To bomb or not to bomb Iran
Steve Clemons has a Salon article (you may have to watch the ad,) arguing that President Bush will not launch a first strike against Iran (although he tends to wiggle a little when talking about the possibility of a pretext/provocation.)
If you're tracking this debate it's an interesting read, but I would like to add one more thought: Every argument for bombing presupposes that such an attack would cease all possibility of an Iranian nuclear program.
What happens in ten more years? The Iranians will still retain their expertise and could rebuild their program. Do we bomb them every 5 years? Have we just created a hair trigger nuclear enemy a decade down the line?
If you're tracking this debate it's an interesting read, but I would like to add one more thought: Every argument for bombing presupposes that such an attack would cease all possibility of an Iranian nuclear program.
What happens in ten more years? The Iranians will still retain their expertise and could rebuild their program. Do we bomb them every 5 years? Have we just created a hair trigger nuclear enemy a decade down the line?
posted by mikevotes at
1:38 PM
6 Comments:
Some retired Army/Diplomatic types wargamed the senario last year,with similarly sobering conclusions.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows
By
Anonymous, at 2:03 PM
Yeah, I left out all the immediate reasons for not bombing, and there are tons.
I just hadn't seen anyone mention the temporary nature of a bombing solution.
By
mikevotes, at 2:09 PM
I don't think the people who plan these things think very far ahead. The objective is to do as much damage as possible to Iran's infrastructure, maybe start some kind of civil insurrection then wait for the dust to settle and take it from there.
By
Anonymous, at 5:39 PM
We tried this in Iraq, and now the current myth is that the stuff was moved to Syria. Any wagers that the nuclear material in Iran will be 'moved' to another country in need of 'liberation'?
In reality, the pretexts of any strikes on Iran are the least problem. If Iran responds with terrorism, then it 'proves' Bush's case for the continued occupation of Iraq, and his security state laws. I think in Republican calculus, a terror attack on the U.S. would be considered a 'plus'.
It's good that people are starting to look ahead on this, because we can't count on the Administration to do it.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 6:40 PM
Anon, I don't think the Cheney group believes in democracy promotion, but I would wager they do believe in covert op coups and such.
(Of course, it's that kind of thinking that made Iran hate us in the first place, eh?)
.....
Todd, I might argue about the Republican calculus. I see your point that the White House would play it for advantage, but it would also undermine the "not been attacked since 9/11," the one thing many people credit this administration with.
And, yeah, a pretext is easily manufactured, and the US has been doing it since the Mexican American war.
By
mikevotes, at 9:15 PM
The real wild card in a Syria/Iran campaign is going to be how Turkey reacts. Not only is Turkey pissed that Israel flew over their airspace on their last little bombing run, but the public opinion of the U.S. has hit a deep low. Turkey might see an expanded war as an opportunity to invade Kurdistan, or even engage Israeli bombers passing through their territory.
As for Republican calculus, all I would add is that you have to look at how an issue will play with the base, not with the public. Bush abandoned the public years ago.
In Iraq, more casualties mean the enemy is desperate, less casualties mean we are winning. Good or bad news spins well for the base.
And, good point on the covert ops. People forget that we overthrew their government and replaced it with a puppet dictator (Shah).
By
Todd Dugdale , at 10:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home