-
Best Defense
Robots: Killing Our Warrior Spirit?
-
The Cable
Whistleblower: I'm Being Bullied By State Dept.
-
Passport
Syria: Is It the Sunnis' or Shiites' Fault?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - 4:39 PM
Share
If you'd like to read a textbook example of war-mongering disguised as "analysis," I recommend Matthew Kroenig's forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, titled "Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option." It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy, all the more surprising because Kroenig is a smart scholar who has done some good work in the past. It makes one wonder if there's something peculiar in the D.C. water supply.
There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war. First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don't act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice's infamous warnings about Saddam's "mushroom cloud"?) All this step requires is a bit of imagination and a willingness to assume the worst. Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren't that great. If you want to sound sophisticated and balanced, you acknowledge that there are counterarguments and risks involved. But then you do your best to shoot down the objections and emphasize all the ways that those risks can be minimized. In short: In Step 1 you adopt a relentlessly gloomy view of the consequences of inaction; in Step 2 you switch to bulletproof optimism about how the war will play out.
Kroenig's piece follows this blueprint perfectly. He assumes that Iran is hellbent on getting nuclear weapons (not just a latent capability to produce one quickly if needed) and suggests that it is likely to cross the threshold soon. Never mind that Iran has had a nuclear program for decades and still has no weapon, and that both the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran is pursuing an actual bomb. He further assumes -- without a shred of evidence -- that a nuclear-armed Iran would have far-reaching geopolitical consequences. For example, he says that other states are already "shifting their allegiances to Tehran" but doesn't offer a single example or explain how these alleged shifts have anything to do with Iran's nuclear program.
He also declares, "With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war." Huh? If this bizarre fantasy were true, why couldn't the former Soviet Union do similar things during the Cold War, and why can't other nuclear powers make similar threats today when they don't like a particular American initiative? The simple reason is that threatening nuclear war against the United States is not credible unless one is willing to commit national suicide, and even Kroenig concedes that Tehran is not suicidal. Nuclear weapons are good for deterring attacks on one's own territory (and perhaps the territory of very close allies), but that's about it. They are not good for blackmail, coercive diplomacy, or anything else. And if Kroenig is right in warning that an Iranian nuclear weapon might lead others to develop them too, then Iran would end up being deterred by the United States, by Israel, and by some of its other neighbors too. (As I've noted before, Iran's awareness of this possibility may be one reason why Tehran has thus far stayed on this side of the nuclear threshold.)
Kroenig also declares that a nuclear-armed Iran would force the United States to "deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East, keeping a large force in the area for decades to come." But why? Iran's entire defense budget is only about $10 billion per year (compared with the nearly $700 billion the United States spends on national defense), and it has no meaningful power-projection capabilities. Thus, contrary to what Kroenig thinks, containing/deterring Iran would not add much to U.S. defense burdens. The Persian Gulf is already an American lake (from a military point of view), and Washington already has thousands of nuclear weapons in its own arsenal. Given how weak Iran really is, containing or deterring them for the foreseeable future will be relatively easy.
The key point is that Kroenig offers up these lurid forecasts in a completely uncritical way. He never asks the probing questions that any security scholar with a Ph.D. should axiomatically raise and examine in a sophisticated manner. Instead, his article is a classic illustration of worst-case analysis, intended to make not going to war seem more dangerous than peace.
When he turns to the case for using force, however, Kroenig offers a consistently upbeat appraisal of how the war would go. (Needless to say, this is not the kind of analysis one would expect from a Georgetown professor.) He knows there are serious objections to his proposed course of action, and he works hard to come up with reasons why these concerns should be not be taken seriously. What if Iran has concealed some of its facilities? Such fears are overblown, he thinks, because our intelligence is really, really good. (Gee, where have we heard that before?) What about facilities that are hardened or defended? Not an insurmountable obstacle, he maintains, and in any case there are plenty of other facilities that are aboveground and vulnerable.
