Bomb, Repeat, Bomb

Satyam Khanna finds Fred Kagan arguing that "Well, there’s nothing we can do short of an attack to force Iran to give up its nuclear program. … At the end of the day, the only way that you can make for sure that doesn’t happen is with an attack."

It can't be emphasized enough that this is dead wrong. If we bomb Iran we will, presumably, destroy some stuff. But we'll have know way of knowing exactly how much we destroyed or what we left undestroyed. Most likely we'll do no damage whatsoever to Iranian know-how. We may delay the Iranian program by some extent. But if Iran responds by boosting funding for their nuclear program, or if third-party countries respond by decreasing their level of cooperation with the United States we may speed their nuclear program. It's hard to say in advance except you can say for certain that bombing won't "make sure" of anything. The only way to make sure that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is avoided is to give other countries (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) certainty about where Iran stands.

That means verifiable disarmament. That means inspections, etc. And that means Iran needs to agree to verifiable disarmament. That's not to say that we can't wield sticks along with carrots in seeking an agreement with Iran, but still an agreement is absolutely vital. A bombing raid won't accomplish anything, and anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant.

Comments

Oh, I think a bombing raid would accomplish many, many things-- it's just none of them are good or necessarily desirable.

Posted by Persia | July 24, 2008 9:09 AM

If we bomb Iran we will, presumably, destroy some stuff.

For these people, this is not a means to an end. It is the end. I think you're mistaking their goal for their strategy.

Coming up with reasons to blow stuff up -- that is the strategy.

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2008 9:17 AM

Indeed. For example, this is true:

"At the end of the day, the only way that you can give me, Fred Kagan, the emotional thrill of an attack on Iran is with an attack on Iran."

Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 9:17 AM

All the above commenters are right.
Enrage Moslems worldwide? Check!
Further damage norms of diplomacy? Check!
Raise price of oil? Check!
Heat up a general MidEast War? Check!

Fred, and Holy Joe Leiberman and Dr. Strangelove-Krauthammer and the Undead Cheney's emotional state is just a happy side effect...

Posted by MR Bill | July 24, 2008 9:28 AM

You can destroy Iranian know-how. All you have to do is kill enough Iranians and eventually you'll get the smart ones. Ever wonder why the idea of using nuclear weapons keeps popping up?

Posted by daveNYC | July 24, 2008 9:28 AM

Nah, Kagan's right but he's not going far enough. Weapons inspectors are all clowns. So the only way you can make sure they aren't going nuclear or thinking about going nuclear is regime change- blow them up, decapitate the leadership from the country, and occupy Iran forever. There's no reason to think that wouldn't work.

Whoa, wait a minute. So if the United States runs Iran, and the United States is nuclear, then...

Shit. Nevermind. I'll get back to you on that one.

Posted by Brent | July 24, 2008 9:30 AM

All the above commenters are right.
Enrage Moslems worldwide? Check!
Further damage norms of diplomacy? Check!
Raise price of oil? Check!
Heat up a general MidEast War? Check!

Fred, and Holy Joe Leiberman and Dr. Strangelove-Krauthammer and the Undead Cheney's emotional state is just a happy side effect...

Posted by MR Bill | July 24, 2008 9:31 AM

A few 15 megaton bombs set off in the right places will put paid to Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 9:31 AM

In any sane nation Kagan would be torn limb from limb by an angry mob.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 9:33 AM

SLC is right, but doesn't go far enough. A sustained nuclear war among all the superpowers should be enough to inhibit international warmaking for quite a while.

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2008 9:39 AM

If Fearless Fred himself is strapped to the first laser-guided bomb dropped on Iranian targets, he would finally attain the warrior cred he so obviously and desperately craves. It might be worth it.

Posted by bluestatedon | July 24, 2008 9:40 AM

There has to be a new law called Kagan's Law - the doughiness of the pundit is generally in inverse proportion to one's suitabillity for hand to hand combat of the type said doughy pundit wouldn't participate in if their life depended on it.

