Hey Kevin,

How about we tell the Iranians "If you stop pursuing nuclear weapons we will get rid of ours and stop developing new ones". Oh wait, we don't have to do that we have the moral high ground.

I prefer (c) - impeachment. That would make me feel a lot safer.

What "diplomacy"? Actually talking to other groups (as opposed to threats of bombing or actual bombing) is an anathema to the Bush administration. Remember a while back when the Europeans were negotiating with Iran? Our State Department was be where to be found.

This Thursday's Guardian had a report with comments by some Iranian analysts. All is not lost

There is no issue in which everybody in the regime is united, but in this special case there is more unity than on any other," said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst based in Tehran. That was because the decision to break the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals to restart work at the Natanz nuclear facility came from the supreme leader, he said. "Nuclear issues are absolutely separate from the government and I don't believe this is Mr Ahmadinejad's decision."

While western governments cast Tuesday's move as a serious step towards uranium enrichment and, ultimately, atomic weapons, analysts in Tehran argued that the regime's intentions were purely tactical.

Mr Leylaz said: "This is not the beginning of enrichment. But diplomatically it's very aggressive and intended to gain advantage for the Iranian side. We've had two plane crashes in the past month caused by American economic sanctions against Iran. Those accidents are forcing Iran to take a more aggressive stance towards the sanctions. The regime wants to start real negotiations with the US, because it doesn't think the Europeans are authorised to negotiate properly. This move is aimed at breaking the circle and getting America's attention."

Another analyst said: "This decision is about forcing the west to come up with something substantial and serious. Iran wants rewards for not turning its nuclear programme into a weapons programme. The Russians are saying, come and do uranium enrichment on our soil, but there's no reward for that. The regime is saying, if you want us to work with the Russians, there's a price - which is lifting the sanctions, security guarantees, economic incentives and recognition of Iran's role in the region."

Congressional Dems will vote for it out of fear, against the wishes of the Dem base. come election time, all the Congressional Dems will face a voting public that thinks they're all a bunch of retards. they'll try to please the public by talking out both sides of their mouths and the GOP will eviscerate them with "flip-flopper" ads.

how on earth did the Democratic party end up with so many slugs at the top ?

I thought air strikes were considered "cowardly."

Are the Iranian trying for a rerun of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Sanctions obviously -- it worked with Iraq.

How nice to get around to a stark issue confronting earthlings for over five years. Ahhh, but a liberal has to pussyfoot for years first, then, approach the stark reality as a nuanced discussion of what Democratic political position will give it a chance back at control of the Washington DC Federal trough. In terms of Overlord Bush's position, of course.

But gosh, who wants to think about bad things like wars and nuclear destruction and hard choices? That is not the business the current brand of liberal is in.

What a dilema. The right to same sex marriage, or the prevention of thermonuclear destruction. Resources are scare. As a matter of principle, let's keep those liberal priorities straight.

This mis-administration isn't about diplomacy, it's made it's mark by being the toughest guy on the block. This is all about GWB swagger and doing it or else approach to world affairs. He and the neo cons need and want to use military force to mold the world into what they believe it should be. Bombs will drop and bush will and the repubs will claim they have protected the USA from a nuclear bomb making terrorist country determined to harm the USA.

The US has no real leverage. Diplomacy isn't likely to work with the crazy, holocaust-denying hardliners in Iran (short of an absurdly lavish bribe). And air strikes aren't an effective threat either. The US military is stretched too thin to deal with the possible consequence of air strikes: a wider war in the region. Iran could use the air strikes as a pretext to accelerate their efforts to destabilize/overthrow Iraq with Iranian-backed insurgents. Given that the US is already struggling to keep it's head above water in Iraq as it is, we really cannot sustain our presence in Iraq if the war intensifies.

Note that the US will probably end up leaving Iraq out of necessity in the next couple of years anyway. Giving Iran a stake in the conflict will also give Iran greater bragging rights at having helped kick the US out of the region.

Also at the very, very least - air strikes will only serve to further entrench the political hardliners in Iran (and further justify a nuclear weapons program). It's also easy to imagine that the Iranians have already taken the precaution of building redundant facilities that are currently unknown to the West and likely to survive any strike (or at least be easily reconstituted).

Iran will end up with nukes sooner or later. The question is, do we really want to make them even madder at us in the interim?

I thought air strikes were considered "cowardly."

Depends.

How's the polling on a return to conscription?
.
.
.
Air strikes no longer cowardly.

one could assume that all this is just posturing intended to make it look like the US is running away from a fight with Iran as it slowly pulls out of Iraq. Iran will be able to say "look, the US ran, rather than face us when they were right on our doorstep!"

Maybe diplomacy will work and Iran will back down. But just in case it doesn't, Dems would be wise to start thinking about whether (a) or (b) — or some hypothetical (c) — is the right policy. And then, having thought about it, we can start figuring out how to persuade the American public that our choice is the right one.

That's more upbeat and proactive than your dominant style.

To start with, it's useful to remember that Iran is now governed by people who think that the Shah of Iraq was too liberal and too Western in his thinking. They objected to all those Iranians who came to the US to study and earn college degrees. They are not the people who respected and wanted to rally behind Mossadegh's liberal socialism -- those people were used and dispatched. The mullahs have their own motives for wanting more military power and nuclear weaponry, and those motives include spreading their Islamist influence and ridding the Middle East of democratic/European influences such as Israel. (Ahkmedinejad was selected by the mullahs to run, and no one opposed to the mullahs was permitted to run, so he is pretty much their voice and instrument, though I am sure that he is also sincere.) They do not oppose America because of what liberals see as America's faults, they object to liberal democracy.

Another thing to remember is that a "threat" of military action is not useful unless it is credibly backed by a willingness to use the force. If the Democrats are going to come up with language like "using force only as a last resort", they would be better off not mentioning force at all, or else saying straight out that they oppose all force. A John Kerry-like vote to use force without an intention to use the force once it is approved is totally a waste of everybody's time. Better not to mention military power at all than to mention it with an intention to bluff.

I don't mean to suggest that Republican policy is eminently respectible, only that a true Democratic policy has to recognize these and other points if it is to be perceived by swing and independent voters as non-supercilious.

"Election Day - Democrats lose 5 seats in the Senate, 30 in the House."

Never thought I'd say it, but Atrios is spot on! You baby-killing liberal losers will never learn! And don't forget -- they will allow Bush to stay in power, in the face of Endless War! Expect to hear lots more about FDR.

