Posted on 01/18/2006 6:08:43 AM PST by RKV
Looks like confrontation is inevitable. The President is in the process of exhausting the diplomatic route. After that it's gloves off, and I pray it's not too late!
There may be only bad alternatives, and worse alternatives. Either the military option, which will cause an international backlash and, much more importantly, may not get all the hardened secret underground sites. Or dealing with a nuclear Iran - which probably only means military conflict as well, only against a stronger enemy and not on our terms.
Supporting native freedom fighters worked for the US in Central America, and to me seems like an excellent idea. But I agree, it's little more than a platitude without details, and implementation.
Iran, North Korea, and Taiwan are the three "hot" situations I fear the most.
It'd be great if Bolton could stand up and request fast-forwarding of the tape, so to speak:
"First, let's all express concern, then have the Iranian representatives tell us to stuff it. Next, we can express grave reservations, and the Iranians can tell us to get bent. After that, we can warn of dire consequences - and the Iranians can laugh and fart in our general directions. Then, we can finally throw up our hands and take up the urgent issue of frog croakings due to Global Warming. Any objections? - because..uhh...we need to get started right away, I have a lunch appointment."
Looks to me like the target for their first nuke is the oil loading facilities in Saudi Arabia, particularly if combined with a dirty bomb to slow down rebuilding.
They achieve three objectives with this move: a western economic panic, a split in the west between appeasers and defenders, and an increase in their own oil profits.
Heard some Aussie comentator on the radio Monday night, a supposed expert on Iran, who said it is not inconceivable that the Israelis would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the Iranian facilities, if it is determined that conventional weapons won't do the job. Things could get very interesting.
Talk of war right now is not only premature - it is foolish.
An excellent summation of the situation. Although I agree - Leeden's complaints that we haven't started a revolution in Iran don't include how exactly we should go about doing that. As far as I know we may already be trying. The fact is, we can't do it for them - the Iranians have to do it themselves.
The paradox of the Iranian problem is that there seems to be widespread general support for their nuclear program amongst the Iranian public - it's tied to nationalism and ideas of progress - and if we impose sanctions or go after it militarily, then we're likely to alienate large numbers of the people we need to rise up. A military strike could just rally the public around Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, leaving them in an even stronger position than they are now. This could even be the reason for Ahmadinejad's ravings - maybe he needs the Great Satan as the common enemy to shunt the reformists and democrats into irrelevance.
That's why I'm skeptical of criticisms of the administration being "too soft" on Iran. They know how delicate this is. There are no simple options on Iran.
Whether we talk of war or not, the mullahs are talking about war against us. Personally, I suggest we increase the strength of our armed forces - both in manpower and equipment.
Sad and funny, but true.
I think we do have some time on this - they are several years from building a nuke from what I read. We have a semi-massive force in the neighboring country. Let the mad mullahs flap their gums for a while, make threats, while we come up with some ingenious plan for pushing their countrymen against the mullahs. My preference is several clandestine assassins going in and dropping six or seven heavies at the exact time, in different locations, then simultaneously getting the democracy folks to riot and take over the city halls and federal buildings.
After that, there's no need to keep rattling the sabre. We're letting them thrive on the attention, and we shouldn't.
We should have been aggressively supporting insurgents inside Iran, just as they support insurgents all over the world. The Iranian regime is far weaker than Saddam's ever was, and the country is ripe for revolution. The fear of a foreign threat is the only thing that could possibly give their government more life, and that's exactly what we're providing.
Step one should be a strong pro-democracy movement support among the young and educated classes, along with support for Sunni extremists to fight against the Shi'ite majority.
Step two should be planning for senior leadership decapitation strikes. Their government is an unpopular group of aging and ideologically isolated theocrats. A 'surgical strike' against them (and their foreign thugs) would leave the country without guidance in a way that wasn't the case in Iraq.
Internal pressure is the way to defeat Iran, and we can provide the push of external pressure if need be. What we should not be doing is engaging in threats or embargoes that will simply drive the average Iranian to support his government out of fear of us.
I’d say “arm-chair” quarterbacking implies Ledeen thinks he has all the answers. He’s got more than a few but I believe he realizes solving the Iran problem is going to be a big effort and a team effort of which he is an important member. From his “arm chair” he knows that only a few dissidents are going to meet him there yet he's still asking the U.S. government meet Iranian dissidents more than half way. This makes him an essential member of the team, not an “arm chair quarterback”.
In this effort, known details are important but so are unknowns. Totalitarian regimes like Iran’s imprison, torture and execute dissidents so great care should be taken when approaching and or promoting any Iranian dissident. The safe bet in my opinion is to rally behind a mutually beneficial model for the future of Iran. The more detailed the model the dissidents have come up with, the more Americans have to work with in terms of refining and supporting the model. There are ways to help create that model I'll cover later. What is important to note is that it is not essential that the political splits, inherent in any Diaspora community and particularly prominent in the Iranian Diaspora, come together before the U.S. lends a hand to their effort to bring about change. U.S. support should be tied directly to the production of material that facilitates positive change in Iran. In fact the current DOS logic that the political splits in the Iranian opposition movements is a bad thing, is wrong. Competent debate between opponents of the Iranian regime will indeed be fuel for the engine that produces the material to facilitate positive change in Iran. The Civil Rights Movement here in the United States operated this way. The factions challenged one another and gave restive people essential choices that represented an unofficial democracy outside of the United States Government but within the Civil Rights Movement. It is in this kind of environment where ideas can develop, be challenged and blossom or die natural deaths. But the first step is to have faith in democratic diplomacy with Iranians, including and most importantly Iranian opposition leaders. The diplomatic ball is in Iranian official’s court right now because Iranian officials know exactly what they have to do to normalize relations with the United States yet they refuse to do it. Iranian opposition groups are not so lucky. They do not know what they have to do to take their opposition to tyranny to the next level, where it might find success.
The actions I recommend are not detailed per say but if carried out would provide an environment in which the important details could be created. I recommend the U.S. Congress form a new committee or employ an existing one to: 1. Overtly approach all Iranian opposition groups and challenge them to produce their grievances, platform and methodology. 2. Subsequently the committee should analyze these products, not in secret but with the assistance of varied experts, and reply with multiple suggestions and a timeline to achieve action items. Iterating these two steps will develop an Iranian opposition that has the capacity to facilitate a democratic Iran, not naively destabilize Iran and force the global economy into a dive as the Iranian Revolution of 1979 did. Over time and the conscious dissemination of the products the groups create will generate legitimate political pressure, and I believe internationally approved pressure, that will either force the Iranian regime to change or implode. I think Ledeen’s correct, there is no reason to assume this process would take a long time. So what are we waiting for?
The defense of our nation is absolutely the single most important thing our government does. Everything else should be reviewed, reconsidered, downsized or eliminated in order to provide every practical advantage and benefit to our armed forces.
OK, I'll admit my lack of knowledge on the matter and ask who it was they put on a train.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I know that I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle on the table in front of me. I do hope that our leadership does and acts. Some of the obvious things would be visible even to a casual observer - e.g. a VOA type operation aimed at the Iranian people.
"Revoke each and every piece of "earmarked" pork from recent appropriations bills and put the money into the military." Great advise in any case. Please let's.
The Germans sent Lenin to Russia from Zurich, Switzerland in the middle of WW1. The revolution that followed is history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.