Article

2004-12-12 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

E3-Iran: Begin Comprehensive Nuke Talks, Again (Why, No One Knows)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 01:49|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1
It is nothing short of remarkable how Europe continues to expect that Iran will operate in good faith on this issue. The Iranian mullahs consistently have lied through their teeth about anything and everything to do with their nuclear program. They have already admitted to procuring some of their technology on the black market. Isn't this admission of clandestine activity sufficient indication that all may not be exactly what it seems in Iran?

In a number of very telling ways, this all boils down to one central issue, namely, Bad Faith.

Europe has failed to assert itself against Iran due to overriding trade concerns and petrochemical supply. This conflict of interest has caused a distinct amount of bad faith interaction between our ostensible allies and American diplomatic interests. Furthermore, Europe continues to be delusional in expecting that Iran will cooperate constructively with respect to their nuclear program. Confronted with clear evidence of Iranian duplicity, Europe pretends that their strategic goals can be attained without clearly delineating punitive measures that Iran must face for noncompliance.

Such nuanced attempts to secure cooperation from a clearly underhanded and hostile entity is the height of stupidity. To believe that any progress is possible without having first made perfectly clear that alternative forms of intervention are just as easily on the table effectively neuters Europe's attempts at mediating this crisis. Be aware that it is not merely European complaisance that is encouraging this dangerous turn of events.

Iran's mullahs physically embody everything that is wrong with Islamism. Be it their long standing war by terrorist proxy against Israel through Hizbullah, the willful violation of international soil in the 1979 embassy takeover, massive human rights abuses or intentionally destabilizing regional security in the name of their religious goals. Again, we are confronted with Bad Faith. In this case, it takes the form of a religion that is completely warped out of recognizable shape by hatred and religious intolerance. Such malign intent is used to justify any and all forms of deceit and treachery.

It is not just in Iran that Islam is being transmuted into a Bad Faith. However, Iran serves as an adequate example and continues to justify all expectations of hostile intent upon their part. At some point, other Islamic countries will need to take a long hard look at how Iran is quite successfully besmirching the name of Islam to all and sundry. The lackluster condemnation of Iran's constant lies by surrounding Arab nations creates nothing but a perception of solidarity with the mullahs.

Such unspoken alignment casts all other putative gestures at fighting terrorism in an extremely dubious light. Even more moderate Arab cultures nonetheless demonstrate Bad Faith by their silent or tacit support for Iran. For them to simultaneously lay claim to religious persecution in the war on terrorism while engaging in this subterfuge is a clear demonstration of Bad Faith. That such dissembling is so frequently justified by the dictates of religious doctrine permanently erodes any legitimacy of their belief structure.

Soon enough, this sort of constant perfidy and sanctimonious abuse of religious freedom or tolerance will come to brand Islam permanently as an ultimately Bad Faith.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 3:11:00 AM|| 2004-12-12 3:11:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Zen, there ain't no faith to begin with. It's all rope-a-dope, and the Euros are acting more like WWF stooges than Joe Frazier.

The main point here is, the Three Dwarves are on Iran's side. The mutual objective is to constrain the US warmonger, not to constrain Iran.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:35:26 AM|| 2004-12-12 3:35:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Do you promise to only use it on (spit) Jews?

Posted by gromgorru 2004-12-12 7:42:36 AM|| 2004-12-12 7:42:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Iran is clearly on the highway to hell.
The Europeans care about nothing but their lavish
pensions and the good life and will let nothing
distract them from their lemming ways.
They will gladly sell theirs son's heritage for todays "pot of schmaltz". Unfortunately for the 3E, neither the US nor Israel are fooled by the Mullah's evasive maneuvers.
Depending on the Iraqi situation, I expect some US heavy action within less then a year. I hope the US acts before we (Israel) are forced to act out of desperation.
If Israel is forced to act, it will most probably not be through any diplomatic channel (unless you consider the use of bunker-busters as a sort of extreme diplomacy).

Posted by Elder of Zion 2004-12-12 8:32:22 AM|| 2004-12-12 8:32:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5
Re #1 (Zenster)
I think you're too harsh and premature with your criticism. Europe has reacted to Iran's nuclear program, and Europe's reaction has caused good results so far. You are furious about your own certainty that eventually in the future Europe will yield and Iran will advance in this dispute.

Iran's economy is in a very bad state. Unemployment is very high. Large enterprises are going bankrupt. In general, Iran's economy is stagnant or even declining. In these circumstances, Europe's threats to restrict trade with Iran over this issue have exerted pressure on Iran quite effectively. I have the impression that Europe is firmly committed to staying its course on this issue.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 9:52:57 AM|| 2004-12-12 9:52:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Europe's reaction has caused good results so far

show me one friggin good result, UN-boy. Time bought to create a weapon to kill Joooos and Americans? We know where you stand, asshole

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-12 9:58:04 AM|| 2004-12-12 9:58:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Iran's economy is in a very bad state. Unemployment is very high. Large enterprises are going bankrupt. In general, Iran's economy is stagnant or even declining. In these circumstances, Europe's threats to restrict trade with Iran over this issue have exerted pressure on Iran quite effectively. I have the impression that Europe is firmly committed to staying its course on this issue.

If their economy is in such a bad state, where is any European condemnation of Iran's significant human rights violations? That the mullahs cheerfully divert their petrodollar wealth (handily supplied by Europe) towards building atomic weapons instead of feeding or employing their own people is essentially a war crime.

Or are you willing to argue that Iran is not actually attempting to build nuclear weapons? If you are not, do you perceive even the least difference between Iran's bait-and-switch stalling tactics and those routinely used by North Korea? Do you deny that both countries are essentially building atomic weapons out of the bones and blood of their citizens?

If you concede that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, then Europe's nuanced negotiating posture is just that, a pose, and a spineless one at that. To believe that negotiations with religious fanatics, which are not backed up by the explicit threat of military intervention, have the least chance of success is flat-out delusional.

Is this the course you suggest that Europe should stay? One of totally ineffective persuasion dedicated to peaceful solutions which their adversary (yes, adversary) has ZERO intention of fulfilling? From all appearances, the only course that Europe is "staying" involves a headlong rush towards becoming Eurabia.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 12:52:33 PM|| 2004-12-12 12:52:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#8
If their economy is in such a bad state, where is any European condemnation of Iran's significant human rights violations?