Isn't there a danger of civilian casualties? Well, yes, but "Washington should be able to limit civilian casualties in any campaign." What if Iran escalates by firing missiles at U.S. allies, ordering its proxies to attack Israel, or closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments? Not to worry, says Kroenig, "None of these outcomes is predetermined," and the United States "could do much to mitigate them." (Of course, none of the scary outcomes that Kroenig says would accompany an Iranian bomb are "predetermined" either.) Doesn't starting a war increase the risk of regional conflict, especially if Iran retaliates and Americans or Israelis die? Maybe, but not if the United States makes its own "redlines" clear in advance and if it takes prudent steps to "manage the confrontation." To do this we have to be willing to "absorb Iranian responses that [fall] short of these redlines" and reassure the mullahs that we aren't trying to overthrow them (!). Bombing another country is a peculiar way to "reassure" them, of course, and it's a bit odd to assume that those wicked Iranians will be cooperative and restrained as the bombs rain down. Won't Iran just reconstitute its nuclear program later, and possibly on a crash basis? It might, but Kroenig says that we would have bought time and that whacking the Iranians really hard right now might convince them to give up the whole idea. Or not.
You see the pattern: When Kroenig is trying to justify the need for war, he depicts an Iran with far-reaching capabilities and dangerously evil intentions in order to convince readers that we have to stop them before it is too late. But when he turns to selling a preventive war, then suddenly Iran's capabilities are rather modest, its leaders are sensible, and the United States can easily deal with any countermeasures that Iran might take. In other words, Kroenig makes the case for war by assuming everything will go south if the United States does not attack and that everything will go swimmingly if it does. This is not fair-minded "analysis"; it is simply a brief for war designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.
And let's be crystal clear about what Kroenig is advocating here. He is openly calling for preventive war against Iran, even though the United States has no authorization from the U.N. Security Council, it is not clear that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, and Iran has not attacked us or any of our allies -- ever. He is therefore openly calling for his country to violate international law. He is calmly advocating a course of action that will inevitably kill a significant number of people, including civilians, some of whom probably despise the clerical regime (and with good reason). And Kroenig is willing to have their deaths on his conscience on the basis of a series of unsupported assertions, almost all of them subject to serious doubt.
Kroenig tries to allay this concern by saying that the main victims of a U.S. attack would be the "military personnel, engineers, scientists, and technicians" working at Iran's nuclear facilities. But even if we assume for the moment that this is true, would he consider Iran justified if it followed a similar course of action, to the limited extent that it could? Suppose a bright young analyst working for Iran's Revolutionary Guards read the latest issue of Foreign Affairs and concluded that there were well-connected people at American universities and in the Department of Defense who were actively planning and advocating war against Iran. Suppose he further concluded that if these plans are allowed to come to fruition, it would pose a grave danger to the Islamic Republic. Iran doesn't have a sophisticated air force or drones capable of attacking the United States, so this bright young analyst recommends that the Revolutionary Guards organize a covert-action team to attack the people who were planning and advocating this war, and to do whatever else they could to sabotage the forces that the United States might use to conduct such an attack. He advises his superiors that appropriate measures be taken to minimize the loss of innocent life and that the attack should focus only on the "military and civilian personnel" who were working directly on planning or advocating war with Iran. From Iran's perspective, this response would be a "preventive strike" designed to forestall an attack from the United States. Does Kroenig think a purely preventive measure of this kind on Iran's part would be acceptable behavior? And if he doesn't, then why does he think it's perfectly OK for us to do far more?
Mario Tama/Getty Images
EXPLORE:THUMBS, MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, IRAN, MILITARY, NUKES, SECURITY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
high time that you asked Prof. Walt to submit thIs article of his as an op-ed in your newspaper (both print and online editions)!
You mean the IEDs that the US was never actually able to tie to Iran, and despite the fact that IED factories have been found in Iraq?
Marine, I agree with your take on Walt, but one little quibble
"No "conclusive" evidence Iran is building a nuke? Well, other than the Ayatollah's and Ahmedinijad's statements that they seek nuclear weapons....there is no "conclusive" evidence.
Iran wants us to believe they are building a nuke. They are doing whatever they can to provide evidence they are. Showing off even.
