Why the Bushies Should Leave Iran Alone

Josh Micah Marshall makes an important point. What should be done to contain Iran is beside the point. The only relevant point is that whatever the Bush administration does to contain Iran will be incompetent and counterproductive:

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall January 16, 2006 11:06 AM : [A] group of commentators (I'd include myself among them)... bought into the basic argument about the danger posed by the Iraqi regime.... [W]hat didn't make sense about 'my' position was that folks like myself were debating Iraq policy in the abstract. How would I deal with Iraq if I were president? What would be the sensible approach if we had a president and foreign policy team... acting in good faith and competent.... That was just a fantasy.... President Bush et al. [were] calling the shots. Any discussion of the issue which didn't take those key facts into account was just a parlor game.... So with Iran.

The prospect of a nuclearized Iran seems far more perilous to me.... [But] there is no Iran Question.... There's only how to deal with Iran with this administration in place. Do you trust this White House's good faith, priorities or competence in dealing with this situation? Based on everything I've seen in almost five years the answer is pretty clearly 'no' on each count.... [T]hat has to be the starting point of the discussion.

Comments

[Nicholas Weaver]

I fear that even in the "perfect world" model, there is nothing which can be done...

Iran has enough of the current oil supply that they could always cause price shocks at will (a very powerful weapon already), but this weapon could go away in the future.

Iran has no need for a civilian nuclear power program: They are sitting on such huge reserves of natural gas and oil that it wouldn't be necessary for decades from now. So forget the "Russian refine the fuel" model, it doesn't work.

Really, from Iran's point of view, Nuclear weapons are a 'must have'. For now, the US military is tied up and the US can't exert significant military force, nor significant economic force. Thus get nukes NOW before the equation changes.

[pgl]

Didn't Biden note that the Iraq mess has made it impossible for us to attack another nation? Iran has a much stronger military than Saddam had - and attacking a second Muslim nation will really be a gift to Al Qaeda - even if we could pull off the initial stages.

[llld]

Iran also has a much larger population than Iraq that is much more united (political differences between moderates and islamists are not equivalent to the deep ethnic divisions of Iraq).

In addition Iran is a much larger country with real topography.

Even if the Iraq war had not started and competent people inhabited the white house, an invasion of Iran by the US would be a losing proposition from the start. In current circumstances, any such threats are completely non-credible.

As it stands, the Bush administration and the "superior" Republican foreign policy has backed the U.S. into a corner. Just because one has the strongest military does not make one all-powerful.

[Barkley Rosser]

I could be wrong, but I see little chance that the US will invade Iran. We are simply too bogged down in Iraq and simply nobody, except maybe the Israelis, would support it. Some kind of sanctions out of the UN, however, look pretty likely now that both Russia and China appear to have signed on, perhaps with the hope of keeping crazy Bush from doing anything nastier.

While Bush might be tempted to bomb the uranium facitlities, much more likely would be an aerial assault by Israel, with or without the connivance of the US. Remember that they bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor, which was less of a threat for nukes than what the Iranians have. At the time, Iraq was de facto allied with the US against Iran, and had strong support in Western Europe and the Soviet Union. Also, this was before Saddam had gassed civilians or invaded Kuwait or started paying bounties to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Today, Iran is diplomatically isolated and a much bigger threat to Israel. Saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth has long been boilerplate for many Middle Eastern regimes, but denying the holocaust must certainly be putting very serious fear and planning into the minds of the Israelis. I doubt the US could hold them back even if we tried to if they were to go for it.

More generally, of course, there is good reason to fear the competence of Bush in this matter, as in so many others...

[DuckedApe]

It is, well *amusing* would seem too calous, probably, and A Morrissette has made *ironic* unuseable, so let us consider *poetic justice*: the U.S. helped underwrite Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, which lasted about ten years and ensured that what survived of a generation (or two) knew only combat as a profession. All social progress and economic development in these two countries were secondary to (a) exacerbating their need to sell oil to buy arms (b) making Iran suffer for dissing the U.S. Not to mention that their lives didn't count for much.

It might be a good thing that the Bushies propose to deal with Iran: maybe then the country will say *say what?* and the limits to the junta's power will be on the table. And what if they gave an impeachment and nobody left?

[Nicholas Weaver]

I don't think sanctions can work: Iran's production of ~4 Mbpd out of the ~80 Mbpd total production means it can shut down 5% of the world's production.

