The New Republic

Oh please. The time and opportunity that were wasted were wasted by Bush and his empty blustering and chest-pounding. When he took office, we were the "hyper-power." By the time he was done, pretty much any country that wanted to was giving us the finger. As for a military strike on Iran, there is not the slightest reason to believe that the military capability exists to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions short of total war. Do lay out for us, Peretz, your strategy for the apocalypse or shut the hell up. Your whining is simply unbearable.

- roidubouloi

February 17, 2010 at 10:43pm

One year + in office and Obamanoids are still making excuses for his foreign policies blaming them on Bush. Funny how the more limp these policies are the more aggressive the excusers get. Loud noise expands to fill the space available.

- noga1

February 18, 2010 at 8:29am

"This was all predictable from the day Obama won the election. Only 
innocents thought otherwise. " Excuse me? This was not only predictable but was predicted by many well before Obama won the election, both during the general campaign and indeed during the primaries. Indeed I seem to remember I wrote coattail blog comment or two on the topic. Oh yes, and I think I linked to the seminal Kuentzel TNR piece any number of times. It should be reprinted. Since Rahm Emmanuel is reported to be an avid TNR reader, maybe this time it will sink in. You, Dr. MP, and many others, chose to ignored the warnings about Obama vis a vis Iran and Israel. By the tone of your post you seem to want to shift the blame to Clinton. Don't. She is simply doing her constitutional job of projecting her master's voice. I suppose if she really thought otherwise she would or could resign. But the only one to blame is Obama himself and those that allowed themselves to be deluded by voting for him (unless they don't see a problem with a nuclear armed Iran like for example this delusional Pollyannish turkey (here; for letters in response see here). It wouldn't surprise me if the US version of al Ahram (a.k.a, The NY Times) published the piece with the quite encouragement of the White House (it's the remake of How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb). Obama's biggest concern does not seem to be Iranian nukes; rather that a desperate Israel (perhaps with quiet encouragement from a number of key Arab states, and maybe even some European ones as well) will try to damage enough of Iran's nuclear infrastructure to at least delay their progress into nuclear umbrellahood. To that end there has been a steady stream of US officials here conducting talks on the Iranian threat and trying to dissuade Israel from taking action. The most recent editions: Admiral Mike Mullens, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and next week, the V-POTUS "Big Mouth" Biden, who was quoted as saying that Israel will just have to get used to the idea of nuclear armed Iran. And along these lines was the moving of defensive anti-missile systems into the Persian Gulf, which are consistent with accepting an inevitability of a nuclear armed Iran. That also set off alarm bells here. For the record, there are two key problems with depending on anti-missile systems: (a) Even the best of them is not 100% and when you are dealing with nuclear tipped missiles, 90% effectiveness (the best anti-missile hit percentage I have seen -- and that is a bit of a stretch) means that firing a barrage of relatively cheap dummy or conventionally armed missiles with a couple of nuked ones has a decent chance of getting at least one nuclear hit; and (b) event a 100% perfect anti-missile system is limited to just a single kind of delivery vehicle -- rockets. There are other, more discrete ways to deliver a nuclear weapon. Try a shipping container for example; it could even be tracked and detonated with off of the shelf technology (e.g., a cell or satellite phone and a GPS hooked in to a laptop). BTW, contrary to what said Times turkey Adam Lowther wrote, a shipping container delivery system could endanger the US even before the Iranians develop a compact nuclear missile warhead, as a shipping container bomb does not need the miniaturization etc. that a missile warhead does. One more point and then I will have to stop for now as I really do have to earn a living. That the Bushwhackers ultimately dropped the ball on Iran is ultimately irrelevant to present POTUS' dropping the ball. Obama's job starts where Bush left off; the clock is not reset to zero simply because the Divine Mr. O. wills it. And it is eminiently clear that the major European powers (UK, Germany, and especially France) were waiting for the US to take the lead on serious sanctions. It has been clear to them, especially France that trying to engage Iran, trying to bring in China and probably Russia as well is a waste of time. Also so-called "smart sanction" selectively aimed at the Revolutionary Guard elite can also be called toothless, easily evaded sanctions. Don't kid yourselves. The Iranian theocrats may be crazy, but they are not stupid. Far from it. And yet one more thing. As to the extent to which there are serious military options be it for Israel and even more so for the USA (who has more military resources and orders of magnitude greater ability to produce and project serious force) the people who really know, aren't posting on this or any other blog. Indeed they are probably talking to very few people, and no one here. Now I really have to get to work. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

February 18, 2010 at 8:47am

Roid, of course Marty wants war against Iran. He just thinks it will be a short, lovely war of a few days of surgical airstrikes (by Israel or the US, it doesn't matter which) that would knock out all of Iran's suspected nuclear sites. Then the Green Movement would immediately rise up en masse, eject its clerical and militarist thug leaders and request a resumption of peaceful diplomatic relations with the US and Israel. Hezbollah and Hamas would promptly fall without their patron, a peace treaty will be signed with Lebanon, the Assads will the thrown out of power in Syria and Israel can give the Golan back to a democratic government in Damascus (or not). And the Palestinians will discover the virtues of peaceful coexistence with the Israelis, stop all of the bombing and nasty agitation and agree to a federation with Jordan that gives them some quasi-autonomy within the Hashemite kingdom. And peace will reign forever and ever throughout the Middle East. I suppose it should go without saying that similar scenarios were predicted by Marty and his friends on the right after the short, glorious war that overthrew Saddam Hussein (although that one did require boots on the ground). As were similar predictions in Washington in the early 1960s about a limited war in Vietnam to support the South Vietnamese against the Viet Cong insurgency, in Berlin in 1941 about a surprise knockout blow against Stalin's Russia and in Tokyo that same year about a lightining strike on the American fleet, and all over Europe in August 1914 about a short conflict that would be over by Christmas.

