Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.
There are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.
Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.
Alan J Kuperman – “There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran” – NYTimes.com
Comments 43
I’ll say it again. Neither the Israelis nor the US should be bombing Iran.
The Russians, using a multitude of missiles, should get the gig.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
The Russians have supplied the fuel and personnel for the Bushehr facility and probably Quom, so that’s a ridiculous notion, to think they would bomb their own investment. Of course the Chechens would probably take advantage of their contacts with the Iranians, in a bit of ‘turnabout is fair play’
December 24th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Next he’ll be saying the Iranians should bomb their own nuclear program.
Come to think of it…
December 24th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@ narciso:
What investment? The Russians got paid and stopped work whenever the checks were late.
They’ll get paid again when they blow the stuff up.
They’ll probably strafe if there’s a bonus.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Much as I hate to agree with the frog even in part, there is something to the idea that the Russians cannot possibly be comfortable with the idea of a nuclear armed lunatic Iran that could well fall under the sway of a genuine millenarian religious nut, if it isn’t so at present.
As I recall the Soviets developed some regrets after China got the bomb.
I think there’s a very good chance the Russkis are helping as a way to remain in the know re the Iranian effort and that they will install a cuckoo’s egg in that effort or stop it before it progresses to the point of developing a real missile deliverable arsenal.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
There are many other conventional explanations for what the Russians are doing that don’t rely on cuckoo’s eggs or (where did he get this idea?) missile attacks. The classic geo-strategic view is that Iran stands in the way of Russian aspirations, but a fairly popular alternative is that the Russians and Chinese are playing for maximum influence, potentially control, in a re-ordered Gulf – which seems like a small thing compared to the minimal risk that the millenarian nut or nuts would turn their nutty millenarianism to new objects. A couple of the Krepinevich scenarios – most dramatically the Iraq subverted scenario – turn on such ideas. In the meantime the prospect of a botched operation or even a successful one, and further complications, leading to a massive windfall to energy exporters looks like an implicit incentive to let the pot boil.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
What I’m saying is that all of the fancy scenarios don’t make sense to me in light of a couple of very simple scenarios.
One of those is that Russia is playing a double game. She cannot be eager for another Muslim nuclear weapons capability next door given her potential problems in the future with other Muslim states and Muslim minorities.
Sure, the Russians will take what they can get in payment for assistance in the short run; but they cannot relish the day when an Iranian can destroy Moscow on 30 minutes notice.
I’m surprised the Iranians trust the Russians to help.
December 25th, 2009 at 6:38 am
It’s purely a business transaction for them, with some humiliation of their long time adversaries, the Brits and the Americans thrown in, but the Iranians don’t see it that way
December 25th, 2009 at 6:59 am
The Iranians see things in their own way, and that way doesn’t match up at all with that of the Russians.
There’s no benefit to the Russians in seeing Iran strengthened. Short-term, turmoil surrounding Iran is good for them as it keeps oil prices high.
But beyond that, Russia’s not going to want Iran dominating the Gulf States and increasing its ability to support Islamist violence abroad.
Russia’s way too vulnerable.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:15 am
I’m all for Regime change in Iran,as long as we end up in charge of their Oil Assets. There’s no such thing as a broke Superpower;we need to make some hard,but Bottom Line Rational decisions about the use of our power,while we still are able. So let’s make Iraq the 51st State and nationalize their oil,Iran,the 52nd,and if they want to join the party,let’s invite Israel for #53.
December 25th, 2009 at 8:35 am
@ Rex Caruthers:
Oh, oh, oh how could you be so anti-Semitic????
Iraq gets to be 51!!! and Israel’s only 53???
Israel should the 49th State and Alaska and Iran should be co-52nds
December 25th, 2009 at 9:11 am
@ Rex Caruthers:
Oh, oh, oh how could you be so anti-Semitic????
Not at all,Oil Assets get you the better #. Merry XMAS Fus
December 25th, 2009 at 9:14 am
you too. you’re no 1, Rex.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:17 am
@ Rex Caruthers:
Why make them states? The proper use of military power is to conquer the natives and put them to work producing goods and profit for the home country. Somewhere in the late 19th century the Brits lost both their self confidence and their sense of entitlement and began to ruin the racket for everybody.
