Iran Must Be Attacked

I don't say this lightly, or out of any desire to arouse cheap controversy, but there is simply no other way of eliminating the grave threat presented by Iran's nuclear ambitions. All this talk of UN Security Council referrals and so forth is of no value whatsoever in keeping the Iranians in check - no one's going to stop buying their oil - which leaves but one option on the table, i.e. an all-out military assault aimed at destroying ever single Iranian nuclear facility. Europeans and anti-war Americans might not like what I'm saying here, but the prospect of Iran being able to fit nuclear warheads on missiles able to reach London is one I cannot complacently sit by and watch being realized: within the next year or two, we are going to have to attack Iran.

Comments

[Andrew]

Well, maybe, but - as the taunt sometimes goes - us and what army? We're kind of tied up in Iraq in the moment and the U.S. army is barely able to fulfill its recruitment quotas as it is. It's not clear to me how it's at all within the range of possibility for us to invade Iran and destroy its nuclear plants.

[Abiola]

Who said anything about an invasion/occupation? The US has more than enough airpower to reduce all of Iran's nuclear facilities to rubble even while fighting one or two major conflicts elsewhere at the same time, and inserting groups of special forces to sabotage installations doesn't require heavy manpower either.

[Andrew]

Yes, but then they can just start over again. Or are we supposed to bomb them every 10 years (or however long it takes to develop nuclear facilities)? Also, I'm no military tactician, but according to this ( http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html ), several of the major targets are underground and thus couldn't be destroyed by non-nuclear bombs. I don't know if that's true, but it certainly makes sense; you'd think Iran would have learned a lesson from the Osirak attack.

[Abiola]

"Yes, but then they can just start over again."

And how exactly is this an argument for inaction? I guess Israel made a mistake in bombing Osirak in 1981 then ...

"Or are we supposed to bomb them every 10 years (or however long it takes to develop nuclear facilities)?"

Would you rather that they had the option to nuke European cities 10 years sooner than if it had been prevented? This is like saying that because one has HIV it's pointless to take drugs which only stave off the inevitable; 10 extra years is 10 more years during which the Iranians can overthrow their insane government, or some other positive development can take place.

"several of the major targets are underground and thus couldn't be destroyed by non-nuclear bombs."

This is a flimsy excuse to do nothing. Once Iran's air defense system has been destroyed and total air superiority achieved, it will be no big deal to insert the forces needed to destroy even said underground facilities, without the Iranians being able to move troops around to do anything about it.

[Jim]

Their oil seems to be the noose around the nutsack that is keeping the rest of the world at bay. And that is all concentrated in Khuzestan, the Arabic-speaking southwestern chunk of the country right next door to Basra. That would give an invasion a nice limited objective in doable conditions. The Iraqis would have succeeded the first time if they hadn't been hamstrung with a paranoid and counter-productive civilian in charge of the effort. No time for that now, but it casts a different light on an American attempt.

Recruitment numbers are in the crapper, but re-enlistments are very oddly right through the roof.

[Andrew]

"And how exactly is this an argument for inaction?"

Well, it's not, exactly. My point is more that I'd be worried that attacking Iran is not the sort of thing you want to do by halves. I'm thinking about the Iraq war in particular - the consensus nowadays seems to be that things might not be such a mess now if we'd committed, say, three times as many troops. This didn't happen because we simply didn't have that many troops and as Rumsfeld said, "you go to war with the army you have" - except that going to war with the army we had was bound to produce the current crappy situation. What if we bomb Iran by air, things go to hell in a handbasket (eg the Iranian population rallies behind the mullahs, Iran allies itself with an Islamist Iraq and/or destabilizes Iraq, Iran blocks oil supplies, chaos ensues), and afterwards people say "hm, we should have just overthrown the government"?

As for the military operations being no big deal... not being a military expert, I can't contradict you outright, but unless you can point me to some evidence of this, allow me a bit of healthy skepticism (especially in light of various pre-Iraq-war claims that the occupation would be a cakewalk). Do we even know where all the nuclear sites are? (I mean, this is the intelligence service that told us Iraq had WMDs and had us bomb the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade...)

"10 more years during which the Iranians can overthrow their insane government"

I have to say I find it highly implausible that Iranians will turn against their government rather than rallying behind it after a massive bombing campaign by the U.S., especially since most Iranians want nuclear weapons, and - if I'm not mistaken - Iranian public opinion has tended to shift in favor of the government when there's some sort national threat.

[Timothy Burke]

I'm sorry, but you have to get past the "must be attacked" part into the actualities of the situation. Let's assume that the US could actually use airpower alone to effectively reduce all of Iran's nuclear facilities to rubble, as you suggest. An assumption which posits that Iran has not dispersed, hidden, heavily bunkered or protected underground, or located among civilian communities any aspect of its nuclear program. If underground, the idea that the US could "easily insert" sufficient ground forces to destroy underground facilities is pure armchair generalism, or perhaps your sense of the word "easily" is drawn from some private dictionary that I'm not privy to. Let's also assume that in the course of the attack, there is not a significant release of nuclear materials into the surrounding area, a risk that many experts take very seriously.

