The Iranian Line

Interesting stuff: "Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that his country could suspend uranium enrichment if the United States and Western Europe agreed to acknowledge that its nuclear program was peaceful." But of course there's a problem, since Iranian Ambassasor Ali Asghar Soltanieh also told McClatchey:

We don't trust the United States. We could suspend nuclear enrichment. We did it before for two and half years. But it wasn't enough then, and wouldn't be enough now. We will not suspend enrichment again because there is no end to what the United States will demand.

And, indeed, it's not clear that a policy of appeasement would be wise. True, we've seen rational leadership even from vicious dictators like Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong, but the contemporary United States is led by religious fanatics, which introduces a new element into the equation. What's more, the USA is the only country on earth to have ever actually deployed nuclear weapons. Indeed, current political elites are so war-crazed and bloodthirsty that they not only engineered the 2003 attack on Iraq -- a country that tried to appease the Americans by eliminating its nuclear program and allowing IAEA inspectors to certify that it had done so -- but they continue to deny regretting it to this day. And that includes not only radicals like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but so-called "moderates" like Hillary Clinton as well.

Key religious leaders like John Hagee explicitly argue that the United States should attack Iran in order to hasten the coming of Armageddon, and Hagee gets not only a respectful hearing at the White House, but also works closely with AIPAC giving him important entrée with many Democrats. All of the incumbent faction's candidates from office have said they'd contemplate a nuclear first strike against Iran, media sources generally lambaste anyone who criticizes American moves to ratchet up conflict with Iran, and in general any responsible Iranian leaders needs to wonder if the USA is really a country that one can risk doing business with.

Comments

Yes, indeed!

"Appeasement" is a very dangerous diplomatic policy, as history has repeatedly demonstrated.

Posted by RKU | November 24, 2007 11:43 AM

"Appeasement" is a very dangerous diplomatic policy, as history has repeatedly demonstrated

History has also repeatedly demonstrated occasions when avoiding conflict worked out just fine. Cuban missile crisis comes to mind.

Posted by Jeff S. | November 24, 2007 11:58 AM

Feeling a little bleak this morning, Matt? Jeez! What was in your turkey dinner?

Posted by pdp | November 24, 2007 12:09 PM

As a close observer of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, having seen at close hand how one demand after another of the Bush regime was acceded to by Iraq without averting US aggression, I appreciate Iranian skepticism about US intentions. They would be well advised, however, to avoid any action that could be seen as a provocation for the next 15 months or so. The United States is still thought to be a democracy, and there are hopes that its people, tired of the insane militarism of the extremists currently in power, will elect a more even-keeled government in November 2008. (Curiously, the successor government will not take over until nearly three months later, in January 2009, and this period is thought to be especially dangerous, since the "lame duck" government is almost wholly unaccountable.)

The coming months will indeed be a dangerous time for the world. It will be a test of the wisdom and maturity of the real Iranian leadership (as opposed to the buffoonish Ahmedinejad). If they can steer a peaceful course, the world will have cause to be grateful.

Posted by Invigilator | November 24, 2007 12:56 PM

I think Iran's best option is a pre-emptive first strike on American soil. The danger for Iran from America is a limited war, and Iran should force American into a choice of total all-out war, or no war. In circumstances where major economic & social damages have already happened to America, where there is a clear understanding that a limited attack on Iran will occasion more such losses (which understanding I do not yet believe is widely held), America will not choose a full mobilization and universal draft. If said Iranian attack was on say Charleston, the most hawkish parts of America would demand WWIII with enthusiasm,heightening the internal contradictions od American politics. The majority of Americans, after a few token conventional bombing runs, would vote for peace and significant withdrawal from the ME. This again would highlight the internal American divisions, forcing a stark choice on the sane Americans about putting down the rabid dogs of our polity.

I would of course deeply regret the American casualties, but believe many thousands of lives could be saved. Iran could risk a strategy of determination, courage, and peace, but America cannot be trusted, and will likely kill until forcefully stopped. Whatever course is chosen, I wish the people of Iran the best of luck.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 24, 2007 1:02 PM

[alert string="What follows is a snark. What follows is a snark. What follows is a snark. Please evacuate your building in an orderly fashion.">

Who sows the wind, reaps the storm. We unleashed Tom Friedman on the Middle East, and now is the time to reap the consequences.

