Ivo

If I might engage you in Michael Levi's post do you think Iran gaining nuclear weapons will stop with Iran? Are you concerned that countries other than Israel are both the targets of Iran's efforts and will seek to acquire nuclear weapons? Does Iran getting nuclear weapons make them more secure or will they face a pre-emptive strike from any oppoenent who fears their nuclear arsenal?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The EU 3's approach of carrots followed by more carrots has failed, miserably. By allowing them to lead the way, we've lost a good two years of precious time.

Ivo,

Given the laughingstock that has been Jack Straw's diplomacy, what do you recommend we do now?

But with the human, economic, political, and diplomatic consequences of the Iraq war so very evident to all, there is a chance — even a reasonable one — that Bush will make the right decision this time around.

Make the right decision? You're kidding, right? What on earth would make it reaonable to expect George Bush to make the right decision? In what sense has he made the right decsion on anything? ANWR? Global warming? Forest preservation? Clean air? Tax cuts? Prescription drugs? Social Security? Civil rights? Abortion? Stem cell research? Donald Rumsfeld? Iraq reconstruction? Leaking the identity of a CIA agent assigned to nuclear non-proliferation?

No, George Bush will make the decision based on the same calculus used to make all other decsions: Will it be good for his corporate backers? There is profit in war, not least for the companies his family invests in. Yes, war with Iran might be damaging to the Republican Party because it might be too hard to sell to the American public, but George Bush doesn't care about the Republican Party any more than he cares about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the American people or the future of the country. He pretends to, just like he pretends to be so pious. But he doesn't fool me.

For George Bush, the Republican Party is simply a means to an end. And that end is to transfer wealth to himself, his family and his kleptocratic cronies. That's it. That's what this whole exercise in White House ocupation is all about.

It is quite likely that Bush has written off the GOP's prospects in 2006 and 2008 anyway and Karl Rove is just going through the motions. They are therefore likely to try to walk off with everything they can steal while they still have power. It doesn't matter to them whether the Democrats have a majority of one or a majority of five in the House or Senate. It doesn't matter whether the Democrats win the White House by 270 or 350 electoral votes. When the gravy train stops for Bush, it stops. The margin doesn't matter.

War is very profitable for companies in the war-fighting business and Bush and his cronies are invested in companies in the war-fighting business. That's really all anyone needs to know about Bush's decision-making.

What we are seeing with the protests of the Generals may be the closest we come to a military coup in this country. Their message should not be missed or misunderstood. Their goal is not political power but sanity and survival of this country which, in the hands of this Administration, is in a very perilous position. I do not believe the military will carryout an order to nuke Iran.

For various reasons there are those who still support the "Decider". To put it poetically, this is a free country, sort of, but those who do support him are slipping in their own ghoul puke.

I liked your post, it made me laugh ("Eeek!") The only part I would take issue with is this:

This will be even more likely if Democrats win control of one or both houses of Congress in November.

I hope and believe that Bush himself doesn't have the stomach to confront a force that actually has more power than he does. This is a president who hasn't issued a single veto.  He prefers the coward's way of underhandedly undermining what goes against him (e.g. signing statements indicating his unwillingness to go along with bills he reluctantly signs). Especially if the Democrats win control of not one but both houses. A Democratically controlled congress, in the context of a pre-emptive nuclear strike under such a cloud as this one would be, would swiftly revoke Bush's funding for any such shenanigans. It might even begin impeachment proceedings.

So far Bush has appeared much more powerful than he is, because he has enjoyed a majority in Congress (even in the Senate, with his veep as a tiemaker/tiebreaker back when Jeffords jumped ship) -- I think a Democratic congress would act as a restraint, and if it couldn't, we are in much deeper doo-doo than we know.

Iran cannot make a uranium nuke for missile delivery--they are too big and heavy, and no country uses uranium for weapons (since Hiroshima).
Iran would have to collect plutonium from spent reactor fuel and learn the hard part of weapons design, making the plutonium implosion bomb. Many years' work.
Worries about uranium refining are being manipulated by those who know better. The only reason we refined U-235 in WWII was that it would yield an airplane-deliverable bomb that was guaranteed to work. (The experiments at Los Alamos were for the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki). It was hugely wasteful of resources, and the only way Iran could use one is by plane or truck.

