Sorting out the Iran mess

February 10, 2006 6:23 AM

We could bomb Iran.But we wouldn't really know what to hit because we don't know enough about Iran's nuclear program. If the Russians don't work something out, maybe helping Iran is the best way to figure out what they have and to stop them from getting the bomb.
posted by js003 (55 comments total)

According to Scott Ritter it's all ready been decided to bomb Iran with usable nukes.
Start stocking up on ripped leather jackets 'cause that 'Mad Max' look is going to be huge next year.
posted by oh pollo! at 6:46 AM on February 10, 2006

My guess is that Ritter is out of the loop for obvious reazsons and does not know. We could in fact bomb enough places we do know about and cripple for years their developing a nuke arsenal. But we won't for some time. Russia and China are likely to be nice to Iran for the oil they both want, need.
posted by Postroad at 6:54 AM on February 10, 2006

How would the world respond if the US used a nuclear weapon in Iran? They'd be outraged, yes, but would they actually stand up to a president who would have demonstrated willingness to both attack preemptively and use nuclear weapons?
posted by leapingsheep at 6:57 AM on February 10, 2006

According to Scott Ritter it's all ready been decided to bomb Iran with usable nukes.

Is that the same Scott Ritter who told us it had already been decided to attack Iran in June? His sources are impeccable!
posted by pardonyou? at 6:59 AM on February 10, 2006

Unlikely for several reasons.

First of all, Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and has said so. This means that either they will attack Iran, or Iran will attack them. In the latter case, Israel can force US assistance by threatening to nuke the entire Middle East. This threat worked in Gulf War I and is still valid.

Second, Iran is in much the same situation as was Japan prior to WWII. They have a combination of militarism, ignorance of their enemies, false axioms about a potential war, and are led by an apocalyptic cult. They should be a major economic power in the world (as Japan is today), but they also have a national desire to be a major military power, and an idealistic view of creating a "Shiite crescent" Caliphate, encompassing all Shiite territories. Not as de facto territorial conquests, but as de jure religious ones.

Third, the only power capable of opposing Iran in the region is the US. To the Iranians, this specifically means any US carrier fleet in the region, and the US airbases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, much like the Japanese, the Iranians have a primary strategy of driving the US out of the region as prerequisite to any of their other schemes.

Ironically, this means that target #1 for the Iranians is not Israel, but one or more US fleets.

Iran has also stated a willingness to block the Strait of Hormuz, which would block the Persian Gulf (current location, USS Theodore Roosevelt), figuring such a disruptive effect on the world's economy it would force a cessation of hostilities and an Iranian win.

Considerable speculation is that the Iranians would also commit three or more "suicide Divisions" into southern Iraq, to keep US and British forces tied down in that country and out of Iran. Their northern border forces would form a "defense in depth" to stop any counterattack through that area. They have for almost a year now had between an entire heavy Corps or two stationed across the border with Iraq.

The tactical strategy is to neutralize as much US airpower as possible, first by damaging or destroying a US carrier, and then using large numbers of Shahab-3 missiles against the US airbases. Europe could be menaced with Shahab-4 and Shahab-5 missiles, as far away as Berlin and perhaps even into Spain.

The US strategy to counter all of this takes on the critical component of the Iranians with anti-missile systems. We have completed the Israeli "Arrow" anti-missile system, and have several other theater anti-missile weapons. If hostilities seem imminent, then the US will stop any traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, to prevent ships from being scuttled there.

Other powers, specifically the Russians, have been providing the Iranians with advanced anti-aircraft weaponry against any US or Israeli attack. The Chinese have just provided them with a missile that may possibly be able to evade the Arrow system. And the North Koreans long ago gave them the No-Dong missile technology to enable them to make their long-range missiles which threaten Europe. In total, they are estimated to have large missiles in the hundreds.

The bottom line is that diplomatic efforts have been ongoing for several years, but to a great extent have proven to be fruitless.