The world doesn't have much spare production capacity, which leaves us vulnerable to non-collusive market manipulation (EG, what happened during the CA power crisis, whenever you have significant fractional suppliers, relatively inelastic demand, and no spare capacity).

If there were SERIOUS sanctions against Iran (say, ones which China respected), Iran could just slow or shut off the flow. Slowing down the flow (eg, a 50% cut) might even not cost Iran all that much, due to the resulting increase in price (a'la CA energy market). Stopping the spiggot completely loses them money, but if there is a significant embargo anyway, who cares about foreign exchange?

Even if the US SPR got invorved and substituted the lost oil to keep prices stable, it would only last for ~6-12 months. Thus a noneffectual sanctions regimn will have no effect, but effective sanctions can be effectively countered by sanctions against the world, made possible by our demand for oil and the lack of spare production capacity.

[NinjaPlease]

Attacking Iran is not even a remote possibility for the US.

If Iran truly develops a civilian nuclear program, I give it a 95% chance that Israel bombs it to bits, with no sanctions or denunciation by the US.

Iran doesnt have long range bombers, or long range missiles. They have short range missiles though... Iran is no threat to Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan--only to Israel, especially with that ranter/raver in power.

All he wants is to be bought off, its very obvious to everyone.

[ogmb]

"Even if the Iraq war had not started and competent people inhabited the white house, an invasion of Iran by the US would be a losing proposition from the start. In current circumstances, any such threats are completely non-credible."

You're assuming rational actors in the White House.

[Bruce Webb]

"Iran has enough of the current oil supply that they could always cause price shocks at will"

Source that. What percentage of World Oil does Iran actually control. Because we stumbled into war in Iraq based on totally unrealistic estimates of what Iraqi oil actually contributed to world oil supplies and to the extent that we could simply tap into that to finance occupation and reconstruction. Bring numbers. What exactly is Iran's contribution to world oil supply and how do you balance taking if off line compared to the benefits of eliminating some future threat of developing a nuclear capability.

Sorry after 2100 American dead we need some quantification.

Because some people are not willing to give the alarmists a free pass. Because they totally screwed it up the last time.

It's like Math Class. Show your Work.

[otto]

I'd like to know what Sistani (born in Iran) and chums think about a US or Israeli raid on Iran's nuclear sites. Or, for that matter, the Iraqi political class more widely. Does anybody know?

[eurocent]

A widespread point of view around Europe is this:

Israel will attack Iran first, to drag the US into war with Iran. Israeli government needs to exhibit decision and strength and will get us all into another mess.

any comments?

[DRK]

Is it true that Iran plans on opening an "oil bourse" in March or April? What would happen then?

[Barkley Rosser]

eurocent,

Why would a bomb attack by Israel drag the US into war with Iran? It is highly unlikely that Iran would retaliate against Israel, and if they did, the Israelis would probably handle it themselves with little US assistance.

The US was not dragged into war with Iraq when the Israelis bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor.

[bob]

Regarding the claim that Iran has no reason to develop nuclear energy -- obviously the time to put resources into such a project is when you have surplus revenues from your oil supplies. It is not at all unreasonable for Iran to look ahead to when it will no longer have this surplus.

Regarding the planned U.S. and/or Israeli attack on Iran: Of course the U.S. can't (doesn't have the available troop strenght), and won't, invade Iran. However, it is highly likely that the U.S. will bomb Iran, claiming that the bombing is only being done to eliminate the alleged Iranian nuclear bomb project. Sy Hersh has already explained the military strategy of air warfare instead of ground warfare; though the Pentagon officers who aren't fools realize that it will be catastrophic, they will obey orders.

[Nicholas Weaver]

A WHOLE BUNCH of energy figures, for your enjoyment...
http://www.bp.com/downloads.do?categoryId=9003093&contentId=7005944

From British Petroleum.

See "Oil, Produced barrels" on the XLS spreadsheet.

Iran is 5% of the world production in 2004!

Only Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the USA produced more oil/day.

Do we really think the world economy would be happy with a 5% drop in the oil supply, given the effects of previous supply shocks on prices?

[Graydon]

Iran has three obvious motivations to develop nuclear power --

1: To establish a deterrent

2: To establish diplomatic parity with Israel in terms of being viewed as a regional power

3: To, perhaps, stop burning oil and gas they don't have as much of as people generally assume.

They may also be thinking long term and trying to avoid desertification to the extent that they can, but all three of those reasons are, from inside their frame of reference, perfectly good ones.