Even if Atrios is right in his astrological predictions based on the confluence of Saturn and Plato, it's clear that attack on Iran or not, the Democratic party consists of a collection of fools who neither know how to win elections at home nor the art of war against evil regimes abroad. All they can do is wail aimlessly at the stars for their sorry predicament.

the Democratic party consists of a collection of fools who neither know how to win elections at home nor the art of war against evil regimes abroad

bit early to be drinking, isn't it ?

Atrios is a clever writer but as usual, can't be taken seriously in this matter. In Atrios words, foreign policy is this subject far too many people put too much thought into and in which problems can be resolved if we just held hands and talked more. He rejects even the remote possibility that force might even potentially be an issue to consider. That's not surprising from a guy who even opposed the war in Afghanistan much less Bush's Iraq fiasco.

Basically, Atrios has no credit on this issue and that's good. To paraphrase him, let the seriiusly serious people who are serious about serious foreign policy discuss these things. Afterwards he can write snarky comments about the proces from far away; having excused himself from any responsible discussion.

Resources are scare.

Interesting little slip there, coming from a Bush Bot.

Anyone seen Dr. Freud around?

Thanks, Kevin. It's always a load fun to ask the Left, "so what's YOUR plan?" and watch them run around in circles and bang into walls.

ESaund:

Remember a while back when the Europeans were negotiating with Iran? Our State Department was [no]where to be found.

I suppose it was expected that Europe and the U.N., which have a much more enlightened view of dealing with foreign threats than Cowboy America, would have no trouble dealing with Iran. Why mess it up? What could America bring to the table that would help?

blowback, quoting the Iranians:

"...there's a price - which is lifting the sanctions, security guarantees, economic incentives and recognition of Iran's role in the region."

Bribes. Yeah, that's worked well in the past.

Since I'm not in the intelligence loop, I don't know if airstrikes would work. I've been hearing that the targets have been deliberately widely distributed in civilian areas, and that this would be a very difficult attack with lots of collateral damage. Secret agents sneaking in to blow them up only works in the movies.

Would it kill the U.N. to at least TRY sanctions? They may very well fail--they didnt' do much in Iraq--but it's a reasonable first step before dropping bombs. That the U.N. can't even bring itself to use non-military options shows just how useless it is.

A widespread program to support anti-government movements in Iran might also be a dark-horse option. Unlike large parts of Iraq, Iranians apparently are, as a group, more Westernized, and have more potential in this area.

And hey? Anti ballistic missile systems? Let's not give up on them just yet, okay? I can pay for a lot of research for what a nuclear-bombed city would cost.

Posing the question to Democrats suggests that (1.) all Democrats might or should be in agreement and (2.) conflicts with Iran are merely an echo of Iraq. Both of these presumptions cloud the quesion more than necessary. Moreover, the comment thread feeds a counterproductive line of thinking more preoccupied with making domestic political points than resolving an international challenge. I think we can do better than this but I am reluctant to join this discussion further than what I have just offered.

Partisan carping can now resume...

Agree with Make 'em hurt: sanctions worked perfectly in Iraq (for non Iraqis, that is).

Trouble is, this requires coordination with other powerful countries, and the U.S. has no international standing, and no way to put leverage on China or Russia to do anything. None. Zero.

Airstrikes? Knock out a few targets - set the program back a year or two? Or sustained bombing? Kill maybe hundreds - with what allies? Britain? Shiite-dominated Iraq? Nope.

And how do oil prices react?

Iran WILL have the bomb, as will Saudi Arabia, etc. Because the U.S. can't lead anymore.

Chalk it up to Chimpy the Impotent. We're in a post-superpower world.

...I have been hearing that.....

He is hearing! He is hearing! He is hearing the voices in his head!

In Atrios words, foreign policy is this subject far too many people put too much thought into and in which problems can be resolved if we just held hands and talked more.

got a quote ? i don't see any mention of handholding in the linked article.

It's always a load fun to ask the Left, "so what's YOUR plan?" and watch them run around in circles and bang into walls.

are you gonna volunteer to go fight in Iran ?

My astrological prediction is that whatever Bush's policy (sanctions, military strike, etc.) the Iranians will respond by lowering their total petroleum exports and striking trade agreements with more pragmatic empires like China. Since everyfuckingthing from TVs to computers to cars is made in China, Iran will be quaking in it's boots.

the art of war against evil regimes abroad

Please oh please, teach me that Iraq tarbaby move tbrosz. Or at least the declare victory and run from communists in black pajamas sho jitzu move. I'm begging to learn the art for the betterment of my party.

Tbrosz, do you ever get out of the house? I guess you must have a good reason for never leaving.

Atrios presents a bleak assessment. But it leaves out other considerations:
1) Is America going to back a third potentially active military front?
2) Are US creditors going to continue to honor W's credit card spending?
3) Are the oil interests willing to risk the flow of oil. Doesn't Iran have a scary number of cruise missiles and some very convenient locations to raint them down on oil tankers and even US Naval vessels?
4) Perhaps someone demands public disclosure of the intelligence, since W and the gang blamed Iraq on faulty intelligence?
5) The US Economy may finally go off the cliff toward which it has been teetering for 2-3 years now.

Maybe he is right. But maybe as they say in those financial disclosures on investments, "past performance is no guarantee of future returns".

Thanks, Kevin. It's always a load fun to ask the Left, "so what's YOUR plan?" and watch them run around in circles and bang into walls.

It's always fun to ask the Right, "so, how's your plan working?" and watch them run around in circles and bang into walls and blame their failures on the Left for not believing hard enough.

Iran has not threatened us. It's a small to medium sized poor country on the other side of the world. Our military advantage over even an Iran with nuclear weapons would still be totally overwhelming. And responsible analysts say that Iran is probably many years away from having nulcclear weapons.

A US military attack on Iran would just increase our troubles. Given the outcome of our brilliant invasion of Iraq that should not be hard to sell.

Air strikes would be idiotic. I have little doubt that Iran would retaliate economically in a huge way. It is just not obvious what we can force Iran to do at this point with Iraq oil down, Chavez always a source of tension, and Iran being one of the main suppliers of both oil and natural gas. Unless we really want to see the global and national economy nosedive, we need to come up with some innovative ways to deal with nuclear energy, and one of these, perhaps the wisest and most just, would be to really set up a global transparency and inspections regime when it comes to nuclear facilities, along with a firm commitment to outlawing all nuclear weapons. Obviously, the U.S., Europe, and Israel would also have to abide by these rules, inspections, and sanctions.