But ok. Let's say, "mission accomplished". Now what do we do next when: a) Iran's government quietly retaliates with a major insurrection in Iraq, something that almost every observer says that they're absolutely capable of doing and that would almost certainly strain US capabilities in Iraq well past the breaking point; b) said action isolates the US even further in the global political scene and allows European states to broker relationships to the Middle East through condemning the US; c) spurs China and Russia to far more overt antagonism towards US interests; d) leads other near-nuclear or already-nuclear regimes like Pakistan and North Korea to conclude that they need to effectively pose to the US some kind of real threat of nuclear retaliation, terrorist-delivered or otherwise, in order to stave off similar strikes on their own facilities; e) makes it effectively impossible for opposition within Iran to pursue democratization or liberalization on the grounds that this appears to make them sympathetic to US interests.

I'm being modest about the possible consequences: there might be others, some of them far more drastic. Now you can be disdainful of the consequences: that would be foolish, in my view. Or you can decide that the threat you judge Iran to pose outweighs any other consideration. Just don't fool yourself about how easy this is likely to be to accomplish and about the cost-benefit ratio that's likely to be involved.

[Abiola]

"What if we bomb Iran by air, things go to hell in a handbasket (eg the Iranian population rallies behind the mullahs, Iran allies itself with an Islamist Iraq and/or destabilizes Iraq, Iran blocks oil supplies, chaos ensues), and afterwards people say "hm, we should have just overthrown the government"?"

Too bad for them, then. My first and main concern is for the safety and well-being of myself, my family and my neighbors, and if the Iranians can't sort out their own problems, it's a shame, but that doesn't mean I'm supposed to be ok with sitting back and watching their nasty government arm itself with nuclear weapons which its radical, unstable, "Allah" obsessed leadership can use to threaten our existences.

"Iranian public opinion has tended to shift in favor of the government when there's some sort national threat."

As did public opinion in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or any number of other such places - so what? You seem to think such rallying effects must necessarily last forever, even in the face of abject defeat.

"An assumption which posits that Iran has not dispersed, hidden, heavily bunkered or protected underground, or located among civilian communities any aspect of its nuclear program."

The hidden assumption here being that one has to hit every last target, no matter how insignificant, for the effort to be worthwhile, which is simply absurd: uranium filtration systems can't be miniaturized the way transistors are.

"the idea that the US could "easily insert" sufficient ground forces to destroy underground facilities is pure armchair generalism"

No it isn't. I actually *do* know quite a bit about military operations - more than most people who are likely to be reading this, I'm sure - and there's plenty of past evidence to back up what I'm saying. Troops can't just teleport from one place to another, no matter what critics of "armchair generals" [sic] may like to believe otherwise.

"Let's also assume that in the course of the attack, there is not a significant release of nuclear materials into the surrounding area, a risk that many experts take very seriously."

Better that the Iranians bear that risk than that I and everyone else in Europe does. They did choose Ahmadinejad, after all, so it's hardly unfair that they should have to live with the consequences of his actions.

"Iran's government quietly retaliates with a major insurrection in Iraq, something that almost every observer says that they're absolutely capable of doing and that would almost certainly strain US capabilities in Iraq well past the breaking point"

If that is the price to be paid for pushing back the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, then it is one well worth paying. In any case, it isn't as if I believe US troops ought to remain in Iraq to sort out things between people who don't seem to have any desire to sort their own affairs out peacefully anyway. The US cannot be expected to babysit resentful Iraqis forever, and if it were up to me I would gladly pull all American troops from Iraq within the next 6 months, whatever happened in Iran. In short, the threat of chaos in Iraq straining US troops is one which holds little power for me.

"said action isolates the US even further in the global political scene and allows European states to broker relationships to the Middle East through condemning the US"

And who do you think is far more threatened by Iran's designs, if not the Europeans? You speak as if no Europeans realized just what the stakes were, when even the Guardian is now reporting that *European* intelligence agencies are the ones raising the alarm about Iran's ambitions.

"spurs China and Russia to far more overt antagonism towards US interests;"

And how exactly would that be different from the current state of affairs? Who has done more to help Iran in its nuclear ambitions other than Russia? Who vetoes UN action on Sudan if not China? Which country rattles sabres at Taiwan and refuses to put any meaningful pressure on North Korea? Speaking of North Korea, you *do* remember that this is the very same country which has already lobbed missiles over Japan, right? If there were anything more the Norks could do to make themselves more threatening, you can be sure they're already hard at work on it regardless.

What you put up as a scary prospect is already the *reality*, and if China hasn't done more, it's because it doesn't want to damage its trade with the US, a fact which won't be changed by attacking Iran. Sentimentality, good-will and humanitarianism do not and never have played the slightest role in Communist Chinese foreign relations.

