If there really was a strike against Iran in the offing you can damn well bet the farm that there would be nothing about it in the news ahead of time. This smells like a planned leak, which probably has two purposes in mind.

1) Reassure the increasingly angry War on Terror hawks that the Bush Bunch hasn't gone squishy soft with all that fancy- shmancy Euro-diplomacy stuff and we are taking some sort of military action too
2) Bluff the Iranians into thinking that we are preapred to strike if they don't negotiate meaningfully

For sure there will be no Iran War before the election. Gas prices are just going down to where the GOP imagines they won't get creamed by the voters. They would let the Mullahs get away with anything short of an actual strike on Saudi Arabia or Israel before they would risk anything that might sink the GOP at the polls. Remember, these guys are all about politics. Iran, Iraq, even Osama bin Laden are just useful props for their Theater of the Absurd.

So, you're saying that if Bush orders air strikes on Iran -

- Iran would not make any meaningful response, like invading Iraq (which they arguably have already done)

- Iran would not send missles to Israel

- Democratic candidates would be "speechless." (and for that to happen, our citizens would have to be completely apathetic about yet another pre-emptive war)

- And because of all of the above, Karl Rove would be considered a genius (again) and the republicans would ride this brilliant tactic to victory.

I just don't see it. Surely the Iranians have a plan in place for this. If everyone in the US knows it could happen, surely the Iranians do too.

- IF Bush is horrible enough to do this, and
- IF the army doesn't mutiny against him, and
- IF an air strike goes forward, and
- WHEN Iran unleashes whatever retaliation they have prepared

-->Democratic candidates will have plenty to say, and the whole world will listen. I hope it doesn't happen, but nothing these criminals do can surprise me.

Jan Knaus

I just don't think China will sit back and allow the US to do that. They have way too much invested in Iran - Russians do too for that matter.

I never thought I would be counting on China and Russia to defend us from our madman, but they are who I am banking on to prevent another catastrophe from happening.

Hi Reed,

'Everyone believes that the Europeans supported the American go-ahead for the Palestinian invasion because they wanted to make sure the Iranians knew they were on thin ice.'

Eh?

'Everyone believes that as a going-away present, Blair would like to support President Bush in at least one more military incursion.'

Eh?

'It's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness.'

Eh?

You seem like a moonbat, please prove me wrong by reposting.

Regs, Shaggy

Billmon's take on "The Day After" nuking Iran should be required reading for everyone. I believe it is so important that I will quote it at length:

I've been trying to picture what the world might look like the day after a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran, but I'm essentially drawing a blank. There simply isn't a precedent for the world's dominant superpower turning into a rogue state – much less a rogue state willing to wage nuclear war against potential, even hypothetical, security threats.

......

[T]he current hegemony of American influence and ideas (backed by overwhelming military force) would be replaced by an overt dictatorship based – more or less explicitly – on fear of nuclear annihilation. U.S. foreign policy would become nothing more than a variation on the ancient Roman warning: For every one of our dead; 100 of yours. Never again would American rulers (or their foreign counterparts) be able to hide behind the comfortable fiction that the United States is just primus inter pares – first among equals. A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that they may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world’s other tyrants. To call that a watershed event seems a ridiculous understatement.

..........

But, barring another 9/11, or a worldwide financial meltdown, the day after a nuclear strike on Iran might not look that much different than the day before, at least to the folks back home. The impact on oil prices – and even more importantly, on prices at the pump – might be containable, at least in the short-term, if the Straits of Hormuz remain open and the strategic oil reserve does what it's supposed to do. (Very big ifs, to be sure, but not impossible ones. Neither of the last two wars in the gulf turned into the energy catastrophes everyone had feared when they started.) Financial markets might actually rally if Wall Street judges the strike to have been a "success." As for an Iranian-backed terror offensive in Iraq, at this point you have to wonder if anyone would notice.

For most Americans, then, the initial impact of war with Iran could play out in the same theatre of the absurd as the first Gulf War and the opening phases of the Iraq invasion – that is to say, on their living room TVs. And if there's one place where a nuclear first strike could be made to appear almost normal, or even a good thing, it's on the boob tube.

After all, the corporate media complex has already shown a remarkable willingness to ignore or rationalize conduct that once would have been considered grossly illegal, if not outright war crimes......

Let's be honest about it: For both the corporate and the conservative media, as well as for their audiences, an air campaign against Iran would make for great TV – a welcome return to the good old days of Desert Storm and Shock and Awe. All those jets soaring off into the desert twilight; the overexposed glare of cruise missiles streaking from their launch ships; the video game shots of exploding aircraft hangers and government buildings, the anti-aircraft tracers arcing into the night sky over Tehran – it would be war just the way we like it, far removed from the dull brown dust, raw sewage and multiple amputees of the Iraqi quagmire.

And to keep things interesting, we’d have the added frisson of nuclear weapons – a plot twist that would allow blow-dried correspondents to pose in borrowed radiation suits, give Pentagon flacks the opportunity to try out new euphemisms for killing people, and encourage retired generals to spice up their on-air military patter with knowing references to blast effects, kilotons, roentgens and fallout patterns.

What I'm suggesting here is that it is probably naive to expect the American public to react with horror, remorse or even shock to a U.S. nuclear sneak attack on Iran, even though it would be one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable, short of mass genocide. Iran has been demonized too successfully – thanks in no small part to the messianic delusions of its own end-times president – for most Americans to see it as a victim of aggression, even if they were inclined to admit that the United States could ever be an aggressor. And we know a not-so-small and extremely vocal minority of Americans would be cheering all the way, and lusting for more.

More to my point, though, I think it's possible that even something as monstrously insane as nuclear war could still be squeezed into the tiny rituals that pass for public debate in this country – the game of dueling TV sound bites that trivializes and then disposes of every issue.

......

It’s possible, of course, that I’m dead wrong about the short-term effects of a strike on Iran. It could quickly lead to economic catastrophe and a wider war, or evolve into a full-fledged U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran – i.e. “regime change.” This may be the entire essence of the neocon plan. The resulting quagmire could make the Vietnam War look like a minor colonial skirmish with the natives. But even if none of these nightmares come to pass, it’s still a fair bet – based on recent experience – that the long-term consequences of war with Iran would be wholly bad, both for America and the world.

But my thought exercise – What if we started a nuclear war and everybody pretended not to notice? – is still useful, if only as a reminder of how easy it can be to lead gullible people down a path that ends in a place no sane human being would ever want to go. A nation that can live with the idea of launching a nuclear first strike isn’t likely to have much trouble with the rest of the program – particularly when its people, like their leader, are convinced they’ve been chosen to save the world.

Please remember that casualty estimates from such an attack number in the millions.

Isn't Hillary saying "keep all options on the table" regarding Iran. Et tu, Hillary?

Tom

Speaking of moonbats, how are Cheney, Rummy, and Boy King George doing.

Tom

Uh, yeah Reed, can you back this up a bit? Give us a little bit of sense that this is grounded in something other than rumours and speculation.

I'm repeating the post I had above.

The dems can't just sit back and wonder whether or not this is going to happen.

LETS GET IN FRONT OF THE EVENTS. NOW!

Run Lyndon Johnsons Daisy/Mushroom cloud ad from 1964.

Use Lyndon Johnsons voice over.

Look the ad is already cut and ready to go. It just needs minor framing for the present. That ad was crafted when democrats still had some stones. No one respects someone just waiting to be nocked senseless. Its like the French during the phoney war.

That ad will creap everyone out just enough to bring the electorate to their senses and just maybe paralyze the Neocon apparatus and put them on the defensive.

It doesn't matter if the Iran talk is a false leak or leak. Get in front of the event. Run the ad now. Give people something to think about.

If Bush doesn't bomb Iran, he pays a price anyway. If he does bomb Iran, that ad will help people determine their positions before the actual shock of the event stuns them into submission.

AND, GOD DAMMIT, GET IN FRONT OF THE EVENTS, NOT BEHIND THEM!!!!!

Its time the Democrats do their job.

This is it.

I'm sick and tired of the limp response and waiting like shaking rabbits for the next shoe to fall. Do something now, proactively and put the bastards on the defensive. Americans respect vigor, Not the Kerry-esque do nothingism.

Quit being Rove's patsy. Make them pay a price for bellicosy NOW. Its not about applying a hammer. Its about strength and smarts. Paint them into a corner with their bellicosy. That's our job as the rational opposition party. Make them look irrational.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

I don't think Bush will pull the trigger before the election. Here's why:

1. It will look too political so clode to the midterms.

2. It will drive the the price of oil up, and gas prices will end their slide. Gas prices are a factor in consumer confidence.

