The profits of freedom

February 25, 2005 12:37 PM

Iran gets bombed June 2005."George W. Bush has received and signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran planned for June 2005. Its purported goal is the destruction of Iran’s alleged program to develop nuclear weapons"
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket (130 comments total)

I loved the Daily Show last night when they showed Bush saying, "These rumors about us attacking Iran are absolutely ridiculous. That said, all ideas are on the table." (paraphrasing)
posted by fungible at 12:42 PM on February 25, 2005

Here we go again....
posted by spilon at 12:43 PM on February 25, 2005

Is Ritter just quoting the Hersh story, or does he know something else? I've seen opinions "around" the blogosphere that Ritter might just be shooting off at the mouth without any more basis than the Hersh story.

Or?....
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:46 PM on February 25, 2005

Hoder is gonna be mad at you, Mr. Bucket.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:46 PM on February 25, 2005

Hmmm. They had 10 years to put together bad intelligence on weapons in Iraq. This time they only have had a few months to put together bad intelligence. In wonder how this one will go?

Iran has roughly 70MM people, right (as compared to France and the UK which both have 60MM each or so)? If this happens, I think it's pretty safe to start calling this one WW IV (assuming you accept the Cold War as WWIII).
posted by psmealey at 12:46 PM on February 25, 2005

Hello, I'm the draft. We haven't quite met before, but I'm about to get real big again. Jesus big.
posted by dong_resin at 12:46 PM on February 25, 2005

Those are short people.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:50 PM on February 25, 2005

At least this time we'll beat those terrorists but good!
posted by fatbobsmith at 12:54 PM on February 25, 2005

This can't be real. It just can't.
posted by Parannoyed at 12:57 PM on February 25, 2005

Iranian State Sponsorship of Terror: Threatening U.S. Security, Global Stability, and Regional Peace, via Washington Institute

Iran is indeed the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. The sheer scope of Iranian terrorist activity is remarkable, including both the terrorism carried out by Iranian-supported terrorist groups and by Iranian agents themselves. Iranian sponsored terrorism threatens key United States security interests and American citizens alike.

It is critical that the international effort to rein in Iran's nuclear weapons program include an equally concerted effort to forestall its state sponsorship of terrorism. Failure to do so guarantees that Iran and its proxies will continue to undermine Israeli-Arab peace negotiations, conduct surveillance of U.S., Israeli, and other targets for possible terrorist attack, and destabilize Iraq.

posted by jenleigh at 12:57 PM on February 25, 2005

I bet they have wmd's, too!
posted by matteo at 12:58 PM on February 25, 2005

This seems premature. I mean, I'm as worried about the US response to Iran as any other sane citizen who does not believe a thing Bush says, but without some serious sourcing, and more importantly, a team of people accepting this as true (like say the New Yorker editorial team), this just seems like fear-mongering on Ritter's part. I don't think that everything Sy Hersh writes is totally kosher, but I sure will be more worried about this when I see it under his byline. He, at least, has some kind of professional reputation to forward and protect.
posted by OmieWise at 1:04 PM on February 25, 2005

Iran will be a much tougher foe than Iraq. To state the obvious, Iran's army wasn't softened up 10 years ago like Iraq was with the first Gulf War. I don't think we're going to roll straight into the heart of Tehran.
posted by wsg at 1:07 PM on February 25, 2005

Assuming the claims in jenleigh's link are true (which I suspect most of them are), still, someone has to explain to me the efficacy of launching a bombing campaign in a country the size of Iran, where by most accounts the Iranian nuclear program has gone "underground" since Israel took out their last nuclear program. Does US action risk further destabilization of the region and leaving no doubt that the US will show no signs of letting up its ever widening theatre of operations in the muslim world? If so, what is the possible upside?

Is this more pollyanna PNAC prognosticating that the people will rise up against the mullahs when American bombs start falling? Or is there something else going on?

Based on the sabre-rattling the Admin does by habit, the Iranians would have to suspect something was afoot, so why wouldn't they hit us pre-emptively, even if this is a bluff? Seems like the world is getting more dangerous by the second.

Someone with a sympathetic view of the administration is really going to have to weigh in here and explain some of this to me. I understood the rationale for going to Iraq, even if I strongly disagreed with them, but I'm at a total loss here.
posted by psmealey at 1:14 PM on February 25, 2005

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor
The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.


If Iran gets close, someone will bomb it, that is for sure.
posted by a3matrix at 1:18 PM on February 25, 2005

Hello, I'm the draft. We haven't quite met before, but I'm about to get real big again. Jesus big.

Hi, draft. You make me glad I have asthma.
posted by billysumday at 1:19 PM on February 25, 2005

If Scott Ritter says it, it must be true.

And lines like this suggest someone needs to go back to "journalism" school: "Olympians like to call the Capitol Theater "historic," but it's doubtful whether the eighty-year-old edifice has ever been the scene of more portentous revelations."
posted by pardonyou? at 1:22 PM on February 25, 2005

jenleigh, you must do more than simply quote the very reasonable-sounding "washington institute" if we're to accept the claim that the iranians are terrorizing the world (hey, that's our job!)

find some substantiation for the "scope of Iranian terrorism" and you have an argument. merely quoting a thinktank is not sufficient.

and for those without time to research what the perle-and-AEI connected w.i. is all about, look here and, in their own words, here.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:22 PM on February 25, 2005

Someone with a sympathetic view of the administration is really going to have to weigh in here and explain some of this to me.

Explain things? To you? Who cares what you think?
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:26 PM on February 25, 2005

I know, I know... it is a lot to ask.
posted by psmealey at 1:33 PM on February 25, 2005

This is obviously in the cards, whether it happens in June or not. I might have thought it would have been on to Damascus first, but the fact that Iran is getting close to being a nuclear power perhaps puts it at the top of the list.

Doesn't matter, though, because if this does happen, we're all f*cked. Iran does retaliate; things are likely to get far worse for our soldiers next door.

I've always wondered how much death and destruction the neocons are willing to tolerate on their way to making the world terrorism-free. I guess we're soon going to find out.
posted by kgasmart at 1:34 PM on February 25, 2005

Someone with a sympathetic view of the administration is really going to have to weigh in here and explain some of this to me.

Someone with a generally unsympathetic view of the adminstration—goldenboy Democrat Barack Obama—explained it like this back in September:

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

Also: Democrats Support Bush’s Iran Policy:

Senator John Kerry echoed this sentiment on May 29, 2004, when he told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been tough on the [Iran] issue … which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on the target.”

Even DNC chair hopeful Howard Dean, allegedly the liberal arm of the Democratic Party, concurs Bush has not been tough enough on Iran. The Forward quotes Dean as saying, “The United States has to ... take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi Arabia because they're funding terrorism.”

jenleigh, you must do more than simply quote the very reasonable-sounding "washington institute" if we're to accept the claim that the iranians are terrorizing the world (hey, that's our job!)

Quibbling over the source explains why you've all but ignored the substance.
posted by jenleigh at 1:34 PM on February 25, 2005

what substance? those are nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

and i'd be careful about using the word "boy," golden or no, in reference to an african-american.

this probably never crossed your mind, which tells me all i need to know.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:38 PM on February 25, 2005

and i'd be careful about using the word "boy," golden or no, in reference to an african-american.

this probably never crossed your mind, which tells me all i need to know.

?

I have no idea what you're on about. Is "Golden Boy" not a term in USian English?
posted by jenleigh at 1:42 PM on February 25, 2005

and i'd be careful about using the word "boy," golden or no, in reference to an african-american.

this probably never crossed your mind, which tells me all i need to know.

Give me a fucking break. That was totally uncalled-for. "Golden boy" has a distinct meaning that bears no relationship to the derogatory use of "boy" when referring to a black adult. Couple that with your ad hominem attack on jenleigh, and you crossed the line.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:43 PM on February 25, 2005

Speaking of ignored substance, my questions had more to do with how the act of bombing Iran (threatened or actual) will actually deliver more good than harm on balance. It's been reported that Iran has hardened its nuclear program, and our intelligence, based on recent experience, is likely to be subpar. Of course I realize the threat that Iran's nuclear program could pose.

I think Iran's ties to Hezbollah are fairly well-known at this point, so I don't think there's much sense in quibbling about that. But one thing that's rarely discussed in this context are the Saudis' support for terrorism, which by some accounts I've read, exceed that of the Iranians.
posted by psmealey at 1:47 PM on February 25, 2005

Is "Golden Boy" not a term in USian English?

Yes, it definitely is. I've used it, and I've heard other Americans use it. Maui, cut it out.
posted by unreason at 1:47 PM on February 25, 2005

If Scott Ritter says it, it must be true.

Scott Ritter has a better track record than, say, George W. Bush when it comes to evaluating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

I don't think that aerial attacks against Iran would be such a big problem. The military consequence to bombing Iran would be pretty minor. Even Israel managed to weather the political and terrorist/guerilla consequences of having bombed baghdad in the 80s. And the US has bombed plenty of places we were not "at war" with over the past 35 years without risking ourselves militarily.

