Putin and Iran

Vladimir Putin's warnings against military action against Iran deserve to be taken very seriously. Since we're not contemplating actually conquering Iran and trying to occupy its territory, people need to understand that the post-strike diplomatic environment is going to be much more important to the future of the Iranian nuclear program than is any damage that bombing Iran with our on-the-table options might or might not do. If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.

Conversely, at the moment not only is Iran under some diplomatic pressure to stop short of weaponizing, many countries around the world are taking direct measures to prevent the Iranians from just easily going and buying the stuff they need. Insofar as an unprovoked American military attack convinces other countries that the real dangerous lunatics live in DC rather than Teheran, countries around the world could cut back on their vigilance and make it much easier for an Iranian nuclear program to succeed.

The point is that when people talking about the Iranians being such-and-such time period away, or some bombing effort taking them back x number of years, they're talking as if progress toward a nuclear weapon proceeds at a constant pace. In practice, one of the factors that determines how quickly you can proceed is the international context. Right now, things are pretty tricky for Iranian nuclear scientists. Military action that doesn't reflect a firm, UN-backed consensus grounded in some reasonable interpretation of international law (military action that does reflect such a consensus seems very, very unlikely but in principle it could happen) could dramatically alter that.

Comments

But war with Russia would get us that make-up for not invading the USSR in 1946 that Jonah so badly wants.

Posted by P O'Neill | October 16, 2007 12:47 PM

Wait a minute, I thought Bush could peer into Putin's soul. How did Bush not see this coming?

Posted by fostert | October 16, 2007 12:49 PM

If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.

I don't know. Do the real men want to go to Tehran still, or have they upgraded to Moscow?

Posted by &y | October 16, 2007 12:51 PM

More grist for the Risk playing war weenies. This is almost as much fun as a snow day in 4th grade and you get to stay in your jammies and play Army.

Posted by Douglas Watts | October 16, 2007 12:53 PM

I'd like General Turgidson's opinion on the matter.

Posted by stinky mcgee | October 16, 2007 12:56 PM

But war with Russia would get us that make-up for not invading the USSR in 1946 that Jonah so badly wants.

Posted by P O'Neill | October 16, 2007 12:47 PM

And Richard Pipes and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and CIA Director GHW Bush and the rest of the Team B crowd were drooling over during the post-Church Commission 70s.

Posted by Tom - Daai Tou Laam | October 16, 2007 12:59 PM

We forget too readily that Iran has a right to view the United States with suspicion. In the last six years the US has invaded two of Iran's neigbors - with catastrophic consequences in Iraq and a not overly rosy situation in Afghanistan.

Had the Soviet Union occupied Canada and Mexico in the last six years I suspect the US would also be trying to develop defensive, if not offensive, weapons.

Posted by ndm | October 16, 2007 1:09 PM

I'd like General Turgidson's opinion on the matter.

Posted by stinky mcgee

10, 15,000,000 dead, tops!

Posted by Buck Turgidson, USAF/SAC | October 16, 2007 1:13 PM

let's go kick the crap out him.

Posted by where does jonah goldberg live? | October 16, 2007 1:18 PM

And Richard Pipes and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and CIA Director GHW Bush and the rest of the Team B crowd were drooling over during the post-Church Commission 70s.

AND pretty much every foreign policy advisor on Team Giuliani!

Posted by bleh | October 16, 2007 1:25 PM

fostert -- best comment yet on Putin.

Posted by Diana | October 16, 2007 1:26 PM

Nice job, Matt. This is a perfect example of what a blog entry should do. It offers a thought-provoking angle on an issue currently in the news in just a few tightly worded paragraphs. No navel-gazing. No bombast.

Maybe you could take Ezra aside and gently explain to him how to do this. He's been making a fool of himself lately.

Posted by jbd | October 16, 2007 1:29 PM

Nice job, Matt. This is a perfect example of what a blog entry should do. It offers a thought-provoking angle on an issue currently in the news in just a few tightly worded paragraphs. No navel-gazing. No bombast.

Maybe you could take Ezra aside and gently explain to him how to do this. He's been making a fool of himself lately.

Posted by jbd | October 16, 2007 1:30 PM

I thought I was the only person who had authority to order the use of nuclear weapons!

Posted by President Muffley | October 16, 2007 1:30 PM

We forget too readily that Iran has a right to view the United States with suspicion. In the last six years the US has invaded two of Iran's neigbors - with catastrophic consequences in Iraq and a not overly rosy situation in Afghanistan.

Not to mention that we've already engineered the overthrow of a democratically-elected Prime Minister in 1953.

Why would they be suspicious?

Posted by Jim Faith | October 16, 2007 1:31 PM

I've been expecting Russia or China stepping in to put their foot down in Iran for a couple of years now. Russia completed the sale of anti-air systems capable of shooting down bombers and cruise missiles to Iran just last winter.

