It's Clear Now: The US Will Never Permit Bombing of Iran
The neocons were dancing in the street over Ahmadinejad's election. They figured that now the United States would surely give the go-ahead to bomb those totalitarian lunatics.
But then came the first glimmer of worry. What if it was stolen? Then it could mean that the people actually did not choose Ahmadinejad. Then Americans might feel sympathy for the Iranian people. Then the case for bombing grows weaker.
And then today the Land of the Neocons is shattered by grief. The Iranian people have taken to the streets in unprecedented numbers to protest Ahmadinejad's election. Demonstraors are being killed. There could be a recount or new election. Or, God forbid, the regime could collapse.
The United States will never allow bombing now which would bring the split nation together in support of the government. (not to mention killing so many of those democracy-loving demonstrators). The United States wants to encourage the democrats, not create, in an instant, unity behind Ahmadinejad.
And trembling the neocons consider this possibility: the regime collapses. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs go. Iran begins the process of normalization, ultimately becoming a secular democracy which still pursues its right to enrich uranium.
What will they do then?
In one weekend, the neocons learn that joy can turn into ashes in a minute. Let the weeping begin. The Iranian people might save themselves from this fascist regime. There will be no war.
Or, things could go the other way...brutal repression may (will probably?) win the day, establishing the Iranian regime as so evil that the Iranian people might support air attacks against Revolutionary Guard units, government buildings, and other elements of the regime's power structure. A network of disaffected Iranians on the ground helping to pinpoint targets could make such a bombing campaign very effective.
June 16, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't that happen in North Vietnam and Nazi Germany?
Has that ever happened?
June 16, 2009 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: The internal Iranian politics are fascinating.
See http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak02.html
June 16, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rarely do I disagree categorically with you, MJ, but in this instance and in this context, I feel that I know the Israeli mind better than your goodself.
The majority of the Israeli electorate either voted for or have specific sympathy with Likud, Their political manifesto, either overt or covert, is the transfer of all Muslims out of the West Bank and Jerusalem to create a 'Greater Israel' - hopefully, they believe, in their lifetime.
There is no intention to create an independent Palestinian state, ever - and, I believe that you must know that, in your water.
That is also the unalterable policy of Rahm senior and every other Israeli who is also a Zionist.
The end result will be war in the region - sooner or later, and that is because modern- day Israel is as far from Herzl's vision as gefilte fish is from a pork chop.
June 16, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Israel must be stopped.
In the meantime, you are well advised prepare yourself for the apocalypse. Time well spent.
June 16, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tongue in cheeck, no doubt. My God has informed me that He is not ready to solve our problems just yet. We will have to solve them ourselves.
June 16, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big dreams die slowly - whether it is the dream of the neocons for bombing Iran or the dream of hard-core Zionists for a greater Israel.
"Dreams die hard and you hold them in your hands long after they've turned to dust."
The Israeli in their quest for a country got one. They also ended up selling their soul in exchange for the occupation. In the end, not only will they have lost their soul but will end up losing their country as well. Such is hubris. There will be one state. This will occur in two generations or less.
The neocons have a discredited world-view which is now supported by old rich men with old-world-thinking propping up so called think-tanks. They are a one-trick pony: justifying war. What they don't realize is that history is making glue out of them.
June 16, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean it's not realistic to believe that a country with 7 million citizens can control an entire region?
June 16, 2009 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean "old rich WHITE men". Too scared to be honest? Or is it incipient Alzheimer's?
June 16, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't your headline be:
CRAZY PEACENIKS DESPERATE FOR STOLEN ELECTION!
Don't you ever think straight. Even if Moussavi had won Iran would have continued its nuclear program and hated Israel. But, as the neocons correctly concluded, his victory would have made it much harder for the United States to take a position against Iran.
And.
Win or lose, Ahmadinejad has a very numerous constituency in Iran. Not in Teheran. Not among the educated English speakers. But out in the countryside, where religion is still very, very strong. Read Stratfor's analysis.
June 16, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bombing did not work for the Brits in Iraq in the 1920s
Bombing did not work for the Nazis blitzing England in 1940.