Is this close enough for you? I know it's not exactly what you want, but I'm sure the Europeans have condemned Iranian human rights violations a zillion times.

That the mullahs cheerfully divert their petrodollar wealth (handily supplied by Europe) towards building atomic weapons instead of feeding or employing their own people is essentially a war crime.

No, it isn't.

Or are you willing to argue that Iran is not actually attempting to build nuclear weapons?

Yes, I think Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.

Do you deny that both countries (Iran and North Korea) are essentially building atomic weapons out of the bones and blood of their citizens?

I think Iran and North Korea are building atomic weapons at great and wasteful expense to their citizens.

If you concede that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, then Europe's nuanced negotiating posture is just that, a pose, and a spineless one at that.

That's a non sequitur. That's your own logic, which is faulty. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, as you seem to believe.

To believe that negotiations with religious fanatics, which are not backed up by the explicit threat of military intervention, have the least chance of success is flat-out delusional.

These negotiations are backed up by the explicit threat of economic sanctions. They have some chance of success, if Europe persists and if Iran decides that it needs trade with Europe more than it needs nuclear weapons right now.

Success isn't guaranteed. Success isn't guaranteed also if you back up the negotiations with explicit threats of military intervention.

I expect that Europe will persist on this issue because Europe very much wants to prove to the USA that it's able to succeed with its own non-military methods, and because Europe is strongly opposed to nuclear proliferation.

I expect that Iran might eventually yield, because Iran needs trade with Europe more than it needs nuclear weapons.

Time will tell.

From all appearances, the only course that Europe is "staying" involves a headlong rush towards becoming Eurabia.

I don't think so.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 1:38:09 PM|| 2004-12-12 1:38:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 You had to leave yesterday so I'll repost in the spirt of Sunday.

Mike what would be the best way to create a more effective and vital UN? Would more money help? Or would a deep seated conviction be better? Do you think losing the powder puff blue would help? Or is the tradition to strong. Let's talk silver patterns now, I am fond of Stratevari, should the UN cafeteria settle on one or spread out the patterns in hope of spreading good cheer? Do you think UN licesne plates are a good thing Mike? Should I be allowed to buy one?

I'll be around till 3:15 and then back again as necessary.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-12 1:57:55 PM|| 2004-12-12 1:57:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Would more money help?

Not more American money. No way. No phuquing way.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-12-12 2:24:05 PM|| 2004-12-12 2:24:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The nuclear non-proliferation regime is broken and arguably always has been. The sanctions available under the current international regime are not sufficient to stop a state that wants the bomb (and has the resources) getting it. Iran wants the bomb and will get it, unless and until someone is prepared to go further in stopping in them. Economic santions won't work unless they are backed up with military force and that won't happen unless one or more states decides to take the matter into its own hands and Iran gives them a pretext. I don't think Israel has the wherewithal, and baring something totally unexpected from Russia, this means either the USA takes military action against Iran or they get the bomb.

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-12 2:35:55 PM|| 2004-12-12 2:35:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I think Iran and North Korea are building atomic weapons at great and wasteful expense to their citizens.

Your overly polite assessment does not quite ring true. The starvation in North Korea and general poverty in both Iran and North Korea are a direct and intentional result of their respective governments' obsession with acquiring nuclear weapons.

That people must die because their own government refuses to feed them and instead funds extravagant weapons programs, is a form of intentional slaughter. Since it is done in the name military might, I equate it with a war crime against their own people. Call it a crime against humanity, if you wish. The upshot remains the same.

Iran and North Korea are murdering untold thousands of their citizens through a combination of malign neglect for the common weal and a willingness to risk their country's economic or strategic security. This is done in the name of pursuing a false sense of military ascendancy and is nothing more than tyrannical despotism.

I expect that Iran might eventually yield, because Iran needs trade with Europe more than it needs nuclear weapons.

Your assesment ignores the glaring fact that Iran has already made public pronouncements regarding how pursuit of nuclear technology is a religious duty, right alongside the annihilation of Israel. What sort of economic deterrent is going to avert such fanaticism? How is Europe able to overlook Iran's violent hostility towards its neighbors?

Throughout history, Europe's style of appeasement has never proved functional against such maniacs. Delayed application of military might in suppressing such virulent ambitions has repeatedly cost the lives of untold MILLIONS.

Europe stood idly by while millions died before, and they are once again engaging in diplomatic dilettantism while the danger surrounding them increases. Their negotiating track record is abysmal and shows ZERO promise of averting, or even stalling, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Given Europe's support for the Intifada and Hamas, it is difficult to avoid the perception that an undercurrent of anti-Semitism pervades their overly friendly tack with Iran. I'd love to be wrong about that, but unless Europe forcefully asserts itself in its dealing with Iran's hostility towards Israel, then they are complicit in seeking the Jewish state's demise.

There is no way to deal economically with an entity that sponsors terrorism whilst simultaneously deluding oneself that sanctions will have any positive effect. When dealing with those who resort to duplicity and deceit, one must do so from a position of strength or simply accept defeat as a given. Europe is negotiating itself into oblivion and endangering both the entire Middle East and America at the same exact time. This is not acceptable.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 2:46:34 PM|| 2004-12-12 2:46:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 As the famed Dandy Don Meredith once said, "if wishes and wants were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas."

Posted by Capt America 2004-12-12 3:16:53 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:16:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#14
Re #12 (Zenster):
The starvation in North Korea and general poverty in both Iran and North Korea are a direct and intentional result of their respective governments' obsession with acquiring nuclear weapons. That people must die because their own government refuses to feed them and instead funds extravagant weapons programs, is a form of intentional slaughter. Since it is done in the name military might, I equate it with a war crime against their own people.

That's very loose logic. You need to be more careful about assigning intention and about assigning definitions.

I know it's fun to vent your emotions. If you want to convince people who aren't already convinced, though, you will need to argue more logically.

... Iran has already made public pronouncements regarding how pursuit of nuclear technology is a religious duty .... What sort of economic deterrent is going to avert such fanaticism?

Iran has already yielded quite a bit because of Europe's economic threats.

If Iran is so impossibly fanatic, then why do you insist that military threats would make any difference?

Throughout history, Europe's style of appeasement has never proved functional against such maniacs.