3. Bush has the terror issue which should be enough keep the GOP in the game (if not winning) for the rest of the 2006 campaign.

4. I don't think Bush has a gameplan for
what to do after the airstrikes. He will need to come up with a credible plan for Iran when he's still bogged down in Irag.

5. Iraq is a much larger country with lots
of mountainous terrain. It's possible the
airstrikes will fail.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I still think we're
in the saber-rattling stage.

It's fairly clear that air strikes on Iran would stun most Democratic candidates into speechlessness.

Why should that be so clear? Why should that be so?

The administration has been saber-rattling for quiet some time, if you believe the likes of Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter remember him?)who have been writing about the administration's Iran war ambitions for well over a year....Doing it now would not be politically astute, although you never know what this administration is capable of...Keep in mind it took quite awhile for the build up to Iraq. Certainly more than the 50 or so days we have until the election (Also, it wouldn't take a display of Shock and Awe to dumbfound the Democrats. They haven't found their voice for the past 5 years).... Should the GOP control Congress after Nov. 7, it wouldn't surprise me to see the administration take its "crusade" to the next level ... Regarding the torture debate: I don't think that is a subterfuge. I'm more in line with NYT columnist Bob Herbert who thinks the call to change the (Geneva) law is the brass trying to save its ass.

I have got a nickle bet that says we don't invade. But as CVille Dem says, nothing they could do would surprise me.

The Stain of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam has not yet been expunged, and won't be until the Course has been Stayed, the Troops have been Supported and they have proven themselves Not To Have Blinked. God in heaven, deliver us from these bereft anti-communists gone amok.

Will the shrewd mercantile Yankees out-maneuver the ready-to-rumble Cowboys? I say yes. Baker is an encouraging sign.

There are at least a dozen known Iranian nuclear sites. Estimates suggest that the real number of sites, identified, concealed and distributed might number as high as thirty. Many of these sites are hardened, requiring potentially multiple strikes.

Assuming one bomber to each site, and an escort of three fighters, you would need approximately 30 bombers and 90 fighters or 120 aircraft in all. Factor in redundancy for hardened sites, and double your bombers, you go up to 150.

However, in order to successfully conduct the raid, you need to take out Iranian radar sites, so that they can't provide early warning of the attack. Add in a few dozen more military targets. And you probably need to take out airfields and fighter jets on the ground, which means a wide ranging campaign of airstrip denial and attacks on aircraft. Since civilian airstrips can be used by military jets in a pinch, you have to take those out too. And you need to take out missile emplacements and missile batteries. Dozens more targets. Of course, its also crucial to take out communications, so satellite phones, land lines, cell phone transmission, radio stations, etc., both civilian and military. You have to take out civilian facilities to avoid the military making back up use. You also need to take out military command and control structures. More and more targets. And you have to neutralize potential sea responses, so its a must to attack Iranian ships and shipyards.

Which means that the attack would involve 30 primary targets, and somewhere between 400 and 1200 secondary targets.

America simply doesn't have the aerial firepower to hit that many targets on one big raid. What we would be looking at are continuous air missions over a period of days.

Good luck, boyos.

We'd also be looking at decades of blowback.

Tom

I wonder if anyone actually heard the message of Ahmadinejad's speech. He was basically saying that he would give up his nuclear program for a seat on the Security Council. It may not be something we would be willing to do, but at least it's an opening for further negotiations. Now that we know what he's really after, a mutually beneficial deal is at least conceivable.

I expect the West to counter with a proposal to give a seat on the council to an Iranian ally, so that Iran can effectively have veto power without the West losing face.

"Air strikes on Iran would not risk many American fliers. Iran would probably not invade Iraq in retaliation. Iran probably wouldn't launch missiles at Israel for payback. Is it thinkable?"

Reed Hundt makes three assertions and backs them up with nothing beyond the fact that he is Reed Hundt.

Reed. First explain why an air attack on an oil rich nation which started with an American trained and American equipped military and which while under sanctions from us has had 25 years to build up their anti-air defenses "would not risk many American fliers". People who blithely assume that attacking Iran by air is the same as attacking an Iraq that one, had a much harsher sanctions program, and two had undergone 10 years of 'No Fly Zones' where the US held continous and sustained air superiority under rules of engagement that allowed them to attack any air-defense site that lit up its radar really need to show us some military credentials. Iran is a much bigger, much more rugged country with a totally non-degraded air-defense system, well those people need to explain WHY an attack "would not risk many American fliers". God know we ate enough cake in the last Cakewalk.

"Iran would probably not invade Iraq in retaliation". Again WHY do you make this claim. You base this on what? And Iran does not have to "invade", all it needs to do is to flood the zone with volunteers and 'volunteers'. A few thousand Revolutionary Guards in Iraqi clothing and a steady stream of suicide bombers coming over the border would make life a certain hell for American and British soldiers.

"Iran probably wouldn't launch missiles at Israel". No probably not, no percentage in it. But under the circumstances I don't think Hezbollah would exactly be restrained.

If simplistic air chair theorizing was not so dangerous it would be amusing. If there is a single person out there who has presented a serious analysis of how airstrikes would do more than delay by a few years a weapons program, that if it exists, and it may well not, is by everyone I have read at least a decade out?

Other than some transient political advantages in the mid-terms exactly what is this supposed to accomplish? Reed is adopting Bush Administration assumptions wholesale and asking us to think along Bush Administration lines.

Well I refuse. This is nutty talk from megalomaniacs and indulging in "What if" is suicidal. Strategic bombing is pretty much a proven failure. It doesn't work. What did England do when it underwent a severe campaign of nighttime bombing? What was their response to civilians getting killed? Was it riots against the government? Hell no, the Blitz and the collective reaction of Britons to it is a point of national pride.

Please someone present me a historical case where a population has blamed its own government for another country bombing civilian positions? Please for God's sake don't let us indulge another one of Michael Ledeen's mad fantasies. Hope is NOT a Plan.

There was an interesting report/analysis on NPR this morning of the reappearance, Dracula-like,of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon -- that special policy group to keep an eye on/trump up intelligence about Iraq, now brought back by popular acclaim to create an Iran war.

Forget strikes on Israel. They wouldn't play that card so early in the conflict, plus there's too much downside (sorry, crazy evangelicals, no Rapture this time). I think attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz would be more likely. The oil markets would freak and we'd be back to, if not over, $3.00/gallon with winter energy bills looming. Energy is a pocketbook issue. Tehran knows this.

If the US attacks Tehran, expect burning tankers within minutes. The news cycle would start predicting the fallout and the Republicans would be seriously threatened. A strike may energize the conservtaive base, but it would also energize the opposition and reduce the swing vote.

I just got a question in to a panel on the Diane Rehm show discussing the US and Iran. My question was about the Ellsberg article citing Sy Hersh's evidence that we're headed into Iran before the end of the year, and the news report on NPR this morning about the resuscitation of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon -- both mention in earlier comments. Will we be going into Iran, militarily and soon?

Diane Rehm added her comment that 54% of Americans think we should go into Iran.

All three guests on the show seem to think Bush will start a war.

You can listen to the show here -- later, when the audio is posted -- here, or tune in live right now.

I think Reed and, by extension, almost all the comments are treating the gossip far too uncritically. We know that unnamed sources in the past ere used to get outright lies into the media through the likes of Judith Miller or push polls. Here they may not raise the same alert status for us, because they play to our own sense that the Bushies will do anything, but let's not that become an excuse to turn progressive politics into paranoia.

We should be asking hard questions, not just about what it would mean if we did nuke Iran or even about the truth of the rumors. We should be asking just who is generating them, who we should trust here other than Reed's holy wisdom, and especially what purpose they'd serve. Rumors are sometimes used to send trial balloons, sure. At other times, they're used to distract us from reality. At still other times, they are used just to send a message.

Here, Bush is losing his rep for toughness, the war is going poorly, and even the dissent = terrorism card isn't reliable. He has to distract us and to sound tough. Moreover, he hasn't accomplished a darn thing in Iran, and the options of negotiating or of military action both look unattractive to the right. He's even failed to foam at the mouth when the president of Iran addressed the UN. So a little fear-mongering has a role.