Bombing did not work for the U.S. against Germany and Japan (except during a few days in August 1945 by means of the only two nuclear weapons ever used in human history). The U.S. won the war IN SPITE of cities mostly bombed in a misguided and ineffective attempt "break the morale" of the enemy.
Bombing did not work for the U.S. in Vietnam.
One of these centuries, people may finally realize that bombing is a greatly over-rated strategic option.
The idea of bombing Iran to stop it going nuclear has always been much more prevalent in the overwrought minds of neo-cons and pacifists than in the mind of serious analysts.
It is most probably too late now to stop Iran developing a limited nuclear capacity ala Pakistan, India, and North Korea (which does not mean the world should not try to prevent this). The only sure way to stop them would be to invade with ground troops and take over the country.
The best chance for checking the nuclearization and radicalization of Iran would have been through skillful diplomacy in 2003 after the U.S. actually HAD invaded Iran's two neighbors. But, that opportunity was colossally squandered by the incompetent-as-hell neo-con chickenhawks and their Democrat-coward rubberstampers in the U.S. Congress.
I think it is too early to say what the broader effects of the recent Iranian election will be - on neo-cons or anything else. A small kernel of rationality within the neo-con mentality advocates the pragmatic exercise of American power overseas, particularly in the traditionally (though often not adhered to) off-limits "internal affairs" of other countries. The most obviously sensible exercise of such power at the moment would be to force a partial withdrawal of Israeli settlements in order to jump start the "peace process". Having hitched their wagons to the mentally-retarded wing of the Republican Party and the settler wing of the Israel political spectrum, neo-cons are, however, naturally very reluctant to do anything at all -no matter how sane and obvious- that might be supportive of Obama. But this is all guesswork at this point, and somewhere a neo-con with brains is probably busy now fashioning a phoenix, possibly even along such lines.
June 16, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bombing worked for the Israelis against Osiraq. Bombing technology, like all other technology, is continually getting better.
Posters here are such losers. Don't you ever tire of saying your own country, your own societies can't win in any conflict with foreigners?
What history shows is that they have won most such conflicts and, if there were some way to deport the lot of you, they probably would continue doing so.
June 16, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your ordinary lies are becoming lamer: I never ever said anything remotely approaching my "own country, own society can't win in any conflict with foreigners." Bombing has failed massively for Israel in Lebanon, but of course, that is NOT America's problem.
June 16, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ignore the first sentence of my post so I'll repeat it; "bombing worked for Israel against Osiraq".
In the past bombing has not lived up to the expectations of its proponents. In the future, who knows?
Benny Morris is not at all optimistic about Israel's ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. Nor is its military in its public pronouncements. Nor are independent observers who say that only the United States has that capacity if only conventional weapons are used. Which is why Morris has said Israel may resort to atomic bombs.
There is no peace process, never has been. Your alternate reality claims are just rubbish. Forcing Israel to withdraw behind the 1967 borders cannot done without force and is just a way of destroying the state. They know it and wouldn't have allowed it in 2003 and won't now.
June 16, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear. Bombing did not fail as massively as you claim in any of the instances you name. I leave it to you to explain your motives, since you've so thoroughly rejected mine.
June 16, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
My motives, Ordinary Settler Dupe, are to promote the truth in contrast to the lies spread by settlers, Likudniks and neo-con wannabes who have lots of time to regurgitate AIPAC propaganda on this website.
My point was and remains:
"The idea of bombing Iran to stop it going nuclear has always been much more prevalent in the overwrought minds of neo-cons and pacifists than in the mind of serious analysts."
Osiraq was 28 years ago. OBVIOUSLY countries (Pakistan, North Korea, Iran) have learned how be much more clever and cagey at developing nuclear weapons than Saddam was during his disastrous war with Iran.
Israel is NOT going to try to stop Iran going nuclear by making a futile effort at bombing its widely dispersed facilities because the Israeli leaders know, even though many of their US tools and dupes do not, that this would NOT work.