The big question on my mind is why everyone regards this as so shocking. I mean, after Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, Panama, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Sudan, are we really that surprised at the prospect that the US might decide to bomb a far off country because it is regarded as a national security threat?
posted by deanc at 1:49 PM on February 25, 2005

Que further rise of the war stocks...
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:50 PM on February 25, 2005

"someone has to explain to me the efficacy of launching a bombing campaign in a country the size of Iran"

psmealy, Do you think the administration really adequately explained the efficacy of the Iraq situation? Of course they didn't and as time went on in those months leading up to the invasion, it didn't seem like the average Joe American cared much; hence the relatively easy march to war.

I want desperately to believe the American people have learned something from this invasion of Iraq but after our elections, I see little evidence to support that wish. Even now, as the rhetoric escalates, I still hear people suggesting anyone that thinks any invasion is forthcoming is, well....'stupid'. On the surface, it is stupid but I thought the same of the Iraq situation.

Iraq wasn't about Iraq. It never made sense to go in there and leave the rest of the region alone. Of course, the Administration was not offering up that tid-bit of information prior to invasion but it's becoming clear something is on the horizon here. We've constructed a number of 'permanent' bases in Iraq already. An all-out assault on Iran? I'd say doubtful but then again, invading Iraq seemed completely inane when I first heard Bush pound his war drum. Even his litany of reasons for invasion didn't support an occupation - let alone the nation building effort.

Over the last few months we've heard tacit connections to 9/11 (the same ones they say they never made regarding Iraq); we've heard the nuclear buzz-words and the real threat of terrorism from Iran. It's so much of what we heard just a couple years ago. Still, no one I've spoken to - not even supporters of the Iraq invasion - thinks war is eminent. They didn't then (before Iraq) and they don't now. Go figure. But the patterns are the same. There was no concern about Iraq prior to 9/11. The administration barely mentioned Saddams name. Suddenly and inexplicably, he was the nexus of evil in the region and bound and determined to attack our borders. Same with Iran now. We hadn't really heard much about them from this administration but suddenly, they've got to be stopped and "no options are off the table".

If he's going to do it, it will be by summer or years end. Now that there is a Shia controlled gov't in Iraq, it's clear Iran will realize some political gain in the region. This relationship will only continue to grow over the coming years making action against Iran logistically impossible (even with the bases we have constructed in Iraq). It just doesn't make any sense to go into Iran as our troops are pulling out of Iraq. But as deanc points out, an air attack is a more likely scenario.

This is troublesome on so many levels. Iran army is much better trained and stocked than was Saddams - not to mention they are a much bigger force. We would have our hands full with an invasion. The ongoing talks between Germany, France, England and Iran only complicates matters.

As for the article. Ritter kind of went off the deep end after the invasion so his references are suspect in my book.
posted by j.p. Hung at 1:52 PM on February 25, 2005

"the" line? pardon you indeed.

golden boy is a legit term. no duh.

but ask yourself "would i say this to a black person?" it's kinda like that "what would jesus do" thing you conservatives seem to love.

really. go out and try it. say it about an african-american basketball player, as a compliment, and see how they take it.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:54 PM on February 25, 2005

I believe it...

A friend of mine in the Special Forces told me in December that the big rumor on base was that Iran was next, and he'd be riding over Iraq/Iran border as early as June.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:56 PM on February 25, 2005

WAIT! are we still going back to the moon?
posted by mcsweetie at 1:56 PM on February 25, 2005

and jenleigh, can you please revisit the substance of the claims about all that iranian state-sponsored terrorism?

i'm truly interested. where is the evidence of it? (i'm not suggesting it doesn't exist, i just want to see the evidence. so supply it. it should be there in spades if what you say is true.)
posted by Hat Maui at 1:57 PM on February 25, 2005

Scott Ritter has a better track record than, say, George W. Bush when it comes to evaluating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Ritter sure was on the money, wasn't he?

From the WMD debacle alone, I'd take his insight a bit more seriously than any op-ed from right (or left) pundits on the Internets.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:59 PM on February 25, 2005

Hat Maui: Pull your head out of your ass.
Once again, more justification for two threads per FPP, one for substance, another for ad hominem attacks for those of us who have nothing constructive to contribute.

I, for one, am extraordinarily concerned about a draft. I'm graduating with my BA degree in April, and getting married in June. My ass needs to be at home, working my first real job, taking care of my family.

Not breaking people's things in Iran. Any input concerning the draft issue as it relates to the upcoming soft or hard campaign in Iran? (pref. from those who are in the loop).
posted by Baby_Balrog at 2:00 PM on February 25, 2005

Hat Maui: Pull your head out of your ass.

way to illustrate your point about that hobgoblin known as "ad hominem" by going "ad hominem."
posted by Hat Maui at 2:04 PM on February 25, 2005

Metafilter: "stop making ad hominem attacks, you stupid asshole"

well... I thought it was funny.
posted by psmealey at 2:06 PM on February 25, 2005

Both "sides" seem to like the term golden boy Barack Obama, including SeeingBlack.com. What a weak play of the racism card.
posted by casu marzu at 2:06 PM on February 25, 2005

Hat Maui:

Maybe he said it ironically? Damn hipsters.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:06 PM on February 25, 2005

Jenleigh:

I'm not sure what to make of your Washington Institute link. It would seem to indicate that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would be ineffective, since such bombing would do nothing to curtail Iran's support of terrorism. I can only conclude from this that you oppose this June bombing policy, then.

Is that correct?
posted by Ptrin at 2:06 PM on February 25, 2005

All my facetious humor is lost on you people.

BTW - I'd also heard about this from a friend in the service, and the ROTC kids have been making sly comments about it since January.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 2:10 PM on February 25, 2005

but ask yourself "would i say this to a black person?"

Yes, without hesitation. Apparently so would Salon, LA Weekly (in alternet), Grist Magazine (in alternet), 365gay.com, etc.

it's kinda like that "what would jesus do" thing you conservatives seem to love.

Boy, you have me pegged. I'm the conservative who has only voted for Democrats, and I'm the atheist who wonders what Jesus would do.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:14 PM on February 25, 2005

I think that a distinction must be made between dropping bombs and an all-out invasion. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq so far has taken the live of nearly 20,000+ people and cost US tax payer $200B a lone. Aside from the human and monitory cost, the Iraq war and occupation has set a dangerous precedent for the invasion of a noncombatant country by a superpower not experienced since the Nazi and Soviet land grabs.

On the other hand, making a bombing run at a specific target or carrying a "black-opts." mission to achieve a limited goal does come with the above mentioned costs and will limit the trampling of sovereignty. If the military action is narrowly tailored to achieve a specific and readily attainable goal and the action stops when the goal is achieved I don't see anything wrong. If it is a pretext for a larger Iraq style invasion or to perpetual war and colonialism I cannot support this at all.
posted by Bag Man at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005

There will never be a draft. It would be suicide for the Right.

All these dipshit arm chair patriots actually having to go get shot at? Or their kids get shot? No way.

No. The draft will happen during the next democratic administration. When ever that will be. And the way the dems are going it may be a decade or more (Hello? Earth to democrats? Stop fetishizing Gun Control, Affirmative Action and Abortion! You dumb assses!).

It would be interesting to see the tables turned and the Ditto Heads leading anti-war riots, though.

And Ritter? I don't buy it. The military is stretched to thin for us to have another war right now.
posted by tkchrist at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005

for the record, i never called anyone racist, nor did i play the racism card.

i merely suggested that using the term "boy," even in the context of "golden boy," is something that should be thought twice about.

jenleigh intended it as a pejorative, since she doesn't share the general opinion that obama is a shining light. she used it in an almost mocking fashion.
posted by Hat Maui at 2:17 PM on February 25, 2005

Sammy Davis Jr. starred on Broadway in the 1964 musical "Golden Boy".
posted by bochawa at 2:19 PM on February 25, 2005

I can only conclude from this that you oppose this June bombing policy, then.

I'm not outspoken either way. I'm doing what you all are doing: providing links on the subject, from all angles. For me, the links say:

The current Iranian government is a dangerous theocracy which needs light shone on its many corrupt policies so that military engagement isn't necessary. My point is also that this opinion crosses party lines. I have no more reason to believe Leavitt's "unsubstantiated claims" any more than Ritter's--they're all just pieces of the puzzle, no? My hope is that the sabre-rattling will have an effect like Reagan's policies on Communism: the regimes in question will crumble—or be dismantled from within—from the pressure of their corrupt, outmoded, fundamentalist infestation.

psmealy: how would bombing Iran deliver "more good than harm on balance"? Your guess is as good as mine, my friend.

Hat Maui: from what I can tell, you think my comment was racist. I certainly didn't mean it as such, but if anyone was offended I apologize. "Golden boy" was just meant to say, "He is perceived as a refreshing, rising young star in the party"—a point on which I'd agree, even from over here across the pond ;)
posted by jenleigh at 2:21 PM on February 25, 2005

hat maui, i wouldn't presume to speak for all or even most african-americans, but i, personally, am not bothered by the use of the term "goldenboy." it wouldn't even occur to me -- or pretty much any other black male i know -- to be offended by it.

that said, i don't give a fuck about what kerry, dean or obama has to say about iran. kerry's a punk ass, and dean or obama can't be right about everything; and in any event, they're more or less forced to take the same hands-on-their-dicks, threatening posture as any republican b/c otherwise karl rove will see to it that they're painted as abject cowards who will leave america defenseless.

finally, there won't be a draft. there will be an american freedom act that mandates civic service...and all the non-military civic service roles will be taken by children of the rich and the well-connected.
posted by lord_wolf at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2005

End the threadjack, please.

I wish there was a more legitimate source than some countywide peace group. I assume they reported Ritter accurately though. I don't doubt that Bush signed on for a potential attack, but that doesn't mean it won't be postponed or ever happen. It's just a way to 'put all options on the table'.

As much as the U.S. has made mistakes in the last couple yeras, the Bushies know that they can't do anything with Iran for at least 2 more years. The Iraq runup took 14 months and that was with a military that wasn't stretched to the breaking point.
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2005

The military consequence to bombing Iran would be pretty minor. Even Israel managed to weather the political and terrorist/guerilla consequences of having bombed baghdad in the 80s. And the US has bombed plenty of places we were not "at war" with over the past 35 years without risking ourselves militarily.

None of those countries had a military that was worth squat. The Iranians have both the ability and the opportunity to strike at American warships and tankers off their shores with sunburn missiles and I can't see the world getting on board with a preemptive strike. Maybe they are planning to work it thru the back door with Israel as the action party. Relative capabilities have changed a lot in the last 20 years though and even when they did bomb Iraq they had help from the Iranian government.

It'll be interesting to see whether everyone is still behind a hardline preemptive stance by the government if the US loses a capital ship or two to Iranian sunburns. And unless they can convince Iran to declare war on the US and Iran actually strikes at the US mainland I can't see the US recruiting enough man power without a draft to hold Iran.
posted by Mitheral at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2005

And Ritter? I don't buy it. The military is stretched to thin for us to have another war right now.

Ritter said specifically that we would aerially bomb targets in Iran. The US isn't capable of staging another significant ground war at the moment, but it has never been shy about staging a bombing raid.
posted by deanc at 2:22 PM on February 25, 2005

I say we go back to the ship and nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by Captain Ligntning at 2:25 PM on February 25, 2005

jenleigh, thank you for your response, and i apologize for my presumptions.

i hereby withdraw any claim that there's a potential problem with the term "golden boy" in reference to obama or anyone else.

[this threadjack is closed to new comments]
posted by Hat Maui at 2:26 PM on February 25, 2005

The Iranians have both the ability and the opportunity to strike at American warships and tankers off their shores with sunburn missiles and I can't see the world getting on board with a preemptive strike.

Wasn't that Japan's strategy? "First, we bomb a few of their destroyers and aircraft carriers! Then we win the war!" The US is counting on the probability that Iran could only retailiate with a proportionate response, like maybe sinking a ship or two and killing some US troops in Iraq. If Iran did this, then it would face a disproportionate retaliatory response from the USA, which the Iranians would not want to risk.
posted by deanc at 2:28 PM on February 25, 2005

i merely suggested that using the term "boy," even in the context of "golden boy," is something that should be thought twice about.

Oh, so it was kind of a public service announcment for jenleigh. A little friendly advice. How kind of you! Of course, I'm not sure how that jibes with "this probably never crossed your mind, which tells me all i need to know." But I'm glad to know you were just looking out for her best interests!

on preview: I'll stop after posting this, but nothing gets my hackles up quite like cavalier insinuations of racism based on perfectly acceptable figures of speech (see also the "niggardly" brouhaha).
posted by pardonyou? at 2:28 PM on February 25, 2005

Regarding the wish for crumbling MidEast theocracies, post-Iraq, I came across this in the Washington Post the other day. It's an interesting quote from the leader of a Lebanese intifada regarding Syria, Hariri and the Iraq elections:

Jumblatt dresses like an ex-hippie, in jeans and loafers, but he maintains the exquisite manners of a Lebanese aristocrat. Over the years, I've often heard him denouncing the United States and Israel, but these days, in the aftermath of Hariri's death, he's sounding almost like a neoconservative. He says he's determined to defy the Syrians until their troops leave Lebanon and the Lahoud government is replaced.

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."

Preview: thanks for your support, pardonyou ;)
posted by jenleigh at 2:37 PM on February 25, 2005

finally, there won't be a draft. there will be an american freedom act that mandates civic service...and all the non-military civic service roles will be taken by children of the rich and the well-connected.

LOL. That will NEVER happen. Clinton got ass-raped even thinking about mandating "civil service" and community service programs. Given the integrity of the MTV generation and the New Right that kind of shit is even more science fiction than a plain 'ol draft at this point.

aerial bombardment by US warplanes while the Iran has those hypersonic Sunburn missiles and 1200 mile un-securable border with Iraq and Iraq has a newly elected and sensitive Shia majority? No way.

The Sunburn is billed as aircraftcarrier killer it is short range and only radar guided (not GPS guided) - so Iranian radar installations would have to be hit first by either stealth bombers or by Special Forces ground troops. That shit is risky and takes months of time to get together. And our SF guys are ALL tied up in Iran and hunting Bin Laden.

See unlike the Chuck Norris fantasies Rumsfeld had about this entire army of kung fu chopping Rambos, the reality is those guys take years to train and right now we are fresh out. Not many more are going in while Iraq is going on.

My old man was a Green Beret. One of the first advisors in 'Nam. He keeps up with this shit.

Then again Bush HAS done stupider shit.
posted by tkchrist at 2:46 PM on February 25, 2005

Excellent links, jenleigh, thanks.

Oh, and I'll eat my hat when and if anyone (especially Iran) destroys an American aircraft carrier in the foreseeable future.
posted by loquax at 3:12 PM on February 25, 2005

Walid Jumblatt--now there's a man of rock solid set in stone opinions.

Walid Jumblatt said a letter from the US Embassy in Beirut notified him that his multiple visa had been cancelled.

Last month, Mr Jumblatt described US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz as a virus that should be destroyed.

The Lebanese MP said he regretted Mr Wolfowitz was unhurt in the 26 October attack, which killed one US soldier.

"We hope that next time the rockets will be more accurate and effective in getting rid of this virus, and his like, who wreak corruption in the Arab lands," Mr Jumblatt said after the attack.

Why only two weeks ago, it was Jumblatt willing to work with Syria to defuse 1559 row

Jumblatt said Lebanon was bearing an unfair burden in being the only country with an "active military front" with Israel.

He added: "I do not mind that Lebanon, the Golan, Jordan and Egypt turn into an open front. But I refuse to accept that Lebanon remains the only open front following its liberation."

Why, if my Memri serves me well...

Lebanese MP Walid Jumblatt: Al-Qa'ida and Bin Laden are Tools of U.S. Intelligence Agencies

Lebanese Druze Leader: Bush 'Mad Emperor,' Rice 'Oil-Colored,' Blair 'Peacock' With A 'Sexual Complex'; 'My Joy Was Great' at Columbia Disaster

Oh, yeah, count him in the US camp forever. No opportunist, he.

Excellent links, jenleigh, thanks.

You said it, loquax! Jumblatt's good as gold! USA! USA!
posted by y2karl at 3:40 PM on February 25, 2005

My two cents, which may be worth less than that in the near future, is that the US will not bomb Iran.

We are, however, about to see what $2 billion/year to Israel for the last 20-something years buys us. They owe us.

Why do you think Bush and Rice have been pushing Israel so hard for a settlement (involving far more land-abandonment than is usually discussed in these sort of things) specifically in the past three months? Why so much more discussion that actually uses the word "Palestine" (not just "a Palestinian state"--semantics count) from the lips of the US President, as a near fait accompli? It's carrot and stick. Bomb Iran for us, or it's bye bye West Bank for the Israelis, or maybe even Jerusalem. That Arafat finally croaked and that the Palestinians seem to be getting their shit together and really reforming is good cover, but it's not the whole reason.

Besides, there's something liberating about already being the most hated country in the neighborhood. What's gonna be the results of Israel bombing Iran, that Iran is going to hate Israel, or that Iran's allies will hate Israel, or that Iran will refuse to recognize Israel and refuse to let their athletes compete against Israel at the Olympics, or that Iran will fund terrorist groups against Israel, or directly carry out attacks themselves, or broadcast government "two minute hate" spiels against Israel...? Been there, doing that.

Of course, Israel is gonna need to get the okay from us to fly over Iraq--and even Jordan would probably turn a blind eye to an overflight, not being big Shia-fans and being quietly more pro-US and pro-Israel than is commonly reported.

Anyway, just my hunch. I could be totally wrong. But why risk our guys getting shot down when the IDF could do it, as they did in Iraq in 1981?

(This also raises the possibility that the person bombing the reactors could be a woman, since the IDF allows women combat pilots. That would be a nice twist of the knife for the mullahs.)
posted by Asparagirl at 3:40 PM on February 25, 2005

i read an article a few months ago where an iranian general said that his country's response would be to bomb oil fields in the persian gulf ... maybe, maybe not, but i can't understand why scott ritter would know what bush was going to do

this belongs in the rumor dept ... i'm not saying it couldn't happen, but mr ritter doesn't know ...
posted by pyramid termite at 3:41 PM on February 25, 2005

Jumblatt dresses like an ex-hippie, in jeans and loafers, but he maintains the exquisite manners of a Lebanese aristocrat.

