'Dream of Solomon' by Luca Giordano ca. 1693, Museo del Prado, Madrid
Bob Farley the great blogger @ Lawyers Guns And Money, argues:
At best, the invasion of Iraq has had no effect on the Iranian nuclear program. At worst, it has spurred that program to new heights. Iran is not a dictatorship in the sense of, say, Stalin's Soviet Union. Decisions are made a cadre of political and religious leaders. Some of these leaders are demonstrably more willing to deal with the West than others. Since the invasion of Iraq (and really, since the declaration of Iran's membership in the Axis of Evil) the position of moderates within Iran has been dramatically undercut. Their arguments don't get listened to, they don't get elected, and they don't get promoted to positions of importance. Now it's possible that this wouldn't have made a difference, and that Iran would at least have pursued nuclear weapons regardless of the invasion of Iraq. However, it's clear that the invasion didn't help the situation, and I think rather likely, that the invasion of Iraq has presented the Iranian leadership with an example of what happens to a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons when the US comes calling.
On the surface this is a compellingly thought-out causal chain, but the argument doesn't hold water. Apart from being contradictory both strategically and tactically, it's fundamental flaw is that it is predicated on the benefit of hindsight and/or 20/20 vision. The entire analysis is based on actual results rather than forecasts, and the whole argument is only conceivable ex-post.
Plus, if you step back, it is at it's core rooted in the Chamberlainian appeasement philosophy, which I so vehemently and repeatedly criticize: Do not antagonize your enemy in hope that he will reciprocate in kind and return to the community of reasonable nations. Saddam Hussein however has time and time again responded to that very notion with nothing but contempt and rejection at every turn.
Just imagine if you had allowed Hussein & Co. to continue his cat-and-mouse game with the UN and the West at large - all the while not knowing for sure what Iraq's WMD status in fact was - remember, the chief gripe lies in the assertion that in order to justify operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush administration had told the world that they knew for sure that Hussein had WMD at his disposal when, as you claim, they were in fact not as certain. Nobody claims that they had in fact definitive knowledge that the were no WMD at all.
And so, the fact is that three years ago, the Bush administration, even as seen through your eyes today, did not evaluate Iran as the threat they are forced to acknowledge today, courtesy in large to the current Iranian Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad. History will tell us whether that was due to oversight, possibly even negligent oversight, or whether all things considered, such evaluation at the time was reasonable. And even if they already then did see Iran as the threat we all recognize it to be today, I don't believe that 'even' the Bush administration would have attempted to persuade the UN/West that a regime change would be required, let alone that they would have attempted to 'go it alone', given that Iran had successfully fashioned itself in the public eye as moderate, nay, even reforming (it is in fact unlikely that they would have had the same detailed intelligence they have today, given the fact, that a huge amount of intelligence would have been missing in the absence of operation Iraqi Freedom).
And now imagine for the World to be presented with the revelation today, or sometime in the near future, that Iran had gone nuclear and you are now forced to deal with an Iran GONE NUCLEAR as well as with an Iraq, which you are still not certain as to whether it does or does not possess WMD being right next door - all strong and healthy. Now that is a nightmare thought, which I believe, neither Bush nor Blair were prepared to allow to become reality.
The argument that a hard-liner like Ahmadinejad would not have come to power at this moment in time, because Iraqi Freedom didn't 'radicalize' Iran (an assertion which btw I believe to be false at its very core as Iranian's ruling class is and has never ceased to be radical, just more or less candid about it's true beliefs towards the West), is absolutely no consolation nor does it mitigate the failure to have prevented Iran from going nuclear, given what we know today about Iran's political and religious ruling class as a whole. All we would have been left with would have been the certainty that an Iran gone nuclear is a political time-bomb waiting to explode. I cannot find any indication, let alone sound proof (no less is actually acceptable given the potential threat to world stability), that Iran three years ago and in absence of operation Iraqi Freedom would have evolved during the short years during which it manages to complete its nuclear bomb, into a stable and reliable member amongst all nations, ridding itself once and for all from all aspiring hard-liners of the Ahmadinejad kind.
This has, in effect, given Iran a three year window to pursue its nuclear program and build up its conventional forces. Dealing with Iran in 2006 or 2007 will be much more difficult than dealing with Iran in 2003.
[...]
The Iranians also must know, at this point, that an invasion and occupation of their country is not in the cards. In 2003, this might not have been the case.
This happily implies our readiness and willingness to have supported a military build up outside Iran and the use of force to effect regime change within. That simply would never have taken place, given the perceived status Iran enjoyed then. They were much smarter in those days in hiding their agenda.
Is this comment suggesting that you could see this all along and the democratic "tough stand policy enforcers" would have reacted differently three years ago? Really. I suggest that the House would have been ringing with accusations of warmongering should anyone have dared to suggest military action or utter a word against the "religion of peace".
[...]strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.
Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmadinejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.
So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.
From Iraq The Model:
"I think that now it seems that the greatest danger facing Iraq is not al-Qaeda because rejecting this organization by the Iraqi people was just a matter of time; the greatest danger right now is the possible interference of the neighbors in Iraq's internal affairs to destabilize the country and impede the political process in the effort to escape the pressure applied by the international community on those neighbors..."
In a column titled "The
Link between Terrorism and the Palestinian and Iraqi [Issues] is a
Lie," Dr. Mamoun Fandy wrote in the London Arabic-language daily
Al-Sharq Al-Awsat: "The Jordan bombings are resounding proof that
justifying terrorism by linking it to the Palestinian issue is a fraud,
and that justifying terrorism by linking it to the American occupation
in Iraq is a big lie. To those who say that terrorism in our Arab
region is the result of the American occupation in Iraq, I say: we are
no [foreigners]. We [didn't come from] Sweden - we know the region
[well]. And terrorism existed and was [deeply] rooted in our region
[even] before the Americans came to Iraq.
"The terrorism of the
Islamist groups in Egypt and the assassination of [Egyptian president
Anwar] Al-Sadat occurred before [the war] in Iraq; the massacre of the
children in Algeria began before the occupation of Iraq; Juhaiman
[Al-'Utaibi's] terrorism in the mosque in Mecca took place before [the
war in] Iraq; and the bombings in Al-'Uliya and Al-Khobar also took
place before the war in Iraq. Terrorism existed in our region before
the [U.S.] occupation, and it will continue to exist after the
Americans withdraw from Iraq. [It will continue] until some of us,
especially in the media, are [finally] able to say that the
justifications of terrorism are false, and that the bombings in
Jordan... had nothing to do with the fact that Jordan shares a border
with Iraq... If mere proximity to Iraq causes terrorism to spread [into
a country], why aren't we witnessing bombings in Syria, which has
extensive borders with Iraq? Why aren't we witnessing terrorism in
Iran, which also shares a border with Iraq? Why are we witnessing
terrorism [only] in Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia?...
"The
bombings in Jordan [also] prove that there is no connection between
terrorism and [the issue of] Palestine. Everyone knows that Jordan
signed a peace agreement with Israel. So why were there no bombings in
Jordan after the signing of the famous peace agreement?... Half the
people of Jordan are of Palestinian origin. Why didn't they blow
themselves up after [the signing of] the peace agreement, after every
meeting between the late King Hussein and the Israeli leadership, or
[after every meeting] between King Abdallah II and the Israeli
leadership?...
