[MP-Ryan]

Do you believe George W. Bush and Mitchell Bachmann are intelligent men and women? It can happen. I'm not even kidding.

Contrary to popular belief, there are checks and balances in the US political system, and I'd be highly surprised if, given that Iraq and Afghanistan are fresh in the collective memory, anyone with a brain and military decision making has any inclination to strike Iran.  Regardless, fear of attack from outside is not grounds for nuclear weapon development.  The world has a chance to prevent another state from joining the nuclear-armed menace, and it should be taken.

Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? Come on. They are worried about Iran invading them, if anything. The one regional power that can stand up to them is Iraq, but there's nothing we can do about that. It would involve another bloody chemical warfare slugfest regardless. I guess I can't really disagree with you though. Another Iran-Iraq war wouldn't make any sense, but it could still happen.

Iran is very worried about regional alliances that could finally remove their status as the bully on the block.  This is (in part) the reason they fund insurgent and fundamentalist organizations across the region which oppose the existing state powers.

Not going to work. There's too much at stake for them to drop their nuclear program. Most likely things would end up like Iraq, where we were still dependent on inspections to prevent a nuclear program. The Iranians do not want inspections and sanctions at the same time.

I would have preferred the approach that Colin Powell suggested, where we're basically willing to accept reactor construction while making weaponization a little harder, discarding sanctions in exchange for inspections. This is an approach the Iranians had, earlier, been agreeable to. It would at least slow things down. But too late for that, probably.

I think you'd have a hard time finding more than or two (if any) historical examples of sanctions having effect in changing national policies. South Africa isn't the clearest one.

Japan fought a war they knew they would lose as a result of the equivalent of economic sanctions.  Iran's entire system is predicated on their ability to produce and sell oil.  Sanctions can cripple them economically, which will force them to clamp down harder on the population... and the Iranian population has historically shown that they have limited tolerance for clampdowns.  The ultimate Western goal is regime change in Iran, and harsh continuous economic sanctions of the government with simultaneous funding of some of the pro-democracy internal groups are a pretty sound way of bringing it about from within.

Still, intervening in a country's politics could easily go wrong. We thought supporting the mujaheddin and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets was a pretty morally unambiguous cause, but in the long run those kind of projects ended up creating problems and breeding resentment. So I'm not too excited about tweaking with the politics of other countries. The current government in Iran is pretty sane by middle eastern standards. It could be a lot worse and a lot more unstable.

I won't disagree with you, it just happens to be an active policy goal, for better or worse.  Really, Iranians as a people are actually quite pro-democracy.  The 1979 revolution was actually supposed to be a democratic one, until Khomeini and his cronies hijacked the process.  There's a fair bit of historical evidence that indicates stable democratic emergence in Iran would be a likely result.  Whether it's pro-Western or not really isn't the point.

Doesn't prove that "Iran" has no knowledge of the world anymore than Poles or the Russians must have no brains for allowing themselves to be invaded so many times. But whatever.

Even failing to call the Iran Iraq war is forgivable. They can't predict idiotic moves on other countries' part, especially when the US misled Saddam into expecting help.

Iran's geopolitical interest ends at the Middle East.  Their government has displayed spectacular ignorance of the way other nations conduct foreign policy, which has made their situation worse, not better.  I wasn't referring to the start of the Iran-Iraq war, I was referring to its continuation.  Iran continued to press counterattack despite knowing full well that Saddam was actively receiving US intelligence support (and probably monetary as well, though the evidence for that is shakier).  They threw away thousands of lives and an enormous chunk of money in a war they should have known they could not actually win.

[MP-Ryan]

It's okay if you've blanked out Bush's term in office as a traumatic event. I sometimes wish I could.

But to claim that there is no reason for Iran to believe that someone in the US might try an invasion of their country is ridiculous in the extreme. Bush was still pushing for it even when it was obvious Iraq's invasion had turned to ****. While no one might plan one now, idiots have short memories, it's doubtful that in 10 years the lessons of Iraq will be as fully appreciated as they are now. I can't blame Iran one iota for not being willing to wait for the idiots in America to start sabre-rattling before they start working on nukes.

This entire debacle is, after all, the direct result of the previous American idiot president and his inability to keep his mouth shut.

