As one of the dovish commentors here, let me say again: Iran is not a military threat to our country, nor is it at all likely to be so in our lifetimes. Therefore, there cannot be a good reason to militarily attack Iran, and certainly not one to invade Iran. Unless we agree on that I don't see how a rational discussion can be had about what to do about Iran.

Perhaps another basic fact that needs to be agreed to is that nuclear power is an option than virtually every country has, and should have. It is the height of snobbism or something worse to say that it is ok for America, who has used nuclear weapons to kill people, to possess a nuclear program, but not ok for a small country to do the same.

If we agree on both of those facts, then a good discussion can proceed.

It seems that the "Iran Issue" is inextricably tied to Israel, and with good reason I suppose: as many point out Tehran more-or-less publicly supports Hezbollah, their president considers the Holocaust a hoax and doesn't believe Israel has a right to exist.  Iran's saber rattling isn't quite as blatant as that of the U.S., but it's very disturbing. But is Iran really a threat to the United States?
 
Last fall The NewsHour did a series on Iran and its people, it’s worth going thru their archives to find it.  If I remember correctly: it turns out that the people of Iran (not the leadership) support democracy and are slowly moving out of the "hate the US" mindset.  Remember the short-lived student protests against the Iranian leadership?  Is it really prudent to squander that sea change with saber rattling, let alone missile strikes?
 
The open secret that we dare not speak out loud is that Israel has one or more nuclear weapons in its arsenal, perhaps of U.S. origin.  I've read that Israel has some of the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world; their missile technology might even surpass that of the US.  Hopefully this "Iran Issue" will force Israel to admit that it has nuclear weapons, become a member of NPT, et al.  Let’s at least get all of the facts on the table.
 
Should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, won't the old tried-and-true deterrent of mutually assured destruction apply vis-à-vis Israel?  Will nobody admit that from Iran's perspective, they have a right to a deterrent against Israel?  And they certainly have a right to develop nuclear power.
 
It just doesn't seem logical that Tehran would take out Israel with a nuclear strike: won't that destroy all of the holy land?  And wouldn't that pretty much guarantee that the U.S. would turn Tehran into a sheet of glass?
 
Why aren't we just as concerned about Israel making a pre-emptive strike against Tehran?  The scenario that scares the s*** out of me is that Israel takes pre-emptive action against Iran's nuclear facilities and drags the United States into World War III. 
 
I know I sound like an anti-Semite and an Iran apologist, but I’m really not. I'm just concerned that there is a lot of "conventional wisdom", on both sides of the political aisle regarding Iran's threat to the U.S. and the world.

 

The US used atomic weapons in defense of itself, not as offensive weapons nor as a means to extortion or blackmail. If Iran's current leaders were less strident in their accusations and pronounciations, or had less of a history of blatant support for terrorism, then there would likely be no talk of military intervention.

 

Something needs to be done, with military intervention as the last resort. Otherwise, unstable people with WMD's is a recipe for disaster. If Israel and Iran get into it, then the Middle East will boil over, having catastrophic consequences for the world economy and Islamic/West relations.

We need to engage our reluctant allies to consider the consequences of a madman with nuclear power and no fear of martyring himself and millions of others. Whether we like it or not, but after exhausting every other possibility, military force may have to be used. Then we better hunker down and await the reprisals.

sorry "context" not "contest"

Actually, according to Gar Alperovitz's "Atomic Diplomacy" a big factor in dropping the A-bombs in Japan in August 1945 was to send an intimidating Cold War message to the USSR.

The million men waiting to invade Japan weren't a factor?  If Truman didn't use the weapons available and we invade Japan and the weapons were learned about how long before Truman was impeached, and convicted?

Safer?  Who is safer?  I'm constantly told that I am under threat.  I am constantly told that I must be at war for the foreseeable future.  What is safe about our present course?  If I wanted to be safer, I'd move to Canada but I don't think they'd let me in.   We're the most powerful nation on earth and all we do is obsess about how unsafe we are.  We see threats everywhere.  We fear everyone.  We don't talk about quality of life for our children, we talk about how many of them we can recruit to go off to war.  We are a powerful sales force.  We sell movies.  We sell Ipods.  We sell the glory of war and the vital value of being tougher than anyone, anywhere, with bigger and better weapons capable of killing with greater and greater efficiency.  And we wonder why others copy our values.

After the giant mess of Iraq, in which I was in a small way complicit and the general class of people who roughly shared my views were complicit in a pretty large way, I think one needs to come down firmly in favor of the latter option.

If you genuinely think Iran is a threat to the U.S., then you will end up on the bandwagon of Bushism (and Bushism will live on long after he is finally out of office); it's just a matter of when.  I read Josh's piece, and while it would have been useful during the debate over Iraq, where Iraq's status as a menace was shaky at best, here it looks like bizarre, academic posturing, if not mendacity inspired by partisanship: "Iran is a threat to the U.S., but because Bush is in charge, I don't think we should do anything."  People won't buy it; nor should they.  We invaded one country ostensibly because they were dangerous; once it is decided Iran is a threat, then people will expect something be done about it, even with a walking clusterfuck in charge.  This is a dog that won't hunt, and I say this as someone who thinks Iran has a perfect right to nuclear weapons as long as everyone else has them.

As an aside, I thought it interesting that Russia, the U.S, China, and the EU -- all organizations with violent, expansionist histories and armed with nukes, one of them having used nukes on densely populated cities -- are now working together in denying nukes to Iran, which has never started a war in modern history.  The gods must be laughing their asses off at the situation; as a mere mortal, I find my sense of humor lacking.        

