You know at first I thought Let It Bleed's idea was nuts (leave them alone, abstain from UN decisions etc)then I thought about it and it made sense. Every time trouble happens the US is in there and all they get is sh*t from afar and within. Let's do nothing (I'm including Canada in here too) and see what happens. That way it can't be Bush's fault. The genius of this is in its simplicity. You just know that Russia and Isreal are not big on the touchy feely lefty method of solving problems and both have some pretty spiffy toys to play with.Brilliant!

Hey Tex,

I have one and a half feet into the camp of those in favour of converting the sands of Iran into glass. Let's say Isreal finally say's "enough is enough" and sends up a few F-15E's with nukes slung under their wings instead of Sidewinders and Mk82's looking to take out old Yasser's "compound" like in the good old days of daily suicide bombings in downtown Tel-Aviv.

Rest asssure the left-lib nutters will STILL blame Bush for "setting the tone" of a disenfranchised Middle East. Centuries after Bush's remains have turned to dust, some 10th generation Clinton/Kennedy/Kerry demon spawn will continue to cite rabid anti-American bile of "Blame Bush".

Politically motivated bombings (terrorism) and pre-emptive military strikes (aggression), eh?

And why not? Several powerful western nations have done so before, and it's only when others do it that it's wrong, after all.

I'm sure George Bush's favorite philosopher uttered some words to that effect somewhere.

President Bush's philosopher: Love your enemies.

President Ahmadinejad's philosopher: Behead your enemies.

Retreating to stare at ones navel will only allow this to fester. After all hell has broken loose, the US will be accused of standing by while tragedy occurred. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Give in to the bullies and they take over. Iran should have been responded to properly after the US embassy (US territory)was invaded by the students in 1979.

The soviet union crumbled only when Reagan stood firmly, acted against further expansion and challenged them.

How lefties can support muslim theocracies considering treatment of minorities, women, law breakers etc. is beyond me.
enough

I think that Let It Bleed's idea is the best one. Ignore Iran.

I still say, that Iran's strategy is basic; it WANTS the West to attack it. The strategy is - How do we maintain tribalism in the ME? How do we ensure that democracy doesn't take away our tribal powers?

1) Iraq is a threat, because it is transforming itself, with the help of the US-Coalition into a democracy. (shame on Chretien-Canada for opting out, to support his deals with France/Russia who armed Hussein). Iran/SA, Lebanon, Syria are trying to prevent this by sending in terrorists into Iraq, by trying to set up inter-tribal warfare, etc. They can't do it openly; they can't invade Iraq, so, they are reduced to these 'insurgencies'..and it's not that successful. Iraq is still moving towards democracy.

2) Same with Afghanistan. Moving towards democracy.

3)How to keep democracy out of the other Islamic regions?
3i)Keep up the massive propaganda and brainwashing of the people. Have public trials about people who convert to Christianity; you may not actually execute them, but the threat will frighten the population;
Have public threats about people who don't obey the rituals of Islam. Have a LOT of rhetoric about violence against Muslims who don't follow the rules.

3ii)Set up an Evil Other, who can be used to bond the people together, emotionally, in extreme hatred. This will divert their attention from the evils within their own gov't and economy.
So- set up the West/US as the Evil One. Hate the US, don't hate your own Iranian gov't.

3iii) Have lots of repeated extremist scenarios of the Evil West - even if you have to manufacture the situations. The Cartoon Riots were created and manufactured by the Islamic fundamentalists - not by the Danes.

3iv) Still not enough? Still - democracy continues to grow? Get the West to attack you! That will bond everyone together, in a violent hysteria, and will most certainly, empower the Iranian state to maintain its tribal powers.
How do you get the West to Attack?

- Have a Holocaust denial cartoon festival. Aw shucks. Didn't work; the West laughed and sent in their own cartoons.
- Deny the Holocaust; threaten Israel. Still not working.
- Inform the West that you have a nuclear bomb.
Still not working?

My point is - Iran wants the West to attack it, because it is using that as a strategy to prevent the rise of democracy in the ME.

But, democracy WILL rise in the ME..

