Redstate

that pre-emption qualifies here.  Except if you're a Democrat.  Amazes me still that the Jews still call the Dem PArty home.  O, thats right, if American Jews can hate America, why not Israel too?  (As a person whose maternal grandfater was Jewish growing up in NYC, I've been into more synagogues before I was 18 than most people have seen in the RoP bomb pictures).  

Growing up in a heavily Jewish environment in the 60's one of my earliest memories were of some friends older brother's talking about how to get to Israel in 1967 for the Six days War.  For the first 2-3 days it looked like there would be no more Israel for those who dont know or remember.  The worry was palpable in my school & neighborhood.  Now, my friends brothers who 40 years ago were willing to go half way around the world to fight and possibly die for Israel are probably the same ones who are pooh-poohing this threat.  I hope not, but I don't think so.

of Holocaust denials. Their apologists have a ready platform on Iranian TV

before the "Final Solution", Hitler's preferred method of dealing with the Jewish question was relocation to Madagascar.  So the step from forcible relocation to extermination has been seen before.

forcefully relocated its Jews, as did almost every other country in that benighted part of the world.  I'm not sure what is meant by "qualifies for preemption."  The sentiment that Palestinians are being made to pay for European crimes, and should reside in Europe, did not originate with the new Iranian president, but has instead been in wide circulation for years, if not decades.  Ahmadinejad's statements do remind us that a substantial body of Middle Eastern opinion doesn't want peace, but the destruction of Israel, but we should have known that already, too.  In any event, the Israelis can take care of themselves, and I'd rather we not get bogged down in the much larger, much more variegated land of Persia the way that we've already gotten bogged down in Iraq.  If we can't police 25 million Iraqis, how will we police 50 million or more Iranians with all of their factions?  If pre-emption merely means bombing, allow me to submit that bombing alone doesn't do much to compel favorable political outcomes, and that if it is required, the Israelis can do it themselves.

belies your theory cyrus, Israel most certainly can not do it themselves.  Their bases are too far.  They  would need the hospitality of India, Teurkey or Iraq for that.  An Iraq that will now endeauvor to destroy them now.

Israel has no room for error, esp with a nuclear tipped Iran.  And once Iran does have a nuclear weapon I prefer not to live with the knowledge that once Iran can hit America all that is stopping them is their goodwill towards America.  I know I don't have 72 virgins waiting for me.

Your statement that, "a substantial body of Middle Eastern opinion doesn't want peace, but the destruction of Israel, but we should have known that already, too" would make it all the more reprehensible for us if we stood by and allowed one of our staunchest allies to be litearlly wiped off the face of the Earth.  Even the appeasers in WWII reached their limit in Poland.

No one is talking about policing anyone in Iran.  Destroying the facilities that are working feverishly to develop there bomb will do nicely.  Or perhaps you area afraid they will get mad at us?  Create trouble?  I submit to you they are doing quite a bit of that nicely now.  And whether or not bombing parts of Iran will have favorable outcomes to America, it seems that Bosnia (finally) might draw your attention.

Lastly, I suggest to consider the world 5 years from now with an Iran with a small nuclear arsenal sitting atop an advanced version of a N. Korea inspired Taepodong (current reach- 6000 km's) missile.  Then, Cyrus, it wont be pre-emption, but possibly counterattack.

The underlying economics of the "Oil States" will be an issue to be dealt with for the next century or so.  The problem is that in countries with no industry except oil there is little need for the leaders to be interested in what world opinion thinks of them.

In non-oil countries the leaders are bound by what economists call "Golden Handcuffs". This is the idea that as the economy develops the leaders want to keep the economy going well, so they are restricted in what they can say or do that will impact the economy. As a middle class develops the leader's ability to maneuver is further restricted by the power of that educated and relative rich middle class.

The problem is that it doesn't work well in an economy that has no international component save a very high priced commodity like oil. The leader has no incentive to allow the development of an international economy as the oil economy will grow and shrink with demand only. A wealthy, educated middle class is more of a threat than an asset.

So until the Iranian (and Saudi, and Syrian, etc...) economies develop to a point that a wealthy middle class has a lot to lose in case of conflagration then thuggish goofballs like Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez will continue to dominate the scene. About the only way to deal with them is to work through various organizations to try to engage them, hoping that their worse tendencies can be stalled until the economy develops enough to create a middle class.

