Iran and the Costs of Containment (Sobering Read)

Even as momentum for Iran sanctions grows, containment seems only viable option,” reads a Washington Post headline from April 22. Leaving aside for the moment the dubious character of the first half of that assertion, is it really true that containment is now the “only” option?

It is certainly true that nearly everyone in Washington — from administration officials to the permanent civil service to the foreign-policy establishment — believes that, and has believed it for at least a year, if not longer. The intellectual groundwork was laid long before President Obama came into office, in part as a way of sketching an alternative to an American or Israeli military strike, which seemed a much more likely possibility when the president was named Bush.

In recent days — as one senior administration official after another has either downplayed the significance of an Iranian nuclear weapon or spoken in nigh-apocalyptic terms about the use of military force to prevent one from emerging — it would seem that the triumph of containment as America’s chosen Iran strategy is complete.

The working assumption of containment’s adherents is that it is the low- or lower-cost alternative to tough sanctions or military action. The former are believed to be either impossible to impose (because Russia, China, and other nations won’t go along), undesirable (because sanctions would harm the Iranian people more than the regime and turn popular anger against us), or ineffective (because Tehran is determined to ride out even the most crippling sanctions in pursuit of the bomb). The latter is just dismissed out of hand as the precursor to Armageddon.

But is it really true that containment carries relatively low costs? To answer that, we must first grasp what those costs are likely to be.

A long and discouraging article that lays out the implications of pursuing a policy of "containment" with Iran.

It is safe to say that those in the liberal think-tanks and in this administration who champion such a policy have no intention of actually doing those things, often distasteful, that would be required to actually "contain" Iran.

In other words, those who advocate containment are really advocating nothing less than utter irresponsibility.

What worries me is the emphasis on Iran and No. Korea - and their nuclear bombs.

No one is mentioning their pursuit of the EMP bomb - which would affect a much broader area of the country - render us ‘blind and deaf’ - and sitting ducks for whatever came after.

They are both intent on perfecting the EMP - and their improvement on their long range missiles that could deliver the payload is disturbing, to say the least - but not as disturbing as the gov’t lack of attention regarding their push for an EMP. The Bush administration was paying attention to this threat - but it has been pushed off the radar with this new junta.

This, in 2008 - is a chilling report. Have we heard one peep regarding this threat since Jan 2009?

http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2008/07/08/congress-looks-at-emp-electro-magnetic-pulse-bomb-threat-from-iran/

Called “The Worst Weapon You will Ever Survive” - the EMP would be devestating. The “E-Bomb” would knock out our communication systems, computers, electrical appliances, and automobile or aircraft ignition systems. (On a in-your-face level, your car wouldn't work - but neither would the gas pumps - no delivery of food to your super markets, your cell phones are dead... you coulsn't communicate with someone across town, let alone find out how your family members were that live a ways from you. Now multiply that on a national level. (Rather than laugh at the burgeoning number of people putting in 'survival storage' - you might want to think about doing the same thing.

WE would be deaf, dumb and blind, sitting ducks in the water. Anything coming at us after an E=bomb - we'd have no idea what was coming and couldn't combat it when it got here.

I wonder if all the talk isn't concentrated on the nuclear bomb as a distraction on how far along they are with the E-bomb. (The mad man of Iran has, some time ago, bragged about soon having the E-bomb. and with obyummer’s new rules under his NSS program precludes a preemptive strike. We're operating under criminal rules now - we wait until the deed is done and the try mopping up. But if the E-bomb gets dropped on our heads, we'd be fighting back, effectively, with pitchforks against modern weapons.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.