"If the mere proximity of Jordan to Iraq, and its
contacts with America, were the reasons for the bombings, Jordan would
have been totally [engulfed in] flames. Furthermore, if the Palestinian
issue were the motivation for the terrorist acts, Jordan would have
been the [main] arena for these operations. The Palestinians of Jordan
would have served as fuel for the car bombs, and Jordan would have
burned a thousand times, not [only] once. The fact that Jordan was, and
still is, an island of stability and a center for businessmen and
investments is sufficient proof that Israel's and America's relations
with Jordan are not the [real] reason for terrorism...
"[The
real reason that] Jordan was targeted by terrorism is not its relations
with Israel and America, but the fact that it severed its ties with
terrorism. The bombings in Jordan were vengeance by terrorist groups
against the government of King Abdallah II, which decided to prevent
the terrorists from using Jordanian territories and made it difficult
for them to convey funds, men, and ammunition to Iraq...
"The
bombings in Amman are the beginning of the end of terrorism in Jordan,
just as the bombings in Riyadh were the beginning of the end of
terrorism in Saudi Arabia. A country targeted by terrorism is a country
that that has decided to declare war on terrorism, while a country that
is not targeted by terrorism, [though it] is proximate to Iraq and
Palestine, is surely involved in financing or supporting terrorism.
Therefore, the issues of Iraq and Palestine are fictitious
justifications which have no basis, save on the screens of the
terrorist television channels."
Well Jack Straw is at pains to point out at every turn that military
strikes are not being considered by the West, I just hope Tony Blair
gets back in the "talking seat", and stops Straw from making any more
stupid comments. But don't worry, we're not escalating this thing any
more than necessary. Initially, the FCO is considering "narrowly
targeted sanctions such as a travel ban on Iranian leaders".
That'll show 'em:
Iranian missiles may be able to leave Iranian airspace, but the deputy
trade minister won't. No more trips to Paris for the spring collections
or skiing in Gstaad for the A-list ayatollahs, no more trips to Prada
or Dolce Gabbana. The figures in Hermes will suffer, The Palace Hotel in Gstaad will have reservations cancelled, the French speaking part of the world will be in utter disarray.
Some more Guardian liberal nonsense from Simon Jenkins, yes the same Jenkins that pre-Iraq war wrote that we should not remove Saddam Hussein, and Britain should be talked out of helping us. Well he for one seems to have learned nothing at all, now suggesting that we have picked a fight with Iran we cannot win:
All the following statements about Iran are true. There are powerful Iranians who want to build a nuclear bomb. There are powerful ones who do not. There are people in Iran who would like Israel to disappear. There are people who would not. There are people who would like Islamist rule. There are people who would not. There are people who long for some idiot western politician to declare war on them. There are people appalled at the prospect. The only question for western strategists is which of these people they want to help.
And from Dan Drezner:
Atrios seems convinced the Bushies are planning a reply of how Iraq played in the 2002 elections.
Josh Marshall -- with strong endorsements from Brad DeLong and Matthew Yglesias -- believes the Bush administration is too incompetent to handle Iran:
The prospect of a nuclearized Iran seems far more perilous to me than anything we faced or seemed likely to face with Iraq. But for those of us trying to think through how to deal with this situation, we have to start from the premise that there is no Iran Question, or whatever you want to call it. There's only how to deal with Iran with this administration in place.
Consider what the U.S. has done vis-à-vis Iran: 1) Deferring to the EU-3 on negotiations towards Iran;
2) Backing away from having the IAEA refer Iran's noncompliance to
the UN Security Council unless and until there was overwhelming
international support from key members in that organization for the
move; 3) Sharing their intelligence about Iran's nuclear ambitions with all the relevant governments; 4) Endorsing a Russian compromise proposal that would have allowed Iran to continue a nuclear energy program; 5) Securing the support of China and Russia in ratcheting up the rhetoric towards Iran.
The Iranians, meanwhile, have busied themselves by talking with Third World members of the IAEA governing board to block the EU/US action, if taken. Teheran wants to control the IAEA through greasing palms in places like India and Syria, where the new oil minister and Ahmadinejad himself are expected to cut deals for votes during visits this week. Russia, meanwhile, continues to enable the Iranians by trying to assist the stall tactics. Commentators talk about how a nuclear Iran on their border doesn't serve Russian interests, but it appears that Vladimir Putin has more interest in looking strong and influential than he does in securing his border from nuclear-armed Islamofascists. It wouldn't be the first time in a century that a short-sighted Russian strongman enabled a group of fascist lunatics to push the world to the brink of war through dithering and finally betraying those who relied on him to help contain a global threat.
Yeah
right. No wonder you are not even dreaming of attempting to impeach the
President, the seat is simply too hot right now isn't it. So much
easier to stand on the sidelines, criticize, and analyse ex-post. Over
to you guys, since you all seem to be finally 'thinking', with occasional cries for violent action from those once aptly characterized by Senator Henry Jackson as "born-again hawks."
Iran has powerful defenders and apologists (Russia, China, and often Saudi Arabia), and, far from isolating itself, Iran's ability to intimidate her neighbors is growing relentlessly. Just a few days ago, when Iraqi patrol boats attempted to stop Iranian oil smugglers, Iranian naval vessels opened fire, killing several Iraqi sailors and enabling the smugglers to proceed. Such events do not register against the din of empty words directed at our feckless demands that Iran cease arming herself.
The best quote of the day:
"We are asking they step down from their ivory towers and act with a little logic," Ahmadinejad said. "Who are you to deprive us from fulfilling our goals?
You think you are the lord of the world and everybody should follow you. But that idea is a wrong idea."
"Fulfilling our goals" Hahahahahahaha, Mr. Thug-In-Chief you mean annihilating Israel. "A little logic" in Farsi must translate "extremely delusional". Really.
Condoleezza Rice was right: "There is not much to talk about"
Needless to say, the German deputy foreign minister, Gernot Erler, has already cautioned that this may be going too far, and that sanctions could well hurt us more than it hurts the Iranians. Perhaps this is what passes is for a good cop/bad cop routine, with Herr Erler affably suggesting to the punks that they might want to cooperate or he'll have to send his pal Jack in to tear up their tickets for the Michael Moore première at the Cannes Film Festival.
But, if I were President Ahmadinejad or the wackier ayatollahs, I'd be mulling over the kid glove treatment from Jack Straw and Co and figuring: wow, if this is the respect we get before the nukes are fully operational, imagine how they'll be treating us this time next year. Incidentally, the assumption in the European press that the nuclear payload won't be ready to fly for three or four years is laughably optimistic.
So any Western strategy that takes time is in the regime's favour. After all, President Ahmaggedonouttahere's formative experience was his participation in the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979. I believe it was Andrei Gromyko who remarked that, if the students had pulled the same stunt at the Soviet embassy, Teheran would have been a crater by lunchtime.
So what can be done? Right now, Iran can count on at least two Security Council vetoes against any meaningful action by the "international community". As for the unilaterally inclined, the difficulty for the US and Israel is that there's really no Osirak-type resolution of the problem - a quick surgical strike, in and out. By most counts, there are upwards of a couple of hundred potential sites spread across a wide range of diverse terrain, from remote mountain fastnesses to residential suburbs.
