Why trust matters
To further the Stalin's discussion about what to do about Iran, maybe the answer is find someone to trust. This article questions the about the immediacy of an Iranian nuke. Its something worth considering. My main source of information comes from the White House, a White House that was wildly wrong on just about every accusation and time-table established for the Iraq war. Does it make sense to trust them again? When the stakes are this high, I would like to be able to know who to trust. I can't trust Bush, and I have no idea what agenda these analysts may have. This the immeasurable part of the damage this administration has caused. With all the terror alerts, talks of mushroom clouds if I vote democrat, how gays will destroy America, and any number of boogiemen they've created, I just don't jump when they scream "look-out" anymore.
As far as Iran, on the surface it's another blustering US hating middle-east leader spouting off about how tough they are and how they're not afraid of the US. Is this more talk? If they were developing nukes, why be so brazen about it? Why not wait until after the first test? Is this more about looking tough than being tough? Are they baiting us? Certainly Chalabi and Curveball knew how to get the US to do their bidding in Iraq, what if Iranian leadership is attempting the same? Maybe they feel the best way to quell the dissidents is to have the US bomb Iran, uniting the country with the Mullah's and against the west.
If you can manipulate he powerful, you don't have to be powerful.
Posts
6 comments:
Why not trust logic? Every weak country longs to be strong. Every minority wishes to wield the power of the majority. Iran, clearly seeks nuclear weapons. Why would someone need to be certain of the timeframes before they can discuss a solution? I know bashing Bush helps you atone for all those times you wouldn't fight the bullies who pantsed you on the sponge docks, but you describe politics as usual and act as if this is a new corrupting event.
Iran knows that there will be no consequences. The EU won't fight under any circumstances and the US is preoccupied. Tough talk is the way to raise your standing in the Arab world. Granted, Iranians are not Arabs, but people don't split hairs when they need a hero.
Iran will have a bomb and Khatami will have respect. The only solution is force of some type, but I don't see that happening. It's all just sticking thumbs in dykes (UBlo's favorite movie in college) as nukes will spread and dealing with that fact is what should guide future policy decisions.
The Unknown Blogger is falling scarily near the "if Bush says it it must not be true" fallacy. Â Mid Eastern intelligence is, has always been and will always be shoddy. Partly from the lack of effective agents, partly from the
Secrecy of the gov'ts and partly from western misunderstandings about the culture. Despite some examples to the contrary, I think this administration thought
Hussein had weapons prgrams, veryone thought he had weapons programs, including, as it turns out, his own generals
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p09s02-cojh.html
Its very possible that a lot of what Iran is bluster but didn't the original weapons prgram in Iraq take us by surprise in 1990? Wasn't Pakistan years ahead of where we thought they were when they announced? Which way do
You err? Â If you are going to let non nuclear states black mail you with the use of nukes...whats next?
I think the honest terms of this debate are that w/o air strikes, Iran will have the bomb sometime in the next few years. The right is saying that is
unacceptable and the left is saying its manageable. Which one are you son? Which one are you? If there is only a 10% of Iran fufilling its promise to nuke Israel, is that acceptable?
My basic premise is that we are at war. We have been for some time and if you buy that premise and there is a country that funds terrorists groups, is actively undermining our efforts in Iraq and are now saying that they intend to nuke Israel, what do you do?
I am afraid of a dovish administration leading to decreased security not because the white house says so but because that is how recent and long term history have worked, that is what Bin Laden has said he is betting on and because logically war time is not when you let down your defenses.
Battles on two fronts are never a good idea. But what can you do. To McLieberman, two things. One no one, not any one in the Middle East will turn Jerusalem and all its holy sites into a nuclear wasteland. Period. Furthermore, while I'm sure Syria and Egypt would thank Iran for getting rid of Israel, I'm sure their next question would be how to get rid of all that fall-out. And it might put a damper on the Suez Canal for a while. Plus, killing several hundred thousand Palistinians may rub folks the wrong way. Bottom line, if you're afraid of a nuclear attack, move to Israel.
Two, you both missed and made my point. Pakistan developed in secret. N. Korea developed in secret, India developed in secret, and Israel still has its "open" secret. Do you find it odd that Iran is doing it so overtly? Especially given that Israel bombed Iraq's site (more on this to in my Stalin reply). If you don't ask why that might be, your doomed to keep repeating the mistakes of the past. Intelligence is shoddy because we see what we want to see, and locals know how to get us to do their bidding by telling us what we want to hear, or what we're afraid of. Beyond Curveball and Chalibi, local Afghani crime lords tell US soldiers their opponent is a terrorist, and we remove our perceived threat and the tribesman's real threat. If they've figured it out, surely everyone else has too.
Let me be very, very clear, it's totally unacceptable for Iran to have nukes. It's also totally unacceptable for us to fight every nation in the Middle East at one time. How long will Pakistan hold if we're in Iran and Iraq? That has Islamist revolution written all over it. How about Saudi? There will be a tipping point where things will start to go very, very badly for us. Which side do you err? I go back to my idea of giving Taiwan Nukes unless China steps up on both Korea and Iran. Put China in play, we need an ally, even one we have to force.
This is my point on trust. Iran can't have nukes, but while you may not like to hear me say it, Bush has been wrong far too many times for me to just shrug my shoulders and say, "well, if you say so." This is getting into very very touchy ground. Things are never as obvious as they appear. If you don't try to understand your opponents motives, then you will eventually lose. Ali beat the stronger Forman because Forman never tried to figure out what Ali was doing on the ropes all that time. He saw what he wanted to see, Ali was tired, Ali was weak. Then once Foreman's superior strength started to get ground down, Ali struck and exposed his true motives.