The problem being that they are at a stage in the process which no nation with actual intentions of building nuclear weapons ever advertises in such a fashion. Since they are in the enrichment phase, there is still a level of plausible deniability with useful idiots like Walt.
However, this is the stage when a nuclear weapons program is at its most vulnerable. It takes a lot of time and resources to produce enough high grade U-235 and/or plutonium for nuclear weapons. Every nation which developed nukes successfully hid its enrichment program as far underground as possible. The process is too expensive and time consuming to deal with prying eyes. The purpose of that is to surprise the world with a test, when the issue becomes moot.
It gives the impression that they are trying to deliberately provoke a conflict. First the backdoor support of Iraqi insurgents and now playing nuclear "chicken".
The US is not yet at war with Iran, but Iran is already at war with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The IED's in Iraq were not sent by Iran, but we're made locally. They found the factories in Iraq where they were being made.
That talking point was debunked 2 years ago.
The only useful inordinate is you spoof
>> Iran wants us to believe they are building a nuke. They are doing whatever they can to provide evidence they are. Showing off even.
Yeah, that would explain why there is no evidence of them building a nuke, as well as the declaration by their supreme leader that nukes as a violation of Islam.
>> Since they are in the enrichment phase, there is still a level of plausible deniability with useful idiots like Walt.
And the other useful idiots like you have been predicting that Iran was 6 months away carom a nuke since 1984.
>> It gives the impression that they are trying to deliberately provoke a conflict. First the backdoor support of Iraqi insurgents and now playing nuclear "chicken".
The insurgents were Sunni you idiot. The Iranians already have their hands on the leavers of power, why would they want to sabotage it?
Nutball sniper's real problem is
ED - not IED! Getting off over the prospects of bombing Iran is imaginative. The Journal of Urology might be interested! Seriously though, are idiots who think like him that common?
Neo-left is ignorant and beligerant
>>Yeah, that would explain why there is no evidence of them building a nuke, as well as the declaration by their supreme leader that nukes as a violation of Islam.
There has been plenty of evidence, Iran has been advertising it openly, along with rhetoric to the effect and missile tests. Their allegedly civilian nuclear program is far too small a scale to be legitimately used for providing power in a cost effective way for a country with the SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD.
I am not going to take seriously anyone countering with "its a violation of Islam". That is just ignorant prattle. This is the same leader who has made declarations of his intentions to use such weapons (if he had them) against all manner of "infidels"
>>>And the other useful idiots like you have been predicting that Iran was 6 months away carom a nuke since 1984.
You are not disagreeing with me on this statement. Neither of us think the Iranian nuclear program is genuine. You are just being a nasty-minded troll about it.
>>>The insurgents were Sunni you idiot. The Iranians already have their hands on the leavers of power, why would they want to sabotage it?
You ignorant moron, Al Sadr's militia were Shia. Maybe you forgot when US forces had to lay siege to a major mosque held by them. Maybe you should have read actual news of what was going on in Iraq.
Thank you good advice, will follow it.
The vast majority of US and coalition casualties were at the hands of Sunni fighers in Iraq and Afganistan, not connected to shiites that are supposedly taking orders from Iran. And You invaded another country and killed thousands of civilians and destroyed their country. You expected them to give you a parade and lob flower petals at you ?
For someone who keeps calling others fools, you seem to be making a lot of foolish statemens.
1. If you believed western (Israeli) assertions about Iran's nuclear program, then Iran would have had hundreds of warheads by now. Needless to say their "evidence" is self serving garbage.
2. Non of Iran's leaders have ever declared that they seek atomic weapons. Never happended. Only you and that intellectual giant Michelle Bachmann make this false statement repeatedly.
3. An aircraft carrier has many layers of defence and never, ever, sails alone. Your comment about a carrier being disabled by a speed boat is just ridiculous. You say you are a marine right? you should know better.
And if the Iranians are really as menacing and powerful that you make them sound in the rest of your post then maybe arm-chair generals like you should take the prospects of war a little more seriously.
