Link to E3 Framework of August 8,2005, referred to above.

I don't even see how we could realistically bomb Iran unless we left Iraq first since the Army is not only bogged down there, but pinned down and exposed to Iranian reprisals.

Jorge Hirsch has suggested that Bush is preparing to attack Iran using nukes.

Well, one thing I think it's important to think about and be aware of is that Iran is really at the heart of the "weak on terror" theme being associated with the Democrats, going back to Jimmy Carter.

Any other boomers that started news junkiedom by chosing watching Ted Koppel's new type of news show, "Day 1563, Iran Hostage Crisis" over MASH reruns knows this intuitively. That a bunch of radical Islamic students could hold the mightiest country "hostage" via reporting of the story day after day was the beginning of it all. It not only helped Reagan win, I'm sure it inspired people like Osama. (As we are now reminded by Steven Spielberg, this all much earlier, like in 1972, but since it was always targeted at Israel then, or was used by smallish obscure revolutionary or independence movements against European or 3rd world countries, nobody in the big media cared.)

So now that we have actually tried the "invade the damn country" option when we're dissed like this by someone in the Mideast, and not seen it work out so well, how will people who remember Iranians as the originator of all our supposed woes react?

I tend to think the majority who understand all we have gone through since then would simply be happy with "talk tough and carry a big stick," and go no further, but I'm no pollster. Reagan talked tough but withdrew the marines from Lebanon and it didn't do his tough image any harm?

I think that one thing that Democratic leaning press can do is to stress that the Europeans have been tough, to counteract all the Rummy and Pentagon propaganda that is still in minds out there about cheese eating surrender monkeys. Because the solution is obviously in coalition, not division.

Finally, one should always keep at the top of the mind when analyzing the situation and what to do: Iran has NATO troops across its Afghanistan border and U.S. troops across its Iraqi border and some often very Western-military friendly Sunnis across the gulf. And many surveys have presented the idea that the anti-mullah contingent within Iran are still very nationalistic and very supportive of their country having the bomb.

First, it's important to explode (if you'll pardon the expression) a few myths. While it is true that the Army is overextended in Iraq, that is not necessarily true of the Air Force or Navy. From the standpoint of military options, the difficulties in Iraq are only an issue if we want to invade and then occupy Iran. This seems to me wholly implausible. A more likely military option would be either limited airstrikes or else a naval blockade.




Second, it is important for Democrats who bitterly opposed the Iraq War, with all the mendacity and incompetence that accompanied it, not to lump Iran and Iraq together. While you can certainly make the case that the threat posed by Saddam was exaggerated, especially the degree to which he had WMDs, the threat from Iran is extremely clear. A nuclear Iran will immediately destabilize the region as the Gulf Arabs and Turkey, let along Israel, confront a hostile country on their border led by a lunatic.




But it also must be recognized that there are no good options here. The right choice is the least bad option. While I don't usually agree all that much with Victor Davis Hanson, in this case, he is on the ball. At the end of the day, Iran must be stopped, and the price we should be willing to pay is high. It would be nice if we had a president who didn't turn this into a partisan question, but that is less important than stopping a regime with a PROVEN bent towards helping terrorists and a PROVEN desire to acquire WMDs, led by a president who is certifiably insane.




Democrats should be to the right of the Administration on this issue. That means putting pressure on the Administration to back up its diplomacy with credible threats. Remember that the inspectors got what they needed out of Iraq only when there was an invasion force on their door. Something similar needs to be done with Iran.

Also, this time, we should not go to war unless congress has the will to declare war.

We must demand that the proper constitutional process is followed. A declaration of war should be mandatory before we attack.

There are alternatives and I do not understand why noene in the U.S. points them out.

 The E.U.3 "offer" is bs, there is no incentive in there. Here are some steps that could be offered:

1.  U.S. acknowledging the right of Iran to create a nuclear cycle for civilian use as is guaranteed in the NPT. 

2. Abrogation of Iran to use this above right under the conditions of: 

2a. The lifting of any trade restrictions from the U.S. and E.U.

2b. A non-aggression guarantee form the U.S. providing there is no attempt by Iran to build nukes or attack other country.

Now where is the difficulty with the above? The Iranians would be  happy to sign the above if the guarantees would be sufficient, i.e. international endorsement via the U.N. or something like that.

As long as they are part of the "axis of evil" there is nothing they can really do.

It is the U.S. that is blocking any deal and the Dems in the U.S. are part of that block and thereby causing their own misery. 