The next step would be for Russia to send in military "advisors" and maybe a squadron of "training" jets based at sensitive Iranian target sites, so that the Bush administration's whole ramp up to an attack on Iran would either provoke an incident with the Russians or have to be called off making the US look even more impotent when they come to their senses and call it off.

Posted by darrelplant | October 16, 2007 1:37 PM

Jim Faith beat me to it.

Wingnuts like to say Iran has been at war with us since 1979 (forget that troublesome little matter of neo-con weenie Michael Ledeen and how he brokered arms sales to Iran in the 80s, which would make him some kind of T-word which is on the tip of my tongue...).

If that's so, then we've been at war with Iran since 1953. It's been all about the oil, that hasn't changed in the last half-century.

Frankly, I support Putin's threat to make sure Iran gets a bomb if we dare to pre-emptively strike them. Perhaps that will penetrate the thick heads of the neo-cons who seem to think that we can act militarily against Iran with impunity and no consequences whatsoever.

Posted by r€nato | October 16, 2007 1:38 PM

Bush's entire Iraq debacle has always seemed, to me, to resemble Stalingrad in slow-motion. In that context, militarily confronting Russia actually appears to be a logical extension of the same lunacy.

Push On To Moscow; Yeah. You Bet. I'm sure the Fightin' Keyboarders believe it'll be as simple as a few games of Squad Leader or East Front II -- which, of course, is an exact simulacrum of the experience of combat.

Posted by Karl Maurer | October 16, 2007 1:39 PM

Please...this is way too much thought and nuance for little Shrub and his handler....they need to show that they have big dicks and know how to use them.

Posted by marty | October 16, 2007 1:53 PM

I am a soldier in the Phony Army

Posted by Brendan | October 16, 2007 2:01 PM

How about military action against the U.S.'s nuclear weapons program? It's apparently quite substantial, you know. Or don't you?

This attack could even be "grounded in some reasonable interpretation of international law."

Wouldn't that be fun? That way more countries get to spread death and destruction around the world, not just the peace-loving, disarmament-minded U.S. ruling elite.

Posted by The Dancing Kid | October 16, 2007 2:08 PM

The Iranians probably already have all the scientific expertise they need to build a bomb, it's the ability to scale up the production of enriched uranium which is in question.

So unless the Russians are going to hand over a bunched of weapons-grade uranium, I don't think that Russia can speed up the Iranian timetable, even if they wanted to.

It's more a question of whether Russia wants to help slow the Iranians down, through diplomatic and/or economic means. At the moment Russian motivation to do so seems pretty low.

In some ways, I wonder if the Russians want us to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities -- rebuilding those facilities might result in several more rounds of lucrative nuclear contracts between Iran and Russia.

Posted by Greg Abbott | October 16, 2007 2:17 PM

Re darrelplant

Since the Russian anti-aircraft system was installed in Syria and appeared to be ineffective against the alleged Israeli bombing attack, this system appears not to provide much deterrence.

Posted by SLC | October 16, 2007 2:17 PM

"Stalingrad in slow motion..."

Karl, I think we should all be cautious about facile WWII comparisons. God knows the Bushies have shown us the perils of that.

I think the comparison with Stalingrad has some merit, and offers some lessons: Hitler's maniacal insistence on "victory" in Stalingrad "at all costs" was widely understood by his generals to be a blunder, for more than a year as the disaster unfolded.

Around the fuhrer, however, faith in the policy was an article of faith. When the beleaguered troops finally surrendered (they had been prohibited from fighting their way out) there was a belated effort at rebellion, ending in the assassination attempt on Hitler in 7/44. But it was too late. Himmler and his die-hard SS goon squad executed generals right an left, and the show down all the way to the rubble of Berlin was set.

As I say, comparisons to our present situation should be undertaken with caution. But the Iraq adventure was clearly recognizable to many experts as a blunder prior to the invasion, and to the rest of us since. Nonetheless we are bombarded with propaganda to the contrary, and urged on to war with Iran.

There is a process of mass delusion. The right, the MSM, the insufficiently-mobilized center all share responsibility, of course.

But I think the real problem is deeper:

Germany embraced Hitler in part because the society could not heal itself sufficiently to recognize the blunders of WWI (brought on by the uniform-loving degenerate son of a prior leader).

It was easier, simpler to blame the Jews. There was a terror of communism, and an incapacity to resolve problems of social inequity.

I think the US is struggling (hopefully with better result) with the intolerable awareness that we're going to have to share planetary resources, give up our Hummers, even (gasp) acknowledge the humanity of arabs and Palestinians.

It's easier, simpler to blame the 'islamofascists' of course, and there's plenty of bucks to be made getting control of oil reserves...

That's what's scary. Hitler rode to power with the support of the industrialists. As long as Wall St and Exxon et. al. see the cash gates open with Bush's policies, they'll support him or his successors.