It is hypothetically possible that the Israelis might attack Iran for any number of OTHER reasons, just as it is theoretically possible that George Bush and Dick Cheney might, out of whatever tiny shred of morality they possess, publicly apologize for inflicting upon America the worst presidential administration in OUR history, but the Netanyahu & Co are not idiots. Reckless cowardly hypocrites, sure, but not fools.
June 16, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBVIOUSLY countries (the US, Israel) have learned how be much more clever and cagey at destroying nuclear weapons than they were during Saddam's time.
Geezus, Troub, that's so obvious. You're not a dope...but you act like one because you're completely blinded by your bias.
June 16, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"OBVIOUSLY countries (the US, Israel) have learned how be much more clever and cagey at destroying nuclear weapons than they were during Saddam's time."
What kind of pitiful attempt to clutch at non-existent straws is that ??!
You mean the way Bush and Cheney (whom I suppose you'd have voted for if you were truly an American) were "clever and cagey" in determining that Saddam suddenly posed an imminent threat to the U.S. in 2002, or the way Bush skillfully stopped nuclear programs in Pakistan, India and North Korea?
You have a sick sense of humor.
What was that you said about "bias"?
June 16, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean that technology advances for everyone, especially for the technological leaders. Maybe you are a dope after all.
June 17, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't respond to Ordinary because he's a racist but note his longing for Ahmadinejad. Lan, I sure can call these people!
The neocons want Ahmedinejad for the same reason Cheney wants another 9/11. So they can drag the US into another war in the Middle East.
Of course, Cheney is a neocon so I repeat myself.
June 16, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You always repeat yourself. You haven't had an idea in years.
June 16, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so fast--Flynt Leverett assures us that Ahmadinejad really won after all. Phew, now neocons can breathe a sigh of relief.
June 16, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
ordinary is right, let's bomb the pro-democracy protestors. That'll teach 'em.
June 16, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadinejad has marginal support in the Iranian countryside, therefore we should bomb Tehran.
June 16, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, 538 says Ahmadinejad got more votes in cities than in the countryside in 2005, but statisticians have a well-known liberal bias, so you probably shouldn't trust them. Mostly it's my gut that tells me that the boonies are just wild for A-man.
July 9, 2009 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't use my brains, I use my gut. Remember, I'm one of you.
July 9, 2009 2:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I think it's pretty clear that Iran's a mess and that the US public for all it's naivete in international matters realizes that we can only mess things up more by following the neocons off their cliff this time
June 16, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Want an easy-to-grasp History lesson? Let the other bastard start the war.
The losers of WWII learned this the hard way but they learned it for good. The Americans have not learned it yet. Starting wars is a bad habit.
By the way : why do these topics always engender insults? The discussion deteriorates rapidly into name-calling.
June 16, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let the other bastard start the war" is a lesson that America not only learned very well but applied in practically every war we ever fought UNTIL Cheney and Bush, master hypocrites and arch-traitors, started their "war" (actually invasion, occupation and bungled-to-high-hell regime change) in Iraq. They tossed aside 200 years of wisdom in order to ape the most reckless and wantonly barbaric traits of Ariel Sharon as part of a general fearmongering strategy to get the electoral legitimacy in 2004 they did NOT obtain in 2000.
June 16, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bomb-Iran brigade has this large obstacle athwart their path: the Americans just got promised a swift, glorious victory a few years ago which never materialized. OOPS.
Do the Bomb-Iran people think Americans forgot how the Iraq war was sold to them ? (1.) The whole sales job was a vast HOAX; (2.) We are stuck there for a long, hideously expensive time and no benefit has accrued to the suckers who paid for it.
War-starters always propose the quick easy sucker-punch, the Sunday Punch, the Fool's Mate, the first-round knockout. ALWAYS. WWI, WWII, etc etc were all going to be walkovers. Piece o' cake.
Sorry, Bomb-Iran Brigade: you want to start a war ? Pass the hat and fund it yourselves. Hire some mercenaries. But do not expect Americans to get enthusiastic. They are bored already.