As if to confirm his worst fears, Noam Scheiber says Democrats should be "getting to the right of the Bush administration on Iran" to score awesome political gains.

Maybe the Democrats should get to the right of the Republicans on every issue. How 'bout even bigger tax cuts, even bigger cuts in Social Security, even bigger breaks for large corporations, even more school prayer, and even more restrictions on the right to choose.

Also, this time, we should not go to war unless congress has the will to declare war.

That, of course, is exactly what the Constitution says. However, can anyone see this Congress having the will to do anything other than nodding their heads whenever Bush babbles something?

Even our Democrats in Congress would spend 99.9% of their decision making time calculating how many votes they might lose or gain, rather than questioning whether an invasion was actually in our country's best interest. And, don't call me a cynic - I'm just a realist.

Incidentally, I simply cannot believe this discussion is happening. For every valid reason that exists to invade Iran, there have to be 100 more valid reasons not to. Just to attempt to end the discussion - Iran is not now, nor will it ever be in our lifetimes, a military threat to our country. So, why the Hell are we discussing invading Iran???

Just imagine the blowback from any moronic nuclear bombing of Iran. There is probably no other single act that would place our country in more peril, more lasting peril, and more deserved peril.

This truly is a time when our country is suffering especially badly from the loss of Martin Luther King Jr. We seem to have no level headed, courageous leaders left. A bit more reflection also leads me to conclude that this may be the ultimate loss we suffer as a nation by Colin Powell's prostituting himself to Bush. There we have a tragedy only Shakespeare could chronicle adequately.

George W. Bush and everyone who is too dense to realize that we have a war-criminal dictator wannabee in the White House.

Wouldn't it be great if Powell said what he should have said when he should have refused to give his bogus UN speech in 2/2003 - George W. Bush is a nutcase who must be inpeached and removed from office now.

December 8th, 1941 was the last time. Whatever happened to "checks and balances" that we all learned about in school?

I loved Hanson's book "Culture and Carnage" but am repeatedly annoyed by his political writing.

He argues on the basis of two threats from Iran. The first is easily tossed out; if Iran nuked Israel Iran would cease to exist. Forget that, it won't happen.

The second is oil. Why are we still stuck in early 20th-century geopolitics? Talk about blinkered thinking! Instead of Iran using oil as a weapon against us we could use it against Iran. A crash campaign like California is proposing, to install one million solar power units, replicated across the US, would free up huge amounts of oil, gas, and coal for use in transport. Oil prices would crash, and Iran would go broke.

A sticky detail in that scenario is that it would have to be forced since there isn't enough production capacity right now. There are NO technical difficulties, though. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to drum up support for war than factories. 

Instead of fighting not just the last war but the last century's wars we could embrace the future.

The difference here, though, is that I'd really be giving the Iranian's something. We've got the expertise to build nuclear power plants. We'd really be helping them achieve their goal--if it's honestly all they're looking for. All they'd have to do in return is let us monitor their activities so we can be assured that the technology we are sharing with them isn't misused. This could lay the groundwork for further cooperation on other beneficial projects. Let's help strengthen their economy and become a more stable state. Over time, we can influence them to become more Democratic. Their people, after all, are crying for democracy and the end (or limitation) of theocracy.

I don't think you've got all your facts straight, Den Valdron. While it's true that there was an opening after 9/11, Iran's reformists had already been outmaneuvered by the hardliners and Khatami had lost a great deal of credibility with his supporters. 
Second, the US did work with Iran, through the Geneva channel, in overthrowing the Taliban. However, the ill-advised "axis of evil" speech immediately led to a shutdown of this budding relationship. It's ambiguous, however, what Iran's intentions were with respect to the US. They were casing US installations and instigating anti-US propaganda in Afghanistan at that point. So it's not fair to lay the blame solely at the feet of the US. It takes two to tango.

You forgot Latin America!  They're LEFTISTS!  You forgot Europe!  They're becoming ISLAMIC.  They're ALL against us!  But God is on OUR side!

Here are the facts about Iran.

Iran has every right to do everything they're doing right now with their nuclear program according to their agreements with the IAEA and the UN NPT.

The only quibble the IAEA has with Iran is they haven't been "forthcoming" about their ultimate nuclear intentions. Neither has Israel, which is not even a signatory of the NPT. Neither is the United States - well, you could say everybody KNOWS we intend to use nuclear weapons on SOMEBODY - we have enough of them and we're building more every day SPECIFICALLY to use on non-nuclear states.