Tom Friedman discovered that the best policy in the Middle East is to be insane. If you are sane, you may be afraid that when you will do something that adversely impacts your opponent, it will respond in a manner that will hurt you, even if your opponent will be hurt even worse. Now, it is not a particularly sane threat, so you have to be insane, and then you collect the bonus: your insane threat is given full credence.

Infortunately, this is a very good advise.

And no country is in a better position to capitalize on this advise than Iran. You see, in most countries either you have an insane leadership or a sane one. The upside of an insane leadership is already proven, but the downside is that to build its insane credibility a regime has to do a lot of insane stuff that is, in short term at least, quite counterproductive. Moreover, there is no way to get rid of the insane folks on top.

But Iran has a peculiar system. The keys to power are in the hands of velayet-e-faqih (spelling?) who is detached from day-to-day governance and thus he can maintain total inscrutability, so there is no way of telling -- sane or insance? Moreover, he has some stooges who are eminentrly sane (think about Rafsanjani) and some who are eminently insane (think about Ahmedinejad).

Yes, velayet-e-faqih can turn on a dime and toggle the position between sane and insane, but we have no idea what he wants. So we are afraid. To make it worse, we go around telling people that we know what velayet-e-faqih (usually pronounced "the mullahs") wants, but everybody who is somebody knows that THIS IS ABSURD: no lesser person may know that. So we loose credibility. And the others are afraid too.

By the way of contrast, we implemented only the easier part of Friedman advise and we have build a lot of credibility as insane folks. But this is one-legged policy, leaving ample room for doubts: yes, insane, but is it "he is nuts" insane or "batshit insane"? In the same time, Cheney, who reasonably tries to achieve the position of velayet-e-faqih (who else is above the other three branches of the government?) is good pretending to be deranged, but pretty bad at being inscrutable.

In the absence of Friedman columns, Iran would settle into some predictable policy that we could easily counter one way or another. Why does he hate America?

[/alert>

Posted by piotr | November 24, 2007 1:02 PM

If said Iranian attack was on say Charleston, the most hawkish parts of America would demand WWIII with enthusiasm,heightening the internal contradictions od American politics.

And we'd give it to them by nuking Iran from orbit.

We responded to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan and using it as an excuse to invade Iraq. A second attack, by an actual identifiable government no less, would really get the blood lust up.

Posted by daveNYC | November 24, 2007 1:10 PM

Hot damn. Come to the light, MY, come to the LIGHT!

Posted by yave begnet | November 24, 2007 1:19 PM

"...would really get the blood lust up."

Perhaps. But after the last few years, George Bush going on tv and declaring the decades long struggle costing trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives I don't think would be answered with the same cheers he recieved in 2001. And for instnce, after that attack on Charleston, oil prices would immediately spike, giving Americans a taste of what thy would lose if they voted for war.

I think the Int'l comminity, especially the nuclear nations in the fallout zone, might prevent a WMD attack on Iran. Unless we want to add Pakistan and India to the list of active enemies.

Posted by bob mcmanus | November 24, 2007 1:30 PM

What, Matthew Yglesias is writing like this now? What happened, what did I miss?

Posted by abb1 | November 24, 2007 1:45 PM

Bob McManus,

It's one thing to hate America, as you do, but it's foolish to underestimate this country. If Iran did what you suggest, Iran would be obliterated. It wouldn't even take nukes. Forget the usual satellite-guided bombs and cruise missile missions signed off on by JAG officers; once Iran's air defenses were knocked out, you'd see B-2 and B-52s dropping 2000 lb iron bombs by the dozen, fuel-air explosives, etc. Iran's roads would turn to rubble, its oil refineries would be destroyed, and nuclear plants would be destroyed, its military bases leveled, etc. And people like you would protest in vain, because whoever was Commander in Chief at the time would have approval ratings of 90%+.

Posted by Fred | November 24, 2007 1:52 PM

Matthew is mistaken: It's not the religion -- it's the corruption and greed.

REALLY religious men that I have know in the Christian churchs of the South do not build megachurchs or have their own TV show --because they live frugally and whatever money they get goes to the poor, the sick, and the needy. Per the teachings of Christ.

But the lack of hierarchy and oversight in Protestant Christianity means any con artist can set up a church and declare himself a man of the cloth. It's an old Southern con game.