June 16, 2009 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole macho ethos that Israel assiduously promotes is based on a planeload of Israelis led by Netanyahu’s late brother, in July 1976, that flew maybe 4000 miles to a small, dusty airport with a single-roomed passenger building, on the shores of Lake Victoria, in East Africa, called Entebbe, in a bid to rescue passengers who had been hijacked on an Air France flight from Tel Aviv, via Athens to Paris.
The passengers were being held hostage by the outraged and vindictive Ugandan president, Idi Amin, an ex British army NCO who had a grudge against Israel.
What was not admitted either during or after the incident was that this same Idi Amin was a protégé of the Israeli army itself and had been trained in Israel but had subsequently fallen out with his hosts.
In the event, apart from the death of Netanyahu’s brother, and one female Israeli passenger, the mission was successful and the hostages freed.
That incident established an extraordinary myth that appeared to suggest that Israel was invincible. Using the same criteria, the British expedition to regain the Falkland Islands a few years later was on a scale that made the ‘raid on Entebbe’ look like a small children’s tea party.
Nevertheless, from then onwards, the myth has grown and multiplied a thousand times to the point whereby the IDF believes it can ‘rescue’ the world and Iran just as it rescued the handful of huddled Air France passengers on the shores of Lake Victoria that day in 1976.
It’s a matter of perspective and fact. The IDF, for Israel, are a strong and disciplined army backed by its ultimate weapon – a massive, secret nuclear arsenal.
But without America who supplies billions of dollars for its defence budget and has done so for decades, the IDF would still be a minor militia with limited firepower – and a myth that should have died, like Idi Amin, years ago.
June 16, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When was the last time you rescued hostages, at any distance, from anyone? When was the last time you founded a country and held it against overwhelming odds? When was the last time you got someone to contribute billions to your cause?
June 16, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody here, or anywhere in the world, has accomplished such a fantasy list for decades. You are living in an AIPAC dream-land of a long-gone Israel, Ordinary Settler. Why not get busy building your concrete prison settlement in the Mideast desert, and abusing innocent Palestinian bystanders, and leave us Americans alone? Somehow that "getting billions contributed to your cause" takes priority over morality, truth, common sense, and any clue about what the interests of AMERICA are.
June 16, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no doubt that Israeli society has been coarsened by the long conflict - as has Palestinian.
There's no doubt that success takes a toll too with drunk Jews mistaking bravado for heroism. But you're wrong in every other way.
As for American interests, they're decided by the process you and I are engaged in at the moment and, so far, it is my side which has prevailed.
June 16, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As for American interests, they're decided by the process you and I are engaged in at the moment and, so far, it is my side which has prevailed."
NO, American interests are not determined by shouting matches but by facts.
Your side has prevailed in many ways, no doubt, but my side is pro-America, yours is pro-Israeli-fanatic-settler.
These issue are coming off the back burner of consciousness in the US, and as they do Americans will start defending their interests against those of fanatical tail-wagging-dog foreigners.
America has no interest in idiotic excuses for not giving the Palestinians a state as Israel has had for 60 years and in territory recognized by practically the whole world as theirs for 40 years.
Back to your hideous concrete West Bank settlement, Ordinary Settler Tool. America finished ethnically cleansing its natives 120 years ago, and is starting to get tired of being a patsy for ethnic cleansers elsewhere in a post Cossacks Russia and post Warsaw Ghetto era.
June 16, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This time it's going to be different.
This time we'll show you.
Blah, blah, blah...
June 17, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The different between Ariel Sharon's lapdog, George W. Assistant to Cheney, and ANY OTHER U.S. president or serious contender, even McCain, is of course substantial. What difference this will ultimately make on the trashed West Bank ground that you and your settler buddies value above everything else in the world, is admittedly anybody guess. My guess is that AIPAC, like Orwell's Big Brother, will soon shift to a new pile of stinking blah blah, and its tools will fall right into line pretending that the new BS is no change from the old.
June 17, 2009 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's such a nice thought. So sweet. So innocent. So totally wrong.
Wars don't just happen magically. There a whole history behind them. Who actually, physically, starts the war is, often as not, a question of political manoever and winner's propaganda.