Ironically, Iran may be in the opposite position from Iraq if it fights and loses a war, because its inherent size and strength are such that it naturally dominates. This means that if they lose, it is quite possible that they will be partitioned, losing their northwestern Kurdish territory to a "greater Kurdistan", their southwestern Arab territory to Iraq, and their southeastern territory to either Pakistan or an independent Baluchistan.

The timetable for hostilities has been estimated at anytime from now through June.
posted by kablam at 7:09 AM on February 10, 2006

Help Iran build its nuclear program?

Wow. Did that work when we helped North Korea?
posted by dios at 7:16 AM on February 10, 2006

Nope no idea where that stuff is. And there's NO way the gov't would have better quality intel than some website intelligence geeks. No sir, no how.
posted by tiamat at 7:17 AM on February 10, 2006

"f the Russians don't work something out, maybe helping Iran is the best way to figure out what they have and to stop them from getting the bomb."

We don't help terrists.

Bring it on. Let's roll.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:25 AM on February 10, 2006

First of all, Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, and has said so.

Change that assumption and everything else changes.

Despite tough talk, Israel can't do anything meaningful about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

If the United States pursues its own self-interest, a nuclear-armed Iran is just as tolerable as a nuclear-armed Pakistan, or North Korea. The slaughter necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is simply not worth it to the United States.

Israel won't tolerate a nuclear armed Iran? Fine. Then the peaceful, diplomatic, sane solution to this crisis is to trade Israel's nuclear weapons for Tehran's and to pursue a policy of a nuclear-free middle east. This is frankly the only solution that makes sense.

If Israel wants to keep her nukes, let Israel deal with the consequences. I, for one, have had enough of seeing America's self-interest put behind that of Israel.
posted by three blind mice at 7:28 AM on February 10, 2006

If we bomb Iran I am renouncing my citizenship and moving to a different hemisphere. ASAP.
posted by wakko at 7:28 AM on February 10, 2006

There was an interesting article in The Atlantic about an Iranian wargame. The conclusion of which was "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."
posted by zeoslap at 7:32 AM on February 10, 2006

Here is the pertinent bit from the article in case you're too lazy too click.


About Iran's intentions there is no disagreement. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and unless its policy is changed by the incentives it is offered or the warnings it receives, it will succeed.

About America's military options there is almost as clear a view. In circumstances of all-out war the United States could mount an invasion of Iran if it had to. If sufficiently provoked—by evidence that Iran was involved in a terrorist incident, for example, or that it was fomenting violence in Iraq—the United States could probably be effective with a punitive bomb-and-missile attack on Revolutionary Guard units.

But for the purposes most likely to interest the next American President—that is, as a tool to slow or stop Iran's progress toward nuclear weaponry—the available military options are likely to fail in the long term. A full-scale "regime change" operation has both obvious and hidden risks. The obvious ones are that the United States lacks enough manpower and equipment to take on Iran while still tied down in Iraq, and that domestic and international objections would be enormous. The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests. Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11. If it thought that the U.S. goal was to install a wholly new regime rather than to change the current regime's behavior, it would have no incentive for restraint.

What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

posted by zeoslap at 7:34 AM on February 10, 2006

Does anyone think China would stand still if we nuke Iran? How about any Muslim country? Any pre-emptive strike after the Iraq debacle should not even be on anyone's mind. Sane diplomacy without any juvenile posturing should be the only option. Just remember the Chinese are getting hundreds of billions of dollars worth of oil from Iran. They would be very angry if they lost this and we can't afford to piss off China. If they became our enemy, we would lose, end of story.
posted by JJ86 at 7:55 AM on February 10, 2006

Even if we bomb Nantaz we'll only set them back a few years. But if we help them enrich: "Even if Iran eventually stopped cooperating with the IAEA, the powers would be in a better position than today to take military action—they would know better where the nuclear targets in Iran are, and pre-emption would have increased international legitimacy."
posted by js003 at 7:58 AM on February 10, 2006

A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

Exactly, zeoslap. Iran would have to be invaded and occupied. Iran is not Iraq. The Iraqis (much like the French in WWII) did not really fight. Sure, there were some major firefights, but by and large no real resistance was offered against the American invasion. After 8 years of sanctions and a the first gulf war, Iraq (despite the Bush administration's claims to the contrary) was a paper tiger.