"leads other near-nuclear or already-nuclear regimes like Pakistan and North Korea to conclude that they need to effectively pose to the US some kind of real threat of nuclear retaliation, terrorist-delivered or otherwise, in order to stave off similar strikes on their own facilities"

Beautifully circular reasoning to support inaction in the face of imminent peril. If Iran weren't already scrambling to obtain such tools, we wouldn't be having this particular discussion anyway, so how does this differ from the present reality? If Pakistan could effectively threaten the US, it would already be doing so to India, and you can be sure the Pakistanis aren't going to let anything America does or does not do in Iran hold them back from strengthening the threat their arsenal pays to India's population anyway.

"makes it effectively impossible for opposition within Iran to pursue democratization or liberalization on the grounds that this appears to make them sympathetic to US interests"

This same argument could and has been wheeled out very many times before to defend passivity in the face of malevolent international actors, and I see nothing new here to suggest it has any more validity than it ever did. If anything, a US-induced humiliation might be just what Iran needs to shake off its Islamists, just as it took the Six Day War to strip Nasser of his shine in Egyptian eyes.

"Now you can be disdainful of the consequences: that would be foolish, in my view."

Looking at all of the scenarios laid out to me as likely to result from destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, not one of them approaches in the least the alternative wherein a nuclear-armed, terror-exporting Islamist government, headed by a fanatic who talks of "green auras" and openly advocates the annihilation of Israel, is quietly allowed to assemble an armada of Shahab missiles with which it can immunize itself against any possible retaliation as it intensifies its spread of terror across the world. The last thing we need is a Islamic version of the Soviet Union casting a shadow over us for another 50-100 years, and even if it takes chaos in Iraq and Iran to stave off such a prospect, then I say emphatically YES, such a price is *well* worth paying.

No one can seriously expect me to be cowering in my boots at the prospect of the only superpower's "isolation" when the reality is that even tiny Israel shrugged off worldwide criticism of its Osirak raid without any real harm redounding from doing so. Hesitating to act decisively in the face of a grave threat because of worries about sanctimonious strangers in foreign places getting into temporary hissy fits over US "unilateralism" is not a luxury serious people can expend energy indulging in.

[Andrew]

""Iranian public opinion has tended to shift in favor of the government when there's some sort national threat."

As did public opinion in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or any number of other such places - so what? You seem to think such rallying effects must necessarily last forever, even in the face of abject defeat."

Yes, but we actually invaded and occupied Germany and Japan, an action you seem to be ruling out in the case of Iran. If we take surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, that wouldn't be abject defeat in the sense that Germany and Japan experienced it. And the rallying effect doesn't even have to last forever: it could just last long enough for Iran to do all those harmful things previously mentioned, as well as probably redouble its nuclear efforts (as Iraq did after Osirak), possibly under new conditions in which we can't strike again.

"If anything, a US-induced humiliation might be just what Iran needs to shake off its Islamists, just as it took the Six Day War to strip Nasser of his shine in Egyptian eyes."

But it was clear to all involved that the Arabs started the Six Day War (yes, Israel attacked first but only after Egypt blockaged the Straits of Tiran and both Egypt and Jordan started massing troops near Israel's narrowest point - a much clearer provocation than the mere fact of Iran's developing nuclear capabilities).

"there's plenty of past evidence to back up what I'm saying. "

Can you point us to some?

[Abiola]

"Yes, but we actually invaded and occupied Germany and Japan"

Israel didn't need to invade and occupy Egypt to humiliate Nasser, and America didn't need to occupy Serbia to humiliate Milosevic.

"it could just last long enough for Iran to do all those harmful things previously mentioned, as well as probably redouble its nuclear efforts (as Iraq did after Osirak), possibly under new conditions in which we can't strike again."

Yeah, sure, because these things are so easily reconstituted as all that; why, look how quickly Iraq managed to do so ...

"But it was clear to all involved that the Arabs started the Six Day War"

And Ahmadinejad has no more provoked action against him by his rants about "wiping" Israel "off the map" and his government's brazen defiance of the UN than Nasser did via his blockade of the Straights of Tiran? In any case, you really think it was the *illegitimacy* of Nasser's activities which did for him in the Arab world's eyes? Someone forgot to tell the PLO, Hamas and the rest then.

"Can you point us to some?"

Open any World War 2 book and look up the term "kesselschlacht"; alternatively, acquaint yourself with an obscure battle called "Stalingrad", in which a certain encircled army vanished from the face of the earth. It's simply ridiculous that anyone should be arguing this point with me - how exactly are troops without aircover supposed to make it from A to B without being turned into sand?

[Timothy Burke]

Given that you are an expert, please tell me more about how US ground troops will be "easily inserted" at the sites of underground nuclear facilities and surgically proceed to destroy the capabilities of those facilities.