All of the above is irrelevant. Iran has every right to have a nuclear bomb program as long as Israel does so (and to build it in complete secrecy, I might add, since Israel did the exact same thing.)

Iran will NEVER use a nuclear weapon in pre-emptive attack on Israe unless they KNEW they were about to nuked out of existence by a pre-emptive attack BY Israel. They would never do this because they know they would be nuked out of existence by the US and Israel (which has far more nuclear weapons than Iran will have for decades to come). (The same applies to the North Koreans, by the way.)

Iran would also never give a nuclear weapon to ANY terrorist group because it would be tracked backed to them resulting in the above scenario.

So any discussion of this crap is complete propaganda.

If Iran had a known nuclear weapons program, it would not destabilize any of the countries in the Middle East. While other countries might be motivated to acquire the bomb, that motivation would be the same as Iran's - to acquire a deterrent to Israel's nuclear arsenal. Nothing more. And NOBODY in ANY of the countries in the Middle East would use such a weapon, on the same logic as the Iranian logic above. (I leave aside the issue of a weapon being stolen by terrorists, as the same applies to Israel which has in excess of 100-200 nuclear weapons - and nobody's security is that good - Navy SEAL Richard Marcinko and his Red Cell  SEAL team demonstrated that right in the good ol' US of A by penetrating US Navy nuclear weapons lockers and the Groton nuclear submarine base.)

The SOLE negative effect of Iran's having a nuclear weapon is its increased freedom to operate diplomatically and economically in the region - and that is a negative SOLELY to ONE state in the region - Israel. It would definitely eliminate Israel's intention to control the entire Middle East from the Nile to the Euphrates - a goal which EVERY top Israeli politician has supported (privately and frequently publicly) since Ben Gurion.

To prevent this, Israel is using its CONTROL over the neocons in Washington to prepare an attack on Iran within the next three to six months - probably in April, immediately after the March report by the IAEA on the Iran situation. There may be further moves necessary to pump up "reasons", such as UN sanctions and the like, but everybody knows none of that will be effective.

So the Israelis WILL attack Iran within the next three to six months.

They can only do this with the direct complicity and military assistance of the United States, because their aircraft cannot fly two thousand miles to Iran and maintain time over target. They need airfields, aircraft carriers or refueling aircraft which can only be supplied by the United States. (Word is they're going to use airfiellds in Kurdish territory in Iraq.)

Therefore, once Israel bombs Iran - and the bombing runs will not be just one or two, as dozens of targets need to be hit repeatedly to set back the Iranian program effectively - Iran will retaliate against both Israel and the United States.

That means missiles launched against the Green Zone in Iraq and US troop concentrations near the Iranian border in Iraq. That means shutting down the Persian Gulf. It means sunken US warships in the Gulf (assuming the Iranian missles are good enough.)  It means, if the Iranians want to take it that far, SIX MILLION militia thrown against US troops in Iraq - which will require the US to use tactical nuclear weapons and/or massacre hundreds of thousands of Iranians with carpet-bombng in order to survive - which of course will simply inflame the Iranians even more.

It means terrorist attacks everywhere against the West directly supported by Iranian intelligence - probably including inside Israel and inside the United States. It definitely means Hamas will escalate its attacks in Israel. It is likely that the Shia in Iraq, who have fairly good control of the government, will side with the Shia in Iran and use the opportunity to join (or parallel) the Sunni insurgency in Iraq and throw the US occupation out - which means US casualties in Iraq will spike into the dozens or hundreds a day instead of two or three.)

It means the price at the gas pump rising to $6-10 a gallon, as the oil shipments from the Gulf stop and shjipments from places like Venezuela are cut off as well in sympathy with the Iranians. 

You so-called "progressives" have THREE TO SIX MONTHS to stop this - NOT three more years of Bush. The Israeli plans are already well under way, with a report from the International Herald Tribume just a few days ago that they are going to use Kurdish airfields in Iraq to launch their attack from - with US complicity, obviously.

At the very least, Congress must pass immediate legislation explicitly preventing ANY US military support for an Israeli attack on Iran. Congress must also pass immediate legislation explicity preventing the President from conducting ANY overt military action against Iran without an express declaration of war from Congress. Congress must also pass immediate legislation explicitly preventing the President from using nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear nation without the express authorization of Congress.

You've got three to six months to get this done - or this country will face the greatest military and diplomatic disaster in its history.

Anybody posting here pay any price yet?

Oh yes things are just peachy-keeno in Iraq and we will blithely throw our depleted military into Iran and everything will be fine. Are we allowed to disagree with this or will Bush say we are being irresponsible?