As for the truth of the rumors, call me dubious. Let's set aside even how insane it'd be. After all, we kept hearing they'd try conventional missile attacks that never came and how futile they'd be, given the dispersal of hidden targets. We just watched Israel fail in its objectives, with tragic consequences. And obviously we have no troops left and too little other military might left to pursue much of a war after Iraq; we can't even commit more troops there or return them to Afghanistan. Public support for war is hardly what it was leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Even the neocon coalition is falling apart publically. But set all that aside. Assume they're as loony as the caricature of Goldwater in that ad (which, don't forget, really was a shameful smear, despite Goldwater's militarism that revisionists now are trying to play down in order to make him the right-wing ideal Bush betrayedl).

But ask yourself, is this how the Bushies work? First, it's not in accord with their politics. they didn't murmur secretly about Iraq. They trumpeted it, stirring up the population and making Democrats in Congress cower, perhaps even forgiveably so, as well as Goebbels would admire. Second, it's not in accord with their ideology. The neocons weren't trying to knock out Iraq; they were trying to remake it and the entire Mideast in their image. A nuke here or there just isn't like that.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

24 hours ago I would have agreed with you and cheered your comment. No longer. But I hope you're right.

When we bomb Iran, all hell will break loose in the Shi'ite parts of Iraq, cutting off our long, thin supply line to Baghdad.

We'd have to bring everything into Iraq by C-130 to our four big "permanent bases," then helicopter it from there to the Green Zone (for whatever length of time we're able to retain control of the Emerald City) and wherever else we have troops.

The entirety of Arab Iraq would be up in arms against us, and our ability to supply and protect Americans in country would start breaking down pretty quickly.

I bet Karl Rove is smart enough to see how this would play out. I think his object here is to make George look tough once again to appeal to the base, yet be conciliatory in the end, to appeal to the moderates.

Funny that everyone's frothing at the mouth here that war is sure to happen while over here the Right is bemoaning that it's sure not to:

http://tinyurl.com/qch2u

One of you must be right!

Could you provide us with some of that wild-eyed Iranian rhetoric you mentioned cuz I can't seem to find any.

Iran doesn't need to invade Iraq to retaliate they only have to launch missiles at the 147,000 high value targets clustered into those nice enduring bases all across central and southern Iraq.

I question if that is a significant threat. First, Patriot PAC-3 has improved significantly, and major bases do have antimissile defense. Second, there's no indication that Iran has other than high explosive warheads for its missiles. Taking out a command post at LSA ANACONDA is harder than it may look.

Yes, they will cause casualties if fired at the residential areas, which are mostly house trailers. Massive? No. The reality is that a ballistic missile with a high-explosive warhead, lacking precision terminal guidance, is not too major a threat. Their Shahab-3's are probably accurate enough and have a large enough payload to be of some significance.

The key question is how many they have.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Apples and oranges. Hezbollah was using GRAD and a few larger unguided rockets with range mostly about 20 miles. Picture a 10 foor long piece of five-inch pipe, with a pointed nose and fins at the rear, and you have a visualization of the GRAD. These things were designed be fired hundreds at a time as area weapons, such that imprecision is actually desirable in the original role -- it causes them to spread out.

I haven't been able to find specific dimensions and weight of the Shahab-3, but it is suggestive that individual missiles are carried on tractor-trailers in the 40-ton capacity range.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

i hate to say it, but I'm starting to think they are relying on the same reaction we would expect to see in Iran. In other words, if they are attacked we expect them to rally around their leader, even if they are not entirely popular.

The same will happen here. If Iran retaliates and our soldiers get killed, or oil prices should up, yes it would be a disaster, but it will benefit the current regime, who will now be urged to fight back harder.

And I'm dubious that the majority will think any attack on Iran is unjust. It has to do with our mythology. If we do it, its right and good, by definition. This is how most people think. Something so evil as open aggression just doesn't happen here, according to most people.

I think one of the interesting bits of news today is the return of James Baker to, well, straighten things out.

You saw that too, huh?? At first I just thought maybe mom had sent Baker to put a leash on the boy, but it's more than that. Congress commissioned Baker and Lee Hamilton to chair a commission to find "political solutions" to the war. And at first I thought that meant just finding ways to moonwalk our troops out so a retreat would look like an invasion. But Sens. Lugar and Biden's testimony before the commission was an eye opener. We can't win this war, but there are ways to not lose it either.

I believe it to be politically correct, at multiple levels, that Ann Coulter should be seen and not heard.

*sigh*So much seems to depend on sound bytes. Apparently, it's far too difficult for anyone proposing intervention in Darfur to look at a map showing transportation routes -- or the lack thereof. It's easy to say "sanctions", so no one seems to be examining how threatening to the Arab part of the Khartoum coalition would be investment in South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya.

Nahhh...it wouldn't bother al-Bashir if the South, where most of the oil has been found, could ship it out via Kenya rather than north to Port Sudan.

It is cheering that my barber spends all available spare time doing some excellent oil paintings. Hmmm...I do need a haircut...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Bruce, you wrote: "Reed is adopting Bush Administration assumptions wholesale and asking us to think along Bush Administration lines."

Reed is voicing Bush Administration assumptions, not agreeing with them. By asking us to think along Bush Administration lines, I take it his main purpose is to stimulate thinking about what the Democratic response should be if and when the Administration does the irrational, as it has done time and time again in the interests of using national security to club Democrats and increase or maintain their political power. Or do you believe such behavior is beyond them?

To my way of thinking it would really be unfortunate--and inexcusable--if the Bush Administration does go ahead and bomb Iran and Democrats are left speechless, uncoordinated, unprepared, and perhaps toasted over the national security fire once again on the eve of the elections.

I would like to hear the thoughts of Reed and others on what the best Democratic response would be if the worst happens and they do bomb Iran.

I think that what is missing from this excellent discussion is how the rest of the world outside of Iran and the U.S. would react. Especially the citizenry. I think that it would be a significant reaction and one that would continue.

But, my assumption is that they will not act prior to the election. Way too risky. I like to think that there would not be a Republican left standing though I am unsure.

What does worry me is after the election in lame duck time. What would stop them then?

global citizen

In re to your points:

1. Baloney. Since when has the fear of "looking too political" stopped them fro doing anything before? The vote on the Iraq war resolution came not long before the 2002 elections. If anything they would welcome efforts to shift focus away from their record.

2. The fear of spiking oil prices is actually by far the most plausible concern that might get them not to do it.

3. Recent polls have shown the usual Republican lead on fighting terrorism issue to be greatly reduced, sometimes even favoring the Democrats.

4. Bush won't think he needs a gameplan for what happens after the air strikes. If we bomb Iran does anyone think they will declare war on the US? And then what does Iran do? If their idea of acting on such a declaration is to attack Israel the public's instinct will once again be to rally around the President and the flag in a time of chaos. Bombing is all Bush would think his party would need and want prior to the elections: an issue. They'll have what they need to "show resolve", etc. etc. while switching the subject away from what they don't want to talk about: anything having to do with their record. You know: don't switch horses in midstream, etc. We've heard it all before and it has worked before. Maybe it won't this time, but if you're the Republicans and you're looking like you're going to lose the Congress and you have the mentality of this group, you might well throw this Hail Mary.

5. It's almost a sure thing the airstrikes would fail from the standpoint of destroying completely Iran's nuclear program, which has long been dispersed in anticipation of just such a threat. This is just a wild guess, but I would imagine the Administration would claim victory based on the visible damage, predictably overstating the extent to which the attacks disabled Iran's nuclear program. By the time the truth comes out on that, November will be ancient history, their thinking will run.

I am not saying I think they are going to do it. I don't know how any of us could know that at this point. I am saying it should be treated as a real possibility. And I think our side *must* prepare a response ahead of time so we have our act together if and when it does happen.

What shocked me this morning most was learning that an Iran invasion would have the support of 54% of themurrican people. I think that came from David Ignatius. The question may have been about an "air strike" which sounds surgical, uninvolving and "righteous." That just makes it all the more shocking, in my book. "Fool me once... and you can fool me forever."

I'm tempted to add that there are, of course, many who believe the election is in the bag, not a consideration. Pure speculation.

Assuming stealth, it's targets per bomber, not bombers per target, assuming very specific targets. In 1991, the F-117 first generation stealth aircraft usually carried two guided bombs and attacked two targets. There were a few special cases where a pair of planes, a minute or so apart, would attack the same target. The first would blow a hole, leave a minute for the debris to settle, and the second would put a second bomb through the hole. Second-generation B-2's normally carry 16 bombs, but in some circumstances could carry 48.

If it was a spread-out area target, yes, there might be multiple aircraft. Still, when the first attacks on the Ploesti refineries in WWII used 177 bombers, I doubt it would take more than 2 or 3 for equivalent targets today, where the control centers and most critical equipment could be hit.