We haven't heard much of a peep from securities analysts about what a war with Iran would do to world oil supplies and the global economy - but look at what a hint of trouble with the Turks has done.

To pick up a Republican tag line, perhaps 'the market' can excercise some restraining influence on our tin-pot Decider.

(sorry for the long post - alot on my mind)

Posted by Alex | October 16, 2007 2:21 PM

Alex (or anyone else): can you post any links to reputable discussions of what effect the recent troubles with the Turks up in Northern Iraq has had on world oil markets? I could really use it, thanks!

Posted by mq | October 16, 2007 2:29 PM

If we find ourselves at war with Russia again, would that count as Podhoretz's World War 4.0 or would it be just Cold War 2.0?

-

Posted by Hank Essay | October 16, 2007 2:29 PM

I wish you would stop buying into conventional wisdom that Iran is driving toward a nuclear arsenal. First, Iran seems to have made its nuclear energy program transparent to the IAEA, which is exactly what it is obligated to do under the treaties it signed. Second, Iran doesn't need a nuke to have enough deterrence to assure mutually assured destruction in the event of an attack by the West. It only needs enough conventional firepower to set the West's Middle East gas station ablaze, most of which lies within 200 miles of Iran. Lest there be any doubt about the credibility of such an implicit threat, Iran already implemented this strategy once, when targeted Iraq's oil infrastructure and export terminals with devastating result during the Iran-Iraq War.

Like the justification for the war in Iraq, the WMD issue is hyped because it is viewed as the most effective way to demonize Iran and prepare the public for war.

The only remaining question is how much damage can Iran inflict on the West in the event of an attack?

Posted by JohnH | October 16, 2007 2:34 PM

It only needs enough conventional firepower to set the West's Middle East gas station ablaze, most of which lies within 200 miles of Iran. Lest there be any doubt about the credibility of such an implicit threat, Iran already implemented this strategy once, when targeted Iraq's oil infrastructure and export terminals with devastating result during the Iran-Iraq War.

Oil prices plummeted during the Iran-Iraq war because both countries ramped up production to pay for their war efforts. Those "devastating results" didn't happen.

Posted by Njorl | October 16, 2007 2:39 PM

"If we find ourselves at war with Russia again, would that count as Podhoretz's World War 4.0 or would it be just Cold War 2.0?" - Posted by Hank Essa

It can be both! Like James I of England and James VI of Scotland was all one guy.

Posted by Njorl | October 16, 2007 2:42 PM

Today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/hillaryclinton/story/0,,2191830,00.html

How do we counter Clinton's encouragement of the Bush/Cheney/Lieberman war plans?

Posted by della Rovere | October 16, 2007 2:43 PM

SLC: The Pantsyr system in Syria is different from the TOR-M1 system purchased by Iran. Different missiles, different targeting systems, different capabilities.

The TORs may be vulnerable to the same spoofing mechanisms, but then again they might not be.

Running a quick raid with a couple of planes is hardly the same thing a as a sustained bombing campaign with hundreds of potential targets, across hundreds of miles of enemy territory. It isn't that far by jet from anywhere in Israel to anywhere in Syria. Potential targets in Iran are a bit more of a hike. Unlike Iraq, the US doesn't control the airspace of Iran.

Moreover, nobody expects a system to be perfect. If the US puts 100 bombers into the air and,say 90% of them avoid getting shot down, or some of the first targets of successful bombers and cruise missiles are the TOR launchers and they happen to have Russian advisors stationed there as advisors (they are new weapons systems), I'm not seeing how either one of those outcomes particularly good for the propaganda war.

Posted by darrelplant | October 16, 2007 2:45 PM

I'd like General Turgidson's opinion on the matter.

Posted by stinky mcgee

10, 15,000,000 dead, tops!

Posted by Buck Turgidson, USAF/SAC

10, 15 million dead, tops...DEPENDING ON THE BREAKS!"

Posted by Bill | October 16, 2007 2:56 PM

If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.

I agree with your general premise that the international context matters (as well as with your overall point that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities is, in the current context, pure folly. Nonetheless, the job you're doing with providing actual examples of how the current international containment model might change is quite lacking--Russia nuklearizing Iran(wtf are you smoking)???

The difference between the US and Russian position is that Russia will instantly have yet another not-fully-predictable nation with nuclear weapons near it's borders. There is no basis for an alliance between a nuclear Russian and a nuclear Iran (the right of Iran to obtain civil nuclear capability is one of the only issues that the mullahs and Putin currently agree about). A common adversary has brought the two historical competitors together as Putin tries to tie up the US enough to establish uncontested hegemony over Russian near-abroad, but that's where the convergence of interests ends.

Posted by VasyaDC | October 16, 2007 3:04 PM

MY - If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.