The U.S. is no more prepared to do anything about Iran than it is North Korea.  Practically speaking, our military is already stretched to the breaking point.  Politically, most Americans are so sick of Iraq they wouldn't support a war against Iran no matter how compelling the argument.  Internationally, even England would refuse to support a unilateral U.S. action against Iran.

My point here is that Matt's analysis - which would have been timely in the lead-up to Iraq - seems a bit overblown right now.  Even if some liberal hawks do suggest using military force against Iran, how will the Administration take advantage?  The neocons do not have the balls - or the resources - to attack Iran, regardless of what anybody says.  It's a bunch of hot air, unless you write for The Corner, in which case you're dumb enough to believe anything.

Would Karl Rove like to use Iran to stoke partisan fires heading into the midterms?  Sure he would.  But which constituency does he plan on firing up?  He'll be selling something most of the country ain't buying.

p.s. Which makes me think about when the "space race" was more of an issue defining national power and pride than having a nuke. Somehow nukes more and more have become the granddaddy signifier of science achievment. You can put some blame on Bush for exacerbating this but it started way before his time.

Many used to look down at the Soviets showing off their expensive hardware in parades. Few see benefit in doing that now. It seems to have switched to air power? Countries are proud of their fancy military planes. What is it? Certain kinds of technology? Perhaps those things that are held close and secret by the powerful? If one can figure out those, one is powerful, too?

I myself sort of dislike that kind of "rah-rah our team nationalism" in either form. But it's not going away soon, especially with the U.N. we have now.

One thing should be evident to all--as apparently, judging from Hanson, it is. That is that the bombing Iran is very bad option, even if it happened to be the best of the lot.

Therefore one should be eager to find an alternative. The best alternative, the fattest carrot, has to include an ironclad guarantee on our part not to initiate the use of force against Iranian forces or territory.

In three quarters of America, no politician who desires continance in office would recommend this policy. It will therefore never be adopted.

But it should be, if one is concerned to all one reasonably can to prevent Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons.

We will instead adopt policies even less likely to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.  In a few years it will.

Then Iran will be secure against American or Israeli attacks on its territory. Whether it can and will use this security to undertake or sponsor provocative missions against American or Israeli targets will depend on whether those attacks can be countered by measures other than attacks on Iranian territory.

 

We invaded one country ostensibly because they were dangerous; once it is decided Iran is a threat, then people will expect something be done about it, even with a walking clusterfuck in charge.

I disagree.  Americans supported invading Iraq because they wanted to avenge 9/11 and they thought the U.S. could win convincingly.  The objective threat posed by Iraq was only a small part of the national psyche, eggheaded neocons aside.  It was about vengeance and it was about beating a bunch of Iraqis senseless.  The WMD's?  That's not what I heard about when I spoke to my beer-swillin' Republican buddies.  They just wanted to kick some A-Rab ass.  It would feel good and there would be no repercussions...

Iraq was easying pickings.  We had smashed Saddam in the early 90's, so there was little doubt about winning.  And 9/11 was fresh enough in the average redneck's mind that smashing an Iraqi felt almost as good as smashing the Taliban, regardless of whether or not Saddam brought the towers.  WMD?  Sure, if that's what you need to tell the UN.  But your average war supporter didn't care about the threat.  That's why all the evidence that Iraq posed no threat didn't make a whit of difference once the Shock 'N Awe and Embed-War-Porno started on the cable channels.  America was too busy getting its War On to pay attention to the details.

Again, why isn't there any clamoring to attack North Korea?  Two reasons: (1) no relation to 9/11 and (2) fears about winning and/or repercussions (e.g. China's reaction).  Yes, it sounds pathetic.  But here's the ugly truth: Americans don't want to go war with North Korea because they are not pissed at North Koreans.  Unfortunatley, it really is that emotional for most people.  If rage, then war.  If no rage, then no war.

Unless the neocons can convince Americans that Iran is closely linked with al Quida and we could win a military conflict easily, there will be no national push for war.  The objective threat posed by Iran will matter to only a small minority of Americans.

That's why all this bluster about Iran doesn't worry me.  The Bushies spent their wad with Iraq.   Hell, we're practically getting pushed around by Pakistan these days.   The American appetite for war is gone.  

Interesting perspective re: emotion/revenge.  After reading it, I do agree that your theory explains a lot about why the lack of WMDs has not seemed to bother a lot of people.

 What scares me about your theory is the inertia that it assumes the the American people have in the face of a real threat.

Well I didn't say the invasion wasn't a factor, but if I remember correctly I think Cordell Hull had a diary entry that said we were trying to scare the Russians.

I mean, if we're going to talk about the implications of nuclear weapons, perhaps we can look at it in terms of nuclear weapons theory?   Strategic deterrents? MAD?  First and second strike doctrines?

My god, I mean, we're talking at grade school levels.  This is ridiculous.  Every person here grew up in the shadow of armageddon.  You should all have absorbed strategic theory with your mothers milk.

So, let's start with the basics.

A nuclear weapon is a weapon capable of delivery by aircraft or missile to battlefield or civilian targets, and capable of causing immeasurable destruction.

A nuclear weapon, even a hiroshima bomb, used on a battlefield will immediately terminate that battle for both sides.  A nuclear weapon used upon a city terminates that city for all practical purposes.  Even a relatively small bomb like the Hiroshima weapon produced such devastation and dislocation that the city was essentially unable to function.  Critical infrastructure junctures ceased to exist, the surviving components were so overwhelmed attempting to cope with the damage that the city ceased to be a meaninful asset for the defenders or target for the enemy.