Why do you think the US invaded Iraq and not Iran?  It's not because Iraq was worse, or there was more popular support for war with Iraq, or there was more evidence that Iraq was funding insurgent or terrorist groups.  It's because Iran is already a hard military target.  Hilariously enough, Iran has already managed to deter US invasion through their regional strength and lack of overt posturing, but their continued desire to seek nuclear armament is MORE likely to generate interest in military strikes into Iran than less.

Bush was an idiot, but less of an idiot than most people give him credit for.  US defence officials knew full well that simultaenous military action in Iran and Afghanistan would be an absolute disaster - for all their might in conventional war, the United States is no longer equipped to mount and sustain a controlling invasion of another country (I invite you all to look up the actual number of division deployed to Germany in WW2, versus those deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan combined).  Sandwiching Iran was stupid too, because it provided two options for the Iranians to strike at US interests in the region directly, but in 2003 a US military strike against Iran was really not an option.  It still isn't.  With the way the modern US military is equipped and trained, a sustained invasion of Iran would end in disaster just as much today as back then, and the defence infrastructure is showing no signs of reinvention in the near future.  There's money for more equipment, but equipment doesn't win this type of war - and defence officials in the US know this fact all too well.

[MP-Ryan]

Screw it, I'm done with line-by-line responses, particularly to Janos.

There is one, overarching reason that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons:   nuclear weapons are capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people with a single warhead, have long-term health and environmental consequences, and are capable of provoking nuclear response from other nuclear-armed nations.  It boils down to the idea that really no one should have access to them (you don't see me advocating for Western nations to build more), but just because some people have them does not mean the world as a whole shouldn't be actively discouraging others, particularly isolated states in volatile parts of the world, from joining the club.

I don't have a problem with the Iranians developing a peaceful nuclear power program - but their on-again-off-again compliance with the IAEA is worrisome and points directly to a desire to actually produce their own nuclear weapons.  Janos himself has pointed out the ease with which this could be accomplished.

Ideally, Iran's pre-Shah democratic government should never have been overthrown, and Western powers should never backed the Shah.  Unfortunately, they did.  The Revolutionary government that came in is hostile to the region as a whole on religious grounds, has a deep ingrained hatred of all things Western (whether this comes from a rational reason or not is irrelevant, it influences their foreign policy), has a poor understanding of global geopolitics to begin with, has few sociopolitical ties to their partner nations (history lesson:  economic ties only influence foreign policy if they are both necessary and sufficient to sustain the nation; Iran's trade relationship with the Chinese and the Russians is neither), and whose grasp of the way Western nations conduct foreign policy is limited.  All of those things point to MAD being madder than usual in the case of Iran (and let's be honest, MAD is a non-rational system to begin with).

Endgame:  Why on Earth would any rational person be willing to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program, when it can be stopped well in advance?  The risks are enormous, and the benefits of them having them are precisely zero.

[samiam]

Japan fought a war they knew they would lose as a result of the equivalent of economic sanctions.  Iran's entire system is predicated on their ability to produce and sell oil.  Sanctions can cripple them economically, which will force them to clamp down harder on the population... and the Iranian population has historically shown that they have limited tolerance for clampdowns.  The ultimate Western goal is regime change in Iran, and harsh continuous economic sanctions of the government with simultaneous funding of some of the pro-democracy internal groups are a pretty sound way of bringing it about from within.

I'll skip the rest and dive right to the beefjerky of the matter. I'm not feeling like making many more predictions or statements about Iranian intelligence, democracy, or American presidential candidate sanity this morning. The farthest I'll go is to say that Iranian public opinion, as well as public opinion everywhere else in the mideast, is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the program. The nuclear program, in fact, is a major source of popular support and legitimacy for the regime. Things might change with sanctions, but really, that would be a first. You're free to disregard the historical evidence of the ineffectiveness of nearly every sanction ever instated. Just don't forget Poland.

The options don't work, and carry costs. That's why I'd let Iran build nukes and not worry too much about it.

Why do you think the US invaded Iraq and not Iran?  It's not because Iraq was worse, or there was more popular support for war with Iraq, or there was more evidence that Iraq was funding insurgent or terrorist groups.  It's because Iran is already a hard military target. 