And such men are happy to serve Mammon -- to use religion to promote the property interests of the wealthy in exchange for big checks (or envelops filled with cash) in the collection plate. A non-audited collection plate, I might add. The Southern Baptist Convention was formed to defend and rationalize the property interests of the Southern aristocracy in human slavery.

The protection that the law gives to real religion is also excellent cover for covert political and propaganda campaigns -- especially when the Bush IRS threatens churchs with an antiwar stance but is blind to the actions of "churchs" supporting Bush's Unchristian aggression.

Matthew the Yglesias should look at the writings of Matthew the Christian in the Bible -- specifically, Matthew 25:40-49 -- and ask if John Hagee is motivated by any of Christ's teachings.

Posted by Don Williams | November 24, 2007 2:06 PM

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And foolish notion:
What airs in dress and gait would leave us,
And even devotion!

Posted by Njorl | November 24, 2007 2:16 PM

Evidently Fred can't recognize satire even when it's wiggling its ears at him.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | November 24, 2007 2:27 PM

Great serious snark.

I expect you will be roundly condemned as a traitor as a result.

Posted by Armando | November 24, 2007 2:35 PM

Fred,

Bob knows that. But that's just one of the reasons he, and I, despise evil war crazed fucks like yourself.

Posted by LarryM | November 24, 2007 2:35 PM

"[Iran] would be well advised, however, to avoid any action that could be seen as a provocation"

Certainly, but, seen as provocation by who?

Any excuse will serve a tyrant.--Aesop

Posted by ThresherK | November 24, 2007 3:05 PM

Great post. Loved seeing "appeasement" turned on its head.

Posted by Curt M | November 24, 2007 3:14 PM

Stephen Covey is going to sue me for saying this, but I don't have anything anyway so let him....

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

This is why Matt is a highly effective person, and our dysfunctional government is...well, dysfunctional.

(On a side note...peruse the 7 Habits and see how many apply to the Bush Administration.

Be Proactive
Begin with the End in Mind
Put First Things First
Think Win/Win
Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood
Synergize
Sharpen the Saw

They just might be going 0-for-7, these Bushies.)

Posted by Herb | November 24, 2007 3:21 PM

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2007/11/would-iran-suspend-enrichment.html

I don't think Soltanieh was clear about what Iran would expect for a suspension and the McClatchy reporters may have heard something that was not quite what was said.

The quid pro quo Iran would expect is more than that the US acknowledges that Iran's program is peaceful. The US is willing to acknowledge a program that does not enrich uranium and does not have other technologies that can produce fuel for weapons is peaceful, as the US says consistently.

Iran would expect, not this year or maybe even next, but at a committed time or after objective milestones comparable to those of other countries have been reached, to be in the position of Brazil, Argentina, Romania, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada, Japan and the Netherlands - which is that Iran would have technologies that could in theory be used to produce weapons.

In this scenario Iran would not be using the technologies to make weapons even though in theory it could. Having technologies even if not using them would offer strategic advantages to Iran that the US wants to deny Iran as long as its primary dispute with Iran and the people of the Middle East continues - the dispute over the legitimacy of Zionism.

Posted by Arnold Evans | November 24, 2007 3:25 PM

http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/2007/11/would-iran-suspend-enrichment.html

I don't think Soltanieh was clear about what Iran would expect for a suspension and the McClatchy reporters may have heard something that was not quite what was said.

The quid pro quo Iran would expect is more than that the US acknowledges that Iran's program is peaceful. The US is willing to acknowledge a program that does not enrich uranium and does not have other technologies that can produce fuel for weapons is peaceful, as the US says consistently.

Iran would expect, not this year or maybe even next, but at a committed time or after objective milestones comparable to those of other countries have been reached, to be in the position of Brazil, Argentina, Romania, Taiwan, South Korea, Canada, Japan and the Netherlands - which is that Iran would have technologies that could in theory be used to produce weapons.

In this scenario Iran would not be using the technologies to make weapons even though in theory it could. Having technologies even if not using them would offer strategic advantages to Iran that the US wants to deny Iran as long as its primary dispute with Iran and the people of the Middle East continues - the dispute over the legitimacy of Zionism.

Posted by Arnold Evans | November 24, 2007 3:25 PM

sorry about the double post. the browser hung.