Yeah, that would make a lot of sense. Russia pulls out of the NPT to give a dangerous Islamist nation nuclear weapons...

Right...

Assuming Putin was stupid enough to do that, can you imagine the neat materials and designs the US would give the Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Khazakstanis, Other "Stanis", and the Chechens???

Putin is trying to make a pariah nation it's client. Something that could burn the Russkies badly. Russia also thinks there is high potential for Iran and Russia to form a lucrative ONGEC -Organization of Natural Gas Exporting Countries and work together to control oil found in Central Asia. They already have Europe by the nuts for the Greens (outside France) abandoning coal and nuclear power for Russkie Gas, given the failure of "exciting alternative energy sources" to amount to much.

Frankly, I support Putin's threat to make sure Iran gets a bomb if we dare to pre-emptively strike them. Perhaps that will penetrate the thick heads of the neo-cons who seem to think that we can act militarily against Iran with impunity and no consequences whatsoever.
Posted by r€nato

Makes perfect sense if you are a traitorous fool that hates America more than any other country, even the major exporter of terror in the ME...
Do you also support us arming the Chechens with Hydrogen bombs, since Russia seems to think it can act against Chechnya with impunity?

MY - when people talking about the Iranians being such-and-such time period away, or some bombing effort taking them back x number of years, they're talking as if progress toward a nuclear weapon proceeds at a constant pace. In practice, one of the factors that determines how quickly you can proceed is the international context.

The "international context", and Lefty faith in the majesty of "sanctions" as a curative - is fairly meaningless, as South Africa proved. With full global sanctions, SA used a couple good middlemen and native Boer ingenuity and had 8 gun type HEU weapons in the 30 KT range in 5 years.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 16, 2007 3:09 PM

Njorl: The results were devastating to Iraq, which saw its oil output plummet. The world escaped any ill effects, because of worldwide conservation efforts, additional exploration and production, and increased Saudi utilization of its spare production capacity. Today the situation is entirely different. In a world of tight oil supply, an Iranian attack on Persian Gulf oil infrastructure and export terminals would devastate not only the nations attacked, but also the industrialized world's economy. Again, IMHO Iran does not need a nuke for Mutually Assured Destruction and would be foolish to develop one at this point.

Posted by JohnH | October 16, 2007 3:12 PM

Well, starting a war in general is wrong. I thought somebody should say that.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | October 16, 2007 3:24 PM

10, 15,000,000 dead, tops!
10, 15 million dead, tops...DEPENDING ON THE BREAKS!"

You guys both forgot the kicker: "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed."

Posted by James Gary | October 16, 2007 3:29 PM

If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel [sic] over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb.

well, not really. they have enough material and its no great secret any longer how to build a bomb. the real actual fact of the matter is that Iran has had the capacity to build nukes for roughly a year now, but has not done so and shows no signs of attempting to do so. so suck on that knee-jerk hawks of either liberal or conservative persuasion. is it any surprise that major world powers are starting to step up and address this madness of escalation with Iran as a serious threat to world security? not at all. Putin has quite clearly had enough of George Bush and is now in the process of putting $$ where his mouth is. the US can't expect the world to stand by and acquiesce again if we do this. there will be massive, grave consequences.

Posted by onceler | October 16, 2007 3:35 PM

Posted by Chris Ford

Russkies?

Glad to see you are dating, but it's a shame when you date yourself so openly.

Posted by minion | October 16, 2007 4:44 PM

"I'd like General Turgidson's opinion on the matter.

Posted by stinky mcgee"

We already know General Ripper's opinion on this.

Posted by cal1942 | October 16, 2007 4:53 PM

Posted by Chris Ford
Russkies?
Glad to see you are dating, but it's a shame when you date yourself so openly.
Posted by minion

My ode to the Strangelovian language introduced by other posters, which you are a little dense if you didn't notice. Russkies was Gen Turgedson's nickname. I was born a few years after the movie. It was a big hit when it played during the Gulf War on our base.

Well, starting a war in general is wrong. I thought somebody should say that.
Posted by Bengt Larsson

War in itself is not "wrong" anymore than appeasement or surrender to the demands of a bully, a crook, an enemy nation is always "right".
Sun Tsu and Clausewitz both agreed that war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means. When diplomacy and sanctions and Kofi Annan's "deplorations" are laughed off, it may be necessary and logical.
Conversely, the threat of war, the credible threat, as another quote goes; Wonderfully focuses the minds of diplomats, establishes endless talk does have limits and consequences and actually makes the prospect of diplomatic resolution and compromise more likely to be attained.."

Posted by Chris Ford | October 16, 2007 5:07 PM

The Russians have a calm, dispassionate view of Iranian nuclear prospects, given their proximity and the threat Islamic fundamentalists represent to Russia. Either they think an Iranian bomb is not in the cards anytime soon, or they are confident that Iran will be deferred by the certainty that Russia would incinerate them if the weapons were ever used. Why the hysteria here?