Posted by calipygian | July 24, 2008 9:45 AM

I'd like to point out that unlike SLC I have zero interest in seeing millions of dead Iranians. It's just unfortunate that the 'can't destroy the knowledge' and 'double-secret super-buried labs' themes are ones that will be used as excuses if nuclear weapons are used.

You know the world has gone down the crapper when the first use of nuclear weapons is being floated as a good idea.

Posted by daveNYC | July 24, 2008 9:49 AM

SLC,

Guess what? A few 15 megaton bombs set off in the right places will put paid to Israeli nuclear ambitions as well.

Die painfully, you genocidal monster.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 9:55 AM

The only way to make sure that a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is avoided is to give other countries (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) certainty about where Iran stands.

Matthew is forgetting the right's preferred solution, which is to turn the entire middle east into a glass parking lot. I'm not making this up, I saw a bumber sticker in my South Philly neighborhood that said: "Fuck Iraq, Bomb 'em all" I hate these fascists.

Posted by drjimcooper | July 24, 2008 9:59 AM

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_83/ai_n16129963

Let's not forget that the Israeli bombing of Osirak singlehandedly turned Iraq's $400 million IAEA-monitored nuclear program into a $10 billion secret nuclear program.

A strike on Iran would blow up the cheap stuff. It would also prove to the Iranian people that it's essential they be able to defend themselves.

Posted by Luke | July 24, 2008 10:04 AM

There has to be a new law called Kagan's Law - the doughiness of the pundit is generally in inverse proportion to one's suitabillity for hand to hand combat of the type said doughy pundit wouldn't participate in if their life depended on it.
Posted by calipygian | July 24, 2008 9:45 AM

Thousands of Iranian lives destroyed because the Lesser Kagan got shoved into one too many lockers at some point in his formative years. How the Gods mock us :-)

Posted by blank_stare | July 24, 2008 10:11 AM

It's hard to say in advance except you can say for certain that bombing won't "make sure" of anything.

There is the little matter of the election in the fall, you know....

Posted by Davis X. Machina | July 24, 2008 10:21 AM

"A few 15 megaton bombs set off in the right places will put paid to Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 9:31 AM"

Substitute "Iranian" for "Israeli" or "American." How moral does your statement sound now?

You're just like Kagan and the other think tank clowns who are so smug in their ignorance and belligerance. You would have said the same thing about North Korea's nuclear program...or Iraq's. As we all know, violent overreaction worked wonders for those 2 examples.

Posted by some guy | July 24, 2008 10:31 AM

"A few 15 megaton bombs set off in the right places will put paid to Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 9:31 AM"

Substitute "Iranian" for "Israeli" or "American." How moral does your statement sound now?

You're just like Kagan and the other think tank clowns who are so smug in their ignorance and belligerance. You would have said the same thing about North Korea's nuclear program...or Iraq's. It's easy to shoot your mouth off when you aren't on the receiving end of a bomb.

Posted by some guy | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM

To anyone who's unenthusiastic about our country living up to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligation to pursue total, worldwide nuclear disarmament...

...remember that SLC exists, and he's not the only person who thinks the way he does. A lot of them, like the Kagan clan, are respected "thinkers" and political leaders. As Dr. King said, our technological development has outrun our spiritual development. Humanity can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Posted by Pesto | July 24, 2008 10:50 AM

"...but still an agreement is absolutely vital. A bombing raid won't accomplish anything, and anyone who says otherwise is being ignorant."

I doubt Iran cares about an agreement. But that aside, the decision to attack Iran will be (has been?) made in Tel Aviv and the U.S. financial & political elites, dominated by the Israel-uber-alles types, will go along. We've already given them the green light IMHO and Obama's a$$ licking tour of Israel means he's on board also.

Be prepared for AIPAC war number 3.

Posted by kafka | July 24, 2008 11:20 AM

Kagan is, of course, right from a logical perspective. Since "the only way to do X" is equivalent to "there is no other way to do X" given any impossible task it will always be true to say that "Y is the only way to do X" if X is something that can't be done. So it is true that "the only way that you can make for sure that doesn’t happen is with an attack" (is that "to make for sure" really an accurate quote?). And it is equally true that "the only way that you can make for sure that doesn’t happen is by gathering 1 percent of 1 percent of the world's population together to pray for Iran's nuclear disarmament."