- wildboy

February 18, 2010 at 10:25am

noga, ginzy and marty.....What then, would you have our President do short of an all out assault on Iran and another, ill-advised Middle-eastern war with no end? This is precisely what the radical Islamists want, a fight with the Great Satan. Whatever the hell W thought he was doing certainly didn't have any effect so I fail to see how this administation's policies (or Clinton's or Reagan's for that matter) had any conceivable deterrent value. Unconditional support for Israel? OK. What , exactly does that look like and please explain how it changes any part of the curtrent equation.

- desertdog

February 18, 2010 at 11:11am

And you, oh wild-one, expect that Obama will bring peace in our time (now where did I put that brolly...)? Let me guess, you want Israel to just practice rolling over and playing dead. Or you have a deep faith in Mad Mahmoud & the Ayatollah's that they are in the end they won't use or threaten to use (threats are often enough) their nukes and that they will agree to play nicely. If this is your position, you will forgive the vast majority of Israelis across the political spectrum who beg to differ and trust that the defense & security establishment here has a better grasp of the headspace of the apocalyptically driven Iranian theocrats. BTW, a couple of interesting tidbits surrounding the recent Iranian decision to enrich their UF6 stock to 20% U235: a) Iran's push to enrich to the 20% level suggests that they managed to overcome the mysterious molybdenum contamination problems that David Ignatius brought to public attention last October (see, here). So much for Ignatius' optimism. b) If I recall correctly (and to be honest I may not be) 20% U235 is the minimum level needed for an effective "dirty bomb". That means that Iran already has several missiles' worth of dirty bomb material. Or you could pack the stuff into a suicide bombers bomb belt, and spread the wealth even more. But what the hell, we should roll over and not worry about it. Or impose symbolic, easily evadable sanctions. And we must not forget to wave our fingers at those nasty Revolutionary Guards and 
Basiji brown shirts. hg

- ginzy

February 18, 2010 at 11:22am

I gotta admit, I agree with desert, wild, and roid. Without offering out a plausible path it is all just whining. I, for one, don't have the faintest solution as to what to do. (beyond, of course, what I have always advocated, which is to spend whatever it takes on alternative energy in the US and reduce to nothing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil) I believe that this regime will fall before they ever test nukes, if they don't, at the very least we can wait until they actually test one before taking action. Given their economy and their tenuous hold on power, I think it will be later rather than sooner. Or does anyone think military dictatorships come cheap? They don't, they are actually ruinous. They gotta pay for that massive security apparatus, and still subsidize food and oil.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 11:31am

ginzy, you are not laying out solutions. No one anywhere is saying this is not an area of grave concern so why are you being sarcastic? What is bothersome is laying out criticism without practical solutions. And if you thought I voted for Obama because I believed that campaign rhetoric, you are being naive. What was he supposed to say, vote for me, I will be as unsuccessful as George Bush was in the Middle East because, frankly, the situation if FUBAR and will remain so until the Muslims put aside the medieval aspects of their religion and embrace modernity? To be honest, I got no problem if Israel, on its own, were to take out whatever it wanted to, just be prepared that Americans will condemn the actions (for form sake). If you can't live with that, then you are not being realistic.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 11:40am

Blackie, In the past I have posted extensively about what I think the US policy should be. I don't know why you specifically voted Obama but I do know that many others spoke in messianic-like terms of how Obama would fix everything with Iran. I also remember the "Great Schlep" to Florida to persuade Jewish retirees that Obama will be just fine for Israel (my aunt was verbally pressured by her grandchildren to vote Obama; in the end she just didn't vote for president). In a very very very brief nutshell this is what I think. None of these are a piece of cake, but a nuclear Iran would be far far worse. Read the Kuenzel article to which MP has linked. a) Arguably time has run out for sanctions. Obama basically wasted a year. But if nonetheless Obama wants to try sanctions (I am skeptical) then they must be crippling sanctions. Trying to come up with designer sanctions tailored to squeeze the RG establishment into crying uncle but that will have no negative impact on the general population is naive fantasy. If there is a hope that sanctions will work they must be harsh and broad spectrum. Otherwise the Iranians will either live with them or (or and /or) figure out a way to get around them. I should note that Bibi still thinks that immediate crippling sanctions could do the trick. Personally I am skeptical but he is privy to a lot of info that us mere mortals are not. b) Air strikes against nuclear targets. BEFORE Iran tests a nuke. Once they successfully (or semi-successfully) test a weapon, it's too late (see North Korea), especially for a regime that is built on an apocalyptic narrative () that will lead to messianic (or heavenly) bliss. Again, see Kuenzel. Only the US has enough firepower to do a sustained, simultaneous air attack that can set back the Iranian program a long long time. From news reports, the US has developed huge (~35,000 lbs) bunker buster bombs that can penetrate something like 60 feet of concrete. The lifting power of a stealth strategic bomber is required to deliver those bombs. Israel doesn't have ANY strategic bombers, let alone stealth ones that can carry bombs of that size. If the US would want Israeli F15's & F16's to fly shotgun or otherwise help out I am sure that we could do so. c) If the US isn't going to bomb the Iranian facilities at least enable Israel to do so at the minimum cost to itself. First and foremost, allow Israeli jets to fly over Iraq. Better yet, allow Israeli jets to use US airfields in northern Iraq or at least to preposition there search and rescue units and other emergency needs. Give Israel the improved bunker buster bombs, that can be carried by F15's & F16's (I don't mean the 35K lb monsters; the Israeli bunker busters are not as effective as the better US ones). Not only shouldn't the US condemn Israel, they should give it backing in the UN & in other int'l fora. An Israeli attack probably would not be as effective as a US attack but I suspect that it could still set back the Iranian program enough to be worthwhile. I should note that the IAF's prime mission for the past several years was to prepare for the possibility that the IAF may have to hit the Iranian nuclear facilities. hg

- ginzy

February 18, 2010 at 12:22pm

Wait, the transformation of the Iranian regime into a military dictatorship makes the threat of suicidal Iranian use of nuclear weapons more likely? So it's not the messianic Islamists of the clerical state and A'jad's populist party that are the threat, but the soldiery? This doesn't seem likely to me, but more importantly, if it is true, then it contradicts all previous claims about the nature of Iran's supposed non-deterrability. The least serious people in any discussion of Iran are those who advocate a "military option" without specifying exactly what they intend. Both the U.S. and Israeli military leaderships have said that any merely aerial campaign of facilities bombardment cannot permanently disrupt Iran's nuclear program. Only the physical occupation of nuclear facilities by U.S. forces can guarantee that outcome. The Joint Chiefs have reported that such an operation can be done, assuming the United States first triples the size of its infantry forces and can spend two years moving material into place. If we start now, our boys can be in Tehran in 2017! So let's be clear: advocates of a military option who are not proposing the immediate resumption of military conscription are not advocating a policy that will prevent Iran from deploying a nuclear arsenal within this decade. Engagement, sanctions, bombing, all policies short of D-Day on the Gulf share a single purpose: persuasion. Persuading Tehran to choose to halt its nuclear program. Now, maybe a massive bombing assault would be the approach most likely to persuade Iran's leaders to stop attempting to arm themselves with history's most effective weapon of self-defense. I'm open to considering the possibility; it seems a ludicrously irrational thing to believe, but then again the Iranian government may not be an entirely rational actor. (Though actually Iranian policy seems quite rational from an old-school realist, "black box" perspective of state action.) However, to admit the utility of force short of invasion as a persuasive tool in this case is to admit that deterrence can work in limiting Iranian state actions. Which is a bit of a catch-22 for advocates of a force-only approach, since an Iran that can be deterred is an Iran that need not be attacked. A bombing campaign depends on Iran's leaders having a finely tuned and overriding sense of self-preservation. Since advocates of war with Iran assume that Iran's leaders are not concerned with either personal or national self-preservation, their case for the utility of war contradicts itself. If they are right, bombing can't work. Bombing can only work if the advocates of bombing are wrong about the need to bomb. The only serious case for bombing, then, is made by those who acknowledge that while it will not prevent Iran from achieving an a-bomb, and will almost certainly increase Tehran's determination to so arm itself, these costs are worth paying to realize the benefit of merely delaying Iran's nuclear program by a few months or years. This is both highly pessimistic (though probably accurate in its pessimism) and highly optimistic, because final success depends on the Iranian regime collapsing in the interim, and also on Iran's post-Islamic republic accepting the repudiation of the nuclear program as a condition of reentering the community of nations. Neither is likely; the regime is not likely to collapse, and a new Iranian regime is not likely to shutter the nuclear program with a smile. (Nor is the rest of the world likely to insist strongly on the point.) But both are possible, and so maybe buying a little time for a long-odds possibility is better than accepting a bad outcome as a fait accompli. Never draw to an inside straight - unless your life depends on winning the hand, in which case bad odds are better than none. Yet outside of Israel, one does not hear advocates of war with Iran addressing the realities of the uses and limits of force as a tool of persuasion or delay.

- rhubarbs

February 18, 2010 at 12:23pm

No, Ginzy, I never expected Obama to bring peace in our time to anything -- you must be confusing me with someone else you know. In the foreign policy realm, I expected him to bring an intelligent approach to America's relations with its enemies and allies that recognized the limitations of American economic and military power (especially in light of a massive recession and the general American aversion to paying for wars with money that isn't borrowed). That means, foremost, not threatening military action when you are unwilling or unable to carry it out, not getting bogged down in military quagmires and attempting to leverage diplomatic means to reach a desired outcome or else prepare the ground for effective military action. Obama hasn't been successful on all of these fronts, but he has been a lot more effective than Bush and I imagine much, much more successful than McCain would have been. I don't think Israel needs to roll over and accept a nuclear Iran and hope for the best, because I agree with you that an Iranian bomb would be a most effective weapon in Iran's conflict with Israel -- although I don't think the Iranian regime would simply decide to shoot a nuclear-armed missile at Tel Aviv one fine day because that would hasten the coming of the Hidden Imam, as the behavior of Iran under the Ayatollahs has often been crazy but never suicidal. But Israel needs to carefully evaluate the chances of success in a strategic bombing run over Iran and what might happen if the attack is unsuccessful, which in my mind is more than a 50/50 proposition in the short term and even worse in the long term. Put simply, short of full mobilization Israel likely lacks the military capacity to underake a sustained campaign of bombing against Iran that would be necessary to both destroy all suspected nuclear sites, disorder Iranian command & control and prevent effective Iranian direct retaliation via missile strikes and indirect retaliation via Hamas and Hezbollah rockets and anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish terrorist acts all over the globe. And it's a pretty safe bet that any sort of Israeli attack on Iran, successful or not, would lead to a full government crackdown on dissent and may give the Iranian government the leeway to dismantle the Green Movement and immediately initiate the clerico-military dictatorship that Hillary has been warning about. The view that a successful, lightning bombing campaign would cause the Iranian people to boot out their leaders and decide that peace with Israel and America is the best is a wonderful scenario, but it is mostly wishful thinking at this point. As for the US, a nuclear-armed Iran doesn't pose any sort of existential threat -- I would hope all people would have learned the lesson of avoiding this kind of hype from the Iraq debacle, but apparently not. It does pose a serious threat to its friends and interests in the Middle East and may create real turmoil in world oil markets, but those interests have to be weighed against the potential of a catastrophic Iranian-Israeli war, Iranian subversion of more-or-less pro-American governments in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen and Iranian-funded proxy attacks on American troops in Afghanistan. And the US also needs to weigh the level of support that it could have receive from any of its allies in initiating its own military action against Iran's nuclear program -- action that would most likely be comprehensive, lengthy and involve large-scale air and naval power to cripple not just Iran's nuclear program but also its general offensive military capabilities and the command of the Revolutionary Guards. The fact that Israel's greatest White House friend, George W. Bush, failed to even prepare for such military action in his 8 years in the White House should speak volumes about how difficult of an operation this would be. The fact that Obama hasn't done it in his 1+ year in the White House is further validation. BTW, please don't pretent that all Obama supporters in the US are some kind of naive and innocent children who think that he is a Superman whose election would usher in an era of world peace. Some of us actually support him because we think that his foreign and domestic policies are rational, moderate and fact-based, which is why we did not support his rival. I, for one, don't think that you or most Israelis who voted for parties in Bibi Netenyahu's coalition wear wild peyut, carry around rifles and spend their days listening to Arutz Sheva and tearing down Arab olive trees around Kfar Tapuach, so show us the same respect.

- wildboy

February 18, 2010 at 12:27pm

Very nicely put, wildboy. The militarist fantasies never cease because this is an essentially religious conviction, the belief that "right makes might," that if one has virtue on one's side (in one's own opinion of course as what else is there), then one necessarily has the power to accomplish one's ends. And the enemy does not resist, but falls over in shock and awe. Herschel is of course correct that one must play the hand dealt. But that very fact means that not every outcome is necessarily available, including outcomes that might have been available eight years earlier. With all the huffing and puffing at Obama, none of these people is able to give a coherent explanation of what Obama is supposed to have done in the past year that would to this point have achieved anything more. Ginsburg says that the western powers are waiting for the US to take the lead on sanctions. Peretz says sanctions are impossible because Russia and China will not cooperate. What would "taking the lead" mean under such circumstances? They don't know, they don't say. They just huff and puff. Starting with a bad hand because Bush squandered both our diplomatic stature and the threat implied by our power, Obama is doing what he should be doing, trying to isolate Iran and engage the other permanent members of the Security Council. Accustomed as they are to bluster, and oblivious as they are to the futility of bluster despite the tutelage of Bush, the huffers and puffers want Obama to be making military threats. They simply cannot understand that this is antithetical to the project of engaging the other major powers. Nor do they understand that what is unspoken can be as or more threatening than bluster. Finally, it seems not to occur to them that, regardless of what is said now, at the end of the day the military option, to the extent it exists in practice, will still exist. If the time comes to make a threat, it will be much more credible coming at the end of a long period in which Iran has ignored the efforts of all the powers that can be engaged. If, at the end of the day, it is deemed feasible to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, or most of it, and there is no time or alternative left, then that is what will occur. Whatever rhetoric is employed now is for diplomatic purposes. It has no bearing on the ultimate military means. The huffers and puffers simply cannot wean themselves from the desire to utter threats that serve no purpose other than to relieve their own anxieties and affirmatively interfere with the prospect of a successful diplomatic resolution. They confuse strategy with their own state of mind. Among other things, a diplomatic solution requires undoing the deleterious effects on our relationships with other powers, particularly Russia and China, of Bush's lethal combination of braggadoccio and demonstrated impotence. That is going to require time and sustained effort under the best of circumstances. Is it even possible? Absolutely unclear, but there is every reason to make the effort. Even the military option, such as it is, requires that we not only exhaust diplomatic means, but be seen by the other powers to have exhausted them so that Iran is isolated. Otherwise, anything short of the actual destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities -- highly unlikely even with a massive air campaign -- will be unavailing while carrying enormous risks of a wide Middle East war and active terrorism by a wounded Iran. As Ginsburg points out, a containerized nuclear weapon is in some ways a greater threat than an airborne weapon as the miniaturization is much more difficult than simply making the thing go boom. Fat Man weighed tons. A plutonium weapon is inherently smaller, but that is not yet on the horizon, and Little Boy could not have been delivered by missile short of a Saturn rocket or something like it. Which brings me to the kabuki drama in Israel. I have it on good authority, currently visiting here in the US, that one strand of Israel's diplomatic strategy is not to undertake an attack itself but to rattle the west to mobilize it to action. As it is also undesirable under present circumstances for the US to be making military threats, it is useful to have Israel, if not actively making threats, then seen as a potential military actor. What better way to do that than to have a stream of senior US diplomats making their way to Israel to "dissuade" Israel from military action. Israel doesn't even have to say anything. It suffices that the US lets it be known that it is sending this one or that one for the purpose of dissuasion. We have no idea what is actually discussed, but, more than likely, it is a conversation about how to play the collective hand and not a finger-wagging lecture by the US. The main message is that it is time for Martin Peretz, and his acolytes, to grow up and start talking like adults in what is without question a dangerous world. This is no place for children or childishness of which there is an abundance on display.

- roidubouloi

February 18, 2010 at 12:45pm

not much to add to wildboy and rhub, though I must add that the line "Never draw to an inside straight - unless your life depends on winning the hand, in which case bad odds are better than none" plays right into Ginzy's hands. If he truly believes the bad odds are better than none, than there is no criticism I can level against him, just disagreement that the odds are none. One criticism I do have is: Air strikes against nuclear targets. BEFORE Iran tests a nuke. Once they successfully (or semi-successfully) test a weapon, it's too late (see North Korea), This is a misnomer. The deterrence North Korea has is not nuclear, it is their million man fanatically trained army with tons of artillery aimed at Seoul. Taking out their nuclear facilities would have meant accepting the destruction by conventional means of Seoul. Obviously, the cost would not have been worth it. Likewise, the deterrence Iran has on us is in the event of our bombing, our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq would face a determined new enemy, and would set back our military efforts in these two countries to...I simply can't imagine how badly. If anything, Bush really, really screwed the pooch by creating a two front war with an implacable enemy in the middle. Expecting Obama to fix this is just too much.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 12:51pm

roid, good post too, except for the end. "The main message is that it is time for Martin Peretz, and his acolytes" Dude, what acolytes? Ginzy presented a detailed an coherent position of what should be done. No need to be dismissive, he did exactly what was requested by all of us. Ginzy is essentially arguing that he has to draw for an inside straight because (he believes) his life depends upon it. I can't argue with that, I can disagree that things are not as bad as he believes. I can also point out that it is HIS life that depends upon it and not mine (which is also the harshest truth that Israel does face), but I can't dismiss him. His being right means his being dead. Cold comfort that.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 1:02pm

Well, blackton, I don't quite read Ginzy that way, or only that way. Most of what he has to say is his sarcastic dismissal of Obama's diplomacy. The only shred of substance in it is the correct observation that it has not yet succeeded, although, given the hand that Obama was dealt by Bush, a rational person would admit that such an outcome to this point was, if not forbidden by the laws of physics, wildly improbable. As for Ginzy's subsequent discussion of his military tactics, we hear about the size of bombs, the limits to Israel's capabilities, etc., etc. but nothing about the extent to which even bunker busters, that cannot destroy mountains or facilities sufficiently well buried even assuming that their location is accurately known, would achieve even the limited tactical purpose of delay. Nor do we hear anything about how the aftermath of such an attack plays out diplomatically and militarily. What does Iran do in response? Nothing? Commence a campaign of serious terrorist attacks on the US? Doesn't say. Nor does Ginzy explain why a full-scale attack on Iran is imperative this very minute or why exhausting such tattered diplomatic means as we have is not both the most prudent course and the one most likely to succeed if anything can. Considering Ginzy's sneering dismissal of both Obama and anyone who voted for him as a Kool-Aid drinker, I don't feel the slightest compunction about describing him as a Peretz acolyte. Indeed, I'm being kind. And, yes, Peretz's views are so devoid of contact with diplomatic and military realities that they are best described as childish.

- roidubouloi

February 18, 2010 at 1:20pm

I don't have time to fully digest & respond to the slings, arrows, and soft tomatoes I've managed to elicit, but I would note that a military dictatorship by the RG & Bassiij is no less apocalyptically messianic than Mad Mahmoud. Indeed he came up the ranks of the RG & Basiij & they view his as one of their own. They are all deep into the twelver theology. I don't know whether or not Iran should be viewed now as a military dictatorship or a theocratic dictatorship but from the perspective of the nuclear threat it's a distinction without a difference. Blackie, thank you for your respectful, civil response even if we disagree. But as far as what was expected of Obama, go back and read the posts from the campaign, the election and the period through the Cairo speech. BTW, I think that a nuclear Iran could easily be a threat to the USA, either via shipping containers as I explained above or from missiles based in Venezuela. Chavez & Mad Mahmoud are buddies; Venezuela has uranium deposits. Caracas to Miami is about 2200 KM, i.e., wihin the range of existing Iranian missiles. Iran has been busy with some secret projects in the Venezuelan jungles. hg

- ginzy

February 18, 2010 at 1:21pm

I would add, blackton, that it is not only Israeli lives at stake. The risk of nuclear terrorism in the US is real. There are many responsible commentators who believe that a nuclear attack, by a smuggled weapon, in the US is more likely than not in the next ten years. Such an attack, if it occurs, will be in midtown Manhattan at noon on a weekday, the location that would kill the most people, destroy the most capital, and have the most crippling effect on the US economy. If one is going to attack Iran, it really would be stupid beyond measure not to plan for physical invasion and the destruction of its regime and all of its nuclear facilities, followed by a quick departure to allow the place to sort itself out. Air interdiction alone is in many ways the worst solution as it will leave a vengeful and largely still capable Iran. It might be simpler and more effective to declare that any use of a nuclear weapon by Iran anywhere in the world would result in its immediate and total destruction and that missile submarines will be permanently on station in the Indian Ocean for that purpose. To tell the truth, I am fairly sure it is the case that Israel already possesses submarine-borne thermonuclear weapons sufficient completely to destroy Iran without any help from the US. One assumes that if Iran does not know that already, means will be found at the right time to make that clear. An attack on Iran that does not remove its government is, for that reason, somewhat more likely than less to render Iran undeterrable and to lead to the outcome we all fear. As we know, it is unpleasant to live with the threat of nuclear destruction. But we managed it for fifty years

- roidubouloi

February 18, 2010 at 1:31pm

There you go again, Ginzy, playing that favorite right-wing trick of deploying slings and arrows and then whimpering about the (exceedingly restrained) return fire. Take it like a man. You are supposed to be an Israeli, not some whiny ghetto-Jew.

- roidubouloi

February 18, 2010 at 1:34pm

Malahat is quite correct. If the international will develops to stop Iran, or even the unilateral US will, something we ought to consider an absolute last resort, it would suffice to cut off all of Iran's oil exports and petroleum imports which would not be physically difficult to do. However, that would cause oil prices to skyrocket, just one more reason why we need the backing of the international community and of the American people. It must be seen as a last resort against a defiant and imminently dangerous Iran. Part of our difficulty is that Bush destroyed our credibility on that score, domestically and internationally, with his phony claims that Iraq was in imminent possession of WMDs. It will be 100 years or more, maybe never, before this country emerges from the destruction caused by Bush.

- roidubouloi

February 18, 2010 at 1:40pm

Ginzy, please. For the sake of argument, I will accept that a nuclear armed Iran will itch to initiate Armageddon with Israel because of their Twelver Shia theology, and maybe with the US because they hate the Great Satan -- which either country would gladly give them if they do something like shoot off a nuclear warhead or supply a dirty bomb to some group in their cities. But no rational mind can accept that Hugo Chavez wants to court nuclear Armageddon because of his sincere belief in Bolivarian Socialism, or whatever else he thinks he believes this day. The lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis hasn't been lost in these here parts. So please stop spinning this kind of nonsense and get back to coherent arguments about why the US should give Israel its full support in bombing Iran and a coherent consideration of it might cost the US to do so.

- wildboy

February 18, 2010 at 1:56pm

ginzy, I have no problem with your suspicion of Obama, just because I don't have a solution, doesn't absolve Obama from it. It comes with the job, so it is perfectly acceptable to believe he has not done a sufficient job without having to state what it is he should do to achieve these aims, it is just that belief much harder to prove though. And even if Obama is naive, yada yada, I just don't know what he could do. roid, you sneer, ginzy sneers, I sneer, we all sneer just in different things. Fine, this comes with blogging. But I just don't like the term acolyte. It is belittling. This is just an advisement, not an attack. And lets leave the "dirty bomb in Manhattan" to 24, shall we. It would be an enormously difficult effort to pull off, and would require a logistical co-ordination unprecedented (what, not one Iranian along what will be a massive chain will not blink at nuclear annihilation?) Nope, sorry, don't buy it. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan facing a horrendous nightmare is enough to put me off. As I said, for American self-interest, wait until they test before taking action.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 2:27pm

blackton, I would quibble with a few details in your last. First off, the challenge to exploding a nuclear device in an American city isn't, as you suggest, the logistics of delivery. It's having the bomb. Give me an a-bomb of any size, $200,000, and a few armed men, and I could nuke Duluth by June. So could Iran. So, for that matter, could France. Once an Iranian nuclear device exists, the number of people whose knowing involvement would be required to deliver and explode it would be quite small; a few dozen people, at most. Secondly, "attack after Iran tests" is fine for the United States; we can probably afford to wait that long, if we're going to attack at all. The Iranian nuclear threat is not existential for the United States; it is at worst a regional strategic irritant, on the order of North Korea's nuclear arsenal, or even Pakistan's. It's not irrational, however, for Israel to see a nuclear Iran as an existential threat to the survival of that nation. So whatever red line Israel has for a military strike against Iran, that trigger will be well on this side of "Iran tests an a-bomb." If Israel has a red line, it is likely a matter of the purity to which Iran has or can refine its uranium, and/or the quantity of fissile material that has been or could be refined to a very high level. That point is not many months away; by all accounts Israel will likely face the go/no-go decision on attacking Iran by 2012. I'm not saying that Israel's willingness to attack Iran should lead the United States to attack Iran on our own, but we do need to take likely Israeli actions into account. Very probably, a policy of not attacking Iran until it actually tests an a-bomb will guarantee an earlier Israeli attack, and you can bet that an Iranian response will treat an attack by Israel as an attack by the United States. Israel's possible willingness to trigger all the negative consequences inherent in attacking Iran's nuclear sites in order to buy a few months or years of further delay is something Washington's Iran policy needs to take into consideration.

- rhubarbs

February 18, 2010 at 2:55pm

blackton, I wasn't talking about a dirty bomb, but about an A-bomb. I don't see why you think it is so difficult. An assembled bomb can be smuggled in a container, but it is even easier to send the thing in pieces, including the core in lead casks that are not going to emit radiation. Once assembled, all you need is a truck. In any case, I agree with you that Iran is not likely to risk nuclear annihilation by using a bomb that can be traced to it, not by the US and not by Israel. On the other hand, I would rather not have to take the risk if there is a practicable way to prevent it. My observation is that every time, which isn't many, the permanent members have seemed united, Iran has bent. I think if the world were to impose the toughest sort of sanctions on Iran it would bend. I don't think a military attack is likely to do anything but make matters worse, and I have yet to hear any advocate of an attack explain why they think the setback for Iran would be more than short-lived and what they think the likely Iranian response would be to an attack. At the minimum, I would expect it to ramp up support for terrorist groups, including both Hamas and Hezbollah and, most likely, groups targeting the US.

- roidubouloi

February 18, 2010 at 3:18pm

rhubarbs "Wait, the transformation of the Iranian regime into a military dictatorship makes the threat of suicidal Iranian use of nuclear weapons more likely? So it's not the messianic Islamists of the clerical state and A'jad's populist party that are the threat, but the soldiery?" You don't think that a militaristic government can also be a jihadist government? What do you think Hezbollah is? Oh yes, they say they have both a "political wing" and a "military wing." So do all Fascist regimes have a "political wing" and a "military wing."

- jdyer

February 18, 2010 at 3:40pm

I don't know if it's implicit in what some posters have been saying -- it may be -- but one crucial element of Obama's approach has been to remove the configuration in which the U.S. was playing the sullen obstructionist role and blocking the road to improvement in relations between America and Iran, and replace it with a model in which we have done -- are doing -- our best to open the gate to constructive talks with the Iranians and the possibility that they will swap their nuclear dreams for a constructive role in the region and the world, and a pragmatic relastionship with us. I saw and still see a lot of forethought and intelligence in that approach -- one that, if it goes wrong, is designed to fairly and squarely place the blame for intransigence on Teheran and not on us, and thus improve our diplomatic standing when it comes to a showdown. Indeed, that is what diplomacy is all about. So far so elegant. Three (or four) things have come onto the stage to complicate what was a promising strategy: 1. The Green Movement erupted last summer and introduced a new and unpredictable element into the mix. The regime went into massively defensive mode and became paranoid about its future -- exactly the lever that the U.S. wanted to use to get Iran to divert from its current nuclear path. Obama faced the problem of reconciling a duty to support a democratic movement with an already-active outreach to the Iranian establishment. Rocks and hard places. 2. The lurking suspicion held by many that the nuclear ambition is not only a theological but in many ways a nationalist goal with wide support among Iranians was given much food for thought a couple of months ago as Achmadinnerjacket was outflanked on the hawks's side by, of all people, Green Movt icon Mousavi (!), who accused him of having sold Iranian national interests down the river by his agreement on fuel processing abroad. 3. The increasing sense that we lack a set of tools somewhere between military intervention and toothless sanctions; a major international isolation of Iran might work, although it hasn't stopped North Korea, but that will need everyone on board to make sure it hits home. 4. The lack of global credibility on the nuclear issue -- why do Pakistan, Israel, and India get a pass, but Iran -- who suffered massively under Iraqi missile attack in the 1980s -- is singled out? We still don't have a good answer (or not as good as one should be), and it begins to look like (and this was my issue with the Bush administration) our policy on proliferation is simply, my buddies get nukes, the others don't.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2010 at 4:41pm

"The lack of global credibility on the nuclear issue -- why do Pakistan, Israel, and India get a pass, but Iran -- who suffered massively under Iraqi missile attack in the 1980s -- is singled out?" And why do France, Russia, the Uk and even the US get a pass. Iran is the only nuclear power that has threatened to wipe off a country from the face of the earth. That may be one reason why it doesn't get a pass.

- jdyer

February 18, 2010 at 5:05pm

"why do Pakistan, Israel, and India get a pass, but Iran -- who suffered massively under Iraqi missile attack in the 1980s -- is singled out?" Pakistan, India, and Israel are not signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is. And as others have noted, Iran alone among the above has threatened to wipe out another country by using nukes (see Rafsanjani's famous musings about Iran being able to absorb a nuke attack that wipes out about a third of Iran's population as price worth paying to eliminate Israel). And then there is A'jad & Co. hg

- ginzy

February 18, 2010 at 5:22pm

rhub, my point was I am tired of 24 type scenarios being used to formulate policy, not as a feasibility study, but even so I still don't buy it. But if you are right, there ain't nothing to be done, so why worry? Deal with the aftermath and reduce Iran to rubble. Some victory for them, right? And your point about Israel I agree with. As I said way above Israel will do what it feels it must and I can live with it, they just shouldn't expect us to do it based on their belief that it should be done. Beyond all this, I still believe Iran gets its leverage from the process, not the end result. Once they have the bomb they will have nowhere to go, nothing to leverage because no one will believe they will give it up, (all this assuming nothing is done after they do test) and will the Iranian people be satisfied with increasing misery just so Iran is part of the nuclear club.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 5:43pm

one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that I do wish after the election and before inauguration Bush had launched a sustained bombing campaign against Iran and was disappointed that he didn't. At that point he was so hated, and Obama could have railed against it mitigating lasting blowback, that it could have worked.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 6:01pm

malahat: "You start by saying that the Obama administration was pinning its hopes on being warmer and cuddlier to the Iranian thug administration . . ." That is most definitely not what I said. In my point 2, I was simply underlining that there is not much evidence that the opposition to "the thug regime" has a very different notion of Iranian national interest when it comes to nuclear weapons than said regime. This doesn't say everything of course, but it does cast a shadow on some rose-tinted musings about how if only the Green Movement took power they would see things our way. Regarding that direct Iranian threat to attack another country: Yes, a fair point, but I think that there has been at times some very disturbing nuclear-saber-rattling exchanges between India and Pakistan and -- if I may remind you all -- they have nukes and Iran doesn't. China also considered in Mao's time the west's nuclear deterrent to be a 'paper tiger' as (a) they wouldn't use it and (b) China could take a hit and even lose millions of its population while surviving to fight again. That wasn't good for the nerves either. I also raised the question of a lack of tools between toothless sanctions and military attack -- anyone with any ideas there?

- ironyroad

February 18, 2010 at 6:25pm

I'm not so sure, blackton. North Korea has gotten a lot more traction out of having nuclear weapons than it ever got out of trying to get nuclear weapons. And I'm not convinced that Tehran is really all that concerned with the bargaining power of a potential a-bomb. If Tehran fears foreign attack - and it should, since that is precisely what Marty is calling for - then a nuclear arsenal is the best conceivable defense. The truth is, nobody is likely to commence a war against Iran once Iran has a working nuclear arsenal. Further, Iran seems determined to make itself the dominant regional power in the Middle East. Supporting terrorists and militias in proxy wars from Lebanon to Yemen to Morocco only gets Tehran so far in this quest. Having a-bombs would get Tehran further. Right now, the United States can offer bigger carrots and sticks than Iran to most of the Gulf states, to Iraq, to Jordan, even to Libya. Once Iran has a-bombs, that math changes, and those countries will find themselves in a position much more like that of Syria, whose government legitimately fears Iran's ability to stir up Hezbollah-like domestic trouble for the regime. Bad enough that Tehran has an Arab lackey in Damascus; with a nuclear arsenal, it may gain satellites in Baghdad, Amman, Sanaa, and elsewhere. None of this is an argument for war with Iran; the world is a crummy place and we have to live with a lot of unpleasant, dangerous stuff. But neither do I think it's realistic to hope that Iran is just stringing us along in hopes of maximizing concessions. I think it's more reasonable to believe that Iran is developing a-bombs because it wants to have a-bombs.

- rhubarbs

February 18, 2010 at 6:40pm

rhub, I don't disagree, I am only speculating. Are they pulling an Saddam game of bells and whistles to keep power? Building underground nuclear facilities and staffing them, while holding down a revolution, can't be cheap. The more bluster they show, the further away I think they are. And, as NK showed, their one test was a weak cup of tea at best, Iran will have to test and have to succeed, and succeed highly. A tall order. I simply can't imagine they will have an "arsenal" anytime soon. And using what little they have would mean annihilation without inflicting any lasting serious damage on their enemy, kind of like having a gun with one bullet facing a room full of people with machine guns. I am sure they want to have a-bombs, but wanting and doing are very different things. malahat, Bush could have given the green light to Israel, once Israel could have started any Iranian response would have given us justification to retaliate. Yes, I know, counterfactual history is just so much bullshit. by the way, loved that that's mea culpa, not mea culpa bit, it gave me a good chuckle as harmless goofs do.

- blackton

February 18, 2010 at 6:58pm

malahat, I know. I just felt it was an unfair and derisive distillation, that's all, as the Obama administration approach didn't involve being warm and cuddly for warm and cuddly's sake (your implication), which would make him and his team out to be idiots, which they are not. There was a strategy, whether it is to your taste or not, or whether you determine it has failed, or not. Mea Cupla sounds like a small city in Romania.

- ironyroad

February 18, 2010 at 7:45pm

Well I wondered where all the posters on the HCR issue had gone. Now I know. My two cents. 1) I mostly agree with Blackton. I think the most likely outcome is that internal politics will result in regime change. 2) Iran will not engage in a first strike or even a surreptitious "24" plot. They would be immediately annihilated. 3) Having a deterrent gives them the ability to engage in a lot more mischief that is disruptive to the entire region and also to Europe because of it's large Muslim population. 4) Korea is completely different because they have no ability to engage in mischief. 5) Both China and Russia prefer to have Iran as a thorn in the West's side so they will never support effective sanctions unless we hold a gun to their heads. 6) I think a preemptive strike by Israel is a real possibility. Iranian mischief has a much bigger impact on them, and they face an existential threat if Iran messes up and launches a first strike. 7) I think the Bush I strategy was to leave Iran and Iraq at each others throat so they would neuter one another. Bush II was that Iran was too big to bite off military so they figured they'd replace Saddam with a democrat and hope the pro-reform dominoes would fall in Iran. I have no idea what the Obama strategy is.

- dtohmatsu

February 18, 2010 at 9:31pm

I think there's too much pessimism about sanctions -- this regime is not stable, Iran is not rich (and oil prices are still fairly high). I also don't think the military option is "now or never" option or that it has to "take out all of the buried nuclear facilities" to be effective. But I couldn't agree more with the commenters above about the strategic need to reduce our oil consumption: a SERIOUS move alone could cause a drop in oil prices and a problem for Iran.

- Lymon1

February 19, 2010 at 10:22am

Digression and plea: Insults and potshots aside, this has been a great thread, much more illumianting and expansive than the Peretz's post. The contending arguments are extremely well fleshed out. My modest proposal: Peretz should note a good thing when he sees it and on fitting occasion weigh in, taking into account the excellent arguments that have been made and responding thereto. Better that than another potshot at HRC or whatever. On the other hand, it is a demanding assignment, lifting the blog from the mere spattering of off the cuff comments, a very thing Wieseltier spanked Sullivan for, among others: it was,after all, an over determined spanking.

- basman

February 19, 2010 at 12:59pm

Lymon: you're dead on with respect to the (in)stability of the regime and its finances; and this has nothing to do with the Green Movement, but the sheer incompetence of A'jad in (mis)managing Iran's economy over the past five years. Vast tracts of Iran's private sector economy (barely 20% of the GDP at the best of times) have been decimated by active policy of unrestrained importation (proceeds going to monopoly licence holders) and takeover by the Revolutionary Guards; the public sector is bloated and inefficient; the transportation sector is dysfunctional (seven airline crashes in the last two years; derailings of passenger trains are common; the much bally-hooed Isfahan-Shiraz rail link - announced five times already - has not seen a single train on it; tunnels are falling down; the Tehran metro project is stalled); the Bushehr reactor is still months from completion - and this after 37 years of construction- and so on. But if you really want to know how unstable it is, note that the UK Government blocked/seized $1.6 billion of money belonging to Khamenei's son, and Iran did not even dare protest, because then it would become known, in Iran, to whom it belonged. The regime will fall - if its members, and their bank accounts, are choked. Ginzy: "but I would note that a military dictatorship by the RG & Bassiij is no less apocalyptically messianic." Oh dear. One who makes a comment like this has no idea - none whatever - about Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are a kelptocracy. They have no interest in messianic jihadism. They smuggle alcohol and drugs to keep Iranians stupefied and export boys and girls and women and artefacts to Arab states to enrich themselves. They would sell their sisters to a Tel Aviv bordello for the right price. As for the Basij, you need to see the pictures and read the reports. We are not talking about the fourteen year-olds (among whom, one of my childhood friends) who ran on mines with plastic keys around their necks. The New Basij comprises country oiks - old men and prepubescent boys - bussed into the cities for orange drinks (not even juice) and bologna sandwiches (not exaggerating), with the promise of fucking a city boy or a girl - as long as the latter is wearing green, they can, and do, rape the victim at will and with impunity. Certainly, no one at the highest echolons of power in Iran, and especially not Khamenei and his wife (who likes what his husband's wealth, now at $2 billion and counting, buys her), has any intention of triggering a nuclear holocaust for the benefit of the Hidden Imam. Not this gang. Anyone who amasses billions - and enjoys it -is not about to commit suicide. As for the rest - it would not surprise anyone that I agree with Rhubs, Roid and Irony.

- icarusr

February 19, 2010 at 6:18pm

Kudos and thanks to all for a first-rate educational discussion of complex issues with multiple moving parts. I am here mainly as a learner and at times, like here, am in awe of the intricate, detailed knowledge demonstrated by so many of you.

- JackR

February 20, 2010 at 10:06am