If you hunt up Ken McLeod's blog, you'll find an interesting rumination on the various leaks and rumours indicating that the plan is to nuke Iran, not invade it.

[Cranky Observer]

> Iran has no need for a civilian nuclear
> power program: They are sitting on such huge
> reserves of natural gas and oil that it
> wouldn't be necessary for decades from now.

If Iran thinks peak oil is approaching (and they are in a better position to know than we are; shades of Winners Curse), it makes perfect sense to build low-cost nuclear plants for electricity, figuring they can easily pay for those plants with $150/bbl oil a few years down the road.

Cranky

[km4]

Iran is a much more complex situation....

The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran
By Jephraim P Gundzik
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

The military implementation of the George W Bush administration's unilateralist foreign policy is creating monumental changes in the world's geostrategic alliances. The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia.

Growing ties between Moscow and Beijing in the past 18 months is an important geopolitical event that has gone practically unnoticed. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Russia in September 2004. In October 2004, President Vladimir Putin visited China. During the October meeting, both China and Russia declared that Sino-Russian relations had reached "unparalleled heights". In addition to settling long-standing border issues, Moscow and Beijing agreed to hold joint military exercises in 2005. This marks the first large-scale military exercises between Russia and China since 1958...

Global race is on to snag oil supplies
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002259109_oilpressure01.html

China and India are investing billions in Iran despite President Bush's attempt to isolate the Persian Gulf nation because of its nuclear ambitions. The money is a lifeline for the world's fourth-biggest oil producer, which also sits atop the world's second-largest natural-gas reserves. Both are off-limits to U.S. companies.

Iran -- China's largest oil supplier -- signed long-term oil and natural-gas contracts this year worth tens of billions of dollars with China and India. Iran gave India's state oil company a 20 percent stake in the development of a key Iranian oil field....

[Michael Cain]

Bruce Webb: "Source that. What percentage of World Oil does Iran actually control[?]... What exactly is Iran's contribution to world oil supply[?]"

The CIA World Factbook estimates Iranian oil exports at 2.5M bbl/day in 2004 (current flow, in this case, being more important than stock). Current world production is about 84M bbl/day. Estimates for spare production capacity around the world are all over the place, but a guess of 0.5M bbl/day is defensible. Henry Groppe, a long-time consultant on oil supply and demand gave an estimate at the ASPO conference in Denver this past November that in the world market today, crude elasticity equates about $1/bbl change in price to 0.1M bbl/day change in demand. All of this suggests that Iran could push prices up by about $20/bbl by halting exports. The short-term spike would probably be larger because the market would over-react.

A lot of these estimates are educated guesswork at best. Also, the US is probably not the marginal consumer (or at least, much of the US is not the marginal consumer) for petroleum -- poorer countries will decrease demand more and faster in response to price hikes than the US will.

[pgl]

Bob has an important point, but let me extend it. Simply because a nation has enough oil to supply its domestic energy needs is not a rational for not developing other forms of energy supply. After all, oil exports are an important source of revenues to purchase other goods. For example, the U.S. purchases more beef and wheat than we consume so we export these products to other nations in order to be able to import other products such as clothing, cars, fish, etc. without borrowing more than we already do. Now how would Condi Rice react if Iran told her that the U.S. must curtail wheat and beef production? Then again Treas. Sec. Snow seems to have no problem with the massive amount of borrowing we are already doing ...

[LiberalMinded]

This is a complete joke. We have zero ability to attack anyone at the moment and that's thanks to Idiot-in-Chief George Bush bankrupting us militarily (as he has also done financially).

Sure, he can send a couple of drones against some hut outside of Teheran but as we now see in Iraq, he (and we alas) don't have the forces should anything go awry. There's nothing to back us up. The best we can hope for is getting away with a sucker punch and what kind of strategy is that?

['As You Know' Bob]

Agreed: we do not have the conventional forces to attack Iran. But LiberalMinded forgets that George Bush posses nukes.

Obviously, in a sane world, nukes would be off the table. But this Bush Junta has already committed any number of war crimes - who's to say they wouldn't pull the nuclear trigger.

[christofay]

"The best we can hope for is getting away with a sucker punch and what kind of strategy is that?"

Why, that works to get elected in the U. S., so sucker punch it is then. We Americans, dolts, will be the ones paying the long term costs.

[David W.]