"'The true axis of evil that rules the world today is an axis of oil and Jews,' Jumblatt said at his family home of Mukhtara, Chouf."...

"'In answer to the post-Sept. 11 question in America of 'why do they hate us?' … I would have liked to have felt sorry for the space shuttle that was destroyed (Saturday) but my joy was great because one of those killed was an Israeli astronaut [or a Jewish astronaut, there is no difference][2] who had previously been part of the Jewish criminal army, particularly against Lebanon and Iraq,' Jumblatt said, referring to Israeli Colonel Ilan Ramon, who participated in the mission that bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981."

He'll be on our side forever, that's for sure.
posted by y2karl at 3:45 PM on February 25, 2005

Aircraft-carrier-killers can more plausibly be employed as tanker-killers. Suppose the Iranians backchannelled a threat to close the Persian Gulf to tanker traffic if ol' George gets a little too frisky with his tactical air assets?
posted by alumshubby at 3:53 PM on February 25, 2005

Anyway, just my hunch. I could be totally wrong.

Well, that's the Fantasy Island scenario. Meanwhile, back at Reality Island:

Will Iran Be Next? By James Fallows
The Atlantic Monthly, December 2004 Edition

As for Israel, no one can be sure what it will do if threatened. Yet from the U.S. perspective, it looks as if a successful pre-emptive raid might be impossible-or at least so risky as to give the most determined Israeli planners pause. Partly this is because of the same lack of knowledge that handicaps the United States. When Menachem Begin dispatched Israeli fighter planes to destroy Iraq's Osirak plant, he knew there was only one target, and that if it was eliminated, Iraq's nuclear program would be set back for many years. In our scenario as in real life, the Americans thought Ariel Sharon and his successors could not be sure how many important targets were in Iran, or exactly where all of them were, or whether Israel could destroy enough of them to make the raid worth the international outrage and the likely counterattack. Plus, operationally it would be hard.

But for the purposes of our scenario, Israel kept up its threats to take unilateral action. It was time again for PowerPoint. Figure 2 shows the known targets that might be involved in some way in Iran's nuclear program. And figure 3 shows the route Israeli warplanes would have to take to get to them. Osirak, near Baghdad, was by comparison practically next door, and the Israeli planes made the round trip without refueling. To get to Iran, Israeli planes would have to fly over Saudi Arabia and Jordan, probably a casus belli in itself given current political conditions; or over Turkey, also a problem; or over American-controlled Iraq, which would require (and signal) U.S. approval of the mission...

Most of our panelists felt that the case against a U.S. strike was all the more powerful against an Israeli strike. With its much smaller air force and much more limited freedom to use airspace, Israel would probably do even less "helpful" damage to Iranian sites. The hostile reaction-against both Israel and the United States-would be potentially more lethal to both Israel and its strongest backer.
posted by y2karl at 3:58 PM on February 25, 2005

" The current U.S government is a dangerous theocracy which needs light shone on its many corrupt policies so that military engagement isn't necessary. "

see, it goes both ways

Btw, this is something that has haunted me for a while: If Saddam was a threat to the region, why didn't Israel act on him?
If Iran is a threat to the region - why doesn't Israel act on them?

Can all those expensive american weapons only be used to beat down arabs in their own country? Surely they must have arms and manpower available for other arabs as well, no?

I guess what I'm saying is, why the fuck is Israel the 51st state of the USA?


On preview: Asparagirl says something about this. To no satisfaction, I might add.
posted by mr.marx at 4:03 PM on February 25, 2005

For gawds sake. We should just LET Iran have nukes.

In exchange for the open and declared recognition of Israel.

Plus they can then be part of "The MAD Package".

That is when/if a Nuke EVER goes off on US Soil, or within the territory of US ally - Moscow, Beijing, Karachi and NOW Tehran all get turned to glass.

Funny how that makes everybody play all nice.
posted by tkchrist at 4:07 PM on February 25, 2005

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities that are viewed by most Iranians as a symbol of national pride and technological progress would provide the Iranian mullahs the necessary justification to intensify their crackdown on dissidents and moderates, whom the hawks are likely to brand as agents of foreign powers. It is equally plausible that, fearing such a backlash, domestic opposition forces in Iran would band together with Iran's new hawkish majority in parliament and abandon their calls and protests for reform...

Considering the extensive financial and national policy investment Iran has committed to its nuclear projects, it is almost certain that an attack by Israel or the United States would result in immediate retaliation. A likely scenario includes an immediate Iranian missile counterattack on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf, followed by a very serious effort to destabilize Iraq and foment all-out confrontation between the United States and Iraq's Shi'i majority. Iran could also opt to destabilize Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states with a significant Shi'i population, and induce Lebanese Hizbullah to launch a series of rocket attacks on Northern Israel...

In the event of an American or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, it is likely that Iran would attempt to take advantage of its extensive list of allies in Iraq to further sour the U.S. occupation and provoke clashes between U.S. troops and Iraqi Shi'a, which may well result in a popular Iraqi Shi'a uprising against the American presence in Iraq. In such an event, American casualties and costs would multiply exponentially as Iraq further disintegrates into Lebanon-style violence. Such developments would prove disastrous for U.S. interests in the Middle East and negate any perceived or actual benefits that may be gained from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. The fact is that the strategic usefulness of a successful preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is likely to be short-lived if the United States gets further bogged down in Iraq...

...Whether talk of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is a likely scenario or just bravado and journalistic hype remains to be seen, but one thing is for certain, it would not be just another Osirak.
posted by y2karl at 4:11 PM on February 25, 2005

AsparaGirl is right on the moneym IMO. Except that I believe the true annual dollar amount is closer to 5 billion. Expect Israel to carry out bombing raids on Iraq sites by the end of the summer, at the latest, and expect the Bush Admin to support it in full politically.

Obviously it will be 'interesting' to see how successful the bombings are. It will also be 'interesting' to see the response of the pan-Arab world if indeed, as I believe, Israel is the hand of God, so to speak. And finally, it will be 'interesting' to see Europe's reaction to this considering all the diplomatic interplay going on right now vis a vis Iran's nuclear program.

Will say, I'm not excited (an understatement) about a fundamentalist theocracy (is there any other kind?) possessing nuclear weapons. Of course I kind of find that applies to the current US admin on some level, even if it's not as overt as Iran. Way too much ideology underlying policy decisions with not nearly enough realistic, critical analysis.

I also find it deeply troubling and counterproductive towards slowing nuclear proliferation that the US is developing 'tactical' nuclear weapons, which are designed to actually be used as opposed to the strategic dissuading of ICBMs. That can only have the effect of pushing extremist regimes on the wrong side of the admin to accelerate their own meager WMD programs.

Finally, I think there is a case to be made that a nation has the right to defend itself, and Israel being the only nuclear-capable nation in the region is legitimate cause for alarm to Iran. Not that I defend, even remotely, the repressive regime in Tehran. I do believe that the regime would fall on its own with far less damaging fallout, and that the US stance in recent years has actually invigorated it instead of weakening it

All in all, a truly complex and disturbing issue.
posted by the_savage_mind at 4:12 PM on February 25, 2005

y2karl: I think you're misinterpreting jenleigh's link and my thanking her as "support" for Jumblatt. I was actually thanking her for all of her links in this thread, not that specific article. If I could, I'd nominate her for new member of the month. Thank you also for your links, they're also interesting.

Really though, there's no need to overreact. In fact, I can't even believe that you'd go so far as to post links to memri, seeing as you've likened it to debkafile and worse in the past. It *is* interesting that Jumblatt seems to have changed his tune for the time being as a result of US policy in the region. Even if he's being duplicitous. Neither I nor jenleigh claimed to believe that he'll be on "our" side forever. In fact, in fact, neither of us said anything about him. Just relax and let others contribute without feeling the need to enthusiastically dismiss arguments that were never made.
posted by loquax at 4:14 PM on February 25, 2005

In exchange for the open and declared recognition of Israel.

Yeah, but what happens when they say "just kidding" the day after that? They'll still have the damn nuke.

I'd be okay with a post-theocratic Iran having a nuke, in as much as I'm (barely) okay that anyone have such a dangerous weapon. But right now, their leaders are wackjob terror-funding fundamentlists more concerned with giving bloggers mult-decade jail terms and stoning young women than with talking peace and opening up trade with neighbors.
posted by Asparagirl at 4:17 PM on February 25, 2005

In fact, I can't even believe that you'd go so far as to post links to memri, seeing as you've likened it to debkafile and worse in the past.

Well, it was just a little poke at you. ;)

By the way, agit-prop from the Washington Institute? Her links were hardly brilliant.
posted by y2karl at 4:21 PM on February 25, 2005

it will be 'interesting' to see Europe's reaction to this considering all the diplomatic interplay going on right now vis a vis Iran's nuclear program.

For what it's worth--and y2karl has made it clear he thinks I'm being looney, so let us of course take all this with many grains of salt--I don't think Europe would be all that pissed off about the raid. The most recent rockets Iran tested had a far larger range than originally announced by the mullahs. They can reach South/Central Europe.

