Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton addressed a crowded room at the American Enterprise Institute today, saying that “the use of force is required” to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and predicting that he didn’t “think that Israel [would] hesitate to act preemptively.”
At a panel discussion titled “Should Israel Attack Iran?”, the Bush appointee pulled no punches in criticizing his former boss, arguing that President Bush should have struck at Iran’s nuclear capabilities when he had the chance:
I had once thought the Bush administration would [bomb Iran] before it left office because it liked to say that an Iran with nuclear weapons was unacceptable, and I used to think that when the President said ‘unacceptable’ that he meant ‘unacceptable’… It’s a difficult mission. We can do it better. That’s why I thought we should do it.
Bolton justified his stance by pointing out the regional implications of a successful Iranian nuclear weapons program:
Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, we are in danger on a worldwide basis… Iran isn’t the end of the problem. The real difficulty with that analysis is that Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons, probably Egypt, probably Turkey, possibly others. So within a five to ten year period, you’ll have half a dozen nuclear countries in the Middle East… almost guaranteeing a nuclear exchange at some point or another.
Bolton also argued that the failure of the international community’s efforts to contain Iran was another reason for a pre-emptive strike, noting that “the other options have failed, are failing and will fail.”
As evidence, he pointed to the three U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding sanctions on Iran, opining that they have to this date made “no material impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” The former ambassador to the U.N. further said that future sanctions would prove to be similarly ineffective:
The prospect of sanctions in the future is illusory…The combination of Russian and Chinese action in the Security Council on any hypothetical fourth resolution would end up watering it down just like the first three.
Bolton conceded that an Israeli strike would likely lead to an overwhelmingly negative reaction from within the Obama administration, saying that he didn’t “think it will be at the level of military force against Israel. But I think that it will cause a very dramatic break in the relationship between the Obama administration and Israel.”
Other panelists hesitated to go as far as Ambassador Bolton, who at one point contended that “the ideal outcome is regime change.”
Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, cautioned that striking Iran’s nuclear weapons capability would instantly legitimize Iran’s nuclear weapons program. “An Israeli strike is a lousy scenario for the U.S.,” he said.
100 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“Bolton conceded that an Israeli strike would likely lead to an overwhelmingly negative reaction from within the Obama administration,”
Not to mention starting a huge war in the middle east……And Bush appointed this guy as our Ambassador to the UN
2 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Can we send John Bolton to work for one of our reconstruction contractors in Iraq or Afghanistan before Israel strikes? Or to man security for our military bases in the Arab world? To drive a supply truck to keep our soldiers fed and armed?
Because I damn well know I wouldn’t want any one of those jobs the day after the strike. Particularly if it isn’t followed up by the most severe denouncements of Israel from President Obama. If we signal to the Arab World that we’re cool with Israel engaging in unilateral strikes against any Islamic nation, no American will be safe in the Middle East. Even our Aramco compounds in Saudi Arabia will no longer be safe.
3 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Israel should wait until right after the first test-firing of an Iranian nuke. That event will scare the pants off of Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states–and then they won’t protest one bit if Israel then takes out the Iranian nuclear capability. At that moment, the threat from Iran will have gone from hypothetical to real, validating the warnings from Israel and hawks here in the U.S.
Also, after that event, it will be much easier to figure out the scope of the Iranian program to plan a military strike on it.
The risk to Israel is slight.
They will have a decent time window between that first test-firing and any Iranian stockpiling of nuclear warheads. Plenty of time to launch an attack.
So I would say to Israel: Get ready, get set–and wait for the news that Iran has test-fired a nuke–and then go!
4 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:07 pm
ireign:
Are you serious???
The Kremlin still has thousands of nuclear warheads at their command–more than enough to devastate the U.S.
That’s clout!
You notice: The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council all have significant nuclear arsenals.
5 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:09 pm
2 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“Iran is more than likely going to get an atomic bomb because Europe and the Obama administration don’t have the resolve to prevent it.”
………Estimated number of centrifuges in Iran producing enriched uranium
January 2001 (When Bush took office)…….Nil
January 2009 (When Bush left office)………6000
…………How much RESOLVE did Bush have………I don’t particularly blame him because like Obama if Iran is intent on obtaining nuclear weapons there’s not much that can be done to stop it…….but your childish and innaccurate comments aimed at trying to discredit the Obama administration need to be corrected with factual info.
6 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:12 pm
4 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:03 pm
“Russia should be removed from the security council at some point. Now that the USSR no longer exists — Russia doesn’t have the clout it once did”
………Is this guy on day release from Bellevue?
7 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“Israel should wait until right after the first test-firing of an Iranian nuke. That event will scare the pants off of Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf states–and then they won’t protest one bit if Israel then takes out the Iranian nuclear capability.”
……….ohhh so your strategy is Israel waits until Iran actually HAS a nuclear weapon before starting the war……..that makes entire sense.
8 BoolaBoola // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:30 pm
If Israel attacks Iran, the ruling mullahs will become… POPULAR!
Seriously, there’s nothing like a foreign attack for rallying the citizens to their rulers. Even the Right Man (GW Cokehead-Burnout Bush) was polling in the 90s after 9111.
9 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm
ireign:
Russia’s nuclear arsenal consists of nuclear-tipped ICBMs and SLBMs. They can attack virtually any target in the Northern Hemisphere.
The arsenals of India, Pakistan, and Israel are incapable of that. Those nations could fight regional nuclear wars. But only the five Security Council powers are capable of igniting global thermonuclear war.
10 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Ireign wrote: “However, given that Iran knew people like Bolton meant business, they were less likely to go all the way with the nuclear weapon. ”
Going from zero centrifuges when Bush took office to 6,000 when he left does not indicate any reticence by Iran. They went as far as they could and they didn’t pay anymore attention to Bolton than Bush did when Bolton begged him to bomb Iran.
Your comments show a complete inability to look at this objectively.
11 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:43 pm
ireign:
North Korea did.
During the Bush Administration, North Korea conducted their first nuclear test in 2006. This after Bush had repeatedly said that it was “unacceptable” for North Korea to build nuclear weapons.
True, that first nuclear test was not entirely successful. But Bush let the opportunity slip by to deliver an ultimatum: Shut down or we’ll shut you down. As a result, North Korea continued to develop nukes, and conducted a fully successful test-firing last April.
12 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm
ireign:
Yes, because of scenarios like this:
Pakistan nukes India
India retaliates and nukes Pakistan
China (Pakistan’s traditional ally) nukes India
U.S. (India’s ally) nukes China
China nukes U.S.
U.S. nukes China
13 Rod // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:50 pm
So….having more money and “impressive” credentials means your opinion is more valid. I dont think so. Your arrogance subverts your credibility. In this forum everyones opinion is valid. Why must you speak?
14 potan // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:52 pm
ireign:
“So Sinz if India and Pakistan develop nuclear tipped ICBMs and SLBMs they should also get seats on the security council? Talk about weird incentives.”
Actually ireign, India should get a seat on the security council. Its the world’s largest democracy, a regional military superpower, and a future economic superpower. It also has friendly relations with nearly every country in the world except Pakistan and China yet it has very little say in international affairs.
15 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:10 pm
12 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm
OttoBS-“Russia should be removed from the security council at some point. Now that the USSR no longer exists — Russia doesn’t have the clout it once did”
………Is this guy on day release from Bellevue?”
“BS, we have already determined that I make more money than you and have more impressive academic credentials, ”
……..Have we?,,,,,,,,actually 200k assuming it’s accurate(but I’ll take you at your word despite your record of lying) is actually rather less than I used to earn when I was working full time not that that is awfully important as I know some very clever people who never made much money …….and where did you get your udergrad and grad degrees……you’ve never actually told us…….and what do you do…….you’ve never actually told us……so why don’t you tell us instead of subjecting us to another blusterfest
“I don’t think anyone would deny that Russia no longer a super power.”
………I would say that in all around terms they are probably the fourth or fifth ranking power in the world by virtue of their nuclear arsenal, physical size and natural resources…….what the hell has the first gulf war which took place when the Soviet Union was disintegrating got to do with today
16 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm
22 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“So potan we are in agreement. Rod-shut up, these were comments in reference to a different thread. You have no idea what you are talking about. Sinz-you cannot plausibly argue that seats on the security council is contigent upon nuclear arsenal.”
……..Is this guy on day release from Bellevue?