No, fast boats, even large swarms cant take out an iarcraft carrier. To contend otherwise is idiotic. Do some research and you will see for yourself.
The shiites in the south did attack with IED's, but its their country and you weren't wanted.
Hey Sniper, how many children have you killed lately...?
The behavior of US troops in occupied Iraq and Afghanistan is simply beyond reprehensible. They routinely kill and abuse old people, children, women, etc...
My family lived through German occupation of Europe in World War 2 and the Nazi troops were gentlemen compared to the way US yahoos behave...it is unprecedented in the history of civilized warfare...
And speaking of the Nazis, their supreme war crime was that of aggression...same as the US in its many unprovoked and illegal wars of aggression...
Countless innocent folks in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia etc...have had their lives, homes and loved ones snatched from them by a bunch of wild-eyed monsters in uniforms who think it is a video game to gun down civilians in the street from a helicopter...
Why don't you print your real name here Mr. sniper man...?...a little cowardly are we...?
I guess you cant help it with that whole name calling things. So let me educate your dumb ass. The dingy blew up the USS cole, NOT a carrier. There is a BIG difference. I love the fact that even when you are completely wrong (no grey area here) you still hold on to your fool's pride.
And yes, when you invade a country and kill people they try to kill you back. Idiot!
#to blow up my fellow Marines# to quote you
I didn't know US Marines were HASBARAS!
So you can read, then your problem must be comprehension. Refering to a vessel much larger than a speed boat, does not equate to an aircraft carrieer and her many layers of defences. And this isn't the 1940's, speed boats or japanese zeros can not take out a modern aircraft carrier. May take out a frigate, maybe if they get lucky, but would end up losing nearly all their boats in the attack.
You are a complete fool who needs lessons in logic and reasoning. You first started by talking about the menace of Iranian fast boats being able to sink aircraft carriers. Now you are discussing cruise missiles. Very different weapon systems. Even with cruise missiles, it is almost impossible to hit a modern aircraft carrier because of all her defences and those of her escorts. Plus Aircraft carriers need not be in the pesian gulf, within range of any potential Iranian cruise missiles, to be effective in launching their planes. The above scenario envisioned a surprise attack on the US by Iran and ended with Iran losing with heavy losses. And the pentagon claimed later that all deficiencies pointed to in the excercise were being addressed. What ,all of sudden you don't take the pentagon at their word.
>>There has been plenty of evidence, Iran has been advertising it openly, along with rhetoric to the effect and missile tests. Their allegedly civilian nuclear program is far too small a scale to be legitimately used for providing power in a cost effective way for a country with the SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
1. Missile tests do. It mean a nuclear weapons program. Missiles can and do carry conventional warheads. Fail!
2. The civilian program is already on line and producing electricity. Fail!
3. The Ford administration states that it would be a wise strategy for Iran to diversify it's energy sources to nuclear. In fact, the US supplied their first reactor.
>. This is the same leader who has made declarations of his intentions to use such weapons (if he had them) against all manner of "infidels"
False. No Iranian leader has EVER even suggested using nukes.
>You are not disagreeing with me on this statement. Neither of us think the Iranian nuclear program is genuine. You are just being a nasty-minded troll about it.
False. You just argued that the size of Iran's enrichment program and their missile testing proved they had one.
Fail!
> You ignorant moron, Al Sadr's militia were Shia.
The Sadtists were not insurgents. Sadr actually ordered them to lay down their weapons.
Fail!
Stop trolling Spood and get educated.
>>No "conclusive" evidence Iran is building a nuke? Well, other than the Ayatollah's and Ahmedinijad's statements that they seek nuclear weapons....there is no "conclusive" evidence.
Hey Marine - please provide the statement
>> No "conclusive" evidence Iran is building a nuke? Well, other than the Ayatollah's and Ahmedinijad's statements that they seek nuclear weapons....there is no "conclusive" evidence.
From the Ayatollah's and Ahmedinijad that they are seeking nuclear weapons.
A link would be appreciated.
Oh, and feel free to link to evidence of IED's coming from Iran. By evidence, we're talking physical evidence, not baseless allegations from the US military.
thanks.
Marine Sniper: I hope you have learned how to boresight a rifle by now. A little information to slow down your stupidly bombastic bravado. William Caldwell was the first General to lie for Dick Cheney when he had a big press conference to show off the mortor rounds from Iran. The really smart reporters pointed out that Iran's smallest mortors were 107 mm and the ones he was showing them looked like US 81 mm shells with English markings. The Cheney crowd woud hype these lies to the nth degree to try to instigate an attack against Iran. A Marine Corp Major named Scott Ritter with the UN search teams would walk into an Iraqi Army classroom and see their lessons on IED's on the chalkboard before the US attack in early 2003. The Bush crowd wanted everyone to think the Iraqis were building nukes, but were too stupid to build IED's or EFP's. The Iraqi papers were reporting on the many locations in Iraq where these shaped charge explosive devices were being manufactured in garages or warehouses, even while General Petraeus was lying to Congress about their origin as Iran. The directions and schematics were easily available on the Global Security.org website. The basics only required a large tin can, a sheet of copper, plastic explosives, and a detonator. A person with a pair of tin snips and pliars could build a shaped charge device in less than 30 minutes. The shape of the copper cone would determine if the device fired a jet of metal or a slug of metal.
OK, now fess-up are you really a troll for AIPAC or WINEP?
James F. Jeffrey, the U.S. ambassador
Doesn't provide any eviden e whatsoever.
Simply claiming there is forensic evidence and not producing it is not evidence, it's propaganda.
The fact that he says "bolsters assertions" but does not say "proves" shows that this is more of the same BS.
In fact, he even admits they din't really have any evidence as such:
“We’re not talking about a smoking pistol. There is no doubt this is Iranian,”
All he mentioned in his statement was that id numbers we're linked to Iran, but even if true, all that proves is that they originated in Iran, not that Iran supplied them.
Remember
Hezbollah are known to use M16 semi automatics
Does this mean that the US is arming and training Hezbollah?
>> Here are quotes of Iranian leaders describing how they want to destroy Israel:
Destroy appears nowhere in any of those articles
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html
The while off the map quote was debunked 5 years ago. No such statement was made. Fail!
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
Calling for the end of the Zionist regime is nothing more than a call for regime change. Fail!
>> http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/iranian-army-chief-11-days-to
The statement was that Iran would destroy Israel if attacked. That's a legitimate threat. Fail!
>> Articles on Proof of Iranian weapons in Iraq:
That's hilarious. This is pure proaganda BS. Perhaps you might want to explain why an Iranianwepoan would have text in English and not Farsi.
Monumental fail!,
>> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-07/world/iraq.militias.iran.support_1_iranian-weapons-issue-of-iranian-involvement-baghdad?_s=PM:WORLD
U.S. military leaders says, but no evidence whatsoever provided. Fail!
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1542559/Iraqi-insurgents-using-Austrian-rifles-from-Iran.html
No kinks were ever produced to show that Iran supplied those rifles. The link in this story doesn't even show the rifles. Fail again!
Try looking up the definition of research.
You are deliberately misleading. Again and, I repeat, no US aircraft carrier was ever sunk in those war games from an attack by swarms of small boats. Period. Shore to sea ballistic and cruise missiles are not the same as swarms of small dingys. Missile have a small chance of getting a carrier, very small, and again aircraft carriers can simply stay in the indian ocean and avoid most of the trouble any potential iraian missiles may cause ( Iran's missiles would not have the accuracy to hit a moving object at those distances).
And if Iran is such a formidable naval might, then the US should just pack up and come home before it is dealth a humaliating defeat by "swarms of speed boats".
I'm still waiting for those statements by Iran's leaders about wanting nukes.
The Madhi Army militia were US backed you moron
They were fighting the Sunnis, not the US.
In fact, the death squads were all being supported by The US, ans Al Hakim was invited to Washington and met with Bush.
Next time quote some unbiased sources. No one who is it their right mind quotes CNN or NYT for what is really happening in the Middle East. How many dead Palestinians have they reported in the last month? Or how many attacks by settlers on West Bank Palestinians.
NYT in particular is notoriously biased. It's Jerusalem correspondent has a son in the IDF for instance.
So go to Juan Cole (a ME scholar) for what Ahmedinajad really said:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/ahmadinejad-i-am-not-anti-semitic.html
Please read more widely than this kind of crap!
Well, it's pretty obvious now...
This turdmouth who cloaks himself in the garb of a US marine is simply one of thousands of online trolls employed by Israeli propaganda machine to make noise for more war...paid for by blood of actual Marines...
That's pretty disgusting...
First Clue...the time stamp of his posts shows he is not on North American time...
Second Clue...all the links he provided are pure AIPAC-planted media garbage...
Third Clue...His personality is the exact opposite of the typical Marine, who aren't known for running their mouths off at 100 miles per hour...
Three Strikes, Your Outta Here...
By Bye Hasbara...Your busted wide open...
First, if you're going to use the regalia of the Marine Corps to bring "credibility" to your laughable arguments, then don't half-ass it - let us know your identity so we can verify your position of authority.
Second, an objective view of your postings reveal that you're most likely a Zionist shill trying to pose as a marine. For instance, your ad hominem name calling, your use of talking points that are clearly invalid and do not check out, your supplying of links that do not say anything close to what you purport they say, your enunciation of propaganda that has been cleared and dismissed in any serious circles, and, finally, your narration of a story that runs completely counter to what even the Pentagon and any spokesman from the Marine Corps even states -- surviving that those statements, too, have not been supported by any fact.
So, how do countries act when their troops are being killed by another UN member state? They take the evidence to Interpol. That's what the Iranians did with the TANGIBLE drone that they caught. The Obama Administration didn't take the Saudi Assassination plot nor the "IED" case to Interpol, the ICC, or any other international body. Why? It's propaganda. There is no tangible evidence.
And your touting of it, plus the old "anti-Semite" card to shield Israel and its WAR MONGERING interests from honest criticism, makes it obvious who you really are. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of the two running the SITE propaganda institute that supplies the fake Bin Laden tapes and runs Jihad forums.
I wrote you a reply IMPOSTER. This is how low Israel is - to fake American Marine identities on the internet. We see through you.
I too once thought that marinesniper was faking it but this latest exchange lends a certain validity to his credentials. His profanity and boorishness certainly is consistent with an enlisted man. But more importantly he is knowledgeable about military details; sorry msam and neoleft he has a better understanding of this area than you guys do.
What made me suspect his marine credentials was that he looked like a rabid Zionists. Sorry, but military inclined Zionists, even if American, do not serve in the US Marines -- they go into the IDF. However, this hatred of Iran makes more sense -- he sees Israel as an important ally in that war. Also if he fought in Iraq this hatred of Iran also makes some kind of sense. If no one has noticed, but the US has just retreated its troops from the Iraq without achieving any kind of victory. Our strategic position is now weaker after nearly a decade of war -- in any way you add that up it means we lost. We failed to assert our will on the enemy. Of course, Iraq also lost big time but without doubt Iran's strategic position has improved. The remnants of the the Iraq state is now, to a certain degree, allied and directed by Iran. That is, Iran won without having to commit its own military.
I do not question Mr Marine's case that Iran supported the insurrection. It just makes too much sense. Trickle in a few small weapons, just enough to keep US troops tied down but not too many to provoke the US into an all out attack against Iran. The US was forced to play down Iran's involvement once we had made the decision not to extend the war into Iran. After all, if the American public was fully aware that Iran was providing support for forces that were killing American soldiers this would create political pressure to go to war against Iran. This is not what our military wanted to do so the story was played down. Troops on the ground, however, could see the evidence.