Posted by Arnold Evans | November 24, 2007 3:27 PM

Fred, you and bob are both nuts. Bob, of course, is off his rocker for thinking that Iran would be better off, and you're delusional in thinking that the US would come out ahead. Gas would quickly go to $10 a gallon, and our economy would collapse. Not to mention the draft and the tens of thousands of soldiers we'd lose in the ensuing conflagration throughout the region. Israel would likely disappear as well, you might care more about that, hard to say.

Posted by justinb | November 24, 2007 3:35 PM

Isn't your premise crystal clear? North Korea is the shining light for all of the US' enemies to emulate: an enemy country with nukes who the US continually placates. If the conservative premise of 'peace thru strength' means anything at all, then it is entirely RATIONAL for Iran to arm up and not trust the US.

Posted by scudbucket | November 24, 2007 3:42 PM

"Soltanieh went on to say that no deal is possible because the U.S. has 'a hidden agenda,' and he hinted that it centered on U.S. support for Israel, the ultimate bogeyman for the Islamic nation."

America is indeed hated and distrusted because of our support for Israel, who is the bogeyman due to her continuing occupation of Palestine and parts of Syria and Lebanon. Iran is no threat to the U.S. but through her support for the anti-occupation forces Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran threatens Israel's precious occupations. The Iranian president said at Columbia that he would accept any peace deal accepted by the Palestinians. This is why the US should endorse the Arab League Peace Plan. Israel of course will not even discuss substantive issues at Annapolis since she has no intention of relinquishing her stolen land by returning to the internationally accepted 67 borders.

Posted by Courtney Squires | November 24, 2007 3:48 PM

Re Courtney Squres

Mr. Squires is a god damn lier in stating that the 1949 cease fire lines are borders. These lines have not been recognized as borders by either side in the dispute. But Mr. Squires is typical of the antisemitic Israel bashers on this blog, blaming Israel for the impasse. The problem is that the Arab states consider the existence of the State of Israel to be an aggression against the Moslem world.
To the Moslems, what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.

Posted by SLC | November 24, 2007 4:24 PM

ONLY YOU, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, CAN FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH. Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Posted by Mike Meyer | November 24, 2007 5:05 PM

Great post, but small quibble: the US is the only nation to *use* nuclear weapons, but other nations have *deployed* nuclear weapons (eg. the USSR "deployed" nuclear weapons to Cuba precipitating the Cuban Missile Crisis).

But yes, it bears repeating the irony: the only country to have used nuclear weapons stands in judgment of those countries who may (or may not) wish to have them.

Posted by McKingford | November 24, 2007 5:21 PM

If I was in charge in Iran I'd be in a real hurry to develop a nuclear weapon to deter USA aggression.

SLC, I am really sick of folks playing the antisemitic card against those who criticize the actions of the state of Israel.

Israel is an atomic power and has not signed the international non-proliferation protocols, the nation has rendered Lebanon into civil war, has bombed sovereign nations, and committed human right atrocities against the Palestinian refugees. To acknowledge such is in no way antisemitic, it it simply an acknowledgment of facts.

Oh, and by the way, Arabs are also semitic. Your comment "To the Moslems (sic), what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.", so far as it applies to Arab Muslems constitutes antisemitism.

Posted by Chris Brown | November 24, 2007 5:24 PM

SLC: "To the Moslems, what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable."

Hm. Israel is the only non-Communist country that does not recognize the concept of property rights. We imposed a total embargo in Cuba for much less. Now, did Israel propose, say, returning to Palestinians the land stolen in, say, last 5 years? And this land was stolen even according to Israeli law. When was the last time that a government different than Israel deprived individuals of their private property with no compensation? And if you find some example postdating 1960, can you cite which other governments recognized such an act? You can find very few examples for the former, and none for the latter, with possible exception of the property of American companies in Cuba, with expropriation recognized by fellow Communist countries (and, rather characteristically, not by USA).

Is recognition of individual property right one of "American values"?

Posted by piotr | November 24, 2007 5:37 PM

I suspect when Dick Cheney reads 'A Modest Proposal' he salivates.

Posted by Nat | November 24, 2007 6:18 PM

Arnold Evans is right (hi, Arnold!)

Iran expects more than just a recognition from the US that its nuclear energy program is peaceful (although capable of being otherwise.) They want security guarantees that "regime change" is off the table.

Of course, the US will never give that, because it would enrage Israel - not to mention prevent the US from seizing the Iranian oil.