Please qualify your language. I'm just as opposed to Bush's insanity as you are. so please refer to "some Americans" as a-holes, rather than americans.

I like Gettysburg's idea, "Bush Moves East", sounds like "Operation Barbarossa II".  

Quit your bellyaching General Valdron, you will be permitted to retire like General Shinseki and other truth tellers.  

Bush is a War President not some kind of negotiating candy-ass  French flip-flopper.  You forgot maybe,  BRING 'EM ON!

We are working on cute-nukes.  That little village in Pakistan should consider themselves lucky the pilotless drone didn't detect  that Ayman al-Zawahri was in a hardened, hydroelectric powered reinforced subterranean bunker. Bush would have smoked him out.  With a mini-nuke.

Tlees2, a draft may be necessary.  After the 2006 election.  With gasoline at $5-$10 bucks a gallon and the economy in the can, at least it is a paycheck, maybe there will be enough volunteers.  Hack sounds like a know-it-all from the career branch of the State Dept., too bad.  Bush listens only to true believers and cronies. A new war before the elections sounds like a real Rove plan.  Grab your Freedom Fries and hold on, Bush has more disasters in store for America and the world.

It is good to see a fellow mild-mannered Canadian speak so judiciously.

No argument from me. American health care is good only if you're at least fairly wealthy. As for USA opinions on Iran, I believe it was H.L. Mencken who said "You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people", and Mark Twain who said "We got all the fools in town on our side and that's a big enough majority in any town."

You've got three to six months to get this done - or this country will face the greatest military and diplomatic disaster in its history.

Glory, glory, halleluja!! The rapture will then be upon us! Holy Shit! Is that what this is all about? If it is the armed forces should clamp down on D.C.

I wonder how hard it is to decontaminate radioactive oil.

Regarding "He's crazy, remember?" Just for the record:

Bush or Ahminajad? 

Note to self: don't read any more stuff by Den Valdron right before going to bed....

You answered yourself early in your post...

 Is your entire f*cking country on crack?.. Technically, no, its called evangelicalism, but it has the same effect.
 

Actually Den Valdron claims to be Canadian, so he is not a voter.

If one ever wondered how the Democratic party became the pathetic party it is one can understand a lot by reading BradtheDad.  I remember the Brads telling us Iraq was not like Vietnam; now he tells us Iran is not Iraq; the future headline BradtheDad has for us (when his blood cools down from being called soft on national security) is North Korea is not like Iran. I would suggest BradtheDad that it is not Democratic warhawks being wrongly accused of being soft on national security that is our nation's problem, it is having too many poseurs (if the shoe fits...) thinking that the way to electoral success is to play the tough guy to an appreciating audience.  Iran is a problem...try some international controls or oversight on ALL nuclear weapons(ALL nations)...that obviously has some moral traction even if relinquishing the American role of deciding good and bad (evil) and then unilaterally enforcing it is difficult for you.

My, aren't you an open-minded addition to the discussion? The answer to that is "No", by the way.

Well he and Bush/Cheney can form a club -because all three of them are nuts!

Gettysburg, I am glad you pointed out how easy it would be to change course and engage the Iranians. Rumsfeld and the boys have often complained about the stodgy and set-in-their-ways thinking that has afflicted the pentagon. As you say, the Iranian war is easily managed. probably can do it with what we have, and with Iranian oil it will probably pay its own way. Maybe forget the flower-strewn entry in Tehran,but hey...

I remember the Brads telling us Iraq was not like Vietnam; now he tells us Iran is not Iraq; the future headline BradtheDad has for us (when his blood cools down from being called soft on national security) is North Korea is not like Iran. I would suggest BradtheDad that it is not Democratic warhawks being wrongly accused of being soft on national security that is our nation's problem, it is having too many poseurs (if the shoe fits...) thinking that the way to electoral success is to play the tough guy to an appreciating audience.

You entirely misunderstand bradthedad's motives.  Bradthedad is one of those folks for whom Israel's security and desires are everything.  Israel wants the U.S. to slap Iran around, therefore it is in the interests of the U.S. to slap Iran around, and of course it's doable, anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, a liar, or both.  The sad and frightening things are that Bradthedad A) doesn't understand this, and therefore (and far more frighteningly B) believes every word he writes is correct and true, and is quite passionate about it.  It is even more frightening that he is far from alone.  

Iran must be stopped?  Iran cannot be very aggressive in its neighborhood - nobody else is Persian, and the Arabs would fight like hell before being incorporated into an Iranian empire. 