17 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:20 pm
22 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:06 pm
” You are quick to criticize everything related to Bush but you don’t ever explan what you would differently.”
……….On the contrary I never criticised Bush because I have enough intelligence, and an education gained at no doubt inferior schools to yours, to recognize the impossibility of his position in this matter……he could do nothing anymore than can Obama in reality…….unfortunately your immaturity prevents you from exercising particularly effective value judgement as in:
“Bolton is a very smart guy ”
…….Apart from the fact he advances entirely insane policy positions in major public forums…….very smart.
18 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Ireign wrote: “As for the argument that Bush’s policy didn’t do anything to stifle Iran’s nuclear ambitions that is just foolish. Iran would have a nuclear bomb under a different administration and the Bush administration was pretty much constrained by Europe.”
Bush told both Korea and Iran, as well as the rest of the world, that it was unacceptable for Korea and Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Korea developed one on Bush’s watch and Iran made substantial progress toward one on Bush’s watch.
Bush was extremely ineffective at stoping a Korean or Iranian nuclear weapon. Obama will most likely be just as ineffective as Bush. These countries have their own reasons, very good reasons, for developing a bomb and no American president will be able to stop them. More importantly, the American people are not willing to go to war to stop some two-bit country from developing a bomb when that country poses no threat to the U.S.
19 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:30 pm
25 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“OttoBS – I never told you my income, I implied what I made.”
………..Oh so you only “implied” you made 200k plus a year…..now I’m assuming you’re “implying” that this was actually another porky and you don’t really make 200k a year……ok……and you won’t tell us where you got your grad and undergrad degrees as I’m a person of “low moral standing.”…..ok…….Well let’s look on the bright side….. at least the the GOP doesn’t appear to be wasting as much money paying you as I thought they were.
20 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:33 pm
29 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“Your trips (whatever) at Cambridge don’t compare.”
………True I don’t share his and your propensity for advancing insane policy positions in public….or spreading porkies…..it’s probably due to my low moral character
21 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:36 pm
28 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm
‘OttoBS-repeating the same stupid comment ad nauseum doesn’t make your comment any more believable/funny. Moreover, the vast majority of commenters who are not from the NYC area have no idea what you are referring to. As someoone who was probably examined there on multiple occassions, you appear to be very-well informed on that (nice they you have some subject that you know about).”
……..Is this guy on day release from Bellevue?
22 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:37 pm
ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:35 pm
“I will be happy to devulge my income providing you do like-wise (in full). Thus, I can get your real name and check if you are on any most wanted lists.”
………???????????
23 losername // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:38 pm
If Israel bombs Iran and two hours later oil spikes to $200.00 a barrel, how can I call Israel a friend of the United States?…So easy to start a war but not so easy to end one.
24 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:45 pm
28 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:22 pm
“Moreover, the vast majority of commenters who are not from the NYC area have no idea what you are referring to.”
………I think they get the general idea
25 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:46 pm
38 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:42 pm
“It would be nice if there some actual Republicans on this thread and OttoBS didn’t repeat stupid crap. Otto, release your tax returns , buddy. Other than that, shut up.”
……….Q.E.D.
26 BoolaBoola // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:43 pm
No, here I only comment as BoolaBoola. I have previously gone under the names SoMG (“Spirit of Martin Gardner”) and SoMF (“Spirit of Morris Fishbein”). And my blog is operationcounterstrike.blogstot.com
27 BoolaBoola // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Oops–that’s operationcounterstrike.blogsPot.com
28 Willems // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Bolton always seems dramatic – but not necessarily wrong.
The positive aspect of Obama’s patience with Iran is that it exposes who are the true friends of democracy and who are just playing games – like Russia. Obama’s key opportunity was to press hard when Iran’s latest secret workshop was exposed. He had the attention of the world at the UN to publicly call Iran out and draw a line – and not budge, not noegotiate. In diplomacy, timing is everything. It is much like telling a joke. The very same words can be hilarious out of one mouth and a yawn out of another. Iran is making Obam’s diplomacy a yawn. On the world stage, Putin is the master of timing.
29 Moderate // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Bolton’s probably correct. It’ll be interesting to see if Israel acts against an Obama red light.
Also: 1) any literate person has heard of Bellevue.
2) Any person who touts personal income in defense of his opinion is either lying or irrational. I can say this authoritatively, as I earn $500B per annum.
30 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Ireign wrote: “If our allies were tougher and there weren’t domestic considerations, America would have tried to do more on North Korea and Iran. Unlike Obama, who appears to be to the left of France on Iranian nukes, Bush was clearly more hawkish on the matter.”
Our allies’ toughness is irrelevant. And, the hawkishness, or lack thereof, of Bush, Obama or any other U.S. president is also irrelevant. No Western country is going to support a war in order to stop these countries from getting bombs. The world has existed rather peacefully for almost 70 years with nuclear bombs in the hands of unseemly states.
Again, your attempt to try to blame an Iranian nuclear bomb on Obama is blatant partisanship and it causes readers to not take you seriously.
31 potan // Oct 23, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“The world has existed rather peacefully for almost 70 years with nuclear bombs in the hands of unseemly states.”
In the past 70 years I doubt any of the states who developed nuclear weapons had a radical shiite head of state who believed in the imminent return of the Mahdi must be sped up by creating worldwide chaos or a head of state who is clearly believed to have some kind of a mental disorder.
32 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Ireign, on the evil scale, both N. Korea and Iran pale in comparison to the USSR’s Stalin.
You make a fair point about making partisan comments on a Republican blog. There’s nothing wrong with making partisan statements.
The point I was trying to make is that your initial comments suggesting that Iran would have had a much tougher time developing a bomb under Bush than it will under Obama are refuted by the empirical facts and, therefore, seem to be based on nothing more than partisanship. While partisanship has its place, it should not impede one’s ability to objectively analyze the facts.
33 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:10 pm
potan wrote: “In the past 70 years I doubt any of the states who developed nuclear weapons had a radical shiite head of state who believed in the imminent return of the Mahdi must be sped up by creating worldwide chaos . . . ”
Would this be anything like the widely held evangelical belief that Christ’s soon return to the earth must be preceded by widescale war and destruction, otherwise known as Armageddon?
And isn’t George W. an evangelical?
34 Moderate // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:27 pm
ireign,
1) If Otto started the dick measuring contest over income, then he’s wrong for it. But you’re continuing it, and both of you look like juveniles.
2) Dude. Bellevue. In New York.
potan,
Do you really think that Iran is so irrational that they would invite nuclear destruction? As in, no more Iran… ever? Because that’s what would happen if they ever laid a finger on Israel.
35 Reason60 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Returning to the original post…
Does Bolton even listen to himself speak?
I mean, has he thought this out?
One, we know that the Iranians have pretty well hid or buried the important components so a bomb strike would have a slim chance of doing the job.
Second, what is the end game? After the strike, what happens then? and then what would be our countermove to that?
Just like in Iraq, and Afghanistan those who are bellowing for war haven’t thought out the end game or exit strategy.
There is just this notion that the military is a magic weapon that with a swift surgical strike makes all the problems of the world go away.
I think it is interesting that the adults in the room- the military- is being rather cautious about this.
Bolton has nothing to offer but rambling nonsense.
36 Arch // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Celebrating two days CI and Escape free! I guess they got bored.
37 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:22 am
Ireign wrote: “We don’t for certain how many centrifuges Iran had when Bush became President or even for certain how many they have now.”
Well, we certainly don’t know for CERTAIN what Iran has, and that is all the more reason why a preemptive strike is a dumb idea.
Nevertheless, the best intelligence we do have is that Iran was much, much closer to having a bomb at the end of the Bush presidency than it was at the beginning. So, again, Bush was quite ineffective at preventing Iran’s march to a bomb, and Obama will be equally ineffective. But that’s ok because Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb would probably have the effect of reducing aggression in the Middle East.
As for your point that the majority of terrorists at the current time are muslim fundamentalists, that is true, but irrelevant. Potan’s comment, to which I was responding, suggested that Iran was to be feared because its leader held strange religious beliefs that predict great harm and chaos. I merely pointed out that those religious beliefs are not too different from the religous beliefs of George W. and many other Christians in this country. As a Christian myself, I am not condemning Bush’s religious views, nor do I condemn Ahmadinejad’s religious views. I’m merely pointing out that neither the peculiarity nor apocalyptic nature of those views is a reason to fear Iran or bomb it preemptively.