How we doing to far.

Now, the thing with nuclear weapons is that we have to distinguish between threat and use.  When it is used, zap, that's it.  You take your damage and then you see what response you can make with your remaining pieces.

A single nuclear weapon is of limited utility.  It can take out a city, or a battlefield.  Very nice if you are in a war, and particularly very nice if you are losing that war.  But then you are screwed.  The enemy, if they have retaliatory capacity, will retaliate.

A single nuclear weapon could have won the Yom Kippur war by vaporizing Cairo or destroying the Egyptian Army.

But here is the problem.  If you are winning the war, then you don't need that single nuclear weapon.  At best, it will give you an advantage in cost-effectiveness.  But that's about it.  And there are major downsides towards escalating in a nuclear way.
Anticipate huge public condemnation, fallout which may affect your own territory, and your enemies striving for their own nukes.

So, you only use it when you are losing.   Even there, you've got a problem.  If you are losing, the use of a nuclear weapon may not buy you victory.  It increases the enemies losses dramatically, and may turn the tide of war.  But if it doesn't, count on being up for War Crimes trials.  A single battlefield, a single army, a single city may not be sufficient to take down the enemy.

Israel almost used nuclear weapons during the Yom Kippur War, and chose not to.  Largely because of these tactical considerations.   An Israeli nuclear detonation might have taken Egypt out. Several would definitely have taken Syria and Egypt out.  But at the price of contaminating the entire region, at the price of losing every ally and supporter, and likely at the price of Israel's eventual guaranteed destruction.

Okay, so that's one nuke.  (For the record, Israel is believed to have multiple nuclear weapons during the Yom Kippur war, so its a sloppy example)

Now, let's up the situation to multiple nukes.   Multiple nuclear weapons give such a decisive advantage that other military assets become almost inconsequential.  You have the capacity to make your enemies cease to exist in any meaningful sense.

As pointed out, this also allows you to blackmail or intimidate your enemies, threatening them with potential destruction, should they upset you sufficiently.   Of course, upset is generally described as full scale war, but it could be over less serious policy matters.

We have never genuinely had such a one sided situation on Earth.  There have been a few situations which come close.  The world between 1945 and 1949, when the US had nukes but Russia did not (that case however, featured the Russians with an immense conventional military arsenal, vast territories and a relatively weak American nuclear fleet), and we had India/Pakistan in the 70's and 80's, where India was armed and Pakistan wasn't.  There was Vietnam/China, where China was armed and Vietnam wasn't.   And in the early 60's, there was the USSR/China, after they had their falling out but before China had its bomb.  And I suppose there is Israel/Muslim World.

Thinking it over, I suppose I could find a few more examples.  As a tool of intimidation, nuclear weapons do not seem to be all that effective.  The USSR did not back down from America, Pakistan did not back down from India, Vietnam didn't back down from China.  In each case, the adversaries maintained their cold war and even low level military conflict.  It seems that to justify the 'remove from existence' option, the situation would have had to have degenerated to a much more advanced conventional conflict.   Whether this is from moral or strategic considerations, I'll leave for another time.

Indeed, there is another interesting case history.  South Africa and its enemies.   South Africa actually built and tested nuclear weapons, but eventually decommissioned them.  South Africa's enemies were such that a nuclear attack would not have done any good, their ability to trouble South Africa with low intensity warfare would have remained unhindered and would have increased.  Thus, South Africa's nukes served no strategic purpose, there was no intimidation value, only censure.

But this is just the warm up.  We're going to get into some interesting country.

The question you should have been asking, as I was running through my examples is "But Den, Belgium has no nuclear weapons.  What's up with that?"

Very true.  Belgium (or whoever) has no nuclear weapons.  Most countries have no nuclear weapons.  Only a select few have them.  Thus, the ability to cause other nations to cease to exist is a very restricted power.

So what do those unlucky nations which have no nukes do?  Do they surrender?  Do they submit to blackmail?  How do they maintain their autonomy from an aggressive nuclear power?

They find a friend.

Specifically, where a non-nuclear nation or set of nations find themselves confronted by a hostile nuclear power, their best option is to align themselves with another nuclear power.  This gives us the alignment of the world during the cold war.   There was the Russian Camp, there was the American camp.  Neither side quite wholly has control over all its members, but rather, there's a set of alliances.

Essentially, the non-nuclear nation relies upon the nuclear nation for a nuclear umbrella.  A guarantee that if action or nuclear action is taken against it, the nuclear patron will use its weapons on its behalf.   This is Japan.  This is why Japan, although it could have nuclear weapons in about 45 minutes, depending on traffic in Tokyo, has never had them.  It relies on the American nuclear deterrent as its security umbrella with respect to China and Russia.  

This was also South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Western Europe, etc.

Now, here's a wrinkle.  What happens if the non-nuclear nation ceases to trust its patron?  What happens if the non-nuclear nation decides that its patron's deterrent is soft or unreliable.  That is, its patron might be willing to see it nuked or overrun, rather than risk its own patronly hide?

In that case, there is an incentive for the non-nuclear nation to obtain an independent deterrent that it can use at its own discretion.   It will still maintain a close relationship with the patron, they may remain allies.  But now they've got their own set of teeth.  This describes both France and Israel.

This ups the risk factors considerably for everyone.  The original nuclear patron no longer has as much freedom to negotiate or consider its options.  It risks its ally committing it.  If France decides its interests are so threatened it must launch against Russia, there's little America can do but follow suit.