Via Doug @ Below The Beltway, from John Noonan @ The Officers Club :
Where has Europe’s honor gone? Or, more precisely, where has old Europe’s honor gone? Paralyzed by the new age enlightenment of multiculturalism and internationalism, the once stoic continent has become ripe with fear. It fears upsetting its Muslim minority, it fears tough decisions, it fears upsetting the world’s dictators, and –oddly enough- it fears American hegemony.
Related on ATB:
Enemy Of The State
It's All About The Oil Stupid
The Rules Of Engagement,
Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again,
The Unexploded Bomb Of Global Politics,
Has Israel Persuaded Washington?,
Iran Prepares For Nuclear Jihad,
Europe Thy Name Is Cowardice,
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part I,
If Israel Is The Tumor Then Iran Is The Metastasizing Cancer Part II,
Extraction Of The Stone Of Iranian Madness,
Memeorandum features the post here, and Ramjac comments here.
More: Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom, Vodkapundit, Orrin @ Brothers Judd Blog, Tiger Hawk, Dean's World, A Daily Briefing on Iran, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Linked to Sister Toldjah, Basil's Blog,
You are a darling for saying it Richard, thank you.
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Richard,
ATB does that indeed.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 07:07 PM
You know, I come here frustrated with social issues and politics and that damned artwork takes it all away...
Thank You For That...
Richard
PS; No, I never get past the graphics... Perhaps with more exposure...
Posted by: Richard Evans | Tuesday, July 11, 2006 at 06:42 PM
I'm guessing...just a guess, here...that Hannibal Jr. will be able to find what purport to be rational arguments reassuring us that this story may safely be written off as a baseless and scurrilous lie, and also that Rob will be able to contribute to the Carthaginian case, unless (as is quite probable) he finds himself otherwise, um, engaged.
I'm also guessing that Antimedia will find it quite credible.
I make these predictions without knowing, in advance, what their specific pro and con arguments would be. This is because I am psychic. [grinning playfully]
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, January 26, 2006 at 09:47 PM
I digress, what is your final point, with the two quotes?
Bush lied about the WMD, in order to get America to go along with an illegal and unnecessary war.
("Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past." - Bush, 7 Oct 2002.
"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites." - El Baradei, 7 Mar 2003
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Monday, January 23, 2006 at 09:03 PM
Phoenician,
My purple friend, what an interesting choice of name, I love it, but why stress "in a time of Romans"?
I digress, what is your final point, with the two quotes? Would you like to have Saddam still in power, or would you like to have had some more cat and mouse games go on, and more Iraqis suffer? What is the point of constantly labouring the point? Your message must be that both Clinton for confirming it and Bush for saying it, lied in order to conspire to warmonger? What is your point?
You know that Saddam had no WMDs because the Times told you so or because Colin Powell said so. Poor Saddam got framed, the innocent Saddam, what an injustice...should have just kept telling him "Stop or I'll say stop again"
And?
Posted by: Alexandra | Monday, January 23, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Every - every major intelligence entity in the world - British, French, German, Israeli, Jordani, Egyptian, US - all of them were convinced there were WMD in Iraq.
Ahem:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Monday, January 23, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Rob,
[grinning] Well, I'd hate to believe that without your permission...
I do apologize sincerely for the unnecessary crankiness in expression, though I don't withdraw the particular point expressed. I would hope that you could look over all of my comments in this thread and reflect upon the fact that I would be unlikely to bother asking the detailed opinion of somebody I genuinely thought was a complete moron.
BTW, in re your apparent admission that neither troop reduction nor a drop in casualties would be enough to make you admit that Bush had won a victory, since you already have to hand preemptive explanations for any potentially positive developments that will allow you to use those very developments as evidence of further Bushian nefariousness: why, exactly, should Antimedia and Alexandra not conclude that nothing they can say is going to change what you've made up your mind to believe, and therefore to decline to have another pointless conversation regarding that question with you?
That's really two questions, you know, the first specific to you and the second generally philosophical: (1) Is your, Rob's, interpretation of the Iraq situation meaningfully falsifiable (that is, is there any possible outcome under which you would say, "Oops, I guess I got that one wrong and Bush wasn't so stupid after all")? (2) What value, if any, is there in discussing questions about efficient causality with persons who already have irrevocably made up their mind?
If you do think your position is empirically falsifiable, then I'd be very interested to hear where exactly you put the bar for "victory."
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Monday, January 23, 2006 at 02:22 PM
Antimedia,
I don't doubt that we'll see troop reduction in Iraq over the next six months, but I don't think that this has anything to do with victory. Even if I were to accept your suggestion that casualties are declining in a systematic fashion (and I don't; the numbers are well within what you would expect from random variation), the needs of the midterm elections will the administration to engage in some withdrawal. For the same reasons, I'm quite doubtful that the administration will be able to turn those troops around and send them to Iran.
Kenny,
Feel free to believe that I'm an unfunny, foolish hypocrite.
Posted by: Rob | Monday, January 23, 2006 at 01:15 PM
I don't have much time to participate, but...not only do I not see that military invasion of Iran is presently precluded by the war in Iraq, but (a) I think it would actually be easier to invade Iran now and accomplish what we need to accomplish than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq, and (b) I begin to suspect that it will happen sooner than later.
Thus I disagree with Glenn's fundamental premise, which is that we cannot invade Iran at this point; which makes the rest of his fulminating an irrelevant argument from hypothesis contrary to fact.
But as I say, I'm no expert.
Rob, I recommend that you either have the balls to "engage," or else that you don't engage. Implying that Antimedia is the intellectual equivalent of someone who believes that trees eat people, while trying to head off any possibility of having to defend your own position by any means other then baselessly insulting innuendo, makes you look like a particularly foolish hypocrite...unless that was just meant to be funny, in which case your touch is undeftly heavy-handed.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Saturday, January 21, 2006 at 03:11 PM
"Thus it is quite possible to continue to work toward regime change in Iran internally without an outright invasion. Having friendly borders surrounding Iran can only help this process, from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iraq."
______________________________________
Haun, I truly think that America will work really hard for regime change and although that would be the best result right now, it's going to come down to HOW that regime change will take place and we can't keep waiting on the people there to do it alone, because although we know that so many young people within Iran hate the mullahs as much as the rest of the world does, its very frustrating for most of the world to understand and watch more and more young people hanging from cranes and wonder why those in Iran haven't already revolted to overthrow the mullahs, so why phanthom anyone rising up alone under that kind of every day terror and intimidation? Remember that they also have those laws where they can't even congregrate without harrassment or arrest. The internet is their greatest source of communication. I can't really explain it that well...but I think this post by anonymous on The Spirit of Man's blog which is addressed to Joe Katzmen of Windsofchange.net explains some valid points that maybe alot of people haven't thought of before. I think alot of Iranians inside Iran want help but they just don't know where to turn under their oppression and yet how much time do we wait on them finding it as an option?...as Joe says, "The clock is ticking"
Anonymous said...
To Joe Katzman :
Here's my take:
I think the reasons for the lack of cohesion and the "immature attitude" you describe regarding Iranian opposition to the regime are many, but several stand out.
First, the internal and external opposition (or lack thereof) must be separated.
