I love this plan. I'm proud to be a part of it.
Here's what Charles Krauthammer says will happen if we bomb Iran:
It's probably also worth noting what's not likely to happen: namely, achieving our goal of destroying Iran's nuclear program.
Krauthammer's advice: let's do it anyway. Oh, and "the decision is no more than a year away."
God help us.
An attack on Iran is likely to send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150 a barrel. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day. . . .
Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.
Iran might activate terrorist cells around the world . . .
There will be massive criticism of America from around the world. . . .
It's probably also worth noting what's not likely to happen: namely, achieving our goal of destroying Iran's nuclear program.
Krauthammer's advice: let's do it anyway. Oh, and "the decision is no more than a year away."
God help us.
posted by A.L. at 11:47 PM
16 Comments:
Lucky you AL, you get some real turds for commenters here.
All this Iran hysteria coming on top of the failed visions of grandeur about Iraq make me think these tough guys have really wet their little girl panties. They are so scared of a successful terrorist attack they act like the whole country will collapse like a house of cards.
There is no army to invade us. There is no airforce to bomb us. There is no navy to sail to our shores. There are no missles that can reach us. Right now there are no nukes to nuke us from the dreaded fanatical Islamists unless they borrow some from Pakistan.
We can remove Iran from the scene with the push of a few buttons. Why is that no longer an effective deterrant?
Spain still lives after an attack. Britian is still doing fine. How long has Israel put up with this method of warfare? Except for the airlines, did 9-11 grind America to a complete halt for very long?
Sure we don't want to ignore this and we want to go after the bad guys in a big and effective way, but invading a nation to fight a stateless ideology just seems stupid, unless your in it for the money.
God Help us Impeach the head fool after the November elections.
AL,
I agree with your assessment that bombing is not likely to be successful. Or at least the type of bombing we are likely to use is not likely to be successful -- I would imagine that nuclear, or other unacceptably devestating-style bombing might be effective.
In any event, I think Krauthammer's column makes a useful point. One is that "stability" as in "the US invasion of Iraq has de-stabilized the Middle East" is not a sacred goal. Sure destabilizing the ME can be scary with many consequences, but the current "stability" is terrible as well. Stability is leading to Iran's possesion of nukes, and that is an outcome we must try to prevent. Its always easier to follow the path of least resistance and put off the hard questions until later, but if we address the hard questions now, at least we can do so on our own terms.
I think this is what CK is getting at with this piece. And while he may advocate a flawed solution. At least he is advocating something, and not putting off the problem until we can't deal with it on our own terms. "Diplomacy" too often acts as an excuse to do nothing.
I think that a military attack on Iran is very unlikely for just that reason. Political support for the attack would evaporate instantly when gas prices skyrocket. I think that if Bush attacked Iran it would secure a Democratic majority in both houses for years to come.
At least he is advocating something, and not putting off the problem until we can't deal with it on our own terms.
I don't think Krauthammer deserves any credit in this regard. As you concede, we really don't have any military options that are likely to be effective. And the downside of such an option is manifestly obvious, even to Krauthammer. So, in the real world, diplomacy (in some form) really is our only option. But Krauthammer et al. keep insisting that diplomacy is for weak appeasers. That's profoundly unhelpful and idiotic. When you only have one option, it is utterly irresponsible to go out of your way to poo-poo that option and to thereby decrease its odds of success. We have to sit down with the Iranians. We don't have any other choice. But the Bush administration (and people like Krauthammer) keep trying to box us into a corner where our only remaining option will be a disastrously ill-advised and unsuccessful military strike. It's reckless. It's stupid. By rebuffing every overture by the Iranians for the last 4 years and by labelling them as "evil" all the time, we have actually hurt Iranian moderates and increased the stature and appeal of people like Ahmadinejad.
Even more important than reckless and stupid, bombing Iran is immoral and illegal.
Screw the moderates. A moderate theocrat is someone like Khatami -- ready to advocate death for homosexuality, and the continuance of Iran's nuke program -- while being uttrely incapable of creating any real change in Iran. Labeling them as evil helps the enemies of the regime -- they are our true allies in Iran, and our best bet to topple the mullahs.