Israel has complicated the equation by its coy covert nuclear fleet.  It refuses to acknowledge possession of nuclear weapons.  But estimates are that it possesses some 440 warheads.

In previous decades, particularly the 60's, the middle east was divided between the superpowers.   Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel were in the American camp.  Egypt, Syria and Iraq were in the Soviet camp.  So there was a real risk of a third world war between the superpowers.  Unlike Europe, neither set of players was fully under either superpowers control, and they had a distressing series of regional rivalries.  Israel/Egypt-Syria, Iran/Iraq, Saudi Arabia/Iraq.

The most absolutely dangerous time in human history was probably 1970-1976, after Israel obtained nuclear weapons.  A nuclear strike by Israel against Syria or Egypt would have forced the Soviet Union to either respond in kind on behalf of its clients or abandon them.  A nuclear response by the Soviets would have brought an American response, and it was game over.   This was why both the Soviets and the US worked desperately behind the scenes to stop the Yom Kippur War from escalating, and demanded a settlement that would leave all parties with face.  Thus Egypt was allowed to keep gains it had made and then lost.

The world dodged a bullet, and following that, the face of the middle east changed dramatically.  Egypt, perhaps disappointed by what it perceived as a lack of firmness by the Soviets, abandoned the USSR, made piece with Israel and became an American client.  Iran had a revolution which took itself off the board for the Americans and the Soviets.  This opened the door for Iraq to switch sides, since it was traditionally rivals to Iran and Syria.  Except for Syria as a token rump client, the USSR was finished as a player in the middle east.

This, however, posed complications for Israel's nuclear deterrent.  If the Egyptians had felt that Russia was a bit unreliable...  now the Israeli's had some concerns:  Several of their key enemies were now allied with their ally.  They were on the same side of the fence together, but they were still theoretically enemies.

To some extent, this had always been the case.  Iran had never been a problem for Israel under the Shah.  They got along just fine.  Egypt was peaceful.  But Saudi Arabia was a real quandary, anti-Israel and with enough real weight to make the Americans wonder about their loyalties.  Now Iraq?

Israel's response was to increase the size of its nuclear fleet dramatically.   At the time of the Yom Kippur war, they may have had at most, a half dozen warheads.  Now they've got 400.  You do the math.  This is a direct response to Israel's perception that the US may be more reluctant to deploy nuclear weapons in its defense than it wants.

This gives us the ironic, or quixotic stance that at some level, the United States is protecting Arab states by deterring Israel from threatening with its nuclear weapons.   If Israel's nuclear fleet is out in the open, the Arab states would be forced to demand a committment of nuclear protection and deterrence from America, or they would have to find another patron.  As it is, it remains a kind of open secret, everyone knows, no one wants to acknowledge it.

Of course, that doesn't leave the situation as satisfactory.   The Arab states are under threat of nuclear umbrella, and their protection or deterrent patron is a touch unreliable.  As a result, there have been covert efforts at developing nuclear weapons by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.  Of the three, Iraq's effort was most sophisticated and is best known.  Saudi Arabia lacked the technical sophistication, and would prefer to purchase its deterrent.  It is not clear whether they have or not, but its considered unlikely.  Egypts close relationship and financial dependence on America emasculates it in the Arab world, but they're simply dependent without oil wealth and with a vast population, so their nuclear efforts have been very very covert.  You can track down signs, if you look for them.

But darn, I've gotten off the theory track.  Bide with me a moment.

Anyway, the point is, that for non-nuclear states confronted with nuclear states, their impulse is to either seek a deterrent in the form of a nuclear patron willing to use its weapons on their behalf, or to obtain their own nuclear deterrent.

This doesn't change the fact that nuclear states don't seem to be able to use their added power to successfully control or blackmail their non-nuclear rivals.  Even without patrons, there are several instances of non-nuclear states giving the finger to or fighting nuclear states.   Vietnam's war with China are the best examples.   But there are many others.   Indeed, the biggest imperative that nuclear states give non-nuclear ones is to  get their own.

This is why proliferation is so dangerous.   One nuclear states existence demands that other non-nuclear states become nuclear.  The more there are, the more necessary it is to join the club.

It's not a race to doomsday, people can behave wisely.  South America became a nuclear free zone and both Argentina and Brazil abandoned advance nuclear programs.  Common sense ruled there.

But anyway, so much for the ground rules of motivation and impulse.   Let's get to strategic theory.

So, one state possesses the ability to obliterate another.  What does it do?

Well, speaking in terms of strict game theory, its best interest is to obliterate the other immediately and permanently remove the threat.   There are actually theoretically sane people walking around who think that's what the US should have done circa 1945-1949, when the US had it and the Soviets didn't.  There are even some who say Kennedy should have gone for it when the Soviets had only 4 ICBM's during the missile crisis.

But instead of obliteration, the tactic has been intimidation, and that has simply never worked.

What if the other side is a nuclear power too?   Here is where it gets interesting.

Since an attack by your enemy will cause you to cease to exist, there is no way to survive or defend yourself.  Logic dictates that you strike first.   If you destroy the enemy and his nuclear fleet, you win.  You get to live.

Well, that's not very positive is it.  Particularly if the enemy gets off a few rounds at you.  You'll win, you'll live, but you'll be hurting badly.

How do you discourage that first strike?

Simple.  Second strike capacity.  You need to have enough nuclear weapons that enough capacity survives the first strike against you, to ensure that you will be able to strike back and obliterate them.

Now it gets interesting.  How do you deter the enemies response, after you've devastated them with your first strike?  Simple, you have to have enough nuclear weapons, that even if they manage to hit back after you've devastated them, that you can launch a second strike and finish the job utterly.