The difference is that the second version doesn't justify killing people, so it is obviously not as good.

Posted by Lon | July 24, 2008 11:33 AM

Re voice of reason

"Die painfully, you genocidal monster."

It's only genocide when one kills human beings.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 12:28 PM

"It's only genocide when one kills human beings."

Jesus Christ, you spout some really horrible shit sometimes (usually regarding Arabs, not to mention the Obama birth certificate spamming you've done).

Your posts on other topics are generally fairly moderate. It's just bipolar and kind of creepy.

Posted by Waingro | July 24, 2008 12:38 PM

There's a lot more evidence for Iranians being human than there is for SLC.

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2008 12:43 PM

Re Waingro

Just a minor correction, Iranians are not Arabs.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 1:10 PM

All you have to do is kill enough Iranians and eventually you'll get the smart ones. Ever wonder why the idea of using nuclear weapons keeps popping up?

I think we're too focused on our nuclear arsenal. What we really ought to be considering for use against Iran is biological weapons.

Posted by Jasper | July 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Iran just received S-300 one of the best multi-target anti-aircraft-missile so let's see if any Israeli/US aircraft DARE to fly over Iran.

Attack Iran? Tel Aviv would be turned into dust in less than 2 hours.

Posted by Hameed | July 24, 2008 2:21 PM

I don't think you have a good plan, there, Matt. Instead of basing negotiations on an impossible demand for Iran to unilaterally disarm, based on the fact that they are signatories to a treaty, while the U.S. encourages India to make nuclear weapons, because, I guess, they aren't signatories to the treaty, directly supports Pakistan's military, and turns a blind eye to Israel's nuclear stockpile is - not going to work on any plane.

Since, however, Iran's leadership has said, patiently, that they are not planning on building a nuclear weapon and that they have no intention of stopping their nuclear power project, a better negotiating track is to get Iran to pledge not to attack Israel, and vice versa. At the moment, we have three Hezbollah allies in the Middle East, Iraq, whose government we support, Syria and Iran. Israel wants to pressure Syria and Iran not to support Hezbollah more than anything else. Non-aggression could take in a number of the region's players, and we could stop the nonsensical drift towards conflict. By encouraging a two state solution in Israel, we render the Iranian support for a one state solution - which is the total and sum of the reactionary position in Iran - as obsolete as Osama bin Laden's dream of a return to the caliphate.

There's no evidence whatsoever that Iran is building up the kind of force that could do Israel serious harm. On the contrary, they've shown remarkable restraint since the invasion of Iraq. It is time to reward that restraint with talks aimed at recognition. An Iran with a recognized status in the world system is going to be much less subject to any grab by the "mad mullahs", who exist in the superheated imaginations of those who, at the same time, calmly support the Islamization of Iraq. In other words, stone cold idiots.

Posted by roger | July 24, 2008 3:10 PM

Matthew writes,

It can't be emphasized enough that [bombing Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons] is dead wrong.

Obama: Iran nukes would pose 'grave threat'

U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a "grave threat" to the world. Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if elected, he would take "no options off the table" in dealing with the Iran issue and said tougher sanctions could be imposed.

Posted by Mixner | July 24, 2008 3:13 PM

I do seem to remember over 1 million Iranians holding a candle-light vigil in Tehran the day after the September 11th attacks. Was there a similar demonstration in Tel Aviv? I'm not saying that Iran is as good of a friend to the US as Israel is, that would be a bit silly. But things can change too.

But I don't think anyone who pushes for us to bomb Iran is necessarily that good of a friend to the U.S. I do support Israel's right to exist but as an American, I support the U.S. right to exist even more. Implicit with existing is also thriving. I'm sure the Israeli pols think of what is in their country's best interest before anything else, and I think our pols ought to do the same. I'm not saying anything of dived loyalties, just stating the fact that the two countries of Israel and the U.S. are in fact, two countries.

