RSS Feed MenuFormer 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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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”?
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.
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.
sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:14 pm
grackle: 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.
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?
sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm
grackle: I do believe there is a good chance Iran will be the first since WW2 to use the nukes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 [...]