The ME, frozen in time, in medieval tribalism within fundamentalist Islam, is going to be in trouble. Especially when the oil runs out AND when the West changes its reliance on oil to something else (helium, hydrogen). AND, China and India, with their huge populations, are not interested in a mindset such as in Islam, that is anti-business, anti-science, anti-entrepreneurial.

So- Islamism in the ME, is only kept alive by oil. In Europe, it's kept alive by political correctness and the welfare state. Eventually, Europe will either wake up or go under. I suggest the first. Without the support of other societies, Islamism is like Africa. Doomed.

Nuke'em and let god sort out who gets the virgins.

I concur... I think invading Iran is a dumb idea. We should bomb them from afar. Clinton did that to Khadafi, and it did wonders for his attitude.

Clinton?

America (My home) should walk softly and carry a big stick with Iran. It seems that's what we're doing so far. Iran is begging us to attack them so they will percieve a moral justification for what they have been itching to do for decades. If we did that, all the moonbats would agree with Iran and they would both get their "We told you so" moment...
However, if Iran jumps offsides first and attacks (Insert sane nation here) the situation will be reversed. Iran AND the moonbats know that. That's why they are both getting so hysterical with their rhetoric while Bush basically sits back and waits for something real to happen. He's not giving them what they want so they are both going crazy with anticipation. It's a waiting game that will not go on forever...
Contrary to moonbat opinion, our Big Stick only comes out when there's no other choice.

Yep... don't you remember, khadafi was accused of harboring terrorist training camps... and then something happened, I can't remember what now.

It might have been an embassy bombing.

Too many beers and too many years gone by, but it resulted in a bevy of cruise missles up khadafi's ass.

Sorry Kate... guess it was too many beers. It was Reagan I was thinking of, not Clinton.

I spelled Gaddafi wrong too:)

The point is the same... blow the fuckers up from afar. No need to send troops to send a message.

The one useful suggestion from the three (inept) viewpoints was to invite the Iranian President for a visit.

There's no harm in tryng that route.

Otherwise, I hope the U.S. has the courage to make the military strikes to throw off the Iranian program. If Canada, the UK, Israel or any other country can help, so much the better.

Here's another thought
What do we know about nuclear weapons? I propose the following.
1. The weapon itself is asymmetrical. For a comparatively small investment (compared to conventional weaponry) you get enormous force projection. This force projection capability is so powerful that you change the parameters by which you interact with the other players in the world game called governments and their power.
2. The weapon is about power, pure and simple. Have one and you’re part of an elite club. Once you join you can deter other countries with economies and military forces far in excess of your own.
3. There is no cost in acquiring one. As things stand today once you get a nuclear weapon you join the club. No penalties are attached. Sorry boys and girls you tried to stop me, but you’re too late and we’re in. Pass the sushi please.
4. Using one is irrational. Especially if you use one against another member of the club or NATO and other alliances, AND they link it to you. In this case there are severe penalties, loss of a few million people and economic destruction come to mind. Using one against other non members likely has less penalties as we’re not sure how the other club members would react. But the world would take a dim view and the repercussions would be severe.
From these previous perspectives, as a government with power projection intentions, (nutbar or not) what’s not to love. So to summarize:
1. The weapon is asymmetrical
2. The weapon is about power
3. There is no cost to acquiring one
4. Using one is irrational
So how do we deal with the proliferation of nuclear wannabe countries - Iran, North Korean and who ever is next?
Let’s look at two things. First we must recognize that the problem lies in 4 points above. We keep suggesting rational solutions to proliferation that are symmetrical, where we don’t use our power, where we allow the cost to acquire one to remain at zero. Specifically, we negotiate, bluster, etc. (a rational symmetrical response with limited power with limited cost).
Secondly we don’t use our assets. The first five US Russia, Britain, France and China have a stack of nuclear weapons that are massive in scales 1000s versus 10s in the other countries. This provides for punishing asymmetrical response if one if every used.
So the solution, either on their own, or with others of the big five, the US should declare the following.
1. We do not want you (Iran, North Korea or anyone else from now on) to have the power that comes with nuclear weapons. If you acquire one you will suffer the following cost. If anyone ever uses a nuclear weapon, let’s say Israel against Syria, or India against Pakistan or a suitcase bomb in Brazil. Whatever, it doesn’t matter. First, we will take whatever action we deem appropriate for those parties. Second, in addition to those actions we will also explore X number of nuclear warheads over Y number of cities with W megatons of explosive power for all these new members who join after today.
2. The cost of joining this club from now on for anyone that chooses to join is such that any use is turned against you – the new member. Consequently, the cost of joining is eternal vigilance to make sure no one ever uses one. You are now responsible to ensure no one else uses one, ever.
3. Now that you are down the tract, submit to inspections run by the club or we will deem that you have acquired the nuclear capability even if you have not in fact done so. In fact as of today, we deem that you already have the capability and should a nuclear device explode you will be treated in accordance with rule one.
When people say that’s not fair, that’s not rational the Old club says. That’s true it’s not fair and it’s not rational. It’s about power, for the sake of mankind we don’t want anyone else (Iran, North Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, etc.) to have it. It’s an irrational approach but then nuclear weapons are irrational aren’t they?
JD