Yes, resources are scarce.

And who sees a Bush bot in the fury at how the incompetence of Democratic competition is the key to Overlord Bush having power, is also a few bricks shy of a full load, but, like a good pussyfooter, self satisfied and full of it.

The UN is the Right's big boogey man. The real problem underlying this vague UN boogey man is that Russian and Chinese interests are largely competing with our own.

Even if you dissolved the UN, sanctions won't work until we get China and Russia on board. . . and I just don't think China gives a fuck if Iran gets a couple of nuclear bombs. Taiwan yes, Iran no. China has economic power through manufacturing and cash reserves that trumps paper, rock, scissors, and hiroshima style nuclear bombs.

Our troubles are really arising from our hubris. We insist on putting rules and regimes on others that we are not subject to, to promote and use nuclear energy while discouraging others from doing so, and insisting on global economic development that links all the economies together in mutual dependence.

The only way to truly run a global economy of mutual dependence that allows varying political characters to be preserved would be to accept and encourage binding global conventions and treaties, and, in the case of nuclear weapons, to outright ban them, put them on a phase down schedule for (all) those currently in possession of them, and to agree on an expanded IAEA or successor agency that will have "sneak and peek" access in terms of inspections for all nuclear facilities in the world - no exceptions. Those who resist will be shunned and actively undermined politically, economically, and if necessary militarily.

This isn't far from the model that some see it today, but there are exceptions to those who need to follow the rules or face transparency and inspections, like the U.S. and Israel, and thus no self-respecting leader of a country as rich in natural resources so desirable and needed by the "exceptional" countries is going to accede to this global feudalism without really testing the nature of his power. From my view, I see no reason for Iranian submission, as they have enough cards to play, and it's not just us and them, but Russia, China, India, and so on too.

The real question is whether we in the U.S. can be good global citizens, or if we will continue in hubris to consider ourselves above the law and the exception to the rule and lash out like spoiled brats whenever our fix isn't forthcoming at the level we're used to.

I have a hard time understanding why a nation (Iran) which has signed the NPT is such a threat while other nations (you figure out who they are) which have not signed the NPT but still have nuclear weapons are not a problem. Quite frankly, after the Iraq fiasco, I'll never believe anything the Bush administration says about another country being a threat. The Bushite ability and gall in creating stuff out of whole cloth is phenomenal.

The easiest course of action would have been to first elicit, by whatever means necessary, all the information about the technology supplied to Iran from A. Q. Khan.

But of course we won't touch Pakistan.

There is a pettern here. After 9/11 we did not attck the country that was most responsible for it. And we continue to coddle its dictator while pretending that we want to spread democracy in the middle east.

The obvious answer is to not care if Iran develops nuclear weapons. The only real value of nuclear weapons is they discourage others from attacking you. To discourage Iran from using nuclear weapons make it clear that every major city in Iran would be incinerated if Iran ever uses a nuclear weapon.

KEVIN DRUM: Atrios is almost certainly right about this, but it still doesn't answer the question.

If only you could see yourself, typing out meaningless words, as you strive for ascension to the leisure class. What is diplomatic about holding thousands of nuclear weapons over the head of another nation, threatening to use them if they dare to even think about developing their own?

Everything you say in this post (actually, in all of your religiously capitalistic posts) is based on a single formula which you take for a maxim: Might Makes Right

If Iran can't be trusted with nukes--if any nation cannot--no nation can. There is nothing inherent in the genes of U.S. citizens which makes them more responsible with the care of dangerous weapons. There is nothing in our culture which makes us distinctly less violent or aggressive. There is nothing in our power structure which provides greater assurance of restraint in conflicts.

Global disarmament is the only answer. When we have a leader bold enough to face the United Nations and beg forgiveness for our past aggression and oppression while pledging to disarm all of our nuclear weapons, that is when we will finally be on a path toward achieving both peace and prosperity for all of mankind.

We're a long way from such a day, you'll say. Obviously so, since everything you do is designed to preserve this nation's might, rather than build a foundation for better lives for all. The mightier we are, the greater the risk to us, and the more misery brought to the masses of humanity.

By the way, just curious, on another matter, would it have seemed a "ray of sunshine" if, say, Zawahiri had made his way to Orange County and then have been reported to be hiding out in the house next door to yours, after which the CIA had called in missiles which (though missing Zawahiri) killed your wife and about six kids in your neighborhood? Away on a trip to D.C., you hear about it on CNN and get an immediate sunny lift from it, right?

I love this.

Kevin's main concern? How to use this global crisis as an election issue.

Quick! We've got to come up with a policy so we have something to take to the 2006 elections!

Presumably, said policy will be designed for its electoral impact, not for its righteousness or efficacy. It doesn't seem to have seeped into his dim little mind that this is a real problem. Bush-hating trumps everything.

am

which policy of GWB was designed not for electoral impact but for its righteousness or efficacy? Name one.

If only you could see yourself, typing out meaningless words, as you strive for ascension to the leisure class.

LOL. jayarbee is horning in on Norman's schtick. Give it up, j-boy, nobody maligns Kevin's character like WM's resident psycho troll. Compared to him you're an amateur.

If this is turns out to be a partisan issue, it will be because the Republicans want it that way. That's not unexpected, given how well things turned out for them the last time we debated whether to go to war. Most people I know think Iraq was a fool's erand, but most of those people have a completely different view toward military action in Iran; in fact, one of the primary objections to invading Iraq was that it was the one member of the Axis of Evil that was not pursuing a WMD program.

Barring a sudden turn of events on the diplomatic front, the real problem with the Iran question will not be that Dems are anti-war; it will be that there are no good options, military or otherwise, only a host of very bad ones.

Kevin's main concern? How to use this global crisis as an election issue.

err. he's saying it's probably going to be a campaign issue, like it or not, and is wondering how the Dems are going to handle it. and of course the GOP would never use foreign policy as a campaign issue. heavens no.

don't let your knee-jerk Kevin hating get in the way of your ability to read.

"Even if Atrios is right in his astrological predictions based on the confluence of Saturn and Plato, it's clear that attack on Iran or not, the Democratic party consists of a collection of fools who neither know how to win elections at home nor the art of war against evil regimes abroad."

Cripes, I know that some of you will keep falling for the fake over and over and over again (check the e-mail address, folks. Then bang the rocks together). But can you at least give me credit enough not to have written a fractured sentence like that?

RickG makes some good points, particularly number 3.

