Comments on: The Consequences Of Success In Iran. http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: JP http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12475 JP Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:56:50 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12475 Besides, most experts say they're years from making a bomb! Slow down, Tex! Besides, most experts say they’re years from making a bomb! Slow down, Tex!

]]> By: JP http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12474 JP Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:55:56 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12474 I am not comfortable with the idea that Cheney/Bush Inc. will allow enough time for diplomatic solutions. If it's like the buildup to Iraq, they already know when they're going into Iran, they're just putting on a show of diplomacy for the rest of the world. Agreed this needs to be tabled and discussed by intellectual experts, not "guys you'd rather have a beer with," before we get ourselves into another huge mess. I am not comfortable with the idea that Cheney/Bush Inc. will allow enough time for diplomatic solutions. If it’s like the buildup to Iraq, they already know when they’re going into Iran, they’re just putting on a show of diplomacy for the rest of the world.

Agreed this needs to be tabled and discussed by intellectual experts, not “guys you’d rather have a beer with,” before we get ourselves into another huge mess.

]]> By: GN http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12425 GN Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:22:40 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12425 MR - a very considered and perceptive post ... I am thinking that the wacker in Iran spouts a lot of retoric for the benefit of the crowds and his own ego .... but consider this .... Why hasn't this guy attacked the Jewish State? Why hasn't Pakistan used the bomb? or India? or, for that matter, Korea? most of the whackers are ego driven ... this guy has no more of a religious fanatical bent than ... well, Michael Reynolds ... but he is running a pretty good scam on the rest of the world and his own people. I measure the danger factor on these folks by the potential to create a movement due to instability. Adolph Hitler was able to start a movement whereby he garnerred not just "support" but "loyalty" because he had a singular vision in his mind that gave him inense mental power. He was able to nearly destroy a race and in addition brought the world to their collective knees over a vast geography. Osama Bin Laden has been able to do the same thing. No one in the Muslim history has ever achieved the loyalty and impact over such a vast geography. He is the danger ... and as you noted in your post on MM the other day ... it is unsettling that we haven't dealt with him. The wild card in your scenario is George Bush ... If he straps on the spurs and saddles up with the imposition of a plan like the one you described it will be because of his sense that he has already received the blessing of congress to do whatever it takes to fight the WOT. We will be in deep sh*t if he does that ... at this point I don't believe that he would get approval from congress to change the batteries in the Oval Office wall clock, but he hasn't seemed to need there permission for much. With Bush and company out of the equation the Iran thing could be handled with "cold war" tactics. It is all a little scary ... no ... mor than a little scary. MR – a very considered and perceptive post … I am thinking that the wacker in Iran spouts a lot of retoric for the benefit of the crowds and his own ego …. but consider this …. Why hasn’t this guy attacked the Jewish State? Why hasn’t Pakistan used the bomb? or India? or, for that matter, Korea? most of the whackers are ego driven … this guy has no more of a religious fanatical bent than … well, Michael Reynolds … but he is running a pretty good scam on the rest of the world and his own people. I measure the danger factor on these folks by the potential to create a movement due to instability. Adolph Hitler was able to start a movement whereby he garnerred not just “support” but “loyalty” because he had a singular vision in his mind that gave him inense mental power. He was able to nearly destroy a race and in addition brought the world to their collective knees over a vast geography.

Osama Bin Laden has been able to do the same thing. No one in the Muslim history has ever achieved the loyalty and impact over such a vast geography. He is the danger … and as you noted in your post on MM the other day … it is unsettling that we haven’t dealt with him.

The wild card in your scenario is George Bush … If he straps on the spurs and saddles up with the imposition of a plan like the one you described it will be because of his sense that he has already received the blessing of congress to do whatever it takes to fight the WOT. We will be in deep sh*t if he does that … at this point I don’t believe that he would get approval from congress to change the batteries in the Oval Office wall clock, but he hasn’t seemed to need there permission for much. With Bush and company out of the equation the Iran thing could be handled with “cold war” tactics. It is all a little scary … no … mor than a little scary.

]]> By: Brian in MA http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12418 Brian in MA Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:51:13 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12418 Not Al Gore or Hillary. Al Gore is the same guy who flies to Saudi Arabia and fabricates stories about America in a sensitive time for us in the middle east. I wouldn't trust Al Gore with guarding a woman's purse, nevermind a war. The same for that two-faced idiot John Effing Kerry. When he's not busy accusing our troops of commiting atrocities he's getting 5 star hotel treatment and lifetime tenure in Massachusetts office. Hillary isn't as traitorous but still extremely duplicitous and a vapid race-baiter. Howard Dean is already convinced we are doomed to failure. Lets face it, The Democrats have noone to run who has any credibility whatsoever. McCain is the only viable and electable option as I see it. Not Al Gore or Hillary. Al Gore is the same guy who flies to Saudi Arabia and fabricates stories about America in a sensitive time for us in the middle east. I wouldn’t trust Al Gore with guarding a woman’s purse, nevermind a war. The same for that two-faced idiot John Effing Kerry. When he’s not busy accusing our troops of commiting atrocities he’s getting 5 star hotel treatment and lifetime tenure in Massachusetts office. Hillary isn’t as traitorous but still extremely duplicitous and a vapid race-baiter. Howard Dean is already convinced we are doomed to failure.

Lets face it, The Democrats have noone to run who has any credibility whatsoever. McCain is the only viable and electable option as I see it.

]]> By: Bob J Young http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12409 Bob J Young Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:53:10 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12409 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is certainly acting nuts. The whole, “I've got a magic auraâ€Â?, thing is scary, but is it real? After all Bush touted the whole compassionate conservative thing. The mullahs on the other hand , seem to be very attached to money an power. Wasn't the corruption of the mullahs the reason Ahmadinejad won the election? President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is certainly acting nuts. The whole, “I’ve got a magic auraâ€Â?, thing is scary, but is it real?
After all Bush touted the whole compassionate conservative thing.
The mullahs on the other hand , seem to be very attached to money an power. Wasn’t the corruption of the mullahs the reason Ahmadinejad won the election?

]]> By: Michael Reynolds http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12367 Michael Reynolds Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:10:06 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12367 Bob: You may be right. I listened to an NPR story in the car today where someone -- sorry, wasn't paying that close attention -- was saying that some at the Pentagon believe we can deter a counterattack from Iran. In other words, they think we can destroy the nuke facilities, and then, by threatening escalation, convince the Iranians to let it go. The obvious question is why a conventional decapitation air strike would deter them from launching suicide bombers, but nuclear annihilation -- the likely response to an Iranian nuclear attack on us -- somehow would not deter them. I don't trust religious nuts. I wouldn't trust Pat Robertson with a nuke, and I certainly don't trust the mullahs. Stalin was all about power and survival -- not sure these guys are that rational. Bob:
You may be right. I listened to an NPR story in the car today where someone — sorry, wasn’t paying that close attention — was saying that some at the Pentagon believe we can deter a counterattack from Iran. In other words, they think we can destroy the nuke facilities, and then, by threatening escalation, convince the Iranians to let it go. The obvious question is why a conventional decapitation air strike would deter them from launching suicide bombers, but nuclear annihilation — the likely response to an Iranian nuclear attack on us — somehow would not deter them.

I don’t trust religious nuts. I wouldn’t trust Pat Robertson with a nuke, and I certainly don’t trust the mullahs. Stalin was all about power and survival — not sure these guys are that rational.

]]> By: Bob J Young http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12362 Bob J Young Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:20:33 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12362 Michael : For the most part I agree with what your saying. However, I do think your underestimating the damage that can be caused in the gulf. It's shallow and narrow at spots and sinking a couple of ships could put it out of operation for a long time. That means no oil comes out, and no supplies get to our troops in in Iraq. Is this situation really any different that when Stalin got the bomb? I think we should be considering a cold war not an attack. Michael : For the most part I agree with what your saying.
However, I do think your underestimating the damage that can be caused in the gulf. It’s shallow and narrow at spots and sinking a couple of ships could put it out of operation for a long time. That means no oil comes out, and no supplies get to our troops in in Iraq.

Is this situation really any different that when Stalin got the bomb?
I think we should be considering a cold war not an attack.

]]> By: Bob Aman http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12340 Bob Aman Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:18:10 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12340 Wesley Clark, sure... Maybe, <em>maybe</em> McCain. But I think he wants the job too badly. I never trust someone who <em>really</em> wants the job. Hillary, heck no! Again, same principle, magnified ten times, then compounded with the fact that she's the senator from my state and all my encounters with her office thus far have been incredibly negative. Not a fan. I like Ron Paul, and if I could, I'd vote for him for just about any office except president, unless he moderates the libertarianism a wee bit. But since he's probably not going to run for that office again... <shrug> I don't like Kerry, Edwards, Gore, or Warner for the job. I might vote for Warner, but only if the Republicans came up with really lousy candidates. Right now, Chuck Hagel would be my preferred pick. No doubt about it. Wesley Clark, sure… Maybe, maybe McCain. But I think he wants the job too badly. I never trust someone who really wants the job. Hillary, heck no! Again, same principle, magnified ten times, then compounded with the fact that she’s the senator from my state and all my encounters with her office thus far have been incredibly negative. Not a fan. I like Ron Paul, and if I could, I’d vote for him for just about any office except president, unless he moderates the libertarianism a wee bit. But since he’s probably not going to run for that office again… <shrug> I don’t like Kerry, Edwards, Gore, or Warner for the job. I might vote for Warner, but only if the Republicans came up with really lousy candidates.

Right now, Chuck Hagel would be my preferred pick. No doubt about it.