Arnold and I have a long running argument over whether it's US support for oil or Israel that is at issue here. I say it's both, with oil having the importance to Dick Cheney and his ilk. But in either case, the US is not going to give Iran any guarantees, so the point is moot.

The real issue is how could anybody in this day and age be so stupid as to trust any country - let alone the US - to deal fairly. States simply don't do that.

BTW, SLC, the state of Israel IS an aggression against the Moslem world, and was always intended as such from day one of its conception. This is why the Arabs began resisting as early as the 1920's and '30's. Even some prominent Zionists were disgusted by the behavior of the early Zionist settlers towards the Arab population of Palestine, as from these quotes:

Palestine--The Suppression of an Idea
http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?aid=160&iid=118&pg=1

"Even Max Nordau, the British Zionist leader, seemed to have been temporarily deceived by it. The famous Jewish philosopher Martin Buber related in his memoirs: "When Max Nordau, Herzl's second in command, first received details on the existence of an Arab population in Palestine, he came shocked to Herzl exclaiming: 'I never realized this--we are committing an injustice.'"

The Anglo-American Committee of 1946, though highly supportive of Zionist aspirations, commented that "it is not unfair to say that the Jewish community in Palestine has never, as a community, faced the problem of cooperation with the Arabs. It is, for instance, significant that, in the Jewish Agency's proposal for a Jewish state, the problem of handling a million and a quarter Arabs is dealt with in the vaguest of generalities."

Ahad Ha-Am (Asher Ginsberg), one of the best-known Jewish literary figures in this century, was so disillusioned with Zionism that he said: "If this is the 'Messiah,' then I do not wish to see his coming." 17 Ahad Ha-Am, who visited Palestine in the early 1920's, discovered the existence of the Palestinians, and witnessed the beginnings of Zionist behavior toward the indigenous population. The early Jewish settlers, he said, "treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds." 18 He warned that political Zionism was perverting the ideals of Judaism and asked: "Is this the dream of a return to Zion which our people have dreamt for centuries: That we now come to Zion to stain its soil with innocent blood?"

Dr. Arthur Rupin, described by an Israeli writer as the "godfather" of Zionist colonization in Palestine, wrote in 1928: "it became clear to me
how hard it is to realize Zionism in a way compatible with the demands of universal ethics. I was quite depressed."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 24, 2007 6:55 PM

Re Riohard Steven Hack

Well, Mr. Hack, the convicted felon, berates the State of Israel for, in his opinion, being beastly to the Palestinians. I suspect that the victims of Mr. Hacks' armed robberies also would consider him to be as beastly as he considers the State of Israel to be. This is the same Mr. Hack who, on an earlier thread, advocated assassinating police officers. Mr. Hack is nothing but a piece of filth.

Re Chris Brown

Mr. Chris Brown is a god damn liar in accusing the State of Israel for being responsible for the civil strife in Lebanon. The real responsibility lies with Iran and Syria (the latter, by the way, considers Lebanon to be part of Greater Syria). They are the ones supporting the HLizbollah terrorists who have undermined the Lebanese government.

Re piotr

Gee, Mr. piotr conveniently forgets how Caucasian Europeans stole most of what is now the USA from native Americans. There was as recently as this afternoon a 2 hour presentation on the History Channel about President Andrew Jackson ordering the Indian tribes East of the Mississippi River to be forcefully relocated West of the Mississippi.
Mr. piotr should remove the staff from his own eye before commenting on the staff in other peoples eyes.

By the way, the answer to the threat posed by a potentially nuclear armed Iran is very simple. Make a parking lot out of it.

Posted by SLC | November 24, 2007 7:23 PM

"By the way, the answer to the threat posed by a potentially nuclear armed Iran is very simple. Make a parking lot out of it."

SLC - Your comments belong on LGF. I cannot envision someone as bloodthirsty as you, being human. Are you for real? Advocating the deaths of 70 million innocent Iranians is what? A smart-ass remark? Genocide for fun? What has gotten your revenge engine so worked up? You wear your anger on your sleeve to the point you come off as as sociopathic buffoon.

Please back it down a dozen notches so people reading your comments don't throw up their lunches. You cannot seriously think you are pushing a rational point of view that will make people rethink their positions - not with the excessive rhetoric you employ. I may be new here but in all the blogs I follow rarely have I seen a poster so unhinged.

