U.S. v. Iran: stepping up the warmongering

"Did Mr Bush last week set America inexorably on a path to the next war?"

If so, I somehow think the fallout (no pun intended) will last a wee bit longer than three days.

Comments

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Bush intends to strike Iran. I think it will be catastrophic to stability in the region and I'm not that confident it will result in Iran not getting a nuke. If anything, it will give the Iranians leverage with Russia to buy them.

[Briandot]

It will also provide the overt justification for them to develop them. :(

[Moondawg]

"It will also provide the overt justification for them to develop them."

Er, they're already developing them - and they openly brag about doing so. Talk about "overt"...in any case, the type of airstrikes discussed in the Sunday Times article is not exactly news - I myself over a year ago blogged on the likelihood that such an air campaign of this type would be employed against Iran, of a scale and duration similar to Operation Desert Fox (also a 3-day air campaign).

BTW, congrats to Brendan on the PJM hurricane reporting gig - but why no love for Henriette? Granted she's no Felix, but the poor girl deserves some attention as she churns towards the Baja Peninsula!

[Briandot]

Er, they're already developing them - and they openly brag about doing so.

Er, actually, they're openly bragging about developing nuclear technology -- i.e., the fuel cycle -- but not weapons. It is likely that they are codeveloping weapons as well, but they're at least sticking to their story that they're not.

Also, you seemed to have missed my point: I was saying that such expensive weapons are developed in response to a perceived threat. An attack by us realizes that threat, and that becomes more obvious, public justification in international forums for them to weaponize the technology.

We use diplomacy to justify our unreasonableness, and so will they.

[Moondawg]

Oh, right - Ahmadinejad was talking about their "fuel cycle" when he boasted that Iran will "quickly become an invincible global power...as soon as it achieves advanced technologies". Yep, nothing like a kick-ass fuel cycle to make a country an invincible global power. And you say "they're at least sticking to their story" as though it were a positive aspect of the situation. Even the dithering EU has condemned Iran's blatant pattern of "concealment and deception" regarding their nuclear program.

And you've got to be kidding - Iran's nuke program was "developed in response to a perceived threat"? Iran began its secret uranium enrichment program at Natanz in 1984: a time when the US posed about as much a threat to Iran as Luxembourg did. This, mind you, was only 4 years after the hostage rescue debacle - yes I see it now, our pathetic blundering at Desert One convinced the mullahs they needed nukes. Or maybe it was Reagan's feckless response to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut (an attack perpetrated by Iran itself through its proxy, Hezbollah) that spooked them into thinking they just had to have The Bomb to protect themselves from a nation that turned tail and ran at the first sign of blood.

More likely it was in consideration of US impotence during those times, not US might, that led them to believe they could get away with developing nuclear weapons.

[Briandot]

Have you seen Good Will Hunting? Remember this quote? "It's not about you, you mathematical dick! It's about the boy!" -Sean/Robin Williams

The thing is, it's not about the U.S. It's about the Mid East/Central Asia. Even the Mad Mullahs, who have a nutty social philosophy and pursue a twisted version of their religion via force, have to follow some sort of foreign policy logic. Randomness gets them nowhere. Contrary to what you seem to think, we (the US) are not the only people in the world who matter. Iran doesn't want to march down the streets of DC waving pictures of the Ayatollah. They want to be a regional power, i.e., they think the Persians should control the Persian Gulf.

The fuel cycle gives their nuke program independence, something they don't even have with respect to petroleum production (since they have to have it refined elsewhere). Now, it is a small step to get from a fuel cycle producing LEU to one producing HEU, and it's definitely bad for them to get the bomb. But they're not going to target New York; hell, I don't even think they'd attack Israel, despite all Shorty Ahmedinejad's puffed up statements. (Interesting how everyone -- Bush, Ahmedinejad, and you, I would guess -- does their own special version of Kruschev's "We will bury you!") I'd speculate that their first target would be Baghdad, although that's more of a hunch than anything else, and with much resting on bad blood from the 1980-1988 war.

Back to the point: despite the rhetoric, they're not after world domination. They're after regional hegemony. But we're obligated, in one way or another, to protect most of the countries there. (Note the Carter Doctrine.) And we tend to rattle the saber more than most. If *you* were in charge of a small country, would you back down -- or would you play to your population by making big statements, and meanwhile beef up military R&D, and maybe buy what you could afford from the bigger guys (e.g., Russia and former Soviet states)?

Read a foreign policy book. This is all a challenge-response system. They don't just stroke their beards and make master plots for taking over the world, all Dr. Evil like. The world isn't a fucking James Bond movie, with SPECTRE on one side and MI6/CIA on the other, with the occasional Ooh-rah call to the Marines. Instead of constantly itching for a fight take a look at what really drives actions. They're not responding to our perceived weakness ("Reagan's feckless response...that spooked them into thinking they just had to have The Bomb to protect themselves from a nation that turned tail and ran at the first sign of blood."). They're worried that someone's going to fucking invade them, and they think they need, I dunno, maybe a deterrent?

India and Pakistan have played the same game for a while now. One is a socialist country, the other Islamic, and both are fighting over the same scrap of mountains. Neither have threatened the world in general, only each other, because they think the other is trying to violate the territorial integrity of the state. Same thing going on here -- Iran is surrounded on two sides by western forces; they have a history of bad blood with at least Iraq; and maybe a bit of trouble with the Afghanis to the east and the Saudis across the Gulf. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that maybe it's time to move the Iranian version of DEFCON up a notch.

[Brendan Loy]

"Have you seen Good Will Hunting?"

MATT DAMON!!!

Sorry. Carry on.

[Moondawg]

Ahem. Leading off an analysis of foreign affairs with a quip from a maudlin Affleck/Damon script is rather unusual, but to each his own (the movie was probably Robin Williams best performance, though). But on to business...

Even the Mad Mullahs...have to follow some sort of foreign policy logic.
Indeed they do. Their calculation is that they can repeat a cycle of deception, feigning of cooperation, then deception again indefinitely, and the Western powers will do nothing. So far, that calculation has proven correct.

Contrary to what you seem to think, we (the US) are not the only people in the world who matter.
The US is the only nation who might dare to lift a finger to stop the mullahs, so yes, in a very concrete sense we are the only ones who matter.

Iran doesn't want to march down the streets of DC waving pictures of the Ayatollah.
True. They just want to "pave the way" for the return of the 12th Imam, and what better way to do that then using nukes to provoke a future "final war" between Muslims and the West.

They want to be a regional power, i.e., they think the Persians should control the Persian Gulf.
No, actually as I noted earlier, they want to become "an invincible global power". But let's say they're merely seeking control of the Persian Gulf. Thanks to US naval superiority, Iran cannot hope to control the Gulf by conventional means. Therefore non-conventional means would be the only option at their disposal.

The fuel cycle gives their nuke program independence, something they don't even have with respect to petroleum production (since they have to have it refined elsewhere).
When the Iranian leadership speaks of their nuclear ambitions, they do not speak merely in terms of "independence" but in terms of projecting power.

But they're not going to target New York; hell, I don't even think they'd attack Israel, despite all Shorty Ahmedinejad's puffed up statements.
You may be willing to gamble tens of thousands of lives that the mullahs' realpolitik rationality will trump their apocalyptic philosophy. Many others (especially the Israelis) will not be willing to take that gamble.

(Interesting how everyone -- Bush, Ahmedinejad, and you, I would guess -- does their own special version of Kruschev's "We will bury you!")
Kruschev's famous exclamation was not meant as belligerently as some think it was, and he almost never utilized such rhetoric thereafter - unlike the repeated and consistent provocative statements by the Iranian leadership ever since the 1979 revolution.

I'd speculate that their first target would be Baghdad, although that's more of a hunch than anything else, and with much resting on bad blood from the 1980-1988 war.
So you are willing to entertain the idea of an Iranian nuclear strike on Baghdad (which will kill thousands of Shi'a, by the way) merely because of "bad blood", but scoff at the notion of an attack against Israel, a country that Iran has repeatedly vowed to destroy over the last couple of decades? Hoo-kay...

But we're obligated, in one way or another, to protect most of the countries there. (Note the Carter Doctrine.)
And neutralizing Iranian nuclear capability would be a jolly good way of ensuring the protection of those countries, I'd say.

And we tend to rattle the saber more than most.
Saber rattling is the only thing that has prompted the Iranians to at least pretend cooperation. Three years of traditional diplomacy by the US and EU-3 completely failed to move them.

If *you* were in charge of a small country, would you back down -- or would you play to your population by making big statements, and meanwhile beef up military R&D, and maybe buy what you could afford from the bigger guys (e.g., Russia and former Soviet states)?
As noted earlier, Iran secretly launched its nuclear program about twenty years before we began this "saber rattling" that concerns you so. It is two decades of Iranian deception, defiance, and threats against its neighbors - not American rhetoric - that has brought this crisis to a tipping point.

Read a foreign policy book.
As it happens I have read a few of these over the years, thank you very much, and was subscribing to The Economist, Foreign Affairs, and the World Press Review (which is, alas, no more) when you, dear chap, were still soiling your Huggies.

This is all a challenge-response system.
Indeed. The Iranians are betting that their challenge to international security will elicit no meaningful response from the Western powers. If deluded liberal elites in the West have anything to do with it, they will be right.

They don't just stroke their beards and make master plots for taking over the world, all Dr. Evil like. The world isn't a fucking James Bond movie, with SPECTRE on one side and MI6/CIA on the other, with the occasional Ooh-rah call to the Marines.
You begin with a line from a Hollywood movie and then imply that my characterization of the Iranian regime is a charictature of Hollywood villians? Mildy ironic, that.

They're worried that someone's going to fucking invade them, and they think they need, I dunno, maybe a deterrent?
Please - there is not one iota of a chance that the US will invade, and Iran knows that full well; US ground forces are operating with a "peace dividend" military that has its hands full in Iraq. The best we can do is a military air strike, which the Iranians can easily avoid by simply cooperating with the UN and the IAEA.

India and Pakistan have played the same game for a while now. One is a socialist country, the other Islamic, and both are fighting over the same scrap of mountains.
A meaningless analogy. There is no territorial dispute akin to the Kashmir issue that is at the core of the current crisis.

Iran is surrounded on two sides by western forces; they have a history of bad blood with at least Iraq; and maybe a bit of trouble with the Afghanis to the east and the Saudis across the Gulf.
None of the nearby countries are in any position to mount ground forces that pose an invasion threat to Iran; the very idea is laughable. To paraphrase Joe Stalin, "How many divisions has Azerbaijan?"

Doesn't take a genius to figure out that maybe it's time to move the Iranian version of DEFCON up a notch.
And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that all Iran has to do to ensure peace in the region and prevent a US attack is to comply with UNSC resolution 1737. Reigning in their butchering proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, and Iraq would be a plus as well.

[Joe Mama]

Well struck I'd say, Moondawg.