It's called MAD.  Mutual Assured Destruction.   Isn't it beautiful.  The notion is to create a situation where the enemy knows that it has no way to win, that even if it launches a first strike, it will still be destroyed. 

Of course, being good guys, there's still a major incentive to destroy the enemy.  So you want to create a situation where you can launch a first strike, but not be destroyed yourself.   The problem of course, is that the enemy also wants to create a situation where you know you have no way to win, even if you launch a first strike, you will still be destroyed.

Now, MAD theory goes on and on for a bit, it talks game theory, third and fourth strikes, survivability and so forth.  Eventually, you just go insane and start biting the heads off bats.

In the real world, there's been a small amendment to the MAD doctrines with India and Pakistan.  India has about 150 nuclear weapons, and Pakistan is a small country.  India can make Pakistan cease to exist, no question.  Pakistan has perhaps 50 nuclear warheads and India is a large country.  It is unclear that Pakistan can make India cease to exist as thoroughly as vice versa.  But on the other hand, Pakistan can hurt India incredibly badly.

So we have a nuclear balance here which rests on unacceptable levels of harm, but not assured destruction.  So far, it seems to be working.  I suppose we'll all know if it doesn't.

A similar situation is developing with North Korea.  North Korea's strategic nuclear plan accepts that it cannot threaten the US with destruction.   North Korea is just too small and easily obliterated.  The US is too huge and far away, its allies too widespread.

So, what North Korea settles for is being able to inflict deterrent harm.   Critically, North Korea can hit Japan.  The US in a superpower crunch might give up South Korea.  A nuclear conflict on the peninsula will automatically finish both countries - fallout and dislocation would destroy the south, even if it never took a direct hit.   But Japan is far too critical to American interests.  So, for the North Koreans the ability to hit Japan is their security.  Eventually, they hope to be able to hit the US.  But they'll never have more than a handful.  They've adopted the 'harm' theory.

Of course, this situation complicates matters with both China and Japan.  It is clear that North Korea is not completely trusting China as its Patron, and so it seeks its own deterrent.  The question for Japan is how far can they trust America to use its weapons on their behalf.  The Japanese are thinking very hard about this.   The Japanese are relatively confident that America will use its nuclear weapons if Japan were to take a nuclear hit from China or Russia.  But on a question which does not directly involve the Superpowers, will the US be willing to toast NK if it hits Japanland?  The Japanese are not so sure.

And in that region, by the way, the Taiwanese are increasingly unsure of America's willingness to protect them.  Nukes at 11.

Anyway, the point is that Nuclear Weapons are not just kids stuff, and are not to be considered at the grade school level.

Their very nature demands strategic and careful decision making by all parties, and it demands parties behave in certain ways....

Okay, everyone got their tools, all set?

Let's turn to the iran situation....

The US changed the nuclear equation when it asserted the right to preventive war.  It further changed the equation in the ME by putting Iran on the list of "evil" nations.  The US essentially made an existential threat against Iran.  It's only rational for Iran to either acquire nuclear weapons or to acquire a nuclear ally who will respond if the the US attacks Iran.

So, Israel views Iran as its number one security threat, and it is a nuclear power, so that means Iran has to consider Israel as a major security threat.  A nuclear security threat

This is extaordinarily twisted logic, even if it might reflect actual Iranian strategic thinking.  Iran declares Israel - a small nation that does not even border it - as a central strategic enemy and threatens it by pursuing intermediate-range missiles with first-strike capability.  Israel adapts its strategic outlook accordingly - raising Iran to the highest perceived existential threat (which had previously been occupied by Egypt and then Iraq).  This "makes" Israel a "strategic threat" to Iran.

Overall the central problem with your argument is the assumption that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.  You can't establish that simply from the fact that there are rational explanations to Iranian pursuit of the bomb.  The assumption that the current Iranian regime will be responsible nuclear actors is unfounded.   

"Overall the central problem with your argument is the assumption that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.  You can't establish that simply from the fact that there are rational explanations to Iranian pursuit of the bomb.  The assumption that the current Iranian regime will be responsible nuclear actors is unfounded. "

Overall the central problem with your argument is the assumption that the Israeli regime is a rational actor.  You can't establish that simply from the fact that there are rational explanations to Israeli pursuit of the bomb.  The assumption that the current Israeli regime will be responsible nuclear actors is unfounded.

See how this works? 

I'll grant you that Israel has never used its nuclear weapons despite having them for thirty years. They haven't had to since their military by itself has been more than sufficient to deal with their neighbors in three wars.

This hardly makes them "rational actors" - in fact, it makes them even more irrational, since Israel obviously has absolutely NO NEED for 200-400 nuclear weapons. TEN would be more than sufficient to deal with just about everybody in the Middle East - especially since NOBODY else in the Middle East has them.

Your concept that Iran started out hating Israel, thus forcing Israel to become nuclear, is so ridiculous as to barely need responding to. I suggest you review the history of the region going back the last sixty years before you make such a  statement. I further suggest you study the philsophy and political tracts of Zionism, so you can determine whether Israel's leaders are "rational actors".

 

 

 

Me are afraid because 3,000 Americans were murdered and those murderers are still on the loose.  The American Right likes to talk tough but has not organized the world to go after the murders.  Bush has alienated the very people who should be our allies.  He should also be leading us in a crusade against the use of petroleum products.  

The American Left wants to surrender to the killers and maybe even tell them that we understand them.  It is sad but true there are people who think the 7th Century was the ideal and will kill people in large numbers in order to go back to that era.  

Bush is a massive liar and an incompetent.  We could take care of domestic problems if Bush had not squandered our rescources on endless stupid tax cuts. Bush is using a real crisis to enhance his power and take away our rights.  

If the Left would face realism about all the evils in the world it would be a lot easier to both gain political power and defeat those who would kill us without thinking.

>This is extaordinarily twisted logic, even if it might reflect actual Iranian strategic thinking.  Pay attention, mhpine, we are in fact attempting to deconstruct Iranian strategic thinking.  It is rude to insult a person for twisted logic, and then insulting to admit that it is probably correct.This is Nuclear War Theory, 101, not mawkish sentimentality, not barechested jingoism.  We are looking at the most dangerous class of gamesmanship on earth.>Iran declares Israel - a small nation that does not even border it - A small nation with 440 warheads and aircraft and missile capacities to incinerate several Irans.  And one which has unilaterally designated Iran strategic threat #1.  Therefore, Iran has to pay attention.Israel is an active strategic threat to Iran because currently, Israel in conjunction with the U.S. is actively threatening to bomb the hell out of Iran, potentially with tactical nukes.   Now, I don' know about you, but when people start putting massive air raids of a one or two hundred aircraft, potentially with nuclear weapons, aiming at nuclear targets, at me, I consider that a strategic threat.   Even if that threat is not fulfilled in the initial raid, in the event of an all out war, that threat may come into play or be fullfilled.Now, if you'll refrain from sentimentality, you'll see that this is a somewhat recent development.  There was no Iran/Israel conflict under the Shah.  There was no Iran/Israel conflict when Iran was occupied with a war with Iraq, and when Iraq was under sanctions.  Israel, because of distance and lack of overlaps was never a serious strategic competitor, or vice versa. 

Iran may have been strategically motivated to pursue nuclear weapons when at war with Iraq, because Iraq was pursuing such weapons.  The neutralization of Iraq's capacities in Osirak attack and then later in the sanctions era, as well as the dismantling of the USSR took a lot of incentive>as a central strategic enemy and threatens it by pursuing intermediate-range missiles with first-strike capability.  Israel adapts its strategic outlook accordingly - raising Iran to the highest perceived existential threat (which had previously been occupied by Egypt and then Iraq).  This "makes" Israel a "strategic threat" to Iran.Exactly!  And I thought you were so committed to wallowing in mawkish sentimentality, you weren't getting it.   Do you like it?  I bet not.  Tough titty.  Nuclear gamesmanship is like two blindfolded men playing chess with loaded pistols.  It is scary as hell, or haven't you been paying attention.
>Overall the central problem with your argument is the assumption that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.  Lawsy Lawsy!!! He's a crazy, I tell ya!  Crazy crazy!  No tellin' what a crazy man ken do!Within limits this rationality is a valid assumption.  Do you see the population of Iran doing the chicken dance?  Trying to balance peanuts on their noses?  Does the Ahminajad cabinet have conversations with pigeons.  Is the Iranian high command afflicted with obsessive hand washing?News flash:  Genuinely insane people do not get to run countries.  We can talk about insane madmen, but in fact, whatever delusions, fixations, obsessions or whatever animate a person or a party, they have skills which enable them to thrive in the real world and succeed.  Saddam Hussein has been called an insane tyrant.  Not true, he was very sane from his standpoint, as proven by his successful 30 years as a dictator.  Hitler was considered a crazy man, and he probably was in the final year. But he was both ordered and rational.In order to take over and run a country, you have to have a basic skill set for dealing minimally with reality.   Genuinely insane people are shouldered aside by their competitors.  Or if by some fluke they wind up with power, they are eventually removed, either by their own countrymen or by others.Tyranny and realpolitik is its own dark set of logics.  You may not like them, but you live with them because they refuse to go away.So the working assumption for Ahminajad and his followers and party is that they are in fact rational, by their own lights.  If they were not, they would not have succeeded in obtaining leadership of their nation against the moderates.The working assumption for the Mullahs is that they are in fact rational by their own lights.  If they were not, then Saddam Hussein would have eaten them and shit them out. That didn't happen.  If they were not, then Iraq would have degenerated into a Taliban style failed state or a Congo styled kleptocracy.  Neither has happened.So the operating assumption is that the Iranians are rational actors operating in what they consider their own best interests and in accordance with their perceptions of security threats and needs, and the evidence sustains this conclusion.>You can't establish that simply from the fact that there are rational explanations to Iranian pursuit of the bomb.  No, the assumption of rationality does not follow from Iranian strategic pursuit of the bomb.  Rather, strategic pursuit of the bomb flows from the assumption of rationality.If the regime is not rational, then you can make no valid assumptions as to whether or not it is truly motivated to pursue a nuclear weapon.  So the question of whether the Iranian regime is rational must be applied to the conduct of the regime to date.  There is no evidence of irrationality.>The assumption that the current Iranian regime will be responsible nuclear actors is unfounded.   
Such foundation is now established to your satisfaction?  At least as far as a working analysis goes?

Iran's strategic options are threefold:

1) Not pursue a nuclear weapon.  This makes an awful lot of sense actually.  Pursuit carries with it an inherent risk of pre-emptive strikes.  On the other hand, failure to pursue leaves Iran vulnerable to 'at will' strikes.   The sound tactical compromise is to pursue legitimate development which will bring a collateral capacity to develop, but not the weapons themselves or weapons development themselves.   This is essentially what the Iranians seem to be doing.  We have no actual evidence of nuclear weapons development, this has been verified by independent international agencies.  The real controversy has been about Iran's acquisition of technology which could give it the potential to possibly develop nuclear weapons.

