The problem of pre-emptive strikes against evil empires: how to deal with Iran?
Michael Ledeen writes in the WSJ about the problem the Allies had in recognizing, taking seriously, and then mobilizing against the danger represented by the Nazis prior to WWII.
He likens this inaction to the current muddled response of the West to Iran, and locates the problem in our presumption that people and regimes are generally the same (like us, that is), are basically good rather than evil, that anti-Semitism still thrives, and that there is a tendency towards inertia and inaction in democracies.
Although I certainly think Ledeen’s points are well taken, I think he’s leaving out some important factors that also militate against the West doing anything against Iran until some unequivocal and terrible step is taken by that country. The problem is that we don’t see many good options against Iran.
The first choice, the encouragement of the peaceful overthrow of the government by its citizens, might seem to be by far the best. Perhaps there are already clandestine ways in which we are helping the people of Iran to defy and to overturn their government, but in a climate of tyranny and repression such as has existed in Iran since 1979, such a movement is highly unlikely to succeed—it’s far more likely to lead to martyrdom on the part of the revolutionaries. This was true of the Soviet system, it was most definitely true in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (this was part of the tragedy of our post-Gulf War encouragement of rebellion against him), and it is true of many repressive dictatorships all over the world. The example of our own American Revolution is hardly the proper comparison to their regimes and cultural environments.
The approach also has the drawback of being slow. Perhaps it would work if given enough time, but if the intent of Iran is to get nuclear weapons and to use them against Israel and/or Iran’s other rivals and/or Western nations, then time may indeed be of the essence.
Note I write “may be” rather than “is.” This is because of the extreme difficulty of estimating how long it will take for Iran to develop effective nuclear weaponry. Estimates vary widely, and in the past they have been unreliable.
And that’s not the only problem with prognosticating. Not only is the time frame unknown, but the plans of the mullahs in terms of the specific actions they might take are opaque. As with Hitler, who telegraphed his aggressive intents against both the Jews and the Western world, the Iranian leaders have made their desires crystal clear. But, with both Hitler and the mullahs, that’s a far cry from knowing exactly what they are willing to do and how and where they will actually try to do it.
That makes it extremely tempting to dismiss their talk as bluster, even with the prior example of Hitler before us, who was dismissed in much the same way but who actually meant exactly what he said. But the mullahs are not Hitler, and so there is no simple equation here. And so it remains commonplace to dismiss the leaders of Iran as all talk and no action, and/or as powerless to deliver on their threats, and/or as amenable to rational persuasion. These assumptions are what candidate Obama is banking on, and although there’s no reason to believe he is correct, it is tempting and soothing (although perhaps dangerous) to think so.
That brings us to still another and more active way of opposing the mullahs: some sort of pre-emptive strike on their developing nuclear facilities. This leads us to the murky world of intelligence, bunker busters, and civilian collateral casualties. And it also brings us to the next and even more terrible option: some sort of military attempt to overthrow the government, as in Iraq.
It is when we consider these last two options that the Iraq War—and the reaction to that war of our own people, press, and Congress, as well as the response of Europe and the world—looms very large. One of my concerns during the buildup to the war in Iraq was that, if our prior intelligence turned out to be flawed or if casualties in the war were extremely high (especially of civilians, but also of our own forces) that these events would make it nearly impossible to launch a pre-emptive strike against any nation in the future even if that country’s hostility were clear and even if it had also developed nuclear weapons in defiance of an injunction against it.
Events in Iraq have indeed played out that way, at least in Western perceptions. Intelligence was flawed in the sense that there were no actual nuclear weapons found (and probably none developed); and although the intent and the means were there for Sadaam to have reconstituted his nuclear program as soon as sanctions were lifted (the Duelfer report has made that clear), this finding and its significance was lost in the outrage against the failure to find the WMDs which would have clearly justified the war ex-post-facto.
Likewise, there was anger at the extent of civilian casualties in the war, even though those casualties were mainly perpetrated by the terrorists and the insurgency—in other words, the enemy. The US was seen as motivating these people, and somehow the casualties were added on to those we actually (although unintentionally) caused and were made our responsibility. And although our own military casualties were—and remain—extraordinarily low for a war, the fact that the bulk of them occurred after major operations were over, and the length of time of the occupation in which they have accrued and its seemingly indeterminate nature, have given the public far less tolerance than it might otherwise have had for the magnitude of the sacrifice made by our military.
Despite the success of the surge, there is still heated argument about whether the war should have happened in the first place and whether it was worth the cost, both personal and monetary. Whichever side one agrees with on this question, the existence and force of the argument itself, and the fact that the majority of people continue to feel it was not worth it (see this poll taken in May of 2008 in which 62% of the people felt it was wrong for us to have gone into Iraq), probably will serve to make it far more difficult in the future to launch any such pre-emptive strike.
In summary, Iran is a case in which we see the problem but do not see a good solution. This confusion paralyzes our responses, despite the desire to do something before it’s too late. This leads to the understandable frustration of those such as Ledeen who have been saying “faster, please!” for quite some time now about Iran, and about the need to act to stop the regime.
It appears to be part of human nature—or at least the nature of the Western world at this point in time—to hesitate to act against a threat unless it is truly imminent, due to the difficulty of prediction and the risks inherent in a pre-emptive strike. This reluctance is what Bush was trying to overcome in his 2003 State of the Union message, which has been widely misquoted as saying the threat in Iraq was imminent but in which he actually said:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
This is a good statement of the dilemma. Tyrants announce only their general intentions, not the specifics of an attack. Just as the police are not allowed to convict someone for mere threats and must wait for anger to ripen into an aggressive act, so is it generally true that non-aggressive nations wait for an attack or an invasion before defending themselves.