Obviously, for those inside Iran, fear tops the list. When you've seen friends and family members and neighbors hauled off to jail, and know they've been beaten, tortured, etc, not to mention those actually killed over the years, fear is certainly a big deterrent. Keep in mind too, that there have been reports of shooting from helicopter gunships used against crowds in the past.
Also, keep in mind that it is illegal for crowds to gather without permission. Even small groups of 5 or 6 people standing on the sidewalk can be questioned and accused of conspiring against the gov't. This law against protest marches and demonstrations is a difference between what was allowed to occur in Ukraine, for instance. If the gov't isn't ordering that protesters be shot, it's a lot easier to get crowds of 10's or even 100's of thousands out into the streets.
The second reason involves understanding what the people suffered during and after the 8 yrs war with Iraq. It was devastating physically, emotionally, psychologically. The hundreds of thousands killed, the hundreds of thousands injured, people were traumatized afterward. The last thing people wanted to do was see more death and violence. And the killing didn't stop. There were the serial killings in 1998, among others. Through all this, there were brave university students willing to take on the mullahs in the late 1990's, and they paid the price.
The third reason, is that over these years, things in Iran have relaxed a bit and opened up more to the west thru the internet and satellite tv and although people are still not free by any stretch of the imagination, they do have more freedoms than in the past. Living a life that you're not happy with but is better than the one that people had 10 ago, is progress of a sort, and I think many young people feel that things are very slowly continuing to change for the better. So why should they feel compelled to risk their lives to participate in demonstrations that may or may not attain more freedoms that they believe will be coming eventually anyway? Also, there's fear of upsetting the status quo and fear of the unknown.
Now, with the new changes that have occured within the regime, these freedoms the people are enjoying may start to disappear. If that happens, it's possible we'll see more people willing to rebel.
I guess fourthly, we can't forget discouragement and hopelessness that anything will get rid of the mullahs. Also, there's the element in Iranian history that gov't changes 'happen to them' thru outside influences; the British, U.S.. So, a kind of victim mentality, perhaps. And there may be a feeling that the U.S. got them into this mess with Khomeini because of Carter, so the U.S. needs to get them out.
As for the Iranians outside Iran, it's hard to come up with many reasons. I suppose some are fearful for their families still in Iran or for themselves perhaps, but for the most part, I think they're comfortable in their lives and lazy and they lack a leader. I think if they had someone to rally behind, more would participate.
This lack of a leader or someone to get behind is an obstacle for the opposition inside Iran, too. Everyone knows what happens to anyone who dares to step up and represent themselves as "the opposition", so there are very few takers for that position.
I'm a believer in setting up a gov't in exile for Iran's present situation. The plan being that the exiled gov't would move in and take over for maybe 1 year, while the country prepared for referendom voting on just what kind of gov't they wanted and who they'd like as their representatives. The question is, who would be at the head of this exiled gov't? You'd want it to be someone that the Iranian people would want to rally behind. I've wondered about Reza Pahlavi, but I don't get the impression that he'd be interested. Maybe the Iranian bloggers need to come up with a list of possible nominees for head of the exiled gov't?
If the Iranians had a popular leader and knew that he/she was standing by waiting for the rebellion and overthrow of the regime to take place, with a temporary gov't ready to fill the void, maybe it would give them the incentive they need to rise up against the regime. I think it would give the U.S. (or whomever) the incentive to help with the overthrow of the regime.
Posted by: Liquid | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 11:21 PM
If any of y'all predicted that Iran would be radicalized by an invasion of Iraq it would be like saying you predicted it was going to rain at some point in the rain forest if we did x, y, or z.
The ambition of Islam has been the conquest of the world from the beginning. We have read the Koran (taught it actually) and, like, duh.
Chuck the Hammer and Jan Sobieski, among others, kept Western Civilization out of their clutches, but barely, in the past.
The only thing that has kept Islam from the conquest of the West has been their economic and technological inferiority.
That's over now, with oil money.
The new Saladin was to have been Kaddafy, then Saddam, and now?
Dumb Ox
http://thomistic.blogspot.com
Posted by: D. Ox | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 04:48 PM
I just wish that President Reagan had destroyed Iran with a nuke right after our hostages were returned in January of 1981. Sigh . . . :)
Posted by: weekenderman | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 03:22 PM
Iran was on the radar way back in 2001/2002 when they were declared part of the axis of evil, along with Iraq and North Korea. This was surprising because Iranians actually condemned 911 on the streets. But the US has long recognized they had a problem with the mullahs and not the Iranians themselves.
I doubt that the invasion of Iraq radicalized Iran at all. At the time, there were indirect contacts between the US and Iran through European mediators. This started when the US started planning to invade Afghanistan and wanted to reassure Iran of our intentions in Afghanistan. Same again with Iraq. Iran actually saw Iraq invasion as favorable because they hated Saddam even more than they hated the US, and it was an opportunity for them to gain influence in Iraq via SCIRI, Dwawa, and the Shiite in general. (They are still trying pretty hard but Sistani has proven to be a roadblock for them)
The radicalization of Iran occurs when the revolutionary guards started they internal coup against the mullahs. Unfortunately, this was supported by the radical elements of the mullahs, not realizing they are signing their own death warrants.
Their development of nukes is pure hubris with little chance of winnable scenarios for use. If they are invaded they will nuke their own land, and sustain horrific damage from the west/US everywhere else. Same if they use it offensively. Thus it is quite possible to continue to work toward regime change in Iran internally without an outright invasion. Having friendly borders surrounding Iran can only help this process, from Pakistan to Afghanistan to Iraq.
But should we invade Iran, it will not be like Iraq. We will go toward full mobilizations of all our war resources. Much has been learned from Iraq, and the lessons will be applied to Iran.
Posted by: Huan | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 12:21 PM
Rob, I wanted to address something you had discussed. Events on the ground in Iraq are changing rapidly. The Sunnis have decided to join the government and are actively pursuing Al Qaeda in an effort to kick them out of Iraq. IOW the insurgents are now fighting the terrorists. Neither the Iraqi or US armies are involved. This is entirely a Sunni effort.
US fatalities and casualties are down and have been dropping steadily for the past four months. (This month, so far, is one of the lowest in quite a while, and 17 of the deaths are from non-hostile causes.) I think the only reason you haven't seen a force reduction post-election is because the administration hasn't yet decided what to do about Iran. Keeping the troops in theatre keeps all the options open.
I think, within three months, the US would be able to substantially reduce its forces in Iraq, because the Iraqi security forces now number over 235,000, the Sunnis are now battling the terrorists and the government, once it opens in session, will want to assert its sovereignty rather quickly.
It seems the elections really were a tipping point.
Posted by: antimedia | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 11:25 AM
Alexandra,
The Iranian domestic politics angle is an interesting one; you seem to concur with me that the Iranian decision to push forward was at least somewhat contingent on US actions. Having taken this position, I'm rather befuddled at how you have denied, previously, that US actions both rhetorical and military might have pushed Iran to accelerate its nuclear program.
On the other hand, to my understanding the nuclear program is wildly popular with the Iranian public, even that portion of the public that is sympathetic to the United States. So perhaps US actions wouldn't have mattered. Of course, if one believes that, then you still have to accept that the administration made a terrible error in focusing on Iraq instead of Iran after 2001.