Posted by bob h | October 16, 2007 5:15 PM

Insofar as an unprovoked American military attack convinces other countries that the real dangerous lunatics live in DC rather than Teheran, countries around the world could cut back on their vigilance and make it much easier for an Iranian nuclear program to succeed.

(sigh).....How is it that you can talk all about this without noting just how bogus these "nuke" claims are? Iran needs electricity and it wants to use it's petroleum reserves for sale, rather than powering electric plants. As a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it is supposed to be rewarded with aid in developing nuclear power from countries like Russia and yes, the UNITED STATES!

The fact that the U.S. is trying to turn this legitimate demand for nuclear power into a ficticious threat of nuclear weapons makes it clear that what is really being looked for is an excuse to go to war with Iran for the purpose of seizing it's oil fields. The U.S. did this in Iraq (in one of the most ill-advised and badly played moves in history) and will suffer the consequences for many years in the future. Unfortunately, for the American planners of this scheme, it won't work again. Russia and China (and the rest of the world, for that matter), simply won't sit by and allow this to happen again.

The U.S. is in very great risk of being "put down" by the other nations of this planet, much like a mad dog would be. It's become the ultimate rogue nation, and as such is too dangerous to allow it's own selfish way in the world. The moment a nuke lights up in Iran, the other, sane countries of the world will turn the dollar into dust. Without a functioning currency, internal disturbances of an historic scale will erupt within the American homeland. Blackwater will be called in to quell the violence and will only inflame it more. Further military advances will meet with responses from Russia and China and given the weakened state of our military (due to the follies of Afghanistan and Iraq), we'll either have to retreat under conventional warfare or attempt to advance under nuclear warfare.

As anyone with a spark in his brain can see, this is madness. We have squandered virtually all of our resources in a gamble that we'd become the unopposed rulers of the world, doling out oil to our friends and collaborators and withholding from our enemies. This is the kind of insanity that manifests when you put ideologue theoreticians in charge of your future... ill-conceived schemes are brought to the fore as 'experiments" from people who are so insulated from real life that they think that shoving the military into various spots is just a big board game that has no real repercussions. It has to end. Now.

Posted by Arlington Acid | October 16, 2007 5:17 PM

"Either they think an Iranian bomb is not in the cards anytime soon, or they are confident that Iran will be deferred by the certainty that Russia would incinerate them if the weapons were ever used. Why the hysteria here?"

Because we aren't the Russians, and we don't have their deterrent ability. It's not that we don't have as much power, it's just that Iran knows we are far more hesitant and conflicted about using it. Iran sees the hysterical whining the mere prospect of bombing them with conventional weapons induces among half our or citizenry; they remember how impotently we responded to their invasion of our embassy in '79, their bombing of our Marine barracks in Lebanon in '83, etc. They aren't scared of us. But they are scared of Russia.

Look what Russia has done to Chechnya -- where are the anti-war Russians? Putin has 70%+ approval. Iran knows Putin or his successor could turn their country to rubble if he wanted and it wouldn't cause them any problems at home. Not so with an American president.

Posted by Juan | October 16, 2007 5:30 PM

Actually, Juan, if the Iranians look not too far away, they can see Iraq. I don't think they'd be enthusiastic about that happening to them. Russia suppressed the Chechen revolt with extreme brutality, but they haven't invaded foreign countries.

Posted by William Burns | October 16, 2007 5:51 PM

I think that George Bush has made it clear, in his statements comparing his War On Iraq to WW2, that he will not be satisfied until he gets an all-out national effort, draft and war economy, to win. And we'll have to give it to him, lest we look "soft".

Posted by Mooser | October 16, 2007 5:52 PM

"Actually, Juan, if the Iranians look not too far away, they can see Iraq."

Right, and they see how Bush has a 30% approval rate now, which means that his successor isn't going to be more hesitant about using the military. And there is no such political restraint in Russia, as the Chechnya adventure and Putin's high popularity subsequently demonstrate.

Posted by Juan | October 16, 2007 6:04 PM

Posted by Chris Ford

"Assuming Putin was stupid enough to do that, can you imagine the neat materials and designs the US would give the Ukrainians, Germans, Poles, Estonians, Khazakstanis, Other "Stanis", and the Chechens???"

We had little to no success during the cold war putting spies into eastern Europe. Do you expect that the Russians would just let us fly into Chechnia loaded with goodies?

You also seem to forget that Russia still has a load of nuclear tipped missiles sitting at the ready. It appears that what you want is for us to trigger another cold war.

You really think the rest of the world is going to sit around and watch while Bush Cheney and the neocon maniacs have their way?

How old are you? Six?

Posted by cal1942 | October 16, 2007 6:07 PM

As FDR said about Somoza, Putin is an s.o.b, but he is our s.o.b. By upping the stakes, I think he showed that somebody, at least, learned that you can't deter the Bush crazies through the usual channels. Myself, I'm still betting against even a bombing run over Iran - I think Dana Priest at the Post is right, I think there'd be a military civil war in the Pentagon. Besides the coming effect of gas being 86 dollars per barrel, as it is now, which should be hitting the American pocketbook in three months, or just in time for the holidays.

I'm hoping that Bush creeps out of office with a lower popularity level than Truman, as even his psycho core start feeling an economic pinch from his purely insane policies. You can bribe human beings to be imbeciles, but you have to keep bribing them or they sober up.

Posted by roger | October 16, 2007 6:15 PM

Actually Jimmy Carter managed in four years to slither back to Plains lower than Bush is now. The mass psychosis on the Left actually would like some sort of disaster to hit the USA because they fundamentally are attached to some sort of new-age multi-culti cosmopolitanism that would hand over US policy to the tender mercies of that competent crew at the UN.

Some of the commenters above actually believe their own twisted narrative that the US is worse than ANY alternative. I hope their grandkids wear burkas, in another country, of course.

Posted by daveinboca | October 16, 2007 6:32 PM

Any thought of fighting an actual war with Russia would be utter insanity; however, the US would have a lot of options short of that if Russia actually helped Iran build nuclear weapons. Russia is very powerful, but it would come off a definite second best in another sustained cold war with the West, especially now that the West (in the sense of US allies and potential allies) now extends up to Narva and Donetsk instead of ending in the middle of Germany.

Putin is belligerent, but he's not that stupid.

Posted by Infidel753 | October 16, 2007 6:34 PM

Re darrelplant

It shoould be pointed out that Israel (maybe) attacked a Syrian target with conventional aircraft (F14/F16) while the US would attack Iran with stealth bombers and cruise missiles.

Posted by SLC | October 16, 2007 6:35 PM

Chris Ford shows bad reading comprehension: I said Starting a war in general is wrong. Although I don't know whether there is a point in arguing with you. You just want to kill people.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | October 16, 2007 6:46 PM

Juan,

The Russians haven't invaded another country since the fall of Communism, and the last one they invaded before that, Afghanistan, didn't work out too well and provoked opposition within Russia. The Iranians aren't worried about a Russian invasion, they're worried about an attack from the country that has invaded two countries bordering them in the last five years.

Posted by William Burns | October 16, 2007 6:57 PM

Alex, I don't believe the comparison of Iraq as being 'Stalingrad In Slow Motion' is fascile.

You assumed (possibly because I didn't say so in my brief post) that I was drawing some anology between America's experience after invading Iraq and the Second World War, one which may have included a passing equation of Cheney / Bush with the nazi regime.

The battle of Stalingrad is emblematic of any military action, based on an utterly mistaken perception of reality, and executed in denial of all intelligence and common sense.

That seems a fair anology in my mind with the Cheney / Bush's invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent, stubborn, 'Stay The Course At All Costs' goal they've pursued in the face of all advice and evidence to the contrary -- and for the geopolitical, economic and societal costs the United States has and will pay as a result.

Like Hitler's perspective, and his subservient staff members in the OKW, Cheney / Bush's determination about Iraq was not based in reality, and actually weakens our military and decreases our strategic posture. Like Hitler, Cheney / Bush and Rumsfeld dismissed military commanders who disagreed with their policies and plans.

At the same time, it can as easily be said that Iraq is Verdun in slow motion -- or Dien Bien Phu in slow motion. Each were actions where plans, based on a misapprehension of reality, were pressed past the point of all warnings to the contrary . You could insert von Falkenhayn's, or Mangin's, or Navarre's names in the paragraph above, and make the same anology between hubris and failure.

And (as Cheney / Bush's policies already are to the United States), these actions were ultimately strategic blunders, because they disproportionately affected the course of the conflicts of which they were a part.

I personally don't see any direct anologies at all between the nazi regime, and Cheney / Bush's past eight years -- though there are many indirect ones.

I hope this helped.

Posted by Karl Maurer | October 16, 2007 7:03 PM

The mass psychosis on the Left actually would like some sort of disaster to hit the USA because they fundamentally are attached to some sort of new-age multi-culti cosmopolitanism that would hand over US policy to the tender mercies of that competent crew at the UN.

Actually, daveinboca, it's rightwingers who want an attack to hit America - because they think it would benefit them, politically.

Additionally, let's not forget that when the UN doesn't do or say anything it's usually because somebody vetoes it, and this somebody is quite often the US.

As for mass psychosis and similar derangement syndromes, let me say four words: "Al Gore", "Bill Clinton".

Froth away in response to those words. I know that you will.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | October 16, 2007 7:03 PM

BTW -- I meant to say: Great post, Matthew.

.

Posted by Karl Maurer | October 16, 2007 7:08 PM

Dave in boca doesn't get it. We are even now slipping effeminants in the water supply. The american mainstay, the defender of cowardly liberals, that patriotic white american male who has lived through the sheer terror and danger of watching Rambo II ten or more times, and has even bought the special director's cut of it -we are talking the toughest of the tough - is our target. America burquaed and obeying sharia law is, of course, our dream, but we combine it with a sort of Village People beat, advocating homosexuality and the breakup of the home and relativistic moral values. And surely it is working. Dave in Boca might not understand why he went out and, on impulse, purchased that complete DVD set of Queer Eye for the Straight guy, but we sure do.

Posted by roger | October 16, 2007 8:17 PM

Imagine both the Middle East and Russia turning off their oil pumps to punish America. Fun!

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | October 16, 2007 10:03 PM

"Since we're not contemplating actually conquering Iran and trying to occupy its territory"

Sigh.

Matt still doesn't get it.

1) Yes, we are contemplating actually conquering Iran and trying to occupy its territory - or at least, the oil province of Khuzestan, which has most of Iran's oil reserves and is just a hop, skip and a jump over the Iraqi border.

2) It's irrelevant what you or I THINK the US is planning. The bottom line is what will happen when Iran retaliates.

Jesus, Matt, do you really think that once Iran starts raining missiles down on US bases in Iraq and the ME, running incursions of thousands of Iranian agents into Iraq to attack US troops, killing dozens or hundreds of US troops - AND NOT folding up and surrendering - that Bush isn't going to follow up ON THE GROUND?

Do you really - stupidly - believe that this is going to remain a short air war?

Get a clue, Matt.

Iran, if it decides to, can throw half a million men or more against our 160,000 in Iraq. While this would in my view be extremely stupid of them, and would cost them untold thousands in casualties, they COULD still - especially with the assistance of the Iraqi Shia militias - totally devastate our forces in Iraq.

Check with William Lind on this - he has warned of precisely this outcome. He has warned against the LOSS - not the defeat, the LOSS - of our forces in Iraq. It would be one of the worst military defeats in US history.

Do you think Bush will not resort to either a massive ground and air attack - or even nuclear weapons - in that eventuality?

Are you assuming that once Iran's military and nuclear energy infrastructure has been devastated by hundreds of US air sorties in the first three days, that Iran will merely fold up and sue for peace - and then engage in "diplmacy"?

What are you smoking, Matt?

Leave the crack pipe at home, Matt.

And get a clue, Matt.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 16, 2007 10:55 PM

As the Iraq Study Group pointed out, a just solution to the Israeli/Palestinian issue is of paramount importance in solving our current dilemnas. Inasmuch as the terrorist mastermind of 9/11 himself said the 9/11 attack was due to biased US support for Israel, inasmuch as the Israeli persecution of Palestinians results in innumerable terrorist recruits, inasmuch as The Israel Lobby pushed us into war with Iraq to benefit Israel, (war profiteers and would-be oil-looters were as usual easily convinced to go along for the ride, but it was the Zionist neocons at the Pentagon who fixed the intelligence), and inasmuch as it is The Israel Lobby which is currently pushing us into war with Iran, it should behoove Americans to consider whether it is worth sacrificing America so that Israel can retain its stolen Palestinian land.

Posted by Courtney Squires | October 16, 2007 11:02 PM

Once again, Matt talks *around* the issue, but never says ONE SINGLE CLEAR OPINION.

"Military action that doesn't reflect a firm, UN-backed consensus grounded in some reasonable interpretation of international law"

Which is what? What reasonable interpretation is there? What UN "consensus" exists? China and Russia have explicitly said that they don't believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program. All they want is for Iran to clear up the issues the IAEA is concerned about - from twenty years ago - and also to avoid Iran giving Bush any EXCUSE to attack Iran. Beyond that, China and Russia are on Iran's side. The Security Council will NEVER authorize an attack on Iran if Russia and China have any say - and they do.

"(military action that does reflect such a consensus seems very, very unlikely but in principle it could happen)"

Yeah, in principle, Iran could go nuts and march its armies across the Gulf, across Saudi Arabia and everybody else in the way and attack Israel.

Iran could assassinate Putin and refuse to pay for the nuclear reactors. That would piss off Russia - in principle.

Get a clue. Talk about some reality, instead of skirting around the subject.

Iran has done NOTHING under the NPT to justify a UN military response. Read the IAEA reports. Read the NPT. Read the UN Charter. ZERO justification for any military action on Iran EVEN IF Iran ADMITTED to having a nuclear weapons program.

Absent an existing nuclear weapons arsenal AND a threat to use it, there is ZERO justification under the UN Charter for a military attack on Iran. There was ZERO justification under UN resolutions for the US to attack Iraq in 2003 - that has been acknowledged by just about every international law specialist who has commented on it.