A couple weeks ago, we had a thread that discussed Nevile Chamberlain, who applied the policy that he himself called "appeasement." I pointed out that he "appeased" Hitler and that he also drew some lines that Hitler could not cross. Hitler crossed the line anyway, then Chamberlain declared war, to Hitler's great surprise.

If Iran fails to comply with the lines that Europe is drawing on this issue, then Iran might be very surprised to find out that Europe indeed imposes economic sanctions very decisively.

I think something similar might happen in this situation. Time will tell.

Europe stood idly by while millions died

The United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany. Let's not get into an argument about the "...while millions died" part, because that has lots of complications. The essential point here is that the UK and France "appeased" Germany, and then when Germany went too far, then those "appeasing Europeans" declared war.

In the case of Iran's nuclear weapons, Europe is not threatening war, but rather economic sanctions. So far, Europe has been rather firm in its stance, and I expect that Europe will persist. If Iran crosses the lines, then Europe indeed will impose economic sanctions.

Given Europe's support for the Intifada and Hamas

I don't share your impression that Europe supports the Intifada and Hamas.

Europe is negotiating itself into oblivion and endangering both the entire Middle East and America at the same exact time. This is not acceptable.

Apparently it's not acceptable with you. Europe is, however, helping to move Iran in the right direction, away from its nuclear-weapons program.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 3:30:06 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:30:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Here's the acid test for our European "allies": tell us, please, which is a preferable outcome in your view,

A) a nuclear Iran which does substantial trade with Europe and which menaces Israel and the new Iraqi government, or

B) a non-nuclear Iran boxed in by aggressive US military pressure including sanctions and a blockade?

Is there really any doubt which outcome the Euro Dwarves prefer? If so, then why continue the pretense that they're "negotiating" with Iran?

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:32:33 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:32:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 What do you think, Mike S? Do you truly believe that the Europeans would support, under any reasonable scenario, the application of any kind of meaningful pressure on the Iranians in order to prevent their getting nukes?

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 3:33:46 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:33:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#17
Re #9 (Shipman) Mike what would be the best way to create a more effective and vital UN? ....

I did read your comment the other day, but after midnight and too late to respond then.

I don't have a simple solution to the UN's problems or to the world's problems.

I don't blame the world's problems on the UN. When I see an extremely difficult problem (e.g. Palestine, Darfur, Rwanda), I don't reflexively blame the UN, as so many people here do.

The UN is a very inclusive organization, which includes good and bad states, good and bad societies, good and bad people -- and all those inbetween. We the good can rage and complain about the bad. We the good can rage and complain that they the bad are dragging us down. I think, though, that we the good are also pulling the bad up.

I think the USA is the most advanced country and society in the world. The other countries trail us by decades and centuries. Some other countries are even moving backward.

So, we should be patient. We should keep trying. We should continue to participate in the UN (which we the USA basically created) with the resigned understanding that we are making only very, very slow progress -- and that sometimes we are even moving one step backward and two steps forward.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 3:46:58 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:46:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 That's very loose logic. You need to be more careful about assigning intention and about assigning definitions.

In the case of North Korea, at least, it's not loose logic. It's the result of a deliberate and publicly stated policy to keep the country out of the global economic system. The result is that the only income for North Korea (beyond aid, which they demand brazenly) is the development and sale of weaponry and nuclear technology.

The starvation in that country AND the nuclear proliferation are directly choices by the leadership.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-12 3:48:37 PM|| 2004-12-12 3:48:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 So, we should be patient. We should keep trying.

Getting back to the Iranian nightmare, we don't have much time left. Which do you think the Three Dwarves prefer, Mike? Containment of Iran by an aggressive US, or containment of the US in the Persian Gulf via new EU-Iran links and influence?

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 4:00:05 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:00:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#20
Re #15 and #16 (lex):

... which is a preferable outcome in your view, A) a nuclear Iran which does substantial trade with Europe and which menaces Israel and the new Iraqi government, or B) a non-nuclear Iran boxed in by aggressive US military pressure including sanctions and a blockade?

I don't prefer A at all. If Europe's economic pressure succeeds in moving Iran away from its nuclear-weapons program, then I would be happy about that.

I don't think the USA will exert any more military pressure on Iran than it has been doing for the past quarter century. President Bush isn't going to attack Iran any more than Europe is going to attack Iran.

Do you truly believe that the Europeans would support .... any kind of meaningful pressure on the Iranians in order to prevent their getting nukes?

Europe's threat of economic sanctions is meaningful pressure, in my opinion, because I think Europe actually would impose them and because I think they would be devastating to Iran's economy.

I don't think Europe would support US military action against Iran until the economic sanctions are imposed and fail. But that's also why I think that Europe really would impose the economic sanctions. Europe perceives that Europe itself must put up or shut up this time on this issue.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 4:01:16 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:01:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Some other countries are even moving backward.

So, we should be patient.

Sometimes patience is not a virtue. Patiently sitting on some railroad tracks is essentially a form of suicide.

Patiently hoping for reform in countries that are actively regressing into barbarism (even whilst they seek the most modern weapons), goes beyond stupid.

We are not obliged to be patient with those who express open hostility towards us and then go about acquiring the weapons to carry out that selfsame aggression. Confronted with tyrants who seek our demise, a most impatient attitude is required instead.

The world has shown Iran endless patience and its reward is the sponsorship of terrorism, violation of international soil, human rights abuses, institutionalized misogyny, vicious repression of political dissidents, institutionalized anti-Semitism and government-sanctioned religious intolerance. In addition, we are now confronted with their destabilization of the entire Middle East and the threat of nuclear war.

Pray tell how such a retrogressive regime has anything to contribute towards this planet's progress in the third millenium? Some make this world a better place by their arrival, others by their departure.

The Iranian mullahs cannot exit the global scene quickly enough. Furthermore, I vote that they be given every assistance in their departure, from their governmental positions and even off of this mortal coil.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 4:05:04 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:05:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 If Iran is so impossibly fanatic, then why do you insist that military threats would make any difference?

At this point in time, self-preservation is the only instinct that has the remotest chance of overriding the mullahs quest for atomic weapons. The threat of military intervention also makes clear that continued pursuit of nuclear capability is not on the table in any way, shape or form. Not even for use in electrical power generation.