On many other fronts, particularly international politics, you imagine that things can't possibly be worse than they are. Your imagination is limited, then. Envision for a moment that one consequence is that the US ends up being formally denied airspace rights for military operations over a far broader range of countries than presently refuse such rights; imagine that various current allies are compelled by international pressures to withdraw formal permission for US forces to operate on their territory. Imagine that the US finds itself isolatd and ignored in every single international institution, or that serious alternative institutions are created with the explicit intent of countering US influence. Imagine that China's leadership decides that the risks of calling in their economic chips against the US finally outweighs the risk of not doing so. Imagine that Putin decides to pull an OPEC-style use of his own local "oil/gas weapon" against the US.

Doubtless you'll reply that we go ahead and overfly countries anyway and do whatever the hell we please wherever the hell we want to. US power has its limits, hard as that may be to believe: financial limits, military limits, political limits. Ignoring them is comparable to ignoring supply lines in any war, and is likely to have the same devastating consequences. You may be right about the dangers of inaction, but have some respect for the risks of action, as well. The failure to do that is the essence of armchair generalism, of advocating actions heedlessly, chest-thumpingly, and shouting down anyone with prudential concerns. It might be that something has to be done, but what you're talking about is neither easy nor without risks that in the worst-case scenario are as bad as or worse than the situation they seek to ameliorate. It may be an enormous risk to do nothing, or to do little, equally. Tell me in the end how you see the Cold War? Was it better in the end to practice containment and wait it out or should we have just let the nukes fly right at the outset and gotten it over with?

[Abiola]

"Given that you are an expert, please tell me more about how US ground troops will be "easily inserted" at the sites of underground nuclear facilities and surgically proceed to destroy the capabilities of those facilities."

Oh, I take it you've never heard of airlifts or parachute regiments, then? Never been acquainted with planes like the C-5 Galaxy, the C-17 Globemaster or the C-141 Starlifter which can transport heavy equipment to even the most inaccessible places, I take it? Strategic airlift is not an obscure or pie-in-the-sky concept - but then again, I'm only an "expert" who has some actual military training under my belt, so I guess I'll defer to your superior grasp of such rarified matters.

"On many other fronts, particularly international politics, you imagine that things can't possibly be worse than they are. Your imagination is limited, then."

No, the difference is that I've actually long been paying close attention to what certain countries do rather than sanctimoniously telling others that their imaginations are "limited."

"Envision for a moment that one consequence is that the US ends up being formally denied airspace rights for military operations over a far broader range of countries than presently refuse such rights; imagine that various current allies are compelled by international pressures to withdraw formal permission for US forces to operate on their territory. Imagine that the US finds itself isolatd and ignored in every single international institution, or that serious alternative institutions are created with the explicit intent of countering US influence."

Yes, such grand scenarios will surely come to pass in a world in which America outspends the next 6 armies combined and remains by far the biggest buyer of foreign goods, despite it never transpiring during the height of the Cold War, and all because of an Iran whose own Arab neighbors are less than ecstatic about its obtaining nukes. Talk about a limited imagination combined with a poor grasp of political realities.

"Imagine that the US finds itself isolatd and ignored in every single international institution, or that serious alternative institutions are created with the explicit intent of countering US influence."

Even more ridiculous. Exactly which international institutions worth anything can operate without US financing and support? Do you suppose the US is a leading member of the IMF, the World Bank, the UN and other international bodies because it is liked, or because it is both extremely rich and supremely powerful? And kindly tell me again why America is supposed to suffer grave penalties for embarking on a course of action far more justified than, say, the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, or China's attacks on Tibet and Vietnam?

"Imagine that China's leadership decides that the risks of calling in their economic chips against the US finally outweighs the risk of not doing so."

And do ... what exactly? With what means? You think if China had this leverage it wouldn't already be using it against Taiwan or Japan? You truly believe the CCP leadership is so idealistic as to sacrifice the pacifying effects of export led job creation on its restive masses for the sake of a country like Iran? If you really believe any of this, you're far too naive to be in any position to be spouting nonsense about "armchair" this or that.

"Imagine that Putin decides to pull an OPEC-style use of his own local "oil/gas weapon" against the US."

And when exactly was the Law of One Price abolished for fungible goods like petroleum and natural gas? What exactly is Russia supposed to do with all that oil other than sell it? One presumes even Russians like to be able to buy foreign goods, right?

"Doubtless you'll reply that we go ahead and overfly countries anyway and do whatever the hell we please wherever the hell we want to."

A quick glance at a map should have told you that we don't need overfly rights from anyone to get into Iran, what with the country being bordered throughout its southern part by the Indian ocean. Besides, I thought US troops were supposed to be remaining in Iraq to suffer the threat of chaos, which would suggest Iran's western border would also be easily accessible, wouldn't it?

