What To Do About Iran

Unfortunately, while it's very easy to describe incredibly wrongheaded approaches to non-proliferation policy ("bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran," for example, or "faster, please"), outlining a sounder course tends to be a more complicated undertaking. To get a flavor for what a serious (as opposed to "serious") might look like, though, take a gander at Jessica Matthews:

As she says near the beginning, this really needs to be put into a broader context. If we really want the international community to hold Iran to its NPT commitments, we need to demonstrate some real commitment to the arms control process. That means ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and starting to work in a cooperative way with Russia. In principle, all of the existing nuclear powers have a pretty clear interest in there not being any more nuclear powers, so it should be possible to work with Moscow on the Iran front. But that would mean not picking fights with Russia on other strategic issues.

Comments

Is that you asking the question?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 17, 2007 7:14 PM

Looks like it's a rare disagree with MY for me. Countries can disagree with each on other on one front, such as the Orange Revolution, and still cooperate on others. China, for instance, would likely be willing to work with us on Iran and a strengthened non-proliferation regime in general without requiring that we abandon Taiwan because this change in policy would serve their self-interest as well. If nations in Russia sphere of influence want to drift towards DC and Brussels, that's more Moscow's failure and we can still be close to those nations in a way that allows them to maintain cordial relations with Russia.

Posted by Reality Man | September 17, 2007 7:22 PM

Duh ... should watch the whole thing ... not MY asking the questions.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 17, 2007 7:24 PM

The longstanding conservative foriegn policy is one of irrational beligerance, so naturally, she doesn't understand it. Her premise is wrong. She is assuming that conservatives act in a rational manner. That is just not true and hasn't been true since the Eisenhower era.

Posted by ken | September 17, 2007 8:00 PM

With due respect to these very serious experts, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the US needs to rehabilitate its image around the world, and that might be accomplished by ratifying some non-proliferation treaties. But is the world so mad that it won't take seriously a "hair-raising" security threat until the United States decides to clean up its room?

An Iranian nuclear weapon--according to American opinion--would present a potentially non-deterrable threat to the better part of Eurasia. Is it plausible that the rest of the world is tolerating that threat simply as a means of disciplining the United States?

Again, I'm highly sympathetic to critiques of American foreign policy. The experts seem to promote the idea that simply embracing every element of Democratic foreign policy reform will end the Iranian nuclear weapons program. That strikes me as deeply unlikely and more than a little monomaniacal.

It seems more likely that much of the rest of the world simply does not share our assessment of the menace an Iranian bomb would present. I imagine that an effective policy would begin by ironing out those differences between nations, not by pursuing a cornucopia of partisan goals within our own system.

Posted by southpaw | September 17, 2007 8:05 PM

Isn't it pretty clear that an Iranian atomic bomb will be directed primarily against Israel? I mean, surely they wouldn't use it against someone else first. Even in the extreme instance of a war with, say, Syria, they would presumably act like Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War and bomb Israel too in order to bolster their position in the Aram world.

That being so, it's not exactly surprising that the rest of the world doesn't take the Iranian nuclear threat seriously. Nor does it seem likely that some U.S. policy would change the foregoing calculus.

Posted by y81 | September 17, 2007 8:10 PM

In 04 or whenever it was when Bush said he would not rule out a nuke strike against Iran non proliferation died. It's always been in the sick ward but now it's dead.

On the bright side Iran is about the last state who might ever attempt to design and build a nuke weapon. States in general are failing. The weak are getting weaker, and poorer. No other state is likely to consider it in the future.

If Iran is stupid enough to waste the resources to build a bomb which might not work and they can't deliver, well, they are stupid. So stupid that they invite their quick decent into a backwater place, again.

Our conventional bombing plan will destroy enough of their infrastructure to put the dream of Persian ascendancy back for another 3000 years. They are on very thin ice in any case with a large demographic problem and an oil depletion nightmare just around the corner.

It's so very sad that Bush's offhand belligerency on Iran insured the election of the Iranian Bush. I'm sure that was someones plan, just not Bush's.

Posted by rapier | September 17, 2007 8:10 PM

As the attached link indicates, this is all so much conversation. Iran is going to be attacked and its nuclear capability eliminated. Period, end of story.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1189411396419&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Posted by SLC | September 17, 2007 8:17 PM

Hmmm. Saddam Hussein went along with the US demands re nonproliferation. Maybe we could ask him to persuade Iran to do the same.

No, wait...

Posted by Don Williams | September 17, 2007 8:20 PM

Re SLC's comment "Period, end of story"
---------
I got to the part in the Jerusalem Post article where it said "Fox News reported" and collapsed into helpless giggles.

Posted by Don Williams | September 17, 2007 8:23 PM

y81: Your theory about the presumptive purpose of the iranian bomb and the world's reaction to it is compelling. But even if Israel is the only plausible target, we're still positing a situation where the rest of the world is more or less (depending on the sanity of iranian leadership) inviting persian hegemony in the middle east or a regional nuclear war. Do you really think there's no hope of moving a substantial number of nations off that position?

Posted by southpaw | September 17, 2007 8:35 PM

The American death wish in the Mideast is so strong that discussion of Iranian threats is ridiculous. We are pretty far from OK now. The NeoCons have nothing left to lose, and they dream of winning everything back is one more exciting gamble; the military chain of command has been packed with Christian jihadis and careerists; the Democratic Congress is struggling to find a slimy rock big enough to hide under; and the media has descended to depths of dishonesty that give whoring a bad name. This crowning folly is coming to the last decadent superpower on the eve of global resource depletion, climate disaster, and economic meltdown.

All that remains is the final blunders. We have sown the wind in the Mideast, and we will reap the whirlwind.

Posted by HH | September 17, 2007 8:42 PM

As far as I'm aware the US has harassed Iran since 1979. It was never reasonable that Iran would promise to have no defenses. If the US wanted to attack and invade Iran neither they or anyone else could do anything about it.

What would you do if you were Iranian, and you had signed the NPT? I know what I would do, I would try to get nuclear weapons, and I would lie about it. It's bad to lie, but it's worse to be invaded.

This was never about the NPT to begin with. It wasn't even about nuclear weapons. It was about US-foreign policy irrational hate for Iran for 28 years.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 17, 2007 10:02 PM

I've never understood the notion that there are no easy solutions for dealing with Iran. It seems pretty easy to me at least, engage in some actual high level diplomacy rather than the half-assed undermined efforts we've done so far. Iranians are really arrogant and sensitive to being talked down to, so all you have to do to get results is treat them with respect. Haleh Esfandiari was just released because Lee Hamilton wrote a very respectful letter directly to Khamenei outlining the Wilson Center's role and asking the Supreme Leader to intercede on her behalf. And he did!

The lesson is, if we stop acting belligerent and constantly lecturing or hectoring, it could result in concessions, ESPECIALLY for Iranians, who are so ridiculously sensitive to concerns of national pride. It seriously suffuses so much of the Persian mentality, I wish someone at the State Department realized this. A series of respectful meetings between Condoleeza Rice and Iran's foreign minister would seriously do so much to help the problem. It really is the best solution for anyone seeking to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Posted by randomkid | September 17, 2007 10:24 PM

Iran has had a front row seat watching it's neighbor, Iraq, physically destroyed by US invaders. They will bitterly resist any US attack, and they will resist with significantly better manpower, weaponry, and leadership. Iran's rugged terrain is well-suited to guerrilla warfare, and Iran has had five years to study how to fight US occupation forces. Iran has large quantities of light guided antitank weapons that can destroy any vehicle in the US inventory and huge stocks of EFPs. Weapons caches sufficient to equip a huge army of resistance fighters have certainly been dispersed all over the country.

This is the country that the NeoCons want to invade to "protect" America. The only thing crazier than their plans is our establishment media's surreal "discussion" of the issue.

Posted by HH | September 17, 2007 10:29 PM

Actually I don't think Iran would do much if attacked. America's military destructive capability (like the bomber force) is such that Iran would necessarily lose a widened war. If what you want is destruction.

The best pragmatic reason against bombing Iran is, I think, very simple:

Let's say you bomb Iran. What do you do afterwards?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 17, 2007 10:42 PM

Re Don Williams

Doesn't matter whether it's the fascist news channel or CNN, or MSNBC. Iran is going to get it and there is nothing that Mr. Williams or anybody else can do about it. The attack on Syria the week before last was the opening shot. That will look like a pinprick when the USAF swings into action. Tough noogies Mr. Williams.

Posted by SLC | September 17, 2007 10:44 PM

Countries with Nuclear Weapons who refuse to sign the NPT are a clear and present danger to global peace. The international community has a moral obligation to insure that rogue states with nukes adhere to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Non-proliferation is all well and good, but nukes in the hands of non-signatorogue nations such as North Korea and Israel pose an existential threat to the whole world. We have to act, for the safety of all the globe's children.

The sooner this threat is dealt with, the better. America's banker understands this, and hence all the Chinese Communist Party support for adherence to NPT as a first step in the Middle East.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | September 17, 2007 10:55 PM

During Desert storm, a huge amount of US aviation resources was diverted to the task of destroying Saddam's hidden SCUD missiles. This effort was almost completely unsuccessful. There is no reason to believe that American airpower will be able to neutralize Iran's more numerous, accurate, and lethal missiles.

