Stones Cry Out

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said “I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium”. What was his definition of laboratory-scale? Laboratory scale characterization, small scale and pilot scale test method development.

Would it be redundant of me if I were to ask: What would you like to see done? What should our policy be towards Iran?

Yes it would, but I'll say it again. I prefer the diplomatic solution, if one can be found. However, I don't want military action off the table, as so many anti-war folks appear to be. The Iranian nuclear program keeps surprising us as to how far along it is, they have consistently and defiantly thumbed their noses at the world on this issue and show absolutely no signs of budging a millimeter. Negotiations aren't working.

As Danny Carlton says in a link to this post, the other guy's been yelling that he'll shoot you and the butt end of a gun is starting to come out of hit pocket. You've got a gun, too. What do you do?

So I ask you, Dan: At what point would you use the military option? After you see a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv? And no changing the question to "what would you do 5 years ago" or something like that. I don't buy the premises some folks have noted that Iran just wants nukes because of our policies. They've wanted to wipe Israel off the map for a generation.

Doug, have you thought about what "the military option" would entail at this point? Do you have any idea what kind of conflagration you're talking about?

Really, feel free to regale your readers with how you think "the military option" would play out. I can't wait for this...

"At what point would you use the military option?"

I'd really like to see the answer to my and s9's question: What does the military option look like? How much will it cost? Who will pay for it? How will we manage that when we're struggling still to deal with a much weaker Iraq? Are we prepared for the consequences that would result from starting another war on a Muslim middle east nation?

At what point would I use the military option? I'd recommend only after an attack has been launched.

I know that's scary for some. I know that it'd seem safer in some ways to wipe out all possible threats before they become real threats, but that is a fatally flawed plan.

The world is already viewing the US as a rogue and dangerous nation. If we continue our unilateral policy of preemption, at some point, the world will turn fully against us. Decide to bring us down.

How do I know? Because it's what we would do if some other nation were acting the way we are.

In other words, preemption seems safer only if you don't fully count the costs.

I'm certainly no war planner and frankly I haven't come up with detailed plans here in my basement. All I'm saying is that to rule out any military option at all until possibly hundreds of thousands die first is incredibly irresponsible and, in my estimation, immoral, not merely "scary". That's part of the cost I don't see you counting.

(What I find incredibly disingenuous are the barbs from the Left over what may or may not be plans for military action in Iran. What, would they rather we wait for the mushroom cloud to start coming up with options? Pure partisan politics. Disgusting.)

I do agree that while we're still in Iraq we're at a disadvantage regarding readiness, which would certainly curtail our options. We need to turn over the security of Iraq to Iraq before any real strength could possibly be brought to bear if needed. At the same time, so many of the Predictions of Doom (tm) from the Left about Iraq turned out not to come true and I'd be very wary of falling for them again. As I've noted before, those goal posts kept moving in Iraq, and when one dour prediction didn't come true, the next talking point was ready. Additionally, the feared "Arab Street" didn't turn on us. In fact, they turned on the regimes.

Much of the "rogue nation" status we have comes from countries that, like France, had lucrative sanction-busting contracts with Iraq and didn't appreciate having them nixed, and they spin things to distract folks from their real motivations. The "world" considers us "rogue" only until such time as they need our strength. They said to stay out of Iraq as it wasn't our problem, but the UN insisted that we take care of the North Korea situation. We shouldn't act too soon, but if a city was vaporized by an Iranian nuke, they'd hate us for not acting soon enough. Face it Dan; neither your solution nor mine will please the world. There's no sense in trying to gauge our response based on everyone else's tender feelings.

There are some who, when it's pointed out that there is a growing consensus against the US, say we ought not worry about "hurting people's feelings, darnit! We got to take care of ourselves!"

This is not about "hurting feelings" or worrying about what other people think in a high school sort of way. This is about being a grown up member of the world community. A little thing called personal responsibility.

Think of a community of 25 folk. What if one of them is always looking out for themselves - even to the extent that it hurts others physically, economically or spiritually. Is that one person just being smart - looking out for himself? Or is he being an irresponsible part of the group?

We do not live in isolation. No nation is an island and we cannot live as if that were the case. And we certainly can't live as if we're the only island that matters and all those other islands can keep sending us our share of their resources or they'll pay for it!

It's not Christian, nor is it smart.

Yes, bringing liberty and democracy, even to the extent that it hurts murderous dictators and their henchmen, is so selfish.

I didn't ask Doug to outline a war plan. I asked him if he knew what his "military option" would entail. I asked him to tell his readers what he thinks they should be prepared to see happen.