We don't get much oil from Iran. But other nations in the U.N. do, and Jimm points out correctly that Chavez is a wild card in this. If he sides with Iran...well, we DO get a lot of our oil from Venezuela.

B's point on the U.N., China and Russia is also a good one. Sanctions aren't going to work if large nations don't care about Iran having weapons or not.

Those wondering why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons since the U.S. does? They probably also wonder why serial killers shouldn't be allowed to have guns because, after all, cops carry them, and shoot people with them, too.

When we have a leader bold enough to face the United Nations and beg forgiveness for our past aggression and oppression while pledging to disarm all of our nuclear weapons, that is when we will finally be on a path toward achieving both peace and prosperity for all of mankind.

Oh, please. Run somebody like this in 2008. Really. Please?

There is no right policy while Bush is office.
I'm not simply being snide. Bush himself is the obstacle to any agreements because he has destroyed the reputation of the US for abiding by international agreements. Because Bush cannot be trusted by the Iranians (rightly so), the only possible result is war---which is what Bush wants, of course.

Those wondering why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons since the U.S. does? They probably also wonder why serial killers shouldn't be allowed to have guns because, after all, cops carry them, and shoot people with them, too.

frankly, Iran isn't much of a "serial killer". except for its war with Iraq (which side were we on? pick a year), it's been pretty quiet.

no, i don't think a nuclear Iran is a good idea. i just think your analogy is weak.

which policy of GWB was designed not for electoral impact but for its righteousness or efficacy? Name one.

Oh, that's an easy one: Bush's policy to establish a plutocratic state has been working just aces.

As for Iran... if the Democrats want to be of more use than tits on a bull, they need to get engaged on the issue now, not when Bush gets around to presenting the nation with another pack of lies.

How about suggesting that, if Iran is really just interested in developing nuclear energy, and not nuclear weapons, the US and the UN will be glad to help? Tie it in to the current tentative re-thinking about nuclear energy. Suggest establishing an international consortium dedicated to designing and building safe, enviro-friendly reactors. Talk up the problems of nuclear waste, and say we need all the brilliant designers we can get our hands on to come up with good disposal systems. Make it a truly international effort, because energy is truly an international problem. Make the idea appealing to the Iranian people - which means anyone but the US has to take point on this, because Iran doesn't like or trust us, and we've given them no reason at all to do so.

On the off-chance that Iran means it when it says it wants to develop nuclear power, having a lot of international agencies in on the deal means having a lot of oversight.

If the rest of the world is genuinely engaged in the project, we can set forth ahead of time the penalties for sneakily developing nuclear weapons. Penalties that mean something to Iran. Yes, that could include Iraq-style economic and trade sanctions. The important thing is not only to make the threat of sanctions credible, but to make the benefits of abiding by the deal equally credible. Penalties could also include military force - but not solely on the US initiative, and not solely based on the US' say-so.

And so, if it turns out Iran intended all along to develop nuclear weapons, there'll be a lot of people who'll notice that, and can raise a stink about it. It won't just be the Bush Admin making accusations (which, BTW, no one will believe) and it won't just be the UN (which is generally regarded as ineffectual) it'll be the international community. The penalties will already be known in advance, ready to be invoked. If a military confrontation turns out to be necessary, it will be due to bad faith actions the whole world can verify; and the confrontation will be truly an international effort.

In other words, internationalize the issue for real, and now; do what we should have done in Iraq.

Cheney did say the Israelis could bomb Iran, Bush called Iran, Syria, and N. Corea evil empires. Before that we did not hear about all the need of nuclear weapons by the Iraniens. If we threaten why should the not want nuclear weapons, Israel and the US have them and are not frienly nations.

So we should stop belly aching and consider what our government has been doing to get us there.

Oh and don't forget, the US is a big power but Iraq has been clipping our wings. And boy, it costs lots of money to fight a war.

Murtha says we are on the way out and it makes sense to me. 2200-plus american dead. At 3000 the "war on terror" meme, that is already wearing thin, will lose whats left of its effectiveness.

Remember that I get treated to a military intelligence world-view of this issue. We spent three years at Incirlik AFB in Adana, Turkey, about 250 miles southwest of Ankara. (Incirlik was a SAC base. It's where the U-2's took off and landed from during the cold war. 5% of the sorties in the first gulf war were flown out of Incirlik.) All the mission statements aside, the mission of that base has always been intelligence, from the day that ground was broke. It was classic quid pro quo You want to join NATO, and we want to spy on Russia, with whom you share 300 miles of border. Okay, here's the deal...

Renate: Tax cuts are paying for the war.

TROSZ: Oh, please. Run somebody like this in 2008. Really. Please?

The person I described (if he/she exists) would be a shoo-in. Actually, such folks do exist. Doubt if any of them have the quarter billion dollars it takes to run a presidential campaign, though.

CHEEZ: LOL. jayarbee is horning in on Norman's schtick. Give it up, j-boy, nobody maligns Kevin's character like WM's resident psycho troll. Compared to him you're an amateur.

And so, if it turns out Iran intended all along to develop nuclear weapons, there'll be a lot of people who'll notice that, and can raise a stink about it. It won't just be the Bush Admin making accusations (which, BTW, no one will believe) and it won't just be the UN (which is generally regarded as ineffectual) it'll be the international community.

Do you really think there is anyone in the "international community" who still actually believes Iran's goal is to build nuclear power plants? "B" was right. Plenty of them just don't care if Iran lobs a nuke at Tel Aviv. One or two would probably quietly cheer.

We're heading for a nuagmire in Iran.

Why don't we pursue a policy of "mutually assured destruction" with these guys like we did the Russians.

Oh, that's right, the Russian's were athiest, they didn't believe in an afterlife, it was all now or never. The Iranians believe in the 72 virgins theory of the afterlife for martyrs.

Tough nut. Mutually Assured destruction means we burn in eternal damnation, they get 72 virgins. Seems like Mutually assured distruction isn't going to work with the Iranians. And that, by the way, is the real reason to fear these idiots getting the bomb.

Which is why they are an ailing Bush Administrations best wet dream. More threats, more fear, more war equates to better poling.

I wonder just how hard it is to immigrate to New Zealand? and I wonder where they stand on the whole Neocon thing? It would seem that NZ would be the last Westernized society left standing on earth in an enlarged confligration - that is, if they are not yet a member of the willing coalition with Bush. If they are, well then there probably is no decent place left to hide.

The confligration comes .... Fundementalist prophecy, self fulfilled. Bastards.

What the hell would you do if you were Iran, with the US Army (and, more significantly, the US Marine Corps) in force on both your borders and an NBC-equipped Israel with a Likud govt not too far away either, both itching for a fight.

I'd follow N. Korea's example and get nukes ASAP.

Either a) demand a nuke-free Middle East or
b) be fair about it and allow others to do what you allow Israel to do.

(I like option A.)

Anything else makes you look like a giant hypocrite.

And speaking of hypocrisy: why is it alright for us to have nukes but not Iran? Remind me again.

I thought air strikes were considered "cowardly."

Compared to suicide bombing it is.

You have to have a LOT of conviction to do that, you must admit.

a question for the conservatives here...

given what we know:

should we invade Iran ?
if so, when and how ?
or, should we attack Iran ?
if so, when and how?

please enumerate the political consequences, the economic consequences and provide a way to deal with all of that.

if you can't do that...

At this point, I think the most realistic option is:

1. Do something non-military to try to slow Iran's nuclear program down. If some form of limited U.N. sanctions can get them to at least put a hold on things, we can buy some time. The U.N. has got to actually DO something for a change.

2. Then work on regime change in Iran before the mullahs finish the bombs. Iran's mullahs are actually a lot more vulnerable in this area than Saddam was, and it may be able to be carried off without overt military support.

Neither of these is guaranteed--in fact the odds are less than 50-50 IMO, but it's worth trying before an air strike.

Note that if things move along too fast, and Iran does get the bomb, if they don't go nuts and start dropping bombs on Israel, internal regime change could STILL work to defuse the situation.

When South Africa's regime changed, they disarmed (South Africa is a classic example of a nation that actually cooperated with arms control agencies). Russia, not so much so, but it's still better than the U.S.S.R.

BTW I'd be pushing hard for the air strike if Iran's nuclear program had a nice "reactor vent" target that would wreck the whole thing, but it doesn't.

How should Democrats position the Iran issue?

As a tragically splendid example of how Bush's Iraq war has weakened our hand in dealing with Iran.

Everything we have done militarily to Iraq, we could easily have done to Iran instead, with the rather important distinction that we KNOW Iran is an imminent nuclear threat. And, of course, it's not even as if we'd actually have to invade Iran; we could simply have credibly threatened them with some kind of invasion, and all that might entire for the ruling class, and most likely have gotten them to agree to nuclear inspections, just as we did with Saddam.

Why do you think that it is NOW that the Iranians are announcing their nuclear ambitions so very publicly, and flagrantly refusing to allow inspections?

Answer: because they know we are weak, compared to years past, years in which our military was NOT far over-extended.

If Democrats can't bring themselves to get ahead of the national security issue presented by Iran, and make it clear how culpable Bush is in weakening our military's capabilities, and our reputation for military power across the world, then truly they are useless and pointless.

The US military is stretched too thin to deal with the possible consequence of air strikes: a wider war in the region. Iran could use the air strikes as a pretext to accelerate their efforts to destabilize/overthrow Iraq with Iranian-backed insurgents.

I doubt it is true that the US is stretched too thin to deal with Iran for a number of reasons:

i) It's not as if military action need take place this month. In a year or so, it is likely that the US presence in Iraq will be significantly smaller.

ii) The US will mostly only use airstrikes against Iran. Any ground force activity will be confined to microactions by elite units. There will be no large-scale invasion of Iran. The US has ample ability to project air power, and now is most assuredly ramping up that ability on a daily basis.

iii) Overwhelming air superiorty on the part of the US will completely obliterate Tehran's ability to strike back with conventional forces. There will be no Iranian armored units rolling into Mesopatamia or the Arabian peninsula.

iv) Tehran's efforts at revenge will be confined mainly to terrorism. The Middle East, Israel, the US, and the world as a whole have managed to live with this problem nearly three decades now; Iranian terror is not an existential threat, at least provided it does not involve nuclear weapons. Moreover, it is doubtful Iran will succeed in formenting any more trouble in Iraq than it already is, especially if Iraqi Shiite political aspirations are fulfilled. Embittered, oppressed, emasculated majorities are vulnerable to manipulation by scheming foreign powers. Triumphant, newly powerful majorities are much less so.

v) Any action taken against Iran will very likely possess a patina of multilateralism, complete with widespread participation of the UN, other western powers, and maybe even the Arabs and Turks (neither of whom are enamored of the idea of a Persian bomb). Even Russia appears to be coming around (given Iran's proximity, and Russia's own, deadly problem with Islamist terrorism, all I can say is it's about time).

vi) Finally, although geopolitically undesirable from the perspective of Washingtion, in the end unilateral action by Israel cannot be ruled out. The ability of America's military to deal with Iran could well prove irrelevant.

There are a number of troubling aspects to the prospect of military action against Iran, not least of which are the certainty of large scale loss of life, and its dubious legality. But lack of US military potency is not one of them.

Those wondering why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons since the U.S. does? They probably also wonder why serial killers shouldn't be allowed to have guns because, after all, cops carry them, and shoot people with them, too.

We're not the global "police", and nukes are far from guns. The answer is not let everyone have nukes, as a fairness issue, but to allow noone to have nukes, as a fairness and survival issue. I'm talking about really solving the problem before us, aside from partisan politics, rather than making it worse.

Iran is not a suicidal nation, and does not have a history of aggression. If they were to get nukes, they wouldn't lob them at Israel. Instead, the real fear would be they would develop mini-nukes over time that could be smuggled by terrorists into Israel and detonated, though this would kill a whole lot of Muslims and itself may not be a likely scenario that Iran would get involved with (a radical Taliban or Pakistani government perhaps), unless the range of the nuclear charge was itself greatly limited.

Looking ahead another 50 years, our only hope to prevent the threat of this kind of terrorism would be to eradicate nuclear weapons and subject ALL nuclear facilities worldwide to random inspections and full transparency. Any violation of the rules in regards to nuclear energy, especially if everyone else is actually following them, would be automatic military devastation by the rest of the world (if everyone is on board, there is no excuse to waste time with economic sanctions when noone else has nuclear at their disposal - instant destruction and/or regime change).

We can't set up an apparatus like this, and share/externalize some of the costs, if we insist on a feudal arrangment whereby we're the "good guy" cops with the nuclear weapons and anyone who isn't in our good graces who tries to get nukes, even to develop nuclear energy, are "bad guys" and subject to arrest by the "cops".

i) It's not as if military action need take place this month. In a year or so, it is likely that the US presence in Iraq will be significantly smaller.

And how would you know that?

And even if some of our military is pulled out of Iraq, what makes you think that they will be primed and ready to go into still another major war? The story of Iraq is already one of an exhausted army, required to put in many more periods of duty than they had been prepared to do. How does all that go away in a short period of time?

And even if we cut the troops in half witin a year or so -- probably an absurdly optimistic estimate -- are we supposed to launch a major invastion of another country with a fraction of the troops already necessary in Iraq?

Look, the most important point here is that Iran itself doesn't believe we can do them serious damage. That is why they are so flagrantly thumbing their noses at us, and pursuing nuclear weapons and keeping out inspectors. Obviously, THEY don't take our threats seriously, even if you somehow imagine that they really, really ought to, because Bush is SO, SO tough.

And that's the worst part of this thing with Iran. We simply are perceived as weak by them. ONLY by an ACTUAL attack might we get them to change their tune.

THAT is how Bush has devastated our reputation for power with his idiot adventure in Iraq.

Well, there's your problem. A lot of Democrats differ from Republicans only in the techniques they'd use to maintain our world empire. And, unlike the better hotels, nobody is offering a wakeup-the-empire-is-over call service.

Well, actually they are, but our phone's on mute. No bad news here, nosiree.

It may be nuclear science, but it's not rocket science. A few years back, a teenager in Detroit started building a nuclear reactor (that's latin for 'bomb') in his parents basement. Boy, weren't they surprised when the guys in the haz-mat suits showed up.

As usual, the tough jobs are left to the one-worlders. Whack Iran and your mole will pop up in Pakistan. What is needed is a worldwide rule of law that, among other things, is dedicated to not having nuclear explosions.

And, until we get that, these kinds of things are going to happen.

South Africa is a classic example of a nation that actually cooperated with arms control agencies.

But that was a situation unique in history. A minority that had been in charge and used brutal tactics to maintain that control and a policy of government sanctioned violent, virulent racism - suddenly giving power to the majority that they had so ruthlessly kept their boot on the throat of for so long. It was in their best intrest to disarm before they handed over the reins of power to that oppressed majority.

(And for the record, I don't believe that the Shi'ites had it anywhere near as bad under Saddam as the blacks in South Africa had it, although I do recognize the initial parallels.)

Global Citizen,

You are so right, yes we need more tax cuts. LOL

The estimate of the cost of Iraq by Stiglitz is $1-$2trillion $ now.

All the neo-cons just don't get it, the US is not a super power anymore, just a big power, Bush made sure of that.

China is The Creditor, the US BORROWS ABOUT $2BILLION A DAY.

The $ value after Vietnam went downhill, it will happen after Iraq too. It used to be the Euro$$$ now it is Chinese $$$.

Globe,

There you go again, bringing logic and sanity to an issue that will be demagogued to death by people who are intellectually incapable of seeing past the end of their nose.

We need smart people and deep thinkers running things and we have neither. We have greedy hacks in charge.

Thanks again, Ralph Nader.

In addition, Iraq has no Nelson Mandela, they have Chalabi and kind.

> The US has ample ability to project air power,
> and now is most assuredly ramping up that ability
> on a daily basis.

Of course, per the trade press Iran is also purchasing large qtys of 4th-generation antiaircraft missles from Russia. Sure hope the US' super-tech stacks up as claimed against Russia's. Some of the new Russian SAMs have a 300 mile range - wonder how invincible we will look when 3 or 4 AWACs and JSTARs are smoked at $1 billion each?

W
President

Golly, guys! Thanks!

For the record, I'm not talking about a Democratic strategy for 2006 or 2008. Not particularly. Instead, I'm just suggesting the wisest course of action based upon the risk assessment we face, based upon the current situation, environment, grievances, and so on, and that works for all people and peoples.

The best solution of all would be to just outright ban nuclear weapons and energy, and have this be enforceable by automatic military action by everyone else in the world upon violation. But, since banning nuclear energy may never happen (though outlawing weapons can), we should go forward with outlawing nuclear weapons (while phasing out existing nuclear arsenals over time), while placing all nuclear facilities for energy production and research under the same transparency and inspections regime, violation of terms of which would trigger automatic and devastating military action against violators.

Any country which refuses to join this globally negotiated regime will not necessarily be immediately subject to military action, as this would be bad faith in terms of negotiations, but will be subject to immediate and complete economic isolation once an initial covenant was in place. If such a country did not come along after these sanctions, then it would face military devastation, as self-respecting actor in the world will be able to tolerate foregoing nuclear arms for one's defense if others are not equally constrained (and this is confirmable).

The alternative is to go as we do today, which is and has been a total failure. India, Pakistan, and Israel have developed nuclear weapons, and other nations will follow. The wise course is to set up an egalitarian and just global convenant and inspections regime today that makes it a win-win for everyone to join now and avoid the obvious problems in the future that will arise from continuing nuclear proliferation, and especially improving miniaturization.

We can go a long way in preventing the proliferation of mini-nukes by outlawing weapons now and putting all nuclear facilities under 100% transparency and random inspections. Because even if the nukes are miniature, it takes a mature nuclear program to build the small weapons, and large facilities as well.

Further, we would invest as a measure of the global covenant, each nations by its economic power and wealth, in a joint effort to constantly improve and innovate radiation-detection devices, so that as the years go by, we become better and better at pinpointing rogue operators.

"Of course, you never know. Maybe diplomacy will work and Iran will back down. But just in case it doesn't, Dems would be wise to start thinking about whether (a) or (b) — or some hypothetical (c) — is the right policy. And then, having thought about it, we can start figuring out how to persuade the American public that our choice is the right one."

Somehow I think that whatever the Dem leadership decides, Kevin will argue that it is the "right choice." It almost always works that way.

I leave that to pointless bores who, like immature adolescents giggling over their farts, Laugh Out Loud alone at their unfunny written droppings.

TEH FUNNY!!!! ROTHFLMAOICWSCTMN AT U NUBCAKES! sO pWND3D1!!1

W:

Of course, per the trade press Iran is also purchasing large qtys of 4th-generation antiaircraft missles from Russia. Sure hope the US' super-tech stacks up as claimed against Russia's. Some of the new Russian SAMs have a 300 mile range - wonder how invincible we will look when 3 or 4 AWACs and JSTARs are smoked at $1 billion each?

I would presume that, if the political decision is taken to strike at Iran, the complexity and scope of the necessary air strikes will necessarily entail casualties. I doubt very much "invincible" is an adjective anybody at the Pentagon will be using. I also expect, however, that cruise missiles and other unmanned weapons will play a major role.

I believe we need to all the above not only to solve the problems of nuclear WMD, but also to preserve our essential character of individual liberty and democracy (these will be the first to go after a few mini-nukes go off).

Of course, there are ways to restructure and revitalize liberal democratic capitalist society, worldwide, along the lines of networking and security theory so that not even 100 mini-nukes could throw off the system, as we downplay large centers and distribute power out to tens of thousands of liberal democratic capitalist centers, but this would still require a massive change-of-heart amongst currently complacent free citizens, who at least in America seem strangely willing to give up liberties because 3,000 people died on 9-11, and we shouldn't overestimate how strong we are in modeling future security arrangement.

Maybe we can improve education in this way, however, so that we become more hardy again (and not 9-11 bedwetters), but then we would still have to address the dominant trend of "scaling" that is going on today, which, quite contrary to global free market and trade theories, actually leave the entire system far more vulnerable to strikes on these Big Centers.

The key is to act with foresight, wisdom, and resilience, and further to model and architect smart and resilient societies and systems (within our ability to shape society and systems, which is not totally in our control and would involve wisely managing complexity and emergence).

Still, if we act today to outlaw nuclear weapons and subject all nuclear facilities to 100% transparency and inspections, as well as collectively investing in ever greater and more sensitive radiation detection innovation, then some of the more radical and "hardier" transformations I mentioned above in order to save liberalism and democracy in a world of real WMD attacks may not need to miraculously happen, though we should still encourage society to evolve in this direction in the face of uncertainty and with increasing insights into ecology, information, and networking theory (i.e. as the best architecture for maintaining and protecting the dignity of the individual and the integrity of the overall society/network).

Kevin Drum is exactly right in this post.

But the Dems's default position for the past 3 years has been to automatically oppose any and all of Bush's initiatives.

Dems seem content to sit on the sidelines and yell and scream about how awful and incompetent BusHitler is.

If there are any thoughtful Democrats on the horizon, step up to the plate!

There is no charismatic secular leader. That was a requirement of culture that this administration failed to consider. Without a charismatic secular leader, a charismatic religious zealot will strut to power unopposed. The perils of this were already laid out upthread as well as or better than I could put it. ("Mutually assured destruction won't work with Iran," that comment.)

In the middle east, charisma counts. This is the region of the world that spawned men like Suleimon the Magnificent, like Ataturk, like the Sheiks and Emirs of legend. It is also a brutal region, where blood spills freely and honor is worn on the sleeve. This is a part of the world where a family will kill a female child because she disgraced them by being the victim of a violent crime, ie - raped daughters are murdered because they are now whores.

Until true understanding of the middle-east mindset is understood, do you really think we have the chance of a snowball in hell of making anything close to real progress in Iraq, or anywhere else in the middle east?

There is more to the Israeli isolation in the region than the religious difference. The fact is that Israel set up shop and imported a bunch of EUROPEAN Jews. They were just throwing off their western-backed puppet governments and experiencing true sovereignty for the first time in centuries for some areas. The probles are as much cultural as they are religious.

Why the hell didn't they talk to an anthropologist? They wouldn't have had to look very hard to find one. Every Gap employs a minimum of three. Hell, had none of them ever traveled anywhere? I would have been glad to give my opinion if the president had called me. After all, the US government did send me to that region of the world to spend three years of my life. But nobody in power right now wants to hear a word that Major Tom and I have to say.

Once again, I’ve pulled something out of Tony Bourdain’s Les Halles Cookbook, and changed it up a bit. The recipe started out as Onglet Gascon. However, the bone marrow didn’t turn out. Also, I figure why use half a cup of white wine and reduce it by half, if you can instead use a cup of dry sherry and reduce it by three-quarters. That, and you just can’t get onglets on short notice in this town, so I went with sirloin steaks, instead.

On balance, I don't think Iran's development of nuclear weapons would threaten our vital interests. They are not a large nation and, much more importantly, there are other countries in the neighborhood who have a much stronger interest in keeping an eye on them. Russia sits just to the North, and Israel is also equipped with a nuclear deterrent. There may even be hope that saber rattling by Iran would move otherwise hostile or suspicious elements in Afghanistan back in our direction.

If so, diplomacy may require nothing more than lending moral support to neighboring countries and letting them know they'd better step up or they're going to have a much bigger problem than we are.

I guess I would rather be spammed by a foodie than with chinese porn.

Mutually assured destruction won't work with Iran

Yes it will.

It boggles my mind that the usually wiser posters in these threads believe that more than a very small minority of Muslims believe in the caricature of 75 virgins (let alone realistically associated with Iranian Shiite theology), that Iran is going to consign itself to oblivion by aggressively using nuclear weapons (when has Iran been guilty of aggression?), that one figurehead president would actually be able to control Iranian nuclear weapons rather than the councils of religious leaders who actually rule the country (not suicidal), and that Iran should be bundled in with the rest of the "Middle East", instead of treated uniquely as a nation with a clear and easily studied history.

Yes, we know exactly what the Democrats policy is:

1. Allow NYC and DC to be blown up by Iran's nuclear bombs.

2. Blame Bush.

3. Blame US imperialism.

4. Tell people in LA not to be "afraid".

5. Offer to give up all of our nuclear and conventional weapons immediately if Iran promises sometime in the future to consider giving up its weapons.

6. Blame Bush.

7. Allow LA to blown up by another Iranian nuclear bomb.

8. Blame Bush.

9. Blame US imperialism.

10. Tell the rest of America to stop being "afraid".

The threat is not state use of nuclear weapons, but terrorist use. The threat of terrorist use of nuclear weapons is generally not regular-sized nukes (hard to conceal and move around), but miniaturized nukes. Since these terrorist groups are not wandering groups of serial killers but people with grievances and perceived enemies, assuring your status as their enemy and racking up grievances with them is a sure way to face this threat, if we don't take wise collective action to minimize this threat now by outlawing nuclear weapons and placing ALL nuclear facilities worldwide under a common and 100% transparency and inspections regime, with AUTOMATIC enforcement mechanisms.

Jimm:

Still, if we act today to outlaw nuclear weapons...

And if a nation decides to build them anyway, we're pretty much in exactly the same situation we are now with Iran. How do you enforce it?

As for your statement that deterrence will work on Iran's leaders, the Telegraph provides this little profile.

I wouldn't bet the farm that deterrence will work on this guy.

You know, I bet that for a lot of people, the Shah is starting to look pretty good in hindsight.

There is no more rewarding are subject for the amercan foriegn policy cynic that Iran. Some how we have got ourselves into the position of enemy of the only stable government in central asia. The country is also between the countries where we are currently conducting wars. Of the incompetant scenarios that characterize american foriegn policy since WWII few are as bad as Iran.

In the name of democracy we jailed the elected president of Iran in the 50s. We installed a King! Then we supported his blasphemies and inadequacies through he and his son's reign. They finally got the bum out. Instead of moving quickly to support a democratic Iran with apologies for our evils done and with transparent hopes for democracy, we drove the moderates into the hands of the Mullahs. Then the hostage crisis.

We have perfect amnesia so we never understood why the Iranians were angry. We bail out of the hostage crisis with arms for hostages. The Iranian hostages are released almost on the inaugeration of Reagan. I get this from a totally different source than the ussual. My uncle was in the arms business. His collegues were in on the open secret. Does anybody in the US pay attention? No. A moderate Mullah movement arises. Do we support that? No. Eventually it collapses. We have two wars with the country that is thier sworn enemy. Do we use that for leverage to become thier friends? No. The Iranians want the bomb partly because Israel has one. Do we sanction Israel? No.

We crap in the bed and expect other people to sleep in it. The Iranians must think we're mad.

I think we should get out of foriegn policy. Its not a left right thing. Its a we-have-no-idea-what-we-are-doing thing. We suck at it. Maybe GW was right. The only kind of interaction we can handle with the rest of the world is war.

If we go to war with Iran it will not only be because of thier bullheadedness but our titanic stupidity.

And on top of that we have the Dolt in the White House. We are in trouble my friends.

Iranians are culturally unique in the region. They are Persian, not Arab, not Kurd, not Turkmen. Persian. They don't speak Arabic, they speak Farsi. While the rest of the Muslim world is predominantly Sunni, Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'ite.

I have nightmares about a million Iranian Shi'ites pouring into Iraq and cutting American supply lines and essentially taking a hundred and fifty thousand American hostages. Think that might spark World War III?

Face it...The US ain't really gonna take another ass-kicking. The The Air Force will get in the game big-time if it looks like that's going to happen. That's an uncomfortable truth that everyone would do well to face.

The U.S. should take a three track approach.

First, start another round of arms reduction, include Russia and China. This is an easy step, all three parties are currently dealing with the issue and North Korea. Get this next round started, make sure that a next round will be coming that includes India and Pakistan.

Second, push the Europeans to move this to the security council and fight a diplomatic battle there. Arm twist the Chinese to abstain.

Many posters complain that all nations should be treated equally with regard to nuclear arms. Fine, then make the rule simple, all nations should use whatever means necessary to reduce nuclear arms. This rule can apply to everyone. You don't like nuclear arms, then come up with a better rule.

Tbrosz! Shame on you! What a jingoistic thing to say! Shah looks good in hindsight? Um, I know a few Iranian nationals, and even though they aren't supporters of the revolution, they will take them over the Shah. To hear them talk, he was a lot like Bush, the incompetent son of an incompetent father, propped up by advisors with only their own interests at heart. Fucking Iagos every one.

At this point, I think the most realistic option is:

1. use money saved buy not going to war with Iran to become energy independent

2. hire Tbrosz to make our anti-ballistic missle system work. I'm pretty sure he could have it working in 6 months or so

Iran?

Let's see:

1) Brown-skinned
2) Black-bearded
3) Non-believers (in Christianity)

Check. Check. Check.

Here is a policy that will win votes from the American people:

SMART BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF 'EM!

GC

Don't be too harsh on the troll. He probably hasn't even heard of Savak.

Ignorance is bliss. There seems to be a lot of that going around here.

The choice is not between good or bad actions now but between bad actions now and really horrible actions down the line.

As for Jimm's blithe assertions that the Iranian regime is basically sane and can be deterred from nuking Jerusalem and/or Paris, let's just say that this is a bit short on evidence. We're hoping (at the most) then that the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad see a nuclear war which would involve massive Iranian losses as unthinkable. But the evidence is quite clear that they ARE thinking about it. One of their leaders recently basically said that a nuclear war destroying both Israel and Iran might be a good trade - since that would wipe the Zionist entity off the map, while only ruining a small fraction of the muslim world. Also, their crazy president almost certainly subscribes to the apocalyptic Mahdi idea.

As for Drummy's hopes to spark a debate about the choices Dems might advocate, if he's reading this message board he must be crying. I realize most people here are way to the left of the Dem center, but wow! To the moral equivalency partisans here that say we have no standing since we have nukes too, I say: figure out which side you're on. The USA and its allies are not Iran. If you can't even get that just go to Kos and leave this board for the adults.

I wouldn't bet the farm that deterrence will work on this guy.

If you read what I volunteer, rather than short responses to others, you'd know that I don't advocate deterrence or "mutually assured destruction", but the exact opposite.

Also, if you read what I wrote, you'll see I've already rebutted all of your rebuttals, as well as the assertions in the Telegraph. The president of Iran is not the highest authority there, and would easily be pushed aside in a crisis by those who really do.

Interesting speculation, Globe: I hadn't really thought about the contingency of Iran flooding into Iraq. That would be a bad thing.

And you probably blew the minds of about 40% of the trolls with your explanation of Iran's unique ethnic and linguistic traits, although I'm sure none of them will ever admit it. I almost cried when tbone upthread described Iranians as being "westernized" compared to Iraq, an observation that manages to miss the mark in both directions.

We're becoming so parochial as a nation that soon our enemies will be able to fool us simply by wearing masks and speaking with funny accents.

Maybe the fear of the swarthy man is just a survival reflex that's evolved out of an inability to distinguish friend from foe.

Global Citizen:

I've seen quite a few liberals arguing that at least under Saddam things were "stable" in Iraq, and the radical Islamists suppressed. One assumes they are as aware of Saddam's human rights record as they are of the Shah's.

I don't support the Shah either, and we're still getting backlash from the "our thug" approach to the Cold War, but if someone is arguing for stability over all else, they have to be consistent about it.

I suspect the Iranian nationals you are talking to live in the U.S., not present-day Iran.

Here's a discussion by Wes Clark on Fox 1/2/06 about what's likely in our future:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, it's not a technical question as you know, it's a political question and it really goes to the heart of some of the stresses inside Iraq. The long-repressed Shi'a majority want their day in the sun and that means they want their distribution of the oil revenues and they want to be able to use those revenues in their part of the countr