Iran and the Bomb

[DavidS]

Haggis, I am no more of a prophet than you are, but it is clear to me that the Israelis will not "go quietly" as 6 million Jews did under the Nazis.

[shostakovich]

you're not nearly as cynical as you think. the plan stinks. after the atomic weapon is used, the "clobbering" is pointless. and the clobbering will probably take the form of an atomic bomb. great plan, yeah.

The US and USSR had years or nuclear build-up for defense against just such an attack. Having the weapons prevented their use. No atomic bomb has been detonated in anger since 1945. If world policy is to clobber the party that first uses it, then that is a DETERRANT. If, however, some middle easterm loose cannon sets one off, it would be mandatory to back up the threat --- regrettably. We would all suffer. Still, countries around a rogue country would have good reason to put anti-nuclear pressure on the rogue. Just bear in mind the principle thrust of the "clobbering plan" is PREVENTION.
Shos, who is so as cynical an he thinks.

Shos, your logic is correct when you want to deter someone who has some interest in preventing his own demise.
How do you twist the arm of someone who couldn't care two farthings if the whole of the human race is trashed?

Hi David. Assuming the someone who doesn't care if the world is trashed is a nation's leader, there are 2 outcomes of the "clobber plan".
1) The leader does not really want to get clobbered. Power over people is hard to give up.
2) The leader attacks with a nuclear bomb. His nation is clobbered. Even if he doesn't die in the clobbering, he is now the leader of rubble.
I suspect option 2 will not be taken.
Shos

[analog]

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that an effective sanction program (There’s an oxymoron!) would have some effect on Iran but only if those two wild cards Russia and China joined in. Without them any sanction program is doomed and we’re right back where we started.

To try and remain even I'll just say I'm not sanguine about the outcome

from http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/200 ... usat_x.htm
"(Ahmadinejad) says, 'If we need foreign investment, let's get it from Islamic countries, not the West. And if not Islamic countries, then we'll go to China and Russia,' " says Bijan Khajehpour, chairman of the Atieh Group consultancy.

Radical Islam armed by China and Russia is a scary thought.
Just how wild are those cards?

[DavidS]

he doesn't die in the clobbering, he is now the leader of rubble.
I suspect option 2 will not be taken.
Shos

From your mouth - straight to God's ears!

[piqaboo]

Option 3:
leader and country have nukes. Plan to use them as a big scary stick waving in air to bring us into line. Someone else in the country steals one and sets it off. This is a culture that is supporting suicide bombers.
But when nuked, who's gonna wait to find out if it was done officially or in error? And how long to wait?

[OperaTenor]

I posted this elsewhere, but it's appropriate here, too.

It's not necessarily a permanent war

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060913/news_lz1e13ignatiu.html

Sageman's focus on the generational arc of violence got me thinking about my recent trip to Iran. The revolutionary intensity hasn't disappeared there, but it is certainly further down the curve than is the Sunni world. When I attended Friday prayers at Tehran University, I was struck by how old the people shouting “death to America” were. I would guess the average age was well over 40. The generation of the Iranian revolution is getting long in the tooth. The only sure way to ignite revolutionary zealotry in the younger generation would be for America to go to war with Iran – something I dearly hope we can avoid.

There's another small detail about Iran that strikes me as relevant, now that I'm back home. As I explained in an earlier column, Tehran is a city of crazy drivers who nearly collide at every intersection. But the police are quite strict about requiring seat belts – something I don't often see in the Muslim world. Even fatalistic taxi drivers buckle up. Another surprise: When I was traveling last week from Tehran to the holy city of Qom, there were actually police on the highway with radar guns, stopping pilgrims who might be tempted to speed. And I'm told the new mayor of Tehran, Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf, who succeeded the rabble-rousing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has created a special hotline so people can call and get potholes filled and trash collected.

Now I submit to you: A nation that is wearing seat belts is probably not a mortal enemy of the United States.

This is a week when we remember, with horror, that there are dangerous killers in the Muslim world. But unless we make big mistakes, we should not find ourselves condemned to a permanent war, much less a clash of civilizations.

[/i]

[DavidS]

OT, the world would love the trend portrayed to materialise.
How should we weigh that against Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qayida and the Iranian president's spin on history and declared intentions (not to mention nuclear agenda)?

[OperaTenor]

OT, the world would love the trend portrayed to materialise.
How should we weigh that against Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qayida and the Iranian president's spin on history and declared intentions (not to mention nuclear agenda)?

1) Get off our dependence on oil.

2) Pull all aid and support from the Middle East, including Israel. Nobody gets a dime or soldier from us.

[GreatCarouser]

OT, the world would love the trend portrayed to materialise.
How should we weigh that against Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qayida and the Iranian president's spin on history and declared intentions (not to mention nuclear agenda)?

1) Get off our dependence on oil.

2) Pull all aid and support from the Middle East, including Israel. Nobody gets a dime or soldier from us.

So Israel can no longer buy weapons under your plan...and if they still can you propose not to 'finance' the deal?

I got this editorial from The Tehran Times:

Iraqi Prime Minister's Tehran Visit

[Catmando]

Belated congratulations on hitting 1,000 posts GC!

[GreatCarouser]

Thanks much, but the total is deceptive because I was 'TheGreat Carouser' for a time due to the board eating my id after some vicissitude I had to change so I'm actually 16-1700 or so, but who's counting?....Oh...nevermind

[shostakovich]

Option 3:
leader and country have nukes. Plan to use them as a big scary stick waving in air to bring us into line. Someone else in the country steals one and sets it off. This is a culture that is supporting suicide bombers.
But when nuked, who's gonna wait to find out if it was done officially or in error? And how long to wait?

Hi Piq. The original "clobber plan", a page back, included oversight and accounting, so that who supplied the weapons or who stole the weapons would be known immediately. It would behoove a country to prevent theft on pain of "clobber".

Oh, if I were only president of the world, what a wonderful place it would be (with a much reduced population by peaceful means).
Modest Shos

[DavidS]

1) Get off our dependence on oil.

2) Pull all aid and support from the Middle East, including Israel. Nobody gets a dime or soldier from us.

I quite agree with you.

I have been claiming for years that it is in Israel's best interest to get weaned from the US teats - subsidising is habit-forming and can't be relied upon for ever.

I would also like to see oil-rich Muslim countries set up some kind of "Marshall Plan" to stand their Palestinian (including 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation "refugees") and Lebanese brothers on their feet and give them the opportunity for economic and social stability.

[OperaTenor]

OT, the world would love the trend portrayed to materialise.
How should we weigh that against Hamas, Hizbollah, Al Qayida and the Iranian president's spin on history and declared intentions (not to mention nuclear agenda)?

1) Get off our dependence on oil.

2) Pull all aid and support from the Middle East, including Israel. Nobody gets a dime or soldier from us.

So Israel can no longer buy weapons under your plan...and if they still can you propose not to 'finance' the deal?

No credit, no aid.

[Haggis@wk]

"1) Get off our dependence on oil.

2) Pull all aid and support from the Middle East, including Israel. Nobody gets a dime or soldier from us."

That's your plan? abandon the Middle East? Let 'em settle their differences any way they want to?

I assume you favor the same policy towards Europe and Asia? pull all the troops out, shut down our assistance and maybe build a really high fence around the country?

Then we can put our hands over our ears and sing "LA LA LA, I can't hear you"

Maybe call it the "Pollyanna doctrine"?


Oh wait, tht's exactly the same course of action being recommended by the Democratic Party so I guess you're "in good company."

Sheesh

[OperaTenor]

"1) Get off our dependence on oil.

2) Pull all aid and support from the Middle East, including Israel. Nobody gets a dime or soldier from us."

That's your plan? abandon the Middle East? Let 'em settle their differences any way they want to?

I assume you favor the same policy towards Europe and Asia? pull all the troops out, shut down our assistance and maybe build a really high fence around the country?

Then we can put our hands over our ears and sing "LA LA LA, I can't hear you"

Maybe call it the "Pollyanna doctrine"?


Oh wait, tht's exactly the same course of action being recommended by the Democratic Party so I guess you're "in good company."

Sheesh

What we're currently doing isn't working. As a matter of fact, the problems seem to be hugely exacerbated by our continued involvement.

And this auto-ass-biting seems to be unique to the Middle East, so no, I wouldn't say it would be wise to pull out of other parts of the world while we're at it.

I haven't heard anyone in the Democratic party espouse this as a policy. Show me where someone said it.

[bignaf]

KAAAA-BOOOOMMM

[dai bread]

You're right about getting off dependency on Middle Eastern oil. As it is, you, with a little help from your friends, ':rolleyes:' are financing your enemies.

[Haggis@wk]

” I haven't heard anyone in the Democratic party espouse this as a policy. Show me where someone said it.”

Jeez, are you going to make me look up all the Murtha quotes espousing total U.S. withdrawal from Iraq?

” You're right about getting off dependency on Middle Eastern oil. As it is, you, with a little help from your friends, ' ' are financing your enemies.”

As far as “dependency” you have to define it more closely. As it currently stands the U.S. is more dependent on Canada and Mexico than the Middle East. If you look at this DOE chart the vast bulk of oil imported into the U.S. comes from the Western hemisphere and the only large Middle East exporters of oil to the U.S. are our erstwhile “allies” Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.

As a percentage probably less than 15% of the oil the U.S. imports comes from those countries that might be funneling money to the terrorists and of course none of it comes from those countries that do support terrorism, Syria, Iran, etc.

While I would not be surprised to learn that some of the Saudi money is funneled to the “wrong sorts” I suspect most of that is channeled into education programs. For instance the largest employer of U.S. Muslim Inmans is Saudi Arabia and I suspect that’s the case in many other non-Muslim countries that have an active Muslim population.

While I don’t condone radical Islamic Madrassas that much of the Saudi money supports- and I personally believe that’s the single largest contributor to radical Islam - I can’t say that the money directly supports terrorism.

[bignaf]

it doesn't matter where the oil actually comes in the specific instance. it's a market, if there's a demand here, all the suppliers make more money. the oil we get from Saudi-arabia, is oil China can't get from them and they get it from Iran. our demand increases the price. basic economics. do I even have to write this?!?!