I have heard nothing to indicate that the Iranians have built large cascades in more than one location, based on IAEA reports. In fact, I haven't heard anything that the Iranians are within several years of usable bombs.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the present centrifuge techology. The US didn't use them because another technology was developed first in WWII, and was adequate although wouldn't be a first choice today. The separation centrifuges of which I am aware would shake themselves to pieces, rather explosively, if all power were cut. Have they been given some new technology that lets them shut down gracefully? I don't know.

The US separation plants, still using processes that took immense amounts of electricity, were located in relatively remote areas near large hydroelectric plants. If the centrifuges still have the vulnerability to power cuts, you might not need to take out the grid, only the feeds to them.

I haven't seen a map of the known Iranian facilities versus population. For reasons including security, safety, and sheer size, most countries have put their facilities in remote areas. Hardened facilities put underground usually take advantage of mountain systems, ideally in a valley where you are protected by two or more ranges, as you bore into the side of the mountain and then down -- but the bombs
have to come through the mass of the mountain.

The urgency and emphasis make very little sense to me.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

letting Iran have nukes would be a catastrophe

Why would it be a catastrophe? As far as I can see, every time some state looks set to acquire nuclear weapons, everyone starts screaming. But as soo as they've got them, they become respectable members of the international community.

As far as I can see, the objections to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are mainly that it would be able to back up Ahmenijad's (sp?) threat to wipe out Israel. But who cares what he said? As soon as Iran gets nukes, it will become engaged in a Mutual Assured Destruction scenario with nuclear-armed Israel. Any nuclear attack on Israel would bring a nuclear counterstrike on Iran.

If anything, it seems to me that there are a lot of bonuses to a nuclear-armed Iran. It is argued in some quarters that one of the problems of the Middle East is the imbalance of power between Israel and its Arab neighbours. A nuclear-armed Iran would restore the lost balance of power, and force all players in the region towards negotiations, and away from war-fighting. Israel may not like such a prospect, but in the long run the entire region is likely to benefit from diplomatic solutions rather than military ones.

And finally, even if Iran is stopped now, then it will only be a matter of time before it gets back on track for a nuclear weapon, and the whole cycle restarts. How long is it possible to go on preventing Iran from acquiring such weapons? Why not just accept the inevitable now, rather than delay it for another 10 or 20 years?

I look forward to the entire thread telling me how wrong I am.

Re: But remember, that's wont phase 30% of the population who thinks we should have nuked Hanoi.

Last I checked 30% is not a winning number in elections. I think even Goldwater got that much.

Depends on where at ANACONDA, since there are facilities specifically located, in the central areas, to be out of mortar range and rocket accuracy.

Given risks one's life by being in the military, some of that comes with the territory. There has been substantial declassification of what was wrong with PAC-3 initial deployment, which, in part, was due to a breakup of the Iraqi improvised missiles. The Shahab-3 is a threat, but it's not a WMD and Iraq doesn't have huge numbers of them.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You are a smart guy, hc, and you clearly know more about actual military technology and how it is used than anyone commenting on blogs.

But it seems to me that you suffer from some weak points common to commentators on military affairs:

• You discount that the other guy might know at least some if not much of what you know
• You don't think that the other guy might be working hard to come up with countermeasures and ripostes for the methods and technology upon which you place so much store (particularly the technology)
• You completely discount the possibility that the other guy might be cleverer than you

sPh

=== One thing, there's no evidence to support a mass centrifuge operation anywhere. The only thing announced or verified is a 180 centrifuge cascade which falls far short of the 15,000 plus needed. ===

According to Richard Feynman's memoirs, at the first uranium separation meetings 5 methods of separation were mooted, of which two (barrier cascade and calutron) were pursued (later enhanced by thermal diffusion). He hints at what one of the other 3 was, but doesn't describe them in detail. I am guessing that the South African cyclonic separation process was not one of them because the time it was revealed the was also a relative time of openness for the US weapons labs and their spokesmen seemed geniunely surprised by the description.

So that is 6 possible known separation methods, with one having come out of left field in the last 20 years. But of course we assume that the Iranians (if they are actually separating U) are doing exactly what we would do in their circumstances. Which would also make their project the easiest to track, locate, and destroy.

Um, OK.

sPh

Way up near the top of this thread someone briefly mentioned the major issue here.  That is, just how threatened does Bush and his gang think they are to losing control of Congress?  For sure there is likely to be nothing they will stop short of to avoid that.  History shows that once a president is voted out of power he is safe from prosecution for whatever he did as president, and his cabinet shares most of that protection.  But, having a Congress with subpoena power, dominated by the other party has to be the worst threat a president and his cabinet can imagine.  So, my guess is that if Bush feels he is likely to lose the Congress, he will think nothing at all about attacking Iran - it will be full speed ahead.  Contrary to what some think, this is a sure road to staying in control of Congress.  The Republican would win virtually all contested seats.

In that event, no Democrat would dare openly criticize the President, nor the members of Congress who support him.  They would be pilloried as treasonous cowards if they dared to do that.  But, no other subject would be capable of gaining any traction, so Democrats would indeed have to be mute or be speaking to an empty room. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, I try to figure out how I'd smuggle them. Remember, I likened a GRAD to a piece of pipe, probably sewer pipe. If I were trying to bring them in, I might very well have tried to bring them in a shipment of plumbing materials, with real pipes on top.

Your point is well taken when it comes to using many weapons in the quantity intended. The Soviets, for example, planned to fire 720 GRADs at a time from 18 mobile launchers, and be flooring the accelerator within 30 seconds to avoid counterfire. This is a very different situation than Hezbollah firing them one at a time.

The folks that do photointerpretation practice an art they call "crateology", and I remember some people being rather annoyed when Roger Hilsman mentioned that in his history of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Over the years, our intelligence people made exhaustive studies of the shipping containers the Soviets used for components or full weapons. I have no doubt that there is someone who could tell you the number and size of the packages in which 720 GRADs are shipped, and even if you don't see the launchers, you can suspect they are there if you see the ammunition containers.

I can't remember the Peter Sellers movie title, but it takes place in Turkey, where he plays a Turkish diplomat. The American ambassador whispers "we know the Soviets are doing XYZ." Sellers excuses himself, and a few minutes tells the Soviet ambassador, "They know".

The Soviet grins and says "We know they know."

Naturally, Sellers tells the American, "They know that you know", but gets back a bigger grin with "Ah, but we know that they know that we know". He goes back and forth a few more times, until everyone is totally confused.

If you ever run across it, read The War Magician which is the story of Jasper Maskelyne, a fellow from several generations of stage magicians, who volunteered for British service in WWII, and, in an amazing feat, they put the square peg in the square hole. He'd do things like cover real tanks with pretty poor wooden imitation tanks, and carefully brush all the tracks in the sand. Somewhere else, he'd put the better fake tanks, and use a roller to make very realistic looking tank tracks behind them. Sometimes, he'd get even more complex and confusing, to the point that the Germans would be stunned by an attack coming from the exact direction they were convinced the British didn't have anything but fakes.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Ummm…smoking gun…errr…mushroom cloud?!!…
Sincerely,
Condi

Are you saying that, strategically, the position of 147,000 U.S. troops in Iraq would not be hostage to an Iranian threat if the U.S. should initiate strikes against Iran? This is a point aften made and I am curious what your views are.

Actually I'm more curious, I'm very curious indeed, what the views of Bushco are regarding this point, but my tea leaves are ambiguous on that.

(Note: The whole idea of being able to predict the future is tantalizing to be sure. But if you think it through, I believe you will discover that the only thing worse than not being able to predict the future would be to actually succeed and predict the future, just once. If just once you or I got it right, then what? Surely we would want to try to do it again, wouldn’t we? And that endeavor would probably drive most of us to one of the more debilitating forms of insanity. Mindful of this I only offer my simple understanding of where we are now.)

To me it isn’t very hard to extrapolate the reasons for the fabricated confrontation with Iran from the literature of that faux ideology we label Neocon. It is their thesis that the U.S. should become the dominate power in the world and that all other players or associations of players be rendered subordinate. Each other potential player must be “pushed” out of the arena of international affairs. It isn’t likely they would defer to U.S. hegemony without incentive. It doesn’t matter to the Neocon thesis whether that incentive is fear, loathing or pragmatism. And since the Neocon understanding of the modern world is utterly unintelligent, it isn’t surprising that they have to “manufacture” the events that lead the way to that hegemony. And so I give you an Iran war, Q.E.D.