This is what Iran ignores, Europe fails to recognize the need for and, yet, remains a critical component for neutralizing the Islamists dreams of military ascendancy in the Middle East region. It is absolutely impossible to ignore or deny that Iran's gaining possesion of nuclear weapons quite possibly would represent the most dire strategic blunder of this entire new century.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 4:15:08 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:15:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Mike S, my problem with the UN (and I have been a critic for a very long time) is not that international cooperation to solve problems is not a good thing - It is manifestly an excellent thing. Nor is it that the UN frequently fails. It is trying to solve hard problems and failure is to be expected. My problem with the UN is its an ossified bureacracy incapable of doing anything and that's not the UN's fault. It is the inevitable end state of any organization that is not subject to a competetative market or under the control of elected officials. The UN is broken and is incapable of fixing itself. We have no alternative except to get rid of it and start again. Its happened once already (with the Leaugue of Nations). There is no reason why we can't have a third attempt at an international order that works.

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-12 4:25:56 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:25:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Mike, the mullahs don't give a damn about the economic health of their nation. If they did, they would not personally have looted it as they have done, brazenly and rapaciously, for the last two decades. The mullahs like all authoritarians care solely about preserving and extending their power. Unless your EU sanctions-- which I don't believe for a second the Dwarves have the slightest intention of ever imposing-- are accompanied by a wide-ranging program of political destabilization and support for indigenous democratic forces, they will have no effect on the mullahs' calculations.

I seriously doubt that the Dwarves are in favor of democracy promotion and mullah destabilization in Iran. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 4:29:32 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:29:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#25
Re #22 (Zenster) At this point in time, self-preservation is the only instinct that has the remotest chance of overriding the mullahs quest for atomic weapons. The threat of military intervention also makes clear that continued pursuit of nuclear capability is not on the table in any way, shape or form. ...

So far, the current Bush Administration doesn't seem to share your panic, fury and resolve about Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The Bush Administration is responding primarily through a combination of diplomatic and economic means, applied firmly and patiently along with Europe.

The only practical difference between the USA's response and Europe's response is that the USA has little economic leverage, because we ceased our trade with Iran 25 years ago. Europe can still exert economic leverage and so is exerting it.

Your idea that Europe is somehow preventing the USA from a real intention to intervene militarily in Iran to stop Iran's nuclear-weapons program is just your own personal fantasy. The USA isn't going to intervene militarily any more than Europe is going to intervene militarily.

The USA as a government recognizes the limits of its options in this situation, even if you yourself don't.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 4:33:15 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:33:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Sometimes people are willfully dense.

Dubya is doing what he should do: Check The Boxes.

When all the boxes have been checked (he's played the multi-culti pissant toothless apologist game out to it's typically ineffectual conclusion) and the Mad Mullahs still pursue the course of acquiring missiles, guidance, and nuke warheads, then we shall see, won't we? Indeed, time will tell.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 4:44:36 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:44:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Thanks for the response Mike. I agree with the 1 step back part. I'm trying to remember the two steps forward part.

Posted by Shipman 2004-12-12 4:46:55 PM|| 2004-12-12 4:46:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Mike S, the USA will act militarily against Iran. However, a number of things have to happen first. One of them is the Euro/UN efforts to stop Iran getting the bomb have provably failed.

Posted by phil_b 2004-12-12 5:00:11 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:00:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#29
Re #24 (lex): the mullahs don't give a damn about the economic health of their nation.

Demonizing your opponents is lots of fun, but you're just preaching to the choir.

I can do even better. I say the mullahs torture little children to death and then drink their blood. I say the mullahs intend to kill everyone in the entire world in order to protect their own power. So, just because I say so, are you convinced?

Unless your EU sanctions .... are accompanied by a wide-ranging program of political destabilization and support for indigenous democratic forces, they will have no effect on the mullahs' calculations.

Even if EU sanctions were indeed accompanied by such programs, they might have no effect on the mullahs' calculations. Some dictators are maniacs who won't respond to reason or threats.

Chamberlain told Hitler that if Hitler invaded Poland, then Chamberlain would declare war on Hitler. Nevertheless, Hitler invaded Poland, and Chamberlain declared war on Hitler. The threat of military war on Hitler didn't have any more effect on Hitler in 1939 than a threat of military war would have on the mullahs in 2004.

What's important right now in this situation is that Europe seems to be drawing some strict lines and telling Iran not to cross them. Iran might indeed cross those lines, but if so, then I think Europe will impose economic sanctions that will hurt Iran very seriously. The sanctions would hurt Europe too, but I think Europe will impose the sanctions anyway.

Maybe I'm wrong about that. It sure wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. Maybe you're wrong that threats of military intervention would be any more effective.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 5:00:31 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:00:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Mike, the mullahs are kleptocrats on a grand scale and theocrats second. Nowhere in their hierarchy of concerns are to be found issues like "expand economic opportunity" or "make Iran a first rate technology and export-oriented economic power." They couldn't care less about sanctions beyond what those might signify for their sense of national pride. Ie, a minor irritant, nothing more. Again, if they truly cared about economic progress they would not have compiled a two-decade long record of spectacular theft and mismanagement.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 5:03:39 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:03:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 The only practical difference between the USA's response and Europe's response is that the USA has little economic leverage, because we ceased our trade with Iran 25 years ago. Europe can still exert economic leverage and so is exerting it.

I rather suspect that Europe's desire for Iran's oil is the real economic pressure here -- and it's not the Europeans who are applying it.

Posted by rkb 2004-12-12 5:05:03 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:05:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#32
Re #23 (phil-b): The UN is broken and is incapable of fixing itself. We have no alternative except to get rid of it and start again.

That's easier said than done. Few real decision-makers prefer to destroy entire institutions and start again. They prefer to reform the institutions that are established.

Write your idea on a poster and walk around Washington DC for a while and see how many real politicians join your parade. Tell everyone that you think that the destruction of the League of Nations is a good example of how this kind of proposal has worked in the past.

I agree with you that the UN is a bureaucratic, disappointing organization that is incapable of solving many of the world's problems and that the UN provides an annoying public voice to dictatorial governments and to backward societies.

So, what else is new? Those problems are inevitable in any organization like the UN. Even if you create some alternative and restrict its membership to modern democratic countries, you will soon be infuriated almost as much by that restricted membership and its inability to act.

The UN is often useful to the USA, so there continues to be a strong political consensus that the USA should continue to participate in the UN. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN provided strong, united, world-wide support for the USA to throw Iraq out of Kuwait. In the following years the UN imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions weren't perfect, but they were pretty good.