Posted by jdledell | November 24, 2007 8:35 PM

jdledell, the best part is that SLC admits he hates Israelis. He wants the Israelis to basically commit mass atrocities against the Palestinians (ethnic cleansing on a grand scale). He wants to destroy Iran. However, he says he does not care for the Israelis as a people because he has found the Israelis he has known to be arrogant. Every time that I point out that someone like me who is critical of Israel actually has Israeli friends, including people who have served in the IDF, while he has no Israeli friends yet tries to be all ethnically macho in his "my people, right or wrong" shtick is just a sad example of cognitive dissonance, he ignores it and basically just spouts "Hitler! Chamberlain! Appeasement!" That isn't being a rational human being, but a cartoon character. He hasn't even been to Israeli yet somehow claims to speak for Israelis and know the "word on the street" in Israel.

Posted by Reality Man | November 24, 2007 8:59 PM

SLC:
The Iraq Study Group Report concluded that Arab-Israeli peace is key to solving our problems in the Middle East and that peace should be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which call for Israel to return to the 1967 boundaries, ie end the occupations. The Arab League Peace Plan, formerly the Saudi Peace Plan, offers peace in return for Israel withdrawing to the 67 borders. As Noam Chomsky writes, the Saudi Plan is "yet another version of the longstanding international consensus that the US has blocked." ("Hegemony or Survival" p. 169) The US should endorse the Arab League Peace Plan.

Posted by Sabine Wales | November 24, 2007 9:21 PM

And we'd give it to them by nuking Iran from orbit.

There are a great many possibilities here, but one thing I suspect we can safely say, given the capabilities of our ICBMs and the limited number of orbiters at our disposal, is that we will not nuke Iran from orbit

Posted by rea | November 24, 2007 10:41 PM

"By the way, the answer to the threat posed by a potentially nuclear armed Iran is very simple. Make a parking lot out of it."

SLC, advocate of genocide. Nice.

Posted by Kevin | November 24, 2007 11:21 PM

"Since authentic Jewish people are opposed to the notion of a State altogether, there would be no problem whatsoever in Jews living in the area of Israel and Palestine. For hundreds of years there were Jewish communities of Prayer and study in the area that the State of Israel rules today. These communities lived in complete peace with the surrounding Arabs. The hatred between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was caused by Zionism." "The true definition of a Jew is faith and Torah. Zionism says it is nationalism." (Pat Harrington interview with Rabi Beck of Neturei Karta, 1991).

As George once said; "They need to cut that sh!t out" I agree, lets stop the insanity.

Posted by Ya Know... | November 24, 2007 11:52 PM

I see Matt is going to keep taking every opportunity to lump Hillary in with Bush and Cheney. That might be fine if Hillary isn't nominated, but if she is, not so much. Matt will then have to spend the second half of 2008 explaining how he didn't really mean it or, who knows, perhaps he'll help convince enough people to sit out the 2008 election to give us, say, President Rudy.

But then unlike Matt, I didn't get Iraq wrong in 2002, so perhaps I don't feel the need to overcompensate.

Posted by tdraicer | November 24, 2007 11:56 PM

Double up the tinfoil on your hat, Matt. You need to stop the Christianists from using their clever Zionist scientists and their mind control machines on you. You and Justin Raimondo are out last hope!!

Posted by Dave | November 24, 2007 11:59 PM

"By the way, the answer to the threat posed by a potentially nuclear armed Iran is very simple. Make a parking lot out of it." -SLC

Great, the country with the WMD blasts the country that doesnt have WMD because it fears they will get WMD. Is that even logical?

Korea got a WMD and we didnt WMD them to stop them from getting WMD and now that they have a WMD they have dropped off the radar.

Posted by Ya Know... | November 25, 2007 12:00 AM

RE SLC's comment " the answer to the threat posed by a potentially nuclear armed Iran is very simple. Make a parking lot out of it."
----------
Hey, SLC, would you like to explain to me again why US support for Israel is morally justified by the Holocaust?

Does "Never Again" just mean "Never Again Unless We Are Doing It".

What do you think Martin Buber would think of that? Are you planning to supercede Buber with your own work --"I and Me"??

PS I noticed that in the course of your rant against Richard Hack, you managed to (a) avoid addressing any of the facts Richard pointed out and (b) avoid introducing any points of your own--except that you dislike Richard.

Posted by Don Williams | November 25, 2007 12:20 AM

wow...you are foolish.