No it wasn't. Not compared to Iraq. In troop strength, Iran has a whopping 500,000 soldiers to the 400,000 Iraq had. There wasn't much to pick from between Iran and Iraq in military professionalism either. Iran had better morale, and would at least fight back. But really, few conventional armies are a concern for the US.

Bush entered the office from day one discussing with his advisers plans to invade Iraq. It was a daddy complex thing.  One had tried to "kill my dad", the other one hadn't. Saying that Iraq was invaded mainly because it was an easy target is an argument that could be used to prove or disprove any other war that may have started. Why not North Korea/Libya/Zimbabwe/Myanmar/Syria/Somalia/some other even more Beyond the Axis of Evil impoverished outpost of tyranny?

[zookeeper]

Endgame:  Why on Earth would any rational person be willing to allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapons program, when it can be stopped well in advance?  The risks are enormous, and the benefits of them having them are precisely zero.

Simple answer? They don't, they merely oppose the hypocrisy of people with big sticks telling others that they shouldn't have big sticks too.

If you could ask people in a completely politically neutral context whether they want any more countries to develop nukes, then pretty much everyone would say that no, they don't. But the setting in this case simply is that the standoff is largely between countries with nukes and a country without nukes possibly wanting to develop them, and that's a huge pile of hypocrisy right there no matter what.

Also, there's the matter of evidence. We know for a fact that governments and intelligence agencies cannot be trusted to provide reliable information about things like this. Does it seem likely that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability? Yes, surely there's plenty of evidence for that based on how everyone seems so sure of it. Did it seem likely that Iraq had WMD's? Yes, surely there's plenty of... oh, wait. So, UN-led inspections are the way to go. If Iran has a problem with that, then make the obvious offer: if Iran gives inspectors full access, Israel will do the exact same thing. That's only fair, and I'd be surprised if they'd refuse.

[samiam]

Simple answer? They don't, they merely oppose the hypocrisy of people with big sticks telling others that they shouldn't have big sticks too.

If you could ask people in a completely politically neutral context whether they want any more countries to develop nukes, then pretty much everyone would say that no, they don't. But the setting in this case simply is that the standoff is largely between countries with nukes and a country without nukes possibly wanting to develop them, and that's a huge pile of hypocrisy right there no matter what.

There's some Latin term for that. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, I think. The risk is a lot different when it's a country that has funded suicide bombing in the past, at least claims to have genocidal intentions, and isn't all that politically stable.

Israel doesn't really care about the rest of the region. It just wants to survive and occupy Palestine. Iran on the other hand has made a lot of comments along the lines of wiping Israel off the map. They're not going to do it, but it's a risk.

Also, there's the matter of evidence. We know for a fact that governments and intelligence agencies cannot be trusted to provide reliable information about things like this. Does it seem likely that Iran is pursuing nuclear capability? Yes, surely there's plenty of evidence for that based on how everyone seems so sure of it. Did it seem likely that Iraq had WMD's? Yes, surely there's plenty of... oh, wait. So, UN-led inspections are the way to go. If Iran has a problem with that, then make the obvious offer: if Iran gives inspectors full access, Israel will do the exact same thing. That's only fair, and I'd be surprised if they'd refuse.

Sure, but what would they find in Israel that they don't already know of?

As for Iran, we can't know what is going on in Ahmadinejad's head. It wouldn't matter if we could. Iran already has the materials to build bombs in short order if it wanted to. That is not good for world peace, regardless of what anyone suspects their intentions are.

[MP-Ryan]

The options don't work, and carry costs. That's why I'd let Iran build nukes and not worry too much about it.

You're entitled to your opinion, so I'll just agree to disagree on this one.  I believe that, if applied appropriately, there are a number of options that have worked throughout the 20th century to influence a nation's internal policies short of military intervention.  UN sanctions get a bad rap, but they can be surprisingly effective if used creatively.

No it wasn't. Not compared to Iraq. In troop strength, Iran has a whopping 500,000 soldiers to the 400,000 Iraq had. There wasn't much to pick from between Iran and Iraq in military professionalism either. Iran had better morale, and would at least fight back. But really, few conventional armies are a concern for the US.

Bush entered the office from day one discussing with his advisers plans to invade Iraq. It was a daddy complex thing.  One had tried to "kill my dad", the other one hadn't. Saying that Iraq was invaded mainly because it was an easy target is an argument that could be used to prove or disprove any other war that may have started. Why not North Korea/Libya/Zimbabwe/Myanmar/Syria/Somalia/some other even more Beyond the Axis of Evil impoverished outpost of tyranny?

That's the conventional wisdom which disregards history before the Gulf War.

Militarily, you are quite correct - both the Iraqi and Iranian armies could not fight a conventional war against American forces and win.  I doubt any nation on Earth could, truthfully.  Maybe China through attrition, but even that is doubtful.

There is where the similarities end, though.  Iran had a democratic government in the 50s, ousted by the US-backed Shah.  Why?  Iran is the major power in the Middle East.  Control Iran, you control most of the region.  Keep in mind that the other states surrounding Israel at the time were not exactly friendly to anything Western.  The Shah was, and the Iranian government was weak and ripe for takeover.  Fast forward to 1979.  US influence in Iran has skyrocketed, American corporations are making a fair bit of money there, but the Shah's popularity is gone (if he ever had any, truthfully) and the Islamist movement is gaining backing with promises of an Islamic republic that ends American influence.  Not very good for the US, but due to the situation with the Soviets actual intervention is now impossible.  When the Shah was ousted, Iran was supposed to become a democracy.  A very anti-US democracy mind you, but democracy nonetheless.  That didn't happen.  Instead, a small cadre of religious dictators took power.  Thus ended any hope of Western influence in Iran.  Doesn't mean anyone wanted to stop trying though, which is why the US provided support to the Iraqis in the Iran-Iraq war.  It's also why Iran has remained hostile (and rightly) to the United States.

This, in turn, led to what we know as the Gulf War.  Saddam believed (wrongly) that the limited support he received from the US was in essence authorization to turn Iraq into the regional superpower and topple Iran's status, and for that he needed deepwater ports.  It seems he genuinely believed that Kuwait wouldn't raise problems in the US (and thus the UN).  Oops.  Suddenly the American puppet had gotten out of hand, a situation that was quickly (in military terms, anyway) handled.

And yet still the problem of Iran persisted.  After the events of the previous few years, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and increasing tensions along with increasing surveillance in the Middle East, nobody was contemplating forceful regime changes, despite the fact that Iran was increasingly gaining in power, and expanding their trade relationship with China.  China has a major thirst for oil which Iran has happily provided.  The Iranians don't truthfully need the Chinese, but (especially now) it's becoming more apparent that the Chinese need Iranian oil.  None of this is good news for the United States, but after 1979 it has become patently clear that direct US intervention into Iran is not going to work.

2001 - Al-Qaeda launches a major attack on US soil, which still baffles me because it was a huge miscalculation as far as mid-east geopolitics go.  I do wonder if they (Al-Qaeda) expected military strikes instead of outright invasion.  Regardless, NATO arrives in Afghanistan, beginning what will become a debacle of epic proportions, though it appears that the US DOD forgot to read the intelligence briefs on the region.  Whatever the cause, the [relatively limited, as far as invasions go] deployment to Afghanistan has been trundling along since.

NATO is now sitting in Afghanistan, mere spitting distance from Iran, the one major power in the whole region, the one power with a major trade relationship with China, the one power that is really the only major threat to regional stability if they ever do anything more than sabre-rattling.   There's a choice:  try direct intervention in Iran, try it elsewhere and hope it influences Iran, or ignore the fact that China, a strategic enemy of NATO (though not really declared as such openly), is benefitting immensely from the region.  Military intervention in Iran is out - there is at least one lesson learned already in Afghanistan, and it says that you might win a conventional war, but if you're faced with a population that hates you you have no hope of winning.  But next to Iran is Iraq.

Iraq was and is a non-nation, truthfully.  It's a country that was carved out of chunks of other countries through colonial efforts.  It had no overarching religion, no common ethnicity, large autonomous regions that opposed centralized governance, and a great deal of internal strife with an immensely unpopular dictator, both home and abroad.  And if we could toss the dictator there, what are the chances this could influence the very large pro-democracy-but-anti-US movement in neighboring Iran?  At the very least, Chinese access to Iraq's oil is now dependent on NATO's goodwill (and to be clear, cutting off Chinese oil is not a Western strategic goal; controlling it is).