NeoCon military "experts" are about to display the same mastery of modern warfare that brought us the Iraq fiasco. Remember how "Shock and Awe" would frighten the Iraqis into total surrender? Look at where we are now.

Since we have learned nothing from Iraq, we are now proposing "Shock and Awe II" for Iran. Iran's military assets are dispersed and hardened, and most of them will survive the biggest attack the US can mount. They will then strike back, and when their big munitions are expended, they will settle into an endless guerrilla war that will inflict much heavier casualties on the US than the Iraq conflict.

All this is obvious to even a casual observer of recent military history in the Gulf. But our government is in the hands of delusional madmen, and we are condemned to suffer the folly they are about to unleash.

Posted by HH | September 17, 2007 11:09 PM

randomkid: Iranians are not overly rational, and appealing to their vanity can accomplish much more than any threat, strategic or otherwise.

Ha! If you want to find an irrational government, with unbounded vanity and bent on picking fights, mostly verbal, but not always, to show its superiority, go to DC.

Now, if we consider stop lying, breaking treaties and commitments etc., we could perhaps have effective diplomacy. But such self-restrain is just not fun, and the threats that the effective diplomacy would avert are too puny to bother.

Start with putative Iranian nukes. It would take them years, and the results will probaly be quite underwhelming. Pakistan and India have enough nukes to bolster their national pride, but otherwise their stuff seems to be junk. Threat to Israel? Conventional missiles could possible create it, but unreliable, overweight and underpowered nukes? In turn, the years that Iran would spend on nuclear program will allow us to engage in endless sabre rattling, conferences, summits, naval exercises, in other words, an employment program for Very Serious People. Why should we spoil such opportunities? Corollary: if you are a Very Serious Person, you will ponder loudly the seriousness of the situation and steer away from any obvious solutions.

This is the way the situation was unfolding in respect to North Korea, but for reasons I do not quite follow, the Administration de-Boltonized the Korean policy and went for some sensible compromize. I guess, the assesment was that even without North Korea we have enough of Very Serious Threats.

Larsson: let's say you bomb Iran, what next?

Perhaps, Iran strifing the traffic in Strait of Hormuz with missiles. The prelude to this scenatio was war between Israel and Hezbollah. The problem is that Israel could shut down Galilee without terrible consequences, but shutting down the Strait of Hormuz can have somewhat unpopular consequences in USA.

Perhaps, Iran will cut some deals and Shia and Sunni militias will attack our forces in concert in Iraq, with some dollop of "real weapons". That can be nasty.

I think that the situation in Afghanistan has potential of turning worse, and Iran can do something toward that end.

But back to Hormuz: it is like economic MAD. As long as we are not destroying them, it would be mad for them to destroy us, but only as long.

Posted by piotr | September 17, 2007 11:24 PM

HH: I am cautiously optimistic. We basically lost a proxy war with Iran (out team: Israel, their team: Hezbollah), and our leaders are acutely aware about the implications of shutting down export of the entire Gulf oil, and of deep unpopularity of gasoline prices that can result from it.

Verbally assailing Iran is quite rational if we want their aid to Iraqi fighters to stay within small-scale deniable level. Plus it is fun, allowing Very Serious People to revel in their Seriousness. But action is only trouble.

Posted by piotr | September 17, 2007 11:31 PM

piotr: The NeoCons are masters of irremediable harm. They created an atrocity in Iraq that cannot be undone, and they intend to create a war against Iran that will bring nuclear weapons into play. The madness of these people is beyond comprehension.

The Iran war is being set up with the same series of small steps that Bush used to launch the Iraq fiasco. Petraeus was cued to implicate Iran as a threat to us, and he is now building bases right on the border. The next step will be hot-pursuit of Iranian "infiltrators" and cross-border raids, then perhaps a naval blockade of Iranian ports or the destruction of Iran's oil refineries. Sooner or later, Iran will strike back, and then America will "defend" itself by massive bombing and an invasion.

Sit back and watch the madness unfold. We have seen it all before.

Posted by HH | September 17, 2007 11:44 PM

HH, perhaps one can assert that if any Americans do cross-border raids and are killed on Iranian territory then the Iranians would be right in doing so. It would be a nice idea to spread in media.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 17, 2007 11:52 PM

piotr, I think you're on to something with the Very Serious people employment program. I have shaken my head at (and argued against) a lot of Very Serious commentary on Venezuela in the Washington Post.

The serious (not-sarcasm) part is that the Bush administration actually endorsed a coup against Chavez. Not trivial, that. I think we need to really mock Serious People on the web.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 17, 2007 11:58 PM

Haleh Esfandiari was just released because Lee Hamilton wrote a very respectful letter directly to Khamenei outlining the Wilson Center's role and asking the Supreme Leader to intercede on her behalf. And he did!