]]> By: Bob Aman http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12336 Bob Aman Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:03:24 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12336 "We don’t need to be confident of obliterating every last element in the system, we just need to break enough pieces of the whole that the whole no longer functions." I've been thinking exactly along these lines ever since it was first pointed out how spread out the facilities are. Additionally, even if the bombs fail to fully destroy a complex, partial destruction is quite probably sufficient in many cases, with a few obvious exceptions, such as the critical enrichment facilities. The real question is how dangerous Iran will be after we bomb them and they retaliate <em>without</em> nuclear weapons. “We don’t need to be confident of obliterating every last element in the system, we just need to break enough pieces of the whole that the whole no longer functions.”

I’ve been thinking exactly along these lines ever since it was first pointed out how spread out the facilities are. Additionally, even if the bombs fail to fully destroy a complex, partial destruction is quite probably sufficient in many cases, with a few obvious exceptions, such as the critical enrichment facilities.

The real question is how dangerous Iran will be after we bomb them and they retaliate without nuclear weapons.

]]> By: GN http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12332 GN Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:40:46 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12332 I would feel comfortable with Clark. then McCain. Not so sure about Gore. Hillary is a yes. Definitely not Bush!! I would feel comfortable with Clark. then McCain. Not so sure about Gore. Hillary is a yes. Definitely not Bush!!

]]> By: anna http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12328 anna Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:00:09 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12328 I would say Fallows has a must read. Some of us still remember his "iraq our 51st state" as well as "blind into Baghdad." http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran/2 I would say Fallows has a must read. Some of us still remember his “iraq our 51st state” as well as “blind into Baghdad.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran/2

]]> By: Michael Reynolds http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12319 Michael Reynolds Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:32:53 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12319 Brian: If you think Bush is competent, honest and not prone to panic you're seeing a very different world than most of us. This is a terrible president, a historic embarrassment to this country's voters. I went along with Mr. Bush's Iraq war -- I won't get fooled again. Jimmy: On the GOP side I would trust McCain or Hagel with this, certainly. On the Dem side my first choices for this particular issue would be Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark. But I'd also actually trust Hillary, maybe Mark Warner, John Kerry or Al Gore. (I don't know nough about Edwards on foreign policy, but I have to mention him since he's living here in my subdivision.) Brian:
If you think Bush is competent, honest and not prone to panic you’re seeing a very different world than most of us. This is a terrible president, a historic embarrassment to this country’s voters. I went along with Mr. Bush’s Iraq war — I won’t get fooled again.

Jimmy:
On the GOP side I would trust McCain or Hagel with this, certainly. On the Dem side my first choices for this particular issue would be Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark. But I’d also actually trust Hillary, maybe Mark Warner, John Kerry or Al Gore. (I don’t know nough about Edwards on foreign policy, but I have to mention him since he’s living here in my subdivision.)

]]> By: Brian in MA http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12311 Brian in MA Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:47:21 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12311 If we're waiting for someone who is competent, honest, and not prone to panic, then Bush is already here. The Democrats have noone who fits that description since their current "clear vision" involves "Bush is evil, send us money" and apparently to have Mexico vote Democrat in US elections. So basically do you think McCain could pull it off? If we’re waiting for someone who is competent, honest, and not prone to panic, then Bush is already here. The Democrats have noone who fits that description since their current “clear vision” involves “Bush is evil, send us money” and apparently to have Mexico vote Democrat in US elections.

So basically do you think McCain could pull it off?

]]> By: Jimmy the Dhimmi http://donklephant.com/2006/04/11/the-consequences-of-success-in-iran/comment-page-1/#comment-12307 Jimmy the Dhimmi Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:13:21 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=2097#comment-12307 The timing of such attack would be critical. It would certainly be considered an act of War by Iran and there would be a response against our military bases in Kuwait, and our outposts in Iraq (using terrorists or ballistic missles ect.) If the intelligence reports tell us that Iran is still a few years from building a bomb, It might be wise to hold off until we can withdraw most of our troops from combat zones in Iraq. I think the Europeans are getting sick of Muslims' sh** right now, and a 9/11 type attack on another European city might actually tilt european society back in our favor. Plus, nobody disputes Iran's pursuit of WMD this time. It also depends on who is president in 2008, if we can hold off an attack until then. So far, the only Democratic candidate that might have the BALLS to strike Iran is Hillary Clinton! I think we are doomed. The timing of such attack would be critical. It would certainly be considered an act of War by Iran and there would be a response against our military bases in Kuwait, and our outposts in Iraq (using terrorists or ballistic missles ect.) If the intelligence reports tell us that Iran is still a few years from building a bomb, It might be wise to hold off until we can withdraw most of our troops from combat zones in Iraq.

I think the Europeans are getting sick of Muslims’ sh** right now, and a 9/11 type attack on another European city might actually tilt european society back in our favor. Plus, nobody disputes Iran’s pursuit of WMD this time.

It also depends on who is president in 2008, if we can hold off an attack until then. So far, the only Democratic candidate that might have the BALLS to strike Iran is Hillary Clinton! I think we are doomed.

]]>