Sports shows the way...
To Malone. Lets use logic. How is it remotely logical for Iran to pick a fight with us? The one thing can stop a US attack is a nuke. Why on earth would you annouce to the world your nuke when its the most vulnerable? Why would you jeapordize your only chance? Why now? Logically doesn't it make more sense to wait another three years until there's a new US president? Take a chance on a dovish election? Clearly Bush will attack, that's the strong message that was supposed to be sent by the invasion in the first place. I'd bet my life savings that Bush, if he felt Iran was moving forward with nukes would hit them. He has too much at stake not to. Both as leader of the US, and from an emotional standpoint. Finally, one air-craft carrier can basically destroy the entire Iranian military. We have that. We can strike unopposed anytime anywhere. They must remember the tomahawk bombardments in Iraq. None of this makes any logical sense. You're right, everyone wants to be strong, furthermore global power is largely zero sum. Logically, Iran wants to gain. But this tactic will not result in that event, so while the goal is logical/rational, the tactic is not (where's Spok when you need him). Again, why? Here's my thought. Maybe Bush was right afterall. Maybe instead of making a mistake on an epic level, to use your words here, "Iran knows that there will be no consequences. The EU won't fight under any circumstances and the US is preoccupied" if your right, that Iran is bolstered in its nuclear ambitions by us being in Iraq then the American people traded a non-existant nuclear threat (Saddam wanted one, but was at least decades from developing his own) for a threat that is in McLeiberman's estimate two years away. Taking all emotion away from that, the fact is that it,if you're right, was a disasterous mistake. However, assume the analysts in the original arictle are right, and Iran is 15 years away. Why would Iran pick a fight it knows it can't win? Why would they be baiting us into an air-strike? I think its possible that its because they know, as Malone pointed out, we're too occupied with a ground war to lauch another. They know that they are safe. They know that they'll get an airstrike. So again, why? Here's where we get back to Bush being right. Maybe the elections in Iraq have emboldened the Iranians who favor democracy and better relations with the west. Maybe Iranian internal intellegence has raised significant concern with the Mullahs. What better way to completely eviscerate the moderates and reformers that to bait the US into an air-strike? Then the hardliners can point to that attack which they will report left lots of innocents and some children dead. What kind of support with the moderates get after that? The nation will rally around the tough talking hardliners, and reform is dead for decades. Iran looks great to its allies (your point again), and then talk of "greater US plans to control the region" have more merit. And I can't stress this enough, watch Pakistan.
Somehow you're taking my analysis of the situation as "Bush bashing" or even dovish, but are we really at the point where pointing out that just about everything that Bush said leading up to, during, and after the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been wildly off base makes me a hater? Seriously, I can't think of any situation where someone was this wrong on things, where you would instantly and blindly trust that person again. If my best friend came to me with a business opportunity and said "people are dying for product x, it will fly off the shelves, not cost you a dime, we'll make our profit in a few months and be out. We'll be set for life." But in reality, no one wanted the product, it cost several multiples of what he told me, and counting, is still not even really ready, and now it looks like it may never go. I'd feel like maybe I should pay some attention. Now imagine, that same friend comes back to me, during the time I'm still pouring money into the first project, and says, "Hey, me and the exact same team of managers who where so wrong on all the estimates we gave you for project x, think project y is a great investment opportunity. You in?" I may think twice and look around a little before investing again. Yes, I would doubt him. If that makes me irrational in your view so be it.
I never said you shouldn't doubt Geo. I said it didn't matter if you did or didn't when it came to solving this problem. But that was a personal statement, I'm assuming your point is really to the global ramifications of the intel failures. I agree that all conclussions based on intel will be weakened due to the Iraq failures. And the leaders who vocalized that intel will also be weakened. But, just because you were wrong about Kerry beating Bush '04, that doesn't mean no one will listen to you when you give your thoughts on '08. Often the persuasion is in the pudding and has nothing to do with the chef. I don't think anyone is doubting Iran's intentions because Bush was wrong before (not that I'm sure that that was one of your points).
I think your theory that Iran wants us to hit them for their benefit is very strong. It would clearly redicalize the population. But how long would it last for? I think we would be making a mistake if we over-weighted that negative outcome.
A democracy in Iraq would be devastating to the despots who currently have their boot on the Arab throat. I very much agree that Iran has taken serious notice of that fact. I also, agree that we can handle this crisis with an airstrike. Something that has only been made easier by our occupying of Iraq. Therefore, I think the Iraq action has improved our ability to deal with the Iran situation.
The downfall of all our reasoning could very well be the assumption that Iran is behaving rationally. Sometimes bullys don't weigh the costs of choices. Look at Hamas, talk about self destructive. What can they gain from all their radical rhetoric? Only a fight. And a fight they can never win. Not the most well-reasoned political strategy ever devised. Even if Isreal has gone soft, they will toughen up in the face of this aggression. Iran says they will make up for any hand outs that stop flowing from the west to the Palestinians. I have no idea why every western nation hasn't already said, "Really? Cool. You just got our last check." It amazes me that so much money still flows into the hands of crooks who everyone knows will just steal and squander it.
You had me at "pudding."
Post a Comment