And, again, I can't agree with you regarding your assessment of the capacity of the administration to craft a case for military action (if not a full-scale invasion) against Iran in 2002. Iran at that point (and today) had far larger and far more verifiable connections with a whole range of terrorist groups than Iraq. Iran at that point (and today) had a more advanced nuclear program. This last was no secret; even if we credit antimedia's claims that no one could have known that Iraq lacked chemical and biological weapons, there were mountains of evidence that the Iraqi nuclear program was dead in the water, while the Iranian was pressing forward nicely.
I simply find your contention that the United States could not have threatened Iran with military force in the absence of an invasion of Iraq implausible; it doesn't make any sense to me. Iran was, if anything, more vulnerable prior to March 2003, given its long term hostility to the Iraqi regime. To suggest that geographic constraints limited US capability is not credible, given the capacity of US forces to act effectively just about anywhere in the world. On this, I suspect that we may have to disagree.
Antimedia,
I'm not going to engage on the WMD question. You can believe that Saddam had WMD, that he sent them to Syria, or that he ate them on the eve of the invasion. You can also believe that the sky is purple and that trees eat people. Nothing I can say is going to change any of this, so I'll decline to have another pointless conversation regarding that question.
Posted by: Rob | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Those who say there were no WMD are simply putting their heads in the sand. The real question is, where did they go? Every - every major intelligence entity in the world - British, French, German, Israeli, Jordani, Egyptian, US - all of them were convinced there were WMD in Iraq. To believe that all those agencies were completely fooled by Saddam stretches credulity well past the breaking point.
In 1995, well after the Gulf War, Saddam's son-in-law escaped Iraq. He was in charge of the WMD program. He revealed a laundry list of things Saddam was hiding from the inspectors, which resulted in him and his entire family being killed by Saddam. Subsequently inspectors "found" the items he had listed and compelled Saddam to destroy them.
Even on the eve of the war, Hans Blix, the darling of the media, reported to the UN that he could not definitively say there were no WMD, and in fact, he was convinced there probably were.
Furthermore, WMD were found in Iraq. Not in the quantities that would shut up the naysayers, but they were found. Where are the rest? Intelligence says they're in Syria, possibly buried in the Becca valley somewhere. We know for certain that a large number of semis left Iraq before the war and entered Syria. Occam's Razor tells you that all those agencies could not have been so completely mistaken. Therefore there must be another answer.
Those who claim there never were any WMD are fools, taken in by the liberal lies. The same lies that claim Saddam had no ties to terrorism because a secular leader would never cooperate with religious fanatics.
There's no question that these lies have the upper hand, because the media has trumpeted them to the skies and refuses to even look at alternative views. But the evidence proves they're lying, and history will not be kind to them.
If you believe there were no WMD in Iraq and Saddam never worked with terrorists, then you display an inability to critically examine evidence as well as a willingness to believe the media without questioning. That being the case, why even bother to discuss these issues?
As far as Colin Powell thinking the sanctions were working, he was obviously wrong, as we now know. The Oil For Food Scandal has proven conclusively that Germany, Russia, France and the UN were enriching themselves with Saddam's bribes will looking the other way at his indiscretions.
Posted by: antimedia | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Josh,
You have misunderstood, well just about everything really....
1. Rob and I are friends, and as he quite rightly says in the link on his blog "we are having a friendly back and forth".
So your advice to simply ignore me, is kind of irrelevant, unnecessary and quite frankly misplaced in the discussion we are having.
2. I would like to say refer to number one but I have to just add that this comment of yours is priceless:
Rob will be delighted he has you to defend him with such brilliant arguments, I would not even know where to start in tackling any one of them.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 09:31 AM
I wouldn't worry about this, Rob.
Actually, even though I can not swear that I knew there were absolutely no WMD in Iraq the day the war started... I did know that every single claim by the Bush administration concerning those WMD were false.
Similarly, anyone who begins learning about such matters would learn that it would have been strictly, absolutely and completely impossible for Iraq to have developed a nuclear bomb during the inspections regime.
I think, Rob, considering Alexandra's dig, calling you an appeaser on the scale of Chamberlain, you should simply ignore her. Think about it. Would anyone but a lunatic, a blithering idiot, suggest Saddam was about to invade Kuwait again, or any country on Earth? Saddam was no new Hitler, so you could be no new Chamberlain, and anyone who compares Saddam with Hitler is beneath contempt.
It is simply a fact, without any post hoc reasoning, that calling Iran part of an "axis of evil" is going to make them far more concerned about their own national security. This is going to cause them to do what they can (which does not include building nuclear arms, nor does one shred of physical evidence on Earth suggest they are even trying).
It is precisely this sort of Aristocratic war-mongering that led the world into the "War to End All Wars."
I cannot stress enough that calling Iran part of an "axis" with Iraq, then invading and destroying Iraq, and not expecting an effort at military buildup by Iran is stupid.
Posted by: JS Narins | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 08:27 AM
Rob
Let me first say, that I am certain that Bush and Blair had their eyes firmly fixed on Iran as much as on the entire Middle East in 2002/3. But unlike you, I believe that they came to the conclusion that Iraq had to be dealt with first.
But before I go any further, we need to clarify, that this discussion hinges on the assertion that attacking Iran was in fact an option in 2002 (planning) and 2003 (troop deployment and execution). And I disagree with you, that it was.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it was an option, I would say to you that pursuing it would have been the real blunder for the following reasons (and am sure they are in no way complete, as I don't profess to be the expert):
(1) Iran was making a push for reformation, a move which was and still is backed by the vast majority of its people;
(2) that push was ongoing and its outcome at the time (2002) could not have been determined;
(3) Iraq was a wild card which was posing a clear threat to its neighbors and defying the UN at every turn;
(4) Regime change in Iraq and giving Democracy a sporting chance would not only increase stability internally, but also support the cause of moderates throughout the region, especially in Iran;
(5) Leaving Hussein in power and merely hoping for reformers in Iran to succeed would have left the West without any hedge regionally in the event that the reformers failed and would have left the West with no readiness and preparedness to address a burgeoning nuclear threat in hardliners' hands;
(6) In the event that the reformers succeeded, an Iraq governed by an unchecked Hussein would have posed an additional and significant threat for the reason alone that it could have provided a safe heaven for all hardliners to regroup under Hussein's protection - Arabs are famous for stunning observers when arch enemies suddenly form solid alliances in the face of changed circumstances. 'The ends justify the means' enjoys perfect health over there.
That being said, I repeat, I do not believe that there was any justifiable case to be made to attack Iran in 2002/3 given the political momentum in Iran and I am more certain than ever before, that a speedy regime change in Iraq was indeed the very best move for us to have made specifically with regards to addressing Iran and in order to prepare for the event that the reformers should fail in Iran and in the face of a growing nuclear threat under Iranian hard-liners.
My criticism, especially in relation to my contention that your argument is ex-post, is thus much reinforced by your argument that we have allowed Iran a three-year window of opportunity to advance their nuclear aspirations.
Instead, by effecting regime change in Iraq and by having a massive military force outside Iran at the ready should the reformers fail, which they have, was in fact the only politically and otherwise realistic option available.