On one hand I think the neocons are WATB like you suggest, christopher c. But on the other I think of the fantastic success the Rs have enjoyed since 9/11. All these new 'powers' are being asserted, like detaining people with no charges, warrantless wiretapping, the desire to imprison journalists, it brings out the conspiracy theories in me, as much as I would like to resist them.
I'm so far beyond the pale at this point that I think of us invading Iran, stretching the miliary even thinner, which prompts reprisals against us and our troops, which enables the administration to crack down on our rights even further. Maybe we'll get so lucky and GWB will suspend elections in the interest of national security. Somebody tell me I'm nuts. Please. I'm serious.
How is bombing Iran "immoral and illegal"? What law would we be breaking?
How is bombing Iran "immoral and illegal"? What law would we be breaking?
Why even bother answering this stupid question from the crowd that thinks the chimperor can do no wrong and that lying a nation into war is "business as usual."
"How is bombing Iran "immoral and illegal"? What law would we be breaking?"
Not being an expert on international law, I'll have to profess ignorance on the strict legal aspect of your question.
However, the neocons have been wrong on everything they've ever piped up about and there's no reason to assume otherwise here. I don't get how they can rationalize their neo-Christian "might is right" philosophy anymore.
Does there need to be some big book somewhere that says: "it's illegal to _____, but it's legal to ________."?
I guess if you're a neocon psuedo moralist Christian "might is right" crusader, then the answer is yes. Unfortunately, what's going to be judged as "legal" or "illegal" in the future is often a relative concept, which is why they love goign on and on about "moral relativism" and its "evils".
Again: the neocons have NEVER been right about ANYTHING. Look it up.
Screw the moderates. A moderate theocrat is someone like Khatami -- ready to advocate death for homosexuality, and the continuance of Iran's nuke program -- while being uttrely incapable of creating any real change in Iran.
As long as they don't allow homosexuals to get married, I'm happy. Soon as that happens, bomb them to smithereens!!!
Whether Iran is interested in developing nuclear weapons is debatable.
Assuming they are, whether they are acting on that interest and are actually working toward developing such weapons is debatable.
Once again, let's assume they are. Still, our ability to do anything about it by air strikes is debatable.
Here is what is not debatable. Krauthammer actually does a good job of describing some of the risks of an attack on Iran. Of course he leaves out the biggest risk of such an attack: That the resulting chaos will lead to the toppling of the shaky regime in Pakistan, allowing their sizable nuclear weapons arsenal to fall into the hands of terrorists.
It is ironic that CK is lamenting in the article that Iran could become the dominant power of the Arab Middle East. Firstly, Iran is not Arab. Secondly, Iran already has a neighbor which possesses nuclear weapons. And finally, CK has been one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Iraq war - a war which has greatly increased Iran's influence in the region.
Hey, what was the last country Iran attacked, anyway. And not talking supplying weapons to. If that were the case, then the U.S. has attacked 100 or so countries, including itself a few times.
I can't understand why these people are considered an expert on anything. Here is his entire world view on Iran:
1) We must pre-emptive attack them, causing world chaos.
2) If we don't attack them, they'll destroy the world with nukes.
These are your only choices. You must pick one.
Worse yet, this is how U.S. leaders see things.
--WKW
The laws we would break with such an attack are roughly the same ones we broke invading Iraq. The Nuremburg rule against "Making Aggressive War", the violation of the first rule of international affairs, sovereignity, and teh Charter of the United Nations. Unfortunately, there is a practical reason for not bombing Iran as well. The current operational tempo imposed on our Army is not sustainable and the Iranian military is bigger and better equipped than the remnants of Saddam's Army we faced in Iraq. Even if we began a draft effort several months in advance of a bombing campaign, which is politically impossible, we would almost certainly end up losing such a war and the results could well be as bad for our country as Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union.
Dear Mr K:
If we bomb Iran, we can look forward to continued killing for the rest of
your life and your childrens' life and your grand childrens' lives. We
will need a selective service draft to find enough soldiers to fight such
wars. I suggest that if you feel it is necessary to do the bombing, that
you lead the charge and be the first person to expose yourself to the
unfriendly fire of the Iranians. It's too easy for you to sit up there in
your ivory tower and pontificate without any responsibility. You are a
true chicken hawk.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home