If Israel takes out the reactor sites, Chirac and Schroeder and the rest may piss and moan, but I think they'd also be relieved. No one--no one--is going to stick up for the Iranian mullahs' right to have a nuke that can hit Europe.

(However, they wouldn't care if they only had a missle that could hit Israel. Probably wouldn't cry much about it either.)
posted by Asparagirl at 4:23 PM on February 25, 2005

...what happens when they say "just kidding" the day after that?

We would bomb them. Or the IDF can nuke them. No more Iran.

And I would posit that the acquiring of Nukes would make them MORE stable and likely to be less extreme.
posted by tkchrist at 4:26 PM on February 25, 2005

If Saddam was a threat to the region, why didn't Israel act on him?

Er, that's exactly what they did--I mean, they hit him in 1981. But they couldn't possibly invade the place when they can't even safeguard Tel Aviv. (Turn on your TV--there was just another suicide bombing there. Shit.)

If Iran is a threat to the region - why doesn't Israel act on them?

That's another reason why I think they will. To speak more hogwash here, Israelis also have a bit of an ego problem, and I think they'd take pride in getting to destroy the reactors.
posted by Asparagirl at 4:29 PM on February 25, 2005

karl: my point was not that Jumblatt is a great friend of the US—or even a consistent critic of the US—but that it was interesting to see someone so deeply entrenched in his own rigid opinions express hope for the MidEast after witnessing the Iraq election & subsequent optimism. And I don't think Jumblatt is the first or last to change their tune since then.

Oh, yeah, count him in the US camp forever. No opportunist, he.
You said it, loquax! Jumblatt's good as gold! USA! USA!
He'll be on our side forever, that's for sure.
Well, that's the Fantasy Island scenario. Meanwhile, back at Reality Island:
Her links were hardly brilliant.

I've mostly appreciated your contributions to the site, karl, if not always your format. But I don't understand why you're taking such a dismissive, sarcastic tone in this thread. Other than the bizarre Racism derail, this thread's been positive & educational. I'm trying to bring some links to the table which show angles not often represented on MeFi. Debunk them if you will, but the snide comments aren't doing much for you arguement.
posted by jenleigh at 4:34 PM on February 25, 2005

But they couldn't possibly invade the place when they can't even safeguard Tel Aviv. (Turn on your TV--there was just another suicide bombing there. Shit.)

Well, it wouldn't be that hard to detonate a suicide bomb in Washington either.

However, they wouldn't care if they only had a missle that could hit Israel. Probably wouldn't cry much about it either.

Not that I agree with you, but if "Europe" wouldn't care, why should the US? And if Iran had a missile that could hit Ethiopia, would that be of the same concern?
posted by mr.marx at 4:39 PM on February 25, 2005

They owe us

if only, say, one of the many lily-livered peaceniks here had dared write something like that, the usual suspects here would have been screaming antisemitism in un momento.

my idea is that Israel owes zero to the US. nobody put a gun to Washington's head after all -- Americans are giving that money away willingly, and that's that. not to mention, it's highly debatable if the US is safer after Iraq Attaq -- but Israel certainly is.
anyway it's all moot, they money'll keep coming, and I don't see the Likud gentlemen being particularly worried to give something back (politically) to their genereous, oh-so-silent overseas financiers anytime soon. yes, by funding Israel's occupation, Washington buys herself a lot of hate from Muslims all over the world, and ensures that the occupation will successfully go on. dismantling all those outposts and settlements? oh come on. settlements are so heavily subsidized by the Israeli govt -- with American money -- that for each settler who's asked to leave two new ones pack their bags to go live in the West Bank. cheap, good housing and all.
and the talk of a Palestinian State (well, a viable one, not three separate and distant districts surrounded by walls and Israeli-only highways) is just that. talk. Oslo was set in stone if you compare it to the current talk of "Palestine". the Wall is there to stay, and with it no viable Palestinian state.

and by the way, breaking news -- new attack in an Israeli club, at least 5 dead and 55 injured.

asparagirl, if you're serious about the US subcontracting IranAttack to Israel, well, I didn't know you were one of those cheering for Armageddon. you just wait, if Israel bombs Iran then really bad shit starts going down in the region, 1967-style. not even the "cakewalq in Iraq" neoconmen are that insane. this is not 1981. it can't happen unless someone in the Israeli gov't goes nuts -- and they're not nuts like that, they suffer from a different kind of delusional madness


Why, if my Memri serves me well...

ahahahaha! karl wins.
posted by matteo at 4:42 PM on February 25, 2005

And if Iran had a missile that could hit Ethiopia, would that be of the same concern?

no, but in case of attack Bob Geldof would patronisingly rant and record a new song to benefit those unhelpful, whippet-thin brown people
posted by matteo at 4:46 PM on February 25, 2005

no, but in case of attack Bob Geldof would patronisingly rant and record a new song to benefit those unhelpful, whippet-thin brown people

Hey I hear he's got one for the Iran attack already:

Do they know it's the end of times at all?
posted by mr.marx at 4:56 PM on February 25, 2005

deanc: then it would face a disproportionate retaliatory response from the USA, which the Iranians would not want to risk.

How many bombs can the US release over Iran (a country for the most part minding it's own business) without incurring the serious disapproval of the rest of the world? At least when they went into Iraq they had Britain with them, oh and Poland, and a few vague justifications. It seems unlikely they can count on that support on an attack on Iran.

My point is the US can't treat Iran like it is Panama. There will be consequences, political, economic, and security. Iran has real defensive and retaliatory capabilities. Sure America can bomb them into the stone age or I guess in the extreme case glass the whole area over killing 70M people. I just don't think any American government, even the Bush government, is that bat shit crazy. It wouldn't seem wise to get into a pissing match with a bunch of fundamentalists when they can seriously impact the energy flow that keeps your country cranking.
posted by Mitheral at 4:59 PM on February 25, 2005

Not that I agree with you, but if "Europe" wouldn't care, why should the US? And if Iran had a missile that could hit Ethiopia, would that be of the same concern?

Yeah, but I doubt Iran has the intention of ever messing with your average Ethiopian (unless he's a Falasha...). They are, however, publically and consistently committed to the total destruction of Israel and genocide towards its inhabitants. That's inherently destabilizing, not to mention being kind of mean. And any kind of nuke in the hands of any fundamentalist Islamic country is a bad thing. Pakistan, for instance, has no intention and (I think) no ability to hit Israel, but people still get much heartburn over them becasue they're not too friendly to their nearby democratic nation (India), are not terribly stable or free, and could sell or lose a nuke to a terrorist group.

From a purely self-serving perspective--which is the fundamental but minimum basis on which any country should act--having a pro-American democracy--or just a democracy, period--in the region is crucial to our maintaining a sphere of influence. Especially when the region in question has some wackjobs and much hatred of us in it. Look at our relationship with Japan, especially vis-a-vis North Korea (and China, a little).

Moving to a more altruistic perspective--one seemingly favored by the Bushies--we need to expand our values across the planet not just to strengthen our national position but because it's a moral right to support free governments and free people, rather than tyranny. Especially when said tyranny wants to squish said democracy. Think Taiwan.

The upside of this is that if, someday, our new client state in the region/lovable little democracy/recipient of aid/center of influence is increasingly Iraq, then Israel becomes much less important to us and we can start treating them more like, I dunno, Jordan. They wouldn't be as special or unique.

Europe wouldn't care so much if Iran hit Israel, because Europe has/had its outpost/client/favored states in the region, too. They play the same games we do. The past few days have seen news stories saying Lebanon will shortly become France's Iraq, for example.

matteo, out of sincere curiosity here, what do you 1) think will end up happening and 2) think should end up happening with Iran? Does saying "I don't see the Likud gentlemen being particularly worried to give something back (politically)" mean that you think Israel won't bomb Iran? Or just that they won't do it out of some sense of debt?
posted by Asparagirl at 5:18 PM on February 25, 2005

Iran gets bombed June 2005.

Israel has announced that, in May 2005, Dan Halutz will replace Moshe Ya'alon as the head of their military. He will be the first combat pilot, and the first air force officer, to hold that post. Just saying.

I think that makes three of my last four comments about Israel - odd.
posted by kickingtheground at 5:21 PM on February 25, 2005

Look, Saddam Hussain must disarm, thats all there is to it.
...oh, waitaminute.

Um, freedom something.

Terrorists.

Y'know. N'stuff.