Well, this is precisely the sort of thing you will never find the Bush administration doing. In the Bush/Cheney view of the natural order of things, the US commands and others obey - at least in regions like Latin America and the Middle East. If disagreeable subordinate countries start getting uppity, issuing defiant challenges and manifestos on the world stage, making modest upstart military noises, and demanding audiences and negotiations and whatnot with the emperor, an example needs to be made of them.

I'm sure Cheney regards letters of supplication to rebellious Persian mullahs - letters like the Hamilton letter - as absolutely disgraceful and undignified, and will have no part in them, or in direct talks of any kind. The current US imperial government is only willing to sanction talks conducted by the lesser European nobles and proxies, while their monarch maintains an aloof and disdainful distance. If Iran were allowed to sit down across a negotiating table with the US, as though it were a member in equal standing in a community of nations, then in the White House view the Iranians would have already won, and every other two-bit country in the world will get the same idea. That is why Washington is determined not to respond to any Iranian posture short of supine, abject groveling.

This really isn't about Iran's ballyhooed nuclear program. We could probably resolve the nuclear issues whenever we want, along with a range of other outstanding issues, in a weekend of direct talks with the Iranian government. But that would require acceding to the forms and protocols of diplomacy, and granting a form of diplomatic recognition of the legitimacy and dignity of the Iranian government. And that is something this administration will never do.

This standoff is really about regime change. The US government and military believes there is still a blood debt to be paid because of the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. And the bitterness from the embassy hostage episode still lingers among all those old hands, accustomed as they were to the lordly status of "leader of the free world", and who remember and still feel the sting of humiliation they experienced as the US government was held hostage by a rinky dink third rate revolutionary mullahcracy. Bush and Cheney mean to vindicate the national manhood, and tell the world that if you assault us and dishonor us, we may wait and bide our time, but we will never forget - and your punishment will come some day, in some form, in the fullness of time.

Let's say you bomb Iran. What do you do afterwards?

Personally, I wouldn't venture to guess. But the neoconservative view is that Iran is a country on the verge of a revolution. The US has been working for some time with a variety of exile and dissident groups which the White House no doubt imagines have the capacity to seize control in the crisis following a massive assault. A bombing campaign will likely be an all out effort at regime change, striking not just nuclear installations, but government command and control facilities across the country, and will be coordinated with friendlies on the ground in Iran to engineer a revolution, the tactical plans for which have surely been developed by now in conjunction with US and allied intelligence. Whether this will successfully plunge Iran into chaos, or rather end up as another Bay of Pigs, I couldn't say.

Once again, just as in 2002, we see an army of Democratic patsies who seemingly swallow 100% of the official story about the nature of the problems, but prefer to advocate more "reasonable" and cautious steps in dealing with these congeries, along with some bland and ineffectual caveats. While the administration carries out a multifaceted propaganda campaign to grease the slippery slope to war, Democrats help apply the grease themselves, and take more and more steps out onto the slope, maintaining all along that they are strongly opposed to sliding down.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 18, 2007 12:12 AM

Well, I certainly think a bombing, which would kill at least thousands of civilians, would come as a shock to ordinary Iranians, and that they would react pretty much like American people did on 9/11. It's one thing to not like your government, another to be unpatriotic.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 18, 2007 12:21 AM

rapier - On the bright side Iran is about the last state who might ever attempt to design and build a nuke weapon.

What kind of insipid moron makes a statement like that?

This was never about the NPT to begin with. It wasn't even about nuclear weapons. It was about US-foreign policy irrational hate for Iran for 28 years. Posted by Bengt Larsson

Yeah, American hatred explains all noble, peaceful Iran's actions since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Yeah, right....it's all evil America's fault to the Euroweenier...

HH - Iran's rugged terrain is well-suited to guerrilla warfare, and Iran has had five years to study how to fight US occupation forces. Iran has large quantities of light guided antitank weapons that can destroy any vehicle in the US inventory and huge stocks of EFPs. Weapons caches sufficient to equip a huge army of resistance fighters have certainly been dispersed all over the country.

None of that does them any good if America is just going to destroy the Iranian Navy, AF, missile stockpiles, critical infrastructure, and the nuclear program. Followed by cluster-bombing the Revolutionary Guard and EFP plants for the hundreds of American soldiers they helped kill.

All your beloved invincible guerilla fighting Holy Mujahadeen will have nothing to do but scream at no one - "Death to America!" Because we won't invade. No ground invasion.

If Iran tries to expand out on the ground, we simply smoke anything Iranian that gets within 10 miles of the Iraq border and start knocking out their waterworks and power plants.