But I find the current administration to be a bicycle. It has two wheels. The front wheel, the one that steers, is the Neocon construction. The back wheel, which provides the momentum, is simply the ubiquitous mendacity and self-interest that dominates human affairs. The “genius” of Karl Rove lies solely in his willingness to never forget this. Everything else he does is commonplace. He also understands that this bicycle must keep moving otherwise it will “fall over.” And so he looks to the Neocons to point the way to the next downhill slope.

So there you have it. There is a blizzard of details of course but I think this is a simple way to understand what we face. So how do we respond? I would like to suggest that there are really only two good weapons that are effective in this situation: a sense of honor and a reasoned social ethics, a soft shield and a dull sword, to be sure. So courage will also be indispensable in this effort.

The war powers act gives the President something like 90 days after troops are committed in the field to win Congressional approval.

Your point is a good one, though. Not only are we at war only in the sense that there is no draft--no shared risk and no shared burden, but also in the sense that we are at war against a noun (terror) rather than a nation.

My fervent hope is that Congress will declare war against ignorance. Now THAT will make the current administration shake in their boots!

Idlex, You raise some very provocative points. Of course, Iran could simply say, "we haven't signed the non-prolif. treaty and so, unlike the U.S. (ABM treaty, land mines treaty, etc. etc.), we aren't breaking any international agreements. However, we will agree to negotiate a regional nuclear free zone whereby all countries in the region allow IAEC inspectors into ALL locations to verify that there are no nuclear weapons." Of course, the U.S. would veto such a proposal to protect Israel's nuclear weapons, but our duplicity would be on display to the rest of the world.

My fear of a nuclear Iran is two-fold: First, that Israel would launch a first strike nuclear attack and plunge the world into war. Second, that a nuclear Iran would allow that country to pressure all other Arab nations in the gulf region to the extreme detriment of U.S. interests.

Also, "a nuclear Iran would allow that country to pressure all OTHER ARAB NATIONS (emphasis added) in the gulf region to the extreme detriment of U.S. interests."

Iranians are Persian, not Arabs. Before you jump to the conclusion that this observation is a piffle, you should know that it is not a piffle, but that it is deadly serious. Also please note that Arab nations are western constructs of relatively recent vintage.

But don't let me stop you et al in arming them with nuclear weapons. Certainly mutual destruction would bring them to the negotiation table; perhaps in cut-aways with monocles in their left eyes and silver tipped walking sticks.

Should also point out that the cold war was fought between two supremely well financed countries, and that nuclear deterrence involved mutual and complete destruction. Casualties of a million or more from what the US military would call "tactical" nukes may be perfectly acceptable in a theocracy.

Of course, if we give them a hand, say loan them some folks from Los Alamos, they might be able to develop a weapon with a large enough yield to meet the requirements of nuclear deterrence; i.e. mutual destruction.

The international community’s lack of a coherent policy and plan for keeping nukes out of the hands of nations that have already agreed to keep their hands off them, should not mean we walk away from non-proliferation. While I do not doubt that the future will be filled with new opportunities to acquire nasty fission weapons, I don’t think that closes the doors on monitoring and/or dissuading those with a hankering for an H-bomb.

There is a difference between Israel and Iran, other than ethnicity and religion. One of them has been a stable democracy for over 50-years, despite two well coordinated wars with their neighbors. Of course, I am not naïve about our role in arming Israel and destabilizing Iran, but that’s just history.

Are you being figurative or literal about laboratories three miles underground? Going that deep might well be a technological feat equal to building fission weapons.

There are indicators of what they may be doing, most likely the huge electrical power requirements for separation and enrichment. If the power sources are buried with the plant, they pretty well have to be nuclear, and the question would then be where they got the fuel for those reactors. Most countries with large enrichment facilities will put them near hydroelectric plants, which narrows down the search.

There is no evidence that a bomb is imminent. Further, every country that has made them has not had a high-production assembly plant at first. Mating a warhead to a missile is also decidedly nontrivial.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I keep saying this in less articulate terms. But let me say it again, bluntly.

Assuming that they are going for it: Best estimates are 10 years to a bomb.

One bomb gives you butkus. More years to have enough bombs to make a credible threat.

More years to get those bombs onto effective delivery systems.

This imminent crisis is fifteen to twenty years off.

Your first fear does not strike me as being particularly plausible. Once Iran has nuclear weapons, a first strike by Israel upon Iran would most likely be its last strike. As a small country, Israel is much more likely to come off worse in a nuclear exchange. So Israel wouldn't embark on such a suicidal option.

As for your second fear, while I'm sure that the possession of nuclear weapons would make Iran militarily powerful, I'm not sure how that translates directly into political power. In Europe, for example, France is a nuclear power, but the rest of the EU (except Britain) is not. Does this allow France to pressure other EU countries? Well, no, it doesn't.

I agree that political developments in the region after Iran acquires a nuclear deterrent capability would likely proceed in new directions, but I'm not at all sure that these would necessarily be to the extreme detriment of US interests.

Who said imminent? Only the administration uses those terms. My post was only to respond to the "hey let's try something new and let Tehran have the bomb" crowd. I certainly don't believe Tehran is currently preparing a target plan.

I still maintain that deep underground laboratories (no not three miles--even HG Welles was never so audacious) don't bode well for the nuclear reactor crowd.

Your right. I cannot argue that the US's transgressions preclude it, as well as the UN, from demanding enforcing the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Iran signed.

MEMO TO THE WORLD
Effective immediately, due to the United State's lack of neighborly courtesy, all diplomacy and multi-national agreements are hereby null and void. Enjoy the free for all. Also attached is a list of useful websites that describe in detail how to construct a nuclear weapon. Also attached, please find a list of countries that will sell you delivery devices. Also, also attached, please find AQ Khan's personal cell phone number.

One design not needing a test is what we used on Hiroshima. The gun bomb, of 90%+ refined uranium, is a no-brainer, but requires huge amounts of uranium and lots of time to assemble the quantity. On top of that the design doesn not scale down and is only airplane-delivered.

The plutonium implosion design, (HCB can correct me, I hope), which we used on Nagasaki, is very tricky mechanically, but requires much less material and scales down, with enough mechanical experience to achieve the required precision. It also requires time to "cook" low-refined uranium in a reactor, then processing to chemically extract the plutonium.

So there are two opportunities to observe heavy industrial activity, either uranium refining (where one has to separate two chemically identical atoms that differ only in weight) or reactor fuel rod reporocessing, as in North Korea.

I don't agree but an engineer friend tells me a low-efficency bomb can be built using plutonium in the gun design. I never heard of that, but again, maybe HCB can add to this. If so, it would be rather heavy. I believe our typical designs weigh a few hundred pounds and are carried by large missiles. Backpack designs are really, really, hard, and not very high yield, although you still wouldn't want to be within a couple of miles.

In any case, one would expect a long time until Iran had a missile-deliverable design.

You live next to Pat Robertson? Reverend Moon? Jerry Falwell? James Dobson?

These are extremely high-speed, precision-engineered machines that could violently tear themselves apart, releasing toxic chemicals, if their power is suddenly cut.

I cannot see why these centrifuges would self destruct because the power was suddenly cut. The final drive motors to the centrifuges would have their own inertia as would the centrifuges themselves. Because they are so finely engineered and well balanced, it seems they would merely coast to a stop. I did some googling and found a lot of interesting information but nothing to support that statement or, to be fair, even addressing it. If it is correct then it would seem to be a point of extreme vulnerability to attack or to accident. Could you provide a link or an explanation?

I think you miss the point of mutual assured destruction. That your enemy can destroy you is a deterrent. The Cuban missile crisis is enough to show that it is not a reliable strategy (hence, MAD). Anyway, what would deter Iran is that their enemies (U.S. and Israel) could destroy them. No matter how many nukes they might build, it would not stop retaliation for a first strike. Whether they could destroy their enemy is secondary. If Iran is truly a threat, meaning they will acquire nukes and launch a first strike, then they must not care that they would be destroyed in response. I don’t think that is the case.

It is America’s imbalanced and unjust support of Israel along with Bush’s Jihad against the Muslim world that is fueling Middle East hatred of the U.S. (and please note that America is a western construct of relatively recent vintage). Israel’s fifty years of “stable democracy” is a history of one war or conflict after another. Iran, on the other hand, has fought with Saddam’s Iraq. If Iran is such a threat, what of North Korea or Pakistan? Of course, there is the convenient ever looming and unverifiable threat that Iran will develop nukes and give them to terrorists. Hey, that’s what Saddam was doing, right? If that is our biggest concern, we should be apoplectic about former USSR unsecured nukes. And someone mentioned A. Q. Khan. Why is he not in prison?

I don’t see anyone here that disagrees with international non-proliferation efforts. That said, where is the threat? Where is the evidence of Iranian nuke building? After Iraq, I’m not going to take my government’s innuendo and lies as proof of some colossal impending threat from Iran. I’m not going to draw a general emotional response to innuendo in the mainstream media, either. Last night, Brian Williams ominously warned us that we are going to have to “watch” Chavez after he called Bush the Devil. I believe Venezuela signed a mutual defense agreement with Iran, so I guess we’ll have to go after Chavez, too. We'll call it Operation 700 Club.

Hugo Chavez needs to be captured and toasted on a nationwide TV show, as one leader in the world who truly understands Bush. That should be worth at least an Emmy.

Ok, back to seriousness:  We have a national calling.  It is to establish democracy all over the world, where only the people can pick their government.  So, that makes Hugo Chavez an enemy well worth our......wait!  Didn't the Venezuelans elect Chavez?  They voted.  Their votes were all counted.  And Hugo Chavez got the most votes?  Gee, that puts him one up on us.

Now, really, back to seriousness:  Does Venezuela have WMD?  They must, since the  UN has not had inspectors there to verify that they don't.  And, they support Iran, well known to be a pending member of the international terrorists nuclear weapons trade association.   Down with Venezuela!!!

Hoppy in Sacramento

If ghosts existed, they would be invisible, and therefore we would not be able to tell that they exist. Therefore, ghosts exists.

See your logical error?

"a nuclear Iran would allow that country to pressure all OTHER ARAB NATIONS (emphasis added) in the gulf region to the extreme detriment of U.S. interests."

Ironic. Israel's EXISING, ACTUAL, REAL nukes don't have this effect of "pressuring the Arab nations" but Iran's IMAGINARY, HYPOTHETICAL, NON-EXISTENT nukes would?

Some years ago, there was an air show at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio. They had ground displays of various aircraft. For many of them, kids could climb on them, but there was a significant exception

An F-117 first-generation stealth bomber was roped off, with some grim-faced Air Police carring automatic weapons, to keep everyone 50 feet away. Crowds walked by in amazement, on how hard it was to detect.

This probably had something to do with there being no aircraft behind the ropes. The designated aircraft had blown a tire or something, and couldn't get there. Someone creative, however, still put up the ropes, the "stealth plane" sign, and the guards.

After a couple of days, they couldn't stand it any more, and rigged up a flight suit, with soms stuffing in it, and an empty helmet on a stand. It was marked "stealth pilot".

It was estimated at least 20% of the visitors still didn't get it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Oh for gods sakes.

See top of thread.

Look, let me make this simple, at the risk of sounding like a condescending prick.

Nuclear weapons are not available at Wal-Mart. They are not easy to make, contrary to what some might think. They are, in fact, extremely expensive, extremely difficult to produce, and they consume vast amounts of resources, brainpower, money and time. They take years to produce.

Nuclear weapons are an all or nothing proposition. Either you have one, or you don't. You don't have 'half a nuclear weapon' for any meaningful strategic purpose.

This means that only in certain circumstances does it make sense to pursue nuclear weapons.

1) You need a mortal threat. Without a mortal threat you don't have any incentive to committ the billions of dollars and years of effort to what would be a meaningless prestige project with lots of downsides. The American nuclear weapons program was a product of WWII. The British, French and Russian nuclear weapons programs were products of the cold war. The Chinese were a response to the Russians and the Americans. The Indians were a response to the Chinese and Pakistan. Pakistan was a response to India. Israel's was a response to the Arab Sea. South Africa's was a response to the African sea. Brazil and Argentina were a response to each other. South Korea was a response to America.

2) The threat cannot be imminent. Here's the thing. If you expect to be at war potentially any time, or within the year or so... a nuclear weapons program does you no good. You need to defend yourself immediately, not in five years. The resources that go into a nuclear weapons program are desperately needed for more conventional defense right now. The diversion of such resources to a long term strategy is simply not good resource allocation, and is very very risky, unless you're very very wealthy. Even the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese couldn't justify the long term investment necessary, when they were fighting with their backs against the wall in the immediate. Stalin didn't pursue a nuke seriously while he was fighting Hitler.

In the case of Iran, to the extent that they're under threat, that threat is imminent. It can materialize at any time. Their money is better spent on missiles, radars, submarines, mines, etc., than on a long term nuclear weapon project.

Indeed, pursuit of such a weapon may well be destabilizing and may well make an imminent threat real and immediate. Not a good idea. Its more a 'shooting yourself in the foot thing', if a weapons program that won't be ready in five years gets you a war this year.

3) The threat has to be stable. The only way that you can justify this long term program, is if you can be assured that the threat will be around after you've finished your nuclear weapon... in five years. And that it will be around long enough for your nuclear deterrent to be viable.

This is what happened to the South African nukes, and what happened to the Argentina and Brazilian nuclear weapons programs. The threat simply did not last. Things got worked out, they weren't necessary.

Guess what, ladies and gentlemen. America is not a stable threat to Iran. Take a look at Iraq, losing big time. Take a look at Afghanistan, losing big time. Saudi Arabia and Jordan are hanging on by threads. Turkey is bombing the Iraqi Kurds. Egypt is talking trash. Hezbollah is the hero of Lebanon. And in the Arab world, America is slightly less popular than syphilis. The Iranians fully expect that all they have to do is continue to play the game, and eventually, before too long, your house of cards collapses, you skulk out of the region, and they collect the pot.

So what's the motivation to spend five or ten years to develop a nuclear deterrent when they don't expect you to last that long?

So, they're faced with a mortal, but imminent and unstable threat. Sure, if they could just pick up a few at Wal-Mart, they'd get themselves some nukes. But realistically, its just not in their interests to pursue.

And who would trust foreign UN inspectors anyway?

John Hagee, actually. If you are not familiar, and even if you are, check out this interview on Fresh Air on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&agg=0&prgDate=09-18-2006&view=storyview). They're all whacking, but this one is entertainingly whacky. The topic could not be more perfect, since obviously a nuclear Iran squaring off against a nuclear Israel is obviously part of God's plan for the End of Days. Happy Rapturing!

Idlex: Yes, I knew that Iran was Persian. That was an oversight. I should have said Islamic. Actually, my post was intended to commend you for the points you made so I hardly expected a rebuttal.

So, just let me clarify. Israel has just purchased additional submarines for Germany and they can devastate any country that attacks them even if Israel is wiped out. I don't think Iran has that capability. If Israel felt that they were near to completing nuke development, they might be tempted toward a first strike to prevent that development. It would have to be a doozy.

Second, my point about pressuring other countries should not necessarily mean direct threats. The presence of an impervious Iran could be a rallying cry which would have far-reaching political effects in other nations. And the presence of a bomb in Israel has coincided with the elimination of symetrical military threats against that country--at least since 1973.

But your broader point, that we shouldn't go apeshit and do something crazy because of Iran's nuclear ambitions (be they honest about civilian power or no) I really do agree with.

Actually, it was jconorflynn who pointed out that Iran was Persian, not me. And it is to him/her that you appear to have replied. But never mind.

For the record, I'm not a self hating American. I'm a Canadian who loves America but is pretty clear eyed about the shit that it gets up with.

But let's get down the real nitty gritty. The United States of America has only ever picked fights with other world powers.

Delusional. The Mexican American War? The Indian Wars? The Spanish American War? Phillipine Insurrection? Occupation of Veracruz? Various Central American interventions? Occupations and military interventions of Haiti and the Dominican Republic? Rape of Columbia and Creation of Panama? Bay of Pigs? Vietnam? Secret bombing and invasions of Cambodia and Laos? Grenada? Panama?

The United States has a long history of bullshit wars against weaker and smaller nations which, astonishingly, pays off in benefits to the United States, no matter what else the public relations people say.

I'm not saying thats good or bad. Just about every other Empire, the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the British, Dutch, Belgians, Austrians, Ottomans, Germans, Spanish, Portugese, etc. etc., did the same thing. Maybe its just what Empires do.

But you don't get to claim to be different on that score.

America can and should be different, it should be better and bigger and more idealistic.

But you get to be better by acting better, not by rewriting history and throwing up smokescreens of BS.