I can't imagine that invading a second Muslim nation, another nation that hadn't attacked us first, is bound to have some very unpleasant consequences. Let's put aside radiating millions of civilians to death, for just a moment. If for no other reason than it might rob the world of women who resemble actress Nadia Bjorlin. Yes, I know when they wear the veils you can't see them but things can change.

As history as shown, sustained traditional aerial bombing, without a followed ground invasion, does not often yield significant results. In fact, bombing often strengthens the populations will to resist. I for one certainly can't imagine a despotic regime, (assuming that they still have control of their country), responding to their country being bombed by saying, "yeah, you taught us a lesson, we'll act right now". I would be that they are going to respond in a rather unpleasant fashion, they have to, anything else would be fatal sign of weakness and then they really will lose their country. And that’s not taking into account the reaction of all the other countries in the region.

Just as there are costs of in-action, there are also costs of action, to be sure. Any discussion should involve talk of both. Perhaps the costs of action are worth it right now but I don't think so.

Posted by Raindog | July 24, 2008 5:06 PM

Matt: "That means verifiable disarmament. That means inspections, etc. And that means Iran needs to agree to verifiable disarmament"

Matt! Moron! They are! What the fuck do you think the IAEA is DOING in Iran? Eating at Wendy's?

Read my lips. There is NO - repeat NO - diversion of nuclear materials from any Iranian nuclear energy facility to any weapons program.

There is NO - repeat NO - evidence that ANY Iranian weapons program has exists or ever will exist.

Finally, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Iran to PROVE that there is and never was any Iranian nuclear weapons DATABASE program.

Get a fucking clue. Why you keep citing "verifiable disarmament" as even being APPLICABLE here is beyond me. You use that term when someone HAS nuclear weapons and are dismantling them, or HAS a nuclear weapons program and are being required to dismantle them. You cannot do that with an unknown program that you can't even prove exists.

And Mixner is right (for a literally miraculous change) - Obama IS continuing to threaten Iran over NOTHING in order to pander to the Israelis and AIPAC. Matt refuses to acknowledge this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 24, 2008 6:32 PM

Let me make it simple for you, Matt.

You claim you want "inspections".

How?

What inspections do you want? How would they be conducted? Who would conduct them?

Are you suggesting that Iran allow absolutely anybody to come in and go through every military office, every scientific and technical facility, every government facility and every government document in Iran?

Would that be "verifiable" enough for you?

Now - how would you KNOW you got them all?

You're an idiot.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 24, 2008 6:36 PM

Re Hameed

When the 15 megaton bomb falls on Tehran, there will be nothing left but a large crater.

Re Richard Steven Hack

I would agree with Mr. Hack that Yglesias is an idiot but at least he has managed thus far to stay out of the slammer, which is more then can be said for Mr. Hack, the blogs favorite ex-con.

Re Raindog

There is no necessity to invade Iran. As the late General Curtis LeMay once put it, we just have to make a parking lot out of it.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 7:19 PM

Yeah, but who would park there?

Where would you go once you had parked?

Let's have a little foresight, here, people.

I say let's make it into a playground, with a little electric train for the kids to ride.

Posted by Jeff | July 24, 2008 8:24 PM

SLC: Out of curiosity, to whom are you speaking? No one's going to nuke Iran. Not Israel, not the U.S. Nobody. Do you touch yourself when you say it? At least I hope so, 'cause then you might get some joy out of it.

(Not to mention that I could think of several million Israelis who might be annoyed at having to flee back to Europe or Russia because their homeland keeps raining radioactive fallout over themselves, their lands, their livestock, and their crops.)

None of the things you call for will ever happen. Never. No one will nuke Iran. The Israelis aren't going to go all "Hama Rules" on the million-plus Palestinians in the Gaza strip, and certainly not in the West Bank.

No tough Jews are going to teach anyone any lessons, and no seedy Arabs and Muslims and Palestinian Christians are going to be ground into the dust, and no Persians are going to be reduced into nuclear ash.

Nobody, no strategist here outside of a few lunatic cheerleaders, and no one elsewhere in the world, is going to nuke Iran. And that includes Israel.

