Article

2007-08-23 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

How to challenge Iran's militancy without using arms

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 Steve White 2007-08-23 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top

#1 Looks like that "News organization" does not understand the nuance of what this really is. Ever heard of GOG or MAGOG?

But thanks for the suggestion. It is in the box.

P.S. Natural allies means with the people, not that mullahcracy.

Posted by newc">newc 2007-08-23 00:47|| 2007-08-23 00:47|| Front Page Top

#2 KOMMERSANT > THAT ONE OPTION [Military] FOR IRAN.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-08-23 01:28|| 2007-08-23 01:28|| Front Page Top

#3 Nice job, Steve. You've more patience than I. What nonsense - and how typical - we're awash in this sophomoric crap. "Conflict resolution" was how WWII was ended.

One of the central problems with the Bush administration is that it thinks military first and sometimes military only with disastrous results for America.

WTF? What hallucinogenic make-believe world do these idiots inhabit? Yes - the one created by the pathetic, tendentious media that misinforms and energetically constructs vast edifices of distortion and fabrication.

Name a single time the Bush admin. has thought "military first, military only" - a single time. Or any time there have been "disastrous consequences for America". Any.

Don't forget, this childish garbage is exactly the sort of crap that is pushed on college and even some high school students. Many, to their credit, resist (a friend teaches the most popular classes at a state college, as a guest lecturer, and many students confide in him that they get only crap like this in their other courses). But that this sort of junk can even be published demonstrates an appalling level of ignorance and delusion among "educated" folks.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-08-23 01:54|| 2007-08-23 01:54|| Front Page Top

#4 No injustice, no peace industry.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-08-23 01:56|| 2007-08-23 01:56|| Front Page Top

#5 Iran is not Al Qaeda. We need to isolate the ruling elite and radical clerics by reaching out to the Iranian people directly.

I think we were trying that and Iran found out and tossed all the operatives in jail.

Although it's not clear that they were there specifically to foment insurrection, and even if they were, it's not clear they were working at the behest of the US govt or Sorostan.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-08-23 01:59|| 2007-08-23 01:59|| Front Page Top

#6 How to challenge Iran's militancy without using arms

What, you mean kick them to death? That doesn't use any arms.

As the massive amount of justified inline indicates, this entire article is one gigantic rectal fetch. The authors are not just clueless, they are dangerously clueless.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-23 02:04|| 2007-08-23 02:04|| Front Page Top

#7 An external attack often shifts public opinion to the hard right.

Which laughably absurd statement puts the writers neatly into their conceptual box, nails the lid down firmly, and buries it six feet under the ground.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-08-23 05:09|| 2007-08-23 05:09|| Front Page Top

#8 This is an ongoing debate here at Rantburg U. My idea is that the time to deal diplomatically with the Mad Mullahs passed some 25 years ago, and the best at this point we can hope for is airstrikes to degrade Iran's ability to wage nuclear war.

This is not the first option: it is the only option. Some here argue that a softer approach may tip the Mullahs over and my response is: after 2 severe oil price breaks and a bloody war in 28 years, what makes you think that a pinprick here or sabotage there will do anyhing but provide dinner conversation for Iranian Islamists?

And a leftist presidency in 2008 would be a nightmare for America, for as badly as Iran has been handled to date, none of us want to see the left in this country maintain their crowning diplomatic ahievement in the latter half of the 20th Century, Islamic Iran.

Please, Iranians don't do diplomacy. But I wonder how long it will before this lesson sinks in and will it sink in before the first Iranian nuke flies.

Posted by badanov 2007-08-23 07:44|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-08-23 07:44|| Front Page Top

#9 It's not a question of means. It's a question of will and the perception that we have that will. Given mealy mouth hand wringing approaches attempted time and time again in the past with the ineffectual results, why should the adversary ever be concerned?

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-08-23 08:55|| 2007-08-23 08:55|| Front Page Top

#10 Only 10 percent approve of a military confrontation with Iran...

Could be. But could be that 10 percent wants it real bad.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-08-23 09:17|| 2007-08-23 09:17|| Front Page Top

#11 The authors may not realize this (pro'ly not given what they've written), but you see, Iran is a 'dictatorship': a government controlled and run by a group of clerical thugs for their own, personal benefit.

More of a kleptocracy, but that's quibbling. And it's not just the clerics on the take. The IRGC seized a major portion of the economy recently. There are some estimates that their wealth and economic power is higher than the mullahs.

Then again, anyone with experience with Iranians knows they are quick to sense an ethically questionable opportunity, and make the most of it.

my response is: after 2 severe oil price breaks and a bloody war in 28 years, what makes you think that a pinprick here or sabotage there will do anyhing but provide dinner conversation for Iranian Islamists?

We've gone through this before. My response is (again): 28 years. Twenty eight years. A lot changes in 28 years. Iran back then is not the same Iran now.

All that said, Gopin is an idiot. Meeks... well, let's just say he fits his name.

Posted by Pappy 2007-08-23 10:34|| 2007-08-23 10:34|| Front Page Top

#12 More of a kleptocracy, but that's quibbling. And it's not just the clerics on the take. The IRGC seized a major portion of the economy recently. There are some estimates that their wealth and economic power is higher than the mullahs.

I agree and could have (and should have) used 'kleptocracy' to describe the Mad Mullahs and their IRGC dogs. I didn't want to use polysyllabic words with Messrs. Gopin and Meeks ;-)

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-08-23 10:43|| 2007-08-23 10:43|| Front Page Top

#13 A totalitarian kleptocracy. Entirely too many syllables for such brilliant (for a given definition of brilliant, anyway) conflict analysts to grasp comfortably.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-08-23 11:46|| 2007-08-23 11:46|| Front Page Top

#14 This is not the first option: it is the only option.

Word, badanov. We cannot rely upon a subsequent administrationbe it democrat or republicanto take the needed measures against Iran. All other options slid over the event horizon long, long ago. Catastrophic dismantling of Iran's nuclear R7D even outweighs decapitating their government, although I certainly wouldn't object to a two-fer.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-08-23 16:33|| 2007-08-23 16:33|| Front Page Top

#15 HOTAIR Video> BOLTON "absolutely" hopes USA will attack Iran in next six months, + NEW NIE > THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STOP.

IOW US-IRAN WAR, or else US must accept a NUCLEAR IRAN and by extens NUCLEAR TERRORISM = NUCLEAR RADICAL ISLAMISM.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-08-23 23:05|| 2007-08-23 23:05|| Front Page Top

23:53 trailing wife
23:45 Zenster
23:41 Zenster
23:38 Zenster
23:27 Unutle McGurque8861
23:21 OldSpook
23:07 Silentbrick
23:05 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:44 JosephMendiola
22:40 ed
22:36 Eric Jablow
22:21 Spike Ebbairt4868
22:19 twobyfour
22:18 BA
22:03 BA
21:53 john frum
21:51 Mike N.
21:46 SteveS
21:34 Jules
21:31 Whiskey Mike
21:22 cingold
21:21 Jules
21:18 Frank G