To your point, Iran, Cuba, Grenada (LOL), Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon (rounds 1, 2 and 3), South Africa, El Salvadore, Venezuela, West Germany, Laos, Japan, etc. etc., had nothing to do with them. The target was the USSR, and now that they are no more (and Russia is no USSR, thank you), the only rival is China.

Bullshit again. I'll grant you Korea as a clearcut example of US/USSR conflict.

I'll even grant you Vietnam, although the evidence all along was pretty clear that it was a nationalist conflict. Ho Chi Minh was actually a big fan of the US and modeled his constitution after the American one. He fell into the Soviet orbit because America threw in against him, which is a bit of bad judgement.

I won't grant you the secret bombings or invasions of Cambodia and Laos, neutral countries which America extended its war too and destroyed.

I'll give you partial credit on Cuba. Once again, Fidel was a big Americo-phile, even tried out for professional baseball. But, same story. Seems that the United States was backing the corrupt thugs that Fidel was fighting. When Fidel won, the US continued the corrupt thugs war. Fidel got thrown into the arms of the Soviet Union.

Which turned out to be a wise move on his part. Guys like Salvadore Allende of Chile and Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala tried to stay away from the Soviets, and tried to bring about necessary social reforms in their countries within the framework of American power... and they got pine boxes for their troubles. The bottom line is that these were innocent guys trying to do good, and your country killed them and replaced them with mass murderers and tyrants because those guys were better for your interests.

Ronald Reagan's dirty wars in Central America had fuck all to do with the USSR, and everything to do with mass murder and playing little tin god.

The interventions in Lebanon had nothing to do with the USSR. Nor, for that matter, does the most recent coup effort in Venezuala.

The bottom line is that America was looking after its interests or what it perceived as its interests, even if that meant messing around the locals.

Like I said, that's not necessarily a good or bad thing. Its just what empires do. In this respect, you can claim to be no better or worse than the run of the mill.

But get off your own soapbox, Valdron. As a member of the Commonwealth there is an equally long list of colateral damage. It's just such ancient history since the sun set on the empire.

Like I said, no better, no worse. Its what empires do.

But if you get up on your high horse and claim moral superiority over other nations, and allege that moral superiority entitles you to make judgements and take actions...

Well, let me just get out my harpoon and see...

My point is not that the United States is a particularly bad country. My point is that on the whole, Iran's government is not particularly egregious. Certainly their catalogue of moral sins like pre-emptive war and quasi-genocide doesn't match yours. Their government seems no more unstable or irrational than your own.

All too often your argument boils down to nothing better than "Lawsy Lawsy, dem dere Eye-rainian niggers is Krazy! KRAZY I tells ya!!"

Well, sorry bub. The fact that you don't like their government doesn't entitle America to bomb the crap out of them. Sure, they're a nasty repressive theocracy. But they're also a stable society with progressive elements trying to reform things, with a functioning and reasonably honest electoral system, and with a somewhat open media. They're a government which has in the last three decades fought a single defensive war against an enemy that invaded them and employed wmd's against them, and which has not significantly threatened their neighbors.

Is Ahminajad an ass? Yes he is. Is he a loon? Yes he is. Is he a froot loop? Yes. Is he dragging Iranian society in regressive paranoid directions? Yes. Is he an anti-semite? Yeppers, it seems so. Has he threatened Israel... not unless you go with bad and misleading translations. Is he a threat to Israel? Nope. Is he a threat to his neighbors? Nope. Is he working on a nuclear weapon? No evidence whatsoever to support that. Assuming that he is working on a nuclear weapon how long would it take to be effective? A decade, maybe two. Chances that he or anyone like him will still be running Iran by that time? Pretty close to nonexistent.

Your country is discussing committing war crimes, undertaking an act of pre-meditated invasion and aggression against a country which poses no immediate threat, and no real threat of any sort, and killing thousands, or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Excuse me for objecting to that. That's not moral behaviour. That's not the United States standing tall and doing the right thing on behalf of the rest of us. That's simple atrocity, and it shouldn't be defended.

The potential outcomes of this immoral behaviour uniformly run the risk of disaster. Even the most optimistic advocates predict catastrophic increases in oil prices, a recession, and increased terrorism.

So, not only is it immoral behaviour, but its fully moronic.

Yet people insist on pursuing it because of bullshit arguments that the Eye-Rainians are gonna get nucular weapons any time and we can't let dat happen, because you know, dem niggers, dey be Krazy!

Well, there's not a shred of evidence that they're pursuing them, or that they'll obtain them, or that their obtaining them will be so disastrous as to justify murdering thousands of people...

But hey, dem dere Eye-rainians dey be Krazy!

Yeah, right.

They'd probably crap their pants and go along for fear of being called unpatriotic, just as they did when many of them voted to give our moron-in-chief a blank check in Iraq back in October 2002.

Tom

Hey Howard B,

Here's a question for you. You've been pooh poohing the potential of an Iranian invasion of Iraq, if the war breaks out, by basically pointing out that air power should be able to suppress ground forces.

Well and true, decisively demonstrated. It's hard for ground forces to move effectively when close air forces are keeping them nailed down. So, Iranian armies could be bottled up in mountains indefinitely...

Except... Assuming that Iran does manage to interdict the supply routes through the Persian Gulf...

Well, an air force is a pretty heavy consumer of jet and aviation fuel, its pretty hard on spare parts, needs a lot of reloading of ammunition.

So here's the question. How long can American air forces in Iraq and the Persian gulf carry out suppression duties with their supply lines chopped? Do they have big stockpiles of fuel, spare parts and ammunition? 30 days? 60 days? 90 days? A year?

I have the impression that military resupply these days follows the 'just in time' commercial model, which suggests that supplies might be as little as one week.

Assuming partial Iranian interdiction, say of 50% of incoming supplies, would that let enough in for air suppression to function, and for the rest of the American forces to hold things down... particularly in the face of local uprisings and an Iranian force continually testing or pushing for a break out?

Could the United States arrange resupply some other way?

I get the impression that Turkey is not sympathetic these days and may even be tacitly allied with the Iranians over the linchpin Kurdish issue.

Resupply through Israel is tempting, but there's no actual Israeli/Iraqi border. You'd have to go through Jordan or Syria. Or cut through Saudi Arabia.

Jordan or Saudi Arabia might well destabilize and even if they don't, this sort of collusion with the Americans is something that might not appeal to them.

Syria is a hostile, and unlikely to be helpful.

All of which suggests to me that the US forces have severe supply line vulnerabilities.

And if that supply line is cut or severely damaged, then the ability of the United States military air forces to suppress Iranian ground forces and keep them from moving may deteriorate, perhaps rapidly.

So, under those circumstances, what are the odds of some major portion of Iranian ground forces getting out into the Mesopotamian flood plains.

And assuming they do so, what are the chances of US ground and air forces, distributed for occupation, with critical supplies of fuel and ammunition running out?

Love to hear your thinking, guy.

That's pretty much what I thought.

What the Turks may actually do is a pretty open question. But they're not happy with the Americans, they weren't consenting to use of their territory for the invasion in the first place. That's just nasty countryside.

I can't see Saudi Arabia jumping off the fence on something like this. But its an open question as to whether they'd be willing to resupply American forces in Iraq, or permit their territory to be used. I'd say for the Saudi's, they're hoping not to be put in that position.

Something like 11% of Saudi's population is Shia, and they're the dominant population on the Persian Gulf side of the country where all the oil wells are. It's likely that in the event of a major fracas, they'd stay loyal... there's a lot of underestimation of national loyalty, both Saddam and Khomeini hoped for uprisings of Sunni and Shia on the opposite sides of their borders in the Iran/Iraq war. Never happened. But in these charged times, who knows. The risk, minimal as it may be, couldn't be ruled out.

I would suspect that Kuwait and Qatar would be at substantial risk in the event of hostilities. But I don't see any significant attacks against Qatar. The Iranians would probably hope for a 'die on the vine' thing there.

Kuwait might be a likely target, but your comment about taking out the desalinization plants comes as a bit of a surprise. Center of gravity?

Refineries in Iraq are probably a dead letter. Iraq's oil production has been declining since the Americans took over, we can assume frenzied insurgency attacks there. Currently, Iraq isn't refining enough to meet domestic needs, and the country is importing its gasoline and cooking fuel.

I've wondered for a while about Diego Garcia's impact. I dunno though, it strikes me that there's some tactical problems there. But it may be the only feasible option to run Iraq's air defenses from outside the Persian Gulf.