And Iraq HAD committed acts of aggression against neighboring countries, HAD a nuclear weapons program (in the past, if not in 2003), and HAD resolutions authorizing force against it for its actions in the first Gulf War.

Iran has NONE of that - and there is nothing in the UN Charter that allows the UN to justify any sort of military action against Iran. At best, UN sanctions are being considered - and there is considerable argument whether those sanctions are even legal given Iran's rights under the NPT. Nobody outside of the US, Israel, and the neocon poodles in France and Britain is in favor of military action against Iran.

So where do you get the notion that "in principle" there could be such a consensus? You pull it out of thin air?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 16, 2007 11:07 PM

This is getting ridiculous.

Matt has to say SOMETHING about the looming war with Iran - but he can't bring himself to say anything concrete, so we get this bit of irrelevant nonsense:

"people need to understand that the post-strike diplomatic environment is going to be much more important to the future of the Iranian nuclear program than is any damage that bombing Iran with our on-the-table options might or might not do."

What does this mean? "Post-strike diplomatic environment?" What the hell is that?

Does Matt think there's going to be one air attack and then we go back to "diplomacy"?

Is he that clueless?

And what the hell is this about:

"If Russia decides to just send some scientists with schematics and materiel over to Iran and show them how to build a nuclear bomb, then -- bam -- nuclear bomb."

And just why would Russia do that? Russia doesn't want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. Russia doesn't want the opprobrium for being the country that gave Iran a nuclear weapon.

Why would Matt use this scenario?

Does Matt think Russia is now so against the US that it intends to restart the Cold War, using Iran as a nuclear stalking horse against the US FP in the ME?

Based on what?

What kind of "diplomacy" is Matt talking about? If the US attacks Iran, "diplomacy" is OVER. Iran says, "Fuck you" to everybody, pulls out of the NPT, kicks out the IAEA inspectors - just like North Korea - and starts making nukes. The only way to stop them would be to KEEP bombing them on a regular basis.

So they dig deeper into a mountain than any conventional bunker buster will go due to the laws of physics.

So now what does the US do? Use nuclear bunker busters.

Now we have a nuclear war going on in the ME.

What does the "post-strike diplomatic environment" look like then?

If Matt is trying to say that if we go down that road, Russia WILL restart the Cold War - he might be right. I doubt it, but it's not impossible. China will certainly dump the US dollar.

But my point is that bringing up this hypothetical "diplomatic" scenario second-guessing is irrelevant.

The real issue is: does Matt believe there is ANY legitimate reason to believe that 1) Iran has a nuclear weapons program; 2) that if Iran DOES have such a program, that war is justified.

Don't talk about hypothetical crap, Matt. Answer the goddamn question! It's ridiculous that you can pull this stuff out of your butt but not answer a simple question.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 16, 2007 11:17 PM

It shoould be pointed out that Israel (maybe) attacked a Syrian target with conventional aircraft (F14/F16) while the US would attack Iran with stealth bombers and cruise missiles.

If there was no Israeli attack, then your earlier point about the failure of the Syrian air defense systems is pretty much irrelevant, isn't it?

I'm well aware that stealth bombers and cruise missiles would be used in any potential attack on Iran. The TOR system is specifically designed to attack cruise missiles. Whether it would actually work on US missiles or on stealth aircraft is an open question. Unlike Iraq, Iran has functional fighter aircraft that can supplement air defenses, and they fly a lot faster than the B2 or F117. Of course, there's always the F22.

In any case, you ignore the possibility that successful strikes have the potential to be problematic if Russian advisors are in the strike zone.

And, as Mr. Hack points out, the Iranians have missiles with range and targeting capability to reach the Green Zone and every US military base in northern Iraq. Great success.

Posted by darrelplant | October 17, 2007 1:02 AM

We might also mention that some people think Syria never turned on the radar - at least not fully - that the Israelis were supposed to be testing - which would mean the Israelis didn't get all the ELINT they were hoping for.

Which is why they targeted the Syrian missile storage site because at least they would damage Syria's ability to strike directly at Israeli to some degree even if the rest of the mission was a failure.

Both efforts clearly indicate that Israel is planning to attack Syria in the near future.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 17, 2007 4:37 AM

"an unprovoked military attack convinces other countries that the real dangerous lunatics live in DC"

Without wishing to be discourteous, Matthew, I think that this happened quite a while ago.

Posted by MFB | October 17, 2007 4:43 AM

to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I think Russia will not cooperate to construct Bushehr nuclear power plant, no matter how you wait.
Russia probably allied with Israel.
I guess that a trigger of it is terrorist incident by Chechen in 2004.
And I wonder that Commander Basayev is assassinated by collusion with Israel.
Isn`t it Mossad which sold Commander Basayev to Russia?

Posted by IZUMO | October 20, 2007 5:26 AM