Once we’ve raised a couple of generations of godless humanists who believe in situational ethics our foreign policy will readjust to it’s logical state. At that point Kipling will enjoy a resurgence of interest.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:36 am
@ Rex Caruthers:
Of course, we’re moving in the diametrical opposite direction. Anyway, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, among others, are a lot closer to home.
Please explain why, purely as a bottom-line decision, paying to acquire Iran and Iraq’s oil or anyone else’s, including the secondary costs of sustaining the operation and coping with blowback, would be a better proposition than a national pearl necklace of Hope & Change oil/defense platforms decorating our coast and coastal waters from Seattle to San Diego and Brownsville to Bangor. We could throw in as many nuclear power plants, and roughly equivalent investments in inland oil, coal, natural gas, and oil shale development (economical at current or higher stable oil prices) with an option on any “alternative” sources that seem likely to make an impact as a result of new discoveries.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:40 am
A little premature sample of the new age poetry that will prevail once we get our mojo back.
Take up Obama’s burden,
Send forth the best ye breed,
Go send your Sarah Palin,
To serve our nation’s need.
Back her with Beck in harness,
Free him from Fox News lead,
Half devil and half wild child,
To take up Obama’s burden,
And lead us out of the wild.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:42 am
That’s not the cure, that’s the problem. The consequences of the First World War, and the Depression, which made it more susceptible to the corrosive philosophy of Marx and Freud, sapped much of Britain’s confidence. As long as the Brits held India, they had an interest in the NorthWest Frontier, as Charles Allen’s God’s Warriors shows
December 25th, 2009 at 9:46 am
@ CK MacLeod:
They will fall into line like baby ducks once our grandchildren take care of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
@ Sully:
Most excellent!
I feel like taking up a collection for equipment and software to take that show on the virtual multimedia road.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Well Chavez does need to be taken down a peg,we could take Alberta in trade for Vermont, and a state to be named later. What we need is an American nationalist to put this sort of thing together. Roosevelt did the job
in the 1900s, any suggestions for who would
a corresponding figure?
December 25th, 2009 at 10:22 am
CK MacLeod wrote:
@ Rex Caruthers:
Please explain why, purely as a bottom-line decision, paying to acquire Iran and Iraq’s oil or anyone else’s,
Because it’s easier than jumping through all the legal hoops to set up a legitimate business,and.it looks like we’re going to be at war with them soon,anyway,and the infrastructure is ready to go. The biggest mistake we made in Iraq was paying for the War without a deal for the “Freed: Iraquis to pay their own way.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am
The Phillipines expedition andinsurgency is a closer parallel to the operation in Iraq, it was provoked in part by the Maine incident, yet it became a much bigger deal. Cuba in this sense
is our Afghanistan, can this metaphor be more
belabored
December 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
As a material question, removing legal hoops is a heckuva lot easier than raising, equipping, transporting, and sustaining a military force sufficient to occupy Iran and Iraq. As for the infrastructure being ready to go, the current owners might have a say in what condition we obtained possession, and down the road under what conditions we might hope to exploit it.
The political opposition to developing our own resources – and burning the legal hoops up in a national regulatory bonfire – consists of a vocal minority whose influence should wane as our economic and political circumstances become more perilous. I can’t see how, even now, the opposition to an American Imperialism in the old style would be weaker – got some legal and political hoops there, too.
After we’ve established our own economic security and bases for prosperity, applying good ol’ American ingenuity and elbow grease, while avoiding unnecessary foreign entanglements, maybe then we can go a-conq’rin’ if we really, really still feel like it and have a good reason for it.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Eventually we will tire of these ‘compassionate’ rules of engagement championed by Noah Schachtman in Wired, and we’ll move to more totally automated tools like the HK’s of Terminator fame, probably with ‘plasma rifles in the forty watt range’ After all, what could possibly go wrong?
December 25th, 2009 at 11:04 am
@ CK MacLeod:
The best reason is the tried and true one, best expressed by one of the ancestors of a large percentage of Asians alive today:
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”
And, he was a pious man as well, so he provides a ready made message for our prey:
“I am the punishment of God…If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”
Progressives are always talking of doing things “for the children.” What can possibly be better for children than to imbue them with lofty goals and clear objectives in life?
December 25th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Well, I’m not denying that would constitute a form of change we could believe in, but, as warlike a people as we are, it just doesn’t seem like a practical or likely very popular policy.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
CK MacLeod wrote:
Well, I’m not denying that would constitute a form of change we could believe in, but, as warlike a people as we are, it just doesn’t seem like a practical or likely very popular policy.
It could become very popular,in fact if economic conditions worsen,we could have a ten million man army paid with fiat money until we acquire some real wealth on the battlefield. I would not shed one tear if all the oil wealth of Mesopotamia was transferred into the US Treasury. When OPEC quadrupled the price of OIL in the Seventies,how many of our hard earned “real” dollars flew to the Arabs,and,what happened with those $s after the Arabs owned them. (Japan is another topic altogether as is China). It’s time for an Accounting,a balance in Life’s books.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:50 am
CK,
Two unanswered Acts of War,Both more consequential than 9/11,OPEC’s Quadrupling the Price of Oil, and Japan’s Carry Trade. In both cases we were Gulliver to the Lilliputians.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:58 am
If the real objective is to turn the US into an out-and-out unchecked fascist state, then the plan might make sense. I don’t consider that to be, to say the least, a desirable alternative – though I can acknowledge that, desirable or not, it may be a possibility following significant destabilization and national misery, or the side effect of a significant challenge posed by others.
For other far preferable economic, political, and moral objectives, I think there are better plans.
December 25th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
For other far preferable economic, political, and moral objectives, I think there are better plans.
Of Course,you are right. I’m calling it the way I see it,not the way I want it.
December 25th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The Obami will pursue our current wars with the ferocity of postal and DMV clerks, slow walking until the bells ring for break times, vacations, sick leaves and personal days. They will make a show of it, and, unless our generals are especially resourceful, Iraq and Iran will slip away, while the Obami will busy themselves with their true passion, remaking the USA into a progressive wonderland, full of grateful voters intent on maintaining their benefits.
But even the anointed bullshitters on the left can not control a crazy world with all its paranoia, envy and hatred. Leftists dearly want a predictable world for themselves, but the real world is too tricky for their mistaken schemes.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Iran is the fly in Obama’s ointment. Chuck Krauthammer seemed certain today that Israel will soon strike Iran.
The certainty of feeble liberals will disappear in the ensuing confusion and chaos.
Cynical tyrants and oligarchs in Russia, China and Latin America will see the USA as a much weaker adversary, and they will make their moves while a foolish President of the United States bloviates and dithers.
Fasten your seat belts, and keep your fire extinguishers handy, my frems.
December 25th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
@ Zoltan Newberry:
Aw, Zolt, that’s such a bunch of berries.
Where do you get off talking about not fighting hard? Are you blind to what happened the last six years in Afghanistan?
Are you failing to notice what’s happened in the last year?
Have you not noticed that we’re chasing down guys in Yemen that we pushed out of Pakistan?
December 25th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Was Krauthammer right when he called it the Three Week War?
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2003/04/10/gulf_war_ii_is_first_of_its_kind
December 25th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Was he right in 2003 when he said that we would be leaving Iraq with a stable government in a year or two?
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2003/10/03/everyones_an_expert
December 25th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Was he right in 2007 when he said that the surge would fail?
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/01/19/maliki_doesnt_deserve_a_surge
December 25th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
What does K-hammer have to do with anything? Did someone here claim he was infallible? He’s got a higher batting average than most, but everyone strikes out.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Was he right in 2006 when he said that Iran would have a nuclear weapon before the end of 2007?
December 25th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Besides, frog, you should be a big fan of K-hammer. He’s one of Palin’s most dismissive, even crassly dismissive detractors.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
(I will admit tho that the bad calls you collect are useful – I’ve always rather disliked the way in which some on the right DO treat him as a seer, hanging on his every pronouncement.)
December 25th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Well that’s probably not enough to commend him to the frog, then again the official voice of the US Govt, the DNI thought the Iranians had shuttered their program in 2003, despite evidence like the Mousavian telegram to the Grand Ayatollah illustrating the deception.
Krauthammer is much more a realist, even in the fold of neocons, so his perspective is much more sober, like someone who’s actually read Niebuhr and understood him.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
@ narciso:
Someday we’ll find out what was in the classified portion of that Intelligence Estimate.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
They leaked the Asghari section, but not the details of Projects 111 and 110 by Mohsen Frazadeh, the head of the program, they left out this message to the Grand Ayatollah by the negotiator Mousavian, who has been persecuted by Ahmadinejad, for his perceived liberalism.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:09 pm