Apparently, Doug is afraid to talk about that.

He also, disingenuously writes: What I find incredibly disingenuous are the barbs from the Left over what may or may not be plans for military action in Iran. What, would they rather we wait for the mushroom cloud to start coming up with options?

For decades, the U.S. nuclear deterrance of its Assured Second Strike policy was good enough to keep the slavering, bloodthirsty psychotics hordes of Communism from launching a nuke at America. You have made no attempt to argue against this policy or to rebut the argument from your political opponents that if it was good enough to keep the crazy Russians at bay, it ought to be good enough to keep the crazy Iranians contained as well.

Doug, do you know how many ground troops will be required to take and hold Iran? Do you know how much money it will cost? Have you looked at a freakin' map of the region? Did it occur to you that it might be an important fact that Iran came out ahead of Iraq in the First Persian Gulf War? Have you noticed that Iran has spent the last 18 years— since the end of that war— rebuilding, whereas Iraq got pasted in the Second Persian Gulf War and the economic aftermath of its cease-fire arrangements?

Doug, let me make this simple for you: Iran will not be a pushover. It will require 1) a military draft, 2) a war bonds push, 3) oil rationing, and 4) significant casualties. And it still won't stop them from getting the Bomb. In fact, it will only make them build more of them and consider using them against us sooner.

Well said, s9!

"Yes, bringing liberty and democracy, even to the extent that it hurts murderous dictators and their henchmen, is so selfish."

Doug, first you denigrated my point with a caustic rejoinder suggesting I was worried about hurting feelings, then you respond to my answer by suggesting I'm opposed to liberty and democracy.

Come now. Let's have a more adult conversation. I'm not blind to the dangers of the world, nor are you. Neither of us is blind to the costs involved in war. All I'm asking is what a military solution looks like, who will pay for it, how will it be accomplished?

We've already failed to take these things in to account sufficiently in Iraq, we can't simply bomb our way out of terrorism. You've said that you prefer a diplomatic solution and rightly so. But we must plan and implement a solution, not merely hope one occurs. Likewise, before we go calling for a war solution, we must plan and account for how it would even be possible.

I'm not saying that staging an Iranian war is a bad idea (although I think it a horrendous one), I'm saying it is an implausible one.

We physically can't wage a war that is going to be much more difficult than Iraq without probably twice the army and probably ten times the money. (I say "probably" because I don't know, that's why I'm asking those who are proposing such an idea - give us some numbers, some reality).

s9: For decades, the U.S. nuclear deterrance of its Assured Second Strike policy was good enough to keep the slavering, bloodthirsty psychotics hordes of Communism from launching a nuke at America. You have made no attempt to argue against this policy or to rebut the argument from your political opponents that if it was good enough to keep the crazy Russians at bay, it ought to be good enough to keep the crazy Iranians contained as well.

There is a huge difference between Communists and Islamicists: The Communists wanted to live. The Islamicists don't care; they're ready for their 72 virgins. Mutual Assured Destruction doesn't work as well when the other side is more than willing to die themselves.

s9: Doug, let me make this simple for you: Iran will not be a pushover. It will require 1) a military draft, 2) a war bonds push, 3) oil rationing, and 4) significant casualties.

And every last one of these predictions, and more, were made at different points in time for the Iraq war. Sorry, dude, but those who make failed predictions and refuse to learn from the past, are doomed to repeat them. I agree that any sort of military option with Iran would have to look very different than the Iraqi one. But I honestly don't think that listening to dire predictions from folks who reflexively are against anything done by a Republican makes any sense. There may be dire warnings to consider, indeed, but I consider the source.

Dan: I was responding to your description of the United States as some sort of bully only looking out for itself. First of all, that's not unique to the US; every country looks out for its interests. Most look out for the interests of others as well, but unlike your selfish bully analogy, the US has done and is doing more for the interests of others than any country on the planet. And frankly, the animosity pointed at the US is in many cases an expression of the selfishness of other countries who, when we helped out the Iraqi people, lost personal, ill-gotten wealth. I really have no idea how you single the US out as the big bad wolf in all of this.

I'm not going to dragged into an argument over war planning details, because I know where it will go; disagreements over who should pay and what it would cost, how much air vs ground would be needed, etc. etc. You two have already fired the first salvos in those areas and I'm not going to get drawn in. You don't have specifics and neither do I. All I'm saying is that if it becomes obvious that we don't and won't have a military option, this will embolden the Iranians, which is most definitely what we don't want. And a bold Iran is far more likely to kill those potentially hundreds of thousands of innocent people that I'm still not convinced that you count as part of the cost.

We're all for a diplomatic solution. Well, all of us except Iran, that is.

p1. The obvious rejoinder to your specious argument about "Islamicists" [sic] not wanting to live is to observe that the population of Iran is a little under seventy million. If even one in a thousand of them were suicidally bent on America's destruction, then we'd be up to our eyeballs in Hezbollah already. We are not, and you are full of it. Again. Q.E.D.

p2. If you can't agree to the obvious fact that Iran is a much more formidable military opponent than Iraq, and will require substantially more blood and treasure to defeat, then you are a blithering idiot. Look at a map. Think about the problem your brown-water Navy will have in the Persian Lake Gulf with Russian-made anti-ship cruise missiles. Iran had fifteen million men fit for military service in 2005, and they will almost all be mobilized in the event of an invasion by the U.S.A. Did you see how they repelled the Iraqis in the First Gulf War?

Doug writes: We're all for a diplomatic solution. Well, all of us except Iran, that is.

Saber rattling in the absence of negotiation is not diplomacy. Are you willing to see a real negotiation happen? What are you prepared to see the Americans offer? Anything? Even one small thing other than a targeting laser?

Here's a start: what would you be willing to see the U.S. take from Iran in exchange for withdrawing its covert assets for operations intended to destabilize the government? What could the Iranian government possibly do that would help you build confidence in a negotiated solution? So far, you've completely refused to say, and it would be perfectly reasonable for an observer to deduce that you're lying when you say you're "all for a diplomatic solution" to the Iran situation.

s9, please remember your history. During the Cold War, we were not at war with the Russian people. We had concerns over their government, however. Same goes for Iran. Sure there's around 70 million people over there, but there's one mad man who has access to The Button should they get the bomb. And if he doesn't care about living, it doesn't matter what the 70 million think.

And please, you liberals really throw around the word "lying" way too much to take it seriously. But if it's really that hard for you to understand what folks would like to see diplomatically, let me spell it out. For starters, I'd like Iran to go back to the UN restrictions they originally agreed to. They say they have no wrong intentions, but they're going back on their word each and every day. Their papers proclaim that when el Baradi (spelling?) visited the other day, it was to "celebrate" their move to the nuclear age, not, as was his real motivation, to bring them back to their agreements. They are showing no intention to moderate, and their lying to their own people about the facts of the matter. No warm fuzzies there.

That would be the most basic start, but Iran shows absolutely no signs of turning back or of allowing monitoring of their programs. None at all. I guess my question for you would be, what would it take for you to believe that negotiations are not working? How far does the process have to degenerate before you believe that something else must be done? Remember, if they do get a nuke, the whole playing field changes and puts them in the driver's seat.

Doug, open up the bunker, step outside and get some fresh air. Deep breaths, buddy.

We've heard the let's not wait for the "mushroom cloud" arguments before.

By the way, current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not have his 'finger on the button'. Unlike our countrys crazy leader, Iran's does not have quite the same authority.

At the top of the Iranian government structure is the faqih, the ultimate decision maker. The Constitution specifically names Khomeini as the faqih for life and provides a mechanism for choosing his successors. The role of the faqih has evolved into that of a policy guide and arbitrator among competitive views. Below the faqih a distinct separation of powers exists between the executive and legislative branches. The executive branch includes an elected president, who selects a prime minister and cabinet that must be approved by the elected legislative assembly, the Majlis. The judiciary is independent of both the executive and the Majlis

Doug writes: I guess my question for you would be, what would it take for you to believe that negotiations are not working?

For starters, I'd like to see an attempt to negotiate.

Iran has decided its interests are better served by reneging on its earlier commitments to the IAEA. Nations reneg on their international commitments all the time, and a real diplomatic effort in this case would start with some horse-trading over what it would take to persuade Iran to reconsider.

I asked you to tell us what should be offered to Iran in the opening session of the next round of negotiations, and you responded by complaining about how you don't believe they have anything to give. What part of "negotiating a diplomatic solution" did you intend this to address?

I suggested that withdrawing American military forces from conducting covert operations in Iran would be a good start. You ignored that option. You didn't even mention it in your reply. That's an additional reason I don't think you're being either serious or truthful when you say you'd like to see a "diplomatic" solution.

I understand you don't like being exposed as a liar. Feel free to stop dancing around the question, answer it like a real man, and in so doing, establish a defense against the charge that you're a liar.

If you're really not looking forward with happy anticipation to a nuclear war with Iran, and you'd really much prefer to see a diplomatic solution to the current tensions, then you sure are strangely silent on the actual topic of how to negotiate with the Iranians.