John Abizaid is wrong about a nuclear Iran and so is the UN.
I've noticed something about people. When provided an out in a sticky situation, people tend to take it, regardless of future consequences. This is known as a dynamic inconsistency, a situation where people's preferences change over time. A great example is the high school kid who drops out. His present self is thrilled with the decision to sleep late and watch daytime TV as opposed to buckling down in class, but his future self likely won't be nearly as happy with the reduced ability to earn as life goes on. Generally speaking, it's much better to consider your future self, and not the immediate happiness of the present self, when making long range decisions.…
Article comments
176 - Zedd
Doc,
I was feeling colorful at the moment. I love the phrase "inflationary metaphors". I suppose with advancement taking place in just about every aspect of our experiences, bells and whistles going off all over the place, one has to overstate in order to be heard. Wow, I think I understand Ruvy better now.
177 - Ninja
Obnoxious:
“Terrorism is a tactic for sure.”
You got that right, but it’s clear you really don’t get it. Most of the attacks around the world which are terrorist in nature can be traced to some state action that instigated it. The tactic has always been around and it probably always will be. It’s a tactic, nothing more.
“But the war on terror isn't against the IRA or any of the other groups you've cited, it's about Islamic fundamentalists who are willing to die in order to destroy our society.”
You conveniently forget that 20 years ago al-Qaeda did not exist and that bin Laden was our friend. You have to understand what happened to change that.
“If you think that there is some equality between the type of attacks carried out by the IRA (who were fighting for their independence) and attacks by al-Qaeda and their ilk (designed to enforce Islamic dominance over the world), you are seriously deluded.”
The equality is obvious. It’s independence. Keep in mind that 25 years ago Hamas and Hezbollah did not exist. You have to understand what happened in Lebanon and the occupied Palestine lands that caused these groups to form.
“As far as the USS liberty, clearly you are missing the point so I will attempt to make this as clear as possible.”
Your response did nothing to clarify it. I asked why was the USS Liberty attack swept under the Congressional carpet? There are 174 American survivors and the families of 34 dead Americans who still care very much -- just as they have cared for the past 40 years. Why, for over 40 years, has the US Congress refused to grant the survivors and the families of the dead a hearing?
If you google “USS Liberty” you will get 221,000 hits.
Come back when you learn something.
178 - Biff
More paranoia.
I hope it's your or your kids that get shipped off to Iran to baby sit them after regime change.
179 - Lev
Last I heard, Iran was an independent country. Meaning it doesn't have to get approval from the ignorant fascist U.S. or from anyone else before they decide to develop whatever kinds of weapons they want and whatever kind of electricity generation they want. The world will be a much better place when Americans realise that they don't own it.
Furthermore, just what the hell is America going to do if Iran DOES develop nukes? Huh? It's bogged down in Iraq and couldn't spare a battalion if there was a crisis in Haiti let alone trying to bully Iran. It would have to be with air power alone and if you think that American air power is going to be able to crush Iran or even destroy its capacity to develop nukes, keep dreaming.
If the U.S. launches airstrikes against Iran four things will happen just about immediately:
1.Iran will close the Strait of Hormuz with sea mines covered by anti-ship missile batteries, meaning no oil tankers leaving the Gulf, meaning the price of gas is going to go through the roof overnight; 2.Iran will turn the Persian Gulf into a shooting gallery and sink every U.S. Navy ship in it inside of an afternoon using anti-ship cruise missile batteries, well-positioned in the mountains all along the Iranian littoral, including the latest Russian ones that skim just above the wavetops and take evasive manouevres just before impact, and against which the U.S. Navy has NO COUNTERMEASURES able to deal with them; 3.Iran would rain battlefield ballistic missiles down on every U.S. base in Iraq and probably in Kuwait and Bahrain as well; and 4.Iran would, either by using its Shiia proxies in Iraq, or by using Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guard regulars, invade Iraq, besiege the U.S. firebases there and make the U.S. occupation of Iraq about ten times more untenable than it already is. They would very quickly kick the U.S. out of the Middle East once and for all. So poking a not-very-sharp stick at Iran would be the biggest mistake the U.S. policymakers could possibly make, and would make the humiliation of not being able to put down the Resistance in Iraq by a bunch of guys in track suits with old small arms look like a glorious victory. Don't screw with Iran or you'll seriously regret it.
180 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Lev,
You sound like a Russian - you keep mentioning Russian weaponry. If the Americans are stupid enough to pull off the kind of attack you describe, the Iranians would have little trouble making life hell for Americans.
That is why the surgical approach is necessary with a butcher knife - a nuclear bomb with a number of megatons (at least 10) that turns Tehran into nuclear glass and steam - destroying the Iranian government and command and control center there while it is at it. If the command and control center is elsewhere, then the 10+ megaton nuke goes to destroy it elsewhere as well.
Don't think that the Protestant oil and banking conglomerate that controls the United States would shrink from such an act, either. Underneath the fancy suits and ties, they are brutal, heartless bastards.