In point number 1 in the solution section
change
"explore X number of nuclear warheads over Y number of cities "
to read
"explode X number of nuclear warheads over Y number of YOUR cities"

JD

Some good points made. Iran is a tough one.

Are the Iranians crazy enough to murder vast numbers of Palestinians as collateral if they ever launch a strike at Israel?

Then, I think of 9/11, committed by Islamofascists of the same deranged ilk who boldly destroyed prime real estate in NYC, hoping for maximum casualties, in broad daylight. And, let's not forget the Pentagon and the WH/Congress if they hadn't lost a plane.

In psych(my field)when a psychotic or suicidal person reveals their delusional system or plan, pay attention. We put people on 72 hour holds if they verbalize suicidal or homicidal ideation and verbalize an intent and plan. People who are going to do something harmful are surprisingly open about it a lot of the time.

How crazy is Iran's leadership or is this an entrapment for Bush and Israel? Reviewing past behavior is a good tool to use.

Anyway you slice or dice it, Iran with a nuclear bomb isn't a good thing for mankind. Islam, a death cult in my opinion, with a nuclear bomb is unthinkable. The Iranian bomb is proxy for the Islamic bomb. It's there in the extended family of the like-minded. That's horrifying.

God bless Bush, not since Churchill has so much weighed upon a decent man's shoulders.

Aother point about the big Five.

It doesn't just have to be the US that goes it alone. Britain or Russia could say the same thing.
It's about power and irrationality. Use it and the cost of aqusition becomes too great.

JD

Jay Currie suggests an open conversation between George and MadMud Almondjeans.

The conversation idea is useful as long as the Iranian citizen can follow along.

Conversation may go something like this.

George: Madmud, I know you have a few gripes but ye jest can't blow Israel away, so Im gonna have to blow a hole in yer underground nuker plant.

Now I'm jest askin nicely for all Iraninans who live near the nuker plant to go stay with realtives. No need to nuke any citizens, we jest hafta slow ye down on yer urge t* Nuke others.

MadMud: eh?

George: Thanks everybody, back to airforce one. See ye later there...er MadMud Almondjeans.
TG

4. Using one is irrational

That is where your argument breaks down.

Contra Iran

The Atlantic has not set up an Iran page as the hub site for Atlantic articles on Iran. All of the Atlantic's articles have been moved from behind the subscriber wall, including the excerpts published so far from Mark Bowden’s forthcoming (next Tuesday) book on the Iranian hostage cris. Atlantic online editor Ken Berard advises that the Atlantic will also update the site with breaking news stories ("Iran in the News").

The New Republic has also posted its informative cover story by Matthias Küntzel on Iran's president: "Ahmadinejad's demons." +
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
links

JD
Sounds like a nice plan if the parties involved were a bunch of rational guys having a friendly board game.

1. rational, no
2. friendly, no
3. board game , no

"If anyone ever uses a nuclear weapon, let's say Israel against Syria,"

I think you're a bit confused on who is on whos' team, here.

-Oh no! now I've got Abbot and Costello going through my head :-)

The consequences of leaving Iran alone are too great to fathom. Several months ago we thought that they had 20 centrifuges. Now they have about 164 that they'll admit to. 1000 days from now they will have...??