Seriously, talk to just about anyone on this issue (Mefites & news junkies excepted) - that is what you get.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:27 PM on February 25, 2005

what do you 1) think will end up happening

at worst a Clinton-style American air strike, they'll say they blew up an Al Qaeda base or a wmd manufacturing plant and everybody (except American Bush fans) will think Powell-Alumin Tubes - Office for Special Plans and laugh bitterly. but maybe nothing will happen, especially if Iraq stays as bas as it is. maybe it'll be an aspirin factory or something. or another Chinese embassy.
but no land invasion of course, the US military cannot cut it now. also, too expensive. and this time not even Blair (or Gordon Brown) will help them out. not even Berlusconi.


and 2) think should end up happening with Iran?

well, I wouldn't advise to invade them only to found that there are no wmd's, that you end up torturing prisoners, smearing them in shit then taking their pictures, etc. it'd start another civil war after the one you've ignited in Iraq. one is enough. and Iraqi oil is sweeter (less sulfur)

Does saying "I don't see the Likud gentlemen being particularly worried to give something back (politically)" mean that you think Israel won't bomb Iran? Or just that they won't do it out of some sense of debt?

as I said, they aren't in debt. they happily accept gifts, that's all, it's up to Washington to stop funding the occupation (Nader is the only US politician that I know of who's promised to cut all funding to Israel, everybody else likes the actual system, so...). and yes, I think Israel won't bomb Iran, unless they think it's Armageddon time. they know that some Arab neighbor will strike back, also who knows what would those ISI gentlemen who organized 9-11 with Saudi funds do to Israel, if Israel attacks Iran. all bets would be off. if Sharon really wants to hit Iran, the US will do it for him. it already happened with Iraq, so. Israel will be able to concentrate her efforts on building the wall, protecting new settlements, killing Palestinians. it'd be worse than dumb, it'd be insane for Israel to attack directly Iran
posted by matteo at 5:40 PM on February 25, 2005

you know, I'm totally down with bombing iran. know why? because we're america! we can bomb whoever we want without fear of the consequences. I mean, if they don't like it, we'll move our whole highly trained and inexhaustible army in there to kick some ass! That's what's great about America. We don't need to think of the consequences.

Seriously, though. Since when has dropping a bomb been a deterrent of arms development?
posted by shmegegge at 5:40 PM on February 25, 2005

" especially if Iraq stays as bas as it is."
should read
as "bad" as it is

my mistake
posted by matteo at 5:43 PM on February 25, 2005

posted by alumshubby:
Aircraft-carrier-killers can more plausibly be employed as tanker-killers. Suppose the Iranians backchannelled a threat to close the Persian Gulf to tanker traffic if ol' George gets a little too frisky with his tactical air assets?

This is a major point of consideration. One would hope that the Bush administration has at least taken into consideration out energy Achilles heel-- The Strait of Hormuz, through which two-fifths of the world's oil travels daily. The easiest way for Iran to retaliate against an incursion (If they decided they could tolerate the disruption to their own oil exports) would be to shut down the strait. That would put a world of hurt on us at the gas pump.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:58 PM on February 25, 2005

They are, however, publically and consistently committed to the total destruction of Palestine and genocide towards its inhabitants.

And any kind of nuke in the hands of any fundamentalist Islamic country is a bad thing.

why?

Pakistan, for instance, has no intention and (I think) no ability to hit Israel, but people still get much heartburn over them becasue they're not too friendly to their nearby democratic nation (India), are not terribly stable or free, and could sell or lose a nuke to a terrorist group.

Could? A.Q. Khan
So why are they still a trusted US ally?

Moving to a more altruistic perspective--one seemingly favored by the Bushies--we need to expand our values across the planet not just to strengthen our national position but because it's a moral right to support free governments and free people

With military power, I presume.

The upside of this is that if, someday, our new client state in the region/lovable little democracy/recipient of aid/center of influence is increasingly Iraq, then Israel becomes much less important to us and we can start treating them more like, I dunno, Jordan. They wouldn't be as special or unique.

Hey I think I heard this before. Look at European colonies in Africa and see how good that worked out.
Btw, you still haven't said why Israel has to be a "client state in the region/lovable little democracy/recipient of aid/center of influence".

Europe wouldn't care so much if Iran hit Israel, because Europe has/had its outpost/client/favored states in the region, too.

No shit?

They play the same games we do.

Please understand this: It's not a game.
posted by mr.marx at 6:00 PM on February 25, 2005

Kipling says bollocks to that.
posted by Asparagirl at 6:05 PM on February 25, 2005

my questions had more to do with how the act of bombing Iran (threatened or actual) will actually deliver more good than harm on balance

Well, that's never stopped us before...

That said, there's no way we're going into Iran. Hear me, fates?! Not going to happen!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:08 PM on February 25, 2005

Asparagirl:
I think you're right. If the U.S. doesn't do it, Israel will...

posted by login at 6:09 PM on February 25, 2005

Kipling says bollocks to that

is that a quote from a musical?
posted by matteo at 6:11 PM on February 25, 2005

is that a quote from a musical?

Hup two three four
Keep it up two three four
Hup two three four
Keep it up two three four
Company sound off!

Ho, the aim of our patrol
Is a question rather droll
For to march and drill
Over field and hill
Is a military goal!
Is a military goal!

Hup two three four
Dress it up two three four
Hup two three four
Dress it up two three four

By the ranks or single file
Over every jungle mile
Oh we stamp and crush
Through the underbrush
In a military style!
In a military style!
posted by mr.marx at 6:15 PM on February 25, 2005

Heh. I meant this, of course.

But I can just see the musical version of "Kim" --Riverdance meets Disney's The Jungle Book! Bollywood meets Dancing at Lughnasa! Ben Brantley calls it a "just-so story"!
posted by Asparagirl at 6:16 PM on February 25, 2005

Of course we're going into Iran--even without all the talk, you can just look at a map.

I bet Uncle Bucky is thrilled
posted by amberglow at 6:33 PM on February 25, 2005

I found the realism and level of discussion put forth by jenleigh so disturbing (and the FPP and Hersh's article so scary) that I finally signed up for a metafilter account. It's precisely this sort of neoconservative wishful idealism, about how we want to world to turn out that makes the war on terror as hard as it is for us. And it's the go war propaganda, that left encountered that gets us into our current Iraq type situation.

One: the lack of information about Iran's government: newsflash! Iran HAS elections, and not just sham ones either, of course the reviled "Mullah's" those on the Guardian Council hold almost dictatorial veto power over reforms that they do not like. But the country is NOT run 100% by mullahs, in the past couple years people have been very disillusioned by the democratic process, as the Mullah's have been blocking progressive candidates and striking down reform legislation.

Two: Mullahs are not some singular entity with daggers and designs on bombing Tel Aviv and Washington, they range from liberal to reformist to hard line reactionary. Unfortunately the reactionaries currently hold the most power. However it's really dangerous when one ascribes a pejorative and dehumanizing name, in describing some of the religious leaders of the country.

Three: While no one refutes that Iran funds Hezbollah, however Hezbollah means a lot of things in different areas, in some it sets up schools and medical clinics, in Lebanon they were overtly terrorist. However I have heard and read that Hezbollah does not operate militaristically anywhere but Lebanon, I could definitely be wrong. Again I really would like the evidence of Iran's actions put out there, (maybe Colin Powell could do another speech in front of the UN?) I don't know that much about it, but I suspect, that neither do you.

Three: the UTTER lack of awareness of history, with the relationship between the United States and Iran.

unlike the Syrian in the Post article which jenleigh quotes: most Iranians DO NOT think the same way about a dramatically changing Middle East, right now Iran is going through tremendous economic growth, there is alot of wealth and alot of relative freedom.

As Biden suggested Condolleza Ricetell Bush "that dropping some bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities and then hoping that the young people in blue jeans would toss out the mullas was probably not going to work. "

Iranians are fiercely nationalistic. In fact the same dissatisfied students, who the west would want to lead the revolution against the Mullah's are often the most strident in pushing for Nuclear Weapons, as a symbol of nationalistic pride.

The history of the west's involvent with Iran has always been self-serving and interventionist, from toppling Iran's democratic government in the 1950's and installing corrupt(because they tried to nationalize their oil resources (BP had a 100 year contract for oil starting in the 1910's that got overturned)

Jenleigh I suggest you read Kenneth Pollack's The Persian Puzzle

This interview with him:
First off, regime change is coming—it's c lear that the Iranian people generally want a very different form of government. It's coming very slowly. Most Iranians are sick and tired of revolutions. They've had one for the last 25 years, and they don't want another one. Those who've tried to spark another revolution have failed time and again. I don't think there's any evidence that somehow, if the U.S. gave these guys the high sign, it would make regime change somehow more likely. Every time the U.S. has tried to interfere in Iranian affairs to help a particular group of Iranians, it's backfired on us, and hurt the group we tried to help.
posted by stratastar at 6:49 PM on February 25, 2005

good comment, stratastar. glad you joined us!
posted by mr.marx at 7:38 PM on February 25, 2005

I found the realism and level of discussion put forth by jenleigh so disturbing (and the FPP and Hersh's article so scary) that I finally signed up for a metafilter account. It's precisely this sort of neoconservative wishful idealism, about how we want to world to turn out that makes the war on terror as hard as it is for us.

Perhaps you should read the comment where I basically agreed with you--I don't think military engagement is ideal, and I hope Iran changes from within thanks to the perserverence of its more vigilant, forward-thinking citizens. By the way, I've read The Persian Puzzle and enjoyed it.
posted by jenleigh at 7:49 PM on February 25, 2005

ack, yes i did read your comment, I hope i didn't go flying off the handle (I feel that 75% of the flaming on this site occurs when people misread another person's writing/ intentions), however I might have felt that the links and quotes you were providing were a little weighted with the pros, and very non-cognizant of the serious (so serious, it's ludicrous that the administration doesn't heed them) cons, of any operation. Freedom does NOT come in 1000 lb JDAMS.