38 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:30 am
Ireign wrote: “Given that neither Israel nor any of their Arab neighbors is likely to invade their country, the question is why are they so concerned about getting a nuke?”
I don’t think it is clear at all to Iranians that Israel or any of Iran’s Arab neighbors won’t invade or attack Iran. Israel believed Hezbollah was responsible for the attacks on Israel that were launched from Lebanon and Israel attacked Lebanon as a result. Since Israel also believes Iran sponsors Hezbollah, why is it inconceivable that Israel wouldn’t attack Iran? And, of course, Iraq attacked Iran, and none of Iran’s Arab neighbors did anything to help Iran. Moreover, Iran apparently needs to fear an attack by the U.S.
Of course, the likelihood of an attack by the U.S., Israel or any of Iran’s Arab neighbors would likely fall to zero if Iran had a nuclear bomb. So, Iran has very good reasons to develop a nuclear bomb.
39 SFTor1 // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:33 am
ireign:
the idea of launching a pre-emptive strike every time we see something in the world we don’t like is absurd. It’s what got us into this two-front mess to begin with.
40 grackle // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:39 am
If we signal to the Arab World that we’re cool with Israel engaging in unilateral strikes against any Islamic nation, no American will be safe in the Middle East.
No, not “any” Islamic nation, only those who have repeatedly threatened Israel’s existence and who are building nukes.
One wonders what makes the commentor believe that Americans are NOW safe in the Middle East. Please.
Some Arab nations in the Middle East WANT Iran stopped. I think the Israelis have realized by now that Obama is not going to like them better if Israel passively stands by while Iran nukes up. They must know that Obama is not an ally and is not going to become an ally no matter what they do. They have nothing to lose as far as the good will of the Obama administration is concerned.
If Iran nukes up Israel is doomed.
41 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 8:49 am
arch // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“Celebrating two days CI and Escape free! I guess they got bored.”
……..I think irreign is their equal in entertainment value…..don’t you?
42 sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:02 am
ireign:
And right now, Iran’s neighbor Russia is not willing to face Iran down either.
Plus the U.S. is still embroiled in Iraq, trying hard to get out of that place. Iranian retaliation for an Israeli strike would almost certainly include escalating Shiite terrorism inside Iraq, making it that much harder for the U.S. to disengage from there.
Plus Iranian retaliation would likely include attempts to close the Persian Gulf to oil supertanker shipping. Which would be disastrous for the entire West, America included, and would likely lead to all-out war between Iran and America.
You see? There are more difficulties with a strike on Iran than with a strike on North Korea. So if Bush found reasons not to strike North Korea, there are reasons at least as valid not to strike Iran.
43 MI-GOPer // Oct 24, 2009 at 10:06 am
In a post-partisan world where the right-minded world leaders have come to question the resolve of America and America’s new waffling and dithering leadership, thank God that Ambassador Bolton has the courage to broach this issue –the Israelis, like the French and Brits, must think America weak and indifferent and naive. It is pretty bad when the French make America look weak-kneed on Iran.
The only ones cheering on our current leaders are people like Chavez, Castro, the warlords in Afghanistan and Dannie Ortega, if he can find a live mic.
What a difference an election can make for the world. Thank God we didn’t take this route in 2000 or 2004; Gore & Kerry would have given blanks checks to our enemies abroad and we’d be building minarets in America instead of building deficits.
Thank God the Israeli can and will act when American leadersship dithers, waffles and acts like a 5 yr old with ADD.
44 grackle // Oct 24, 2009 at 10:49 am
Plus the U.S. is still embroiled in Iraq, trying hard to get out of that place. Iranian retaliation for an Israeli strike would almost certainly include escalating Shiite terrorism inside Iraq, making it that much harder for the U.S. to disengage from there.
I see … Iran is going easy with the terrorism in Iraq now but would really get with it if they get miffed at Israel. I had a good belly-laugh reading THAT one. Iran is doing anything and everything it can in Iraq NOW without actually invading with uniformed troops. Iran is NEVER going to be nice to the US.
A thug is kicking a victim in the head over and over. Standing by and watching, the commentor warns the victim, “Don’t try to fight him; he’ll only kick you in the head if you do.”
Plus Iranian retaliation would likely include attempts to close the Persian Gulf to oil supertanker shipping. Which would be disastrous for the entire West, America included, and would likely lead to all-out war between Iran and America.
Iranian closing the Persian Gulf? Temporarily perhaps but in the final analysis only an inconvenience. And HOW would Iran “close” the Persian Gulf? These references we always hear about the Iranians closing the Persian Gulf to shipping are puzzling. Is there a gate at the entrance that the Iranians would lock?
The only way the Iranians could close the Persian Gulf would be if the mullahs menaced ships in the Gulf with shore to sea batteries or with aircraft – both of which could easily be eliminated by the US. Or try to sink their own ships in Strait of Hormuz. But just a couple of carriers and perhaps a submarine or two in the Gulf of Oman, which could sink every ship the Iranians have in the Iranians’ own ports, could prevent that from happening.
Lead to “an all-out war” with America? If the mullahs did try to conduct an all-out war with America here is what would happen IF we had a President instead of an apologist: The present Iranian regime would be destroyed. Their military would be destroyed. Their nuclear effort would be utterly destroyed. All those protestors that were in the Iranian streets a short while ago would have a chance to run the government.
But of course under Obama such a scenario could never happen. Obama would most likely sue for peace – and let the mullahs know that the destruction of Israel would be very OK with him. Hmm … come to think of it – Obama’s more or less done THAT already without the mullahs having to lift a finger.
You see? There are more difficulties with a strike on Iran than with a strike on North Korea. So if Bush found reasons not to strike North Korea, there are reasons at least as valid not to strike Iran.
The North Koreans have a bunch of missiles and troops amassed at the border of South Korea and have threatened to destroy South Korea if the West makes a hostile move. That, anti-war sentiment among US apologists, and the fact that Korea is not strategically important, i.e.: has little to do with supplying the world with oil, has kept the US from acting there.
On the other hand, the only REAL “reasons” not to strike at Iran are political in nature. For the time being, the military reasons are negligible, especially when weighed against the likely scenario down the road if Iran nukes up.
45 sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:28 am
grackle:
All it would take would be for Iran to attack one supertanker of a foreign nation (say Liberia). They could do this either with their own weapons, or through a protege like Hezbollah. And then all those foreign captains will refuse to sail their supertankers through the Persian Gulf until they’re absolutely sure they won’t be fired on too. And that means total war with Iran–or else the West can forget about Middle East oil for a long time to come.
Now you don’t seem to mind that; in fact, you might even be looking forward to it: Let’s fight a three-front war: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran simultaneously!
Never mind the fact that regime change cannot be effected by strategic bombing, and that an INVASION of Iran by ground troops would be necessary at some point. You want to get rid of the Iranian regime? You’ll have to march into Tehran.
Never mind the reaction from Europe to having their Middle East oil supply threatened, from Russia to having U.S. troops and planes so close to their border, and from the Muslim world. (It will be impossible for the U.S. to shed the image of fighting Islam itself, when we launched military operations causing regime change in three separate Muslim countries.) Never mind the reaction from the oil market, as gasoline reaches $12.00 a gallon, spelling doom for the U.S. economy which is only barely emerging from deep recession now.
I think to risk all that is stupid. You would have to put the United States on a total war footing, with gasoline rationing and all the rest of it.
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Bush 41, and Reagan found many ways to demonstrate U.S. resolve without resorting to pre-emptive war. Reagan’s motto was “Peace Through Strength.” Yours seems to be “Strength Through War.”
46 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I find the total unreality of the mi-gopers, irreign’s, grackles etc. encouraging because outside of narrow lunatic circles on the right it has no appeal whatever (even conservatives like Sinz can perceive this)……….it’s true of most of the dominant strands of movement conservative belief……..naive, unrealistic, paranoid, totally myopic about consequences despite the disasters of the last eight years……..It’s basically a form of fecklessness and as long as the GOP base is married to it just so long will the Republican party remain marginalized………these fruitcakes are enormously entertaining at the personal level but their ideas are electoral poison.