It was a VERY shortsighted policy decision, but the invasion of Iraq was predicated on strategic goals and not regime change in just Iraq, nor bringing democracy to the Iraqis, nor American access to Iraqi oil, nor WMDs.  It was based on strategic regional goals which could not and still cannot be accomplished by a military invasion of Iran.  It is a hard target because it has a hardened populace to overt US influence.

Iran doesn't need nukes to keep the US and its allies out.  Developing them is a good way to open the door to inviting them in.  Iran's best hope of preserving their autonomy would be to give their populace a broad voice and eliminate their human rights violations, while pursuing a transparent nuclear power program.  Taking those measures would eliminate any appearance of legitimacy in Western military action.  The current situation is simply more likely to provoke it - and this time Western powers won't attempt an invasion, they'll just hit with tactical and destructive strikes.

Letting the Iranians develop a nuclear weapons program won't increase regional stability, it will decrease it.  Iran's best defense against Western military intervention is not military development, it's social development.

[MP-Ryan]

I should also say that the fact that the Iranian government doesn't appear to realize that their best hope of avoiding military action is to suspend any nuclear weapons development and open the country directly to inspectors is quite worrying.

[samiam]

2001 - Al-Qaeda launches a major attack on US soil, which still baffles me because it was a huge miscalculation as far as mid-east geopolitics go.  I do wonder if they (Al-Qaeda) expected military strikes instead of outright invasion.  Regardless, NATO arrives in Afghanistan, beginning what will become a debacle of epic proportions, though it appears that the US DOD forgot to read the intelligence briefs on the region.  Whatever the cause, the [relatively limited, as far as invasions go] deployment to Afghanistan has been trundling along since.

From internal documents, it appears to have been mainly an attention whore type tactic. The Islamist movement was in such a rut at the turn of the century that any publicity would be good publicity. I believe that Al Qaeda has been successful in that respect in buying another decade or so for their obsolete ideology before it croaks.

Iraq was and is a non-nation, truthfully.  It's a country that was carved out of chunks of other countries through colonial efforts.  It had no overarching religion, no common ethnicity, large autonomous regions that opposed centralized governance, and a great deal of internal strife with an immensely unpopular dictator, both home and abroad.  And if we could toss the dictator there, what are the chances this could influence the very large pro-democracy-but-anti-US movement in neighboring Iran?  At the very least, Chinese access to Iraq's oil is now dependent on NATO's goodwill (and to be clear, cutting off Chinese oil is not a Western strategic goal; controlling it is).

Very good theory, but it's a rationalization. I doubt those kinds of complex thought processes were going through W's head. A lot of time there is no geostrategic reason for an American president to start or maintain a war. Kennedy knew Vietnam was a waste. From secondhand accounts, he seems to have admitted that. He didn't want to withdraw for fear of losing a second term. Thousands of people died to give him a shot at winning the presidency again. Years later, the same thing may have happened when the US essentially gave Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait. And Bush I got away with a victorious and popular, but unnecessary, war. He still lost in 92. But there were other reasons for that.

It's easy to get people excited about the war, and it always wins you votes in the short term. The war was popular enough in 2004 to help Bush win a close election. That's an equally valid, and I'd say more simple, explanation for the Iraq war. And oil is not a very good argument. Iraq was willing to allow access to its oil fields on very generous terms to the United States before the final ultimatum. By the way, I don't think there were ever any particular trade restrictions between Iraq and China, or signs of that the US wanted one.

It was a VERY shortsighted policy decision, but the invasion of Iraq was predicated on strategic goals and not regime change in just Iraq, nor bringing democracy to the Iraqis, nor American access to Iraqi oil, nor WMDs.  It was based on strategic regional goals which could not and still cannot be accomplished by a military invasion of Iran.  It is a hard target because it has a hardened populace to overt US influence.

I would have to agree with you there, since Iraq has more in the way of different factions that can be played against each other, especially the Kurds. But this is a somewhat silly discussion over weak justifications for the war.

Iran doesn't need nukes to keep the US and its allies out.  Developing them is a good way to open the door to inviting them in.  Iran's best hope of preserving their autonomy would be to give their populace a broad voice and eliminate their human rights violations, while pursuing a transparent nuclear power program.  Taking those measures would eliminate any appearance of legitimacy in Western military action.  The current situation is simply more likely to provoke it - and this time Western powers won't attempt an invasion, they'll just hit with tactical and destructive strikes.

We might never get the chance to see. Iran has a free ride for now since the US isn't willing to invade. If a buildup began, it would either be too late, or it would be a chance to see just how set Iran is on its program. If America elects a semi-sane candidate in 2012, like Romney or Gingrich, then they will likely have enough bombs by 2016 to make their national survival relatively secure. Not many countries can say that.

[MP-Ryan]

It's easy to get people excited about the war, and it always wins you votes in the short term. The war was popular enough in 2004 to help Bush win a close election. That's an equally valid, and I'd say more simple, explanation for the Iraq war. And oil is not a very good argument. Iraq was willing to allow access to its oil fields on very generous terms to the United States before the final ultimatum. By the way, I don't think there were ever any particular trade restrictions between Iraq and China, or signs of that the US wanted one.

Oh, I'm not discounting the old adage of "Economy not performing and unpopular at home?  Start a war."  I'm just saying there were a lot more compelling strategic reasons for invading Iraq than anything as simplistic as an old daddy-complex grudge or the need to win the election.  Bush wasn't the final decision maker, and it would take a lot more than those factors to propel the entire DOD establishment to a war recommendation.

And I wasn't saying Iraq was invaded to give the US access to Iraqi oil (hell, the US has access to both Saudi and Canadian oil which will meet its strategic needs for a long while to come), I'm saying that it gave the US control of Iraqi oil and leverage when it comes to China.  Once again, the West is happy to sell resources to the Chinese, but they want to control how and when.

We might never get the chance to see. Iran has a free ride for now since the US isn't willing to invade. If a buildup began, it would either be too late, or it would be a chance to see just how set Iran is on its program. If America elects a semi-sane candidate in 2012, like Romney or Gingrich, then they will likely have enough bombs by 2016 to make their national survival relatively secure. Not many countries can say that.

Whereas I would argue that Iran's development of nuclear weapons makes their national survival (or at least, their government's) less secure.  Keep in mind that the Mossad is undoubtedly keeping a very close eye on the program.  I'm willing to bet that any prototypes are quickly and decisively destroyed long before the Iranians have deployment capability.  Missile and/or jet flight time from Isarel or the Persian Gulf is quite short, and modern bombs can make pretty deep holes.  It really won't matter who the US President is.

Which makes me curious - you don't think Obama will survive the election or is capable of rational foreign policy?

[samiam]

Oh, I'm not discounting the old adage of "Economy not performing and unpopular at home?  Start a war."  I'm just saying there were a lot more compelling strategic reasons for invading Iraq than anything as simplistic as an old daddy-complex grudge or the need to win the election.

You really should read one of his biographies. I am not ****ing kidding about the daddy issues, I'll say it again. Herzkowitz's biography is a good one, and it's intended as pro-Bush propaganda to boot. Bush had been talking about his disappointment with his father's failure to finish the job since at least as far back as 1999. And he was quite the final decision maker. For what it's worth, there's Cheney, who had opposed occupation in 1991, yet fell in line behind Bush like everyone else.

Whereas I would argue that Iran's development of nuclear weapons makes their national survival (or at least, their government's) less secure.  Keep in mind that the Mossad is undoubtedly keeping a very close eye on the program.  I'm willing to bet that any prototypes are quickly and decisively destroyed long before the Iranians have deployment capability.  Missile and/or jet flight time from Isarel or the Persian Gulf is quite short, and modern bombs can make pretty deep holes.  It really won't matter who the US President is.

They've gotten this far, I bet they can make it. Time is not on Israel's side.

It will hopefully not matter who the US president is. But neoconservativism is still very much alive, in the electorate and primaries, if not in the current government. Hopefully there won't be a Bush round III. Hopefully.

I think  you read too much biology. You really need to just listen to a speech, or a soundbite at least, from McCain, Bachmann or Palin on the Iran issue. I don't think you grasp how bat**** insane the potential next presidents of the United States are and have been.

Which makes me curious - you don't think Obama will survive the election or is capable of rational foreign policy?

I never said that. Obama is one of the more intelligent presidents IMO. On foreign policy, he's doing fine besides not withdrawing fast enough. On Iran, I think he has the wrong idea, but what he's doing isn't totally off the wall.

As for the election, I think the economy hurts Obama's chances, but it will be close and a Republican win would be just a worst case for foreign policy.

[MP-Ryan]

You really should read one of his biographies. I am not ****ing kidding about the daddy issues, I'll say it again. Herzkowitz's biography is a good one, and it's intended as pro-Bush propaganda to boot. Bush had been talking about his disappointment with his father's failure to finish the job since at least as far back as 1999. And he was quite the final decision maker. For what it's worth, there's Cheney, who had opposed occupation in 1991, yet fell in line behind Bush like everyone else.

Not disputing any of that - just saying it wasn't the primary reason.  Really, do you think all of cabinet, and majorities in Congress and the Senate were swayed because Bush wanted to finish what his daddy started?  Even I'm not that cynical

They've gotten this far, I bet they can make it. Time is not on Israel's side.

It will hopefully not matter who the US president is. But neoconservativism is still very much alive, in the electorate and primaries, if not in the current government. Hopefully there won't be a Bush round III. Hopefully.

I think  you read too much biology. You really need to just listen to a speech, or a soundbite at least, from McCain, Bachmann or Palin on the Iran issue. I don't think you grasp how bat**** insane the potential next presidents of the United States are and have been.

I follow US politics even more closely than I follow politics in my own country.  I'm quite well aware of how insane most of the Republican bunch is these days.

[samiam]

Not disputing any of that - just saying it wasn't the primary reason.  Really, do you think all of cabinet, and majorities in Congress and the Senate were swayed because Bush wanted to finish what his daddy started?  Even I'm not that cynical

You haven't seen me cynical. If the boss of the Executive Branch of the United States wants fabricated evidence of Iraqi WMD trailer parks, it will end up on his desk next Monday. And the rest of the country will probably believe it.

I follow US politics even more closely than I follow politics in my own country.  I'm quite well aware of how insane most of the Republican bunch is these days.

The weirdest part is when you take a six month trip to Vietnam and realize in your conversations with the locals that many of them follow the American republican primary even more closely than Americans do.

Well, it's been fun. Later.

[Mars]

It's cause the American public hasn't gotten bombed by the US government yet.

[Janos]

I should also say that the fact that the Iranian government doesn't appear to realize that their best hope of avoiding military action is to suspend any nuclear weapons development and open the country directly to inspectors is quite worrying.

What, like they did between 2003 and 2010? They are even discussing with IAEA in February, following the talks in late January this year.

Back in 2010 they agreed with Brazil and Turkey to cease their own enrichment program - again, completely legal by NPT standard - to ship the fuel over to Brazil and Turkey. US approved of this. Then US immediatelly called for more sanctions - like three days later. Now Iran is under crushing economic sanctions.

You fail to grasp a very simple point: Iran feels threated and is already in a covert war. They see that cooperation gives them absolutely nothing but more sanctions on top of sanctions. They are surrounded by a hostile power. They are being denied a nuclear power generation just because they ousted the Shah back in 1979.

Now, you seem to keep touting the line that Iran's best chance is social developement. Very well. What is the objective tool and timeline for that? Is there a certain level of social developement that will stop warlike rhetorics from their neighbours - maybe something like a secularized nation? What is the acceptable timeline and transition scheme? How can any kind of social change bring forth any kind of short-term security?

See:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step.

1. Iran is not breaking any treaty they are obliged to
2. They are completely justified in a peaceful nuclear POWER program
3. This is acknowledged by USA, which
4. ... pushes for more sanctions.
5. Everything rest in this post.

And you claim that Iran should adopt a policy of "social change"? Damn, using these criteria the entire mainland Europe should be under food embargo.

edit: No peace missiles here 1980s 8)

[Mars]

2. They are completely justified in a peaceful nuclear weapons program

[Janos]

2. They are completely justified in a peaceful nuclear weapons program

whoops

[samiam]

Nuclear peace theory, silly!

 

[Janos]

Nuclear peace theory, silly!

 

No such thing exists.

[Kszyhu]

Of course it does exist. Once everything bigger than cockroaches dies in a nuclear fire, we will finally achieve world peace.