Posted by Kevin Sullivan | November 25, 2007 12:21 AM

And we'd give it to them by nuking Iran from orbit.

There are a great many possibilities here, but one thing I suspect we can safely say, given the capabilities of our ICBMs and the limited number of orbiters at our disposal, is that we will not nuke Iran from orbit.

Useless Pedantic Update:
A Trident D-5 missle reaches a height of about 600 nm at apogee. By comparison the space shuttle hangs out at a little under 250 miles up. So 'nuke them from orbit' actually understates the worse case scenario.

[insert 'the more you know' graphic here]

Posted by Kolohe | November 25, 2007 1:07 AM

>I think Iran's best option is a pre-emptive first strike on American soil.

And when you factor in how much coal, natural gas, and at least some spots of a first-world industrial base that America has, the invasion will ultimately pay for itself!!

How could any Iranians object, unless they were deeply unserious or actually hated their country?

Posted by doesn't matter | November 25, 2007 8:17 AM

A Trident D-5 missle reaches a height of about 600 nm at apogee. By comparison the space shuttle hangs out at a little under 250 miles up. So 'nuke them from orbit' actually understates the worse case scenario.

Being at a certain altitude does not constitute orbit. Circling the earth at any altitude and remaining there, which ICBM's do not do, constitutes orbit.

Posted by Bill H | November 25, 2007 8:59 AM

Re Don Williams

Apparently,in his haste to defend Richard Steven Hack, Mr. Williams buys into the formers' statement in a previous thread that police officers should be assassinated. Well, when one gets into the pen with the pigs, one can expect to emerge with a coating of mud.

Re Sabine Wales

1. The so called Arab peace plan is nothing but a proposal to eliminate the State of Israel as it demands that all Palestinians currently living in refugee camps be resettled in what is now Israel.

2. I am totally underwhelmed by the mouthings of Noam Chomsky whose dislike for the State of Israel is nothing but a reflection of his dislike for the USA, which he considers to be the root of all evil in the world.

3. The Iraq Study Group was led by James Baker who famously once said, "fuck the Jews, they don't vote for us."

Re Ya Know

The assholes in Neturei Karta are about as authentic as their uncle tom counterparts in amongst US black Americans, like uncle Tom Sowell.

Re jdledell

The notion of making a parking lot out of Iran may not be very humanitarian but it would certainly be effective. Does Mr. jdledell think that the US Army Air Force would not have made a parking lot out of Germany and Japan in WW2 if such a capability had existed at that time? Actually, I borrowed that phrase from the late General Curtis Lemay, former head of the US Strategic Air Command.

Re Reality Man

Mr. Reality Man misquotes me as to my opinion of Israelis. I have previously stated that I have found those I have interacted with to be obnoxious people. This is particularly true of Sabras.

Posted by SLC | November 25, 2007 9:01 AM

The 'nuke Iran from orbit' meme is an adaptation of a phrase in the 1986 science fiction film 'Aliens' (i.e. the only good one in the series)and not meant to be taken literally. Funny how a film that is arguably about the failures of militarism (all their hi-tech tanks, planes and superguns don't keep the exomorphs from wiping out all but three and a half of the Space Marines) is recast as a gung-ho call to arms with the benefit of hindsight and selective memory. Hmmm, in the remake they can cast Andrew Sullivan as Paul Reiser's character.

Posted by vivisfugue | November 25, 2007 9:13 AM

What if the Iranian leaders sought to divide America through confusion?

Say, what if they made their national anthem the Star Spangled Banner?

And gave special favored nation trading status to Sam's Club?

And showed up to all international meetings wearing Uncle Sam outfits complete with their all-important US flag lapel pins and magnetic yellow ribbons on their SUV motorcades?

Posted by El Cid | November 25, 2007 9:18 AM

SLC: The Arab League Peace Plan calls for a fair and just settlement of the refugee problem, which does not mean the end of Israel. It does not demand that all 4 million refugees return to Israel. On the other hand, Olmert is unreasonable to declare that not one refugee can return. This is called ethnic cleansing. (What if al Maliki said that only Shiite refugees could return to Iraq?) This has been Israeli policy for decades with the result that some Palestinians have had to live for four generations in hopeless refugee camps, a fertile ground for recruiting terrorists. Enough is enough.