Poland and France didn't start their wars with Germany at the run up to WWII. But Germany claimed they did and, technically, was right about the latter. In reality, Germany clearly was the aggressor and clearly won. So did many other aggressors.
This is life, where "justice" is quite rare, not a fairy tale, where it isn't.
June 16, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A reply to Brian Skuse.
June 16, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever there exists in the threat that Iran poses to Israel, it has very little to do with nuclear weapons.
First, what is the threat? Making adversaries of Israel bolder by giving them cash and missiles. Very conventional missiles. So IDF can damage Syrian and Hezbollah targets, but not with impunity. In any tit for tat, the damage ratio is very much in favor of Israel, but it is not zero.
On the other hand, as the bombardment damage alone cannot force, say, Hezbollah to do anything, neither can Israel be forced to do anything by such means, especially with damage ratio very much in her favor. So it is not EXISTENTIAL THREAT. But a threat, or inconvenience, that cannot be removed.
Bombing of Iran can make it only worse, by motivating Iranians to give better grade stuff to direct malcontents of Israel. There exist escalation possibilities that were not explored, and nobody should wish that. Worst of all, Iranian can retaliate with ease against our assets, meaning, American, something they would not do lightly to avoid, well, bombing, but if bombing starts, they will definitely do some shit, be it in Iraq, in Afghanistan, or Strait of Hormuz.
The example of Ozirak is not illuminating because Iran has one of the best strategic locations in the world, and Iraq, one of the worst.
Contrary to Israeli perceptions, Iranian nuclear program has nothing to do with the desire to terrorize Israel. Not militarily, at least. It is a craftily calibrated program to annoy USA and Israel in a manner giving Iran moral high ground --- after all, treaties give them the right to a peaceful nuclear program, including uranium enrichment. I presume that the political "base" of the regime loves it. Kvetching from Israel is music to their ears. Basically, they need two thing: national paranoia and national grandeur. Not much different from Israel in those respects.
Back to bombing. In Iraq there was a nuclear reactor, a large above ground structure that is hard to replace. In Iran, the dread comes from small and modular centrifuges. How it can be removed by bombing, I do not know. It is not like Israel can go after every single metal shop in Iran as they do in Gaza. So we have a violent non-solution to a largely imaginary problem.
By the way, bluecanary: "But without America who supplies billions of dollars for its defence budget and has done so for decades, the IDF would still be a minor militia with limited firepower".
Not true. American aid translates, at best, into 20% of IDF budget, which is pretty bloated. And nukes, well, if you think carefully, are basically useless. They cannot be used apart from Armageddon scenario, and this is not a scenario in sight (although you could not guess it by reading Likudniks and neocons).
June 16, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say I am surprised that you are under the impression that Israel has not a finalized plan to deliver a 'limited' nuclear attack against Iran's identified installations, is an under-statement.
They wait only for the green light.
June 16, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What installations? Most known centrifuges are in few places, but as I wrote, they are small and modular, and Iran has a production capacity.
Nuclear attack will not make it any more feasible to destroy uranium enrichment, in the same time, political and economic risks are enormous. Say, EU would cut commerce in response to an atrocity. Iran closes Persian Gulf traffic until it gets reparations.
IDF can have all kinds of crazy plans in their drawers, I cannot tell, but even current government will not open their countries to unlimited negative consequences for very speculative (if not outright imaginary) gain. Using nukes without any clear direct danger would make a country pariah, and a small country like Israel cannot afford it.
June 16, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel runs on emotion, not logic.
June 16, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis are aware of the risks. More so than you. Which is why Morris, for one, is pessimistic about the country's survival. What he says is "So what? It's very existance is a miracle"
June 16, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As was Apartheid South Africa's.
June 16, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which part was a miracle: the Holocaust, the global sympathy, the British and American desire for a colonial foothold in the oil-rich region, or the behind-the-scenes economic threats at the U.N. which convinced smaller countries to vote for the creation of Israel, ala The Coalition of the Willing?
What am I missing?
June 16, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything.
June 17, 2009 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink