Iran or Bust (The defining test of Bush's war presidency)

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 6, 2006 | Jeffrey Bell

[junta]

Conventional wisdom has it that once the mullahs are gone Iran won't seek nukes, I think that is wrong. A non-mullah government might go along with the NPT initially, but in the long run national pride means Iranian nukes.

[Allegra]

If true, considering all the crises of the Bush presidency, Iran's gonna be a whopper!

Right? 9/11 and the resulting War on Terrorism wasn't enough?

I need Prozac.

Or copious amounts of booze.

[A. Pole]

Conventional wisdom has it that once the mullahs are gone Iran won't seek nukes, I think that is wrong. A non-mullah government might go along with the NPT initially, but in the long run national pride means Iranian nukes.

Exactly. If the newly made Pakistan has nukes, why the 3000 years old Persia would not have them?

[G.Mason]

" ... He's got both Ahemjad and Chavez ranting and raving like crazymen while he just quietly tightens the screws. He will not show his hand, but it is a lot stronger than these silkstocking pundits know."

Are you suggesting that he isn't the box of rocks the alphabet media has been indicating he is? ;)

Good point, and FWIW ... I agree.

[Grateful One]

America was a hundred times stronger in 1950 than in 1940..............

OF COURSE it was, and is even more powerful now than ever.

The idea that the President should keep going on TV and laying out his strategy, would be considered absurd in the past because we had a populace that placed trust in our presidents during such situations (Democrat or Republican) and understood that it would give the enemy an advantage. Today it would give the media and far-left "experts" the chance to pick away at it, again to the great advantage of the bad guys.

The real job of any president is to conduct foreign policy and see to our national security, not to provide freebies to everyone, and some faith in him could go a long way. If we were getting hit over and over again since 9/11, then we would be justified to criticize performance and demand change. But this has not happened, and can't we give a little credence to the idea that he and his advisors indeed DO have a long range plan for all aspects of this?

Maybe it all boils down to it being a matter of what we simply HAVE to do, with what ever means we possess, or, as some would like, taking polls as to what we MIGHT/COULD/COULD NOT do.

If we really believe that there are no ways to deal with this most deadly threat, then we might just a well grab our shovels and dig the shelters.

It is fun to speculate though!

[milemark]

The war with Iran very likely will weaken USA. As a result it will weaken Israel and Israel will be forced to modify its basic policies in the direction of radical compromise with Muslim neighbors and to established closer relations with the European countries.

We will be made weaker because of the economic hit, probably, but it will be worth it for the military advantages. Iran with nukes won't be good for a stable supply of cheap oil either. Iran regime-changed will help end the Iraq war, without their $$$, the insurgency dies much more quickly. As for Israel, Iran is the greatest threat to their existence and the sugar daddy of their local terrorist groups: they gain by a de-mullahed Iran.

As far as $5.00 a gallon gas or higher and a massive recession, we will survive. Iran armed with nuclear weapons, we'll survive that too, but not as many of us.

[milemark]

With Congressional elections next year and then presidential elections just a few years off- the fallout COULD be huge for us conservatives.

That's what the democrats hope. "If only oil is $100 a barrel and the economy goes into recession and the war goes badly and thousands of American soldiers get killed and terrorists hit American cities, then maybe we have a chance to get the congress back, oh boy!" The glee in their backlit eyes and the yellow rabid-dog drool coming from their mouths if any of those things happen will kill them on election day.

[i_am_right_of_center]

I hope you are right- but we shouldn't forget that the Mahdi Army and their supporters are part of the Shai alliance that won a near majority in the Iraqi election. However I guess that whilst Ayatollah Ali Sistani is alive (he is the leading Shia spiritial leader in Iraq) things may be fine as he rejects the model of Iranian-style theocracy in favour of a separation between religion and politics. However once he goes- he is very old- dealing with the more pro-Iranian leaders like Moqtada Sadr will be another ball game.


I have another concern and that is democracy in the middle east. It would seem that radical islam is popular with the masses. It started in Algeria a few years back when the elections were cancelled by the army when it seemed clear that the radicals would win.
In Iran the people elected in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad- a absolute nut.

In the palestinian authority they vote in Hamas.
In Iraq- if you read some of their policies- the Shia alliance looks potentially dangerous.
I would fear who would get into power if Saudi Arabia introduced democracry!!!

Do you think spreading democracy will meet with our own long term aims?

[A. Pole]

We will be made weaker because of the economic hit, probably, but it will be worth it for the military advantages.

Can you describe to me how such military campaign is supposed to look like? And what exactly do you expect to be achieved?

[Savage Beast]

Circumstances have forced Bush to restate Franklin Roosevelt's famous dictum: "Carry a big stick, and make sure everybody knows it."

[milemark]

Can you describe to me how such military campaign is supposed to look like? And what exactly do you expect to be achieved?

Well, obviously I am not in on any planning that is going on and if I was I'd go to jail for spilling the beans, but my guess is that it will look like B2 bombers on a very dark night and it will aim to acheive the destruction of much of Iran's nuclear program or at least set it back several years as well as the decapitaion of much of their present radical government.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I think we must think in the long term. Arab/Muslim culture is very different from ours. Religion is much more embedded in the cultural and political life of each country. Even countries like Morocco and Turkey (not Arab) that set forth a secular course decades ago are not Western Democracies. Religion is still a large factor there. It will take decades for the Middle East to move toward such democracies. I think countries like Syria (once the Baath Party is gone) and Iraq have more promise than countries like Egypt. Saudi Arabia is very complex and will always be very, very Muslim, but not necessarily radical.
Right now the big problem is Iran, that is a short term problem. I just hope it can be resolved without a military strike that may set us back for years. Still a strike may be necessary.

[Flavius Josephus]

I"m not going to compare and contrast an air war in Iran with Serbia. I'm just saying... take out the AAA, defeat the airforce, destroy the command & control, own the skies over Tehran, try to decapitate the regime, control movement on the ground (i.e. if it moves it dies).

I leave it to the war planners to develop individual targets, and what other cities have to be managed.

Don't underestimate American Air Power. The Iranians apparently need a demonstration. My point is, we can't surgically target the nuclear sites, but we can sure as hell rain fire and brimstone down on their heads.

[A. Pole]

I"m not going to compare and contrast an air war in Iran with Serbia.

Why not? It was the latest air campaign, easy to compare and to draw conclusions. You cannot dismiss the actual experience and base everything on theory or wishes.

Size of the target, distance from bases, duration were more advantageous in 1999, technological/military superiority maybe lesser and the results were minimal.

[junta]

Clinton set down rules that limited casualties on both sides, and I would guess that on each night's mission most of the planes sent were AA suppression flights and few were actual ordanance droppers. In Iran I would bet we would see more of a Iraq91 version of American air power. Stealth and cruise missles for command and control followed by large amounts of aircraft to initiate a crippling first and second strike. I doubt Serbia seen the Full Monty of the American airpower as much as I doubt the long term effectiveness of airstrikes on the strategic equation in the area.

[RobbyS]

In 1959 Eisenhower managed to bring much of the USA air force into the Middle East without arousing much attention. The whole news focus was on the marines splashing ashore in the Labanon. It wiull be harder to move in such secrecy today, but a little misdirection might help.

[RobbyS]

There are other options. Think a bit.

[MaDeuce]

"There are other options. Think a bit."

If your referring to the "people" rising up in a revolution ... your dreaming. Ain't happen, not now, not in the next 10 years ... which would be too late for the western world anyway.

The UN will not impose sanctions ... everyone wants Iran's oil and Iran will cut whatever deals with key countries for cheap oil in return for no-votes in the UN.

Assassination will not solve any problems and would be almost impossible to get at the main mullah's ... it would only cause bigger problems.

So ... Europe will do nothing, the UN will do nothing, Israel only attack with the US's blessing ... and Bush will not give it.

If you've got a Plan 'X' ... fill us in.