interesting commentary, if a bit strident. The one issue that Iran can in all fairness use in their favor with the international community is they've never started a war with a neighbor. True they do fund some horrific terrorist organizations, specifically contra Israel, and they have backed Syria heavily for much of the past 30 years, but they've never actually started a war with anyone.

This could be looked upon as a condition of relative weakness in relation to it's neighbors, though through most of the last 30 years they've all been more or less at parity in any number of aspects excepting population size. If that's the case then perhaps the fact that they aren't now and haven't been since the middle ages an expansionist power partially mitigates the danger and rhetoric

I certainly don't want to see that regime backed by nukes, but I don't really want pakistan, which is even MORE unstable and prone to warmongering, backed by nukes either.

I think Dan said it best, there really are no good options in this situation.

It's a pretty silly article. He doesn't even try to make a case that (1) bombing is preferable to the other alternatives or (2) bombing will be effective at all. His argument is that we should bomb because they're bad people and we've never bombed them before. But there's no attempt to explain how bombing them will improve the situation.

Typical neo-con thinking (sorry: neo-con "thinking").

I agree with Adam.

If we accept the argument presented then America has to take action, however he defaults to carpet bombing (or nuking) Iran without any discussion into (1) the long term effects and (2) alternatives to bombing.

To me a "swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation" would likely only lead to another Somalia or pre-2002 Afghanistan, both reported heavens for Al-Qaeda.

You want to give Al-Qaeda a birthday gift? Hand them more states without governments and millions of Islamic youth whose lives have been shattered by US bombs and missiles.

Nuke 'em 'till they glow.

I needn't assume the enemy is decent. Only that it is fearful of retalition in kind.

"I needn't assume the enemy is decent. Only that it is fearful of retaliation in kind."

I wrote a comment about this but you said it much better than I could.

Iran might be idealistic and fanatical but is it not suicidal. An Iranian nuclear attack would have to obliterate the Western world (not just the US) or else face certain destruction from a US sea based and allied nuclear retaliatory strike. Remember M.A.D.?

And it is not like Iran could hand off a nuke to Al Qaeda and then clean its hands of the whole thing. The radiation from nuclear blasts each has a signature which can be used to determine the nuclear plant the uranium was produced at. It would be clear within hours which nuclear plant made the bomb.

A greater danger is if Iran got bought some old Russian uranium and created a nuke for Al Qaeda. Then it would be much more difficult to place responsibility and strike back.

**Off color (or colour) commentary***

You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face ...

I know he's some kind of multi-national anglospheric quadruple threat, but Steyn needs to take care when using Brit argot in American publications. The sentence above has a quite a different meaning in the US of A than it does in Old Blighty.

*** end off-color (colour) commentary***

Adam: Yeah, complain about "neo-cons", and assert that they don't really think.

That straw-man really makes your case strong, doesn't it?

What alternatives do you propose as being better than his solution? Or are you merely claiming he has to present them in order to dismiss them? If so, why bother? And if not, surely you can share some and convince the audience that he's wrong, yes?

Unless it's "typical anti-neocon "thinking"" you've presented?

(Hint: I, at least, could figure out that his argument was that bombing them would improve the situation by stopping them from getting nukes. That might be incorrect; it might be more dangerous than letting them get nukes. But don't pretend it's not obviously what he's saying. An argument (even an implied one) you dislike or dismiss is not identical to no argument.)

Here's a thought.

I have always felt that the worst thing to emerge from a cold war victory was a weak Europe. Since WWII, America has always made the mistake of getting in between Europe and everything that threatens Europe or European interests; the USSR, the Baltic States, etc. This has led to an anemic Europe that no longer properly recognizes threats. Indeed, much the same could be said about the rest of the world as well. So why don't we take another approach?

Let the world know that we are washing our hands of Iran. After all, a mushroom cloud will appear over Israel, Paris or Riyadh before anywhere in the U.S. Without America doing all the dirty work, other Western nations, as well as a few Middle-Eastern and Asian countries, might start to take Iran more at face value. Who knows, a truly diverse international coalition may emerge that may actually be credible.

As an added kicker, before you "wash your hands of Iran", convince China that Taiwan has been talking to Iranian intelligence about the acquisition of nuclear technology...then just walk away.

The results would be more effective than anything we could accomplish on our own.

...just a thought

And it is not like Iran could hand off a nuke to Al Qaeda and then clean its hands of the whole thing. The radiation from nuclear blasts each has a signature which can be used to determine the nuclear plant the uranium was produced at. It would be clear within hours which nuclear plant made the bomb.

While I'm pretty sure the US could do this if the uranium used in the bomb was produced at one of our own enrichment facilities, I seriously doubt that we have the 'radioactive fingerprints' of every enrichment facility on the planet, especially considering that there are certainly a few enrichment facilities US intelligence doesn't know exist.

With that in mind, how can we be certain the nuke is Iranian, Pakistani, the much-rumored 'missing Russian nuke', or came from some other party?

During the cold war, this wasn't an issue. Ballistic inbound tracks would tell us where it came from and who to retaliate against.

It would be a lot better, IMO, to not have to ID where a detonated warhead came from, y'know?

I've read more foolish things, but not often. When someone labels the British decision not to kill millions and destroy one of the ten largest cities in the world in response to the invasion of a small island as "decency" ... well, you have to wonder: does he understand the incredibly wide distance between decency and committing mass murder? And if the person doesn't understand that gulf, you first stop listening and you second ensure they are kept away from positions of influence where that lack of that understanding might be important. Let's say in arts and culture section.

To realize that the leaders of Iran aren't decent is not to come to the conclusion that they are fired up about strapping a nuclear suicide belt around the waists of their 68 million citizens, some of whom are their mothers, brothers, sisters, and daughters.

If the factual calculation is such that Iran is becoming a legitimate threat, logic would conclude that Israel has a larger interest in seeing Iran’s fledgling nuclear program dismantled (by bombings). In fact, Israel has a demonstrated history of resolving such situations accordingly.

Additionally, if Israel has not yet concluded to make the strike, then it is hard to imagine the rationale being used by this administration that would warrant we precede Israel’s often and necessarily preemptive strategy. Certainly the threat to Israel from Iran, when coupled with the Palestinian election of a radical Hamas government, would far exceed any presumed threat to America.

If this administration goes forward with a US assault on Iran rather than to consult with and support Israel (as a silent & out of sight ally) in making any necessary strikes, then I would assert that it may be reasonable to conclude that the decision to initiate a US assault was simply another in a long string of questionable strategic and political calculations that have failed to reverse the ever sliding support for the President’s positions and for his struggling party.

read more here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Right on Peter. These people are all totally crazy. They have no idea how imperial and vicious they are. they claim that they are defending themselves against a country that they assume (though have no evidence to show) might possibly be trying to get nuclear weapons some 10 years from now. They think they have a divine right to liquidate their enemies (even the ones that are not dangerous to them) and they use fantasy to invent the situation which they define to be suitable to empower themselves to attack. It is sick.

They are so arrogant, so murderous and so compulsive that they see any speck of dirt as reason to rip up the entire carpet.

Their view of the world is so perverted that they see themselves as honestly defending good while they slaughter hundreds of thousands of people around the world. It is like Spaniards going into an Inca village with bible in one hand and sword in the other. "We come in peace, in the name of god!"

I only hope Iran knows what is coming and can fight back. At least, I hope, America suffers dearly for their arrogance. If they think they can go and take over any country and bomb any little place on earth, i hope they get their nose bloodied this time.

Someone in the comments above suggested that Iran would not use the bomb because of fears of massive retaliation. Two things:

1) The whole point of Steyn's argument is that the mullahs don't care. What is rational depends on your world view. If you're a mullah thinking it is your Allah-inspired duty to use that bomb, no matter what the consequences (in fact, those consequences will make you a martyr), then the Cold War MAD logic does not apply. I don't understand why it's so difficult for people to understand this. Quite apart from the fact that it has been suggested that even the Russians never bought the MAD logic; only the US did.

2) Even if the mullahs accepted massive retaliation, they could still credibly use their bomb for coercion in the region against non-nuclear powers, or against nuclear powers that do not have the means for a massive retaliation (that would be Israel).

3) A nuclear Iran would therefore likely lead to a) further nuclear proliferation in the region, putting bombs in the hands of all sorts of other unsavory types or b) give Iran a lot of opportunity to flex its muscles in the region. Any US countermove would soon turn into a nuclear stalemate. And such a stalemate would not go wrong, let me repeat, only if you believe the mullahs are not willing to take one (or two or three) for their team, i.e. Allah. So, if you think 2,500 dead US soldiers in Iraq is bad, imagine having tens of thousands of them irradiated in one blast.