Iran is not. They have a modern air force with a significant number of Su24s and MIG-29's - a rival for anything in the air (and not buried in the sand). Iran has advanced anti-ship Sunburn missiles. Remember what a single French made Exocet missile did to the USS Stark during the Iran-Iraq war? (or HMS Sheffield in the Falklands war). The Russian- made Sunburn is far more advanced. The U.S. Navy would not enjoy peaceful flight operations in the Persian Gulf as they have in the war against Iraq.

Plus Iran has a huge population of young men who would run to the defense of Persia. The Iranians would offer resistance to an armed invasion - as they did when Saddam Hussein invaded them in 1979 - and the slaughter would be incalculable.
posted by three blind mice at 8:03 AM on February 10, 2006

Any violent engagement with Iran would be playing into their passive-aggressive posturing - Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! - and pretty much what Iran (i.e. the govt/military) would want, I suspect. But what the hell; the whole history of that region is one of passive-aggressive posturing by all involved, and if others outside of the region haven't figured that out and learnt from it yet, I don't think that they ever will.
posted by carter at 8:25 AM on February 10, 2006

Three blind mice, what makes you think that the slaughter would be incalculable (unless you mean on Iran's side)? There's little reason to think Iran's conscript Army would be able to stand up to the US military. Sure, Iraq's a quagmire, but not because our military had any problem kicking their military's ass. And sure, Iran is stronger, so there will be casualties, but even with a weakened military, we're still the strongest kid on the block by far. The issue would be if we tried to occupy them, which would be a bigger disaster than what we have now.
posted by Crash at 8:36 AM on February 10, 2006

The issue may well involve human-wave warfare in the open, during the invasion, versus resistance/human-wave warfare in urban areas, after the invasion.
posted by carter at 8:40 AM on February 10, 2006

One in every seven Iranians is a trained member of the revolutionary guard, that's 10 million people.

Their standing army is the 8th largest in the world and is not far behind ours in terms of numbers. Their air force is made up of F-16's, Su-24's, Mig-29's and their own brand of hybrids made up of the best aspects of several nation's planes reverse engineered and put together to make a fast, agile monster.

Their nation is the size of Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Enjoy.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:41 AM on February 10, 2006

Iran could absolutely be nuked, but it would be via Israel, not the US.

Israel would nuke Iran, Iran would immediately retaliate, then the US would have no choice but to help defend Israel from certain annihilation, and then it would begin. The US would portray themselves as "peacekeepers", trying to end hostilities, all the while providing Israel everything they needed to exterminate as many Iranians as possible.

Unlikely? Yes. Possible? Absolutely.

I also wonder if there is a point when religious fanaticism is overwhelmed with opposing force?

What I mean is, in Iraq, there is an "insurgency" but the total Iraqi dead is relatively minor when you consider they have been invaded, the leadership toppled, and occupied for a while now. I'm not trying to trivialize it, but you would think there should have been much more bloodshed to completely occupy that nation. If Iran got into a brawl with the US or Israel, the dead would be in the hundreds of thousands, and quickly. At that rate, the number of those "rushing to defend Persia" depletes rather rapidly.

There can never be peace in the middle east.

Actually, that's not true.

There can never be peace as long as there is oil there. Once that runs out, noone in the west will give a shit about those desert nations and will quite literally forget about them in very short order.

The thing I've always wondered is why the US, Russia, China, and India don't all form together and simply take the Middle East by force, thereby securing the oil reserves for those big countries.

