You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran
2007-09-18
Yeah, we may be able to deter Iran from using them. Directly. But the regime has stated that they are at the service of those who would undo the US. Which means to me that they will hand them one-off deniable nuclear material/bombs and wait to see what happens next. In my opinion, Abizaid isn't factoring this in, or he isn't giving it the weight he should be. Or maybe he is . . . .
Insurgency grew during his command. Is shrinking under Petraeus.
I respect the general but I think he's mistaken: once Iran has the bomb it will do two things. First is to mate it to a missile and use the threat of that to cow neighboring states to their well. Second is to work for the day they can hand it to their favorite group of terrorists with plausible deniability. Either outcome is really bad for us.
WASHINGTON - Every effort should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them. "Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability. "I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States. "There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."
None of whom were/are waiting for the twelfth imam to appear.
He stressed that he was expressing his personal opinion and that none of his remarks were based on his previous experience with U.S. contingency plans for potential military action against Iran.

Abizaid stressed the dangers of allowing more and more nations to build a nuclear arsenal. And while he said it is likely that Iran will make a technological breakthrough to obtain a nuclear bomb, "it's not inevitable."

Abizaid suggested military action to pre-empt Iran's nuclear ambitions might not be the wisest course. "War, in the state-to-state sense, in that part of the region would be devastating for everybody, and we should avoid it — in my mind — to every extent that we can," he said. "On the other hand, we can't allow the Iranians to continue to push in ways that are injurious to our vital interests."
So we should avoid war but shouldn't avoid war.
He suggested that many in Iran — perhaps even some in the Tehran government — are open to cooperating with the West. The thrust of his remarks was a call for patience in dealing with Iran, which President Bush early in his first term labeled one of the "axis of evil" nations, along with North Korea and Iraq. He said there is a basis for hope that Iran, over time, will move away from its current anti-Western stance.
Starting the day after the Mad Mullahs™ are deposed.
Abizaid's comments appeared to represent a more accommodating and hopeful stance toward Iran than prevails in the White House, which speaks frequently of the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions. The administration says it seeks a diplomatic solution to complaints about Iran's alleged support for terrorism and its nuclear program, amid persistent rumors of preparations for a U.S. military strike.

Abizaid expressed confidence that the United States and the world community can manage the Iran problem. "I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran — that the United States can deliver clear messages to the Iranians that makes it clear to them that while they may develop one or two nuclear weapons they'll never be able to compete with us in our true military might and power," he said.
Containment worked modestly well with the old Soviet Union because nearly the entire West was -- officially, at least -- signed on to it. It didn't work with Iraq because Germany, France, China and Russia wouldn't agree to continue sanctions. Why would anyone think containment work with Iran, given the situation is likely to be similar to Iraq? China and Russia have already made clear that they'll do business with the Mad Mullahs™.
He described Iran's government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East. "We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it," he said. He then added his remark about finding ways to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
And if none of that works, what then?
Abizaid made his remarks in response to questions from his audience after delivering remarks about the major strategic challenges in the Middle East and Central Asia — the region in which he commanded U.S. forces from July 2003 until February 2007, when he was replaced by Adm. William Fallon.
Posted by:gorb

#10  Post #9 is mine.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-09-18 23:19  

#9  Sure, the world could live with a nuclear Iran.

And the world could live under shari'a law.

There's also a lot of people on this earth that will work extremely hard to make sure neither happens, even if it takes nuclear war. A nuclear Iran would be the single greatest strategic blunder of this new century. People like Abizaid who paint pictures of a world that countenances a nuclear Iran do nobody any good. It is tantamount to appeasement. Far better to continue working out strategies for crushing Tehran's mullahs than concede the battle before it is fought.
Posted by: Thavirt Stalin7960   2007-09-18 23:11  

#8  Sorry, AD, this is a very unimpressive display and as lotp notes, his tenure was not the highlight of our time in Iraq. What is even more frustrating is that Casey is CoS. Bright they may be, but victorious they weren't. And in war there is no substitute for victory.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-09-18 22:12  

#7  Okay, I'll bite, iff RUSSIA's panties are in a wad over spreading US-influence in its peripheries, what makes the Abhizaid think it will tolerate a Radical Iran wid nuke IRBMS, let alone ICBMS + TCMS, etc. *Lest we fergit, IRAN HAS ALREADY SAID OR INFERRED IT IS WILLING TO USE ANY AND ALL ARMED PROXY ORGS [read - Terror groups]UNDER ITS CONTROL TO STRIKE BACK AT THE US AND US INTERESTS - read, US Allies. Russia [and CHINA]knows the Islamist Sword/Bomb is aimed at it also, not just the USA-West.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-09-18 22:04  

#6  Gen. Abizaid is no dummy. Of all the options presented to him at the time he was in charge and did pretty damn well.

Of course you couldn't tell from the MSM 24/7/365 HACK JOB on him and GWB but overall he took a track and pursued it well.

In Fact under his watch we made headway in secret talks with the Sunnis Tribes. Wasn't the Chubby Homocidal Maniac Zarqawi offed under his watch.

*********************************************

Abizaid: "World could abide nuclear Iran"

CRITICAL PROBLEM:

If you are wrong General Abizaid, what then?

General Abizaid, "WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT."

OH Yea General Abizaid? What's this WE Shit?

I don't care so mutch about us old bastids General Abizaid..

How about my Children or my Children's Children? How about all of our Children? USA, EUrope, Israel...
Posted by: Red Dawg   2007-09-18 19:33  

#5  MAD won't work with Mad Mullahs. The Soviets were evil but rational. Same with the Chinese. The Iranians are different.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2007-09-18 18:02  

#4  Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran

Thanks but no thanks, General. No nukes for nutz!!!
Posted by: Dave D.   2007-09-18 17:28  

#3  The difference between the previous strategy and the current one is the difference between starting your house with a magnificent roof versus building a solid foundation.
Posted by: Perfesser   2007-09-18 17:17  

#2  It really got my blood presure up yesterday when I was sent a link to the article and read it.

Insurgency grew during his command. Is shrinking under Petraeus.

WORD!
Posted by: twobyfour   2007-09-18 16:38  

#1  Someone who insists on seeing the world through his Western perspective.

Why does he think Iran is NOT a "suicide nation"?

What does he know (understand) about the cult of the 12th Imam?

What does he think about Iran's comments on nuking Israel as soon as they can?

Why is he so sure that Iran won't supply nukes to their terrorist proxies?

His comparison with USSR & China is disingenuous at best.

"... is a basis for hope that Iran, ..." and just what is that, pray tell?

Pollyanna, here we go again.
Posted by: AlanC   2007-09-18 16:36  

00:00