None of this guarantees that Bush will not attack Iran — good arguments, huge potential costs, and the absence of political and international support have never been decisive in his calculations. But with the human, economic, political, and diplomatic consequences of the Iraq war so very evident to all, there is a chance — even a reasonable one — that Bush will make the right decision this time around.

I think what this overlooks is the double-down mentality in the White House. The very fact that Bush's political situation is so much weaker now than three years ago is just what will urge him to gamble again. He thinks he can get it all back with one good roll of the dice.

Making lots of claims is not the same thing as proof. Of course Iran is heading toward nuclear weapons or at least their capability.

Israel's nuclear capability, which they have had since the late 1950s, did not spark a nuclear arms race because the Arabs were aware either that it would provoke Israel to strike before they had their weapons or it would potentially lead to an Israeli first strike. Also the Arabs perhaps have never really been concerned about an Israeli first strike.

As my friend, a military historian, said to me when we discussed Iran the first nation to be concerned was likely to be Pakistan already a nuclear power and Sunni Muslim.

I do assume that other countries in the region are working toward nuclear weapons. This of course negates both your first and second points. I would suggest that Iran gain nuclear weapons is likely to make them a whole lot less safe.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm sorry, but your analysis is worthless. The problem, Ivo - and this is not meant to sound personal - is that you are thinking like Ivo Daalder, and not like the people who in the end will be making the decision about Iran.

The Cheney administration has never, ever thought about what is in the country's best interest... or more prosaically, what is the "right thing" to do. Recall from Paul O'Neill's "Price of Loyalty", the reason ultimately for passing the second round of tax cuts was to repay the base for the 2002 midterm success. Period. And that, Ivo, is the signature moral framework under which Cheney Inc operates.

So let's start again. Whose interests would be served by an attack on Iran?

1. Big Oil. (However you analyze the outcome)
2. Military-Industrial Complex. (obvious)
3. Christo-taliban Rapture-geek base. (obvious)
4. Neo-con "regime change" diehard fringe.
5. Likud. (especially since they got screwed in the last election)

Oh yeah - it's also Cheney and Rummy's last chance to be assholes. These bitter-as-f#ck Nixon drop-outs would like nothing more than to piss again in the faces of the American people and blow up a foreign country because they have an excuse to. And King George just wants to be hero again. That's about as deeply as he cares about the office he serves.

Finally, it seems the significance of all the military people now speaking out against the administration has totally passed you by - look, the decision to attack Iran HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN. Zinni and friends know this, and they believe the only way to avoid another military debacle is to REPLACE THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE.

So unless Bushco is removed (yeah, right), the only sensible question to be asking is: "How are the Bushies most likely to attack Iran?"

I think Sy Hersh already answered this.

I think a Democratic congress would act as a restraint, and if it couldn't, we are in much deeper doo-doo than we know.

Given that Bush is the 'decider' we are in deep deep deep doo-doo

I agree that it is premature to talk as if Iran already had a nuke. But "there is plenty of time" is not a third option. There is little doubt that Iran's current government (not just Ahmadinejad) want nukes, and they want them for perfectly good reasons (from their viewpoint): they want to be able to deter the US, and they want to eliminate Israel's strategic superiority in the region. It's a long-standing ambition, and I very much doubt that they will negotiated away from it.

I should say, too, that I agree that there is something implicit in Friedman's piece that is very objectionable, though it is not, as you claim, the premise that Iraq already has a nuke. It is the implicit assertion that war would be better option than deterrence if only W and Rummy and Hair-Trigger Dick weren't running the show.

There is less than no chance of a nuclear weapon being launched by the U.S. against Iran. We would roll the dice and risk another Iraq before that option were selected.

I've never read anybody who writes about prolif who says that new countries obtaining nukes can be prevented. They can only be delayed. The destablizing element of attacking Iraq, in any way, is that it weakens all the non-military options.

If abiding by the NPT, even if not fully, you still can get pre-emptively attacked well in advance of your obtain a weapon, then it's in your interest to renege on the NPT, and follow in NK's and India's path.