The UN tries to enforce a policy of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The attempt has been partially successful, partially unsuccessful. Right now, in particular, the UN is trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We might try to improve the UN's effectiveness in that effort, or we might get rid of the UN and start over. I think the first option is better.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 5:34:30 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:34:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#33
Re #25 (.com) ... and the Mad Mullahs still pursue the course of acquiring missiles, guidance, and nuke warheads, then we shall see, won't we?

Yes. Maybe President Bush will strike Iran militarily. Maybe he won't. Maybe Europe will impose economic sanctions. Maybe Europe won't.

I'm perhaps just as skeptical that Bush will strike Iran militarily as you might be skeptical that Europe will impose economic sanctions.

We might agree fully, though, that Iran might not yield to either threat and that therefore Iran might (or might not) suffer consequences.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 5:40:13 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:40:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 So far, the current Bush Administration doesn't seem to share your panic, fury and resolve about Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The Bush Administration is responding primarily through a combination of diplomatic and economic means, applied firmly and patiently along with Europe.

So, where in that "combination of diplomatic and economic means" do you place America's sale of all those bunker busting bombs to Israel?

Do you contend that this sale wasn't an overt signal to Iran of how we were willing to equip their most deadly foe (and declared target of aggression) with non-nuclear weapons capable of neutralizing their weapons program? Are you able to maintain that this was not a clear signal of looming military intervention, either by proxy or direct action?

Finally, Mike, you fully admit that Iran is pursuing atomic weapons, yet steadfastly maintain that economic sanctions are a viable method of forestalling that same capability. It is a diplomatic given that Iran's own declarations are consistently devoid of truth.

How is it then, that you can have the remotest confidence that Europe's economic sanctions will have sufficient effect so as to halt Iran's acquisition of these weapons?

At present, our world has no idea of exactly how close Iran is to completing the assembly of a nuclear device. Their constant lies and deceit effectively prevent any accurate assessment of capability. In turn, this mandates a speedy and satisfactory resolution of these concerns.

That is something which economic sanctions do not promise in the least. We have already had a clear demonstration of just how ineffective economic sanctions are, both in Iraq and North Korea. The long and drawn out agony of sanctions benefited no one except Kim Il Jong and Saddam Hussein.

Eventually, Saddam was deposed by force, not by sanctions. By using the exact same tactics as Iran is now employing, North Korea has potentially assembled atomic weapons and managed to completely stalemate progress on the Korean peninsula. How can you possibly advocate measures that might lead to a similar nuclear standoff in the even more explosive Middle East?

By every indication, Iran is determined to build atomic bombs. There is absolutely no evidence that the imposition of economic santctions would deter them in the least. Iran has declared obtaining nuclear weapons a religious duty, and being a theocratic state, that amounts to a government policy statement. Sanctions will merely give them more time to complete the building of a nuclear bomb. Even if Europe's cash flow into Iran halted, China would think nothing of picking up the slack and, in fact, relish yet another nuclear counterweight (however unstable) to American dominance on the global stage.

Failure by the existing superpowers to neuter Iran's nuclear weapons program represents the worst sort of moral abdication to a most brutal and tyrannical regime. Nowhere does such a blunder make the least sense.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 5:43:51 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:43:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#35
Re #31 (rkb): I rather suspect that Europe's desire for Iran's oil is the real economic pressure here

Europe itself will suffer economically if it imposes economic sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, the situation for Europe to do so is now better now than it has been in many years. The sanctions on Libya and Iraq are ending, and Europe now can buy oil from those two countries instead of from Iran.

This is Europe's best opportunty to demonstrate to the world that Europe's opinions about issues like nuclear proliferation must be respected. It's now or never.

Europe's perspective on Iran and the issue of nuclear proliferation now is much like Chamberlain's perspective on Germany and the issue of established European borders in 1939. The appeasement policy had been exercised to its limit. If this final limit is not enforced peacefully, then there will be no more limits or even influence. That's how I think Europe views this situation.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 5:53:01 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:53:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#36
Re #30 (lex): They [the mullahs] couldn't care less about sanctions beyond what those might signify for their sense of national pride. Ie, a minor irritant, nothing more.

Well, then, they might get sanctions imposed on them. I agree with you that the mullahs might ignore the threat and continue to develop their nuclear-weapons program anyway. Apparently we disagree mostly about whether Europe really would impose the sanctions as threatened.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 5:57:12 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:57:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Mike writes: The only practical difference between the USA's response and Europe's response is that the USA has little economic leverage, because we ceased our trade with Iran 25 years ago. Europe can still exert economic leverage and so is exerting it.

1) I see little evidence that Europe is exerting economic leverage in the sense that they would actually go through with sanctions, etc. I see Europe dangling an economic carrot, ~~praying~~ hoping the Iranians will nibble.

2) I'm persuaded that at least some Europeans are more interested in containing the US than in containing Iran. For some reason they think we're the bigger threat. Sounds kinda stooopid to me, but I'm not a European.

3) There are parts of the UN that work reasonably well for a large, disparate international organization. The Security Council and the Secretary General's office aren't among those parts. While it'd be nice to reform these to the point that they would work, I have my doubts as to whether that's possible.

Posted by Steve White 2004-12-12 5:59:51 PM|| 2004-12-12 5:59:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#38
Re #34 (Zenster): .... America's sale of all those bunker busting bombs to Israel? Do you contend that this sale wasn't an overt signal to Iran of how we were willing to equip their most deadly foe (and declared target of aggression) with non-nuclear weapons capable of neutralizing their weapons program? Are you able to maintain that this was not a clear signal of looming military intervention, either by proxy or direct action?

I think you are probably right about all that. The USA is signaling Iran along the lines you point out. The signals are, however, only subtle and implicit.

You seem to be much more critical of Europe's subtle, indirect signals to Iran than you are of the USA's subtle, implicit signals to Iran.

The Bush administration has not declared openly that it will strike Iran militarily if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Europe has declared openly that it will impose economic sanctions.

It is a diplomatic given that Iran's own declarations are consistently devoid of truth. .... our world has no idea of exactly how close Iran is to completing the assembly of a nuclear device. Their constant lies and deceit effectively prevent any accurate assessment of capability. In turn, this mandates a speedy and satisfactory resolution of these concerns. That is something which economic sanctions do not promise .... We have already had a clear demonstration of just how ineffective economic sanctions are, both in Iraq and North Korea.