"US power has its limits, hard as that may be to believe: financial limits, military limits, political limits. Ignoring them is comparable to ignoring supply lines in any war, and is likely to have the same devastating consequences."

Acknowledging that such limits exist is not by any means the same thing as pretending they're so grave Iran can't possibly be dealt with, and if I did what you're postulating I wouldn't have left the possibility of a full-scale occupation of Iran off the table as I have done. You seem to be suffering from the very opposite fallacy than the one you present here - acting as if American power were so limited and its standing in the world so fragile that dealing with a rogue state like Iran threatened to damage it all irretrievably, which is simply nonsensical.

"You may be right about the dangers of inaction, but have some respect for the risks of action, as well. The failure to do that is the essence of armchair generalism, of advocating actions heedlessly, chest-thumpingly, and shouting down anyone with prudential concerns."

It might give you amusement to think that this is what I'm doing, but I'm secure enough in my assessment of things that this bit of ad hominem doesn't bother me in the least. What you're being here isn't "prudential" - if you were, you'd be giving as much weight to the risks posed by inaction as you would to those presented by action - but hysterical, and in a rather smarmy, sanctimonious fashion too. To breezily assume as you do that anyone who has something to say that doesn't amount to "do nothing" or "peace, peace above all!" must be a militarily ignorant armchair doofus is the height of condescension.

"It might be that something has to be done, but what you're talking about is neither easy nor without risks that in the worst-case scenario are as bad as or worse than the situation they seek to ameliorate."

A claim you provide no actual evidence whatsoever to buttress - I don't consider being called an armchair general to be evidence for anything other than arrogance on the part of the person doing so.

"Tell me in the end how you see the Cold War? Was it better in the end to practice containment and wait it out or should we have just let the nukes fly right at the outset and gotten it over with?"

Let's leave aside the blatant false dichotomy you present here and I'll ask you this in return: do you really think it was better for the world in the long run that Stalin, Mao and their proteges were allowed to destroy 100 million lives after 1945, rather than the US annihilating the Soviet leadership the first chance it got, well before they came up with their own nuclear bomb?

[Andrew]

"In any case, you really think it was the *illegitimacy* of Nasser's activities which did for him in the Arab world's eyes? "

I didn't even say that. My point was that public opinion usually takes a dimmer view of offensive wars than defensive wars. It's more humiliating if you attack someone and lose than if they attack you and you lose.

"And Ahmadinejad has no more provoked action against him by his rants about "wiping" Israel "off the map" and his government's brazen defiance of the UN than Nasser did via his blockade of the Straights of Tiran?"

About the rants, words aren't nothing, but they're not as much as actions. And about the UN defiance, as I already said, massing troops poised to cut Israel in two within one hour is a much more imminent threat than Iran maybe having nuclear weapons in the next couple years. I don't see why you're denying this. (Plus, let's not kid ourselves, Israel has always been in a much more precarious security situation than America. Iran having nuclear weapons is very bad, but is not a threat to American's very existence as a sovereign nation.)

"why, look how quickly Iraq managed to do so ..."

They were making progress until the Gulf War crippled the program. Plus, Iran has an advantage over Iraq in that it doesn't need to import anything - it has uranium mines and already has most of the technical knowhow.

"Israel didn't need to invade and occupy Egypt to humiliate Nasser"

Yes, he was so humiliated that when he tried to resign, the calls for him to come back persuaded him to stay on as president...

[Timothy Burke]

When you get ahold of a particular thing you think ought to be done, you're like a terrier with a rat: it can't be dislodged even for a moment from your jaws. You're quick to say that anyone who challenges even the least assumption in such a case you make is arrogant or ridiculous for doing so. I think that's the virtue of this blog most of the time, but it can be frustrating when the subject seems to demand stepping back and looking at all the angles thoughtfully rather than red-meat applause lines and unflinching certainty. Isn't there anything about this scenario that concerns you, gives you pause, worries you, makes you feel in the least bit tentative? Aren't there any excluded middles between "full-out military attack, regardless of consequences" and "doing nothing"?

[Andrew]

"rather than the US annihilating the Soviet leadership the first chance it got, well before they came up with their own nuclear bomb?"

But how would we have done that? I don't think we were in any position to invade the USSR in 1946 (look how well the Russian land war worked out for Napoleon and Hitler). Or do you mean nuking the hell out of the USSR? Did we even have enough nuclear bombs to destroy the USSR enough to make it no longer a threat?

[Darren]

I don't believe there really are any "excluded middles", as it would seem the middle position is the sort of diplomacy being attempted by the European Union and Russia, and this has evidently been completely unsuccessful.

I personally don't see how much more can reasonably be negotiated, and so it does indeed seem that we are left with only two choices: To do nothing, or to support or undertake a military attack.

To do nothing may seem like a prudent course of action, except that the guy in charge of Iran is completely and utterly nuts, and to allow him to obtain nuclear weapons with which to further his dreams of an Islamic Empire in a Middle East sans Israel, seems to me to be the entirely wrong course to take.

So how else can we thwart the nuclear ambitions of the Mad Mullahs? Diplomacy, as mentioned above, is clearly going nowhere, and to continue talking in the face of clear evidence that it's having no positive effect whatsoever is merely another way of doing nothing.

So it seems military force is a logical and perhaps inevitable choice. Contrary to the doom-mongering, it is possible to successfully conduct the required strike (though of course it will be neither easy nor simple), and disabling the nuclear capabilities of the Iranian regime, if only for a decade or so, is well worth the potential negative side-effects if only because it would stave off the far worse consequences that would arise were the Iranian regime to become a nuclear power.

[Timothy Burke]

Just on the insertion of troops issue. Yes, of course I am aware that the US military has the capability to airlift troops to a site (if air defenses have been destroyed) and then extract them afterwards. The reason for my skepticism is this: suppose, similarly, you had advocated that the US destroy all sites where manufacture and storage of weapons of mass destruction were concentrated in Iraq circa early 2001, for example. We now know how that would have turned out because we know that existing intelligence was extremely faulty.

What makes you think that in this case, the US has the precise intelligence that will allow the "easy" insertion of troops to precisely the correct sites where underground or hidden nuclear work is being done? I'm not suggesting that in this case the intelligence is wrong about the existence of an Iranian nuclear program, but I have no idea why anyone would expect that we have extremely precise information about all possible targets. In the actual case, inserting ground troops is likely to have to involve investigating many suspected or possible sites of nuclear research, and that's not something that can be done in a single day or two of operations, with surgical neatness. In fact, if you do this, it becomes absolutely urgent to find all sites of nuclear research, because the immediate threat level from any remaining site in which nuclear materials are stored goes up a thousandfold following the attack. So you're really probably talking about weeks or even months of insertion of troops. How sustainable do you think that's likely to be if Iran retaliates by spurring a major insurrection in Iraq, global opinion is strongly against the US, and even a single US antagonist uses the opportunity to spur further trouble on another front (or serious unrest in another Middle Eastern nation threatens US interests)? Let alone whether the Iranians mount any kind of military response within their own borders to repeated insertions of US ground troops.

There's at least some reason to think that Ahmadinejad is a more isolated figure within the Iranian political scene than it might otherwise appear. At the very least, we could stand to have a bit more subtle appraisal of Iranian politics than simply understanding Ahmadinejad to be the strong consensus choice of the Iranian public and therefore they deserve whatever they get in consequence. A similar error in assessment crops up a lot in how outsiders evaluate Islamist figures and political parties in the context of the Middle East (Algeria before the last round of civil conflict is a good example). Voters sometimes have wearily turned to Islamist figures largely in response to the ineffectual, weak governance of secular or reformist parties and out of anger over corruption and nepotism among those government, in what to them is very much a Hobson's choice. Iran is especially complicated because the elected government doesn't have a hell of a lot of power regardless, due to the theocratic state structures established by the Iranian Revolution. I'm not saying that a nuclear Iran is anything but a really, really scary prospect, but I am wondering which of these two scenarios (attack or no attack) is ultimately the less scary one. At the least, I could do without stuff like, "Whatever happens to the Iranians, they deserve, because who they elected" and so on. There's a kind of gravity that's involve in these kind of choices that is ill-served by peering down from Olympian heights and making thunderous judgements. The dice being rolled here affect everyone's future in unpredictable and terrifying ways: you cannot hope to think that average Iranians--or ourselves--will come out of the current impasse unscathed, whatever happens next.

[dsquared]

hmmmm, given that Iran is not exactly on the brink of a nuclear warhead right now, still less an ICBM to deliver it with, I think that we can probably wait until after the weekend before we attack them. We would even probably push it out till after the Easter holidays. If India can live with a nuclear Pakistan, I think we can stand the risk of a few "nuclear facilities" with no uranium in them long enough to come to a considered opinion. Didn't Thomas Schelling write a few things about this?

Given that global warming would also be dangerous for you and your family, would you also support spending a couple of trillion dollars on that, right away immediately right now?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"About the rants, words aren't nothing, but they're not as much as actions."

Well Iran also funds terrorist organizations dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel, so that probably counts as actions worth looking at.

"given that Iran is not exactly on the brink of a nuclear warhead right now, still less an ICBM to deliver it with, I think that we can probably wait until after the weekend before we attack them."

Sure, we can probably give them another year. Though we should really count the last two as part of the clock since the European 'negotiations' were almost certainly just Iran playing European diplomats for time. But I suspect you will use that argument on a rolling basis until they actually get a nuclear warhead, at which point you will notice that it is too late to do anything about it.

[Andrew]

"Well Iran also funds terrorist organizations dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel, so that probably counts as actions worth looking at."

Yes but my point was comparing Iran's current threat to America/Europe/Israel/whoever v. the Arab threat to Israel in May/June 1967, in terms of a direct provocation tantamount to an attack. It seems very weird to me to say that Iran today poses a threat to America comparable to what Israel faced in 1967, i.e. the real possibility of being completely conquered. I mean, the Arab nations were literally mobilizing troops for war in June 1967. (I take it as obvious that terrorist organizations are a lesser threat than massed armies.) There are threats, and then there are *threats*. [But this point is really rather off-topic so it's probably not worth belaboring.]

[Darren]

"given that Iran is not exactly on the brink of a nuclear warhead right now, still less an ICBM to deliver it with, I think that we can probably wait until after the weekend before we attack them."

Uh, not entirely so. Iran already has the Shahab-3 missile, which was recently upgraded to give it greater range, which is now estimated to be between 1500 and 2000km. This is not only enough to easily reach Israel, but it's also enough to reach all American forces based in the Middle East.

Iran is also forging ahead at increasing pace with the development of the Shahab-4 and Shahab-5, after previously halting the program briefly (apparently due to a lack of funding that resulted from depressed oil prices).

The available evidence appears to suggest that the Shahab-4 is based on North Korea's Taep'o-dong 1, and as a result is estimated to have a range of around 2800km, putting Berlin within reach. The Shahab-5 is estimated to have a range of around 4000km, which places all of Europe in its range, including Great Britain. There is indeed cause for concern here.

It's also not particularly wise to make the claim that these missiles are not operational yet, for the simple reason that we have no idea how long it would take before they are. Considering the fact that they are based on North Korean ICBMs, which are considered to be fairly advanced, they may even be operational already. The first time the world becomes aware of Iran's newest missile capability may be when they eventually launch one, by which stage there'd be nothing you could do about it.

[Scott Wickstein]

Hmm. What happens when Iran gets nukes and starts using them?

Reading the responses here, I think we can assume that Western policy-makers really think it is impossible that they would actually do that. So I think it is prudent that people use their 'imagination' and wonder what will happen after a nuclear exchange in the middle east.

[dsquared]

[Sure, we can probably give them another year. Though we should really count the last two as part of the clock]

Sebastian, if you are claiming that we should invade Iran minus one years from now I have to point out that is not possible.

[Lee A. Arnold]

It might be necessary one day to bomb Iran, but the facts and reasons are not in evidence here.

Iran is going to get nukes no matter what. The argument to stop it, uses the ever-reliable "crazyman" meme, recently used to whip-up the U.S. public about Saddam. So we read about Iran's "insane government," the "mad mullahs," and so on. On the topic of Iran, the "crazyman" meme seems to have two different referents, which are not the same: (1) the exteme Islamic fundamentalists found in these countries, who are certifiable as any religious nuts; and (2) the mullahs who run Iran, who are mostly anything BUT crazy. (That's not to say they don't talk to the nuts.) The newly elected President was a sober and ascetic mayor of Tehran who fought corruption, and whose current bellicosities sound mostly like nationalist pap to impress the homeboys.

At the moment, bombing Iran would be a mere stopgap, with finally neutral results -- unless it were to compel the rise of more extreme fundamentalists. It will put a minor crimp in funding and arming terrorists for a time, while destroying lines of information that our intelligence networks need to locate such people.

But will Iran's leaders use the nukes for a threatened missile attack on Israel or Europe? Highly unlikely, unless they can't wrap their minds around the concept of "mutually assured destruction." Islam uses suicide soldiers, to be sure, but it seems unlikely that Iranians will invite self-immolation of their entire country for the heavenly purpose. It seems more likely that Iran wants nukes for the usual number of reasons, including to be able to act grown-up, and to find diplomatic leverage. The Western press lacks in-depth discussion of what Iran's real intentions are, I would like to find a genuine statement from their point of view, and Mr. Keegan's article in the Telegraph also falls short. (And, because of other recent events, we are unlikely to take Mr. Bush's word for anything.) There is no regular mention of Iran's history with the West, a bit of a sordid tale which, if it were vetted, and responsibility were accepted, might go a way toward assuaging some regular Iranian anger. We are given to assume at this blog that Iran is Stalinist and expansionist. Is this true?

At present, it seems to me, the best course is still a micro/macro division of tasks: Micro, find and destroy terror cellsand arms networks, plus beef-up security. Macro, all join hands at the U.N. and sing "Kumbaya." A nuclear armed-Iran could even hasten its political maturity, just as the publics of other countries have worked their way through the implications of possessing this terrible power.

Bombing might be required in the future, and if so, it cannot wait too long. But killing collateral innocent people in yet another half-baked power-play is what helps to get us into these messes in the first place.

[Abiola]

"The argument to stop it, uses the ever-reliable "crazyman" meme, recently used to whip-up the U.S. public about Saddam. So we read about Iran's "insane government," the "mad mullahs," and so on."

So Saddam wasn't crazy? A sane man acts the way he did during his years in power? That's news to me. And what exactly do you make of a man like Ahmadinejad who claims a "green aura" enveloped him and kept the world's leaders from blinking as he spoke at the UN: the epitome of mental soundness?

"The newly elected President was a sober and ascetic mayor of Tehran who fought corruption, and whose current bellicosities sound mostly like nationalist pap to impress the homeboys."

Let me rephrase that: "Hitler is a sober and ascetic man with not a hint of sexual scandal to his name, and whose current bellicosities sound mostly like nationalist pap to impress the hardcore SA men." There, is that better? I'm sure you're completely sold on Hitler being all bark and no bite now ...

"(1) the exteme Islamic fundamentalists found in these countries, who are certifiable as any religious nuts; and (2) the mullahs who run Iran, who are mostly anything BUT crazy. (That's not to say they don't talk to the nuts.)"

If only Hitler/Stalin/Mao knew what the extremists lower on the food chain were doing in their name! I hear all three of the aforementioned could be as calmly logical and charming as anyone could want on many an occasion, and yet somehow that didn't stop them from initiating insane policies, did it?

"Iran is going to get nukes no matter what. At the moment, bombing Iran would be a mere stopgap, with finally neutral results -- unless it were to compel the rise of more extreme fundamentalists."

Ah, the old argument for inaction from inevitability. I was wondering when someone would wheel that hoary fallacy out: "we're all going to die no matter what, so let's not bother taking care of our health" ... In any case, how exactly are you able to tell so precisely what the consequences of acting will be, with the help of a time machine or something? Please explain, as I don't consider bald assertions as to what "will" happen if America strikes to be anything more than rank speculation delivered with an air of authority.

"It seems more likely that Iran wants nukes for the usual number of reasons, including to be able to act grown-up, and to find diplomatic leverage."

Again, how are you so privy to the inner thoughts of Iran's leaders that we should trust what you say over what they themselves openly declare to the world? Why should we have to wait to learn the hard way that you have it completely wrong?

"The Western press lacks in-depth discussion of what Iran's real intentions are, I would like to find a genuine statement from their point of view, and Mr. Keegan's article in the Telegraph also falls short."

More bald assertions backed up by *zero* evidence or real argument. Either disclose the privileged sources you have which put you in a better position to say what Iran's "real intentions" are, or stop pretending that you have access to any information the "uninformed" Western press didn't either give you or already possessed as well.

As for your critique of Keegan, even if you actually bothered to *explain* why his article "falls short" rather than simply declaring it and expecting everyone to take your word for it, I'd still be more inclined to take the views of such a well-informed military historian over that of a layman with no claims to any real expertise in warfare or military strategy.

"There is no regular mention of Iran's history with the West, a bit of a sordid tale which, if it were vetted, and responsibility were accepted, might go a way toward assuaging some regular Iranian anger."

Yes, if only we beat our chests in recrimination loudly enough, the Iranians will surely give up their nuclear ambitions and their dreams of a world under Shiite Islam! I distinctly recall similar arguments being made for the Soviets throughout the Cold War, and for Hitler during the 1930s, and this latest rehash is no more convincing.

"We are given to assume at this blog that Iran is Stalinist and expansionist. Is this true?"

No, just because that's what the Iranians declare to be their intention doesn't mean we're supposed to take them at their word, nor should their support for hardline Shiite Islamists in Iraq, Lebanon and Israel give us any pause either ...

"A nuclear armed-Iran could even hasten its political maturity, just as the publics of other countries have worked their way through the implications of possessing this terrible power."

Or it could just as easily lead to a triumphalist theocracy exporting terror throughout the world with impunity, thanks to the blanket of a nuclear arsenal. Tell me again exactly what "maturity" nuclear weapons gave the USSR or China, neither of which were led by religious fanatics eagerly awaiting the imminent return of the Mahdi.

"But killing collateral innocent people in yet another half-baked power-play is what helps to get us into these messes in the first place."

What "messes?" You mean the one created by staying in Iraq to try to rebuild the place, rather than simply pulling out once Saddam had been deposed? And what exactly does the phrase "half-baked power-play" stand for in your statement other than just being a nice-sounding collection of letters meant to give a suitably jaded, oh-so-worldly touch to your assertions? Finally, your reference to "collateral innocent people" is utterly meaningless unless you mean taking military action to deal with threats is *always* wrong: show me a weapon which never kills innocents and I'll show you a science-fiction device.

Lee, I've chosen your response to criticize in detail here only because it's the most recent, rather than because it's the only one full of lousy reasoning, wishful thinking and completely unsupported assertions about reality. Rest assured that I'll be dealing with the rest of the backlog in a dedicated post in the near future: what I've seen here by way of criticism of my call to action is so rank with naivete, ignorance and antiwar dreaming dressed up as judicious caution that it's hard to understand how informed grownups could really believe such stuff.