It's always interesting to dig beneath oft-quoted common wisdom: for example on the Osirik Reactor as a classic example of a preemptive attack: some letters in the Atlantic commenting on the Fallows article (full article here ) in the Atlantic:

"The Osirak reactor that was bombed by Israel in June of 1981 was explicitly designed by the French engineer Yves Girard to be unsuitable for making bombs. That was obvious to me on my 1982 visit. Many physicists and nuclear engineers have agreed. Much evidence suggests that the bombing did not delay the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program but started it. For example, the principal Iraqi scientist, Jafar Dhia Jafar, was asked by Saddam Hussein to work on the bomb only in July of 1981."

Richard Wilson
Mallinckrodt Research Professor of Physics
Harvard University

and another letter:
"...However, the success of the 1981 Israeli attack in delaying the Iraqi nuclear-weapons program has been greatly exaggerated. The French-supplied reactor at Osirak was not well designed for plutonium production, the pre-attack Iraqi route to building a nuclear weapon. Further, by 1981 the French had decided to supply the Iraqis with a special nuclear fuel that could be used to run the reactor but was not well suited for plutonium production.... The attack appears to have heightened Saddam's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons. After the attack Saddam started an underground nuclear-weapons program, unbeknownst to the international community and hence free from the fetters of IAEA inspection.

Given that Osirak is supposed to be the prototypical success story of preventive attacks against a rogue state's nuclear program, this episode should give considerable pause to advocates of future preventive strikes..."

I read an account (lost in the internet blackhole now) of a conference of nuclear arms scientists and defense experts and out of 50 of them, all thought Iran would go nuclear, and only two thought that military means could stop them.
posted by stratastar at 8:12 PM on February 25, 2005

stratastar - thanks for the informative links and debate.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:45 PM on February 25, 2005

Two points:

1. Preventing a country from going nuclear isn't so much about halting Armageddon as it is preventing that country from achieving specific, fairly short term goals. Nukes are used as leverage; to prevent your enemies from invading you (Cuba in the sixties), to prevent resistance when you invade someone else (the USSR at various times), etc. In this case, Iran's first priority is to avoid being invaded by the US. They know that nukes are a get-out-of-war-free card. Of course, Iran's second priority might be to invade one of their neighbors, to aid a rebellion within Saudi Arabia... who knows.

2. There's no question that the current administration would like nothing better than to add Iran to its list of acquisitions. The only question is whether we're going to let them get away with it. During Viet Nam, it was clear to Johnson that if he called up a couple hundred thousand more troops, the entire country might have simply erupted into riots and protests. But in 2005, is it clear to Bush that, if he orders the invasion of Iran, the backlash will be more than he can handle? I honestly thought he understood this, but now I'm not so sure. Hell, now I'm not even sure the backlash will be that strong.
posted by Clay201 at 9:03 PM on February 25, 2005

Nyah nyah. Our dangerous theocracy is better than your dangerous theocracy!
posted by jmcnally at 9:14 PM on February 25, 2005

I came late to this thread and at midnight EST I'm not going to wade through it all now. I'll just say that offhand I think the only obstacle to making war on Iran is personnel. Conquering Iran (as opposed to just bombing it) means a ground war, in a large country with plenty of well-nourished and healthy people, against an army whose leaders were seasoned by its 8 year long war started by our old buddy Saddam. Given current U.S. military "commitments" this would mean gathering in available troops from inessential U.S. bases (especially from Europe), awaiting another (perhaps long-planned) "provocation" to justify a draft.

Look for "Iranian agents" to blow something up before April's over, to give the the Bushites time to call up enough warm M16-toting bodies in time for a ground war starting sometime in September, after months of Gulf War One style pyrotechnics, when the worst of the Iranian summer is over. Note that issue of whether Iran has nukes is just as irrelevant as Iraq's vaporware WMDs: if they don't have any we'll swear they do until the "threat" is no longer needed to improve morale.

Welcome to World War Three (or Four, counting the Cold War), that began with the Afghanistan invasion of 2001. The only real difference between this World War and those previous is that so far the U.S. and its allies have so far not run up against a counter-alliance. But then Germany, until Barbarossa and then Pearl Harbor, was having an easy time picking off the countries of Europe one by one.

Oh and by the way, the U.S. antiwar movement is bunch of wussies. Those who have reason to oppose U.S. wars are too demoralized by poverty to be very effective; those who think it's "radik3wl" will run as soon as they might break a nail.

Goodnight.
posted by davy at 9:15 PM on February 25, 2005

But I don't understand why you're taking such a dismissive, sarcastic tone in this thread.

You try being a target for two days straight and see how you hold up. And, in your case, I guess it might be because of your venomous spin in yesterday's pile on. If you do not want to take me at my word and instead interpet what I write in the worst possible light, why should I extend you the benefit of the doubt ? And someone who goes on about college students in Che tshirts (!?) with Bush=Hitler posters hardly needs to be lecturing anyone on ranting. You want civility, then stop playing the making yourself right by making me wrong game and I will do the same for you.
posted by y2karl at 10:38 PM on February 25, 2005

But for a fact, I did go over the top there with the USA! USA! stuff. It was just as lame as the Che t-shirt amd Bush=Hitler stuff. I'll be more than happy to tone it down from now on.

But, really, Walid Jumblatt ? He's a survivor, I will hand him that--but it comes from being a total opportunist. [T]he manners of Lebanese aristocrat... I'm sorry, but that just cracked me up. Spin that all you want but it's wishful thinking that his latest word will last longer than a souffle...
posted by y2karl at 10:51 PM on February 25, 2005

Hi, draft. You make me glad I have asthma.
posted by billysumday

bill i think there be room in this mans army for even you. :)

grab a gun boys we goin ta' kick some treetost evil dooders in duh ass
posted by nola at 1:10 AM on February 26, 2005

Gary Brecher weighs in.
posted by flabdablet at 1:43 AM on February 26, 2005

tkchrist> That is when/if a Nuke EVER goes off on US Soil, or within the territory of US ally - Moscow, Beijing, Karachi and NOW Tehran all get turned to glass.

Moscow? ... yeah, see, now that's not a good idea. The Russian nuclear arsenal hasn't yet magically turned into a collection of fluffy puppies.
posted by snarfodox at 6:56 AM on February 26, 2005

Devils Rancher, belatedly, thank you for amplifying my original comment. I posited the same question in a post to USENET newsgroup sci.military.naval (linked via Google), in case anyone's interested in seeing further response there.
posted by alumshubby at 8:25 AM on February 26, 2005

"Beyond the Euphrates began for us the land of mirage and danger, the sands where one helplessly sank, and the roads which ended in nothing. The slightest reversal would have resulted in a jolt to our prestige giving rise to all kinds of catastrophe; the problem was not only to conquer but to conquer again and again, perpetually; our forces would be drained off in the attempt."

Emperor Hadrian AD 117-138
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:36 AM on February 26, 2005

The USA must stop other countries from developing nuclear weapons, so that the USA can continue to subjugate those countries to its economic whim.

It's the United Fruit Company all over again: the USA uses its military to ensure economic hegemony for its business interests. Instead of bananas, it's oil this time around.

When a country develops nukes, the US is no longer able to bully that country in quite the same way.

It's probably especially important that the USA dominate these small countries right now, because within the next quarter-century, China is going to be in a position to take over the USA's role. Best get established long before the Chinese threat becomes fact.

Personally, I'd freakin' love it if the USA were to pull back inside its own national borders, and let the rest of the world develop economically. Yes, it would require the standard of living to decline; at the same time, however, the standard of living for all the countries it currently abuses would rise.

Which is to say I'd rather see a world where everyone has adequate food, shelter, medical care, etc., instead of a world where the first world lives high on the hog and the rest of the world starves because of it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:37 AM on February 26, 2005

Alex, haven't we thoroughly established that that quote is not from Hadrien, but is in fact from a fictionalized novel?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:38 AM on February 26, 2005

I've always seen it attributed properly, here and elsewhere.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:46 AM on February 26, 2005

Via languagehat.

It's misquoted & miscontextualized on a lot of blogs these days.
posted by jenleigh at 11:19 AM on February 26, 2005

Hmm, historical novel and well-researched. Its point, even if "fictionalized", is still relevant to the context of this thread, in that American hubris seems to suck us into a deeper conflict. I'll attribute the quote to the correct writer, next time I have to use it. Thanks.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:01 PM on February 26, 2005

I find this to be a really interesting thread.

What worries me is that a majority of Americans probably couldn't give a shit while a lesser number of those Americans probably couldn't find Iran on a map.
posted by tomcosgrave at 12:32 PM on February 26, 2005

Uh, so why is it a bad thing to destroy the nascent nuclear capabilities of a bunch of Muslim theocrat, America hating sons of bitches? Am I missing something here? I mean give me a break. Let's use some simple logic courtesy of Mr. Darwin.....In my book, if Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, bombs fall on the facilities and all of their toys go ka-boom. End of story. Next.
posted by zagszman at 5:16 PM on February 26, 2005

In my book, if Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, bombs fall on the facilities and all of their toys go ka-boom. End of story. Next.