Even back in the days before nuclear weapons, this defensive posture often made the ensuing fight difficult and risky enough. But there was a limit to how much damage an offensive attack on the part of an aggressor against a nation with an effective and prepared military could do, though it could be bad (Pearl Harbor, for example). But now, with nuclear weapons available not only to major powers but also to more minor ones—and even to non-national players such as terrorists—the potential damage of such an attack is far greater, and in the case of an attack on Israel it could effectively wipe out that country.
An attack on Israel might also inflict terrible damage on Iran itself because of Israel’s nuclear retaliation. If the mullahs and their mouthpiece Ahmadinejad were sensible and rational actors, they would take this into their calculations and it would act as a deterrent. But there is no evidence that this is the case, and there’s plenty of rhetorical evidence that it is not.
One other possibility is that Israel will finesse the whole thing by acting against Iran pre-emptively to attack its nuclear facilities. This was done back in 1981 against Osirik, an act which earned Israel universal condemnation at the time but which has since been grudgingly praised. Unfortunately, even if the mullahs are crazy they are certainly not dumb, and they learned from that incident to decentralize and hide their nuclear program, thus making any future such attack on facilities far more difficult, far more controversial, and far more deadly to civilians.
Is it any wonder that we fail to act? Our rhetoric sounds tough—even Hillary said during her campaign that if Iran attacked Israel, the US would retaliate and could “obliterate” Iran. That sort of language ought to give the mullahs pause—unless they consider, from the evidence of our debate during the post-Iraq war years, that the US is a paper tiger and such words are just bluster.
I heard today that ElBaradei has warned against military action. Of course, he and the EU3 have been so succesful.
Good analysis.
It certainly seems true that democracies are almost always unwilling to act before they’ve been attacked–in large part because, as you say, it’s impossible to know a future outcome with certainty. Accordingly, I think democracies are usually fated to take no action even in the face of the most extreme and unequivocal warning signs of danger. There’s just no popular pressure to do otherwise.
Iraq is a perfect example: Virtually all Dems and Leftists oppose taking any *effective* action, so that even a fairly principled president (as I think W is) won’t be able to mobilize wide support.
As a result, I think we just have to be resigned to absorbing the first hit.
In that case the next question is, would a President Obama support *any* military retaliation at all, or would his administration just rationalize about “root causes” etc.?
One other fact is much changed today from the WW2 model: Back then no one on the German side was overtly looking to commit suicide. By contrast, radical Islam has portrayed suicide as a glorious and desirable outcome. Thus it seems likely that if (and when) they do get an atomic bomb, they’d use it even if they knew nuclear retaliation was assured.
Scary stuff. And I very much doubt Obambi’s up to the challenge.
–s
Iran’s economy is a mess and could be pushed over the edge so the nation can crack from the inside.Cut off their sources of international credit and let them scramble for funds.
Neo-neo:
“That sort of language, (Hillary obliterating Iran),” ought to give the mullahs pause–unless they consider, from the evidence of our debate during the post-Iraq war years, that the US is a paper tiger and such words are just bluster.”
…or mere cynical pandering to yet another special interest group, as we suspect that it is…
Iran is certainly on a mission to launch a nuclear attack on the United States and Israel.
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=1291
Ahmadinejad says Mahdi and Jesus soon to appear
Breitbart: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot “satanic powers” and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported. “I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene,” he said.
“Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”
Since taking the presidency in August 2005, Ahmadinejad has repeatedly provoked international outrage by predicting Israel is doomed to disappear.
“I tell you that with the unity and awareness of all the Islamic countries all the satanic powers will soon be destroyed,” he said to a group of foreign visitors ahead of the 19th anniversary of the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Ahmadinejad also again expressed his apocalyptic vision that tyranny in the world be abolished by the return to earth of the Mahdi, the 12th imam of Shiite Islam, alongside great religious figures including Jesus Christ.
“With the appearance of the promised saviour… and his companions such as Jesus Christ, tyranny will be soon be eradicated in the world.”
Ahmadinejad has always been a devotee of the Mahdi, who Shiites believe disappeared more than a thousand years ago and who will return one day to usher in a new era of peace and harmony.
His emphasis on the Mahdi has been a cause of controversy inside Iran with critics saying he would be better solving bread-and-butter domestic problems rather than talking about Iran’s divine responsibility.
Preemption is the only effective strategy to fight terrorism, and if terrorism threat is nuclear, preemptive nuclear strike can be the only reasonable option. Persians are historically known for suicidal violence and neglect of international law; in 19 century they invaded Russian embassy in Tehran and murdered, among others, Russian poet and ambassador in Persia, Alexander Griboedov.
Iran is a classic case of “Beverly Hillbillies”. Backward, unsophisticated thinking with more oil money than they can handle. Now I personally know smart and sophisticated Iranians, but the national government and big pieces of its culture are not.
Wisdom comes from experience; In the case of Iran, the experience they need is defeat.
The weapons and technology of Iran’s ICBM’s and nuclear devices does not come from Iran. It is all bought with oil money from the West. So, sanctions should work. But with China and Russia using Iran as a big power proxy to ankle-bite the West, this is hard. Russia and China use Iran the same way Iran uses Hamas and Hezbollah.
The nukes Iran is building will do more than bite ankles. But the money supply can be cut off. The uranium comes from mines in a few spots. The oil fields are all near the Persian Gulf coast.
Oil prices are already high enough, and these high prices enrich Iran’s defense budget. So cutting off Iran’s oil would cut their budget but create an oil crisis. The solution is keep pumping but stop paying; Seize the oil fields and the uranium mines. Knock out the major military resources and build a wall around the mineral supplies.
There is no need to install democracy by force.
Usually, younger men will take more risks than older ones. Yet Obama is younger than McCain. So if the US is too squeamish to launch the assault, it can give some F-22’s to Israel. The F-22 is an excellent stealth bomber for this sort of thing. The B-2 would be better but the Israelis probably can’t afford to run them.
The US spent unknown billions of dollars and fifty years trying to locate the nuclear facilities of the USSR and China, it probably has nuclear detection technology that isn’t public. On the other hand this didn’t seem to help in Iraq. But now the US has plenty of stealth recon aircraft and satellites to search Iran.