The only thing we need is Russia and Turkey's acceptance, and acknowledgement by the EU that their NPT nuclear diplomacy has failed.
No one wants the Zionists chucking nukes.

******************
HH- a huge amount of US aviation resources was diverted to the task of destroying Saddam's hidden SCUD missiles. This effort was almost completely unsuccessful. There is no reason to believe that American airpower will be able to neutralize Iran's more numerous, accurate, and lethal missiles.

Militaries rarely stand still. Failure to get Scuds was a strategic US weakness that has been worked on the last 15 years, as our capabilities (us evil Americans, to you) advanced in huge steps.

HH - Iran's military assets are dispersed and hardened, and most of them will survive the biggest attack the US can mount. They will then strike back, and when their big munitions are expended, they will settle into an endless guerrilla war

Nice try at being the propagandist who thinks he knows all about the survivability of Iran's "tough as nails" military-industrial infrastructure.
We pulled our punches on Iraq in 2003. Less so in 1991. If we go in full-bore with Navy and AF, I would not want to be anywhere near an Iranian military asset, if I was an Iranian.
Nor would there be an "endless guerilla war". Iran tries attacking assets with terror, they just lose more of Iran. No guerilla war because no US invasion force is going in.

Iran uses special weapons like anthrax and nerve gas on US forces or bases in the region? Something we have talked to the other nuclear powers about....We all gave up that stuff because we didn't want a bio arms race and said biowar and some massive chem attack would be met with nukes.
Iran is shit out of luck if it tries...

piotr - but shutting down the Strait of Hormuz can have somewhat unpopular consequences in USA.
Shutting down the Straight would be a temporary thing - limited in lifespan to the lifespan of the last Iranians blocking it. Maybe 3 weeks to 1 1/2 months max. It would be unpopular in the US in the sense that some brief, but catastrophic oil shock that punishes the world with scarcities of goods, mass layoffs, rationing -will convince Lefties and environmentalists that Oil really does matter until they agree to nuclear power and other substitutes, that the free market in oil exists only because the US, Russia, and Saudis enable it to exist, and it is a real good idea to hang around and protect it from crazy radical Muslims rather than flee to Okinawa.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 18, 2007 12:48 AM

Kervick,

We could go back and forth for days about all the hypotheticals about how an American aggression against Iran would turn out, but the one part of your sick fantasy that is most ludicrous is the absurb notion that a bombing campaign would result in regime change. The chance of that happening is significantly less than the chance that the sands of the Gobi marching band.

I mean, come on, the notion is so absurd that even you can't make the argument without using the "some people believe" formulation. Now I don't want to help sick monsters like you make better arguments, so I should shut up now, but your other arguments in favor of the atrocity of an attack on Iran would have marginally more credibility (among the only possible audience, gullible people without a conscience) if you abandoned the silly regime change argument. Even the most of the rubes don't buy that one.

Chris Ford,

Aren't you dead yet?

Posted by LarryM | September 18, 2007 1:07 AM

"In principle, all of the existing nuclear powers have a pretty clear interest in there not being any more nuclear powers" -MY

Actually, Matt, this is common sense, and when it comes to understanding the Bush-Cheney Administration, it is less than relevant, and here the precise opposite actually applies. Those guys *need* the threat of a renegade nuclear power (be it Iran or Venezuela or hell, I don't know, Ecuador) to keep enough American voters reminded of two things: first, there are bad guys out there ("bad guys" = "other people with weapons like ours"), and second, we have to keep trusting Republicans to keep us "safe" from Teh Terra.

Hence, the indifference to diplomacy, the saber-rattling, the repetition of Iraq-war-enabling threats/propaganda/lies, and the repetitious reaction of the left, "Why are they screwing this up *too*?" -- when the Bush/Cheney Administration is *not* screwing up by *their* terms and goals; they're moving along towards achieving what they've *wanted* all along.

Posted by Chris | September 18, 2007 1:30 AM

Now I don't want to help sick monsters like you make better arguments, so I should shut up now, but your other arguments in favor of the atrocity of an attack on Iran would have marginally more credibility (among the only possible audience, gullible people without a conscience) if you abandoned the silly regime change argument. Even the most of the rubes don't buy that one.

I think you need to improve your reading comprehension Mr. Ford. My point was to describe (rather bitterly, and with heavy-handed irony I thought) what I took to be the outlook of the current US administration, which leans toward a blatantly imperialistic and authoritarian foreign policy. If you've read any of the things I have written here on Iran, I don't see how you could think I would advocate the barbarity that I fear the White House is planning.

My guess is that several important people in the administration, including those at the very top, do indeed believe that they can effect regime change through military action. Neoconservative figures like Michael Ledeen, for example, clearly believe Iran is at a revolutionary tipping point, and that military action will push them over and usher in a new era - after a period of murderous "creative destruction" no doubt.

What I fear the US might be planning is something morally akin to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, though likely to produce more civilian deaths. If it happens it will write a chapter of infamy in the annals of US history.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 18, 2007 2:00 AM

Excuse me, but I misread the "posted" line in the post I just responded to. It was intended for Larry M, not Chris Ford.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 18, 2007 2:02 AM

The woman is an idiot. So apparently is everybody else on the panel. I stopped watching when the moron on the end started in about how we want negotiations to stop enrichment and Iran wants negotiations to continue enrichment.

The woman is wrong. Iran has an utterly inalienable right under the IAEA to do enrichment. There is absolutely NO legal requirement for them to stop enrichment absent ANY evidence that there is a weaponization program (which El Baradei declared once again is a fact just yesterday.)

She is also wrong about the significance of the questions the IAEA has risen about Iran's past activities. They are insignificant. El Baradei made that point as well. He said that many states have had an interest in nuclear weapons in the past. What was important to him is that "Iran must come clean." Which his deal with Iran is intended to do over the next three months or so.

But it's STILL irrelevant. Even if Iran does NOT come clean about any previous military nuclear planning, it STILL does not mean anything. As El Baradei has pointed out, the IAEA is NOT in the business of judging "intentions". They are in the business of verifying that there is no weaponization of a nuclear program.

And so far, there is none.

And beyond that, even if there WERE, there would STILL be no reason to "isolate Iran" and all this other nonsense.

The nation that NEEDS to be "isolated" is ISRAEL. They have an unsupervised nuclear weapons program that has produced any number of weapons of varying size and capability from nuclear "mines" up to city busters - perhaps 100 to 400 weapons, making Israel one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals outside the major industrial superpowers.

And anybody who thinks those weapons are SAFE from being stolen by terrorists is clueless about the nature of "military security" - it's an oxymoron - believed only by morons.

The ONLY proper way to deal with Iran is as follows:

1) Disarm Israel of its nuclear arsenal. This alone will eliminate any need to develop a weapon once they are no longer threatened by Israel.

2) Give Iran security guarantees that there will be no attempts at "regime change" from either the US OR Israel. This is a necessary complement to point one - since the US can still use its military to attempt "regime change" even if Israel is disarmed of its nuclear capability. Israel itself cannot threaten Iran without its nukes - it simply does not have the military capability to do anything significant to Iran without nukes. But the US does.

3) Promise Iran assistance in developing its nuclear energy program in exchange for the willingness to permit the massively intrusive inspections and monitoring to insure that there is diversion of resources. Iran would accept this in a heartbeat given points one and two above - they already offered that.

4) Matthews has one point correct - set up an international consortium for nuclear fuel reprocessing and enrichment - and make Iran the leading member.

But as someone else pointed out, this is all totally pointless. Because SLC is right - Iran IS going to be attacked. Bush and Cheney have already decided to do so for reasons utterly unrelated to the Iranian nuclear energy program. Since there IS NO Iranian nuclear weapons program, that is clearly the case.

Therefore Jessica Matthews and the rest of the nitwits on the panel are merely babbling like the usual "Very Serious Persons" without a clue of what is really going on.

You've really go to wonder where Matt and the rest of the "pundits" are getting their reasoning ability. First they see Bush and Cheney start a war for no rational reason except oil, Israel and hegemony. Then they see the EXACT SAME THING being done with Iran - with even LESS evidence than the first time (other than the actual existence of nuclear energy facilities - but even less evidence of weaponization) - and they fall right into line and start beating about the bush about how to "contain" Iran.

Iran does not need containment. It isn't going anywhere. Israel and the US need containment.

Get a fucking clue, Matt. I sent you several articles over the weekend from the MSM detailing what kind of situation is looming here in the next three to nine months - and you come up with THIS crap as being relevant?

You just don't get it. It is Iraq ALL OVER AGAIN! What part of that don't you understand? Engrave that on your wrist like the kids at Hogwarts in the last movie!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 3:23 AM

Really should preview my post.

That line should read: "to insure that there is no diversion of resources", of course.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 3:27 AM

I wonder if Chris Ford is really Michael Ledeen. Only a war-crazed neo-fascist with no military experience could trot out such confidently fatuous declarations. Chris Ford is confident that America now has the super secret technology that can see mobile missiles hidden in caves and buildings. Chris Ford is confident that Iran can't launch crippling missile strikes against Saudi refineries, Israeli cities, and American bases. Chris Ford is confident that Iran will be helpless as America rains death on it from the air. Chris Ford is confident that Iran will not destroy its own petroleum infrastructure to deny the oil to invaders. Chris Ford is confident that the latest generation of supersonic cruise missiles will not sink numerous US Navy ships.

People with the confidence of Chris Ford gave us the Iraq fiasco. Chris Ford is confident that they will do a much better job in Iran. But for all his confidence, Chris Ford does not really care if war agaist Iran goes badly for America. War is what he wants, in all its bloody glory, and like his NeoCon heroes, he will say anything to get it.

Posted by HH | September 18, 2007 9:05 AM

It's funny. HH and Chris Ford have such different ideas about the world, but I find them both just overwhelmingly persuasive.

Posted by southpaw | September 18, 2007 9:19 AM

SLC, addressing me, said:

"Doesn't matter whether it's the fascist news channel or CNN, or MSNBC. Iran is going to get it and there is nothing that Mr. Williams or anybody else can do about it. The attack on Syria the week before last was the opening shot. That
will look like a pinprick when the USAF swings into action. Tough noogies Mr. Williams."
-------------
Do you have Mad Cow disease, SLC? That would explain a lot, including your memory failures.

I was the one who first predicted, over a month ago, that Bush would attack Iran within the next six months. Former CIA officer Bob Baer confirmed three days later, on August 18. I don't think anyone had predicted an attack in that near term time window before --although an attack on Iran at some indefinite time in the future has been obviously been kicked around for some time.

Here is what I posted on August 15:
***********************
Re Chris Ford's comment "Now designating the Revolutionary Guard as the terrorists they
are inside and outside Iran will punish the Guard by blacklisting all the businesses,
bank accounts, and procurement agencies for the China arms transactions the Guard are
engaged in - and make travel of any Guard squads to train other terrorists or do their
own ops more difficult."
-------------
Actually, I think this is bullshit. The Government of Iran can simply set up a bunch
of front companies -- which are NOT on any US list -- and have them act on behalf of the Revolutionary Guards. Similarly, I see no problem with a Guards officer traveling under a false name if Iran gives him an official passport.

So if this action is bullshit, then what's it purpose? To provoke a casus belli.

I predicted a few weeks ago that Kenneth Pollack's public endorsement of Bush's surge
meant that Haim Saban and the Israel Lobby had cut a deal with Big Oil.

Haim Saban's Haa'retz interview back in Dec 2006 noted why he is strongly supporting Hillary: A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable to Israel but Bush --or any other Republican -- does not have the political capital to confront Iran. And action is urgently needed.

However, I suspect Dick Cheney and Karl Rove pointed out a few things to Haim:

a) As a lame-duck commander-in-chief, Bush has enormous freedom of action over the next 18 months. He can do anything so long as 40 Republicans --including Joe Lieberman -- vote against impeachment.

b) Hillary may not win the Democratic primaries.

c) Even if Hillary wins, she may turn wobbly once she no longer needs Haim.

d) So what Bush can do -- in exchange for the Israel Lobby supporting creation of a Big Oil puppet government in IRaq -- is to tie the hands of ANY Democrat who's elected President. By giving them a fait accompli. An existing war in Iran which the Democrat must pursue and win under threat of being tagged as "losing Iran".
The same dilemna that was dumped on London Johnson.

e) So my estimate is that Bush invades Iran within 6 months --using the "surge" as cover for the buildup.

f) That's what Haim Saban == via Pollack --is signaling to Democratic Members of Congress and to Democratic Presidents.

Go with the flow.

Don't buck the program. Because if you do, several hundred $Million of our money
will make Giulani President, the DSCC, DNC and DSCC pots of money will dry up , and you guys can go back to being county supervisors.

So do what national Democratic leaders do best. Posture. Make ineffectual squeals and gestures to cover your hypocrisy. Criticize Bush if you want --but don't interfere.

Guys like Pollack are insignificant in and of themselves. No one gives a hairy rodent's posterior what he thinks. It is only by being a sock puppet of Haim Saban's that Pollack's words are widely covered."

Ref: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/war_on_specificity.php#comment-425066
plus correction at http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/war_on_specificity.php#comment-425341

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 9:19 AM

Haim Saban even handed the US Air Force its Air Tasking Order for Iran during his Dec 2006 interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"Haaretz:
Even if the risk is high? Even if the price will be very high?

"Saban:
Is there a higher price than two nuclear bombs on Israel? So they will fire missiles, all right then. Iran is not Lebanon, where you pinpoint specific targets: this bridge here, that building, half of that courtyard over there. In Iran you go in and wipe out their infrastructure completely. Plunge them into darkness. Cut off their water."

Ref: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html

Posted by Don Williams | September 18, 2007 9:31 AM

At some point, it must be asked how many people Israel is willing to kill to ensure the survival of its government. The dozens of nuclear weapons in the Israeli arsenal could probably kill over 100 million people in the Mideast. Is this their answer to the holocaust?

The survival of the Jewish people is not identical to the survival of the Israeli government. There is no existential threat to the Jewish people. There is an existential threat to the Israeli government. How many lives is the preservation of the Israeli government worth? Is there any limit?

Posted by HH | September 18, 2007 9:39 AM

Are all neocons unpatriotic?

You have to wonder, because they expect people in other countries to be. They expect people who don't like their government to welcome invaders and even bombing.

Is Dick Cheney unpatriotic? It would seem so. He may care about himself and money, but does he care about America? How about after a natural catastrophe, like Katrina? Did he care about America and Americans then?

Are all neocons unpatriotic?

Posted by Bengt Larsson | September 18, 2007 11:16 AM

"I was the one who first predicted, over a month ago, that Bush would attack Iran within the next six months."

Well, I've been predicting it but more generally - from three months to nine months at this point, based on an article that suggested it would be done after the nominations but before the elections. At this point I could see it happening before Christmas depending on what happens between now and then to give Bush and Cheney some new events to point to to justify it.

The military operational plans supposedly have been laid down and are ready or almost ready, so that the war could start within hours or days of a Bush order.

This is the process I expected to occur in 2006, actually, but apparently Rove had the Republicans convinced they could survive the elections based on vote fraud alone, so they didn't need Iran. Josh Bolton had said explicitly, "The Democrats will lose over Iran." But apparently that plan dried up - possibly because even Bush realized that the whole "Iranian nuclear weapons program" crap wasn't playing, thanks mostly to El Baradei at the IAEA who shot down every such reference. Not to mention the similarities to the Bush-Cheney lies leading up to Iraq, which everybody knows about now (except the right wing nuts.)

So what happened? Bush and Cheney just switched reasons, just like they switched reasons on Iraq - except Iraq was after the fact. Instead of "WMDs", Iraq became about "removing Saddam because he was a bad guy", then it became "spreading democracy", then it became, what is it now?, "we can't leave because we own it."

So Bush and Cheney switched from the Iranian energy program to "Iran is killing our troops in Iraq." This is the new casus belli which is being pushed. It has no more evidence than the "Iranian nuclear weapons", but it resonates better with their base. They got an uptick in the polls based on this, and Cheney is said to believe they only need 40-45% support to go with it.

In the end, of course, they'll go with it regardless of the level of support because they really don't care what the US citizen thinks. But they would prefer to be able to avoid immediate impeachment hearings if they unilaterally start another war. Not that such hearings would be likely, given the Democrats gutless posturing. So it could be said they just prefer not to hear too much public kvetching about how it's just like Iraq when the Iran war starts.

But it IS a done deal and has been for at least some months now and probably long before that - just as we now know that Iraq was a done deal within hours of 9/11 and probably before that.

So all this "Very Serious Person" talk is just that. Nobody is in a position to stop it.

As for Israel's willingness to nuke the Middle East, that is clear. They built an arsenal of 100-400 nuclear weapons. For what possible use could that arsenal be except to totally dominate the Middle East? Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the Third World - probably THE most powerful. They can easily defend Israel against "regime change" by an Arab and probably any combination of Arab countries - including Iran. If they had ONE deliverable nuclear weapon, nobody would mess with them at all in any conventional way. The construction of their nuclear arsenal clearly shows they are prepared to nuke most of the Middle East if and when they feel it desirable or necessary.

The real problem for the rest of the world is this: what happens when one of those nukes gets stolen? Military security is an oxymoron in any country. Those nukes are not safe, especially in such a volatile area of the world. The West was worried about stolen Russian nukes and stolen Pakistani nukes. Stolen Israeli nukes are an even greater threat.

Such a nuke doesn't even have to be used - just stolen. Once it is clear that Israeli nukes are NOT safe, what will the world do? Israel will have to be disarmed of its nuclear arsenal.

And if such a stolen nuke IS used against Israel, what will Israel do? Nuke major cities of the country allegedly behind it? That, too, will result in the world demanding the complete disarming of Israel's nuclear weapons.

This is why Israel should never have been allowed to develop those weapons in the first place. Iran is nothing in this. The best way to deter Iran - and all Arab governments - from ever wanting a nuke is to eliminate Israel's nuclear weapons.

That would also contribute to resolving the Palestinian situation. Because once Israel no longer has the protection of its nuclear arsenal, the rest of the Arab world could - at least theoretically, if not likely - expand their conventional military forces to a point of parity with Israel. This would force Israel to remove "regime change" from its Middle Eastern policies and pressure Israel to accommodate the Palestinians.

Israeli nuclear disarmament should be the number one issue in the Middle East, above all else. And certainly above the Iranian situation.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 18, 2007 5:46 PM