Iraq did stop manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure Iraq intended to resume manufacturing them later, but Iraq did stop while economic sanctions were imposed.

North Korea has submitted to some controls and principles for periods of time. North Korea is wavering. I think North Korea is feeling tremendous pressure. I myself expect that the North Korean regime might collapse rather soon.

Eventually, Saddam was deposed by force, not by sanctions.

Yes. Saddam stopped manufacturing weapons of mass destruction while the sanctions were imposed and while the USA exerted military pressure, but he was not deposed by the sanctions and mere military pressure. That doesn't mean, though, that economic sanctions and mere military pressure were entirely ineffective.

By using the exact same tactics as Iran is now employing, North Korea has potentially assembled atomic weapons and managed to completely stalemate progress on the Korean peninsula.

We have been applying military threats and pressure on North Korea for 50 years. In fact, we even militarily invaded North Korea and militarily occupied North Korean territory for many months. Nevertheless, North Korea remains an outrageous outlaw to this day. Some opponents are incredibly stubborn, no matter what you do short of annihilation.

China would think nothing of picking up the slack and, in fact, relish yet another nuclear counterweight (however unstable) to American dominance on the global stage.

I don't think so.

Failure by the existing superpowers to neuter Iran's nuclear weapons program represents the worst sort of moral abdication to a most brutal and tyrannical regime. Nowhere does such a blunder make the least sense.

The world isn't abdicating on this issue. The world is responding in a manner that you think is too moderate and that you predict won't work. The world thinks your proposed responses are too reckless.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 6:24:19 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:24:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#39
Re #37 (Steve White) I'm persuaded that at least some Europeans are more interested in containing the US than in containing Iran. For some reason they think we're the bigger threat.

I agree. That's one reason I expect Europe to firmly resolve to demonstrate that its alternate response of diplomatic and economic measures can work effectively. This is a rare opportunity and challenge for Europe to show the USA its capability. Europe feels it must put up now or shut up forever with regard to the USA.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 6:29:40 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 You seem to be much more critical of Europe's subtle, indirect signals to Iran than you are of the USA's subtle, implicit signals to Iran.

Why yes, as a matter of fact I am. Murderous terrorists and their sponsors need to be confronted with swift annihilation should they persist in their willingness to commit atrocities. Indirect and subtle measures do not carry enough weight to force the hand of fanatics. The threat of extermination does.

I hardly think that selling Israel the exact weapons needed to quash Iran's nuclear program was anything in the way of "subtle." I would rate it more as a "shot across the bow." Quite effective too, by all measures. Now, more than one country has the capability (and will) to neutralize Iran's atomic weapons program.

The major problem here is that should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, there is every indication that they will use them. The mullahs have in as much announced that even Iran's total obliteration would be a worthy tradeoff in exchange for their having destroyed Israel. This one fact alone is sufficient to warrant regime change in Iran.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 6:48:59 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:48:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 "Europe feels it must put up now or shut up forever with regard to the USA"

Sigh, if only that were a promise... and it had more veracity than a Mad Mullah promise.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 6:51:29 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:51:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#42
Re #40 (Zenster): Murderous terrorists and their sponsors need to be confronted with swift annihilation should they persist in their willingness to commit atrocities. Indirect and subtle measures do not carry enough weight to force the hand of fanatics. The threat of extermination does.

So far, the Bush Administration has not threatened Iran with annihilation and extermination.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 6:59:54 PM|| 2004-12-12 6:59:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 IMO - blah,blah,blah, the only thing more weak and useless than the EU is the UN.
I suspect the EU will continue to complain and do absof**kinglutely nothing and let the US clean up the mess AGAIN.

Posted by JerseyMike 2004-12-12 7:24:32 PM|| 2004-12-12 7:24:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 So far, the Bush Administration has not threatened Iran with annihilation and extermination.

I doubt very much that I'm alone here in saying that just maybe this needs to change. An insufficiently high enough price has been attached to participation in terrorist activity.

Only when the cost is prohibitive will those who practice it begin to rethink their strategy. Individual death may not be enough. Massive economic collapse and marginalization of a terrorist's entire home-culture may need to be considered.

This world does not have enough spare time for experimentally verifying what constitutes the minimum amount of force necessary to thwart terrorism. In the time required to determine such finely tuned measures, much more innocent life will be lost.

If other cultures cannot bring themselves to begin aggressively prosecuting the terrorists within their midst, they become accomplices through inaction. More than likely, a few hundred or thousand Iranians will die as they discover that defying international demands to abandon nuclear weapons research comes with a price attached.

The sooner our gloves come off in fighting terrorism, the more quickly the issue will be resolved. Permitting these violent psychotics time to reproduce, indoctrinate and disseminate their warped ideology merely increases the amount of innocent life lost on both sides.

Iran is prime indicator of how crucial decisive action will be in the future. While only a few thousand might die as a result of immediate military intervention, should the mullahs come into possession of nuclear weapons, all of Iran's people could perish.

The opportunity for relaxed decision-making is passing swiftly. A nuclear capable Iran will see the dawn of far more severe and irreversible measures. This is the mullahs' ultimate gift.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 7:37:13 PM|| 2004-12-12 7:37:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Steve W: I'm persuaded that at least some Europeans are more interested in containing the US than in containing Iran. For some reason they think we're the bigger threat.

The simple truth is that Europe is not directly threatened by Iran's (future) nuclear weaponry. The targets will be the US & Israel. The hope within Europe is that a nuclear Iran will force the US to change (soften) its stance not only in the middle east, but all over the world. Any weight loss on the part of the US, will only mean a relative weight gain for the Europeans, since they can't really gain weight on their own (ceteris paribus). Iran acquiring nuclear weapons can only be seen as a good thing by the Europeans. It is not a European problem.

Posted by Rafael 2004-12-12 7:55:21 PM|| 2004-12-12 7:55:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 Which is exactly why Mike S. is way off base in his hopes and expectations re: Euro action.

Right now, the 2000km range Iran claims for its missiles would hit only Turkey and a few parts of southeastern Europe. Give them a year or two and that range will probably increase by another 1000KM. By the time the Euro 2 really internalize implications of that, it will be way too late to do anything about it.