Posted by Sabine Wales | November 25, 2007 2:51 PM

Re Sabine Wales

The Government of Israel will not accept the resettlement of any Palestinians current living in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and the PA. Not going to happen. Period, end of story. If Mr. Sabine Wales doesn't like it, tough bananas.

Posted by SLC | November 25, 2007 3:17 PM

RE SLC's comment "Apparently,in his haste to defend Richard Steven Hack "
--------
Apparently, SLC uses false ad hominems to avoid addressing the real issues . First he did it with Richard, then he did it with me.

The point of my post was to point out the contradictions in SLC's defense of Israel. I said nothing to defend Richard from SLC's slurs -- I merry pointed out that SLC was ducking the points Richard made re Israel's policy.

If I wanted to defend Richard, I would have noted that SLC --an advocate for Israeli ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Iranian people (see his posts above) -- is hardly in a position to make moral judgments about ANYONE. That's even assuming that SLC's allegations had any truth in them.

Posted by Don Williams | November 25, 2007 5:52 PM

Re Don Williams

Apparently, Mr. Don Williams hasn't been following Mr. Hacks' ravings very closely. He has admitted to being an ex-con who did 8 years in the Leavenworth Federal slammer for armed robbery (apparently he considers this a source of personal pride). He also, on an earlier thread, advocated the assassination of police officers. I didn't make any of this up. Mr. Hack himself voluntarily brought up his prison record and wrote the police officer assassination comment. Now if Mr. Williams wants to associate himself with such an individual, that's his privilege but when he does so, he is estopped from complaining of guilt by association. As I previously stated, when one gets into bed with the pigs, one may expect to emerge with a coating of mud. The fact is that, given his rap sheet, Mr. Hack is no no position to criticize anybody for anything.

Posted by SLC | November 25, 2007 6:55 PM

Dear SLC,
This is a blog. People trade intellectual arguments here. If Mr. Hack posts his ideas civilly, I don't really care whether he kidnapped Natalee Holloway. (Hell, you could be a criminal for all I know. Or I could be the anthrax mailer!) It would be nice if you could address the substance of his points.

Posted by nbt | November 25, 2007 7:39 PM

Me: Hm. Israel is the only non-Communist country that does not recognize the concept of property rights. We imposed a total embargo in Cuba for much less. Now, did Israel propose, say, returning to Palestinians the land stolen in, say, last 5 years?

SLC: Mr. piotr conveniently forgets how Caucasian Europeans stole most of what is now the USA from native Americans.

Summary: I have fallen for an anti-Semitic fallacy of trying to judge Israel by standards applied to the rest of humanity in the last 50 years, rather than by standards that existed before world wars, before UN etc.

But if it was not wrong to steal land from Amerindians, what would be wrong with "Moslems" taking away Palestine from Israelis? Should we, "Caucasian Europeans", care, and if yes, in which direction (support, oppose?)

By the way, to me, Caucasian peoples are the likes of Chechens, Georgians, Abhazians etc. Relatively un-involved with stealing land from American natives. My ancestry is more Carpathian. I also know some Alpine Americans (well, Schwarzenegger is probably best known).

Posted by piotr | November 25, 2007 10:26 PM

Re piotr

"But if it was not wrong to steal land from Amerindians, what would be wrong with "Moslems" taking away Palestine from Israelis?"

This is, of course, exactly what the Arab world has been trying to do since 1949. Fortunately, their efforts have met with a distinct lack of success.

Re nbt

"This is a blog. People trade intellectual arguments here. If Mr. Hack posts his ideas civilly, I don't really care whether he kidnapped Natalee Holloway. (Hell, you could be a criminal for all I know. Or I could be the anthrax mailer!) It would be nice if you could address the substance of his points"

I don't respond to cretins like Mr. Hack. Apparently, putting aside from Mr. Hacks' criminal record, Mr nbt is not at all troubled by Mr. Hacks' advocacy of assassinating police officers. Well, I am. I think that Mr. Hack belongs back in the slammer, not commenting on a blog with decent people like most of the other commentors here. Would Mr. nbt be okay with Charles Manson commenting on this blog?

Posted by SLC | November 26, 2007 9:45 AM

The assholes in Neturei Karta are about as authentic as their uncle tom counterparts in amongst US black Americans, like uncle Tom Sowell. -SLC

You call that intellectual? Frankly I haven't seen you make an intelligent rebuttal.

Posted by Ya Know... | November 26, 2007 2:46 PM