47 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:45 pm
….I saw an interesting take on how the Obama admin could make the Israeli’s behave themselves from an Israeli blogger this morning…….just deliver a subtle hint (no fingerprints) that the US veto in the security council could always be dropped on selective issues…….like war crime indictments…….suddenly European arrests loom for a widely corrupt political class (Olmert, Netanyahu, Avigdor for example) who absolutely love to go swanning around Europe with their wives, mistresses, children etc staying in luxury hotel suites at public expense (apparently there’s a big scandal in Israel about this at present)………Behave or goodbye Georges Cinq, Crillon, Dorchester, Vier Jahrtzeiten, Imperial
48 potan // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:48 pm
potan wrote: “In the past 70 years I doubt any of the states who developed nuclear weapons had a radical shiite head of state who believed in the imminent return of the Mahdi must be sped up by creating worldwide chaos . . . ”
spartacusisnotdead wrote: “Would this be anything like the widely held evangelical belief that Christ’s soon return to the earth must be preceded by widescale war and destruction, otherwise known as Armageddon?
And isn’t George W. an evangelical?”
The difference between a Sunni and an evangelical Christian is that Christians don’t believe you can speed up the return of Jesus Christ by nuking the world. Ever heard of “he will come like a thief in the night”? Sunnis actually believe that they must create chaos in order for the Mehdi to return sooner.
It is bloody silly of you to bring up a FORMER president and his religious beliefs when we are discussing an actual and ongoing threat.
49 potan // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:52 pm
moderate wrote: “Do you really think that Iran is so irrational that they would invite nuclear destruction? As in, no more Iran… ever? Because that’s what would happen if they ever laid a finger on Israel.”
I’m pretty sure Iran is not irrational, they are quite nice people actually. Their leaders are irrational as exemplified by the crushing of recent pro-democracy protests by the largest age group in their country.
50 sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:09 pm
ottovbs:
What I think it stems from,
is the triumphalism that followed America’s triumph in the Cold War.
Some conservatives (and even some neo-liberals) decided that America was now so unalterably powerful that we could exert our will anywhere on earth. (Not me though.)
And that’s what you’ve seen ever since: The Gulf War; NATO (or its surrogate “Partnership for Peace”) extended eastward to Eastern Europe and maybe even Ukraine; bombing Serbia; bombing Iraq (and that was just under the Clinton Administration by Madeline Albright!); Bush 43’s pre-emptive war against Iraq; and now calls for pre-emptive war against Iran.
I’m not an isolationist. But this track record since 1991 goes too far. It’s almost as if some Americans are enjoying throwing our weight around in the world just to impress our enemies. Unfortunately, it’s also infuriating our enemies–and alienating neutrals.
51 sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:18 pm
I would like to remind folks here that even after Iran test-fires her first nuclear bomb, she has a long way to go before she has a convincing nuclear deterrent. The first bomb to be fired will likely be a prototype, not yet made small enough to be carried by an Iranian fighter-bomber. And mating a nuclear warhead to a ballistic missile takes lots of testing too. (Notice that the U.S. test-fired its first bomb in 1945, but didn’t have a workable nuclear ballistic missile till the mid 1950s.)
In a way, the test-firing of Iran’s first nuke will actually be a major diplomatic victory for ISRAEL. First, it will prove beyond all doubt that Israel was right that Iran’s nuclear threat is real. Second, if Israel chooses to strike Iran (likely), there will be little doubt that she is overreacting this time. Third, Iran’s Arab neighbors will be just as concerned about a Shiite nuclear arsenal, and their criticism of Israel is likely to be muted. Heck, Saudi Arabia might even clear their airspace for Israel’s attack.
So Israel has little to worry about. Even after Iran test-fires a nuke, Israel has months, maybe years, before they have to worry about operational Iranian nuclear missiles. Plenty of time for a nuclear strike.
There might even be enough time for the U.S. to go to the U.N., have the U.N. demand that Iran disarm its nukes. Iran will refuse, of course; and then it will be much harder for the world to criticize Israel for acting in its own self-defense.
So what’s all the shouting about???
52 MI-GOPer // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm
grackle notes: “A thug is kicking a victim in the head over and over. Standing by and watching, the commentor warns the victim, “Don’t try to fight him; he’ll only kick you in the head if you do.””
I read that line and thought immediately of the Obama White House’s new War on Fox, War on Medicine, War on Health Care Insurance, its near-Nuclear Attack on Balanced Budgets for at least the next 2 generations… I guess it was the trigger word “thug” that’s now synonymous with Obama Administration.
That’s what Obama and his Chicago-styled thugs want for everyone who disagrees with the Approved Script: Israel is on the receiving end, just like Fox, because they haven’t cow-towed to the Free World’s New Celebrity in Chief over unilateral disarmament to help the palestinians. How dare they dissent!
53 MI-GOPer // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:36 pm
spartacusisnotdead , in an act of sheer relativism and unsupportable statements: “And isn’t George W. an evangelical?””
Only in the alternate reality of the Daily Kos… you don’t get out much, do you spartacusisnotdead ? President Bush 43 is a Methodist, as is the former 1st Lady. His parents are Episcopalians.
Nice try at smearing evans. I think that atheist petticoat all fashionable Democrats are wearing these days is showing on you and your cowardly Liberal Lions… or is that Liberal Lyings?
54 balconesfault // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Sinz: So what’s all the shouting about???
a) there are those who depend on fear for political success, and without shouting they can’t cause fear
b) how do you frame Obama as incompetent if you’re not shouting? If you talk in measured tones (for example, not labelling every Obama initiative as a “war”) then people may look at your argument on its merits.
55 potan // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Has anyone heard of the Samson Option. Look it up on Wikipedia.
56 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:05 pm
sinz54 // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“What I think it stems from,
is the triumphalism that followed America’s triumph in the Cold War.”
………It’s always been there……back in the early fifties these same folks were claiming Marshall and Eisenhower were soviet agents…..most people laughed……..but as the Republican party moved right these folks became the dominant voice within the GOP on foreign policy just as religious fundamentalists became the dominant voice on social issues, global warming denial , etc……..now most people are laughing again.
“I would like to remind folks here that even after Iran test-fires her first nuclear bomb, she has a long way to go before she has a convincing nuclear deterrent’
……….I think we can be reasonably assured that when Iran explodes her first nuclear device (anticipating the attention it will receive as you describe) she’ll have another one in her back pocket just in case anyone gets any crazy ideas(which you seem to be joining Bolton in advocating) ……..to paraphrase Dirty Harry “Feeling lucky today Israel?”
57 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:08 pm
mi-goper // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm
“I read that line and thought immediately of the Obama White House’s new War on Fox, War on Medicine, War on Health Care Insurance, its near-Nuclear Attack on Balanced Budgets for at least the next 2 generations… I guess it was the trigger word “thug” that’s now synonymous with Obama Administration.
That’s what Obama and his Chicago-styled thugs want for everyone who disagrees with the Approved Script: Israel is on the receiving end, just like Fox, because they haven’t cow-towed to the Free World’s New Celebrity in Chief over unilateral disarmament to help the palestinians. How dare they dissent!”
………The GOP on crack brewed in its own basement
58 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:13 pm
mi-groper wrote: “President Bush 43 is a Methodist, as is the former 1st Lady. His parents are Episcopalians. . . Nice try at smearing evans. ”
So, is it your contention that neither Methodists nor most mainstream Christian denominations do not believe in the imminent return of Christ and that that return will be preceded by widescale destruction and chaos (i.e. Armageddon), which is very similar to Ahmadinejad’s religious belief?
Are you accusing my of trying to smear evans because I said they believe this or because I said George W. was an evangelical. If it’s the latter, I apologize to evangelicals.
59 potan // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:26 pm
spartacusisnotdead,
Armageddon is very different from Ahmadinejad’s conception of the return of Muhammad al-Mahdi. I suggest you get some familiarity with Islamic theology before drawing parallels. Because of their monotheistic nature and their Abrahamic origins it is easy to make a hasty generalization about the parallels between Islamic theology and Christian theology.
60 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Potan wrote: “Sunnis actually believe that they must create chaos in order for the Mehdi to return sooner.”
This is incorrect. This may be the view among a few Sunni nutcases, but this is certainly not a mainstream belief of Sunnis. In fact, there is even disagreement among some prominent Sunnis on the return of the Mahdi. You may want to gather more info before going out on a limb again.
Potan also wrote: “It is bloody silly of you to bring up a FORMER president and his religious beliefs when we are discussing an actual and ongoing threat.”