Letting Iran hang itself, or depending on the rest of the world to deal with Iran will spell a mushroom cloud over Israel, or, many mushroom clouds over Iran c/o Israel.

The European voting public will never allow the intervention needed to stop Iran. NATO, minus the USA doesn't have the military ability to do so. The EU, and entire UN minus the USA, Russia, and China doesn't have the ability to impose its wil on Iran.

Unfortunately, any proposal that leaves the USA out is empty, as nobody else can deal with Iran's military. And, within 1000 to 1600 days, the consequences may be dire.

JD, here's the problem: The UN is useless. Forget sanctions. Russia is doing the old Soviet game of playing both sides into the middle. Energy starved Europe needs Iranian natural gas -they have 25% of the world's reserves - and Russia is playing political hardball with the EU for their NG. Mikhail Khordorkovsky is rotting in Siberia for not agreeing with Putin as to where piplines will go - not free market force(Khordorkovsky), but political agendas(Putin). Energy starved China has cut deals with Iran for energy too.

It seems to me that no oil Israel is the expendable party among the world's oil hungry.

We live in complex and dangerous times with Useful Idiots undermining our safety in many spheres here and abroad.

Yep, "jaw-jaw". As in: "Armed with the best intentions, he went to jaw-jaw but ended up ear-foot-skull-fragment".

Kate:

Mutual assured destruction kept the two major powers from using the bomb. They came to the brink (Cuban missile crisis etc) but ultimately stepped back because the cost of use is too high. We use it and we go into an escalation that wipes us all out.

Remember, I think it was McNamara that concluded in the 80s that all the scenarios they had planned around limited use first strikes, secondary limited escalation strike, etc. were ultimately useless. Because once you start using nukes the political necessity to respond in kind is so overpowering that you escalate all the way to Armageddon. So in this sense it's irrational.

So it's not using nukes that brings power, it's the threat of them. Rational leaders understand this - Witness the escalation between Pakistan and India which has had a recent cooling. (for many reasons I'm sure), But also because the leadership is rationale they looked at where the escalation was going and decided that JAW JAW was really better than war war, especially war war with nukes.

Cal

Make no mistake I'm on our side. I said Israel against Syria, not because I believe they are the aggressor in any way but as a device to make the point that WE DON"T CARE WHO STARTS THE NUCLEAR EXCHANGE, (even our side which I know wouldn't happen unless Israel was faced with imminent destruction) YOU THE NEW MEMEBERS OF THE CLUB WILL BE PUNISHED.

WE WILL IRRATIONALLY PUNISH YOU. SO DON'T JOIN

The danger of course is with nutbars, who don't figure this out. Like the Iranian the president who, by all accounts sees, images of a divine Armageddon followed by an Islamic state.

So we have to up the cost of acquisition. Owning one now needs to be costly.

Which means we need to irrational in our approach. We need to convince them that we are nutbars. We're prepared to go to the wall.

Couple of things missing from the analyses - especially JD's:

1) Iran is primarily but covertly, threatening its Arab neighbours in a bid to become the regional superpower. They would likely submit to the threat, initiating the creation of a hard-core Islamist Caliphate all without any nuke actually going off. The plan might be to obliterate Israel en passant but that's a detail in the big scheme of things.

2) How does one respond to a nuke delivered by truck bomb with no obvious perpetrator?

3) At first, Iran would only have the capability to make very heavy bombs. The latest Iranian missiles have insufficient payload capacity to deliver a Fat-Boy type bomb and it will apparently take years to perfect a smaller nuke and/or long-range missiles with higher payloads. (I'm going by what I've read. I only passed atomic physics on the third try and that was a long time ago.)

There's a lot of bluff going on but the threats can do all kinds of damage.

Penny:

I agree with you about the UN

The US and anyone of the big nuclear powers that want to join need to go it alone. Change the rules of the game.

Here are the new rules.

JOIN the nuclear club and if one is ever used by anyone, anywhere you will be bombed. YOU DO NOT WANT TO JOIN.

We will not accept any more members of the nuclear club..

This is a unilateral declaration by which ever of the Big nuclear powers is willing to change the game.

The hell with the UN.

When they protest just say. . .

"You and what army are going to stop us. Piss-off. No one else is joining. Have I, or we (If more than one decide to do this) made ourselves clear.

JD

Greenmamba

Truck bomb goes off. . . Iran gets nuked.

"We told you not to join the club. Join the club and then a bomb goes off. . . You pay. We don't even care if our side starts it. Bomb goes off. . .you pay the price.

Don't join the club. These are the new rules.

You Join - and a bomg goes off . . You pay.

THERE IS A COST TO JOIN NOW. IF YOU JOIN, (NOT IF YOU USE IT) . . . IF YOU JOIN. . . YOU PAY

JD

This is not as big a problem as it might seem.
You can bet the farm and all you own that when Iran is as close to nuclear weapons as israel thinks is far enough, Israel will take care of Iran.
The country doesnt need to be occupied, and for sure nuclear weapons arent necessary.

Eskimo wrote:

President Bush's philosopher: Love your enemies.

Too bad he doesn't take the philosopher's advice.

What's worse (when it comes to this blog, anyway) is that those who do try to follow that advice (e.g. the Christian Peacemakers in Iraq) are met with lies and abuse.

As for ET's claim that some in Iran want to stop the spread of democracy in the Middle East: ET is no doubt right that those now running Iran fear democracy.

It's an open question, however, if they represent history's strongest opponents to democracy in the Middle East. Look up 'Mossadegh' if you doubt me.

It isn't close to an open question who is more adept at creating an 'Evil Other' to increase domestic political support, however: Western nations, including the USA, win hands down here.

Has anyone noticed who the President of Iran looks like? When I first saw his picture I thought it was a picture of Abraham Lincon.

I don't think the US would use nukes on Iran because they are planing to remove nuclear warheads from some of their submarine based missiles and replacing them with heavy ground penetrating devices.

How deep can one deep penetrator penetrated if traveling at 15,000 to 26,000 miles per hour? I don't know. How deep would the hole be if they sent down six, one after the other? Hard to say but we might just find out.

While we all talk about Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc, etc. While we all talk about terorism, we are really talking about the nation of Islam. One nation, not many.

JD
I know that you are trying hard with your nuclear club idea but it has one big flaw.
It's just a dream.

Imagine this:
Winona Ryder is in your town making a movie. She takes one of her funny spells and gets lost in the rain. You find her pounding on your door, insisting that you hang her clothes in front of the fireplace to dry while she soaks in a hot bath and you serve her Grand Marnier.

Both things could potentially happen but neither is realistic.

I know this. It happened to me. I had to turn her away, not only was my fireplace at the dry cleaners but I only had Alberta Springs in the liquor cabinet!

With Iran, "mutual assured destructon" is not an obstacle nor even an outcome that would be defined as failure. It becomes "God's will". These are Islamists.

That is why they must not be allowed near any type of technology that would expose any neighboring nation to that risk.

Give the people of Iran 5 day warning to get the hell out. then glaze the nuclear sites. say 5 weapons per site, staggered drop to get the most effect.

Or simply tell them that they are now responsible for Iraq's borders, and that the next terrorist that gets through will see them having 3rd ID setting up shop in Isfahan. And that the US will seize all of their petroleum assets and the straits of hormuz, unless the current president is removed in 48 hours.

Iran can be hurt much more easily than it can hurt the US, and it can be hurt worse. Don't threaten sanctions: threaten to seize/destroy all petroleum facilities. Goodbye Iranian economy.

While Ahmadinejad and some of his followers aren't rational, most of the elite and the populace are sufficiently wealthy and free enough to fear threats. A hardline is a great solution, especially as no one is going to back up Iran, as it's more of a threat to all the other Great Powers than it is to the US.

Victor Hanson:

"Radical Islam thrives on appeasement, and really does mean what it says. Once elected, Hamas, despite Western money and support, did not budge from its charter’s promise to destroy Israel. Far from withdrawing his pledge to wipe Israel out, President Ahmadinejad doubled-down on the boast by organizing formal Holocaust-denial conferences, the prerequisite for any Jew-hater who wishes to move from rhetoric to action. Unlike Hitler, however, Ahmadinejad outlined in advance not merely the intent but the method of his intended follow-up to the Holocaust." +
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042006.html
via newsbeat1.com