To claim that an attack on Iran in 2002/3 was even an option is IMHO unrealistic. The true alternative in 2002/3 was ONLY to do nothing and let the UN inspectors continue to do their dance. We would thus today having to debate how to deal with Iran (a) without regime change in Iraq and (b) without a massive force outside Iran's borders.
That would have potentially (we don't of course yet know what will be done) critically delayed our ability to act militarily and thus more likely granted additional time to complete the bomb.
I think it is an illusion that Iran could have been attacked instead of Iraq in 2003 and consequently believe your argument for that reason to be an ex-post contemplation without foundation. I believe the three years would have passed in every conceivable scenario allowing Iran to do what it did and thus say that we can only evaluate our options based on the current situation or on the hypothetical scenario in which we had left Iraq to the UN Inspectors, Saddam Hussein in power and our coalition forces at home.
But in any event Rob, I am having far too much fun disagreeing with you, I don't want to now go and spoil that do I. LOL!
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 06:38 AM
Nobody claims that they had in fact definitive knowledge that the were no WMD at all.
Ahem.
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..." - Colin Powell, 24 Feb 2001.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 12:13 AM
Iran and Syria were on the table back in 2003, believe me. One step at a time...
Posted by: Darrell | Friday, January 20, 2006 at 12:06 AM
Antimedia and Liquid,
With regard to the ability of the US to conquer Iran, or of the desire of the Iranians to fight the US, I don't think that either are in question. I don't doubt that the US Army can defeat the Iranian in fairly short order. I very much doubt that the US Army can occupy a country larger and more populous than Iraq while at the same time largely remaining in control of Iraq.
I find the suggestion that the occupation of Iraq is nearly over absurd; if Iraqi forces were capable of taking over from US, we would have seen drastic declines in US casualties, and a meaningful drop in the number of attacks. Neither of these situations appear to hold; I am rather curious as to why people here seem to think that the job is nearly done. If, instead of making an argument about Iran I was contending that the US ought to withdraw its forces from Iraq within the next year, would the answers be the same?
You are reinforcing my point regarding the impact of the invasion of Iraq on Iranian politics; obviously the invasion has granted a window of opportunity that the Iranians are taking advantage of.
Now, to the extent that the plan to use military force against Iran will use a minimum of troops on the ground, it becomes more plausible. Action along these lines is not limited to airstrikes; US forces can infiltrate across the border and do significant damage without occupying the country. If this is enough to convince the Iranians to give up their weapons, then glory be. I'm skeptical, however, and I'm inclined to believe that they'll be willing to pay these relatively modest costs.
Kenny,
1. Bush didn't raise any significant international support for the Iraq operation three years ago, but pushed ahead nonetheless. I don't doubt that he would have been able to raise domestic support for military action against Iran. This need not have been a full scale invasion, and could have involved airstrikes or other operations against an Iranian nuclear program three years less developed.
2. My recall of 2002 is much different than yours; I rather think that the American people would have become concerned about a state with more terrorist connections than Iraq and with a more developed nuclear program than Iraq if the administration had cared to make the case.
3. Your concerns about the operational difficulties of an attack on Iran are well taken, but not insoluble. The United States had fourteen months to construct infrastructure in Afghanistan between the initial conquest of that country and the beginning of the Iraq War. I have no doubt that the US Army, which has many of the best engineers in the world, could have built workable supply lines. The Soviets did it, and if they did, we could. Similarly, I have utter confidence that the United States Marine Corps is capable of seizing and enlarging a beachhead along Iran's gulf coast that could be used to support operations. As several other commenters have mentioned, the US military is the most efficient and capable in the world, at least in high-intensity combat operations. Moreover, I wonder if a land invasion would have been necessary; the Iranian program was far less developed (by all accounts) in 2003 than it is today.
4. I've made clear my doubts that the fight against the Iraqi insurgency is anywhere near its close.
5. In this discussion, I'm only interested in considering the effect of the Iraq War on the Iranian problem. The question of the Iraq War more generally is a conversation for another day.
Posted by: Rob | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 09:23 PM
Always find it amazing how we now live in this new world with new realities. Of course I may now suffer the flaw of speaking with the benefit of hindsight and/or 20/20 vision..
But I am fairly certain it was here among other places that I read that these things called blogs preach to the already converted with just the slightest chance of perhaps changing a mind not already set in obsidian or something lighter. How darkly we each view the other's argument and intention. Clearly only simpletons and fools surround us in our wisdom. Now what may we learn from history, if only with the benefit of hindsight and/or 20/20 vision?.
Well, there is the Madman Must Be Stopped point that should pop all other balloons and stop lesser arguments with reason before the world simply explodes. And there is the much vilified Munich Moment, that time that that chump Chamberlain championed as bringing "peace in our time." Well we all know what ill came of that.
So we are led to believe these moments and the madness require the most dire actions. And now, not later.
One hears less about the benefits of containment or theory of mutual assured destruction, even with the benefit of hindsight and/or 20/20 vision. What we learn from history seems determined by where we already stand. Our view of the present and our future seems forever seen by the lens of the past we choose to bring it into focus. Or something. Oy.
It nevertheless remains beautiful to come by where all things may be heard.
Posted by: The Heretik | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 09:11 PM
tcdowc writes
And fourth and fifth tours are wrong because......??Here's how it works: 1/3rd fighting, 1/3rd resting, 1/3rd training. That means, when the presently deployed troops come home, a rested and trained group takes their place. (It's not this simplistic, of course, but the principle applies.) We can sustain that level of committment indefinitely so long as recruiting continues apace.
Plus we can put extra assets on the target, in the short term, in large and devastatingly effective numbers (air assets from the Air Force and Navy, which have not been heavily involved in Iraq.) The press and the left have tried to sell you the idea that our troops are 1) worn out 2) undersupplied or poorly supplied 3) tired of being in theatre 4) suffering from morale problems. None of this is true. Our troops are begging to go back to Iraq, almost oversupplied, at their peak in terms of performance and enjoying some of the highest morale they've ever had. Don't take my word for it. Ask some of them. There's plenty of milblogs around that will respond to such questions honestly.
In WWII, some guys were in theatre for three years or more, fighting battle after battle after battle. Our troops spend eight to twelve months in theatre and then twice that time not in theatre (there are exceptions, of course, especially for specialities that are underrepresented.)
I don't meant to belittle their sacrifices, and God knows it's hard being away from family for so long for multiple deployments. But our men and women are the best, most effective, most lethal, most ethical, most well-trained fighting force the world has ever seen. Trust me, Iran does not want to take them on.
They might think so, but a few days of fighting will change their minds in a hurry. Why do you think the Iraqi forces deserted in such high numbers? They knew they were outclassed, and they were unmotivated. Most Iranian troops will be the same way.
Posted by: antimedia | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 08:55 PM
"we do not have the troops for any sort of sustained action against Iran"
TC, do some research on CONPLAN 8022 because William Arkin explains that it is different from other war plans that we have, in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground.
Posted by: Liquid | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 07:02 PM
Absolutely AntiMedia....and has anyone paid any attention to the fact that the 388th Fighter Wings have deployed? Or that Approximately 200 airmen from Holloman Air Force Base are readying themselves for a trip overseas? OR that the members of the Fort Wayne based 122nd Fighter Wing will see its largest overseas deployment in more than four decades with deployment expected within the next three weeks?