Daniel —

I am not sure I agree completely with Mike Levi on the inevitably of a nuclear Iran. I am sure that Iran wants to have the technical capacity to produce a nuclear weapons, but I am not completely convinced that once it has mastered that capability Iran will ineluctably produce a nuclear weapon. Of course, once Tehran is able to go nuclear it will be very difficult to be sure about whether it has taken the next step and actually build the bomb (unless, of course, it follows other established nuclear powers and actually tests a device). If concerted diplomatic efforts can increase the costs to Tehran of taking this last step — through sanctions and isolation — it is possible that it will decide to forego producing a weapon and continue to allow the IAEA to conduct intrusive inspections. Of course, that would require concerted diplomacy of a kind that we’ve only recently seen the administration conducting — that is, with regard to gaining IAEA and UNSC backing. Whether it will continue to pursue this diplomacy, and whether it can convince Europe, Japan, China, and Russia to increase the pressure on Tehran, is one of the real questions that remains to be answers.

Ivo Daalder

Iran may not have nukes yet, “but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
I'm just wondering how we can get taken in by this fear mongering again?

If concerted diplomatic efforts can increase the costs to Tehran of taking this last step — through sanctions and isolation — it is possible that it will decide to forego producing a weapon and continue to allow the IAEA to conduct intrusive inspections.

Please don't forget the carrots. One of Iran's top concerns is the $10 bilion - $12 billion in assets that were frozen in 1979 frollowing the hostage crisis. The US also maintains stringent economic sanctions against Iran. Surely the prospect of having those sanctions lifted, opening up a market of hundreds of billions of avid consumers in the world's wealthiest country, while at the same time making US products available to their own eager young consumers, is a very attractive negotiating chip.

And let's not forget the security concerns. The US now operates bases on Iran's western border in Iraq, and on its northeastern border in Afghanistan. It has cooperative ties with Pakistan's government, one of the two major nuclear powers in the region that are rivals of Iran. It has a very strong presence in the Arabian/Persian Gulf. It operates UAV flights inside Iran, and reportedly runs covert operation on the ground inside the country. It is purportedly funding dissident activity and destabilization in Iran. It has strong relations with Iraqi Kurds, and with anti-Iran forces in Lebanon. And of course it has very strong relations with Israel, the other major Iranian rival and nuclear power in the region.

In fact, all of the major security moves since 9/11 can be seen as ways of tightening the noose around Iran. The US is in a position to do very much indeed to provide Iran with a more comfortable economic and security situation. We have abundant bunches of carrots to offer. Whether the encirclement of Iran, and the most recent round of saber-rattling, is intended only to extract the best terms from the eventual deal, or whether the administration is really determined to strike, is hard to say.

Count me as one of those who believes Iran itself is angling for a deal, and would be prepared to accept a rigorous inspection regime and other confidence-building safeguards on its civilian nuclear program in exchange for some of the mentioned carrots. Could I be wrong? Of course. But the only way we can tell is to have US negotiators sit down with Iran and take the measure of the other side in face-to-face meetings. The time to move beyond negotiation by proxy, and through the media, is upon us.

Of course, it is widely known that George Bush was a dismal businessperson. So it is not clear that he recognizes a highly advantageous negotiating position when it is right in front of him, or that he has the brains to make what would be a great deal for his own country. Time will tell.

There are many, it must be acknowledged, in both political parties, and among our allies, who are absolutely opposed to any opening between the US and Iran. They fear that in the long-term these talks would lead to a major strategic reorientation in Washington, to a pronounced thaw in US-Iranian relations, and even to an eventual alliance or friendship between the US and the emerging power in the Middle East. We have some uber-hawks who would prefer to attack Iran and risk a total regional meltdown rather than allow such an opening. And we have others who would prefer to bow to the supposed "inevitability" of an Iranian nuclear weapon rather than talk. The path of progress requires overcoming these naysayers.

I wrote:

... opening up a market of hundreds of billions of avid consumers in the world's wealthiest country ...

I meant millions, not billions. Sorry for the confusion.