Iran's program could be addressed by addressing the underlying security issues, but we refuse.  Iran lives in a very dangerous neighborhood and undoubtedly feels insecure.  We don't address this because we want "regime change".  This is an element of any sensible diplomatic discussions that has been taken off the table by our government.

 This suggests more than a little bad faith on the part of our government, which has certainly made the situation worse.  I think this is deliberate - our government is ideologically committed to regime change in Iran, regardless of cost. 

 The rapture, don't you know.

An excellent smackdown of the stupidity and vapidity of the Democratic righties. No discussion of right or wrong just an analysis of what polls show. Don't these people have a clue of the role of leadership in changing polls. Before 2000, tax cuts were not listed very high on the public's list of important issues facing  the nation; clearly the right-wing has changed the political landscape so that removing these disastrous cuts are much more difficult now.

A question here for all who are saying it is so urgent to end Iran's (alleged) attempt to develop a nuclear bomb: Why should we be focusing on Iran more than North Korea? Explain why Iran presents more of a threat to us than North Korea. I'm not asking this to be snarky--I'm just trying to get people to focus on their reasons for why they think the Iranian threat is worse than other threats where we're not calling for airstrikes.

>TRUE - The AEC, who are the people who should know, states that there is no evidence that Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Every inspection they've done, and they have done inspections, has been clean and above board. If anyone had actual evidence, it would have been reported to the AEC, the AEC would have gone in and busted Iran. That's just the fact jack.

To which Brad responds:

>Quite what the relevance of this is escapes me.

And that says it all doesn't it?

>I'll say it again: every single Western security agency, without exception, believes Iran is working on nuclear weapons.

In the absence of the AEC, this is based on what credible evidence?  This is Iraq WMD's all over again.

Moreover, I'll dispute your facts, given your history of sloppiness.   Is this the position of the French?  The Germans?  The Spanish?  The Japanese?  The Russians?  If so, prove it.  Find the original French, Spanish, Japanese, Russian intelligence assessments or announcements.

>It should be completely obvious, to all but the most blinkered, that inspections can be dodged, nuclear programs can be done in secret

Yeah, just like they did in Iraq, eh?  But doesn't that come back to begging the question of just what evidence you are relying upon?  Or is the absence of evidence proof?

>why the hell would the country with the second largest reserves of oil be so hell bent on peaceful nuclear energy that it is willing to defy the entire world? Answer that one, genius.

So they can sell more oil?  Exporting oil gives them foreign exchange, more money comes into the country.  Oil burned at home is subsidized.  They have a net loss consuming their own oil.  Simple economics, doofus.

As for Hezbollah:

>OK, I looked it up. Here's what I found on Wikipedia:
On March 10, 2005 the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (473 in favor 33 against) on a resolution branding Hezbollah in whole as a terrorist organization.

Hmmm.  I stand corrected.  Good one, Brad.  I offer my congratulations.

On the other hand, Hezbollah has been around for a couple of decades.  And the European Union waited until almost 5 years after 9/11 to recognize them as a terrorist organization.  So... it seems they're hardly burning down the world on the terrorism front.

On the other hand, you also included, but chose not to bold this:

> The United Nations has not included Hezbollah on its list of terrorist groups (which is just being drawn up). However it has called for the disbanding of Hezbollah's military wing in UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

Now granted, the list is being drawn.  But it's hardly a ringing endorsement of your position.

But nice work.

By the way, I find you dishonest, hysterical, sloppy and morally bankrupt.

I have no confidence that Bush is not dumb enough to take military action against Iran.

Regarding: 

The fundamental shift in American politics over the last 50 years,..., is that the American public used to be basically opposed to war. Now we basically like it.

Americans don't really want war.  What Americans BELIEVE is the Regan myth, that we WON the cold war and so we are THE super-power.  WE are in charge and no one can push us around.

This is precisely why this whole thing smacks of electoral politics.  The Bush-Neocon alliance has boxed Iran into a position that allows only responses that look like puny little Iran is trying to push super-power America around.

Americans believe that if anyone tries to push us (or U.S.) around, we have to strike back.  This is our national inferiority complex.

This is another cynical manipulation of national security for electoral gain.  It rests in part on the over confidence of the Rumsfield DOD that they can conduct a surgical attack rather than get into an extended mess.  And, in part, that depends on their believing what they say about Iraq, that what we have done is a success (which, from their perspective, might be true if they don't care about how many people have died).