It also looks like the 18th Fighter Squadron are getting ready for deployment.
Posted by: Liquid | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 06:58 PM
As far as the availability of our troops, I think that people are losing sight of the fact that the troops that are being 'freed-up' in Iraq are not going to be going anywhere but home. Unless we extend deployment times (again), send soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, possibly mobilize the Nat. Guard, we do not have the troops for any sort of sustained action against Iran.
Posted by: tcdowc | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 06:55 PM
Rob, you wrote
Based on what? It's entirely possible that all the present posturing is a direct result of the war in Iraq. Iran is afraid. Parked right next door are 150,000 troops of the most efficient and effective army in the world, plenty of air assets and special forces assets.How would that make you feel? I think Iran thinks they have a short window of opportunity (before the US is fully ready to take them on) to do something (what is up for argument) before many of their options close down. The Iraqi Army just accepted responsibility for security in Anbar province. What does that leave for our troops to do? Hmm......
Posted by: antimedia | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 06:24 PM
I am going to say some things here that are going to seem unconventional to some and certain to offend others, So I will pat those on the back at the very beginning and get that over with for myself being misunderstood and remind you that it's all my opinion ...but IMHO, to squabble on "why didn't we attack Iran first" or "blame Bush for the radical regime that is running Iran now" is irrevalent.
I definately agree with Alexandra, that the radical mindset has and was there prior to the Iraqi war. Many liberals that hate Bush and the current administration will continue to 'Bush Bash' and continue to use every turn and twist in the day's events to keep feeding themselves. Even at a time of war...some things never change.
I will be the first to admit that Bush has made some mistakes along the way, but that is to be expected as humans will error. The BIG LIE that I feel that has been politically pulled over the American people has been the one of "Islam is Peace" IMHO, The bottom line is that NO WAR will be Won out of Political Correctness and to expect that the war on terror is any different is to fool oneself. I have tried so hard to understand why Bush and Rice kept on reinforcing that that Islam is a religion of peace, and perhaps on a political scale, as leaders which were elected to speak for "ALL" and "TO" the people, that until there was hope that the masses could catch up on the education of what and who the REAL enemy is, it was their simpliest choice to hope, as they were being advised, that Islam had been "hijacked" just like the planes on 911 had, although I feel it was still deceptive to say such, as it shouldn't have been vocalized at all IMHO, the way it was. Why didn't Bush just come out and say, "I HOPE that ISLAM IS PEACE and that the hope of real peace for our future is that those within ISLAM will join us in fighting back on those which 'they claim" have done these horrors in the name of Allah" ... because within Islam itself there is such debate on the two meanings of jihad. Many Americans are just beginning to comprehend this because there is no one spokesperson or one union of intepretation for the whole of Islam. Sure we must address and support those peaceful muslims that are trying to live a reformed type of Islam in the west, those that want true freedom and those that want to truly separate themselves from the politics and the military type of jihad, but we have to be honest and look at the core of what is behind the ideology waging war against us to begin with. Imagine how helpful it would have been had if right after 911 that those muslims would have stepped forward with courage in large numbers and in a strong united voice to make a difference right then and there? But all we got initially was silence for the most part. In fact, one can now look at the change of chosen words by Bush himself over the past few years and especially after the election and after more and more of Islamic ideological jihadi agenda against the western world has exposed itself via using the Quran. The term "ideology" has become the "safe word" and yet if one will be honest, where is the powerful question of "where does this ideology originate and why is it allowed?" I feel if we want to really dig into the "How did THIS happened" or the "How did THIS mess get so radical in the first place since it is not only contained within Iran" then we should go to the core of the ideology itself that has spawned it's existence. How do we help those that are oppressed within it's grip? How do we strip this ideology of it's political strength? Can Islam honestly separate it's politics from it's "religion?" Doesn't seem so for Iran does it? They are questions that must be addressed.
For example, in the desire for a solution, one cannot avoid the realization that to sign a peace treaty or to build false hopes in promises or truces with duplicitous tongues can be of much merit when concerning the security of our children's future of freedom and the right to exist. (NOT when the one at the peace round table is a generation after generation that has and does still continue to groom it's children with the ideology of jihad on a military and political holy war) What good are the "What ifs" or the "signature on a peace document" when the next generation is being encouraged to grow and then override it all because it can be trumped by a covenant with a 12th iman or a eternal reward from Allah via interpretation as we are seeing take place now? How and WHEN will Islam take the responsibility to stop allowing the quran to be used for murder and for holding political hostages? To confront it head on and to do so would mean to question the quran itself and what we have found out is that revising versional qurans in the western world, by just removing the suras or jihadist type verses, hasn't fixed the problem. The big escape is going to require more than a cover-up!
IMHO, who is to say that our leaders, that do get to sit closer to "the ugly facts" and do "see and are aware" of more of the behind the scene grisly details than we as the general public are privy to, have thus made a strategic decision on Iraq as the initial fight on terror for certain reasons unknown to us? With a political correct world's eye watching, who is to say that Iraq wasn't the better choice to place our "western boot" in the middle of the storm? The illusion that this would be a "short battle" still to this day cripples many people's understanding. Wasn't the building of the largest embassy there a clue?
The political rhetoric keeps changing with the help of the media as a tool...but the ideology that wants to dominate our freedom remains... and I have said it before, IMHO, that it will be the struggle within Islam itself that forces everyone (muslim and nonmuslim) to define what side of the peace for freedoms that each of us are on. Don't lose sight that it was that miltary and political jihad ideology of holy war that was pumping inside the hearts of those that turned our planes into human bombs on 911 and thus gave a us a personal invitation into their "agenda to destroy western democracy and it's economics"
IMHO, anyone that thinks there is a bandaid fix solution to stop this domination struggle or anyone that thinks that this war that has been waged upon us is going to end soon is in for quite a big suprise...because those that have chosen this particular war against us are and have been on the frontline since the days of mohammed. We can waste time blaming each other, we can waste resources trying to divert from the reality, but until the real source of this ideology that wants to destroy us is dealt with, it will continue to gain power and strength within the darkest shadow of the western world's continual denial that it even exist and there is no doubt that it is patiently counting on our denial to keep us paralyzed!
Posted by: Liquid | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 06:24 PM
Rob,
1. From a purely practical political standpoint, it seems to me that a war in Iraq was much more palatable a couple of years ago than would have been a war in Iran; and that an invasion of Iran while Saddam Hussein was still a loose cannon in Iraq, would have been politically problematic in the extreme. To put it bluntly, if Bush couldn't have raised political and international support for an Iraq war three years ago, I don't see how he could have hoped to have raised support for an Iran war now, especially with Saddam still sitting there complicating any potential invasion invasion plans.
2. ...the invasion certainly hasn't helped quell Iranian nuclear desires, which was part of the point back in 2003... It was not very much of the point. The American people were not concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons except as an ancillary aspect of the terrorism problem. I'm not saying that the American people were correct in their prioritization, only that war cannot be waged by a democracy without popular support, and popular support had to do with terrorism, not nuclear proliferation.