With all due respect to Josh Marshall, he was very much mistaken about the alledged threat posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein. We now know that Iraq posed no danger that was worth going to war over and that President Bush and others deliberately oversold the case for war. Therefore, ANY hypothetical justification for a war against Iran must be held to a far higher standard of scrutiny, especially by this administration.

[s9]

As long as we're playing parlor games on the topic of Iran, let me just say that I seriously think the most sensible approach at this junction— assuming the Bush Administration were suddenly, decisively and completely removed from power by lunch time tomorrow— is to sell them as much nuclear weapons technology and materiel as they're willing to buy at the best rates we can get for it. Fire sale at the munitions depo. That's my advice.

Maybe. Just maybe. They'll have a sobering up moment when they get their heads around what it really means to have the power to destroy the capability of the Earth to support human life in anything like comfortable numbers, and *then* they'll realize how we suckered them.

Nice job, Mahmoud... you just traded the milk cows for a handful of magic beans.

[Dubblblind]

Kevin Drum's article speaks to both why Iran would be interested in developing nuclear energy as an alternative to oil and why it would be insanity to nuke or even mess with Iran.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0506.drum.html

[fruitcake]

Likely scenario: Bush or Israel attacks Iran by air. Bush would initially only use bunker-busters. Iran stops their oil exports (except to China?) and blockades Hormuz. Maybe they also rocket some other mid-East facilities to stop additional production. Bush ships troops from Iraq to southern Iran to keep Hormuz open. Broad-based war in Iran. World economy sinks quickly - maybe with or without China skipping some treasury auctions.

Iran's actions may not seem totally rational unless you have a president like Ahmadinejad looking forward to the return of the hidden Iman and the Mahdi. Heck - maybe he thinks he is the hidden Iman, he is convinced he was surrounded by a holy glow when he addressed the UN.

[derrida derider]

"Why would a bomb attack by Israel drag the US into war with Iran?" - Barkley Rosser

Because the Iranian response would probably be to close the Straits of Hommuz and send large numbers of 'volunteers' into Iraq. Particularly as an Israeli air campaign (a single strike would be useless as the real targets are hidden, dispersed and hardened) would require lots of US involvement, including resupply, satellite reconnaissance and bases in Iraq.

The fact is that from their POV the Iranians need nukes badly to deter US aggression, so they'll be willing to pay a very high diplomatic and economic price to make sure they get them.

Paradoxically, one way the US could reduce this motivation and so make them more amenable to diplomatic and economic pressure is to encourage Russia to sell them modern conventional weapons so they won't fear attack so much. Indeed, that may be a secret part of the current Russian offer to the Iranians. It's the only way through that I can see.

[Nicholas Weaver]

Nuclear power (rather than nuclear weapons) would be better to wait: Currently it is just economically infeasible. Random guess: Iran especially would probably do better to spend the same money on solar. I don't know the numbers however and I'm too lazy to do a quick estimate for a random throwaway comment....

But even assuming nuclear, Iran would do better to wait. China has committed very heavily to pebble beds, which should be much cheaper and safer once the technology matures. Or if now, buy light-water reactor designs and build those.

But its not about power generation, its about national pride and building an infrastructure (even IF it is only civilian power generation at this time) which can lead to nuclear weapons. If it was about power generation, Iran would choose a different course, even assuming peak oil and gas.

[sm]

"Even if the Iraq war had not started and competent people inhabited the white house, an invasion of Iran by the US would be a losing proposition from the start. In current circumstances, any such threats are completely non-credible."

Where's the evidence that anybody can invade anyone successfully these days?

The situation in Iraq argues that you can blow up stuff as much as you wish, if you are the USA, but you can't control anything.

Afghanistan: has never had a powerful govt and so destroying it is no big challenge for a big power. But you can't control much of anything outside of suburban Kabul. You can indeed blow stuff up.

Iran: Stuff can be blown up. Then what?

It's time to start thinking about geopolitical strategies that don't involve spending vast amounts of money blowing things up.

[christofay]

Dear S9:

"Maybe. Just maybe. They'll have a sobering up moment when they get their heads around what it really means to have the power to destroy the capability of the Earth to support human life in anything like comfortable numbers"

We have a vice president, an entire RAND Corp within one brain, that has wrapped only a small portion of his preemptive comprehension around that and decided, heck, tactical missiles on the Iranian population centers can still spare the precious oil fields. someone has to make the bold decisions; the world changed on 9/...yadda, yadda, yadda.