As I stated in my post to mi-groper, I raised the religious beliefs of Bush only to demonstrate the stupidity of trying to divine the foregin policy intentions of a head of state by evaluating his religious beliefs, which is exactly what you attempted to do in your post at #48.
Secondly and more importantly, we are not discussing an actual and ongoing threat. We are discussing whether or not Iran should be bombed before it develops a nuclear bomb. Iran has never attacked any other country and it has not threatened to do so, except in self-defense. Irrespective of whether or not Iran has a nuclear bomb, there is no Iranian threat.
61 andydp // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Once again, the Bush II Administration has reaffirmed the old military adage:
Amateurs talk tactics, Professionals talk logistics.
We all remember Sec Rumsfeld’s “Shock and Awe” which led to “You go to war with the Army you have”.
Now Ambassador Bolton says bomb Iran. Its easy for someone to advocate attacks (Ann Coulter’s “carpet bomb Palestine”). Its an entirely different matter dealing with the aftermath. Distancing the US from the Israeli attack would not hold any credibility with the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Someone said Mr Bolton should volunteer to be in the area when the attack comes and see what happens. I fully agree with that.
There’s no easy solution to this problem but I can assure you pre emptive attacks are not the answer. I’d say something like Teddy Roosevelt’s “talk softly but carry a big stick” policy would work with Iran. After all it was Lenin that said ” As long as you are hitting straw keep attacking, when you hit steel stop”. Something President Reagan knew well. When Iran sees the world is acting as a whole then it will listen.
Many years ago, Armed Forces Journal had a proposal for getting Iran to let the hostages go: Send electronic warfare planes in orbit near Iran and jam their communications capabilities. That way you block their ability to transfer oil money, military C2 functions and effectively isolate them from the world. You don’t even have to do it for an extended period – just do it for two or three days.
62 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 6:57 pm
andydp // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“You don’t even have to do it for an extended period – just do it for two or three days.”
……..While I’m in general agreement with your sentiments, you’re being wildly optimistic about the technical operations of markets and communications here……..they’d have to be shut down for six months at least……and by then the world oil and probably financial markets too would be in total chaos…….look at what happened in Britain when they entered the first world war in a much more primitive globalized system…..none of it made a dime’s worth of difference to what was actually happening in France or on the oceans.
63 Latte Links (10/24) | Caffeinated Thoughts // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:05 pm
[...] New Majority: Bolton: Israel Must Bomb Iran (HT: Pamela [...]
64 balconesfault // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:52 pm
andydp “Someone said Mr Bolton should volunteer to be in the area when the attack comes and see what happens. I fully agree with that.”
t’was me. And only partially in jest.
“After all it was Lenin that said ‘As long as you are hitting straw keep attacking, when you hit steel stop’. “
OMG! You cited Lenin! Surely you advocate a Red Terror!
65 rbottoms // Oct 24, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Mr. Bolton will be highly unlikely to have to go put his rear end on the line to fight in the war he is essentially rooting for. I’ve to see exhortations like this be accompanied by a list of which members of the Bolton family he’s ready to suit up for the fight, instead of just making the case for someone else’s loved ones to go die for the great Neocon cause.
66 SFTor1 // Oct 25, 2009 at 4:31 am
I think perhaps the Middle Eastern countries enjoy the oil revenues. To make the oil supply questionable or unreliable does not serve their purposes.
67 MI-GOPer // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:04 am
sparty’s-brain-dead: “Are you accusing my of trying to smear evans because I said they believe this or because I said George W. was an evangelical.”
You were trying, and failed by the way, to smear evans with your graden variety, far Left Democrat relativism –in this case, trying to compare Iranian hatred of the US with your twisted & harshly biased sense of American evangelicals. You were the one, sparty’s-brain-dead, who posited that Bush 43 was an evan… proof he was as crazy as Iranian leaders.
Nice try at spinning it to something else… the answer is still: No, President Bush 43 is a Methodist, as is the former 1st Lady. His parents are Episcopalians. Of course, facts never get in your way, do they sparty’s-brain-dead?
I just wonder what it is about the Democrat-liberal, far Left experience that makes you guys so hateful, so passionate, so anti-American, so abnormal when it comes to people of faith? It must be something in the kool-aid you all drink, eh? And what would drag a bunch of preening far Left trolls to a site mostly centered on building a new Repulican majority? Spite? Insecurity over the performance of your own team? Residual Bush Derangement Syndrome? Anger at going back to the minority power position?
68 MI-GOPer // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:18 am
rbottoms, the far Left troll who gets kicked from nearly every site he “plays” on, contends: “Mr. Bolton will be highly unlikely to have to go put his rear end on the line to fight in the war he is essentially rooting for”….
I think you guys tried all the chickenhawk slurs, the keyboard army, etc stuff last time around. It didn’t work since most everyone knows you guys are the ones to head to Canada, go CO or hide behind mommie’s skirts when the fighting does break out.
Ambassador Bolton has put himself in harm’s way many, many, many times in his travels to hot spots around the globe. Unlike you, he actually appreciates the service of military personnel. Unlike you, he actually loves America and doesn’t do the Apology Tour nonsense of Obama.
Bolton isn’t rooting for war. He’s rooting for leadership.
That’s where the far Left gets it wrong so many times… in VietNam, in Panama, in Kuwait, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in N Korea.
Rooting for L-E-A-D-E-R-S-H-I-P. It’s what Americans thought they were getting with all the rhetoric from Obama, et al. bin Laden still isn’t caught. Iraq is more violent. Afghanistan is fracturing. Troop morale is down. Terror plots are exploding in American cities. The Natl Intel groups are now forced to play CYA games. Our former allies distrust us (France, Britian, Australia) and our old enemies love us… what an Alice in Wonderland world this president has created.
And it isn’t even his 1st full year! Chaos and confusion, tempered with inexperience and dithering. It’s JimmineyCricketCarter all over again.
69 sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:39 am
andydp:
It wouldn’t matter if you do it through cyber-war or real war.
The consequences would be the same: Iranian retaliation in the Persian Gulf, and skyrocketing oil prices.
70 sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:44 am
mi-goper:
It does remind me a lot of 1977, yes. (Carter’s canceling the B-1 bomber, Carter’s infamous “inordinate fear of Communism” speech, the polls showing American confusion over just where Carter stood on domestic issues, etc.)
(Those who were too young to remember 1977 should scan the excellent Google archive. Most Time magazine articles from that time period are available in full for free.)
But 1977, Carter’s first year in office, was far from a total disaster. It just laid the seeds for future disaster. Carter didn’t start to get in real trouble till 1978, as inflation heated up. And Carter is remembered as a failure, mostly for the disastrous events of 1979-1980.
If Obama follows the same pattern, his stumbles won’t really start to annoy the public till 2010.
So my fellow conservatives: Be patient, help unify the fractured GOP rather than dividing it further, and let’s bide our time. We’ll pounce in lockstep at the right moment.
71 sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:49 am
sftor1:
The demand for oil is “inelastic”: That is, a small change in supply is correlated with a large change in price. That’s because oil is a necessity of our modern economy–even if the price rises somewhat, we’re forced to pay it in order to continue to drive our SUVs. (Luxuries, on the other hand, are price sensitive–there’s furious price competition among electronic gadgets.)
OPEC does very well when the supply is partially restricted–since they make far more revenue by the sharply rising price than they do from the part of the supply they’re not selling.
Notice that the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 didn’t hurt the Arabs one-tenth as much as it hurt America. They grew more powerful, while America grew weaker.
72 rbottoms // Oct 25, 2009 at 12:48 pm
And yet somehow you can’t see that bombing Iran will be war. World war. Not in the mass armies kind of war, but insane terrorism, bombs in Chicago kind of war. It will mean more troops, and not brave souls like Glenn Beck, or Jonah Goldberg, or even Ann Coulter because those people never wear the uniform, certain that their constant stream of hot air benefits the country more than actually fighting for it in the wars they promote.
73 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 25, 2009 at 12:58 pm
mi-groper,
You’re very heavy on the hot air and name-calling, but completely devoid of substance. I asked you a very simple, straight-forward question, which you still haven’t answered. I’ll try again:
Is it your contention that neither Methodists nor most mainstream Christian denominations believe in the imminent return of Christ and that that return will be preceded by widescale destruction and chaos (i.e. Armageddon), which is very similar to Ahmadinejad’s religious belief?