3. You seem to me to be failing to address -- at least here (perhaps not on your blog) the very significant tactical difficulties of invading Iran without Iraq as a staging area and without the option of invading through Kurdistan instead of, or at the same time as, from the Persian Gulf (I'm no expert but just examining the maps, if I have to get a bunch of infantry into Tehran I'd a heckuva lot rather start at the Kordestan border than on the Gulf shore).
4. You don't seem to me to be paying much attention to the fact that American soldiers currently in Iraq are likely to become available for an Iranian invasion, if necessary, in large numbers over the next few months -- and that they will already be staged in Iraq, not sitting on aircraft carriers or troop transports.
5. I'm presuming that you are interested in the Iraq war only insofar as you consider that it has made dealing with Iran more difficult, and not in regard to the larger question of whether the Iraq war has had overall a positive balance of consequences (since Iran is not the only issue in world politics).
This is not a subject on which I've invested lots of thought, especially compared to yourself, and so I'm interested in the clarification. Feel free to provide links rather than arguments, especially where you've already addressed issues on your blog.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 05:32 PM
Who the heck thinks Iran is stupid enough to want to start a war with the US?
All this posturing by the Iranian president is, just that, posturing.
If Iran attacks Israel (highly unlikely) Israel would be free to repsond with nuclear weapons (not out of the question). Unless the mullahs want to put themselves on the fast track to meet Allah, they are not going to allow this to happen. Israel does not need US help to defend itself against Iran or anyone else.
Israel has (at least) triple digits in nuclear weapons, where Iran, at last count, has zero. Who would you bet money (or something more valueable) on if this came to a fight?
Let's stop wasting time and resources on a non-existent (to US) threat.
If Israel feels threatened, they will respond. End of story.
Posted by: meade | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 04:50 PM
The arguments for differing factions in Iran with different views of the nuclear program don't, AFAIK, hinge on the political position of the reformist movement, but rather on differences between various organs and groups of the more conservative elements ruling the country.
Posted by: Dan Nexon | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 04:37 PM
Alexandra,
I'll see if I can find something.
I have nowhere contended that we have radicalized Iran. Many elements within Iranian government and society were plenty radical before 2002, and remain so today. I have simply argued that it is possible (probable, in my view) that the invasion of Iraq has strengthened the hand of conservatives in Tehran. This is not radicalization; it's domestic political back and forth.
Also, I'm curious as to why you excerpt the above statement, given that it seems to back my argument, which is that the invasion of Iraq has been a strategic boon for Iran. Iran has certainly, and gladly, taken a role in the reconstruction of Iraq, but I'm unconvinced that this is a good thing.
But, in any case, I'd like to briefly revisit my post and restate that whether or not the invasion of Iraq has "radicalized" Iran or spurred it to greater effort on its nuclear program is somewhat beside the point; I think that it has, but I'm willing to entertain arguments that the invasion has had no effect. However, that's as far as I'm willing to go; the invasion certainly hasn't helped quell Iranian nuclear desires, which was part of the point back in 2003. The invasion of Iraq was supposed, in part, to demonstrate to countries like Iran that we meant business with military force. It would seem to me that it has failed utterly to do this in the case of Iran.
Anyway, the rest of my analysis regards the strategic mistake of attacking Iraq in the context of increasing Iranian power is unaffected by the question of whether or not Iran has been radicalized. Indeed, if you think that Iran is a congenital bad actor, immune to friendly overture, then there is even less reason for attacking Iraq, given that the attack could only serve to increase Iran's influence in the region, eliminate an Iranian foe, and reduce the capacity of the US to use force against Iran.
Posted by: Rob | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 12:28 PM
Rob
Look you know I respect your opinion, but I would like to read up on some detailed thinking along your proposed lines back in 2002-3; I have no reason to doubt your assurance, but have failed to dig up any substantive source making the same case then as you are making now. Perhaps you might have an idea where we can find some facts to support, I have only found statements and articles to the contrary.
At this point all I can say is the President should have had you as an adviser back then, because my impression is that at the time the sentiment was not predicting this outcome. I understand it may have been your personal view, but I do not have evidence of such advice being championed by either political side. From Mahan Abedin who is an analyst of Iranian politics, educated at the London School of Economics and Political Science speaking in Dec 2002:
Rob it is simply difficult to believe that "we have radicalized Iran". The reformers and the radicals have been fighting for a hell of a lot longer than you are suggesting. Even the most trigger happy neo-con administration would not propose to interfere in a country where albeit subdued, but still demonstrable domestic democratic forces were at work and two legitimate political movements were battling for power; all very much in accordance with reasonable democratic mechanism for the region.
To blame operation Iraqi Freedom, is simply incorrect. To start with, the problems were earlier, pre-dating 9/11 and very much internal: The reformist parliamentary bills were assiduously blocked by the Council of Guardians, the highly-conservative, 12-man appointed watchdog body which supervises both legislation and elections. The hard-line judiciary kept the reformists on the political defensive through a series of arrests and newspaper closures, embroiling them in one crisis after another. The result was that the reformists had little to show for their four years in parliament and seven in the presidency, and the public largely turned away from them.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM
Alexandra,
Thanks much for the link and commentary.
As to whether the analysis is fatally based on 20/20 hindsight, I'll insist that I was making the same predictions and arguments back in 2002 and 2003; sadly, I can't prove this, because I wasn't blogging. I could go back and check my e-mail archives, although that would be quite a lot of work for a fairly limited payoff... I do, however, think that the consequences of the Iraq operation vis-a-vis Iran have been predictable and foreseeable.
As to whether this type of thought constitute Chamberlain-esque appeasement, I would heartily disagree with you. I concur that there are elements within the Iranian government that are dedicated to an adversarial relationship with the West. However, there also appear to be elements that are interested in some degree of rapproachment. Attempting to strengthen the hand of the latter while weakening the former is not, in fact, appeasement. As you have indicated, Iran is quite different than Iraq in this regard, being a relatively pluralistic autocracy rather than a one man state.
In short, the US has friends in Iran, and some of them have access to the levers of power. This is not a radical assessment of the situation; it quite mirrors the Bush administration's own perception of the situation in Iran. In my view, however, the particular policy pursued by the administration in this case has had an adverse effect, rather than a positive one.
But, in any case, this is quite irrelevant to the question of the three year window, which we have allocated Iran regardless of any differences in our analysis of the Iranian state.
As for your point regarding the Bush administration's perception of Iran in 2002, I think that this is compelling evidence of a flaw in administration strategic thinking. Again you'll have to trust me on this, but it was apparent to me and to others that Iran was a more dangerous adversary than Iraq, and that an invasion of Iraq would strengthen Iran's hand in the Gulf. Virtually every Realist (scholars not normally given to pacifism) in international relations opposed the Iraq venture, largely for this reason. So, yes; Bush administration thinking on Iran has been deeply flawed for a while. Glad that we agree.
As to your final point, which regards the international and domestic consensus for war against Iran, I rather think that GW Bush could have declared war on a ham sandwich in 2002 and gotten away with it. The domestic (as opposed to international) opposition to the Iraq conflict has emerged largely from the continuing failure of that operation to solve the problems it was intended. It's also clear, however, that the administration doesn't care a whit about either domestic or international opposition (this is not a critique), so I'm rather curious about how such opposition could have stopped the administration from pursuing the correct policy in 2003....
Posted by: Rob | Thursday, January 19, 2006 at 10:27 AM