Persians would fit well in Somalia and Congo.

al those handy bases troops and resources so close by.

We could stop them at what would be the equivalent of Hitler's push on Czecho, when he was amazed he was allowed to get away with it.

We could take out the fascist theocrats, their nuke resources, their airforce and navy and then encourage reasonable people to take power.

It would be worth it, leavving only NK, Cuba and VZ as bona fide wackjob tyrannies which pose threats.

If we get defused by the Eurotrash commitment to appeasement, we will see Tel Aviv nuked, a strong response, and general turmoil and many deaths.

We are at the final crossroad.

Iran is still a paper tiger, but is close to morphing.

How about relocating Palestine to Iran?  Not just refugee camps - give part of Iran to the Palestinians for their own homeland.  I'd like to see the Arabs put their money where their mouth is.

possesses a far larger nuclear arsenal than Iran is likely to have for years to come, along with advanced rocketry and cruise-missile equipped submarines.  They have the capacity to retaliate in spades for anything Iran might do, and their conventional forces are, the US presence in Iraq excepted, still the best by far in the region.  That they can't launch conventional attacks on Iran is true, but Iran can not launch conventional attacks on Israel, either.

Your statement that, "a substantial body of Middle Eastern opinion doesn't want peace, but the destruction of Israel, but we should have known that already, too" would make it all the more reprehensible for us if we stood by and allowed one of our staunchest allies to be litearlly wiped off the face of the Earth.

It would, but no one is suggesting that.  If the Iranians fire missiles at Iran, it is their state that will be wiped off the face of the earth by Israeli retaliation.  

I don't greet the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons with any joy, but we're out of options.  It's doubtful that conventional bombardment could destroy Iran's facilities, which could of course be rebuilt anyway, and the US lacks credibility with respect to accusations of nuclear development after the Iraq fiasco.  Even if conventional bombardment would work, Israel lacks the aircraft to fly that far.  Nuclear weapons are politically unusable, and an invasion of Iran is out of the question.  What are our choices?

For a government they didn't have much choice in.  The only candidates were ones acceptable to the mullahs.

I don't buy the theory that oil makes us dependent on bad states, given the fungibility of the commodity in world markets.  But I do agree with this 100% - oil revenue does make it easier for bad states to survive.  Which is why I think there is a case to be made that there's a national security interest in finding alternatives to oil in the long run, and increasing the supply of oil from non-rogue states (thus decreasing the profitability of oil) in the short run.

You should do a diary on this point.  It's worth exploring at greater length.

totally infeasible with Iran. Persian Shi'ites would never give their land to Sunni Arabs. The cultures are just to different, and from the mullahs perspective, a betrayal of religion, giving your own land to heretics. If they would let the Kurds have their own nation, why would they invite in the Palestinians?

The real hypocrites are Jordan and Syria. They've been using their brother Arabs as political tools against the Israelis for decades. Completely disgusting.

....it's a good point. It doesn't settle the question of which ones should be invaded and which ones shouldn't be, but it certainly is another piece of the puzzle.

1.  Persian Shi'ites vs. Arab Sunnis . . . which raises the question of why Palestine should matter in Iranian politics, if you think about it.  Especially since many of the Palestinians are Christians.
   
2.  The Jordanians aren't by any means the biggest problem in the region, but if you look historically at the problem, there was never any reason for Jordan not to assimilate the Palestinians.  If anyone can explain to me why the difference between a Jordanian and a Palestinian is greater than, say, the difference between a Kansan and a Nebraskan, I'll eat my hat.  Same ethnic group, same language, same history, same religious mix.

Has deterrence ever worked for Israel against an islamic country?  Only partially.  It has worked in that no Arab country is willing to risk their very expensive, and quite dearly needed vis a vis internal suppression of freedoms, army to attack openly and invite destruction, but it has not worked to stop state sponsored attacks against Israel and Jewish persons abroad.