So, again, I hope you're getting some sort of sexual thrill out of blogging such dreams, because you're never, ever, ever going to get any real world satisfaction from it.

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2008 8:38 PM

SLC,

God, you really are the biggest monster on the site. And with competition from Al, Chris Ford, daveinboca, et. al., that's saying a lot.

But, because I recall when you were merely a Likudnik asshole, and not a genocidal monster, let me give you some friendly advice - please don't reveal your real name and address, because I would wager that if you do, someone would come to your home town and render the world a service.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 8:48 PM

Although it's like tossing a stone into the ocean to slow the waves, please, no personal threats, direct, implied, or wished. I really hope there's no one on here mentally ill enough to ever try to do harm to a real person because of what some fruitcake writes on a blog.

Posted by El Cid | July 24, 2008 8:57 PM

I'm going to back El Cid here (whether he wants it or not).

As much as brutal thugs like Will Allen, robert powell, and others like them have done to ensure death and misery around the world they still don't deserve the punishment they have meted out to the innocents of, for example, Iraq. No one deserves that.

It does make one regret the lack of a just universe, knowing that these monsters will not reap some eternal reward commensurate with their support for criminal acts, but the lack of a just universe is not sufficient to warrant making life here more miserable through more suffering. Surely even some of these idiots have families - too bad they don't consider the families of their victims to be human.

Posted by Not as stupid as Will Allen | July 24, 2008 9:27 PM

While I actually agree that ACTUAL threats and, of course, actions taken against these monsters are a very bad idea, I don't think that you people can honestly believe that they don't DESERVE such a fate. They surely do. Certainly they wouldn't give that consideration to the two of you.

And that distinction, sadly, probably explains in large measure why this nation is run by the thugs, and not by the decent people.

Posted by voice of reason | July 24, 2008 9:40 PM

ted leo would never bomb bomb bomb iran.

Posted by joshua | July 24, 2008 11:06 PM

Re El Cid

I have a flash for Mr. El Cid. Unless Iran stops their nuclear development, it will come to resemble the surface of the moon, heavily cratered.

Re voice of reason

In the Middle East, their is no voice of reason. there is only the mailed fist. Anybody in the Middle East who is not armed to the teeth will be trampled.

Posted by SLC | July 24, 2008 11:39 PM

Yeah, well, SLC, I guess your IDF folks are Zionist homos, 'cause they got their asses handed to them by Hizballah in 2006.

And in a repeat, the same thing will happen.

And if Bush or McCain or Obama - or Israel - attacks Iran, they'll get the same.

And sooner or later, somebody in the ME will wise up - and Israel will be a crater - from one of Israel's own bombs.

Have a nice day, asshole.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 24, 2008 11:50 PM

Criminal neoconservative jewish shills are two types:

1) Jeffery Goldberg type whose obsessions with all things Israel and their affiliations with "let's-worry-about-Israel-till-the-end-of-time" are masked under pseudo intellectual cover;

2)SLC type whose lunacy, stupidity and retardation distracts folks from the real issues.

You have to be mindful of the fact that Israel Lobby doesn't just operate in Washington. They have an army of mercenaries online too.

Posted by Hameed | July 25, 2008 12:24 AM

El Cid, NasaWA - see what I mean? Can you really deny that the only fate merited by animals like SLC is a bullet to the back of the head?

SLC,

Since I'm not a sick bastard like yourself, I don't wish a nuclear holocaust on anyone, but if Tehran does indeed get nuked, Israel will be wiped out to the last man. No, it won't make me happy, because I'm not a sick bastard like you, but it would be guaranteed to happen, at a 100% degree of certainty.

Posted by voice of reason | July 25, 2008 2:48 AM

No, SLC, you are confusing your wishes for the reality of the future. If Iran ever does manage to get nuclear weapons, Israel will learn to live with it. There will be no nuclear war over there, and what you believe is a "flash" is actually a comic book.

Posted by El Cid | July 25, 2008 7:35 AM

Re Hameed

Just for the information of fuckface Hameed, I have never received so much as a Kopek from AIPEC or any other pro-Israel organization.

Posted by SLC | July 26, 2008 10:15 AM