A series of focused attacks could do the job.
how to deal with Iran?
Send Nuri al-Maliki to Tehran kissing thier A*.
The US spent unknown billions of dollars and fifty years trying to locate the nuclear facilities of the USSR and China,
Oh … yah but they spent 3 trillions on Iraq to find WMD that never been found till now? what a laugh
Ahmadinejad says Mahdi and Jesus soon to appear
lets take his head off to let meet them in Haven with joying with 70 virgins
St Michael, are you sure you’re praying to the right God? The God of Israel does not like it when nations turn their back on his People.
Gen 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram,
“Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household
to the land that I will show you.
Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you,
and I will make your name great,
so that you will exemplify divine blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
but the one who treats you lightly I must curse,
and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name.”
Obviously “Iraq” in comment 2 should read “Iran.” PIMF
There isn’t enough respect for what has been accomplished in Iraq and Afghanistan under the George Bush and Company leadership. It’s not only dishonest to bask in omniscience after the fact, but as Neo reminded us, the Duelfer report clarifies the reality lurking in the future anyway. The entire supposition of the preferability of the “containment” policy of Iraq, into the present, in lieu of the events that were orchestrated, rests on the naive assumption that the status quo with Iran, Iraq, and other adversarial entities would have remained unchanged. The military strategic and logistical situaltion, for dealing with the arab-muslim radical challenge, is significantly improved. The implications are far reaching and very profound; From invaluable experience, training, technology, and coalitions achieved, to the reality of thousands of potentially deadly enemies having now been eliminated from the equation, and a fountain of several million free people and allies now burgeoning in the middle east. Too bad it’s not easy, or fast enough to suit some fool’s desires, it’s unfortunately real life. A little solidarity would go a long way. History will vindicate George Bush, he has been part of the solution, not the problem. It’s every bit the good fight that was D-Day…
Gen 12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram,
According to Koran Abram(ص) not a Jew. and his nation is his followers who believe in God of Abram(ص) then Hebrew comes and Moses and Mohammad (ص) on all of them
“History will vindicate George Bush.”
Not if the left has any say in it, and you know they’re going to work their damndest (as they are doing now) to have the narrative written as they see fit.
True harry, but how many books can they burn?
One other possibility is that Israel will finesse the whole thing by acting against Iran pre-emptively to attack its nuclear facilities. This was done back in 1981 against Osirik, an act which earned Israel universal condemnation at the time but which has since been grudgingly praised
Yah neo its terror act by state without it the invasion of Iraq will never been achieved then after in 2003.
But looks Syrian’s nuclear facilities more threat to Israel than Iranians nuclear facilities although Iran publicly calling to weeping off Israel from the map which Syrian don’t
According to Koran
I’m not interested in the Devil’s re-write
Sure would be nice to get this clash of civilisations over before liberals bankrupt this country.
We have some ruthless enemies. We have major shortcomings in energy to even power ourselves. We have government spending out of control. These are major problems. But i don’t think any of them come close to the threat made by half our population and their apparent wish to commit suicide at the hand of brown people. This is truly getting bizzare.
I’m more afraid of Obama than i am Ackmadinijad
I thought the Duelfer Report said they did not know whether Saddam ‘had’ or ‘didn’t not have’ a nuclear weapons program, however, then after the report we discover what Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam’s chief nuclear scientist, brought coalition personnel to find in his back yard the buried remnants of a nuclear centrifuge, point being, yes Saddam would have reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, and yes he was working on such a program in the past; one of the four reasons Iraq lost it’s sovereignty and became ward of the United Nations — other three being genocide, aggression against neighboring states, and harboring international terrorist.
It is unfortunate that BDS is so strong. The sufferers will pay any price, bear any burden, to ensure the failure of Bush.
Nothing is more important.
If, to defeat Bush, black needs to be white, up down, two plus two equal seven and a half, then they do.
I would be hugely interested in some counterfactual of the last eight years where exactly the same things happened, but without the deranged Bush hatred.
As you noted, if we had not overthrown Saddam he would, as the Duelfer report stated, have restarted his nuclear wepons program. In addition, Lybia was on the path to develop nuclear weapons, but with the overthrow of Saddam, Qaddafi had a change of mind and gave up that effort to the United States — his nuclear weapons “program” is now, reportedly, stored in Oak Ridge, TN. Thus, without the 2003 overthrow of Saddam we would now be dealing with trying to stop, at least, three nuclear weapons programs in the Middle East (including North Africa).
Also, part of the problem in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program is the leadership of the Democratic party as exemplified by the clueless Nancy Pelosi. This is a recent NY Post editorial on Madam Speaker:
NANCY’S IRAN NONSENSE
June 3, 2008 — Democrats regularly express outrage at anyone they see as questioning their patriotism. But what’s to be said when a top Dem is discussing the Iraq war – and minimizes the work of America’s military while applauding Iran?
In an interview last week with her hometown San Francisco Chronicle, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that recent success in Iraq is attributable not to Gen. David Petraeus’ strategy of engaging local Iraqis to assist in expelling Al Qaeda in Iraq, nor even to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s political skills.
Nope: She credited “the goodwill of the Iranians.”
The goodwill of the Iranians?
Just before Petraeus testified on Capitol Hill in April, Pelosi declared that Congress didn’t want to “hear any glorification of what happened in Basra.”
Instead, she wants to downplay the role of Americans and Iraqis in improving conditions in Iraq – and glorify the role of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.
In an Iranian news report yesterday, Ahmadinejad again made clear where he stands. Israel, he declared, “is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.” He added: “The time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.”
Some “goodwill.”
Pelosi should be ashamed.
===========================
Appalling.
I’m not interested in the Devil’s re-write
Anyway Holy Books Koran include for those Follow Abram’s(ص) God not those follow their Devil’s
Tail end of August, dark of the moon, sounds about right for dealing with Iran.
Yes, their economy is fragile and should be susceptible to wisely planned and executed interference. Unfortunately for us, after the last decade of both U.S. parties going lib, we aren’t too far removed from that same condition.
In addition, we’re about to go completely on holiday from history, so it’s up to Bush to do the right thing one more time before he leaves office.
The Three Stooges may drive our economy into the ground while Islam regroups for a few years… but Iran won’t be using or supplying nukes to anybody in the next decade or so.
A good summation/analysis.
neo:
This prompted me to think of the Scott McClellan complaint that the Iraq war was “sold” to the American people.
I’m tremendously bothered by McClellan’s underlying premise:
Horsefeathers.
If the American people were the decision makers, then the American people would’ve needed to consider all the negative info inside the equation/decision matrix.
However: Pres. Bush and Congress were the decision makers. Pres. Bush and Congress had access to all the info about possible positive and negative outcomes(or could have, with a little due diligence and reading and digging).
Although some Congresspersons abdicated their decision-making responsibility to the results of opinion polls in their districts and states: Pres. Bush was never under obligation to present all possibilities of positive and negative outcomes to millions of poll-empowered “decision makers” in those Congressional districts and states.
Pres. Bush was not looking to the guidance of American citizens: the decision was not ours. Part of the decision was his – and he made it. When poll driven Congresspersons forced Pres. Bush to sell the war: he sold the war. He didn’t overly dwell on the negatives – and he was under no moral obligation to do so. In fact, since Pres. Bush believed in the cause, he was instead under moral obligation to sell the war as effectively as possible. It would’ve actually been immoral for him to commit bad salesmanship via dwelling overmuch on the possible negative outcomes.
The full menu of possible negative outcomes should have been grist for whichever Congresspersons chose to embrace their duty to decide the issue.
Nope: She credited “the goodwill of the Iranians.”…The goodwill of the Iranians?
Of course the good well!
Is it Iran selling their to Israelis thought Swiss agent although they knew well that their oil
Yes, their economy is fragile and should be susceptible to wisely planned and executed interference.
This is may be misinformed view.
Iran pined deals with Iraqi Parisian proxy government with billions of dollars, also their trade with Gulf States even more.
If you think sanction harts them forgot it its laughable restrictions although India and Russia do billion of dollars of deals with Iranians right now.
Is this signs that “their economy is fragile”?
Yes there are troubles but not really bad as you think, may be US economy worst than Iran right now.
Ahmadinejad again made clear where he stands. Israel, he declared, “is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene.”
If you’ve ever wondered about the definition of hypocrisy you’ll find the answer right here.
goodwill of the Iranians?
Check Iranian’s goodwell
John Bolton, who was a leading hawk in President George W. Bush’s administration, told an audience at the Hay literary Festival that five years of “failed” negotiation with Iran over its nuclear program had left just two options for dealing with the issue — regime change and use of force.
“The use of military force is an extremely unattractive option and only to be used as a last resort,” he said, adding he would favor regime change.
Bolton said the elements for regime change were present in Iran — the economy was in difficulties, young Iranians could see the possibility of a different life and there were ethnic tensions within the country.
But he added that the United Nations and its allies had not done enough to bring about the required change.
“I wish that we had had a much more vigorous policy five years ago,” he said.
Bolton, in Hay to promote his book “Surrender is not an Option”, said the insistence of Britain, France and Germany on trying to negotiate a solution with Iran and U.S. acquiescence in this policy had failed.
“Today Iran is five years closer to having a nuclear weapons capability,” he said.
Why?
Bush’s Failure to Halt a Nuclear Iran May Impair McCain’s Prospects
Bush asks National Intelligence Director Adm. Mike McConnell to check Israel’s intelligence on the state of Iran’s nuclear progress, before deciding on whether to order a military attack. (From Debka.com)
Hopes of Israel striking Iran in the way they did Saddam’s reactor at Osirak is thin at best. It’s a much, much longer flight, with airspace issues that make flying over Jordan look pretty simple in comparison. The IAF hasn’t really got the long range aircraft for such a job, even if they have adequate bunker buster weapons for the job. If they get to the point that they have to try it, I wish them luck, they’re going to need it.
The first post (gulf) war (Bush 1) actually left us in a strong position for public support for any subsequent actions had we an actual foreign state imminent threat had it been anywhere in the world.
Bush II motivations, and timing scroowed that goose good. Neocons inadvised rush to war (beyond Afghanistan) left public support in the dust bin.
Neocons failure to see the forest for the tree has created an uphill struggle for support from the very beginning of the Iraq War, and this is regardless of how it ultimately turns out. You left the middle ground and the middle ground supporters basically deserted you for the liberal left and the lefty left.
Blame yourselves, like drunken blind sailors you rushed off into the night on shore leave without getting briefed, or your shots, or the knowing the local customs. Reap your rewards. Obama may scrap what success you’ve gained, but you helped bring that on as well.
You would have always had some antiwar sentiment, but never like this.
Pingback:Fresh Bilge » Variation on a Theme by Hitler
The assumption that foreign policy always needs wide public support is false. Such decisions are often based on classified intelligence, secret strategical calculations that can not be publicized without compromising national security, and other information not intended for everybody and so special by its nature that it can not be adequately assesed by laymen. The very notion of representative democracy (instead of direct) is based on electing competent leaders to whom the decision-making should be delegated. In absense of draft, when army is all-volunteered, the need to convince everybody is drastically reduced.
Constitution still requires that decision to go to war should be approved by Congress, and long-term effort needs some public approval to be viable. So the war needs to be “sold” to the nation, but not necessary on the grounds it was really launched. If you call it a lie, the government is allowed to lie to secure the nation and decieve its enemies.
“You would have always had some antiwar sentiment, but never like this.”
These sentiments are not strong enough to undermine war efforts. Unlike Vietnam era, in the last decade there never were mass anti-war demonstrations of even hundred thousand participants, far from it. And no anti-war move in Congress could muster veto-proofed majority. Now, when situation in Iraq is better than in any time before, such event is even more improbable.
I doubt the “anti-war” sentiment is as big as it is claim.
People are dissatisified that it’s “not over”.. That’s Bush’s fault for not continually emphasing that this thing is going to last for decades and that even more wars in different places is likely.
It’s just too damn bad if people are sick of it. The world isn’t changing for the better, and until it does then we either face our responsiblites or else everything will fall apart.
I cant stand people in the US who seem to think we’re immune from the decay that is spreading around the world and that if we pull back that it wont effect them. They’re lazy, they’re cowards.
The fact that the Iraq war has severely constrained our hand against Iran (and North Korea) is one of the most serious costs of the war. Had we not gone into Iraq, contemplating a limited strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, if they did not comply with intrusive random inspections, may well have been politically possible. I would say one of the worst blunders of the Bush Administration was being paralyzed (because of the Iraq War) and unable to threaten North Korea adequately to prevent them from continuing their nuclear program. By contrast, the distant threat posed by Saddam Hussein was microscopic and easily containable via a program of unending intrusive inspections, which would have been perfectly capable of stopping him from ever obtaining nuclear weapons.
The chief threat posed by both North Korea and Iran is not, however, remotely comparable to the threat posed by Nazi Germany. Like the Soviet Union in the past, both of these countries are states, and like all states, are deterrable militarily. Iran knows full well that any use of nuclear weapons traceable to them would lead to annihilation — this has been the principle of nuclear deterrence for decades and would stop even the mullahs.
However, both of these states pose a threat because terrorists might be able to obtain either radioactive material or even perhaps a bomb, perhaps with the help from within either regime. It’s hard to imagine how this might occur, as deterrence would provide a huge incentive for even these states to retain control over their weapons (as use traced back to them would have disastrous consequences for them), but there’s little reason to be confident that small states with nuclear weapons would be able to maintain perfect control over them (i.e., some rogue extremists within Iran’s security services might obtain nuclear material for a dirty bomb, or even an entire weapon, and provide it to terrorists).
For these reasons I agree with you, Neo, that strong action against Iran is not only warranted but worth threatening. I do not believe an all-out war would, however, be either wise or workable — it would be a disaster for us (not to mention Iran). All-out preventive war is precisely the crime for which Nazis were executed after the Nuremberg trials, for good reason: it is not a strategy that should ever be employed by states (note there is a difference between preventive war and preemptive war — the latter is acceptable in the case of clear and imminent danger of attack). As the tribunal put it, “to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
A strike against their nuclear facilities, initially as a threat but with the intention of carrying it out unless intrusive inspections were allowed, is well within reason. It’s a strategy we should have used against North Korea before they moved their nuclear material out of the facility and built more devices thereby; we can and should consider this against Iran. But again: the Iraq war, a huge blunder in my view, has made even this an extremely difficult strategy to put into effect.
Yes, Vince, this decay aggravates year after year, and oceans do not protect America now as they did previously. No country is now self-sufficient, and USA can not power its industry even to half of its energy demands. Without watched borders, with millions of “undocumented” residents and rampant anti-american sentiments everywhere threats to national security will be more and more serious in future, and too few people understand this.
It appears to be part of human nature–or at least the nature of the Western world at this point in time–to hesitate to act against a threat unless it is truly imminent, due to the difficulty of prediction and the risks inherent in a pre-emptive strike.
It is not just human nature: it is logic. Given a choice between certain war now, or the possibility of war later, a rational being would be very reluctant to pick the first option.
Incidentally, I wish people would look for an analogy other than Hitler every now and then. If that really was the only occasion in history in which a policy of appeasement failed, it must in general be a very good strategy.
There is a remarkable article of Victor Hanson about discrepancy between reality and perception of war efforts in ME:
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson060608.html
One of the reasons why it is politically impossible for us to pre-emptively strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities is the success that the Party of Defeat in winning the vicious internal political war. “Mitsu” states that it is politically impossible, and her hectoring about the Iraq war has played right into that scenario. Her and her kind have won the internal political war, which virtually assures that the next step will be a mushroom cloud over Israel and possibly even inside our country. As last poster, “ad” states, regarding appeasement, “it must in general be a very good strategy.”
All that dooffuss in the White House had to do to disarm and defeat his political enemies inside the country would be to release the intel about the Russian Operation Sarindar in the weeks and months before the outset of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Damn the State Department in its solicitude for not “offending our Russian allies.” And double damn the CIA for failing to be right on top of this. The Israelis were right on top of it and got the goods on the Russians and Baathists. And now there should be inspectors inside Syria and Lebanon going to those sites to uncover the chemical and biological goop.
I voted for Dubya, but I accuse him not of lying to the people about the war’s casus belli. I accuse him of failing to keep the people informed of the perfidy of a number of nations who had pulled off this caper. France, Germany, and China all would be discovered to have been providing to the Baathists components key to those programs. The bulk of them were constituted by Russia/Soviet Union.
The irony of it all is that the reasons why the State Department and the White House did not want this revealed was because they were hoping for Russian cooperation on the Iranian problem. Russia has been utterly useless in that respect, and is in fact helping to arm the Iranians.
The typically sloppy thinking of some on this thread has proven that Westerners do not take the leadership of the Islamic Republic at its word. They think it is all just a bluff. The theological rationales, such people think, is just all bluster and bullshit – that they really are amenable to MAD. No, they really don’t believe their own words about the Mahdi or about destroying The Zionist Entity. They really do not believe all that talk about smiting The Great Satan. There was never a declaration and act of war that took place in 1979. They think like us. They don’t want to see their children incinerated, and all that pap.
We are heading for a big nuclear war in the future, unless Israel can successfully destroy the Mullahs’ toys. There is not going to be any pre-emptive action on our part. Maybe the Israelis can pull it off. They will have to try, since they know that their nation’s survival is the issue.
All is blissfully serene here in Dumboland, as we drink in the soothing memes and themes of The Golden Mouth Shape Shifter from Chicago.
If that really was the only occasion in history in which a policy of appeasement failed, it must in general be a very good strategy.
Silly statement.. in the end the appeasers won.
Are you saying all through history the appeasers have always won?
I think WWII may be the exception..one of the few wars where the appeaser won in the end.
Fred is exactly correct.
It’s the Democrats and Leftists who make it politically impossible for Bush to do anything… just as they want it to be.
Are you saying all through history the appeasers have always won?
No, I am saying that if the only argument you give against appeasement is “it failed against Hitler”, you imply that it succeded against everyone else.
At least so far as you know.
Appeasement is the result of wide-spread pacifism, a very recent phenomenon – a reaction to Great War carnage. Before that it hardly ever was used, and military build up, supported by aggressive rhetoric, was universaly considered as legitimate causa belli. Another example of appeasement failure – the surrender of Kerenskij Provisional Government to Bolsheviks, almost as disastrous as WWII. And no example where pacifism could prevent or stop aggression, is known to me.
ad: Extremely faulty logic.
Just because a certain example is used as the best and most well-known example doesn’t mean it’s the only example.
One reason WWII is used is that most people know the history, it’s dramatic, and because it’s recent. Another good example, however (and one that actually is often used in the context of an analogy to the war against Islamicist totalitarians and terrorists), is that of Europe and the Barbary pirates vs. the US and the Barbary pirates (see this, for example).
Much of the time I would wager we don’t hear about appeasement because the practitioners tend to go under. We probably hear about WWII and the Barbary pirates partly because in both cases the appeasement was ended, the policy of appeasement changed to one of fighting back, and the previous appeasers ended up winning. But these wins were at a cost—in WWII about 56 million lives were lost, many of which would have been saved had Hitler been nipped in the bud when he first was aggressing, when he was weaker and easier to contain. Unfortunately, Europe was weaker as well, and the US was not involved.
European and UN efforts to halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program are a totally ineffective farce that only serves to give Iran more time and a free hand to develop and fabricate the nuclear weapons and delivery systems they are so desperately and frantically striving for.
As I see it, it is either destroy the Iranian nuclear capability in the next year or so or accept that a nuclear attack against the U.S. by Iran or its proxies in the near future–perhaps the very near future–is inevitable.
Obama has neither the wit to understand (or maybe he understands all too well and it suits him just fine) nor the guts to do what needs to be done and McCain may or may not act.
I hope that President Bush–now a lame duck–will act to prevent such a horrendous nuclear attack and do what is best for the country by ordering a pre-emptive attack against Iran and be willing to take sole responsibility for and suffer whatever consequences come of it; certainly there would be a call for his impeachment from many quarters.
Given the lack of appetite for such an attack that some of our highest intelligence and military officials have voiced, my worry is that such an order to attack Iran may not be acted on or might be telegraphed to the enemy or leaked so as to thwart the attack. The recently released revised NIE stating that Iran’s nuclear program is not an immanent threat was actually their own pre-emptive attack by intelligence operatives/officials within the Bush administration, attempting to make just such a Presidential action impossible.
The Israelis have all the power they need to ensure they don’t need fear a nuclear attack from Iran.
Unfortunately, that power is measured in megatons.
The rest of the civilized world is willing to stand by and watch Israel Do The Right Thing a la Osirik, and just as ready to condemn them. Again.
The U.S. has the means to get the job done without fallout. Not without casualties.
We do live in interesting times.
ad: Extremely faulty logic.
Just because a certain example is used as the best and most well-known example doesn’t mean it’s the only example.
No, but if only one example is ever used, it does tend to throw doubt on the existence of any other examples. It is a reasonable conclusion for anyone who really is dependent on these arguments. (Note that I used the word “imply”, not “proof”. Very few arguments in politics are ever “proven” to be true.)
Europe and the Barbary pirates vs. the US and the Barbary pirates
I think you will find that the US and the smaller european maritime powers did not appease the Barbary states — they paid them tribute (although they often called it something else).
Britain and France by this period did not pay tribute — they just did not protect anyone else. They could see advantages in the Barbary states attacking the shipping of their rivals. According to The Command of the Ocean, Algiers was the most reliable ally of 18th century Britain. Only after 1815 did Britain acquiesce in the curbing (and later conquest) of the Barbary states.
Much of the time I would wager we don’t hear about appeasement because the practitioners tend to go under.
When the Panama canal was being planned, the US government desired to ensue that it would be controlled by the US. The British government also desired to control the canal. They agreed to US control because the US was bigger than the UK, and they expected it to become more powerful still. Do you think that Britain was foolish to appease the US?
Kennedy removed missiles from Turkey because he was threatening the US with the possibility of missiles in Cuba. What else can you call it but appeasement? Unless you approve of the deal, of course, in which case it becomes brilliant diplomacy.
in WWII about 56 million lives were lost, many of which would have been saved had Hitler been nipped in the bud when he first was aggressing, when he was weaker and easier to contain. Unfortunately, Europe was weaker as well, and the US was not involved.
Well, it was no great secret that an Anglo-French war against Germany would have mainly benefited the flank powers — the US and USSR. Which is why they were in no great hurry to get involved in the ‘30s. (Remember that no one knew that the French Army would get itself ambushed early in the war. Embarrassed everyone’s plans). Note that this is not very unlike the US desire to have the Israelis bomb Iran, so that they get all the blame.
Having said all this, I think I should say that I do not believe that negotiations with the current Iranian regime would get anywhere. They never have in the past, and it is unlikely they ever will in the future. The regime derives its legitimacy from the 1979 revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini. As he was viscerally anti-American, they must be too, or risk sacrificing their legitimacy.
But this argument has got nothing to do with 1930’s Germany. Or Chamberlain.
ad — Nice, thoughtful exposition of your position.
I don’t see the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis as appeasement. It was a straightforward, roughly equal trade — the Soviets removed missiles from Cuba; the US removed them from Turkey, and both sides avoided nuclear war.
However, the appeasements of Hitler and the Barbary Pirates were to cede ground for false promises or temporary peace.
Perhaps we need a sharper definition of appeasement.
If people like “ad” and “mitsu” would deign to read about the jihad conquests by Muhammad and his successors, they would note a distinguishing pattern: in most (not all)cases the targeted societies would attempt to buy off the mujahadeen. In every case it only delayed the eventual conquest. In fact, appeasement only makes the jihad conquerors stronger, not weaker. The loot enabled them to purchase more weapons and horses. They would even purchase the advanced weaponry of the kafirs, like siege machines.
The greatest mistake that our appeasing elites make, besides ignoring the lessons of history, is the intellectual sloth that is involved in not reading the enemy’s scriptures, theology, law, and history. Literally, to fail to do this is to not be armed with the ways in which they think. Instead, these elites substitute their own Western ways of thinking and make those explanatory of the enemy’s psychology.
That is why we are in big trouble. That is why we do not take the Iranian religious, political, and military leadership at their word when they proclaim what they intend to do with nuclear weapons when they get them. No amount of money will buy them off and obtain durable promises from them to forgo their plans.
The loot enabled them to purchase more weapons and horses. They would even purchase the advanced weaponry of the kafirs, like siege machines.
Let not get far from what you list, beer in mind those “mujahadeen” are same those are did not loot for their power they got with help of powerful power and they support them.
The question is we need them when benefits us and they are nice and gentlemen, but when time pass they are terrorists fanatic looters.
Same can said with Al-Saud when was started his gang in early 1800 as looters gangster who was loot kill those some trade passer the desert when the he met Ahmad Abdul Wahab to serve his desire but the big idea came from those Britt guys who hade exploring the Persian gulf with maps and money they find the gentleman that can do the job so let support him give him money and weapon he started extended and overtaking the land of Al-Hujazz ending in name the land under his Nick name which never been done before.
So in short it’s not how these criminal workers but who used them to act on behave of them after that you got well trend killers and criminal.
Can anyone make sense of the grammatical mishmash of the post above? Does anyone know what he’s communicating? I have not the foggiest idea. It makes no sense.
FredHjr did read the history? you put your imaginations view from some words and verses that caught you mind about Islam and Jihad, that’s the troubles when people like you just thinks of the shall of grains not the grains its self.
This most of Americans missing is the reality for other humans and how they think and live.
But to make its simple to you did CIA founded and supported the terrorist’s leader OBL with his “mujahadeen”?
Did US support and helped Saddam to get his weaponry to kill his people and his neighbours?
Did you get it or you still your “the grammatical mishmash with your few words that you only knew like “mujahadeen” Jihad” Islam?
“Truth”
Your English composition is terrible. Your ideas are cryptic and are encoded within a structure that leads nowhere. Plus, I was not criticizing you Muslims directly in what I had written. I was criticizing American Leftists for not doing proper due diligence about the Islamic inspiration behind our enemies’ motivations. Also, I was criticizing them for the fantasy that appeasement is a realistic approach to the threat. The history of peoples conquered by jihad is well documented by Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye’or in their seminal, scholarly works. Paying off the mujahadeen did not work. Syria, Syro-Paleastina, Egypt, North Africa, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, and Spain all fell to conquerors who, prior to the coup de main, were able to extract treasure from those targeted societies in the hope of being left alone. But, that was not to be. Because they refused to submit to Allah, eventually that policy of appeasement was not going to work.
“Truth” – you should glory in the jihad conquests of your Ummah. The glorious cause of Allah prevailed over the kafir all the way to the Gates of Vienna. The Ummah went into a period of dormancy, but now is on the march against an unaware, credulous West that has no clue about what it is up against. If my people do not wake up and understand the threat, you people will add our societies to dar al Islam. As long as we are dar al Harb, we are under the wrath of Allah and his minions. The jihad is on the march in Southern Thailand, the Philippines, what is left of Christian communities in Indonesia and Malaysia, Chechnya, and Pakistan. Just to name a few places. And, within a few decades your glorious Ummah will triumph, be it Allah’s will, over the Western European nations. It is said that the Crown Prince in the United Kingdom converted to Islam in 1996, which is why he has a prayer room and garden at Windsor Castle.
So, “Truth,” we may have the best weapons and superior economies, but you people have other advantages against us. Besides, it is so easy for you people to work your taqiyya against us. That is your mission in the weblog world, I take it. I’m sure you have no small amount of success with the kafir.
My mission not “with the kafir.”as you think.
I don’t care of any one what he believes in his devil or his Allah.
My attention you show others how good your are working for the good and how mach your care about human despite what their believe you should put yourself an example for others..
To correct your thought about “societies to dar al Islam. As long as we are dar al Harb,”
in no way that any society looks to other in this way unless you are making wars.
Under Islam Dar harb its like your Pentagon, its a war ministry not as the “we are dar al Harb” this is your chosen term not reflecting any Islamic things.
but you people have other advantages against us. Besides,
This another your creation, Islam have nothing against you if you think other thing that just your presumption and built on shallow facts and reflect the rush of misjudgment due to criminals and terrorist acts.
These your loved authors of History are one side its better of to read the history from wider angle not from hate racist vies only.
BTW, when Bat Ye’or Egyptian born historian telling her experiences as Jew in Islamic world start from Jeremiah (this before Islam have nothing to do with Islam and Muslims) she saying:
“I had witnessed the destruction, in a few short years, of a vibrant Jewish community living in Egypt for over 2,600 years and which had existed from the time of Jeremiah the Prophet. I saw the disintegration and flight of families, dispossessed and humiliated the destruction of their synagogues, the bombing of the Jewish quarters and the terrorizing of a peaceful population. I have personally experienced the hardships of exile, the misery of statelessness − and I wanted to get to the root cause of all this. I wanted to understand why the Jews from Arab countries, nearly a million, had shared my experience.”
She should see what her brother in faith suffered in Christian world where 6 millions burned, not one million as she trying collecting numbers is more vital than Islamic anti-Semitism
We have a good deal of energy–oil, coal, and gas–within the US. The greens have deliberately made it difficult to get to. Which is why we get so much from overseas. There’s a big field in Montana (Bakken) and the greens and dems are already moving to shut down development.
You’d almost think they were being bought by Saudi Arabia.
Like Clinton was bought by Riady when he made a national monument out of the cleanest coal this side of Indonesia–which was owned by Riady’s Lippo Group.
“Truth” – Your style of writing tells me that you are not an English speaker as your first language. You are Arab or Persian, and so you are here to agitate against the United States by attempting to deflect blame on the United States for the natural aggressiveness of the Islamic doctrine of jihad. And because Obonga would definitely give you people breathing room, his presidency is a desirable thing. I get it; I understand ya’. When you start calling my country “criminal” and deflecting the terrorist epithet back on me and my country I know what you are doing. You are not fooling many people with your disjointed rants. And because of your sensitivity towards things Islamic, I don’t believe you when you say that my use of Islamic terminology has no Islamic usage. It surely does, and you are lying. You’re not fooling me. You may fool some credulous kafir, but not this one.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
I’ve been telling people for years to read the Koran plus encylopedia entries on Mohammed and Islam. It’s not all that taxing. The Koran is mostly a straightforward read, if repetitious and at times horrifying.
Current events make much more sense with this background. Curiously I’ve never encountered an anti-war advocate who has made this effort.
I also read contemporary Muslims to see how they explain the parts of Islam, such as jihad, which I find alarming, but so far the explanations have all been condescending or duplicitous or both.
I’ve nothing against believing in God, praying five times a day, and taking care of widows and orphans and the like. However Islam also contains a virulent supremacist ideology which is something else again.
You’re not fooling me. You may fool some credulous kafir, but not this one.
FredHjr, I don’t care what you holding in your head which obviously full of those historians hatred views about Islam; I care what you put misleading terms and words trying manipulating here.
Keep yourself in your own bubble that not can hart me at all but calling me a “lair” I only say the Sun it’s very bright you can not hid it by your hand.
Enjoy your lies:
Your troops on the holy land in Qatar Bahrain Kuwait where those Muslims “Mojahedeen” full of Jihads then?
Are your troops fighting on these Muslim land or they welcomed on Muslim land?
Last think to tell read these word from you countrymen when they went early days to the Islamic land although you like to name them “kafir” how those Muslims from holy land teat them and helped these “kafir”
However Islam also contains a virulent supremacist ideology which is something else again.
Uhm, The Jew also have same ideology!
The whites went all over the world and demonstrating this ideology clearly.
Whats wrong them here its ok for some but not for Muslims .
My advice to those who hold some out of reality views go visit ME countries and find out how those Mojahideen full of Jihad as you believe.
Yes there are a lot of problem with people thinking there but when its come human to humans they are same they don’t hate you they hate your policies within their region which cases some panic.
But I do agree ME need reforming but how this hard question need to think how but obviously not by war and invading country to install corrupts and Parisian Proxy in power and telling we went there to spread democracy. While now Iran have they say in SOFA (Security of Agreement) and sending those Parisian Proxy to kiss Iranians A* to approve to them go ahead.
Just give good look to this is this look a PM of sovereign country who did worry and take of his tie because he met the lunatic terrorist criminal leader in his office in another country !
How will be a “Proxy” more than that?
I want to Israel.. it is a great country. It’s amazing what the Jews have done to the place in the space of 100 years.
want = went
In 1998
By Rev Andy Thompson
St Paul’s Anglican Church,
Ahmadi, Kuwiat
FredHjr read these words came from Islamic land I wonder where are your Mojahdeen and their Jihad with Church in Kuwait?
Did you know there are thousands and thousands of Christians in Arab/Islamic countries living in peace between their brothers?
Your countrymen/troops living in peace on Islamic land in Qatar Bahrain.
Are there more lies than what your rant mangling in words here.
“Truth”
I know that I must have really touched a nerve and set you off. Your voluminous reactions to what I had originally posted, however peripheral to your concerns as a Muslim, intended as they were for American Leftists and not Muslims (unless you are defending your “allies”), indicate that you are a Muslim. I have run across your style before on other weblogs and in face to face meetings with Muslims. You are hyper-sensitive to ANYTHING that can be construed as a criticism of Islam, even if it is not intended for your ears.
I also have encountered this tactic from Muslim students when I was an undergraduate many years ago. They try to get on your good side by trying to point out some minor ways in which Christian scriptures and traditions are also shared with Muslims, so that when I point out how different our traditions really are I appear to be the unreasonable, intractable, inflexible, and hostile party. It’s a neat trick and it works on some people, but not on me. Because I am trained in theology, philosophy, and biblical studies, I do not easily fall for this.
Just because the Qur’an recognizes Abraham as a prophet does not mean that our faiths are related. And I reject the Anglican and Episcopal rapproachment with Islam as ill-considered and ill-informed about the Qur’an and ahadith. The pronouncements of a dhimmi Christian church’s representatives in a Muslim land do not impress me.
“Allah” was Muhammad’s sock puppet deity, and a vicious, nasty brute born in the mind of a horrible man with narcissistic personality disorder, who also suffered from frontal lobe epileptic seizures.
I’ve been plied with far more sophisticated strategies to lay open a window to my mind than the stunt you’ve pulled.
I know that I must have really touched a nerve and set you off.
Wonder who’s never went of here look to your comment just more and more rant meaningless words.
What brings your American Leftists to the Muslims just your myth of history by those racist hatred historians isn’t?
The Revolution is strong, it will not bow to the oppression of the unjust.
We dont care if it bows when it’s destroyed.