The mullahs can't be allowed to have nukes. Period. Persians are a great people; their regime is not. If Jimmy Carter had shown some spine and prevented the Revolution in '79 we wouldn't have been in this mess. Now we have to take out their nuclear program potentially alienating a largely pro-US population. A fine mess.

Adam, there are a lot of arguments that he doesn't address. It's an article, not a book. It's an article on the political aspects of the situation, not an article on the military aspects. He barely talks about solutions. The bulk of the article is about the way that the Iranians tend to mean what they say.

That said, what non-bombing options do you feel like he is particularly remiss in ignoring? Land invasion? Sanctions? Strong words? Assassination? Talks? The development of really good ABM systems to be stationed around Iran (and thorough customs agencies to lock up every border)? Kind words, to help the Iranians become more aware of the pain that nukes can cause?

It's not what the article is about and your criticism of him for not writing an article about it is inane. None of us knows of a solution that would fix this and your suggestion that an article that persuasively argues against treating persian rhetoric as metaphorical is a failure because it does not achieve this near-impossible task falls into one of the lowest categories of rhetorical bad faith.

Chris, obviously my response to Adam applies equally to your agreement with him. That said, your additional implication that Somalia represents a greater threat to the west than Iran deserves highliting.

The real addition, though, is your security in MAD, which strongly implies that you didn't read the article. Do you believe that, in response to the nuking of 6 million Israelis, that the US would murder 60 million Iranians? The article notes the reasonable Iranian belief that the Israelis couldn't do it. Perhaps you believe that the French would do it? The Russians? Do you believe that they would do so instantly? The same day, perhaps? Or in cold blood, after some months of discussion, and after many key officials had already moved to their vacation homes in Syria?

Even if it was Seattle that was nuked, you seem to believe that we have a good working knowledge of the Iranian WMD manufacturing facilities, allowing a match to be made, with certainty, within hours. Given the degree of uncertainty that we have regarding whether or not some of these facilities even exist, this seems implausible to me. A couple of weeks later, I can see an invasion, but I cannot see the US, or anyone else, deciding to murder millions of innocent people to deter their leaders from an action that their leaders would not be able to take back (as I understand it, it's tough to "un-nuke" the crater). I can't imagine Bush doing it, and they're building nukes that could be used under an even more nuanced regime. In short, the Mullahs are assured that any destruction will not be mutual.

There may be real problems with the article. I don't know enough about Iranian politics to be aware of them. I'd be genuinely interested in any criticism of the article, if anyone cares to share any, but "the people who disagree with me on Iran policy are all morons" statements seem to add little.

Peter, what word would you prefer to "decent"?

I think that the understatement was pretty clear, but even if he meant it literally, and even if you think that the Iranians are not likely to back up their threats to wipe out Israel (with support from more than your own gut, please), do you not think that the basic point that the Iranians are much more likely than we were to nuke enemies stands?

I, at least, could figure out that his argument was that bombing them would improve the situation by stopping them from getting nukes. That might be incorrect; it might be more dangerous than letting them get nukes. But don't pretend it's not obviously what he's saying.

Well no, that wasn't obviously what he was saying. But since you've brought it up....

First off, I want to point out that this is an insane idea that doesn't actually deserve serious consideration. But OK, let's consider it anyway.

How far can we set back their nuclear program? There's a minimum time it takes to do things, and then there are delays due to mistakes, the learning curve, bad choice of approaches, etc. The minimum is longer if you can't generate a lot of electricity, etc.

I say that if the USA were to somehow lose our entire nuclear industry, all the reactors and everything, but we didn't lose our scientists and engineers, we could fund a new bomb program and we'd have new bombs in 6 to 18 months. Because we know how. It didn't take us all that many years the very first time.

If it takes iran 10 years it will be because they make mistakes and go down blind alleys etc. And if we wait 7 years and then bomb everything, how long will it take them to get their bombs starting from scratch? Maybe 3 years.

They aren't going to make the same mistakes repeatedly. Once they figure things out they'll never be more than 3 years from a bomb. Maybe they can get it down to 18 months. Are we going to bomb them again every 3 years?

The idea that we can stop their nuclear program with a single bombing campaign is ridiculous. At a minimum we'd need to smash their military to the point we could send in special forces to kill or capture the large majority of their nuclear scientists and technicians. Call it 20,000 of them. We'd go through the whole country looking for suspected nuclear technicians and when we find a suspect the easy thing is to just shoot him on the spot, but we could perhaps kidnap a hundred thousand or so suspects and interrogate them just in case.

If they're willing to spend for nukes, we aren't going to stop them with a bombing campaign. We'll have to bomb them every 3 years or less until they succeed.

Bombing iran because you think it will get rid of their nuclear program is like stomping on a fire ant nest because you think it will kill all the ants.

It's an insane idea.

HTH.

J Thomas,

Under your scenario, bombing every three years seems like a pretty good idea if that prevents crazy Mullahs from getting the bomb. You have asserted that this is somehow insane, while in fact providing a great argument for it.

And it is not like Iran could hand off a nuke to Al Qaeda and then clean its hands of the whole thing. The radiation from nuclear blasts each has a signature which can be used to determine the nuclear plant the uranium was produced at. It would be clear within hours which nuclear plant made the bomb.

While I'm pretty sure the US could do this if the uranium used in the bomb was produced at one of our own enrichment facilities, I seriously doubt that we have the 'radioactive fingerprints' of every enrichment facility on the planet, especially considering that there are certainly a few enrichment facilities US intelligence doesn't know exist.

You're arguing from ignorance here. We can do it for every aboveground nuclear *test*, and we can do it for many underground tests. I don't know how many enrichment facilities we can do it for, that's a CIA thing.

If a secret enrichment facility produces an untested bomb, we might be kind of lost. And there might be some bad guys who know how to disguise that sort of thing too.

So there's a chance we wouldn't know whose bomb it was, but the chance that we would know provides a degree of deterrence.

With that in mind, how can we be certain the nuke is Iranian, Pakistani, the much-rumored 'missing Russian nuke', or came from some other party?

I'm guessing it would take a lot of testing to fake somebody else's signature on your bomb. So we'd probably know that we didn't know, if we didn't know.

Would we announce a perp with certainty when we didn't actually know? That's a political choice made by a politician. Or possibly it might be a technical choice made by technicians who want to keep their jobs....

Two things. One, if decency is an issue at all, then ought I not want my side to be decent? Isn't part of any argument that my side deserves to have nukes and the other guy doesn't that I have the restraint not to do things like – well, like my side is saying it might do?

Two, the Argentine example is the right one, used in an ass-backward way. The UK had nukes, and didn't use them. The UK had superior conventional forces, and used them to achieve only the goal that made sense in the context of Argentina's provocation. Casting Iran in the role of the UK? Only because they might get nukes? The weakness of the analogy is just amazing. We should be the UK in this analogy, and even then, it ain't a good one.

What is it about a particular set of folks, that the frustrations of the long haul are just intolerable? Any solution, no matter how harmful to one's own long-term interests, is preferable to grinding away to get the better solution. We had Saddam in a box. He could not threaten us, and sorry folks, but given what has come to light since the war, the nuts in the White House had good reason to understand that Saddam couldn't threaten us. Just too hard to sit there and get the outcome we wanted a day at a time, when we could put our own interests in the toilet, cost thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, breed tens of thousands of new enemies, so by golly, we took action!

Now, the world's greatest military power, having shocked the muslim world with our willingness to use military might without serious justification, to kill with impunity, to torture, to lie and to run the politics of an occupied country to our own liking (when we can), we turn around and threaten a nuclear strike against a muslim nation for having the temerity to consider becoming just a little more like us? We, the only nation in the world ever to use nuclear weapons on human beings, threatening to use nukes again to see to it that Iran can't make a miniature version of the same threat?

In a world in which sovereign nations are, for now, not thought the greatest threat to our domestic security, what kind of idiot thinks waving nukes in Iran's face makes us safer? We are winning new enemies every day.

The whole point of Steyn's argument is that the mullahs don't care. What is rational depends on your world view. If you're a mullah thinking it is your Allah-inspired duty to use that bomb, no matter what the consequences (in fact, those consequences will make you a martyr),

The illogic in this argument is that the Mullahs have never once invaded a neighbor in the last 27 years. If they felt that their duty was indeed to spread and conquer, how come they didn't do it before ? In any case, most of the mullahs seem to have graduated from theology -- their main occupation seems to be lining their pockets, not spreading the faith.

2) Even if the mullahs accepted massive retaliation, they could still credibly use their bomb for coercion in the region against non-nuclear powers, or against nuclear powers that do not have the means for a massive retaliation (that would be Israel).

What nonsense. Israel has had the capacity for massive retaliation or massive nuclear attacks since at least 1973. Israel's nuclear technology is generations ahead of Iran. Israel most definitely has the means for massive retaliation.

And which Iranian neighbors are going to be threatened ? Pakistan has the bomb. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan are either dejuris or defacto American protectorates.

3) A nuclear Iran would therefore likely lead to a) further nuclear proliferation in the region, putting bombs in the hands of all sorts of other unsavory types or

Worse than the AQ Khan network run by ally Pakistan's top nuclear scientist ?

If Jimmy Carter had shown some spine and prevented the Revolution in '79 we wouldn't have been in this mess.

This is the sort of idiotic statement that convinces me that the writer lacks the intelligence of a bedbug or is purely motivated by partisanship.

Anyone who remembers 1979 remembers that the Iranian revolution against the Shah was a genuine peoples movement with incredible fervor and millions of people in the street. That sort of revolution cannot be dettered by anything short of massive outside military assistance. The Shah's army was falling apart (the officers were pro-Shah, but the regular army was disintegrating). How a much less powerful, ecnomically strapped US was going to stop a massive revolution of that magnitude in a state bordering the Soviet Union is something those wingnuts who yell about Carter allowing Iran's takeover by radicals never make clear.

Today we would find it incredibly expensive to occupy Iran -- in 1979, a weaker US (both economically and militarily) could not possibly have stopped the takeover. It would have been a golden opportunity for the Soviet Union to bog the US down in an unwinnable battle. You don't think those same Iranians who launched massive suicide attacks against Iraqi forces wouldnt have done the same against the US. [ The Islamists and the Soviets never liked each other much, but its easy to see their allying against a common enemy. ]

... How far can we set back their nuclear program? ...

I almost hate to say this, but read the article please. specifically this part:

Once again, we face a choice between bad and worse options. There can be no “surgical” strike in any meaningful sense: Iran’s clients on the ground will retaliate in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, and Europe. Nor should we put much stock in the country’s allegedly “pro-American” youth. This shouldn’t be a touchy-feely nation-building exercise: rehabilitation may be a bonus, but the primary objective should be punishment—and incarceration. It’s up to the Iranian people how nutty a government they want to live with, but extraterritorial nuttiness has to be shown not to pay. That means swift, massive, devastating force that decapitates the regime—but no occupation.

You may notice that Steyn argues, not for some form of coersion to prevent the Iranians building bombs, he infact declares that he thinks such an objective is impossible, but for a decaptitation of the Iranian regime.

So you may wish to address that, rather than the argument you put forward.

If the factual calculation is such that Iran is becoming a legitimate threat, logic would conclude that Israel has a larger interest in seeing Iran’s fledgling nuclear program dismantled (by bombings). In fact, Israel has a demonstrated history of resolving such situations accordingly.

Israel once bombed a civilian reactor in iraq, killing a french technician or two. The israelis claimed there was a massive tunnel network under the reactor where the iraqis planned to do weapons work. The french denied there was any such thing. I haven't heard of anybody excavating the rubble to see.

If it was a matter of delaying an iranian nuclear program for a few months, it might be enough to bomb one key site. They could bomb the single critical weakest link. It appears the american plans involve bombing everything to completely eliminate the nuclear program.

A small israeli bombing raid would be mostly ineffective. And everybody would know it had a lot of US material support, We were very public about giving them the bombs. They only have 8 refueling tankers, they can't do anything like a large raid on iran without our support. We looked into the possibility and decided that involving israel wouldn't give us enough deniability to be useful.

do you not think that the basic point that the Iranians are much more likely than we were to nuke enemies stands?

Countries invaded by Iran post WW-II : 0
Countries invaded by the US post WW-II : too many to list here

Nukes used by the US against enemies: twice
Nukes used by Iran against enemies: zero

WMDs used by the US against enemies who did not use WMDs first: Nukes , possible use of borderline chemical weapons in Vietnam. Several known cases of biological weapon tests in the US.

WMDs used by Iran against enemy who did not use WMDs first: None

Under your scenario, bombing every three years seems like a pretty good idea if that prevents crazy Mullahs from getting the bomb. You have asserted that this is somehow insane, while in fact providing a great argument for it.

If you don't see that the original argument is plain insane, then it would follow that you'd see the reductio ad absurdum to be a good argument for the original insanity. I don't think I can discuss this with you just now.

I suggest you try therapy. What do you have to lose? You might get insights into your condition.

The whole point of Steyn's argument is that the mullahs don't care. What is rational depends on your world view. If you're a mullah thinking it is your Allah-inspired duty to use that bomb, no matter what the consequences (in fact, those consequences will make you a martyr), t

One more point I forgot to mention. Iran very like has bio weapons. Bio weapons, while nearly useless as battlefield weapons, are arguably more potent than nukes against the US now because they can be smuggled in (not requiring missiles) and could cause mass panic and hysteria that exceed even the impact of a nuke. If the mullahs weren't deterrable, why haven't they started using their bio weapons ?

I think, only half jokingly, that the world is doomed.

J Thomas is right. If we are expecting to bomb the Iranians in order to solve the problem, we're not going to succeed-we'd have to bomb them repeatedly as they rebuild and get close to nukes, over and over again. Whether its every three years, or every 18 months, or every 5 doesn't really matter. Regardless, its utterly unrealistic.

Thus, the only solution is what he suggested. Go in and get their nuclear technicians and scientists. In other words, invade. But an invasion and occupation is simply not possible with the current army we have. Aside from the political problems, the pragmatic problem is that the army isn't big enough: the invasion and occupation of Iran would require a draft, and a national commitment on the level of WWI or Vietnam (probably not the level of WWII or the Civil War-but far more than Gulf War, or Iraq War, or even Korean War).

But most importantly, neither will really solve the problem. Because Iran isn't the problem-Iran is just the current incarnation of the problem. The problem is that nuclear technology is getting cheaper and getting more easy-that's why Iran is able to do it. So we wipe out Iran. In ten years, it will be Venezuela, or Pakistan, or Indonesia, or or or. The US is not going to invade the entire Third World as it develops in order to stop the spread of nuclear technology.

So we have really three futures: bomb Iran, alienate much of the third world, and watch as that third world slowly develops nuclear technology over the next 30 years. Draft an army of 2-3 million or so (currently Army + National Guard is about 1 million), invade Iran, and watch as the third world slowly develops nuclear technology over the next 30 years. Endure some form of Cold War with Iran (and hope they are rational enough to appreciate MAD), and watch as the third world slowly develops nuclear technology over the next 30 years.

I just don't see any realistic solution where we all go back to some post-Cold War balance, sit back and sigh, and go back to 'normal' whatever normal is.

I strongly suspect we will bomb Iran. I also strongly suspect this will be good in the short term (Iran no longer gets the bomb), but disastrous in the long term (everyone else does). I also strongly suspect there is no better realistic option.

Note: There are two solutions, neither of which are realistic.
1) Some type of global government that has the power and authority to limit the spread of nuclear technology. Such a government would have to be strong enough to limit scientific growth, which would make it strong enough to do effectively what it wants-it would be a dictatorship, or autocracy, or global empire (and wouldn't necessarily be US). Completely unrealistic.

2) US Isolationism. Seal the borders, limit the crossing of people and goods, develop a reliable Star Wars system, and let the rest of the world go to pot. This is technologically feasible. Technically, we could very easily search every good coming into the US (every shipping container, every truck, etc). It would just make overseas goods very very expensive. Technically, we could seal our borders with long fences. But politically, or culturally, or morally, its not very easy-in fact, is completely unrealistic. Thus, its not going to happen.

Nukes are coming. Whether they are Iranian in two years or Indonesian in 15 or Pakistani in 10, they are in our, and the worlds, future.

Steve

The talk about "Machiavellina mullahs" and an "obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree" (sic) demonstrates the level of analysis here. Of course, if the Iranians are being led by "yobbos" of the sort we meet in British pubs, then none of the arguments for or against a military strike matter, do they? Who, in their right mind would want a Machiavellian loon-yobbo to have nuclear weapons?

This is the tortured logic of the war on terror, where subjective fear is confused with and substituted for objective threat. Being completely divorced from any sense of magnitude, imminence or likelihood, fear of a wild-eyed Iranian nuclear assault is assumed, but not argued. This logic is so extensive as to smother all objective checks on the object of fear. Vague suspicions morph into all-encompassing threats and even become their own reason for action.

Elevating the feeling of insecurity about a nuclear-armed Iran that many readers feel over a requirement for any hard evidence that Iran plans to nuke anybody, transofrms the issue into a political emergency and destroys any rational standards of political judgment.

I think the article is completely wrong, as would be any sort of strike against Iran.

Anyone who is interested in reading more about the argument against the logic of the war on terror can go here: www.againstthewaronterror.com

"Iran might be idealistic and fanatical but is it not suicidal. An Iranian nuclear attack would have to obliterate the Western world (not just the US) or else face certain destruction from a US sea based and allied nuclear retaliatory strike. Remember M.A.D.?"

I remember. And my memories of lying awake at night hoping the bombs werent going to fall isnt as cheery as some people apparently.

The truth is we were very fortunate in the Cold War (remember the nuclear clock?) It doesnt take a mad-man to start a nuclear war. Accidents, miscalculations, mechanical failures... or a madman, lots of different possibilities.

I might be able to live with that vis-a-vis Iran. I might even be able to live knowing the difference between the athiest Soviets, and a religious zealot government that has already declared their willingness to take their chances in a nuclear war so long as Israel gets the finger for sure. Those things werent the really dangerous problem with nuclear weapons.

The really dangerous problem is what happens to nations over the long term. It seems (so far) we have been extraordinarilly lucky that between the collapse of the Soviet block and the various chaos in Pakistan no nukes have floated out of their pens. That has been _pure luck_. Rationale, secular leaders have always had the keys to Pakistan and the Soviet nukes (again very lucky in Pakistan's case). What we are talking about here is allowing, i believe for the first time, a known religious extremist, fascist, messainic regime (skip the Bush jokes, i've heard em and this is too serious for that stupidity) to possess nukes. Again, i dont think they will necessarilly flip out and use them.

Here is the problem: what happens if and when the Mullahs services are no longer required by the Iranian people. When the democratic revolution arrives at the palaces of Tehran, when Mullahs are being hung in the streets, are we confortable with a man like Ahmadinejad cowering in his bunker with his goons holding the nukes and Al Qaeda on speed dial? Worse, if in that case he did nuke London _who do we retaliate against?! the newly democratic Iranians_?

Until someone tells me how that extremely plausible, indeed likely, scenario can be handled, i cannot countenance Iran possession nuclear weapons. That is the cliff we are walking towards. Frame your solutions in reference to that.

I take issue with Mr Steyn/Mr Steyn Jrs assumption that the "crazy Mullahs" are willing to martyr themselves. The Iranian mullahs have shown a disgusting willingness to sacrifice their own people into the meat grinder, but, much like the leaders of Al Qaeda, they generally prefer to celebrate other people's martyrdoms. There is no evidence they would ever knowingly take an action that would result in nuclear retaliation. The Mullahs talk about the next world, but for most of them their primary concern is how they can live better in this world - more power, more luxuries, more perks for their families, more young boys, etc. I've seen no evidence that Iran's rulers have an interest in an apocalyptic end-time showdown.

.. How far can we set back their nuclear program? ...

I almost hate to say this, but read the article please. specifically this part:

I was responding to Sigivald. Somebody else claimed that Steyn's argument was not clear. Sigivald responded that it was certainly clear, that Steyn was arguing we'd be better off with an iran without nukes than an iran with nukes, so if we bomb iran and prevent them from having nukes then we're better off.

Sigivald's logic is clear and simple (as Steyn's is not). But it leaves out some important considerations.

Kind of like the argument that if you rob a bank you'll have money which is a good thing, so you're better off to rob a bank than not to. People are in general better off with more money than less, but there are certain things left out of the logic here....

I want to reiterate what I said above because it probably wasnt that clear:

If we allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, we are invested in that particular regime. Just as we must prop up North Korea with aid lest they collapse into chaos, so much more it will be a United States priority that Iran never faces a point where its fanatical leadership feel it needs to use its nukes while they still can. This includes opposing regime change and popular uprising. Anyone who feels we propped up Hussein or any other dictator over the years better take not of this, becuase the single most dangerous circumstance i can think of is a dying Mullah regime with access to nuclear weapons.

Note: There are two solutions, neither of which are realistic.

Here is a third, which comes within shouting distance of being realistic.

The USA announces we will make no first strike, but we will do a second strike on anybody else who makes a first strike on anybody. Perhaps the russians make the same announcement, fine if they do.

Right away, nobody but the USA (and Russia) has any benefit from making ICBMs. Provided they believe us. They don't need their own MAD if they trust ours. And if they don't have ICBMs they can't set them off by accident, and they can be mostly sure we won't mistakenly think it was them who set one off.

It's unrealistic because it requires us not to threaten nukes when other countries disappoint us. But public opinion and policy could change. A further problem, it allows accidents and imistakes which could have very bad results.

Now here's a fourth approach that's more realistic. Suppose we manage to get by without any nukes used until a number of relatively small or weak nations have a few nukes. And then there's a small nuclear war between to minor powers. Everybody would get to see how much fallout resulted. (Consider the fallout from Chernobyl, which was a civilian accident.) The "winner" could proclaim victory, and various uninvolved nations could present their bills for the damages they received. Everybody would get a good look at just how much the winner won.

That ought to do more for nonproliferation than any number of US wars. It might quite likely even get americans to rethink our policies. But we have to find a way to hold off until it's minor powers who can have a minor nuclear war. Get too many nukes going off and it will be *obvious* we can't let it happen again, but it will hurt the whole world too bad.

Just as we must prop up North Korea with aid lest they collapse into chaos, so much more it will be a United States priority that Iran never faces a point where its fanatical leadership feel it needs to use its nukes while they still can.

Not likely. When Nixon was going out, the US military was carefully prepared to disobey any orders he might give to use nukes. When Bush leaves it will be the same way. And it will be that way in iran and north korea too.

Of course regime change is scary when nukes are involved, but the idea that we have to prop up the french government and the indian government and the chinese government because they officially have nukes is just silly.

" And it will be that way in iran and north korea too. "

North Korea, likely true- although the danger there has always been that there nukes will walk off and be sold on the black market. A very real threat. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards will control the Iranian nuclear weapons. There is no historic parallel better than the SS- except with a virgins in paradise complex. They answer to the Mullahs only and are recruited and trained as religious warriors of Jihad. During the Iran-Iraq war hundreds of them literally roped themselves together and rushed the Iraqi machine gun fields specifically to waste the Iraqi ammunition. Personally i am not comfortable comparing those folks to US missile command.

"Of course regime change is scary when nukes are involved, but the idea that we have to prop up the french government and the indian government and the chinese government because they officially have nukes is just silly."

The idea of comparing the French and Indian governments to this fanatical Islamo-facist, terrorist regime is what is incalcuably silly. Are you not listening to what Ahmadnijed has been saying or are you comfortable assuming he is just kidding around?
It seems obvious you arent taking Iranian fanaticism seriously, and that is a fatal mistake.

J. Thomas: Calling Osirak a "civilian reactor" is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

R. Block: I admire your logic: More adjectives are definitely more persuasive. Have you considered obscenities, as well? Nothing's more convincing than a nice obscene outburst, I always say.

Steyn's argument was as incisive as ever. The basic point he makes in the City Journal article, and has been making for some time elsewhere, is that the Iranian problem isn't going away by wishing it were so, and won't be resolved in any useful or acceptable means except by the credible threat, and perhaps the actual use, of force. It's hard to dispute Steyn's point that the long-running negotiations between the EU 3 and Iran have accomplished nothing but the further passing of time during which the Iranian nuclear program has advanced. Nor do I see any sensible explanation as to why the threats by the Iranians -- including as Steyn points out, supposed Iranian moderates -- to wipe Israel off the map or to strike a death blow against the Great Satan itself, should not be taken deadly seriously.

What is new and different here is that a nation seeking nuclear weapons is actively threatening to use them in that fashion. Prior to the dissolution of the USSR, the strategic reality was quite different -- both sides threatened to retaliate massively, but there was never any serious notion of using nukes except in response to an attack. Nor is Truman's use of the Bomb against Japan relevant here -- it's just a rhetorical club and a pretty gross one at that.

Several commenters suggest that, if the threat is as serious as Steyn argues (I agree with him that it is), then the military response (if there is one) should come from Israel rather than the US. Several others, notably Veleztrope, evidently believe that the main threat to peace in the world today is the United States. As they say, it's a point of view.

But however one chooses to read the relevant Cold War history, the key question remains whether it is sensible in a post 9/11 world for either the Americans or the Israels to wait while this mortal danger gathers. The US has the greater luxury of distance from the immediate source of the problem, but for the reasons Steyn sets forth, distance in today's world isn't much comfort. The Israelis don't even have that, and have every reason to expect that, true to their word, the Iranians will act on their threats. Surely it would be folly, verging on a national death wish, for the Israelis not to base their planning on that basis.

As I read his article, it is ultimately irrelevant to Steyn's argument whether the response to the Iranian drive to acquire nukes is delivered by American or Israeli planes. Nor does it matter what particular form of ordnance is used. (For many reasons, it's not likely to be tactical nukes.) Given the current problems in Israel, it's hard to see how the Israelis could take such action without strong and perhaps public assurances of US support and backing. Given the political realities in the US, it's hard to see Bush's authorizing military action by the US or supporting the Israelis in such a venture against the Iranians until at least the Security Council two-step is played out to its inevitably ineffective conclusion. (If it turns out to be effective, so much the better, but don't hold your breathe on that one.) No one really knows how close the Iranians are to developing a deliverable nuke, but whatever the intelligence may show, there's no realistic set of political circumstances that would shorten that timetable for action.

For the reasons sketched above, I expect that the military response will eventually come from Israel, since two nukes -- one in Tel Aviv and one in Haifa -- would essentially achieve the Iranian objective of wiping Israel off the map. Any response Israel might make after the fact would be pointless in terms of reversing the reality of Isreal's utter destruction, although the Israelis might still deliver such a response. The only option left for Isreal is a preemptive strike. I would be astonished if the Israeli government sees the situation differently.

Some of the snarkier comments suggest that Steyn's analysis fails to take into account other "reasonable alternatives" short of the use of force that might bring about an acceptable resolution. No such alternatives have been described, and in all events they all boil down to just some variation or combination of two -- more negotiations, to be followed by sanctions. As Steyn says, negotiations have been tried and are a failure. For political reasons, more negotiations will be pursued -- bilateral, through the EU 3, at the UN, etc. There is no reason to think anything useful will come from them, just as nothing useful has come from them to date. Steyn is right to be dismissive in comparing them to another "peace in our time" deal such as the Clinton Administration thought it reached with the N. Koreans. Sanctions are an obvious bad joke -- even assuming the Security Council would ever consider adopting any, which in itself is an unlikely event.

The one element Steyn did not discuss is the time window here. If Bush is succeeded by a Republican (McCain or Guiliani, say), there is no reason to expect a change in US policy on this point. If it's a Democrat, there's every reason to expect a fundamental change. Indeed, it's hard to think of any Democrat with any chance of winning the nomination who would credibly pursue, either directly or in concert with the Israelis, military action against Iran. That political reality is unlikely to escape the notice of the Israelis or the Iranians. What it means is that the Iranians have ever reason to string out the negotiations endgame for two more years; and the Israelis may be under considerable pressure to act while Bush is still in office. Those two events -- the need to play out the negotiations for domestic political reasons, and the need for Israel to act while it can still count on US support -- define the time frame in which action against the Iranians is likely if, as Steyn predicts, negotiations go nowhere and force is the only remaining option.

Steyn was clearly right in saying that the choices with regard to Iran come down to bad vs. worse. The fundamental policy choice is whether it makes sense for the Israelis or the US to accept the threat posed by the Iranian drive to acquire the Bomb, against the background of Iranian threats and the irrationality of the pronouncements coming out of the current Iranian regime. Those who think the Iranians are a pacific and misunderstood bunch will be opposed; the flip side of that worldview is that the US is the real threat in the world. Veleztrope is a good example. Those like Steyn who regard 9/11 as a wake-up call to accept the new realities and be willing to act on them, have reached a different conclusion. Count me among the Steynians.

What is new and different here is that a nation seeking nuclear weapons is actively threatening to use them in that fashion. Prior to the dissolution of the USSR, the strategic reality was quite different -- both sides threatened to retaliate massively, but there was never any serious notion of using nukes except in response to an attack.

Nonsense. McArthur wanted to use nukes in Korea and certainly the Cuban missiles crisis saw a situation were nukes were implicitly threatened. Israel readied its nukes in 1973.

For what its worth, Pakistan has also made threats against India and has refused to a no-first use policy. So your claim that this is new is bogus.

expect that the military response will eventually come from Israel, since two nukes -- one in Tel Aviv and one in Haifa -- would essentially achieve the Iranian objective of wiping Israel off the map.

Perhaps it would be pertinent to point out here that Israel has had nukes for 40 years, that their technology is far advanced beyond that of Iran. They have a strong air force, far more warheads than Iran could produce in 20 years if they ran all their centrifuges all our. Israel has missiles, anti-missile missiles, ECMs. Yes, a nuclear Iran would change the balance of power in the Middle East, but the fact is that Israel already possses a massive deterrent well beyond anything Iran is likely to get in decades.

Nor is Truman's use of the Bomb against Japan relevant here -- it's just a rhetorical club and a pretty gross one at that.

That came in response to a question asking who is more likely to use nukes.

Those who think the Iranians are a pacific and misunderstood bunch will be opposed; the flip side of that worldview is that the US is the real threat in the world. Veleztrope is a good example.

Don't you get tired of throwing around strawmen ? I made no such extravagant claim. I did point that contrary to the wingnuts hysterical assertions of how the mullahs are likely to promptly toss their nukes, Iran has not invaded a single country in modern history and has only used WMDs when WMDs were used against it first. This does not make the Iranian regime saints, it does mean that all the rhetoric that people toss out about how the regime is determined to spread Islam everywhere and how they regard martyrdom as wise and inevitable is at least deficient.

And no one has yet answered my question - -the Iranian regime very likely has lots of biological WMDs. Why haven't the mullahs been trying to cleanse the West with these WMDs unless they've been deterred ?

Calling Osirak a "civilian reactor" is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

No, it is not.

Steyn convinced me that Iran is a credible threat, that there is a link between their rhetoric and their actions, and that they really, really hate Israel and the Jewish people. What he hasn't done is convinced me that it's America's problem. Israel has shown itself willing to bomb/disarm other Middle Eastern countries. Why don't we wait for them to do it and administer some light slap on the wrist after the fact?

"Calling Osirak a "civilian reactor" is a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

No, it is not."

The more I hear from J Thomas, the more the term 'apologist' pops into my head. J, are you or are you not a Karl Rovian mole?

"Steyn convinced me that Iran is a credible threat, that there is a link between their rhetoric and their actions, and that they really, really hate Israel and the Jewish people. What he hasn't done is convinced me that it's America's problem. Israel has shown itself willing to bomb/disarm other Middle Eastern countries. Why don't we wait for them to do it and administer some light slap on the wrist after the fact?"

Answer: because Israel lacks the capacity. Also, if you're willing to be a little less Machiavellian in your politics (ah, morality), because they don't deserve the backlash that will follow (not least from the latently and not so latently anti-semitic Europeans) Israel's saving collective Western bacon.

Perhaps J. Thomas means that calling Osirak a civilian reactor is not just "a bit disingenuous" but grossly disingenuous, indeed an out and out lie. At least I hope that's what he means.

snark>Mark Steyn? What's wrong, wasn't Clifford May available?/snark>

Look, the world is becoming a more and more dangerous place. As it becomes easier to build nuclear weapons, such weapons will inevitably fall in the hands of untrustworthy people -- people who will actually want to use them. Madmen.

Therefore, I suggest that we keep an eye out for countries that might be on the verge of getting nuclear weapons, and bomb them before they get a chance to control them, using nukes if necessary. Only this way will the world remain a sane and safe place, free of lunatic madmen who would drop bombs for no good reason.

And no one has yet answered my question - -the Iranian regime very likely has lots of biological WMDs. Why haven't the mullahs been trying to cleanse the West with these WMDs unless they've been deterred ?

This is a digression from the nuke talk, but I'll run with it.

We've got basicly two kinds of bioweapons. One kind is for military use. You infect enemy soldiers and they aren't available to fight. You don't need to kill them, in fact it's better if they take a long time to die and with intensive treatment they get well -- they use up more of the enemy's resources that way. You want them to get sick reasonably fast. But you don't want them to infect others. Say you capture a few and they infect a whole POW camp, and the guards, and some of your transport guys.... No. Ideally you start with a disease that's spread by insects that don't live anywhere near your battlefield, and you prepare something that can go in artillery shells or something and enemy soldiers get sick by breathing a great big dose. And then the sun kills off the pathogen and it falls out of the air and that whole area becomes safe for your own troops. You want strictly limited effects because literal "blowback" is possible.

The other kind is a terror weapon. You want something that spreads very very easily, but that still kills slowly enough that carriers have time to spread it. A few infected people can start an epidemic. Your logistics are easy, you don't need much, you can smuggle a little bit into your enemy's heartland and -- perhaps -- kill off half his people. Nobody can be sure how well it would work because it's never been tested on a large scale. In general, the easier it spreads the better it is at hurting the enemy and the more likely it gets to your own population too, along with a lot of neutrals. Clearly this sort of thing has limited use. There aren't a whole lot of people who're going to sit down and decide it's a weapon they want to try out. Particularly when there's no way to do large-scale testing without taking the risk you'll kill off a big part of the world population, maybe hurting your own people worse than your enemy. Or it might fizzle.

Iran probably has military bioweapons. They could use them either against military targets or civilians. They would not be decisive. Chemical weapons get quicker results, and explosives are quicker still. Sometimes soldiers can fight for days before they get so sick they must be evacuated. Explosives etc get more immediate fear, and are likely more cost-effective usually. Nobody does biowarfare much and that may be partly because it doesn't work all that well.

Iran might or might not have terror epidemic stuff they've never tested. If they tried it, it didn't work. A powerful weapon that's unpredictable and very hard to control. Once you release it into the world you can't unrelease it. Practically anybody would have twentieth thoughts.

They could apply that sort of thing to our crops and domestic animals. A disease that hurts our corn crops, say. If they don't grow corn themselves then they aren't likely to hurt themselves, and they could cost our economy many billions. But again it isn't decisive. Say a palestinian smuggler brings in a fruit fly that scars orange peels. The oranges are still just as good but they don't look as good. Israel might lose tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions. It wouldn't make that much difference and if someday palestinians inherit the orange groves the fruit flies will still be there.

Bioweapons are great for horror stories but they simply don't fit nations' needs very often. It doesn't say much that iran hasn't used them. There are some risks and the benefits aren't large enough. The risks and benefits are different for nukes.

However, the benefits of nukes are not large enough either. This is the central reason that no one has used them since we did. Nukes are a talking point, you can threaten people with them provided you don't mind backing down when they call your bluff. Nobody uses them, it's just too stupid a thing to do. Nations that are about to get nukes or that have just gotten them sometimes make wild threats. China did. Pakistan did. Israel did. So far none of them have carried out those threats. Iran is unlikely to be an exception. This isn't going to console people who believe iran is different, totally fanatical unlike china or israel. But if it turns out that iran gets nukes and Bush runs like a bunny, there's at least a reasonable chance things will follow the usual path.

ran might or might not have terror epidemic stuff they've never tested. If they tried it, it didn't work. A powerful weapon that's unpredictable and very hard to control. Once you release it into the world you can't unrelease it. Practically anybody would have twentieth thoughts.

True, but Steyn and other warbloggers tell us that the Mullahs are completely irrational, willing to destroy all of their own people just to lob a nuke at Israel. Given that irrationality, one would argue that they should release these doomsday bio-WMDs. The fact that they havent' (and the fact the only time Iran used WMDs was when they were attacked with WMDs) would lead one to indicate that the mullahs are indeed concerned with their precious skins.

@J Thomas,

Nukes are a talking point, you can threaten people with them provided you don't mind backing down when they call your bluff. Nobody uses them, it's just too stupid a thing to do.

You are missing a huge point here: who make the decision? And how rational and/or desperate are they? You appear to be arguing that since US Presidents and the Chinese and Soviet Politburos were stable enough to refrain from using the bomb, everyone is. Not sure that follows.....

Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have used an A-Bomb on London if he had it in 1945? Or the Japanese on the US if they had a delivery system in 1945? Without knowing who in Iran has their finger on the nuclear button it's very hard to know whether it could be used or not.

Saddam may have been too sane to use the bomb if he had it; it's hard to know, because he didn't have any moral quandaries about mass killing. I think his eldest son was just plain nuts enough to do it had he come out on top after Saddam kicked the bucket. Even the younger son might have though he seemed more stable.

I guess I mostly agree with you but that assumes that that whomever controls that bomb doesn't believe they can get clever enough to use it without consequences.

Perhaps J. Thomas means that calling Osirak a civilian reactor is not just "a bit disingenuous" but grossly disingenuous, indeed an out and out lie. At least I hope that's what he means.

http://gnn.tv/articles/614/The_Lessons_of_Osirak
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/633/osirak-revisited

While it isn't possible to know just what israeli intelligence thought they knew, or what they chose to tell the israeli government, it appears they were wrong.

There are various reasons to believe that this reactor was not part of the iraqi weapons program.

I have found no reason to believe it was part of the iraqi weapons program except the claim that unpublished israeli intelligence reports said it was.

Somebody else is lying on this, not me.

However, while the Osirak attack did nothing to slow down the iraqi weapons program, it did have a dramatic effect on israeli public opinion and probably resulted in the incumbent's narrow election win 3 weeks later. Plus ca change....

Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have used an A-Bomb on London if he had it in 1945?

I think he wouldn't, if he thought we had it too.

Note that the germans never used their nerve gas. They made it, they stored it, they diverted resources from the war effort so they could keep ready this weapon that they never once used on the western front. At his war crimes trial Goering said that they didn't use it because they thought our use of it against them would hurt them too much. He went further, he thought we were stupid not to use it on them because it would have crippled them far more than it would hurt us. Because the germans never managed to produce a gas mask for a horse.

I don't know anything about their use of nerve gas on the eastern front.

The japanese logistics system got so chaotic that they couldn't keep track of their chemical weapons. They simply hoped we wouldn't use gas on them, they couldn't hit us back, and for the most part we claim we didn't.

Unless they had enough bombs to destroy us, I don't think either germany or japan would have used them. They both might quite likely have threatened to use them during surrender negotiations, attempting to get better terms.

Mao, who'd already done several mass purges of his population that killed an unknown number of chinese civilians -- probably somewhere between the high millions and the high tens of millions -- is the stable leader you're referring to. He made atrocious treats when he was about to get nukes and soon after he got them. The russians asked us what we'd think if they did a surgical strike and we told them not to.

It's possible the iranians are the ones who're different. But think carefully what we risk by assuming they're crazy and attacking them. The awful outcomes aren't all on one side of this choice.

i think its 'nuke'em till they glow, shoot'em in the dark' robert

but Steyn and other warbloggers tell us that the Mullahs are completely irrational, willing to destroy all of their own people just to lob a nuke at Israel. Given that irrationality, one would argue that they should release these doomsday bio-WMDs. The fact that they havent' (and the fact the only time Iran used WMDs was when they were attacked with WMDs) would lead one to indicate that the mullahs are indeed concerned with their precious skins.

Veleztrope, you have gotten into an argument with crazy people. Naturally they project their own insanity onto others -- who may also be crazy independent of the accusation.

Think about how much effort you want to devote to disputing their babbling. Discussing with them might possibly help you clarify your own thinking. And it might be fun. But notice why you're spending your time arguing with these fools.

So you "don't think" Hitler or Tojo would have used nuclear weapons on us if they had had them? Are you seriously arguing that they were saner and less bloodthirsty than Franklin Roosevelt, who did use them? I think you just lost the argument by self-administered reductio ad absurdum.

As for the claim that Osirak was a civilian reactor, I'm not particularly impressed by a link to a site I've never heard of that calls itself "Guerrilla News Network". Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I think I'll trust the judgment of the Israeli government over some self-styled web guerrillas.

Are you seriously arguing that they were saner and less bloodthirsty than Franklin Roosevelt, who did use them? I think you just lost the argument by self-administered reductio ad absurdum.

Roosevelt never used nuclear weapons. I think you just lost the argument by self-displayed ignorance.

If the US had 1000 times as many nukes capable of obliterating Japan and Germany and neither had any way of attacking the US (as Iran does), then I doubt Japan at least would have done so. Germany -- maybe in the dying days of WW-II, although Germany did not use chemical weapons out of deterrence fears and abandoned bio weapons (although both England and the US had extensive programs).

Weevil, you have appallingly misunderstood my claim.

I doubt that the germans or japanese would have used nukes if they had a few and they thought we had a few. This is far different from Truman (not Roosevelt) who knew that neither japan nor the USSR had them.

For gods sake, read the link before you criticise the publisher. But OK, here's a different link.

http://physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/OSIRAK(2)

The israeli government itself has published more recent reports that agree with Harvard physics professor Richard Wilson, who actually inspected the reactor.

Sheesh.

Thanks for the correction: I meant saner than Franklin Roosevelt, who built them for use against Germany or Japan and would undoubtedly have used them if he hadn't died a few months before they were ready, and saner than Truman, who did use them. The point remains: how can you be so confident that a psychopath such as Hitler would not have used an atom bomb if he'd had one? Did he not make remarks about how the German people didn't deserve to survive him? Did he not do other utterly irrational things, like gassing Jews who could have been put to work in his arms factories and given him a better chance of winning the war (at which point he could have gone ahead and gassed them anyway)? He certainly had apocalyptic tendencies, and so did Tojo, with his kamikazes and willingness to sacrifice civilians by the hundreds of thousands even after defeat was obviously inevitable. It seems incredibly naive to presume that neither would have used a nuclear bomb, even if both sides had them.

In any case, I'm astonished that anyone would place the safety of literally millions of people in a long-distance psychiatric judgment that Ahmadinejad (or Saddam, for that matter, or Uday if he had lived to govern a nuclear Iraq) wouldn't use a nuclear bomb if he had one. You can't possibly know that, and the consequences of being wrong in such a guess are far too horrible for me to want to count on your judgment.

As for your link: is it generally accepted that the Osirak reactor was non-military? Or is this something that 2-3 people, one of them a Harvard professor, believe? There's a huge difference. After all, there was one Harvard professor who believed in alien abductions, and I've never been inclined to defer to his authority.

In any case, I'm astonished that anyone would place the safety of literally millions of people in a long-distance psychiatric judgment that Ahmadinejad (or Saddam, for that matter, or Uday if he had lived to govern a nuclear Iraq) wouldn't use a nuclear bomb if he had one. You can't possibly know that, and the consequences of being wrong in such a guess are far too horrible for me to want to count on your judgment.

I'm astonished that someone would propose a course of action that could lead to major casualties, including of Americans at home(certainly Iran will not have the capability to target the American homeland for decades, and possibly never if the strategic defense works), and would radicalize the Middle East even more and could bankrupt the US and present it as some sort of rational solution.

Throughout the cold war, we relied on maintaining deterrence with Stalin, a murderous dictator. We maintained deterrence with Mao, an apocalyptic loony. By your logic, we would have been far better off nuking China earlier in the game.

You talk about placing the safety of millions in the hands of a long distance psychiatric judgement, but the fact is that we've been doing this all the time with Soviet and Chinese dictators, and indeed domestically we do just that with each President who's elected. After all, who knows if we would elect a messianiac President willing to use nukes readily ?

For me, the critical point, as has been mentioned by others, is that Iran has never attacked a neighboring country. Even in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran used chemical weapons only after being attacked. The Iranian regime is no baby faced innocent regime, but it does not seem to possess the megalomania or single center of power of Saddam's Iraq.

By contrast, US ally Pakistan has spread nuclear technology far and wide. President Musharaff actually brought the subcontinent to the brink of nuclear war 6 years back when he attacked India. Based purely on past record, Pakistan is considerably more dangerous than Iran. SOmehow the fact that our President has relied on long distance analysis of Mushraff doesn't bother you.

Steve,

Conquering Iran will be the easy part. There is general agreement that the U.S. could do so in a few months, even from a standing start. The mullahs don't have anything that can stop us - effective ground forces are too great a threat to their regime. That's why they have so many different regime protection forces, and have brought in Shiite Arab mercenaries from Lebanon.

Occupying Iran afterwards is the big problem - that requires a garrison at least 50% larger than what we've had in Iraq for the past three years, and more likely double that size. In addition to what we have in Iraq, though that will probably drop to about half its present size over the next year no matter what else happpens - we've won the occupation campaign.

But we're still looking at ground forces in the Persian Gulf area going from an average of @ 130,000 over the past three years to 300,000 - 350,000 for three years starting with an invasion of Iran.

Which means we'll have to call up most of the Army and Marine Corps reserves for the duration - IMO about three years. That will require special Congressional authorization amounting to something close to a formal declaration of war, and a for-real declaration of war would probably be better.

What we really need are a regular Army and Marine Corps of Cold War size - 750,000 active Army and 230,000 Marines.

But we're at the top of a slippery slope here. If we bomb Iran, we'll end up invading to overthrow the mullahs' regime. And if we invade, we'll end up occupying the place for several years.

There's no way we won't bomb Iran at this point. So we're going down that slippery slope.

1) I don't get these comparisons with other regimes that we allegedly 'haven't done anything about either.' If a burglar enters your front door, should you not try to stop him because there's also a burglar entering the back door? I think not. It would have been great if we could have prevented North Korea and Pakistan getting nukes. We either couldn't and/or didn't. But we did prevent Iraq from acquiring them, as well as Libya, and we can prevent Iran from acquiring them, and as a result, most likely Saudi Arabia, who wouldn't have as much need for them anymore.

2) Mao, for all his insanity, did not threaten to attack the US, wipe a key US ally off the face of the Earth (I guess Walt/Mearsheimer wouldn't care about this one), or threaten to upset US predominance in the major oil-producing region of the world. Neither did Mao provide the headquarters to the world's most active terrorist networks, with a proven record of disrupting the lives and interests of the US and its allies.

3) If massive retaliation is not credible, as it has been rightly argued by people earlier, then an Iranian use of their bomb is much less crazy. Particularly since Iran *has* been waging war. Contrary to assertions by people above, Iran has been waging proxy wars through being the world's main sponsor of terrorism. If you don't believe Iran is actively using violence against US interests I suggest you ask some of the allied troops in Iraq what they think about that. If you don't believe they've been fomenting violence elsewhere, I suggest you ask the people of Lebanon and northern Israel about that. If you don't believe they are willing to use violence against the West, I suggest you ask the US 1979 Iranian embassy personnel about that - or Salman Rushdie.

Mr Holsinger,

Why would a bombing campaign slippery slope us into removing the mullahs through occupation?

Junior,

There are two alternatives when bombing without invading:

1) stop bombing after a while;
2) keep on bombing indefinitely.

If we stop the bombing after a while, the mullahs will start up their WMD and missile programs, and we'll be right back to where we started. If necessary, they can produce their nuclear weapons in North Korea and get them to Iran by air via China and Pakistan. See this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2014464,00.html

Furthermore the mullahs will have every reason to provide full state-supported terrorism against us everywhere. With Al Qaeda operating from the Iranian U.N. mission in New York City.

Ditto if we don't stop the bombing.

Tell us how sanctions against Iraq could have been successfully continued forever. Then tell us how isolating Iran will be any different.

As for fantasies about regime change without invading, I am touched, touched, at so much confidence in our wise, all-knowing and highly successful Central Intelligence Agency.

So bombing without invading means endless war with Iran because we're afraid to win. That's just the theme the GOP wants to go into elections with while gasoline costs $6-$10 a gallon.

I don't dispute that the Bush administration will try bombing without invading. I just say that they won't stick with it.

President Bush lacks the expertise or character to resolve major conflicts in the advice he gets, and so goes for the lowest common denominator forming a majority in that advice. That's why our force levels in Iraq were so low after its conquest - those opposed to invading at all, together with rosy optimists like Rumsfeld, wanted the lowest possible force levels there after the conquest, and formed a majority among Bush's advisers. So he chose to do that despite the consensus of opinion in the military that we needed to reinforce the forces in Iraq after the conquest.

The same pattern is happening again concerning Iran. Those who oppose all military action are allying with the rosy optimists who say we don't need to occupy the place afterwards. The former have lost on the issue of not attacking at all, so now they're arguing for a minimal bombing campaign (they'll lose on that too, but AFAIK the issue is still sort of open), and are arguing against invasion, and against occupation if we do invade.

There are lots of others who definitely don't want us to stay on if we do invade.

I thoroughly agree that all this is flaming nonsense. The "slippery slope" argument certainly applies here. If we bomb at all, we'll end up invading, and if we invade, we'll stay on in occupation afterwards. But we'll do each of those less effectively than if we had planned on doing those from the beginning. This is why I predict that whatever we do will result in the maximum duration of the conflict, the maximum casualties for everyone, the greatest amount of destruction and the greatest amount of economic injury.

This is called "Incrementalism on the road to hell."

But there are all these people saying we don't have to bomb, we don't have to invade, we don't have to occupy ...

And President Bush doesn't know s**t from gold.

But we will invade given what I expect the mullahs will do in retaliation for our bombing of them. Their retaliation will just hurt too bad, especially at the gasoline pump in an election year.

When we invade it will go reasonably fast. I'm more concerned about the mullahs hitting us with nukes and biological warfare than about their ground resistance.

Then we'll discover that their real plan is to hide out during the conquest phase, with only useful idiots trying to fight us in stand-up combat, and take us on Baathist insurgency style during the occupation. Figuring that we'll just "butcher and bolt", and that they'll be able to regain control once they get us to leave.

Only we won't leave once we figure that out the hard way.

Why would a bombing campaign slippery slope us into removing the mullahs through occupation?
-Mark Steyn Jr.

...as Tom says above, because the Mullahs will just pick up where they left off as soon as we stop bombing.

Except this time, they'll have much better intelligence on how deep they need to dig the bunkers.

The only long-term solution to this problem is getting rid of the mullahs... or acquiescing to a nuclear Iran (which means a nuclear Saudi Arabia, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear Syria, and very probably a nuclear war in the middle east. Of course, the "why is this a big deal?" crowd never seems to think that far ahead).

Deterrence only works if the people you're trying to deter want to live.

@J Thomas

I wrote: Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have used an A-Bomb on London if he had it in 1945?

I think he wouldn't, if he thought we had it too.

J Thomas I don't think you have read about Hitler's frame of mind in that bunker under Berlin in the last days. He didn't give a damn about Germany by then; he thought Germany had failed him.

There is some question in my mind whether the order would have been carried out but not whether he would have issued the order - he clearly could and probably would have.

That doesn't mean I believe Iran is a good parallel to Berlin in March 1945 - merely that one cannot universally believe that it won't happen merely because it hasn't happened yet.

At the same time I think we have to assume that cool heads will prevail until proven otherwise. But if a mushroom cloud sprouts over Tel Aviv don't expect the response to be a restrained one. Or even necessarily limited to Iran....

Rosignol, it isn't enough to get rid of the mullahs.

Iran has a whole lot of patriots. Or nationalists or fanatics, whatever you want to call them. Any government they get is going to try to get nukes and keep them from being invaded again. Any government they get is going to try to be a strong regional power.

It could be argued that we need to get rid of the mullahs because they're crazy and will start a disastrous nuclear war, while the next government will be sane and will settle for being a regional power with a deterrent. But this means starting an aggressive war based on long-distance psychoanalysis.

To choose this war you have to overestimate the eventual dangers of keeping the peace, and disregard the damage from fighting now.

It's one of those Scylla/Charybdis things. "Scylla is a terrible danger, we have to do everything we can to avoid it. The only way is aim straight at Charybdis and fight our way through."

Answer: because Israel lacks the capacity. Also, if you're willing to be a little less Machiavellian in your politics (ah, morality), because they don't deserve the backlash that will follow (not least from the latently and not so latently anti-semitic Europeans) Israel's saving collective Western bacon.

Mark,

With all due respect, that's a ridiculous argument. First of all, I'd like you to support your claim that Israel doesn't have the capability. Then I'd like you to explain why there would be a backlash against an Israeli bombing campaign if there's such a strong moral case to be made (and no, calling Europe anti-semitic is not an explanation). Finally, I'd really love to know why Israel would be pulling our fat out of the fryer, when you explicitly argue that Iran is "willing to go the extra mile for Jew-killing," a fact that would seem to indicate that Iran is much more of a security threat to Israel than it is to the US of A.

While Iran may be a sponsor of transnational terrorism, there are strong logistical and ideological reasons for nuking Israel before moving on to the Great Satan. In the end, perhaps the simple difference is that you see the US of A as the world's policeman, a view that I have never and will never agree with. That's not to say we should be isolationist, but I do think we need to take down the "PASS BUCK HERE" sign we've been wearing for a while.

J Thomas I don't think you have read about Hitler's frame of mind in that bunker under Berlin in the last days. He didn't give a damn about Germany by then; he thought Germany had failed him.

Hitler wouldn't be in the bunker in the last days with a deliverable nuke.

It's very hard to say how WWII would have gone if both sides had deliverable nukes. But OK, it's a fun topic. Imagine we're sitting around the hearth in a snug house, a roaring fire in the fireplace, brandy snifters, no responsibilities, nothing urgent going on, and we feel like discussing how history would have had to go if things were different.

So let's imagine germany had a nuclear program about on par with ours. About the time we get two to four bombs, they get two to four bombs. My guess is they'd nuke London and Moscow, and we'd nuke Berlin and Tokyo. Then everybody would make more bombs as fast as they could. Japan wouldn't particularly have any good targets within range, but....

Would the germans send a sub on a suicide mission with a nuke? Try to sneak into the Potomac? Or New York? Or some military target, maybe a shipyard? The nukes were little then. A small nuke at the closest spot in the Potomac probably wouldn't completely knock down the Pentagon. But it would scare us. Could the japanese get a submarine into San Diego harbor? Either way it would risk a nuke that was hard to replace.

OK, so pretty quick both sides would be out of nukes, and while we were rebuilding we'd think about it. "Herring doesn't believe in vinegar until it's steeped awhile."

I can't say what Hitler would have done if he survived Berlin. But the war would be going badly. Our war plans might be disrupted if we lost half the Pentagon. Russia had a lot of factories and such in Moscow, but losing a lot of bureaucrats would more than make up for them. It isn't unlikely the germans would be ready to sue for peace, particularly a separate peace with us and against the russians, they'd want an alliance against the russians. At any rate, something less than unconditional surrender. Would we go along with a partial surrender? I think it might depend on whether we'd been nuked or not. If not, we might want to fight to the last british city.

But at the least the germans would agree to no more nukes. They had so many fewer cities than we did, and easier to reach. They'd be worse off trading nukes. And we might agree. We have the advantage either way, but we lose less without nukes. And they couldn't hold out on the eastern front, not enough troops. Lose their cities and it looks grim.

German officers could see it easy. Even if the guy on top wouldn't negotiate, surely they would. They did in reality. They were ready to try a coup but they wanted us to tell them we'd give them good surrender terms, like no war crimes trials and no reparations, and we didn't. They'd already been through one bad surrender that way. Would the nukes have meant we'd agree to a negotiated surrender? Would the USSR agree? If Stalin survived Moscow, who knows? But the doubts about further nukes are more on our side than the germans.

We talk like having nukes means you never get invaded. So far it's worked for USA, USSR, china, india, and israel. Five countries with conventional militaries strong enough to keep themk from being invaded anyway. Oh, and north korea, which also has a nerve gas deterrent (Seoul is too close to the border.) The hypothesis really hasn't been tested. I say having nukes means you never have to do an unconditional surrender. If you think surrender is death, you might as well use your nukes first and then die. But you don't choose nuclear death while you have something to lose. And a negotiated surrender on good terms is something to lose.

We won't see whether this is right until there are enough countries with nukes that some of them actually get into wars.

With all due respect, that's a ridiculous argument. First of all, I'd like you to support your claim that Israel doesn't have the capability.

The Israelis have around two dozen aircraft that are capable of delivering the kind of bombs you'd use for that kind of thing *and* have the range to get to Iran and back (F-15I). The targets are both dispersed and (presumably) hardened, which means you need to deliver a lot of ordnance on-target to be sure the job got done. Most of the extra payload on those F-15I's is going to be used for additional fuel.

Pretty much the only way they'd be able to pull it off would be with US assistance (in the form of tankers they could refuel from in flight), and it would involve the Iraqi government (...such as it is) allowing the Israelis to fly over their airspace. As a practical matter, patrolling the airspace is currently done by the USAF, and nobody's going to believe the Israelis weren't spotted by an AWACS or two enroute, so if they did it, it would be percieved as a de facto 'American-approved' action anyway.

Simply put, the Israelis are not going to solve this problem for us. Not because they don't want to, but because they can't.

OTOH, I don't think the Israelis would give a toss what the Europeans thought of them doing it.

While Iran may be a sponsor of transnational terrorism, there are strong logistical and ideological reasons for nuking Israel before moving on to the Great Satan.

I disagree, there are no logistical reasons for iran to nuke israel.

There are no sane logistical reasons to nuke anybody.

At least look at the game theory logic, that should be accessible to anybody who can do logic. In a multipolar world, where you have more than one potential enemy. You nuke one enemy and they nuke you back. Are you better off or worse off?

You are far worse off because after you've been nuked you're weaker compared to all your other enemies.

It's a stupid thing to do.

On the other hand, if you're a brand new nuclear power you want to make sure everybody knows it. One way to do that is to make a bunch of crazy threats and get away with it. That is, get away with it as long as you don't actually try to carry them out.

Of course we say that the iranians are crazy and they don't do logic. We say that about all our enemies. We said it about china. We said it about the USSR. We talked about insane russian plans to nuke us and the leadership would spend ten years in super-bombshelters until the radiactivity died down and they could come out and take over the world. We said Noriega was crazy. We said the silly communists running Grenada were crazy. We said Saddam was crazy. I dunno. Maybe it's our destiny to find crazy people to have wars with.

The Israelis have around two dozen aircraft that are capable of delivering the kind of bombs you'd use for that kind of thing *and* have the range to get to Iran and back (F-15I).

They are claimed to have eight (8) tankers. So that would give them a few more planes. Not enough to do the kind of job we're talking about doing. I agree with most of the rest of your argument. Particularly, they couldn't do it without US knowledge and approval, so it would get attributed to us anyway. If we're going to get the blame we might as well do it ourselves.

OTOH, I don't think the Israelis would give a toss what the Europeans thought of them doing it.

European sanctions would hurt them. A lot of their sales are in europe. OTOH, europeans haven't put sanctions on them yet for anything else, and this would just be more of the same.

The disagreement in this thread comes down to some simple propositions. Veleztrope and J. Thomas claim, in substance, that deterrence has worked before and it would be irrational to run significant risks now on the hypothesis that deterrence won't work again in the case of Iran. The argument gets fancied up a bit, but that's basically their point.

Perhaps. Without an ability to foretell the future, no one can know. The more or less universal desire to live and survive explains why deterrence has worked in the past and is a reason to think it may work in the future. By the same token, of course, if the will to live were the end of the story, suicide bombers would not arise, and the WTC towers would be standing today. Close inspection of lower Manhattan, from which I am writing this post, shows that they and their tenants are long gone, having been replaced by a large hole and a communal grave for what specks of the former tenants may remain.

Steyn contends (and I agree with him) that the Iranian mullahs give every indictation of thinking and acting (but, given their exalted status, only through surrogates) like the suicide bombers. There was nothing like that kind of behaviour with the Soviet or Chinese leadership (or the US or other Western leadership either) at any point during the Cold War. It's possible, as Veleztrope and J. Thomas say,