As for the effectiveness of air power in destroying heavy ground forces... I dunno. I'm not so convinced. I'm hardly an expert, but my observations from both Kosovo and the Gulf War was that the defenders managed to preserve a surprising amount of their assets and effectiveness in the face of bombing. Air superiority was sufficient to paralyze a ground force and keep it from moving, making it ineffective. But out and out destruction? Not so sure.

So, if the Iranians are sufficiently prepared, will they adopt a rope-a-dope? Hunker down, take the bombings, try and cut the supply lines and strangle the American air forces, or at least induce serious hiccups. Move en force and fast if they can starve out the American air force.

You're right that Satellite reconnaissance would expose any large troop movements by the Iranians. The Iranians themselves don't have equivalent capacity... but what are the odds that the Russians may be prepared to sneak them intel and satellite information.

I dunno.

I agree that an American strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would almost certainly have to coincide with a major effort to sweep out Iranian air forces, airfields and missile batteries.

While for political reasons, the official headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM) is in Tampa, FL, the operational command post for the Middle East is in Qatar.

Ah well. That mystery is solved. If the Iranians have any capacity to do so, they'd definitely want to hit Qatar. That said, I'm not persuaded that they've got the resources to do it, or if they do, that they'd be inclined to deploy resources that way.

My read is that they've got limited punching power and a lot to punch. So they'll have to make some hard choices as to what hits will do them the most good.

Of course, the air defense requirement is going to depend on what the Iranians have at the at the start and after they get the Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) treatment

I'll agree that the Iranians are probably stuck with what they bring to the table at the start of the game. I'll also agree that a lot will depend on how well they hold up to the first air assaults, and how much of that survives.

The link I gave suggests they have around 14 airbases, with a probable capability for some civilian airport use. It's highly dependent on what aircraft they've gotten from Russia and China, since their US aircraft are 1 or 2 generations back.

Well, there's the 64,000 dollar question. What sort of toys have the Russians and Chinese slipped to them, and how much of that stuff have they obtained or manufactured.

And just as interesting... do they have any plans to get more bang for the buck from their obsolete air fleet?

There's shortages of spare parts, deficits on flying time, and the tech is old, so I'll assume on a straight fight, its definitely outclassed.

But what if those pilots decide to go Kamikaze. Turn their jets into human guided cruise missiles.

I don't know. Iranian culture is certainly not Japanese culture of WWII, they don't have Bushido. The Shiites do have a tradition of martyrdom, but then again, fighter pilots would tend to be highly trained and fairly secularized by nature, so I don't necessarily see them as going all martyr.

And I'm not sure that a Kamikaze jet pilot would be any better at getting through modern American air defences.

Thoughts?

The US heavy forces would not have to move into Iran until there was significant attrition, or possibly at all.

I don't see them moving into Iran at all. Even with air security, that's just bad countryside to try and move into... mountains and hills. Flat plains like Iraq and Kuwait favour air power, but to the extent that terrain counts at all, rugged Iranian countryside is somewhat unfavourable. Moreover, there's a lot of territory to cover and the Iranians are likely to be dug in hard. Finally, its unlikely that, as in Iraq, we could just bribe generals to go home.

Nope, lots of downsides to jumping into the meat grinder. Not much upsides.

One key factor would be that the US ground forces would be in an active defense mode, rather than offense. I remember an Iraqi tank commander saying he had lost about 1/4 of his vehicles from air attack, but lost everything within about 30 minutes after the first tank-to-tank engagement. Iran can build its own tanks, so we can assume something better than the fUSSR T-72, but how much better we don't know. OTOH, we have some significantly better air-launched antitank weapons, as well as armed UCAVs.

All very true and very interesting. But there's a couple of things. First, American forces are in occupation mode, not defense mode. That means that they're spread out in garrisons and fortifications which are more designed to project force into territory than to link up and help defend each other. So we may not be looking at maximally effective deployment in the event of an Iranian assault. Maybe they can redeploy real fast.

Second, its likely that there'd be a heavy duty local partisan insurgency or attack. That shouldn't be underestimated.

Let's face it, the U.S. won the Tet Offensive. But they didn't have a fun time of it. And the victory in many cases came at appalling costs in terms of military and civilian casualties. 45% of the buildings in Hue were destroyed, a record that Fallujah may or may not have beat.

Finally, I don't see the Iranians launching a real invasion unless supply lines are cut, and air support is interrupted. In such a case, we can assume that ground forces supply lines are also cut and American military forces are basically on their own, low on gas and trapped in time.

AFAIK, all potable water in Kuwait comes from a small number of desalination plants. There is also a big natural gas storage facility in the port area, and it was considered for US destruction in 1991, to prevent it being used as a giant bomb against the Marine amphibious force.

Well, blowing up the desalination plants would screw the Kuwaiti citizenry. But it might not diminish the military utility as a transit point. And it would probably cost the Iranians big time both at home and abroad to attack a civilian population so nakedly, which may or may not be a factor.

But they might send a few missiles at the gas reservoir.

I don't immediately see a scenario where the US would try a ground invasion of Iran until and unless the defenses were very significantly attrited, and possibly not then -- depends on what the objectives are.

As I said, I can't see a ground invasion on either side, without a substantial deterioration of either's defense capacities.

The Iranians will trust the insurgency to keep American Iraqi forces nailed down, but there's no percentage in challenging active air superiority or fully supplied forces.

The Americans don't have the resources for a ground invasion, and there's not much upside and a lot of downside for a ground assault.

No, I don't consider you an America hater. I suspect eating a sufficient quantity of poutine burns out the part of the brain that would be required for such hate.

As you know, I have quite a few colleagues and friends from Canada, and I have both learned a bit of how a Canadian sees Canada, as well as getting a slightly different look at the US. Indeed, one friend can have some profound insights in areas one does not usually think of major Canadian specialties; he's a Parliamentary staff director who, in the US, would wear both the hats of committee staff chief for House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs. He is, admittedly, still a little annoyed that I took him to dinner at a nice enough restaurant in DC, but not the Yenching Palace, where the Soviets made the informal contact with reported John Scali that was the start of the winding down of the Cuban missile crisis. Periodically, he reminds me that I know too much about Canada and he will send a black helicopter, and periodically, I remind him that it will have to be a Sea King. We then raise a glass to Sir Arthur Currie.

There are times, I suspect, I can look at Canada and see problems a native might not, although, health care being one of the major ones, I see the differences as between BC and Ontario rather than national. BC has quite a number of things to fix, and there are nuances at the national level.

[raises a Blue]

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

1) The reality is that Iran has a perfect right to develop nuclear power.

Right, so they can carry out their threat to destroy Israel. You Jew hating pig, Dennis Valdron, your true colors have been shown.

Dennis Valdron is a Jew hating pig, we have now confirmation of that, based on his tacit approval of Iran, a rogue Muslim state, to develop nuclear power for the purposes of making weapons, not cheaper sources of power.

Why would a country need to develop nuclear power when they are swimming in oil? The answer is that they want to develop WEAPONS to eventually NUKE ISRAEL.

hc,

I think it's best to stop at "I see no justification to attack Iraq".

Tom

Not my style. That is opinion. The material following, for those not buying into the White House FUD, adds facts.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I should have said Iran in my above post not Iraq, but I guess that's obvious.

Tom

Pat Buchanan might be conservative, but he's also, like you, an anti-Israeli Jew hating pig.

I remember thinking, on the first day of the Lebanon war, as Israeli bombs landed on Beirut airport, and freeway junctions: "Israel has lost this war."

And I thought it had lost the war because it had responded to Hezbollah by going and knocking the sh*t out of Lebanon. Lebanon is not Hezbollah. Or at least, it wasn't then. It was like a big guy had hit Israel, and Israel had responded by beating up the smallest kid on the block. And with that, they lost the moral war. And also they lost the military war, because you don't help your cause by beating up the wrong guy.

I saw nothing afterwards that changed my assessment.

And so similarly I suspect that when I see shock 'n' awe bombings of Iran by the USA, I'll be thinking: "America has lost this war." And if they use nukes, I'll only think they've lost it even worse. It'll be a desperate last throw. A desperate last bid to re-establish hegemony. But it'll fail because they just don't have enough troops on the ground, and nobody's going to bail them out - least of all the American people.

While I do have and use some of Chomsky's work when I'm involved in computer languages, I'm afraid I've never been able to get through much of his political writing. While I don't agree with all of it, however, there's an interesting book by the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton, The Genocidal Mentality. His best work is The Nazi Doctors, which is, I think, more neutral, but he's certainly an authority on genocide. I think about GWB, and wonder--I really don't have a conclusion about his motivation.

I cannot begin to come up with rational justification for attacking Iran.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*