Note I'm not PROMOTING that, I'm just surprised it hasn't already occurred. China simply must have that oil, and surely the Chinese understand the gamble they are taking by trying to secure their supply by aligning themselves with a radical religious regime.

Much better to simply take it.

I don't expect the US and China to war. I expect them to join forces and rule the world. Is that crazy talk?
posted by Ynoxas at 8:45 AM on February 10, 2006

And as mentioned above, but worth repeating, the outrage that would spread across the Muslims would make the current inane cartoon riots look like a heavy petting love session.
I think Bush et al WANTS to invade Iran, but I seriously question whether they CAN. I, frankly, am surprised anyone believes anything connected to the Whitehouse anymore.
posted by edgeways at 8:46 AM on February 10, 2006

I don't expect the US and China to war. I expect them to join forces and rule the world. Is that crazy talk?

The US might well expect that. The Chinese however know that they are going to win ;) In the long run, the US needs China far more than China needs the US.
posted by carter at 8:47 AM on February 10, 2006

A preemptive nuke on Iran would be an unconscionable act.

Only a sophist or psychopath could argue otherwise.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:55 AM on February 10, 2006

I don't expect the US and China to war. I expect them to join forces and rule the world. Is that crazy talk?

The United Countries of Walmart?
posted by three blind mice at 8:59 AM on February 10, 2006

>INVADE IRAN
You are not able to do that, yet.

(props to shadowkeeper! :-) )
posted by lord_wolf at 9:03 AM on February 10, 2006

The United Countries of Walmart?

That thought made me just throw up in my mouth... just a little bit.

And my mom asks me why I don't want to have kids...
posted by AspectRatio at 9:06 AM on February 10, 2006

A preemptive nuke on Iran would be an unconscionable act. Only a sophist or psychopath could argue otherwise.

FWIW the US has already nuked civilian populations under the guise of pre-emption, and furthermore they've had 60 years to internalise and rationalise this act. They've already crossed this particular Rubicon and seem to be quite okay with it.
posted by carter at 9:07 AM on February 10, 2006

Apples and oranges, man. I want to go to my grave without ever seeing another nuclear bomb used.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:08 AM on February 10, 2006

Their standing army is the 8th largest in the world

I'm not discounting what you are saying, but honestly, if America would have trouble with the 8th largest force in the world, we should be very concerned for our safety.

What if #2 or #3 decided to get testy and start some shit?

We damn well BETTER be able to mop the floor with #8, or else America is in a far, far weaker position militarily than most people would ever hazard to guess. And maybe that's true, though I hope not.

I'm not a hawk, I want us out of Iraq yesterday, and never approved of going in the first place. But, between Tomahawk missiles and stealth bombers, most of their infrastructure COULD be reduced to rubble within a day or two.

We are still very confused about how to handle urban insurgent warfare, but we understand outright battlefield combat pretty damn well, and we're very good at it. The best in the world.

We would have no problem demolishing Iran's proper military, but I expect what we see inside Iraq would be 10x worse inside Iran if occupation was attempted.

On preview:
I don't expect the US and China to war. I expect them to join forces and rule the world. Is that crazy talk?

The United Countries of Walmart?
posted by three blind mice at 10:59 AM CST on February 10

Actually, that's pretty much what I had in mind, yeah.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:13 AM on February 10, 2006

In the latter case, Israel can force US assistance by threatening to nuke the entire Middle East. This threat worked in Gulf War I and is still valid. (and others).

Do you have any evidence for this? Israel has been consistent in saying they will not, under any circumstances, be the first to introduce nukes to the region -- i.e., it sees its arsenal as purely retaliatory and only in response to a nuclear attack. Israel did not use nukes in '67 or '73.