Israel will have a missile shield by then, if all goes well - although Iran is so close it would be hard to detect and kill missile attacks from there. Europe won't have any, but since it will be mostly Islamic by then it won't matter ... unless they make the mistake of going Sunni rather than Shia, of course.

Posted by too true 2004-12-12 8:48:02 PM|| 2004-12-12 8:48:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 FAS.org Iran missile database lists the under development Shahab5 with a range to 4,300km and the Shahab6 with a range out to 8-12,000 km (e.g. an ICBM capable of hitting the US). Also notice all their missiles are North Korean origin and manufactured in Iran. The NK TaeponDong4 is already thought to be able to hit the US west coast from NK.

Better that war is faught before the mullahs, who by definition believe that Islam must rule over the planet, can destroy US cities.

Posted by ed 2004-12-12 9:37:57 PM|| 2004-12-12 9:37:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#48
Re #45 (Rafael): The simple truth is that Europe is not directly threatened by Iran's (future) nuclear weaponry.

That's true, but Europe is also very interested in establishing and enforcing the "rules of the game" in international relations. Europe is interested in a stable world, with stable trade and stable resolution of disputes. Europe does not want backward countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons, even if those weapons don't threated Europe directly.

To continue my Chamberlain analolgy, Nevile Chamberlain didn't care hardly at all whether or not Danzig was assigned to Poland or to Germany. But Chamberlain did care that Germany under Hitler's leadership would not yield to any international controls. And so Chamberlain declared war on Germany.

I think that Europe views the current situation likewise.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 9:50:44 PM|| 2004-12-12 9:50:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 MS: To continue my Chamberlain analolgy

truer words were never spoken. Amen

Posted by Frank G 2004-12-12 9:54:38 PM|| 2004-12-12 9:54:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 The hope within Europe is that a nuclear Iran will force the US to change (soften) its stance not only in the middle east, but all over the world

Rafael puts it well. The reason that good Eurocop/bad UScop won't work here is that Europe doesn't see Iran as anything more than a misdemeanor perp. Again, the Europeans' containment effort toward Iran is a sham. They're on the same side.

Speaking of which, I rather think it's the mullahs who are dangling economic carrots for the export-hungry Euros, not the other way around. Germany and the other export-oriented Euros, suffering greatly now from their pricey currency, need the Iranian market more than the mullahs need the European market.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 10:08:10 PM|| 2004-12-12 10:08:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Europe is interested in a stable world, with stable trade and stable resolution of disputes.

Well, that certainly explains France holding military maneuvers with communist China and the EU's renewed desire to sell them advanced weapon sytems. Sort of reminiscent or their position with Iran. Sell 'em whatever you can and talk your way around the sticking points.

Mike, you keep mentioning how appeasement has been of use. When did it ever stop a war from happening? So far, in all the examples you cite, war was the final outcome and appeasement routinely proved to be of no real use.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 10:15:12 PM|| 2004-12-12 10:15:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Europe does not want backward countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons, even if those weapons don't threated Europe directly.

That is not at all obvious. I think the position of France, in particular, favors nuclear proliferation to the Muslim countries of the middle east as a counterbalance to the US and Israel, as they saw their own WMD program under de Gaulle and his immediate successors.

Posted by too true 2004-12-12 10:51:47 PM|| 2004-12-12 10:51:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#53
Re #51 (Zenster): When did it [appeasement] ever stop a war from happening? So far, in all the examples you cite, war was the final outcome and appeasement routinely proved to be of no real use.

Sometimes appeasement simply delays the war. Such was the case when Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in relation to the Sudetenland postponed the beginning of World War Two from August 1938 until Sepember 1939. During that interval, the UK continued to prepare for the war that eventually came. The UK was better prepared in 1939 than it had been in 1938, but even in 1939 the UK was not prepared to go on the offensive against Germany. The so-called "phony war" lasted for many months, as UK and French forces were simply assembled along Germany's western border.

Those people who criticize Chamberlain for not beginning the war in 1938 or earlier imagine mistakenly that the UK could somehow have intervened militarily effectively to prevent Germany from seizing the Sudetenland or the Rhineland. Interventions in either case well might have ended in complete fiascos that would have discouraged further military resistance to Germany.

When did appeasement ever stop a war from happening? It happens all the time, whenever some compromise short of war is accepted.

The USA did not intervene militarily when the Soviet Union suppressed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 or the Prague Spring in 1968. On those occasions, many people complained that the USA was appeasing the Soviet Union and explicitly compared that appeasement to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler with regard to the Sudetenland.

Some people (The John Birch Society) even concluded that President Eisenhower must be a secret agent of the Soviet Union, since he appeased the Soviet Union in the case of Hungary. In fact, though, Eisenhower simply recognized the limitations of the USA's military and political abilities to take stronger actions.

In not every situation is war the wisest response, although you seem to think it always is.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 11:16:51 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:16:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Appeasement is appeasement is appeasement. There is no way of sugar-coating it.

Posted by Rafael 2004-12-12 11:23:04 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:23:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#55
Re #52 (too true) I think the position of France, in particular, favors nuclear proliferation to the Muslim countries of the middle east

That's an excellent argument, especially with regard to the period before Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. I think France has probably changed its policies since then, but I'm not prepared to argue with you about that.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 11:24:23 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:24:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 A final question, Mike. This is, what, the bazillionth round of negotiations that the IAEA and Europe have gone through with Iran? What has changed? What significant progress has been made?

No extensive inspections have been permitted. There is no expectation of transparency from the Iranians. Instead, from all indications, Iran has sanitized certain contaminated sites and begun constructing others that appear to be intended for the R&D of lensing explosives used to detonate a nuclear device. Still other sites were originally constructed with hardened features built in.

None of this signifies the least intention of compliance. Quite the opposite. It seems as though Iran fully anticipates the need to protect its facilities from aerial bombardment and has routinely sought to conceal or disguise their appearance.

How can anyone in their right mind assume that it is possible to constructively engage Iran in terms of ceasing its atomic weapons development program? They have literally designed in non-compliance from the very start.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 11:25:32 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:25:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Sometimes appeasement simply delays the war.

And in the case of Iran, any delays are intolerable. This is the lesson we must learn from North Korea. Iran is merely stalling for time until they can unveil (or test) a functional nuclear device and then set about destabilizing the entire Middle East.

I do not view war as the ultimate solution to all disagreements.