Suposedly even the Soviets were miffed about Sadat's inability to be deterred by the IDF.  As I remember it was his decision to advance beyond his SA2 coverage that cost him a few extra rubles more than he bargained for, and so po'd the Sov's that he had to make nice with the US just to keep funding the big iron boot that makes governing in Egypt a career.

One nuclear detonation in Israel would threaten the entire state.  Once Iran drops a bomb on Israel, where can jews live in peace?  France? Germany? Madagascar?

Iran is large.  The muslim world is large and heavily populated.  A people who believe in individual martyrdom for themselves and their children, would easily transfer such sentiment to the concept of nation and land.  Iran could easily absorb every nuclear weapon Israel could find, even if they all got through, and if not survive intact, survive in the memory of Islam as a nation of Holy Martyrs(tm).

Iran's president is one of the persons who decided to sieze sovereign US territory, kidnap US diplomats, citizens, and marines in contravention of all international practice.  That our idiot president didn't lay waste to Iran day by day until they were released and compensated explains in part our current problems.  He wasn't deterred by the fear of US retaliation thirty years ago, I don't think he and his ilk are going to be deterred now.

Iran needs changing.  

They are seeking nuclear weapons (or a power plant that would make less power more expensively than that they could get by harvesting the Natural Gas they burn off because it is too expensive to harvest).  They are openly committed to violent attacks against the US and Israel.

 How long should the US wait to take action?

Which city's destruction will finally justify what should be done now?

There are no palestinians, except in the way that there are Seattlites or SanFranciscans.

The ethnic group is Syrian.  Jordan and Palestine are composed of areas where south syrian tribes lived.  

Palestine deserves a seperate nation as much as Virginia or Colorado.

Will buy you a cup of coffee.

Ahmedinejad has said clearly and repeately that he plans to destroy the United States as well as Isreal. What more clear-cut definition of danger could you require?

What you're really saying is that you are (like most of the Democrats) perfectly "OK" with Israel and five million people being murdered in a nuclear holocaust as long as they retaliate. Ahmedinejad has made it clear that he WANTS that outcome because like Mao before him he has a huge population.

There is no check on Ahmedinejad. NONE whatsover.

When Israel disappears and we have a smoking hole where San Diego and LA used to be, what then?

Preferable to that WOULD BE INVASION of Iran, and destruction of the military regime plus their nuclear facilities. Who CARES what the world thinks (they are useless anyway, what Kofi Anann will send a sharply worded letter or regret?)

The point is we have a direct nuclear threat aimed not just at our ally (which I realized Dems want to throw overboard thinking the crocodile will eat them last) but ourselves. We have a small window of time to act.

Otherwise it's all over but the mass killing. Ahmedinejad certainly could reach out and touch us and destroy 5-10 cities if we wait around, and guess what he will. If it gets to that point then we are talking strategic levels of retaliation and mass killing on a scale thankfully never seen.

I would suggest that ANYTHING is preferable to that even the disdain of EU-bureaucrats.

that attacking Iran and taking out their nuclear capability is a viable option for us. But my big question mark is- if we do that, how do the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan react? If an attack by us on comes off as "Part C" in our "plan to establish a Mideast empire," and the Iraqis and/or Afghanis flip out, that is obviously a big problem with our troops stationed there and our efforts to rebuild those countries.

Not say this should deter us from taking action, just saying we need to focus on how to manage Iraq/Afghanistan if we attack Iran.

does make us dependent on those countries as you say. But I think we have four options on how to deal with them:

1. as you say, work through various orgagnizations to engage them.
   
2. try to ignite a change in their society by estabilishing a free and peaceful Iraq on their border.
   
3. Attacking them and taking out their nuke capability.
   
4. Pouring $$$ into R&D of battery powered cars and airplanes.

where Mao initiated a nuclear exchange.

What you're really saying is that you are (like most of the Democrats) perfectly "OK" with Israel and five million people being murdered in a nuclear holocaust as long as they retaliate.

You have no idea of what you speak.  In all the frantic invective directed at me, no one has yet suggested what we ought to do.  I don't welcome Iran's nuclear armament, nor do I hope for the destruction of Israel.  I simply don't see what reasonable options are available to the United States to prevent the former, and don't regard the defense of Israel from a theoretical threat as worth a preemptive war with Iran.  If the Israelis want to embark on one, fine.  We can and ought to defend Israel to the extent that national interest and national obligations demand, but we ought not to be as concerned with the survival of Israel as we are with the survival of even the distasteful parts of this country, like, say, Los Angeles.