It was Admiral Fallon who most strongly made the case against escalating the war into Iran. I think all peace loving Americans should be grateful that the good Admiral did this for us. Also, I believe, the reason that he opposed expanding the war was his awareness that the Iranians do have the ability to sink US warships in the Gulf. Again, I agree completely with the marine that Iran is armed with Russian designed cruise missiles that can evade any antimissile defense that our Navy possesses. (Google sunburn-22, ss-n-22, Persian Gulf to get the picture). If we wanted to attack Iran the prudent thing would be to withdraw our Navy from the Persian Gulf before hand. That would not look good for the Navy so best not to go to war.
I have two nephews who are active duty Navy NCO's who have helped me understand some of this stuff. I strongly oppose this crazy Iran war idea, from both a general political philosophy as well as the obvious desire to see no harm come to my family.
Oh okay, so he's faking being a Marine
All of what I wrote in my post is true. None of his statements check out and they are false propaganda points that even the Marine Corps doesn't make.
It matters really not what your opinion is. If he's willing to use the regalia and reputation of the US Marine Corps to bolster his argument (since it comes with ZERO actual evidence), then he should show us his credentials and identification.
Otherwise, he is straight up a shill - a poser - and probably one that should be pretending to be part of the IDF instead since that's his side.
"All of what I wrote in my post is true. "
No, it is reasonable conjecture, which I also considered to be plausible. I offered an alternative conjecture.
I believe the massive amounts of material left unguarded by the Bush administration is to blame for the IEDs. If you believe that blame for IEDs is a rationale for attack, you should also turn our attention to the Bush admin handling of the post-invasion security.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1101-22.htm
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/26/explosives_were_looted_after_iraq_invasion/
etc. ... just google something like unguarded weapons cache iraq and you'll find more.
Iranian war is global disaster
Iran will under no circumstances launch any aggressive war against the US, in part because it is surrounded on all sides by major US armies, air and naval forces in Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf.
In truth, debate about a new war against Iran is entirely motivated by the question of Zionism, which is racism and unending war.
A new war with Iran, Egypt, Turkey, or repeatedly devastating Lebanon, killing more and more Palestinians, dispossessing millions from home and homeland, penning up the remainder like animals in the West Bank and the Gaza ghetto, can never secure Israel. If by those means they could have, they would have by now. This is NOT an opinion. It is an observation. There is no military solution.
There is however, military disaster.
Iran has no power projection capabilities? WHAT? Hezbollah is effectively an arm of the Iranian military in Lebanon. The Hezbollah are trained, led, and equipped by Iran, and ready to take Iranian orders on a moment's notice. The shiite militias (along with Iraqi shiite politicians) are trained and organized and run by Iran.mkv converterMKV ConverterYouTube Converter for MacYouTube To MP4 ConverterPdf Converter for MacPDF Editor for MacPDF Editor for MacPdf Converter for Mac
Palestinian Hamas is equipped and trained by Iran and often in Iran. And, when Iran wants to just reach out and touch someone, it can send terrorists to blow up things like the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (and stir up the shiite minority there, which it frequently does) or the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Why Iran's power to choke the Hormuz is overblown.
I agree with some of your views but you should read this "USMarine sniper" http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/12/the_strait_dope?page=full
Any polemic which argues for a different result than AIPAC is arguing for is 'Jew-baiting,' right? In other words, criticism can be fair, but if it's contrary to the Likud party's right wing, it's racist... right?
Just want to see where you've drawn the lines.
also - the Iranian leadership has indicated they're working on a nuclear weapon? Are you sure? How's your Farsi?
Got a link to anything showing that they made this claim that isn't simply another assertion {i.e. where's the beef?}.
p.s. Rangers lead the way.
"This alone is an act of war and we should have retaliated, "
Good thing the USSR had far more level-headed strategists than USMARINE back in the 1980s, when the USA was funnelling all sorts of nasty weaponry into Afghanistan.
Otherwise, of course, the commie version of USMARINE would have been advocating an attack upon America "never mind the nuclear issue".
I would also suggest that it is a very good thing that the USA didn't follow USMARINE's dubious arguments in 1950 (when the USSR was sending state-of-the-art MIG-15 jets across the Yula River), or in the 1960's (when the godless commies were arming North Vietnam to the hilt).
Because, of course, under USMARINE-logic (I know, I know..) both of those examples fully justified the USAF going gangbusters on Russia.
"How much easier it would be to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan if we didn't have to ride around worrying about shaped charges that shoot a jet of molten metal at our Humvees, courtesy of Iran."
I believe the Soviets held to the same point of view as they watched their helicopters being blasted outta the skies of Afghanistan curtesy of clandestinely delivered stinger missiles.
But they never took that as an invitation to bomb New York or Washington.
How odd, heh?
"Ayatollah's and Ahmedinijad's statements that they ....
....seek nuclear weapons".
When, exactly, have they made any such statements?
A nuclear INDUSTRY, sure.
But nuclear WEAPONS?
When, exactly?
You conveniently forget that it was the US that provided Sadam Hussein of Iraq the poison gas to use against Iranian troops during the Iraq - Iran war. As a matter of fact it was your buddy Donald Rumsfeld who brockered the deal.
What would you say if some country had done that for a US enemy during a time of war?
It is an extremely bad idea to think about attaching Iran. This would probably be even more disastrous than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, the majority of the world's supply of oil could be cut off for a long period of time. How to Tell if a Guy Likes You
Sniper does not know his history
If you were in Iran & you knew that the US had just invaded your neighbor what would you do? The US & the UK have tried for years to gain control of the Iranian Oil supply by first overthrowing a democratically elected government & then running the puppet Shah into torturing his own people with US permission as long as the OIL flow kept coming. But even the CIA knew in 1976 that a Islamic revolution was coming & no one listened.
So good the Iranians for taking back their own oil & their won country.
But you are just another one of the uneducated soldiers in the military who doesn't know you are not defending America you are defending the United States of Exxon & Mobil & General Electric. The Jihadists you fight against see you as INVADERS & themselves as defenders of Liberty. But YOU simply don't get it. You see things in reactionary black & white. You see things how the military WANT you to see them so you & your buddies will go DIE for them while all the rich people in the US keep their kids at home.
If you stopped & thought about it you might understand what I am writing but guess is you are just TOO eager to kill yourself "sum Eye-RAIN-knee-ans". Wake up & smell the coffee son before more people needlessly die. This si the best advice you will ever get on this subject.
Agree. N Y Times, do not miss the opportunity to engage Prof. Walt as a Contributing Writer on the Opinion Pages. (Or perhaps the Washington Post will steal him.)
"shifting their allegiances to Tehran"
Presumably he is referring to Iraq.
Attacking Iran By Leading From Behind
The point is ... no troops on the ground. I think I have solved the problem!
It would be too costly, in terms of manpower and money, for the US to attempt to get rid of the Iranian mullahs by itself. Instead, using the partition of Yugoslavia as a model, the US will bomb Iran, giving cover to local separatist groups such as the Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis and you guessed it the Arabs bordering on southern Shia dominated Iraq (where all the Iranian oil is). When Washington makes it known to all concerned that it will break Iran into pieces, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iraqi Kurdistan, and you guessed it the Shia in Iraq will join the US and all descend on Iran to get their part of the spoils. Similar to the German invasion of Yugoslavia during WW2.
Iran's infrastructure will be destroyed, it oil province gone. Its Persian population representing 60% of current Iran will have lost the will to carry on.
For Afghanistan you could let Pashtuns in south join Pakistan, the north consists of Uzbeks, Tajiks and Turkmen who will all join their respective country. That leaves the small Hazara Shia minority in the middle which would be very happy to be independent or join with Iran
Pakistan, with the inclusion of ALL Baluchis and ALL Pashtuns in one state will be larger (bigger is always better), more stable, more powerful vis-a-vis India and by necessity be more decentralized and more democratic. No one can lord it over anyone else
Don't thank me now, thank me later!
This is profound! I bet you also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
This is not a chess game. Forget the Grand Chessboard and that black logic. I have to wonder what the common mans reaction will be when oil goes up to 200 dollars or higher a barrel. Why do some of the elite just want to jump off a cliff like a lemming? You don't have to worry, I am sure there will be some moronic terror plot to be blamed on Iran.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(181)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE