so near Iran, thus limiting the deterrent effect of Israel's arsenal. A devastating Iranian first strike could be launched with great suddenness, possibly through unconventional means, leaving Israel little time to respond and destroying most of the country in one blow.

However, the US can take care of this problem whenever it wants, by responding to past Iranian overtures, and trading various long-sought economic and diplomatic goodies in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable nuclear agreement and inspection regime that would guarantee the peaceful use of Iranian nuclear technology.

The problem is that taking this step would involve a broad opening to Iran, beginning a new era in US Iranian relations, and ushering in a significant change in Middle East power relations and US alliances and friendships. And it is this that the US's current best friends in the region - Israel and Saudi Arabia - most fear. These countries do not oppose a US deal with Iran because they think it won't work, or because they think it will only delay the date of reckoning. What they fear is that such a deal will work, and herald the beginning of the end of their "special relationships" with the US.

When one considers practical US and Iranian interests in the Middle East and Asia, and the evolving conditions in the region, geostrategic logic points to the two countries drawing closer. But every epochal shift to a new order is resisted by those who benefit from the old order and stand to lose something in the new. That is what is happening now.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 18, 2007 12:10 PM

"A devastating Iranian first strike could be launched with great suddenness, possibly through unconventional means, leaving Israel little time to respond"

You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of submarine launched ballistic missiles.

Posted by Petey | September 18, 2007 12:14 PM

That's a good point Petey, but if most of the Israeli nation and its national command and control could all be taken out suddenly, the credibility of the submarine deterrent depends on speculation about how the despairing survivors floating around under the ocean would respond on the basis of standing orders. I suspect most of them would launch. So I'm not saying this deterrent isn't credible at all, but it is chancy enough to make Israeli worries about an nuclear-armed Iran more than just idle paranoia. And of course Iranian perceptions are themselves based on how much of a first strike threat they perceive from the Israeli arsenal. The conditions under which they would be willing to accept a limited counterstrike depend on how vital they would think it is to take out the Israeli threat when they get a chance.

So I don't think a nuclear Iran - or a nuclear any other country for that matter - is something we should complacently accept as something we can all live with. We need to get serious about non-proliferation again. Right now we are not serious. Rather, hype about Iran's nuclear program is being exploited as a pretext for independent US military and political goals.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 18, 2007 12:30 PM

Re: The USA is the global hegemon who is slowing establishing a global government which will inevitably become a global dictatorship.

While I agree with the initial clause above, the rest of it is absurd. We are now farther from any sort global government than we have been since the end of WWII. Of course if you are imputing these views to the leaders of Russia and China now stating them as objective fact, then maybe your statement can fly, if we assume those leaders are paranoid in a "black helicopter" sort of way.

Re: But Bush and the Neocons have convinced the other world leaders that the US is ,in reality, a deceptive ,murderous psychopath similar to Hitler circa 1934.

This too is absurd. If we're going to drag Germans into this, let's stay on the safe side of Godwin's law and compare the Bush administration to Kaiser Wilhelm, and replace "murderous and psychotic" with "arrogant and reckless".

By the way, it may well be true that Russia and China are tolerating Iran's ambitions in order to serve their own short-term interests, but the road to hell is paved with such myopic foolishness. Russia at least has at least as much to lose as Israel, India or the US if Middle Eastern terrorists get hold of a nuke (remember the Chechens?) and history is full of examples of nations that came to grief when they mis-played the "enemy of my enemy is a friend" game. The Ottoman Turks, for example, were welcomed into Europe by the Byzantines who hoped to use them to defeat the Bulgarians. Well, they did, and then went on to conquer Byzantium as well.

Re: You can't spend what you don't have.

Since the US is already well-armed with nukes there would be no need for any more spending. Frankly, if anyone is thinking that allowing terrorists to hit the US with a nuke or two would end American hegeoony over teh world they need to be confined to a mental institution. This kind of "cut them down to size" bravura is exactly the idiocy that has started some of the world's worst wars, whether it was thowing the emissaries of an emperor out a window or assassinating an archduke. And next time the guns of August could be shooting with thermonuclear warheads. Neither Mao nor Stalin was that stupid. I can't believe that their successors would be.

Posted by JonF | September 18, 2007 12:30 PM

Re JonF's comment "While I agree with the initial clause above, the rest of it is absurd. We are now farther from any sort global government than we have been since the end of WWII."
-----------
National leaders judge threats in terms of capabilities, not just intentions. The US's lead in military capabilities AND force projection now far exceeds that of other powers and is increasing.

There is NO explanation for why the US would be outspending the rest of the world COMBINED on military development other than that its elites are planning to conquer the world.

Why would it seize the major oil deposits of the world -- in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the Caspian Sea -- if not to control the other major powers?

Why would it spend billions on systems in space?? -- FIA and TSAT -- that will not only allow it to perform overhead reconnaissance -- but will allegedly allow it to track foreign military units in real time in order to target and destroy them from afar. Systems that no longer perform reconnaissance -- but continual surveillance of almost every part of the world.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_military_affairs , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_Satellite_Communications_System

Why are the great mass of US citizens kept in a state of mindless ignorance and fear -- their every political opinion injected unconsciously into their minds by a massive propaganda machine -- if not to extract their taxes and sons for endless wars to pursue a mythical peace.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 1:34 PM

Look at this and tell me if it is the mark of a peace-loving nation protected by two large oceans:
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

LOOK at REALITY -- and if it doesn't match what's been instilled in your head by the NY Times and the televison, then ask WHY.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 1:42 PM

Another opinion on the recent Syrian exercise by the IDF. His factless opinion is as good as anybody elses' factless opinion.

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/12069.htm

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 3:19 PM

Re Don Williams

Given the pathetic performance of Mr. Williams' Eagles last night, perhaps we should cut him some slack. I must say though that his last two posts seem to indicate that he is off his meds today. I am surprised that he hasn't commented on the sudden belligerence out of Paris and its possible relationship to the ethnic background of President Sarkozys' mother.

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 3:28 PM

SLC "Given the pathetic performance of Mr. Williams' Eagles last night"
-----------
Ohhhh. That's it --kick a man while he's down.
But just like Hamas, we'll be back.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 3:34 PM

SLC: "I am surprised that he hasn't commented on the sudden belligerence out of Paris and its possible relationship to the ethnic background of President Sarkozys' mother. "
-------------
Not at all. I figured Sarkozy's comments merely reflect WHY the US government favors the establishment of democracy everywhere but in Florida: The CIA can't rig an election if no one bothers to have one. Chirac was forgetting his place.

Same in Germany -- the previous leader was getting tedious but Haim Saban said in Haaretz that Angela sucks up to him in the same satisfactory manner that Bill Clinton did.

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 3:39 PM

Nuclear proliferation amoungst states actually prevents wars. If Iraq had a nuke we would not be there now. THe only problem is if you break the deternece handcuffs. If stateless actors put a nuke in a container and it went off in boston harbor. Who then do we nuke? How would we nuke al q? And the more nukes out ther in the world the more likely terrorists will get one.
Posted by cw

No, that's loopy.
If Iran gets nuke weapons, that inaugurates the Saudi, Turkish, Iraqi, and Syrian crash program to get nukes, too.
Does Iran give a few to Hezbollah?

Saudis with the bomb is bad enough, but Egypt would then feel compelled to have them to prevent Wahabbist spread. Turks with Nukes would start Greece and Italy thinking.
Then with Europe in missile range of people screaming Death to America, Death to the Jews, Death to all Infidels that oppose the 12th Imam, why should Germany not create it's own deterrent? The Swiss, who like the Japanese could create a nuke arsenal in record time, might wish their own counterforce.

Nuclear proliferation means a more dangerous world even without terrorists. Unlike with the US-USSR conflict or US-China, there would be literally no launch warning time in the Gulf. And if most nations in the Gulf have them and the 1st one goes off and it's EMP blinds radars for 500 miles around, do nations like KSA and Saudi and Israel launch or wait blinded?

Or if Cuba or Venezuela went forward with their half-hearted desire to "purchase a few". Remember Cuba? Even a Democrat said nuke missiles stationed 90 miles away from CONUS was unacceptable, and the world almost had a global thermonuclear conflict over that.
**************
Part of the problem now is Lefties that hate Bush so much that that they think a nation heavily involved in terror and which makes a ritual of calling for other nation's extermination should get nukes because....well...that would sure show Bush!!

The other is that they think that having nukes guarantees no attack. No, it just guarantees that the attacker must be prepared to use Nukes if necessary. The reason the NORKs were not "attacked by the evil Bush-Hitler" is (1)Adding N Korea was a stupid David Frum add-in so all the Muslim enemies didn't see a Muslim-only list, and politics prevented adding KSA. (2)We would not attack if China or Russia - especially China got dragged in - and China definitely said No Attack...(3)The NORKs great deterrant is not Nukes, but the 6,000 heavy artillery tubes that cover 1/4th of South Korea's population.

*****************
Don confuses spending on the military with capibility. Most of our spending goes to the hefty salaries the volunteer military must get. Much of the rest is spent on global "stability" ops and the huge chunk Iraq gobbles.
China, with 200 a month draftees, and spy networks bypassing R&D expenses, and buying whole Russian missile and aircraft production factories dirt cheap, gets far more bang for the buck.
Just like in civilian economic competition. Goods and services it takes the US 6 bucks to produce can be done in China for 1 buck works in the military arena as well.
Currently, China is making more high quality tanks, subs, ships, warplanes, and missiles than the US is.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 18, 2007 4:10 PM

And so Ron Paul's arguments are once again validated. He has been stressing the absurdity of us fretting over a 3rd world country getting a nuke. Yeah, they can get one, but are the so stupid to use it or to give it to someone else to use? Nice to see some people finally joining Paul on this one, and I hope people realize that once again, he was right before being right was popular.

Posted by Mike | September 18, 2007 4:20 PM

Re: National leaders judge threats in terms of capabilities, not just intentions. The US's lead in military capabilities AND force projection now far exceeds that of other powers and is increasing.

I never disagreed about the United States' power and position. What I disagreed over is that the suggestion that there is any sort of global govermment either in existence or in the works. The world is more fractured than it has been any time since before the European expansion. And if anything the recent binge of reckless American adventurism has badly damaged such global government institutions (like the UN) that did exist.

Posted by Jonf | September 18, 2007 5:03 PM

Re Don Williams

I want to see if I have this straight. According to Mr. Williams, the CIA engineered the victories of Angela Merkel in Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy in France. Mr. Williams is truly been discombobulated by the Eagles loss last night. By the way, if Mr. Williams accuses me of being a Deadskins fan, I will come after him with a pack of dogs.

Posted by SLC | September 18, 2007 5:41 PM

Let's be honest here: paranoia about Iran being undeterrable, or about being in any way likely to give nukes to its "terrorist" allies, is racist hoo-hah.

Deterrence: If Ahmadinejad wants to commit national suicide to bring back the Mahdi, he doesn't have to wait for nuclear weapons -- he could order a million Iranians to swarm across the boarder and invade Iraq. Why hasn't that happened? Two reasons: Mainly, because Ahmedinejad doesn't command the army or make foreign policy. Iran, unlike George Bush's Amerika, still has separation of powers. Secondly: the notion that Ahmadinejad or others want to bring back the Mahdi in an apocalyptic war is pure projection. This is just Hal Lindsey, "Late, Great, Planet Earth" drivel projected onto the Muslims.

Terrorist allies: The Russians had terrorist allies: the PLO, IRA, the Vietcong, etc. They never gave them nukes. We had terrorist allies: the Contras, UNITA, the Afghan mujahideen. We never gave them nukes. Why do we believe the Iranians are different? Because they are brown-skinned Muslims. That is it. End of story.

Posted by Egypt Steve | September 18, 2007 5:43 PM

Petey: "the US military can handily defeat the military of any other country, anywhere in the world."
China? India? Pakistan? Russia? Turkey? North Korea? Israel? Look: a war with Iran, a populous, politically unified, nationalist country, in no sense a failed or failing state, would be horrendously costly and even victory in military terms would not be assured. Please repeat after me: the USA lost the Vietnam war, and France lost the Algerian war, in spite of a similar superiority to their adversaries. If you mean the USAF and the US Navy could quickly destroy the air force or navy of any other state, that's plainly true. But durable political victories require army boots on the ground. The current US volunteer army is simply not big enough, and can't be expanded enough without the draft, to support the wet dream of imperial hegemony.

Posted by James Wimberley | September 18, 2007 5:43 PM

SLC is a nitwit. Having no loyalty to the US doesn't mean I have loyalty to any other country.

No loyalty is not dual - or even traitorous - loyalty. The latter is SLC - a traitor to the US whose only loyalty is to Israel.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 5:55 PM

Now let's deal with reality, since SLC is knocked out of the picture.

First of all, it's important to repeat that ANY discussion of a "nuclear-armed Iran" is purely hypothetical, since there is ZERO evidence that Iran either has or even WANTS a nuclear weapons. This is especially indicated since its leader has specifically issued a fatwa against ever possessing nuclear weapons.

Second, speaking purely hypothetically now, the issue of a "nuclear-armed Iran" depends entirely on how many nukes, of what technical sophistication, and what are the available delivery systems.

The answer to all that is decades away. Iran has no nukes, no known technology to develop anything other than a mostly non-deliverable gun design, and no weapons systems capable of delivering nukes outside its borders with the possible exception of its submarines.

Beyond that, there is the difference between first-strike and second-strike capability. Iran has no second-strike capability. Israel does. Israel could destroy Iran via its submarine launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads even if Israel were somehow totally destroyed by a first-strike.

All the "mad mullah" stuff is crap. There are no leaders of countries who are so self-destructive that they will launch an attack UNLESS they are convinced they are going to be overthrown anyway.

The ONLY threat a nuclear-armed Iran would be is to the US and Israeli policy of "regime change: - which is more precisely called the "destabilization and chaos" policy - in the Middle East.

If Iran has a nuclear weapon AND the ability to deliver it (which again doesn't exist and won't for the foreseeable future) somehow, Iran's regime could not be conventionally attacked.

This is the ONLY reason that the neocons and Israel consider Iran to be a threat. The rest of the reasons for attacking Iran have to do with oil and the destabilization policy I mentioned above - the latter having to do with allowing the US and Israel a more free hand in dominating the Middle East (for the oil in the US's case, and for oil and Israel's security in Israel's case.)

No where in this list do you find any legitimate reason for attacking Iran or considering Iran a threat.

Iran's alleged support for "terrorists" is pretty much strictly its support for Hizballah - which wouldn't exist except for Israel. Iran has no ties with Al Qaeda or most other so-called "terrorist groups" - most of whom wouldn't exist either except for the actions of Israel and the US (the latter for supporting the Arab governments.)

So Iran - despite being an oppressive theocracy - basically comes off as entirely innocent, amazingly enough, in this whole affair. The whole thing is a pure aggressive policy of the US and Israel for their own interests rather than any "threat" than Iran might pose to anyone else in the world.

Therefore, discussing whether Iran needs to be "contained", or "isolated", or "attacked" - or even "worried about" - is simply surreal.

The ONLY villains in this piece are the US and Israel (and to a lesser degree the EU, where it supports the US.)

Again, do note that I do not support the Iranian government in any fashion. That isn't the point. The point is that in this situation Iran is not the government at fault.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 6:08 PM

Egypt Steve hits it on the head - all the crap about Iran being a "threat" is nonsense. Iran is a threat to nobody on any national scale. They have invaded no one, they can't invade anyone (other than possibly pre-US-occupied Iraq) without getting creamed, and they've shown no desire to invade anyone.

They've never even threatened anyone other than the US interests in the US recently. They've never threatened an attack on Israel, even.

So where is the threat even if they DID have nukes.

Speaking generally, nukes are obviously a bad idea. So Iran having ONE is not good. Israel having 100-400 is a hell of a lot worse. The US, Russia and China having thousands is an order of magnitude worse.

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. You want to stop proliferation? Get rid of the nukes in the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, etc. - AND ISRAEL. Then worry about Pakistan and Iran.

Start with Israel. Because if Israel didn't have nukes, Iran wouldn't need them.

Add in India. If India didn't have nukes (because of Pakistan and China), Pakistan wouldn't have them.

So start with India and China and Israel - AFTER you've got agreements with the US and Russia to reduce their arsenals to zero.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 6:16 PM

Ugh - that should have read "US interests in the ME recently".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 6:18 PM