I most certainly do view war as the correct and proper way of dealing with terrorists. In combating those who would perpetrate mass murder atrocities, appeasement is right out.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-12 11:30:17 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:30:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 The stakes are linked to the lethality involved and in whose hands it will be.

This is not about conventional forces occupying land in an effort to prevent political separation from a sphere of influence. This is about offensive nuclear weapons which can be targeted at anything within range - far outside the sphere of influence of the Iranian regime. The Soviet-Hungarian vs America-Iranian situations have absolutely nothing in common.

The Iranians are the most transparent bunch of power-hungry idiotarians driven by an implacable ideology ever - in my experience. Rafsanjani has spoken clearly and unmistakably on numerous occasions.

Nukes & Mad Mullahs do NOT mix, IMHO. I certainly believe Bush is of the same mind and will do whatever he must do to prevent or end such a combination.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 11:34:04 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:34:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 I'll grant Mike one thing: it's not at all clear that the Bush admin would itself launch strikes against the mullahs. My guess is that would be up to the Israelis. What we can and should be doing is what Ledeen's been tirelessly advocating for years already: support the indigenous opposition by every means at our disposal and seek regime change from within. However I'm pessimistic about hte prospects for same, as a large part of our ability there depends on a CIA that is revealing itself to be as decadent and morally corrupt as it is incompetent.

Overall, I'm a pessimist on this one. We're running out of time and have no good options.

Posted by lex 2004-12-12 11:34:33 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:34:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#60
Re #54 (Rafael): Appeasement is appeasement is appeasement. There is no way of sugar-coating it.

An individual or a society can't always do everything it would like to do to resist evil. Sometimes the opponent is more powerful. Sometimes you are inhibited by other responsibilities or circumstances. Sometimes you feel that you will be able to resist more effectively at a later time than you can resist now.

In the meantime, you take various actions that prepare you to respond more effectively in the future. Life is full of compromises, appeasements, delayed reactions, and postponed gratifications.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 11:41:06 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:41:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 "postponed gratifications"

Lol - this one goes over like a lead balloon 'round here! I recall a cartoon from Gulf War I which was as fast and one-sided a "war" as the world had ever seen, yet people still complained quite a bit... the cartoon showed Geo41 wearing an apron and had Saddam stewing in a big pot on the stove... there was a "typical" American family waiting at the dinner table watching "Who's the Boss" on TV and the teeange kid calls back over his shoulder to the kitchen and says, "Can't you like microwave it or something?"

I hear that quite a bit hereabouts regards what seems slow movement by Bush. But he's done what he's said up til now, so... How long we have until the Mad Mullahs are "ready" is unknown to us, but I'll lay odds it's not such a mystery to the admin. The Iranians are not happy with the Black Hats and have tons of relatives - living in the US and abroad. I'll bet serious money we have some very decent hard intel on what's going on inside Iran... enough? timely? sufficient to organize / support a native overthrow? I dunno. But I do have faith that Dubya meant what he said. That will have to be good enough, for me and for now.

Posted by .com 2004-12-12 11:50:27 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:50:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#62
Re #56 (Zenster): No extensive inspections have been permitted.

Inspections have been permitted. They just aren't extensive enough to satisfy you. I suspect, though, that no inspections would ever be enough to satisfy you.

.... Iran has sanitized certain contaminated sites and begun constructing others .... None of this signifies the least intention of compliance.

The USA's effort to compel the Soviet Union to comply with inspections took many years of firm persistence. In the meantime, the Soviet Union used many methods to conceal its weapons and deployments. Eventually, though, the Soviet Union did comply with inspections and did destroy all its intermediate-range ballistic missile systems.

In the case of Iran, similar efforts will be difficult and might eventually fail. Or they might eventually succeed.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-12 11:51:52 PM|| 2004-12-12 11:51:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 The USA's effort to compel the Soviet Union to comply with inspections took many years of firm persistence.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Iran is not a nuclear armed superpower and it is precisely that status we are attempting to prevent them from obtaining. Dealing with the Soviet Union took a much more strategic approach than is required with Iran.

All efforts should be directed towards denying the mullahs any access to nuclear weapons and to hell with their prestige, image, face, or whatever other humiliating aspect they might find in such actions.

Perhaps you do not regard Iran's possession of nuclear weapons to be the profound disaster that I do, but I'm confident that history would quickly bear out my own suspicions.

Iran has yet to demonstrate any sort of good government or meticulous stewardship of their people's national heritage. I see no reason to believe that they will finally begin doing so once they acquire atomic bombs.

Posted by Zenster 2004-12-13 12:05:39 AM|| 2004-12-13 12:05:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#64 Mike.

Fire from the heavens purifies....
Fire from the fault lines brings down mountains and crushes tunnels

Fire purifies...

Nuff said

Posted by 3dc 2004-12-13 12:10:21 AM|| 2004-12-13 12:10:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#65
Iran is a terrorist state that has striven for the past 25 years to export its Shia revolution. Iran supports terrorist organizations in Lebanon and Palestine. It has carried out terrorist actions in many countries, as far away as Argentina.

Now Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them against Israel.

On the other hand, Iran has enjoyed little significant success in these efforts. Iran has practically no air force or navy. Iran exerts practically no foreign influence outside of the Shia parts of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Iran is not allied with any foreign states.

Iran's economy is extremely dependent on oil exports. Iran's abilility to export oil is very vulnerable. The US Navy could very easily blockade all Iran's ports. If Europe decides to stop buying Iranian oil, Europe could rather easily find other sources of oil to replace Iranian oil.

When Iran has allowed elections that were relatively free, the elections were won decisively by candiates who advocated reductions of the mullahs' dictatorial powers.

So, let's keep the Iranian threat in a proper perspective.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-13 12:14:23 AM|| 2004-12-13 12:14:23 AM|| Front Page Top

11:34 N Guard
11:34 N Guard
00:23 3dc
00:14 Mike Sylwester
00:10 3dc
00:05 Stephen
00:05 Zenster
23:51 Mike Sylwester
23:50 .com
23:49 Bomb-a-rama
23:41 Mike Sylwester
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:35 lex
23:34 lex
23:34 .com
23:30 Zenster
23:25 Zenster
23:24 Mike Sylwester
23:23 Rafael
23:18 .com
23:16 Mike Sylwester
23:12 .com
23:12 Zenster
23:04 JosephMendiola