2)  Find a nuclear patron.  This would be the best option, since it gives a ready made deterrent.  However, this Patron is not to be found.  Russia is the most obvious candidate, but has no economic or political interest in the region that would require it to put its own ass on the line.   Russia has its own oil.  China is a candidate, and needs the oil, but is not a significant player in the region and is unable to project power effectively there.  France, India, Pakistan are all unsuitable as patrons.

3)  Develop their own nuclear weapon.  Another risky strategy, since it invites pre-emptive strikes.  In the course of development, there is an extended window of extreme vulnerability.   This is not a brief window.  The must lunatic estimates are no less than a year or two.  Realistic estimates run seven to fourteen years.

Now, when I say seven to fourteen years, there is a recognition that one bomb is worth shit all.  Reasonable assessments are it will take five to ten years for the first bomb.  For a credible minimal nuclear deterrent against Israel and the United States, Iran would require at least a 'two strike' capacity.  That's at least six to twenty units.   Even so, that's pathetic.  Consider that Israel possesses 440 and the US possesses 12,000.  Even Pakistan, an Iranian threat allied to the US, possesses 50.  6 to 20 is miniscule.  Reasonable level of security might be 25 to 40.  Even once a nuclear weapon is perfected, it will take a minimum 2 to 5 years to build a credible stockpile.

Through all this period, Iran risks pre-emptive strikes by any of three nuclear powers, two of which are not tightly tethered.   That's immensely risky.  Why take such risks?

Well, I would argue that they aren't taking that risk.  They're pursuing the infinitely safer, but still risky strategy of building up infrastructure so that if they need to engage the risk, they can close the window of time immensely, condensing it from a maximum of fifteen to a revised future maximum of two or three or whatever.

But let's assume that the numbers are completely off.  Suppose the Iranians are only a few months away, and not decades.  They're still at critical risk, and in fact, their risk of pre-emptive strike rises exponentially.

Even when in actual war with Iraq, Iran felt no urgent need to obtain a nuclear weapon.  Once Iraq's was taken off the board, all pressure was off, even though there was a threat environment.

Extreme risks are only justified by extreme threats.  What is the nature of the extreme threat?   Keep in mind that the extreme threat has only emerged within the last few years...



2)

...A nuclear-capable Iran would be capable of blackmailing any of the Persian Gulf oil suppliers as well as the Arabian peninsula.

Game theory presupposes the pursuit of rational self interest by the players. The Islamic radicals dont play by the rules. That is the reason we must do everything we can, short of military action, to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Israel's unique and tenuous position may lead it take extreme preemptive action. Certainly this must be avoided if possible, but  the possibility of such action, over which the US has little influence, coupled with strong economic incentives may be able to dissuade Iran from this foolhardy course.  Such  an approach could very well meet with the approval of  our alienated allies and even lead to their participation.

If this fails and Israel doesn't respond then we must convince  Iran that any nukes leaving their country, whether in the air , on a truck, whatever will lead to their assured destruction. But that situation would be an endless nightmare of tension as the Iranian arsenal expands. Especially if the radicals maintain or expand their control.

If they dont discontinue their nuclear program. perhaps Israel should lob a nuke into their uninhabited mountans, to convince them of the sagacity of accepting the most generous offers of the west for help in bringing prosperity to all their people. A deradicalized Iran certainly has a right if not a need for nuclear weapons, but that situation is a long ways off.

Right now, Iran cant be allowed to have them. If military action is taken, it should come from Israel and start with a nonlethal display of power and resolve. Not that the US should be seen to advocate it. In this situation, Israel is uniquely positioned to take an action that could be beneficial to all humanity, including the Iranians.

I thought this up during 3rd grade nap time. 

 

Michael7843853 writes:

>I thought this up during 3rd grade nap time. 

Unfortunately, it also reads like that. 

I'll give you marks for making some kind of effort. 

But in my view your analysis suffers from two critical flaws. 

1) You have made an unsupported assertion - the Irrationality of the Iranian regime.  Moreover, you've made that assumption inconsistently, assuming randomly that they will behave rationally in some circumstances, but not in others.  Whether they are rational or not, they will behave consistently.  Thus, if you want to argue for irrationality, you have to make that case and not simply assume it is true.  You also have to assume that their irrationality, however you describe it, will be consistent, and revise your conclusions on that basis.

2) You have forgotten that the other parties are 'rational actors.'  Regardless of whether the Iranian regime is irrational or not, the other parties are both rational and consistent.

Please reconsider your analysis in light of these comments.

"The WMD's?  That's not what I heard about when I spoke to my beer-swillin' Republican buddies.They just wanted to kick some A-Rab ass.  It would feel good and there would be no repercussions..."

truer words were never spoken. maybe the rep and dem warhawks were thinking WMD....the folks of middle america only had kickin' sand nigger ass on their minds. by now they have either gotten their fill or they have figured out that the US actually has limitations as to what it can do militarily in the world(unlike the  john wayne movies they were raised on). i don't see any way the bush admin can sell the idea of another invasion to the american people now (even red state stupidity has its limits). realistically speaking, no one has convinced me that there are any options at all...except to do nothing in Iran. 50 years ago, iran had a democratically elected parliamentary government...until we threw it over and installed a dictator and trained his secret police force to eliminate all threats to that dictator. all of which lead to the islamic revolution. we have no moral high ground here, we created this problem. actions have consequences, and sometimes you just have to live with them.

I threw you a fat pitch(3rd grade). I knew you couldnt resist it.