When Israel disappears and we have a smoking hole where San Diego and LA used to be, what then?

I imagine then that we would invade whatever was left of Iran after we had thoroughly irradiated the place.

Preferable to that WOULD BE INVASION of Iran, and destruction of the military regime plus their nuclear facilities. Who CARES what the world thinks (they are useless anyway, what Kofi Anann will send a sharply worded letter or regret?)

The US needs to be perceived as a legitimate state.  We aren't so powerful that we can ignore what other countries think of us.  We're only 20-25% of the world economy, and 5% of its population.  We need some cooperation from other countries to accomplish what we want to do, and we aren't going to get it if we're seen as lawless.

You speak in terms of retaliation.  As far as a nuclear weapon over Israel goes, retaliation would be more of a doomsday response.  One weapon would destroy Israel and kill many Israelis.  Israel has NO margin for error.

The USA could absorb an attack and retaliate, but we have been at war with Iran since 1978.  Who said anything about "policing" Iran?  Iraq was a noble experiment, but the MSM and the Dems seem intent on making the experiment fail.  I would not favor wasting even one more US soldier's life to bring improvement to the Middle East.  Simple destruction of our enemies will have to suffice.  

We are looking into the abyss.  It will not matter who occupies the White House.  The sitting president will be forced to retaliate.  The Jacksonians will impeach and convict any president who refuses until they find one who will retaliate.  

Part "A" for Afghanistan is a free and indy Republic.

Part "B" for Iraq, has a nrely ratifed constitution.

Ithink Part "C" will be very similar.

No mideast empire.

Of course the "final solution" was horific. But Mein Kampf states Hitler's

model was America's solution to the native population.


Ahmadinejad is exploiting his political advantage - oil and NG, and the fact that what the US is currently doing in the ME is counterproductive, just as was Rumsfeld's (and Reagan's) support of Iraq to counter Shia fundamentilism in Iran. Unless we are willing to start (and lose) WWIII, less saber rattling and more mutually beneficial exchanges are in order. Not as flashy, but more enduring.

BTW, what Ahmadinejad is saying (in a much more horrific and deplorable way) is what King ibn Saud suggested to Roosevelt when the state of Israel was created.

PS. What the Asian Times does not include, is Matt Simmons' assertion that the Saudi oil reserves, like WMD, is pretty much a dog and pony show.

PPS. I also notice no one has offered a Farsi translation for Mein Kanpf. Does anyone else see a problem with that?

more exchanges like this

When I advised the president that Hezbollah and

Iran were responsible for Khobar, he directed me to follow-up with Condoleezza Rice.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004943

Mohsen Jansuz produced a Farsi translation of Mein Kampf in the 1930's.

the fact that what the US is currently doing in the ME is counterproductive

That is what we call a Known Fact™. You get one warning on those. You already had yours. Auf Wiedersehen.

the synagogue on Essex? In 1998 it was owned by an arts foundation and I went to a wedding there. Really nice high painted ceilings in there.

'seteezaam', or (more formally) 'seteezah man'

You know, 'cuz you asked, and stuff

How about cutting the flow by making consumners bear the defense costs?  A U Chi-trained economist has recently run the numbers on a proposal originally made by Cheney some years back and Greg Mankiw of Harvard, now Chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors.  See my links here: http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/11/16/83949/551/83#83

I agree; while the invasion of Iraq has put the US on the Iranian border, we don't seem to have many effective policy levers.  We need to continue to work with our European allies on nuclear and trade issues, and show Iran that there is an upside to staying in the NPT (while being aware that Pakistan, India and Israel are not).  Otherwise, I note that a sunshine policy with China has helped to bring that country into the world community and force it to be more responsible; a similar policy, by cranking down the rhetoric may remove some of the support that hard-liners there are able to gather.  Iranians I have met in the US and Japan are personally quite favorably disposed to the US.

Does anyone think that there have been any negative consequences to US policy towards Iran, starting with the ouster of Mossadeq in 1953?