Israel would nuke Iran, Iran would immediately retaliate, then the US would have no choice but to help defend Israel from certain annihilation

What planet do you live on, man? Initiating a nuclear war with Iran will immediately terminate any US or European support of Israel, provoke unimaginable fury in the Islamic world, and lead to the end of Israel within days or weeks. Your scenario is utterly idiotic.
posted by ori at 9:17 AM on February 10, 2006

I want to go to my grave without ever seeing another nuclear bomb used.

Amen brother.
posted by three blind mice at 9:17 AM on February 10, 2006

Let's have America launch a nuke at Iran, under the condition that Bush has to ride it down, cowboy hat and all.
posted by bardic at 9:19 AM on February 10, 2006

We damn well BETTER be able to mop the floor with #8, or else America is in a far, far weaker position militarily than most people would ever hazard to guess. And maybe that's true, though I hope not.

Um, duh? Have you been reading the news in the past, oh, three years?
posted by ori at 9:19 AM on February 10, 2006

Ynoxas, we wouldn't just be fighting the 8th largest army in the world though; We'd have troops spread out across three distinct theatres of operation and that's assuming they dont' bring the war to us on the homefront. Very expensive, very difficult.
posted by zeoslap at 9:26 AM on February 10, 2006

Also it's not really the military invasion bit of it that would be the dealbreaker, it would be the aftermath (y'know like Iraq but worse)

Prior to WWII the UK and Europe were the major force in the world yet it was the US who mostly stayed out of things that reaped the rewards. I wonder if this will be the turning point that leads to Asian dominance in the world as the US spends extravagant sums of money it doesn't have while the Chinese just sit back and wait.
posted by zeoslap at 9:30 AM on February 10, 2006

the US spends extravagant sums of money it doesn't have while the Chinese just sit back and wait.

The Chinese are lending the US the money to do this ...
posted by carter at 9:31 AM on February 10, 2006

The Iraqis...did not really fight. Sure, there were some major firefights, but by and large no real resistance was offered against the American invasion.

That's because they planned a resistance before the war. (Which the CIA reported before the war and the administration ignored.) That plan and the US's banning Baathists and disbanding the army fueled the insurgency. We're still fighting the Iraqi army.

I don't expect the US and China to war. I expect them to join forces and rule the world.
Perhaps in an Alliance of some kind.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:33 AM on February 10, 2006

ori: I disagree. There is no circumstance, including an offensive first strike by Israel, that would terminate our relationship with them.

I think you vastly underestimate the political fallout from such a decision.

We would admonish them, place sanctions, make large displays at the UN, etc. But the US absolutely would not stand by and watch Israel be destroyed down to the last man. That is a fantasy, and you should know so.

Iran has a large uniformed military and large reserves of military equipment. We would quite handily deal with that force. We had no problem, at all, dealing with Iraq's military proper. In fact it was a surprising cakewalk to even the most optimistic republican hawk military masturbator.

Iran would be tougher, sure, but how many orders of magnitude tougher do you think it could be? 10x? 100x? The Iraq war between military forces was over in hours. It would be a few days at most with Iran. In the battlefield, they use much, much uglier weapons than they do patrolling the streets in Iraq.

zeoslap: Yes, you're right. But we could easily just abandon Afghanistan, what is left to accomplish there anyway? And again, I want to make sure that we're talking about military conflict... there is no way for the Iranians to bring an armed force to our borders.

Terrorist are a completely different discussion, as it is today, and always will be. Yes, I expect it would immediately and impressively ramp up terrorist activity. Yes, we would be much worse off for it.

All I'm talking about is military vs military warfare, addressing the "8th largest force in the world" aspect. In that theater, we would have no problems of any kind. Of that I am assured. The battlefield allows for what urban insurgent containment does not. Weapons of simply horrifying ability that are still deemed "conventional". For example, helicopter gunships are not very much use patrolling a neighborhood, but are simply terrifying on the battlefield.

However, that's not to say there would not be multiple repercussions throughout many areas and many facets of American life.

So yes, yes, absolutely, we would suffer dire consequences. I'm just saying those consequences would not come at the hand of uniformed Iranian soldiers. That's my only point.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:40 AM on February 10, 2006

About Iran's intentions there is no disagreement. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons

There's little reason to think Iran's conscript Army would be able to stand up to the US military.

Wow, just wow. Third verse, same as the first.
posted by jlub at 9:52 AM on February 10, 2006

They would be very angry if they lost this and we can't afford to piss off China. If they became our enemy, we would lose, end of story.

Maybe the corporate favourtism that so affects many of us negatively will be to our benefit in this case. WalMart values a good relationship with China as long as they source cheap labour and hardware from them. If WalMart values it, perhaps the U.S. Government as well?

This is is all simply, and incredibly, a nightmare.

Israel has been consistent in saying they will not, under any circumstances, be the first to introduce nukes to the region -- i.e., it sees its arsenal as purely retaliatory and only in response to a nuclear attack. Israel did not use nukes in '67 or '73.

And yet by being the first to introduce a nuclear arsenal to the region they encourage their enemies, real or perceived to pursue nuclear arsenals because they also perceive a threat from Israel, real or imagined. If Israel can say it, surely so can Iran. Therefore, why is there any objection at all?
posted by juiceCake at 10:15 AM on February 10, 2006

real or perceived

When a president of a country calls for another country to be wiped off the map, is that a real or perceived enemy?
posted by Krrrlson at 10:51 AM on February 10, 2006

Israel must really be a threat to Iran then, to prompt such a statement from that president, huh?

Or where were you going?
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:53 AM on February 10, 2006

Ynoxas writes "The thing I've always wondered is why the US, Russia, China, and India don't all form together and simply take the Middle East by force, thereby securing the oil reserves for those big countries."

Because it is better to fight small scale wars far from your population centres than risk a large scale war with someone who can truely kick your ass.
posted by Mitheral at 12:07 PM on February 10, 2006

real or perceived

When a president of a country calls for another country to be wiped off the map, is that a real or perceived enemy?
posted by Krrrlson at 1:51 PM EST on February 10 [!]

So the Israeli's looked into the future just before they decided to build an arsenal and saw that Iran's current leader was going to be a large threat to them. Fabulous.
posted by juiceCake at 12:29 PM on February 10, 2006

And why can't Iran be part of the real and others part of the perceived enemies?
posted by juiceCake at 12:30 PM on February 10, 2006

“We COULD bomb Iran, but..”

“Woo Hoo! We can bomb Iran!”

“No, I’m saying, we can bomb Iran, but”

“Yeah! Bomb-I-Ran! Bomb-I-Ran! Bomb-I-Ran!”

-------

“Perhaps in an Alliance of some kind.”- posted by kirkaracha

Well, we have always been allied with Eastasia.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:35 PM on February 10, 2006

So the Israeli's looked into the future just before they decided to build an arsenal and saw that Iran's current leader was going to be a large threat to them. Fabulous.

I recommend you look at the history of Iran's rhetoric towards Israel.

And why can't Iran be part of the real and others part of the perceived enemies?

Sure. In that case, may I ask your motivation for including the "real or perceived" qualifier in a discussion focused on Iran?
posted by Krrrlson at 12:50 PM on February 10, 2006

Who is this "we" so many of you refer to?

I'm a native U.S. citizen, and lived here all my life, but the corporate whores and war criminals in the White House don't represent me, nor do their appointees in the State or war departments (the latter hasn't lived up to the "Defense" name in a long time and is getting further from it). I have very little rational basis for thinking that my vote against them was counted, or that there will be much left of the Constitution in the next decade, unless things turn around dramatically.

Do you all identify so fully with the U.S. government that you regard its actions as your own? (Do you agree with the fascist line that criticizing government policy is "hating America"?)

Yes I know it's only a careless figure of speech and maybe some of you would not maintain the position it implies once it is pointed out. I hope most Iraqis, and the Iranians or next victims of U.S. belligerence understand that not all Americans support whatever violence is inflicted on them. I will understand if they don't care about such distinctions.
posted by jam_pony at 1:19 PM on February 10, 2006

"I'm a native U.S. citizen, and lived here all my life, but the corporate whores and war criminals in the White House don't represent me..."

Unfortunately for you, they do represent you. Such is the downside of a "representative democracy". You can wish them away all you like, but when you open your eyes they're still going to be there until at least the next election.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:55 PM on February 10, 2006

I recommend you look at the history of Iran's rhetoric towards Israel.

I don't have to. I'm aware of it. However, i was addressing this particular example. See above. Furthermore, I thought it was obvious that perception is a solid motivator in the Middle East. Perhaps I should have very explicitly connected the dots. I apologize for not doing so.

And why can't Iran be part of the real and others part of the perceived enemies?

Sure. In that case, may I ask your motivation for including the "real or perceived" qualifier in a discussion focused on Iran?
posted by Krrrlson at 3:50 PM EST on February 10 [!]

Because the discussion had broadened ever so slightly to the Middle East as a region. I quote:

"Israel has been consistent in saying they will not, under any circumstances, be the first to introduce nukes to the region."

For some reason (perhaps only logical to myself) I thought that region referred to the Middle East. That was the motivation. Nothing less, nothing more. Please forgive me if I was wrong and I offended anyone with my assumption.
posted by juiceCake at 2:17 PM on February 10, 2006

"Unfortunately for you, they do represent you. Such is the downside of a 'representative democracy'. You can wish them away all you like, but when you open your eyes they're still going to be there until at least the next election." (mr_crash_davis)

Well, obviously they are in power, and holding the offices, more or less. And in their relations with other nations, they purport to represent the citizens of USA, which is apparently what you mean by "representation".

But I have a more idealistic concept of "representation". I don't expect to agree with every policy (or many of them). But according to my concept, a citizen is represented by government only to the degree that its policies agree with what the citizen favors, or is willing to acquiesce in (say, in the interest of cooperation or compromise or unitary government action or some such).

This is somewhere short of "legitimacy" in the political science sense - when that is lost, people don't even feel obligated to give any allegiance to laws anymore. But it is more than merely being a citizen and maybe participating in elections. The old line that people are rightfully subject to rule by a government, or even responsible for it, just because an election was held is completely bogus.
posted by jam_pony at 2:47 PM on February 10, 2006

Iran has a large uniformed military and large reserves of military equipment. We would quite handily deal with that force.

Um, with what army? Ours is kind of busy and overstretched right now, in case you hadn't heard. We have to resort to dirty tricks like not letting people leave the army in order to keep our numbers up.

Your "would" above is a counterfactual. Yeah, we "would" have no problem if we had started a draft by now and finished training another few hundred thousand troops, at least.

If we hit them, it will be nukes, I think. We simply don't have the manpower.

You can wish them away all you like, but when you open your eyes they're still going to be there until at least the next election.

And we all know how well elections work in the age of Diebold. The crew in charge aren't ever going to let go of the reins of power, and they will pull every dirty trick in the book if necessary to maintain their hold.
posted by beth at 3:03 PM on February 10, 2006

Ask oneself: why would this Republican administration be so eager to consolidate so much power in the Executive branch, when we could potentially be looking at President Hillary Clinton in 3 years? Do you think they would like a "unitary executive" Clinton?
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:07 PM on February 10, 2006

For when the post becomes President for Life...
posted by Artw at 3:20 PM on February 10, 2006

I'd like to point out the fallacy of calling these sorts of attacks "preemptive." They are in fact preventive; this is not simply a semantic difference, but a philosophical one. We should not so blithely discuss actions which can appropriately be termed sociopathic, at the very least.

Further:

The grand strategy authorizes Washington to carry out “preventive war”: Preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the “supreme crime” condemned at Nuremberg.

posted by blendor at 3:37 PM on February 10, 2006