[christofay]

Bush and Cheney, partially to divert our attention from the fiasco in Iraq, want to invade or simply nuke Iran. Work backwards, and I mean backwards, from that.

Good luck.

Bush talks to Jesus for us so we don't have to.

[Barkley Rosser]

slink,

Personally I find the idea of a nuclear weaponized Iran as only slightly scarier than the fact that Pakistan is, which most people are not losing sleep over, although they might if Musharraf were overthrown by a pro-Taliban-al-Qaeda coup.

However, I think the Israelis are damned scared, and given recent remarks by Ahmadenijad, I would say that they have reason to be scared, even if they possess an enormously powerful deterrent. If someone has a suicide bomber mentality, deterrence may not deter.

nicholas weaver,

Sure, although Iran's production is somewhat less than you claim, a complete shutdown of it certainly could spike world oil prices upwards noticeably, at least for awhile. But why would they do this if the Israelis, or even the US, bombed their facilities and then went away? The bombing would be over. The country they would hurt most by far would be themselves as their economy has numerous problems. A spike in oil prices would hurt a lot of countries, but a complete shutdown of exports by them would be catastrophic for only them.

Zahedi, below, is probably right on this, if not necessarily on some details. Ahmadanijad would probably love to have an Israeli air strike on Iran, if it did not do too much damage. Would give him all kinds of martyr cred and anti-Israeli fighter cred, which he seems to want. Useful distraction from internal problems.

kmd,

Yes, there has been this new axis developing. But it looks like A. in Iran is screwing up the deal with these latest shenanigans. For one thing the Russians have been promising to build a second reactor if the Iranians allow them to do the processing. It becomes the Russian guarantee to the world of Iran's peaceful intentions. Going it alone puts egg on Russia's face, not to mention threatening them with a loss of future business. China is probably less bothered, but blowing off the IAEA looks bad, and note everybody, both Russia and China are apparently supporting at least a referral to the UN SC.

fruitcake and derrida derrider,

As noted already, what does Iran gain from either shutting off its own oil exports or shutting down the Straits of Hormuz? It will be hurt more than any other country.

Shutting off the Straits of Hormuz becomes even more problematic. This would bring forth opposition from the entire rest of the Persian Gulf nations, including both Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They would support US military efforts to reopen and maintain the Straits, which could well entail permanent US occupation of the Iranian coastline in that area. That could be pulled off without a full-scale invasion of Iran.

Why would Iran send "volunteers" into Iraq? Would these Shi'i volunteers support a Sunni insurgency against a friendly Shi'i regime ultimately run by an Iranian (Sistani)? This is just nuts, although the worry that A. may be thinking in Hidden Imam terms may not be so far off. If so, then uh oh in general.

I see no reason why US facilities or even intel support would be needed for Israel to act against Iran alone, which I consider to be by far the most likely scenario. The Israelis went alone when they successfully bombed the Iraqi Osirak reactor and they only got a mild hand slap for that one. Their tech and intel are way superior now to what they were then, and they probably have at least some US intel co-op on this already as it is.

hj,

Probably the main motive besides national prestige and international Islamic leadership is for defensive deterrence. That we invaded Iraq but not North Korea is certainly part of the explanation here. However, if indeed A. is on a Hidden Imam trip or is really over the deep end on Israel rather than just mouthing off for internal political gain, then indeed the Israelis might have rational fears of him.

[Movie Guy]

Brad DeLong -- "What should be done to contain Iran is beside the point. The only relevant point is that whatever the Bush administration does to contain Iran will be incompetent and counterproductive"

Uh, huh.

Well, you had better hope that some other global heavies step up to the plate because we don't have much time on this one.

May already be too late.

[Knut Wicksell]

Somebody explain to me what the big risk of Iran's having nukes is, as compared to Israel and Pakistan's having them. It's not as if they have a strategic interest in attacking us. If there is going to be a war, somebody has to explain why it is in our national interest. That they are 'bad guys' is not what I would recognize as explanation. Causes, mechanisms, reasons. That is the stuff of argument. What is the argument?

[anon]

"If there is going to be a war, somebody has to explain why it is in our national interest. That they are 'bad guys' is not what I would recognize as explanation. Causes, mechanisms, reasons. That is the stuff of argument. What is the argument?"

The national interest of Israeli and the national interest of the US are _a priori_ identical, dontcha know?

[Cranky Observer]

> But why would they do this if the Israelis,
> or even the US, bombed their facilities and
> then went away? The bombing would be over.

Well, 3.5 years after 9/11 the United States is rampaging around Afghanistan, Iraq, and bits of Pakistan looking for culprits to punish. So I kind of get the impression that nation-states tend to be a tad, oh, touchy over violent attacks on their sovereign soil.

Cranky

[Movie Guy]

Knut Wicksell -- "Somebody explain to me what the big risk of Iran's having nukes is, as compared to Israel and Pakistan's having them."

Pakistan is a problem. Perhaps not as close to the edge as is Iran.

How screwed up is the leadership thinking in Iran? Here's the bottom line:

'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html

Iran's nukes and Hizbullah's rockets
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=21494

IDF: Iranian threat on Israel substantial
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3187457,00.html

The Iranian threat
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361047095&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Why the Iranian menace must be stopped
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/lweinstein/060115

[fruitcake]

I think Cranky's right. Iran will demand that the other Moslem countries start an oil embargo until the US is punished. They will attack those producers that don't participate. We can expect Iranian agents to sabotage where possible and to attack the US wherever they can. One has to assume that Iran has been planning for this eventuality ever since the axis of evil speech, or maybe before.

Is the US able to hold Hormuz to keep the oil flowing? Might make the Sunni insurrection look minor to permanently station troops in Iran. I think this will be another case of the administration seriously underestimating consequences. On the bright side it will give the world an early peak at the backside of the peak oil curve. Keep your bicycle handy.

[J Thomas]

"I see no reason why US facilities or even intel support would be needed for Israel to act agaI see no reason why US facilities or even intel support would be needed for Israel to act against Iran alone, which I consider to be by far the most likely scenario.inst Iran alone, which I consider to be by far the most likely scenario."

Well, it depends.

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/israel/iaf_current_inventory.htm
This seems to imply that an israeli attack would be done by somewhere between 211 and 313 fighter-bombers, who would be refueled by 10 tankers. They would surely violate various airspaces.

Their first job would be to attack the iranian air defenses. I don't know how hard that would be for them, no idea, and I have some doubt that anybody else knows. Interaction between secrets of two nations. Supposing all goes well, let's say they can suppress the defenses in 3 days of continuous operations -- fly to iran, get the ELINT guys to give you targets, bomb them, fly home, then a new pilot does it again while you rest up.

Then they would need to bomb well over a hundred hardened sites. Supposin it's one bomb to a plane, and supposing a 25% chance of an adequate hit with each attempt, that's another couple of days. Call it 8000 round trips. If they take the direct route they'll cross jordan and iraq. Jordan will register a complaint but can't afford to shoot at them. They'll be passing US airbases and probably going through the very areas we enforced as no-fly zones from turkey until a few years ago. If we don't ask them to cut it out, we're complicit right there.

Of course they could take the long way around, cross saudi arabia and loop south and then loop back up. Or go north and cross syria and turkey and then loop back south. That could stretch it out some, for no good purpose except to come in from a slightly-unexpected direction while the iranian defenses are still up.

So then, after each attack on a suspected nuclear site, they need to land somebody on the ground to check whether they actually got it. Assuming all the iranian ground forces are adequately pinned down, they could go in helicopters to do the inspections?

Meanwhile of course they'd be staging raids to take out enemy leaders, particularly the religious leaders who're believed to be really running the government. Also they'll be looking for nuclear scientists and technicians to eliminate. And they'd be attacking selected military units that are believed to support the government. And of course they'd need to take out power plants and phone exchanges and water works etc, which all can be used by the military or by radical fundamentalists or for that matter by terrorists. Some of that could be done by airstikes but others would need demolition teams in more helicopters.

A whole lot of logistics to take care of. Finally after a week or ten days it's all done and they make sure everything is packed up to go.

What possible value would be served by having israel's excellent but small airforce do this from israel? When the USAF is much larger and much closer, with bases in saudi arabia, qatar, kuwait, iraq, turkey, turkmenistan, kyrgyzstan, uzbekistan, afghanistan, and various carriers?

It would be hard for us to deny responsibility. We gave israel the bombs.

Anyway, Bush doesn't need to pass it off onto israel. Say we do it ourselves. And then iran naturally enough declares war on the USA. Then Bush has his war powers for the duration, nice and clear. Close to 2 million iranians in the USA. Talk about a security nightmare.... Any reason to think we'd keep much in the way of civil liberties until there was a peace treaty? Any reason to think there would be a peace treaty?

[wkwillis]

Half the Iranians in America live in California. Do you have any idea what would happen to California real estate values if we deported a million Iranians from California like we deported the Japanese back in the forties?

[No von Mises]

Barkley said, "However, I think the Israelis are damned scared, and given recent remarks by Ahmadenijad, I would say that they have reason to be scared, even if they possess an enormously powerful deterrent. If someone has a suicide bomber mentality, deterrence may not deter."

Please don't mention or give credence to those statements as if they signify a hastened development in geopolitics. In Iranian politics, yes, because Ahmadenijad says such to bolster his domestic position. Yet, it has little marginal intended affect. His statements are much like a Bush speech or press conference about freedom yadda yadda- all rhetorical nonsense. The only pieces that move after those statements is the Western press and frenzied talking heads/readers who file the story into their understanding of Iranian-Israeli-US relations, which, surprise, surprise, moves them closer to rational justification for knocking out the mullahs by guess who. Barkley, you mentioned the Strait of Hormuz and the consequences for Iran if it takes a proactive measure in that area. Wouldn't you say that the coastline is essentially occupied currently by the US? The Gulf and the Strait is completely littered with US and British warships (even prior to Iraq II). Iran has no offensive options in that area lest it desires annihilation. I agree with Knut, a nuclear Iran is, if you're thinking about aggregate global welfare, a marginal step towards that direction because it severely reduces the chances of an attack on Iranian soil and a justifiable, completely related to the attack, oil price shock. Of course, oil price shocks can occur independent of real changes in the oil market. Doesn't neoclassical economics conclude that monopolies arise, but they should be subject to more competition to minimize inefficiencies and manipulations? Isn't that precisely what the US wants- it's share of manipulative control over the nation-state nuclear market? More competition should yield a better social outcome (at least for the consumers)? Are the consumers us, you and I, who consume the safety premium that nuke possesses? If that's the case, more nukes is better, is it not? Afterall, the nuclear powers seemed to have pursued that line of thinking.

It might not be in the national interest, Knut, but in the interest of a few groups who hold alot of good cards. With that said, it'd be nice to see the mullahs go because they're going to milk every ounce of political capital out of the going nuclear issue as possible. Again, another domestic political tactic.

[Barkley Rosser]

J Thomas,

I think you wildly overstate what is involved for an Israeli strike. They did not knock out all air defenses or the leadership when they hit the Osirak reactor in Iraq. Of course they will not be able to knock everything out. But I imagine they can knock a bunch out with much less effort or difficulty than you promulgate.

no von Mises,

The US and Brits do currently control the Strait, but not the Iranian coast. It would be difficult for the Iranians to seriously block the Strait. Keep in mind; I forecast that they would not do so.

To one and all. I am not recommending or supporting a strike by either the US or Israel. I am simply forecasting that if Ahmadinejad does not go along with the deal the Russians are apparently cooking for him, the Israelis will hit Iran and will get away with it, just as they did in Iraq a quarter of a century ago.

[NinjaPlease]

You all seem to be forgetting that:

"There is a War on Christmas"

and because you've forgotten it, you all must be "giving comfort to our enemies," "who hate us, because they hate our freedom," not because we unilaterally support Israel, even if that's what Bin Laden said motivated him.

Also, despite what you've heard and read, the NSA program was only used to "listen in to incoming calls TO the USA to find terrorists," even though the NYT mentions yesterday that they received "no leads that they didn't already have through other means." I wonder if the "other means" is "torture in disused soviet jails in eastern europe." Well you see that's ok, because "they're enemy combatants, not soldiers, it's a technicality, you see?"

We are in a country, run by lawyers, who seem to find ways to justify their normally extra-legal actions. If Clinton had done 1/2 of these things the class of '94 republicans lead by their cheerleading pundits would have tied him to a cross and set him on fire.

[Ari]

"If Clinton had done 1/2 of these things the class of '94 republicans lead by their cheerleading pundits would have tied him to a cross and set him on fire."

Funny and true. Amazing how the war in Iraq has solved all our problems. Look how democracy and love has sprouted all over the Middle East. War will do that, I suppose.

[Ari]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/politics/17spy.html

January 17, 2006

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends
By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.

WASHINGTON - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy....

[Ari]

So for all the illegal spying, are we safer? Why could we not have gotten permission from the security court to monitor calls? The law is there for all of us, and evidently law breaking was of little use.

[johne]

I wrote Josh Marshall that a factor in the Iranian equation that is largely being ignored is the Abramoff affair. If that, plus all the other examples of malfeasance entering public perception, seem likely to result in the sort of Republican debacle that is being widely forecast for the next election, what better card to play than that of war? Even an abortive raid that can be at least temporarily billed as a "surgical" strike, with pusillanimous Democrats dutifully supporting the troops, might well reverse Republican fortunes, at least through election day.
In this administration, politics has always trumped policy.

[Ari]

I would be interested to know why Josh Marshall and a significant number of other knowledgeable people were so supportive of the war in Iraq when it was clear that Iraq was no threat to America. Why were they wrong? We controlled the air above Iraq, and controlled the waterways to the country. Inspectors could find no threat. We were able to bomb at will any time a radar installation locked on an American plane. Where was the threat to America?

[Arun Khanna]

Why doesn't the Bush administration acknowledge the source of the problem i.e. Pakistan's nuclear proliferation?
A sensible (though not so 'nice') foreign policy goal of U.S. should be encouraging Baluch freedom in Baluch dominated provinces in West Pakistan and East Iran (the provinces have common borders). This would involve providing funding and small arms including stingers. If it works, we will have contained both Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Republic of Pakistan. If it does not work, it will lead to a war between Iran and Pakistan. Either way, it helps contain the growing problem.

[liberal]

Arun Khanna wrote, "Why doesn't the Bush administration acknowledge the source of the problem i.e. Pakistan's nuclear proliferation?"

Because they're nominally our ally.

[liberal]

Ari wrote, "I would be interested to know why Josh Marshall and a significant number of other knowledgeable people were so supportive of the war in Iraq when it was clear that Iraq was no threat to America."

The blogger uggabugga had a diagram of the people and groups supporting an invasion of Iraq. Josh was a little island connected only to Ken Pollack. Accurate, and hilarious.

[liberal]

Movie Guy wrote, "Pakistan is a problem. Perhaps not as close to the edge as is Iran."

Huh? You're saying that with a straight face, given everything we now know about Pakistan's role in trafficking nuclear technology?

[Basharov]

"It would be difficult for the Iranians to seriously block the Strait."

Why do you think so? The Straits of Hormuz are only 15 miles wide. One Silkworm missile could sink a supertanker, and even if we were able to destroy all the Silworm launch sites (unlikely), what insurance company would underwrite insurance for the rest of the tankers that must travel through the Straits? And if he can't get marine insurance to insure against loss in the Straits, what shipowner in his right mind would send his $100 million supertanker into harm's way?

Something like 40% of the world's oil goes through the Straits of Hormuz. A war with Iran would mean that none of that 40% would be available for as long as the Iranians could hold out against air strikes.

An attack on Iran would be folly of the first order -- unless you think gasoline at $25 a gallon is a good idea.

[Ari]

Liberal and Anne, thank you.

Basharov, interesting and frightening. The hope is that Russia and China can defuse the situation.

[derrida derider]

What Basharov said, Barkley. Don't forget that, unlike the Iraqis, the Iranians will have planned for an air strike from the start of their nuclear program (unless it really IS all for peaceful purposes; given the track records their word has to be more credible than the US' on this stuff).

Closing the Straits only needs artillery, speedboats and/or mines, not sophisticated Silkworms; they'd reserve those for the US carrier force trying to relieve the beseiged Iraqi occupation.

That fine Israeli airforce is mainly geared to CAS and local air superiority, not sustained long-range strategic bombing. It would need *lots* of US support (especially resupply) for this.

[Arun Khanna]

Derrida Derider said: "That fine Israeli airforce is mainly geared to CAS and local air superiority, not sustained long-range strategic bombing. It would need *lots* of US support (especially resupply) for this."
Israel has F-16I which are capable of air to air refueling.

[J Thomas]

Barkley, I agree israel could do some sort of airstrike on iran without needing a lot of resources. They coul hit a few sites. If they limit it to hitting a few sites they could use various methods to sneak in, and quite possibly make it out again without being shot down.

But then iran would develop its nukes anyway, assuming (as seems reasonable to me) that they're developing nukes. It would amount to a publicity stunt by israel. That might be a good move. Israel needs to generate more political support among wingnuts, some of whom are starting to think that israel is a drain on the USA that doesn't actually help us much. It would be better to do that if iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, since they could claim that there had been one and they destroyed it, and nobody would search the wreckage sufficiently to disprove it. But if there was actually a nuclear program there, such an attack would make it harder for the USA to later do a successful attack.