I hope not to offend you, but your retreat to red-meat name calling combined with your refusal/inability to answer this simple question makes you look intellectually impotent.
74 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:23 pm
sinz54 // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:44 am
“If Obama follows the same pattern, his stumbles won’t really start to annoy the public till 2010.
So my fellow conservatives: Be patient, help unify the fractured GOP rather than dividing it further, and let’s bide our time. We’ll pounce in lockstep at the right moment”
………Another Republican realist…….the only hope is that Obama might stumble(yeah I can see that happening)………ignore the brewing civil war in the GOP……..and we’ll pounce at the right moment…….this will be when Palin is ready to take office then?
75 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:27 pm
mi-goper // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:18 am
…..this guy personifies the mindset of 70% of the Republican party……….and they think they are going to be taken seriously as a political party?…….I absolutely love the fact that folks like these are going to wreck the GOP because until it implodes re-building can’t begin……..David thinks there’s some sort of half way house with these people……there isn’t.
76 grackle // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I would like to remind folks here that even after Iran test-fires her first nuclear bomb, she has a long way to go before she has a convincing nuclear deterrent. The first bomb to be fired will likely be a prototype, not yet made small enough to be carried by an Iranian fighter-bomber. And mating a nuclear warhead to a ballistic missile takes lots of testing too. (Notice that the U.S. test-fired its first bomb in 1945, but didn’t have a workable nuclear ballistic missile till the mid 1950s.)
The commentor is assuming the Iranians will choose to use conventional ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. If I were Iran I would not bother with all that. What I would do if I were Iran is explode EMP weapons over the US and Israel from freighters situated out 50 miles off the coasts. For THAT you need the expertise and technology of little more that pointing a bottle rocket on New Years Eve. Very low tech, very inexpensive and all you need is enough fissionable material – not all the technical crap needed to deliver ballistic missiles.
In a way, the test-firing of Iran’s first nuke will actually be a major diplomatic victory for ISRAEL. First, it will prove beyond all doubt that Israel was right that Iran’s nuclear threat is real.
Prove it to who? The Eskimos in the Arctic circle? Everyone else knows it already. A true diplomatic victory would be if Israel could use diplomacy to prevent Iran from nuking up but THAT is not going to happen.
Second, if Israel chooses to strike Iran (likely), there will be little doubt that she is overreacting this time.
“Overreacting”? To stop Iran from obtaining the means of performing the perfidy that Iran has sworn to perform? Prudence, which is what an Israeli strike would be, is NOT overreaction – it’s preventing the Unthinkable from becoming the Inevitable.
Third, Iran’s Arab neighbors will be just as concerned about a Shiite nuclear arsenal, and their criticism of Israel is likely to be muted. Heck, Saudi Arabia might even clear their airspace for Israel’s attack.
Israel has and may have these perks already. But neutering an existential threat should never be based on approval from your ‘almost’ enemies.
So Israel has little to worry about. Even after Iran test-fires a nuke, Israel has months, maybe years, before they have to worry about operational Iranian nuclear missiles. Plenty of time for a nuclear strike.
Here again the commentor is assuming a conventional nuclear warhead preference and strategy. If I were Iran I would go the EMP route. It’s just as effective as a nuclear explosion strike, easier and cheaper.
And Israel striking Iran with nukes? But if Iran strikes first how would Israel be able to strike back? Besides, a nuclear explosion need not be used by Iran for testing purposes. With ballistic missiles the warhead(the actual nuclear explosion) is no real problem – what has to be tested is the missiles and the aiming, launching and tracking systems – and Iran has already done that.
There might even be enough time for the U.S. to go to the U.N., have the U.N. demand that Iran disarm its nukes. Iran will refuse, of course; and then it will be much harder for the world to criticize Israel for acting in its own self-defense.
So what’s all the shouting about???
Even if the UN made demands of Iran, such demands without clout are meaningless. The UN has made these demands without the will to enforce them time and time again since its inception – with predictable results: The UN is a laughing stock which mainly serves as a propaganda tool for America’s enemies.
What “all the shouting” is about is if Iran nukes up Israel is doomed and the US is gravely threatened.
77 grackle // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:33 pm
All it would take would be for Iran to attack one supertanker of a foreign nation (say Liberia). They could do this either with their own weapons, or through a protege like Hezbollah. And then all those foreign captains will refuse to sail their supertankers through the Persian Gulf until they’re absolutely sure they won’t be fired on too. And that means total war with Iran–or else the West can forget about Middle East oil for a long time to come.
I believe that the US and its allies could guarantee safe passage to the supertankers. Also, you exaggerate greatly by claiming “the West can forget about Middle East oil for a long time to come.” And the Middle East is not the only part of the world that has oil underneath its landscape.
Now you don’t seem to mind that; in fact, you might even be looking forward to it: Let’s fight a three-front war: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran simultaneously!
I wouldn’t envision a total war with Iran in the sense of a bunch of boots on the ground. Keep in mind all we would want to do is eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat and minimize the impact of that strike on the world’s economy. None of that requires and all-out war in the sense of a multitude of troops. You need a lot of troops only if you want to occupy, pacify and rebuild the conquered country. I would bomb the crap out of them, protect the sea-lanes and make them rebuild themselves.
Never mind the fact that regime change cannot be effected by strategic bombing, and that an INVASION of Iran by ground troops would be necessary at some point. You want to get rid of the Iranian regime? You’ll have to march into Tehran.
I don’t give a damn about regime change. I would just want WHATEVER regime tries to rebuild after we would take their nuclear and oil production apart(with NO boots on the ground) that we will kick their ass again if they continue with the terror shenanigans and try to nuke up again.
Never mind the reaction from Europe to having their Middle East oil supply threatened, from Russia to having U.S. troops and planes so close to their border, and from the Muslim world. (It will be impossible for the U.S. to shed the image of fighting Islam itself, when we launched military operations causing regime change in three separate Muslim countries.)
We have nothing to lose vis a vis Europe and Russia’s good wishes. Their good wishes will eventually send us into oblivion. And I could care less about what anyone thinks about our image of “fighting Islam.” In my view it’s up to “Islam” to prove it is capable of a non-hostile, civilized outlook toward the US.
Never mind the reaction from the oil market, as gasoline reaches $12.00 a gallon, spelling doom for the U.S. economy which is only barely emerging from deep recession now. I think to risk all that is stupid. You would have to put the United States on a total war footing, with gasoline rationing and all the rest of it.
Yeah, the rationing would be terrible – we might even end up having to drill for oil in Alaska and the East and West coasts. Might even have to build some nuclear power plants. OMG!
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Bush 41, and Reagan found many ways to demonstrate U.S. resolve without resorting to pre-emptive war. Reagan’s motto was “Peace Through Strength.” Yours seems to be “Strength Through War.”
And Obama’s motto? “Weakness through apology.”
78 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:55 pm
96 grackle // Oct 25, 2009 at 5:33 pm
……..And loons like this REALLY think the country is going dump Obama, Biden, Clinton and co in order to replace them with Palin, Gingrich, Bolton and co
79 grackle // Oct 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm
..And loons like this REALLY think the country is going dump Obama, Biden, Clinton and co in order to replace them with Palin, Gingrich, Bolton and co
Name-calling instead of argument is always the way of the weak debater.
The true “loons” are those who think that appeasement and apology will keep America safe and prosperous.
But the commentor is partially correct in that it is unlikely that the Republicans will prevail over Obama. There’s too much factionalism on the Right for that to happen – too much concern with purity – too many conservatives insisting on driving away voters – too much concern with social and quasi-religious issues instead of legitimate political issues of a free market economy, limited government and a strong national defense.
80 Willems // Oct 26, 2009 at 8:50 am
Jeb Bush should run for president with Condi Rice as VP. Europeans would dislike it, but the would certainly beat Obama. Jeb would be a great president and most know this. palin, for all her admirable qualities, has a to much of a wide-eyed confrontational tone. Jeb is calm and articulate and gives off a trustworthy aire, and Rice is intellegent and experienced. The faliure in the last election was that the Republican ticket looked unstable and eratic and Americans just didn’t trust them.
81 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:51 am
grackle // Oct 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“Name-calling instead of argument is always the way of the weak debater.”
………I’ve no doubt you totally believe that should Iran acquire nuclear arms this means they will inevitably launch a nuclear war against Israel; and that this justifies the US and/or Israel launching a pre-emptive war against Iran; and that the consequences of this could be contained. All these propositions even without getting into all the other stuff are so self evidently nutty there was no other way I could categorise you I’m afraid. Even George Bush wasn’t willing to sign off on letting Israel attack Iran because he had some inkling of the likely consequences. My guide in these matters Otto von Bismark famously said “I hate war, you can’t control it.”…….He started three of them so he should have known.
82 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:58 am
willems // Oct 26, 2009 at 8:50 am
“Jeb Bush should run for president with Condi Rice as VP.”
……..Bush: a great name that everyone is very familiar with……….Rice: a great record of achievement in office in one of the greatest administrations in history…….They’d be a slam dunk in the trust department
83 MI-GOPer // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:01 am
Oh my, the far Left Democrat trolls have been busy spitting out the Daily Kos talking points it seems.
Like rbottoms, the troll who gets bounced from at least 1 GOP site a week, says: “And yet somehow you can’t see that bombing Iran will be war. World war.” Umm, no, rbottoms; it doesn’t have to be if history and precedent are any indicators… Israel successfully bombed Iraq nuke facilities in 1981 when the UN, NATO, and others were content to remain hovering in a holding pattern. No world war there. Then in 2007, Israel successfully bombed likely Syrian nuke facilities where North Korean supplied munitions and rocket parts were under assembly in an underground bunker. No world war.
Last week you were wrongly complaining, along with many of the other O-bots, that all Republicans can do is sell fear to the American voters… fear of death panels, fear of insurance execs, fear of socialist medicine and rationing, fear of yet another govt take-over of yet another sector of the economy.
And here you go, selling fear? World war! Right. The only ones selling fear are the O-bots… pass our Stimulus Spending Spree or unemployment will top 8%! Pass the Cash4Junkers Spending Spree or Detroit will go down in flames! Pass health care reform now or the economy will collapse!
Were the voters aware that when the O-bots said “Hope & Change”, they really meant “Hype & Fear”?
84 MI-GOPer // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:10 am
sparty-is-brain-dead writes: “You’re very heavy on the hot air and name-calling, but completely devoid of substance.” Umm, that’s gotta be the best example of the week for projection by a far Left troll on a GOP site! Doubly rich, it’s from the guy who was just smearing American evangelicals with moral relativism to Iranian terrorists? Gheesh.
I asnwered your first silly question, sparty-is-brain-dead. Geo Bush and his lovely wife Laura are Methodists, not evangelicals… as you tried to label him. His parents are Episcopalians.
Your second question isn’t even worthy of response. But I love the fact that you have the utter gall to lecture anyone on name-calling –you’ve been the king of the hill on that score for some time now. And then you spin it into some new-styled VictimHood argument? Pity the boy.
85 grackle // Oct 26, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I’ve no doubt you totally believe that should Iran acquire nuclear arms this means they will inevitably launch a nuclear war against Israel; and that this justifies the US and/or Israel launching a pre-emptive war against Iran; and that the consequences of this could be contained. All these … are so self evidently nutty there was no other way I could categorise you …
I do believe there is a good chance Iran will be the first since WW2 to use the nukes. The mullahs have conducted war against the US from the time they seized power in Iran up to the present day. The roadside bombs they provide the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan are killing and maiming our soldiers. They have killed Americans however and whenever they possibly could. Given their mindset the mullahs will likely view the nukes as simply another, more lethal weapon to use in their campaign against the US – doubtlessly viewed as a holy weapon provided by Allah to strike down and humble the infidel American devil. Death to America! Death to Israel!: These are the chants that mark the ending of their services in the mosques, political and public gatherings all over Iran.
Their enmity toward and stated desire to destroy Israel is if anything even stronger than their hatred toward America.
The only real question in my mind is whether they will strike directly or though their proxies. Given their past behavior my money is on the mullahs using a proxy terrorist group. If they do it on Obama’s watch they surely know that they will escape any retaliation and probably would even be given concessions in an attempt by Obama to buy them off and appease them.
No doubt they would quickly become a dominant force in the world after out-maneuvering the feckless, clueless Obama and terrorizing America, eventually able to freely dictate to and demand a measure of obeisance from all other nations. All it would take is the acquisition of enough fissionable material and a demonstrated willingness to ruthlessly use it – a situation the world has never before encountered. All this in their warped minds sanctimoniously committed in the name of Allah of course.
Finally, I note for the readers that the commentor continues to employ name-calling, his favorite ploy in lieu of debate. What is truly “self evidently nutty” is the stubborn blindness of apologists like the commentor.
86 sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm
grackle:
Iran is going to sail a dozen freighters (!!!) carrying nuclear missiles, through the Suez Canal, across the Mediterranean Sea, through the Strait of Gibraltar, across the Atlantic Ocean, and position them within 50 miles of the U.S. coast, without ever being detected, without ever being opposed by the U.S. Navy or the British Navy?
Have they invented a Star Trek-style cloaking device?
87 sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm
grackle:
I think that’s a real possibility, yes.
But on the day Iran test-fires her first nuclear warhead, she will likely have no others ready to be used.
So like I said before, Israel can plan to strike after Iran test-fires its first nuke. Israel still won’t be in any danger at that point. And Iran will have burned its bridges, especially with its Arab Sunni neighbors.
I don’t discount Iran’s fanaticism, not for a moment. But I don’t believe that they want to lose either. They know that if they lob an untested nuke at Israel–but it turns out to be a dud–that will be the end of Iran. Israel will bomb and bomb and bomb until there’s not one brick standing on another–and it will be entirely consistent with Article 51 of the U.N. Treaty too. So the Iranians will have to have a careful testing program. That gives Israel time to plan their attack.
88 sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm
grackle:
Well, ottovbs has been hanging around liberals for too long. He’s been thoroughly infected by their self-righteousness and their smug contempt for others.
I’ve stated my views on that several times: Leftists insist on acting like a breed apart. So if we right-wingers ever take power again, that’s how we should treat them–a separate breed from the mainstream of America.
Today’s Gallup Poll shows that only 20% of Americans self-identify as liberal. We can think of ways to, shall we say, slough them off.
89 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:25 pm
mi-groper wrote: “Your second question isn’t even worthy of response.”
So in an effort to engage in debate, you ignore the critical question I asked and instead chose to spend hundreds of words on a typical thoughtless, red-meat diatribe.
You are, indeed, intellectually impotent.
90 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm
grackle:
Finally, I note for the readers that the commentor continues to employ name-calling, his favorite ploy in lieu of debate.
Well, ottovbs has been hanging around liberals for too long. He’s been thoroughly infected by their self-righteousness and their smug contempt for others.”
………It’s a waste of time arguing with the factually retarded and lampshades……all one can do is attempt to point out their distortions and innacuracies
………I’ve actually voted Republican most of my life but have gone bush because while I’m not oblivious to the Democrat’s failings (over dependance on teacher’s unions, grievance politics, turning a blind eye to corruption etc) these are largely a by product of how the US political system works and the GOP is generally guilty of the similar sins. However, when it comes to the really big issues (combatting climate change, reflating the economy, womens reproductive rights, immigration reform, disengaging from the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan, healthcare reform, regulation, gender equality, governmental competence over ideology, etc) there’s no doubt the Democrats are basically far more right than wrong. Meanwhile not only has the Republican party refused to accept an iota of responsibility for largely creating one of the biggest FUBAR’s in US history but it resists every attempt fix it or claims we just need to do more of what caused the problem in the first place for all to come right. This is so obviously deranged that support for the GOP and on most of the important issues has slumped to the twenties. This is going to be disastrous electorally for the forseeable future whatever the denialist keep asserting……but as I said it’s a waste of time trying to reason with lampshades.
91 grackle // Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Iran is going to sail a dozen freighters (!!!) carrying nuclear missiles, through the Suez Canal, across the Mediterranean Sea, through the Strait of Gibraltar, across the Atlantic Ocean, and position them within 50 miles of the U.S. coast, without ever being detected, without ever being opposed by the U.S. Navy or the British Navy? Have they invented a Star Trek-style cloaking device?
The commentor has been watching too much science fiction. In the real world there are no futuristic devices to detect weapons, no necessity for cloaking devices, no transporters or phasers.
A dozen freighters would not be required. One for Israel and three for the US. The freighters would not be carrying “missiles.” Missiles need guidance systems. The freighters would have rockets, which have already been openly tested and bragged about by Iran.