The irrationality  of the current leadership of Iran and radical fundamentalists of any stripe hardly needs lengthy documentation. They can be judged by their words and their actions. Reckless talk about the destruction of Israel and the support of dastardly terrorists is sufficient for most anyone. When a country or a person has a bad track record, it would be irrational not to attempt to restrict their access to powerful weapons.

 You may be willing to bet Israel's very existence and the teetering world economy on the consistency and rationality of the Iranians, but most are not.

Post hoc strategic analyses can be molded to fit the established historical facts, that doesnt give their advocates prescience. The current situation regarding Israel's vulnerability, the world's economic vulnerability, and the looming prospect of doomsday weapons falling into the hands of people who have shown a propensity for unwarranted violence is without parallel. Over intellectualizing the alternatives for (non)action based on incomparable historical circumstances will achieve nothing.

Non-proliferation is the most rational and time tested approach to reducing the likelihood that this planet will end up as a cinder. That has never been more true than in this case. No one has designs on attacking Iran unless they provoke it.

You are like the shrink who disregards his patient's repeated declarations that  he will kill his wife and releases him based on the shrink's superior ability to delve the human psyche.  The results are often entirely predictable to anyone without a superior intellect.(go ahead, swing away)

Unless the neocons can convince Americans that Iran is closely linked with al Quida and we could win a military conflict easily, there will be no national push for war.  The objective threat posed by Iran will matter to only a small minority of Americans.

It isn't about the neocons, but the Americans.  You seem to be under the impression that the neocons are some kind of gestaltic Rasputin, and they've managed, through the Bush Administration, to pull the wool over the eyes of an otherwise well meaning country.  Well, there's some truth to that, but only some.  But a greater truth is that this country was ripe for neoconism to come along, and once the neocons go their way, the country will still be primed for their replacements.  The U.S. is too powerful, too dependent on oil,  too used to a rich and soft lifestyle, too willing to be scared, too ready to trust its leadership -- in a word, too human to resist neoconism, whatever form it takes, or whatever name it's called.  Iran will be punished by sanctions, as was Iraq, and if the government doesn't fall of its own weight -- something sanctions make highly unlikely* -- eventually it will be attacked, as the propaganda machine continues to build Iran up as the second coming of Nazi Germany, and people accept the idea that Iran is the ultimate evil of the world.        

*Quick: name one government in modern history that collapsed as a result of sanctions.  Now, name dictators who have remained in, and even consolidated, power despite sanctions: Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein immediately come to mind for the latter group, but the former group is a null set.  Everyone knows this, but sanctions are still used in dealing with governments we claim to want to leverage out of power using non-military means.  Why?  

News flash:  Genuinely insane people do not get to run countries.  We can talk about insane madmen, but in fact, whatever delusions, fixations, obsessions or whatever animate a person or a party, they have skills which enable them to thrive in the real world and succeed.  Saddam Hussein has been called an insane tyrant.  Not true, he was very sane from his standpoint, as proven by his successful 30 years as a dictator.  Hitler was considered a crazy man, and he probably was in the final year. But he was both ordered and rational.

Perfectly "healthy" people act in irrational ways all the time.  If there weren't the case, then the economists would be right a hell of lot more often.

If you are going to include Hussein and Hitler in the category of "rational" actor than the term has no meaning.  Both of these leaders were risk-seekers in there actions.  They both well willing to indulge in military gambles that brough large short-term gains but resulted in catastrophic loss for their nations.

Further, you are conflating the use of rational means and the selection of rational ends.

The Holocaust was without doubt the most logistically sophisticated, efficient genocide in history.  But the decision to pursue the extinction of European Jewry was not merely pure evil, but also a highly irrational position driven by the murderous ideology of German's leader, not Germany's national interests.

Your assumption is that the current Iranian regime would never use a nuclear bomb against Israel (either directly or by proxy) because it would rationally fear Israeli retaliation.  Well, what they thought they could get away with it?  What if the regime beleived if could sucessfully get the majority of the world's Muslims to convert to Shi'ism if it evicerated a blot on Dar-al-Islam?  What if the loss of Iran's two largest cities was worth the risk?

Iran has no rational need to threaten to wipe Israel off the map?  It has everything to gain by taking the same coldly hostile position that the rest of the Muslim world does and to reap the benefits of Chinese and Russian investment in its oil industry.  Increasing its relations with those countries would serve as a very effective deterrant to an American policy of regime change.  So why the pursuit of the bomb?  Why the anti-Israel rhetoric?  It can't all be tied up in a neat little story about American imperialism.  There is also a revolutionary ideology at play.  And history has shown that revolutionary nations are far more risk-seeking than established powers. 

I believe you are conflating rationality with monstrousness.

Within his specific belief structure, and within the belief structure of the Nazi's, the holocaust was a rational act.  Horrible as it is to say.

Most of the worlds great butcheries have been, within the belief structures of their perpetrators, rational, and even necessary acts.

Within their world view, Ahminajad and the mullahs are acting rationally.  This has been working successfully for them for quite some time.  So they are motivated to continue.

You are within your rights to argue that they are irrational. But if so, I would demand that you make out the full case for irrationality, rather than regurgitate half baked warmonger talking points.

Further, if we are going to talk seriously about the 'irrationality' of the Iranian administration, then I'd have to ask you to describe that irrationality.

Hitler's monstrousness, his insanity, whatever you call it, was very consistent.  So was Stalin's or Pol Pot's.  Irrationality is not a 'get out of jail for free card' which allows you not to think about the issues and not to think about them carefully.