Unfortunately, your story was written by Tom Clancy. Real life doesn't work out so neat and clean. Remember when Major Combat Operations were over back in 2003 and G.W. did his carrier top flight suit strut ? You didn't see that Rovian dream scene run in any commercials during last year's election.

We have no idea of knowing whether we will get all their facilities or what the repercussions will be even if we do succeed. Here's a phrase to remember: unintended consequences.
posted by y2karl at 5:52 PM on February 26, 2005

Good plan, zagszman! That will really Keep Americans Safe! No way will those terrorists wanna use a dirty nuke in Dallas after an action like that!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:01 PM on February 26, 2005

Four Day War - The Iran/Israel conflagration, a history.

Day One: Wednesday

In a pre-dawn raid, undisclosed numbers of Israeli warplanes, taking off from military airbases in the Negev, destroy Iran’s main nuclear facility at Bushehr. Israel’s armed forces have released no details, but it is believed the planes flew over parts of Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, refueling in mid-air before reaching their target. Military analysts speculate that the planes must have refueled somewhere over Iraq.

During the one-hour raid, Iran claims to have shot down “several” Israeli fighters. Television images show pilots being lynched by furious mobs before Iranian authorities could reach them. The after-effects of the raid shake the Arab and Islamic world. Millions take to the streets demanding immediate action against Israel.

In planning the attack, Israel weighed the threats of Arab and Muslim reaction. The only other nuclear threat, and a possible danger to Israel, is Pakistan. Israel considered striking Pakistan’s nuclear sites, too, but Indian intelligence reports that Pakistan lacks long-distance delivery for its warheads. Bombay is the farthest they can reach. Additional reassurance from American intelligence convinced Israel that as long as Musharraf remains in power, Pakistan does not represent an imminent threat. The decision was made not to hit Pakistan...

Day Four: Saturday

A longstanding plan to overthrow Musharraf is carried out by senior Pakistani army officers loyal to the Islamic fundamentalists and with close ties to bin Laden. The coup is carried out in utmost secrecy.

Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI—a long-time supporter of the fundamentalists—in agreement with the plotters, takes control of the country’s nuclear arsenal and its codes. Within hours, and before news of the coup leaks out, Pakistan, now run by pro-bin Laden fundamentalists, loads two nuclear weapons aboard executive Lear jets that take off from a remote military airfield, headed for Tel Aviv and Ashdod. Detouring and refueling in east Africa, they approach Israel from the south. The crafts identify themselves as South African. Their tail markings match the given identification.

The two planes with their deadly cargo are flown by suicide pilots who, armed with false flight plans and posing as business executives, follow the flight path given to them by Israeli air traffic control. At the last moment, however, the planes veer away from the airfield, soar into the sky and dive into the outskirts of the two cities, detonating their nuclear devices in the process.


The rest of this scenario can unfold in a number of ways. Take your pick; none are encouraging.

Israel retaliates against Pakistan, killing millions in the process. Arab governments fall. Following days of violence, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt succumb to Islamist rebels who vow open warfare with Israel. The Middle East regresses into war, with the fighting claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. A much-weakened Israel, now struggling for its very survival, deploys more nuclear weapons, targeting multiple Arab capitals. The Middle East is in complete mayhem, as the United States desperately tries to arrange a cease-fire.
posted by y2karl at 7:16 PM on February 26, 2005

Scary idea, that, y2k.

As the Mid-East destroys itself in that scenario, what happens in Europe, Asia, and America?

In Europe there are enough immigrant Mid-East sympathizers and agitators, there'd be endless trouble and danger there. Lots of civilian terrorist acts, bombings in cities and subways, all that.

In Asia, India would fall into chaos. Same play as in Europe, different actors.

In America...? Well, America might survive it okay. There'd be terrorism, too, but I suspect only in the most-dense cities. Can't see much happening in the other 99% of the land.

Seems like the perfect storm.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:00 PM on February 26, 2005

....but I suspect only in the most-dense cities. Can't see much happening in the other 99% of the land.

Hey! most of us live in the most-dense cities, and we're already targets without another front in the endless "war on terror"--jeez.

I wish the GOP idiots dreaming of free oil and a safer Israel would think of their donors in those cities, if no one else--we know they don't care about the rest of us.
posted by amberglow at 8:04 PM on February 26, 2005

PRESIDENT REAFFIRMS AMERICA'S COMMITMENT TO EXHAUSTING ALL DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS PRIOR TO UNLEASHING A RIGHTEOUS THERMONUKULAR HOLOCAUST ON UPPITY IRANISTAZI TRASH
posted by amberglow at 8:20 PM on February 26, 2005

As a consequence, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, the man who most likely will become the Antichrist, resigned from the "puppet" government in Beirut, and on several occasions since then has vowed his relentless opposition and defiance towards Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs.

Will A Popular Uprising In Lebanon Lead To The Rise Of Antichrist?

Walid Jumblatt--not only leader of the Lebanese "intifada" but Most Likely To Become AntiChrist, too. Man, does this guy have a fanbase or what?
posted by y2karl at 9:05 AM on February 27, 2005

for the record, i never called anyone racist, nor did i play the racism card.

This needs to be emphasized.

And, boy, jenleigh, if you want to collect insults like Green Stamps or trading cards, go ahead--I don't know about the rest of your collection but no one called you a racist. Either you have settled things with Hat Maui or you have not--which is it? You shouldn't over-dramatize, let alone put words in other people's mouths.
posted by y2karl at 9:42 AM on February 27, 2005

my point was not that Jumblatt is a great friend of the US—or even a consistent critic of the US—but that it was interesting to see someone so deeply entrenched in his own rigid opinions express hope for the MidEast after witnessing the Iraq election & subsequent optimism.

Wow. Talk about missing the point.

Hey, jenleigh, I think what y2karl was telling you (pretty clearly, I thought) was that Jumblatt's word about anything is not trustworthy, given the clearly opportunistic way he's been changing his stated positions to match prevailing trends. That you'd reply by re-asserting that Jumblatt is "deeply entrenched in his own rigid opinions" is, well, laughable.

You might want to try reading more carefully. Also, try not believing that what you read in one newspaper article gives you enough information to really understand the thoughts of someone like Jumblatt, let alone use those assumed thoughts as evidence of anything else.

Oh, and stratastar gets my vote for new member of the month. And matteo and y2karl, you guys suck for bringing garbage from other threads into new threads. Fucking stop it, would you? :P
posted by mediareport at 1:19 AM on March 5, 2005

matteo, I apologize. It's late. You weren't involved at all. Sleep, precious sleep...
posted by mediareport at 1:23 AM on March 5, 2005

Actually, mediareport, albeit it's stale and there's no need to go there beyond this, that was garbage related to this thread, at least in part. But it's been hashed out in email enough already. We're all tired.

As for Jumblatt's word about anything is not trustworthy, well, that was my point.
posted by y2karl at 1:10 PM on March 6, 2005

...Parastu Forouhar, is the daughter of two Iranians who devoted their lives to the cause of democracy. In their youth they supported the most formidable Iranian leader of that era, Mohammad Mossadegh, who served as prime minister from 1951 until 1953, when he was overthrown in a coup organized by the CIA. During the long years that followed, they resisted the repressive rule of Mohammad Reza Shah. Darioush Forouhar, Parastu's father, spent sixteen years in jail for opposing the Shah's regime. Like most Iranians, he and his wife welcomed the Islamic Revolution, but later turned against it. Then, on the horrific night of November 22, 1998, agents of that revolution murdered them in their house. A portrait of Mossadegh looked down on them as they were slashed to death:

They killed Darioush Forouhar because he made no secret of his belief that religion should be separate from government.... On 4 January 1999, under pressure from the president, the Intelligence Ministry announced "the involvement in this affair of a handful of irresponsible, evil-thinking, deviant and obstinate figures within the ministry." ...Then, in the spring, Niyazi, the military prosecutor who had been put in charge of the case, made this announcement: "In spite of the surveillance under which he was placed, Saeed Emami, one of the pivotal masterminds of the murders, committed suicide during bathing period on Saturday in the detention center, by swallowing hair remover."

These days, Parastu Forouhar makes pilgrimages not to Shiite holy cities like Qom or Mashad but to the village of Ahmadabad, where Mossadegh lived after his overthrow and where he died in 1967 and is buried. Other Iranian democrats do the same. Many more would do so if they did not fear retribution from the Islamic regime, which hates the idea of secular democracy that Mossadegh still represents. The coup against Mossadegh in 1953 was the first the CIA ever carried out. It began a long series of American attempts to bring about "regime change" in countries around the world, many of which had terrible long-term results. This one helped to create today's angry and repressive Iran.

Mossadegh was, in de Bellaigue's words, "an eccentric but brilliant nationalist." He was leading Iran toward democracy, but in the climate of the cold war, powerful Americans took his nationalism as a threat. President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles made a tragically short-sighted decision to overthrow him and place the Shah back on the Peacock Throne.

Americans who now wish to intervene in Iran would do well to ponder the results of this last intervention. It imposed a repressive regime against which Iranians finally rebelled. That brought the mullahs to power and propelled Iran and the United States to their present bitter standoff.

Clouds Over Iran
posted by y2karl at 1:21 PM on March 6, 2005