It’s a matter of numbers. Given the amount of traffic in the sea lanes, ordinary freighters would be impossible to detect. These would not be military vessel types. How does the commentor imagine such detection would take place? No Navy in the world has the capacity to search each and every freighter outside the 50 mile limit. Apparently the commentor does not realize the number of vessels in the waters off the coasts of Israel and the US are myriad. Even with intel beforehand it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
At a designated time a small crew on each would slide back the cargo hatches. They could aim the rockets with a hand compass – it only has to go up at an angle in the direction of land without ever having to come down. It would not have to be precisely aimed at a target or tracked until ignition. 250 miles up and 100 miles inland the payload is ignited. Iran presently has a couple of tested rockets quite capable of doing the job. Our missile defense systems are incapable of stopping such an attack, being designed to intercept high-tech missiles launched from specific areas in an arc through the stratosphere.
Several states in the US and all of Israel would cease to have electricity, thereby dooming most within the sphere of the EMP. No police, no army, no vehicles, no food after a few days, no water except from rivers and streams, no computer, radio or TV. The situation would quickly revert to lawlessness. Your only hope would be to somehow walk out but you would probably be beaten back at the fringes of the effect. “Don’t come out of there and eat OUR food,” would be the attitude. The economies of Israel and the US would literally cease to exist. Imagine 9/11 magnified a million-fold.
It’s cheap, it’s easy, it’s as effective as a conventional nuclear weapon, perhaps more so. All it requires is some relatively low-tech electronics, rockets and the fissionable material – which may be the reason that Iran‘s emphasis is on centrifuges. The crappy, out-dated, second-hand missile guidance systems they are buying from Russia, which everyone understands will have perhaps insurmountable reliability problems, may be only a smoke-screen – a diversion from their true intent – a way to lull while preparing the EMP weapons.
Also, unlike a conventional ballistic missile attack, such a strike would be impossible to trace back to its origin. What I believe the mullahs want to do is start a nuke race, get more nations hostile to the West nuked up to give themselves cover. That way no one could be sure which nation made the strike. After all, the US would still have the nuclear subs, any one of which could reduce the Middle east to radioactive goat pastures for a 100 years afterward.
What is chilling to me is I keep asking myself what I would do if I were in their place and had their mindset. The scenario above is my troubling answer.
92 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 6:20 pm
110 grackle // Oct 26, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“What is chilling to me is I keep asking myself what I would do if I were in their place and had their mindset. The scenario above is my troubling answer.”
……..Don’t you think it’s possible, just possible, that someone in US or British intelligence has come up with this scenario……..I know they are not as imaginative or intelligent as you…..but they’ve got a few Ph’ds, they did manage to break the German and Japanese codes during the last war, so mightn’t there just be someone as clever as you?
93 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 6:28 pm
107 sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“I’ve stated my views on that several times: Leftists insist on acting like a breed apart. So if we right-wingers ever take power again, that’s how we should treat them–a separate breed from the mainstream of America.”
……….and with the Republicans having the lowest id for thirty years what does that make them…..the majority I suppose
94 publicmember // Oct 26, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Bolton has served his usefulness on this planet if he ever had one.
His time is up and he needs to be taken out before he gets us all killed !
No, I’m not joking and I have a first amendment to protect me.
What is protecting you from him?
95 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“No, I’m not joking and I have a first amendment to protect me.
What is protecting you from him?”
……..Obama and the democrats which is why never in a million years are the present crowd in the GOP going to be allowed near the switch until they show signs of growing up.
96 grackle // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:22 pm
……..Don’t you think it’s possible, just possible, that someone in US or British intelligence has come up with this scenario……..I know they are not as imaginative or intelligent as you…..but they’ve got a few Ph’ds, they did manage to break the German and Japanese codes during the last war, so mightn’t there just be someone as clever as you?
Maybe US or British intelligence HAS come up with this scenario – maybe not. What kind of bothers me is the fact that Western intelligence agencies have been wrong on their nuclear capability estimates since the inception of the atomic age. Russia, China, Pakistan, India – all these nations had a deliverable WMD far ahead of ALL Western intelligence estimates, catching the intel agencies completely by surprise. Consequently, I put little faith in these agencies, especially the CIA. They have a spotless record of being way of the mark EVERY time.
But what IF CIA DID have such a scenario? It seems to me that there would be little they could do to prevent it – absent a policy of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities, that is. But the attitude such as possessed by the commentor makes that sort of decisive action politically unlikely. Oil prices might go up, you know. Islamists might decide to murder Westerners. The mullahs might even begin speculating about a world without America, a world in which Israel is wiped off the map.
97 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:18 pm
grackle // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“Consequently, I put little faith in these agencies, especially the CIA. They have a spotless record of being way of the mark EVERY time.”
………You got me there……Superficially I’d have to agree with your take on the CIA…….when I was visiting Russia in the late 70’s it was obvious the Soviet Union was on its last legs but it seemed to have escaped the CIA’s notice……of course they may actually have known all along but because keeping people scared was the key to big budget appropriations for the CIA and Pentagon it might have suited them to exaggerate the threat……yer think?
98 grackle // Oct 27, 2009 at 10:11 am
Superficially I’d have to agree with your take on the CIA…….when I was visiting Russia in the late 70’s it was obvious the Soviet Union was on its last legs but it seemed to have escaped the CIA’s notice……of course they may actually have known all along but because keeping people scared was the key to big budget appropriations for the CIA and Pentagon it might have suited them to exaggerate the threat……yer think?
The above is a possible explanation for the CIA’s failing to predict the fall of the USSR but doesn’t offer a rationale for the failure to correctly estimate nuclear development. Also, both failures, to predict the demise of the USSR and to predict the nuclear development of various nations, were failures in which virtually ALL Western intel agencies also failed.
Obviously, intelligence gathering is always guesswork and can easily be prejudiced by bias within the intelligence community. I’ve entertained the idea that the intelligence agencies, just as among the academics, the intellectuals and the news providers(MSM), are biased toward a progressive viewpoint. Thus, the USSR was seen as impregnable and prosperous – with no chance to fail – a myth foisted by the intellectual elite since the Russian revolution.
The incorrect nuclear development estimates could be ascribed to a common Progressive meme possibly present throughout Western intel entities – that other nations nuking up is only right and fair – that since the US and other Western nations have nukes that it would be a good and fair thing to sort of even the playing field, so to speak, with other nations also having nukes. There is this idea that the West in general and the US specifically has been arrogant and criminal and needs to be humbled on the world stage as punishment for crimes against humanity.
Thus it would not be furthering this situation(parity of nukes) to be alarming certain conservation political elements in the West with reports that any nation is about to join the nuclear community. Let THAT be a complete surprise and perhaps even enjoy a secret satisfaction at the shock and chagrin experienced by those you hold in contempt.
While such deviations from reality, such false interpretations of history, were relatively harmless with India and Pakistan(at least at the time) and as history has ultimately proven, even with the USSR and China, the acquisition of nukes by fanatics like the Iranian mullahs is quite a different thing. There is a fundamental difference in the attitude of the Islamists and the historical and cultural outlook of the USSR, China and India.
We now have to contend with warfare by proxy and the distinct possibility that the terrorists and the nations that sponsor them will do what entities such as the USSR and China would be unwilling to do. If enough Islamic hostiles gain access to WMD sooner or later the US will suffer a catastrophe that will make 9/11 seem insignificant. Being humbled is one thing, being destroyed is quite another.
99 MI-GOPer // Oct 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm
ottoBS claims: “I’ve actually voted Republican most of my life but have gone bush because while I’m not oblivious to the Democrat’s failings (over dependance on teacher’s unions, grievance politics, turning a blind eye to corruption etc) these are largely a by product of how the US political system works and the GOP is generally guilty of the similar sins.”
Now, that has to be the lamest attempt to curry favor and stop the permanent identification of ottoBS as the New Majority Village Idiot.
Plus, it’s a lie. Obama has great company with this trolling O-bot, ottoBS.
100 PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Bolton: Take Government out of Government // Jan 11, 2010 at 9:25 am
[...] Iran. For example, The Telegraph: John Bolton: US should bomb Iranian camps, via David Frum: Bolton: Israel Must Bomb Iran, via the WSJ: Sanctions Won’t Work Against [...]
You must log in to post a comment.