Tag: iran

So why support negotiations? First: They just might work. I haven’t met many experts who put the chance of success at zero. Second: If the U.S. decides one day that it must destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, it must do so with broad international support. The only way to build that support is to absolutely exhaust all other options. Which means pursuing, in a time-limited, sober-minded, but earnest and assiduous way, a peaceful settlement.

Jeffrey Goldberg, self-described “Iran Hawk” on the need for real negotiations and not more (and more, and more) sanctions.

And: I basically agree. Except for all that stuff about “Second.” There is no “Second” choice available; unless, that is, you support a nuclear Iran. Our only tenable option is “First:” negotiate in good faith and hope it works. Otherwise you get a nuclear Iran. In fact, the fastest way to a nuclear Iran is if “the U.S. decides one day that it must destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.” Doing so, even assuming we temporarily succeeded at it (a prospect that is itself is vanishingly unlikely unless we choose to do so by exterminating all human life in Iran) will only cause them to First re-double, triple, or quadruple their weaponized nuclear efforts, and furthermore do so in sufficiently distributed, fortified, and or completely secret facilities as to obviate any attempt at said facilities’ destruction without resorting to “destroy all human life in Iran” methods.

So, that’s it. Negotiate. Period. The end. Our only choice also happens to be the best choice. It is not a sign of weakness, it is not a capitulation. It is quite literally the only option remaining that does not include the words “results in a nuclear Iran.” Only the GOP seems incapable of seeing this.

Half Measures

ilyagerner:

“So I think this is going to a very, very difficult year and I think, honestly, that HALF-MEASURES LIKE ASSASSINATIONS or sanctions are only going to produce the crisis more quickly. The better way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to attack its nuclear weapons program directly, break their control over the nuclear fuel cycle.”

— John Bolton, who has endorsed Mitt Romney.

Half-measures like assassinations!

And but also, I’d like to know exactly how an attack is anything less than a half-measure? Even if said attack works perfectly, and utterly eliminates all nuclear facilities “known” and “unknown,” precisely how does this “break their control” over the nuclear cycle? Within six or nine months they are presumably already right back at it, with a deeper, or more secretive laboratory. Or they never stop because, you know, they already had a deeper or more secretive laboratory. And now you’ve done nothing more than provide indisputable proof that they need nuclear weapons. Only way to fend off these Americans and their constant nosing into our bidness.

Bolton’s “plan” only works, in fact, if you a) go nuclear and functionally exterminate all living matter in Iran, –or– b) conventionally or otherwise invade and govern Iran. There is no other way that has any reasonable chance of success. Period.

I suspect the American people would poll dramatically against either of those “kill ‘em all” style outcomes. Therefore it might behoove reporters to ask about them directly such that we are all clear exactly what this lunatic and lunatics like him are talking about. But they never do. Shrill. We have learned nothing from the W. Bush administration and, apparently, never will. So the Republic crumbles.

Should the Republic Survive…

Newt Gingrich, GOP debate 12/10/11: If we do survive, it will be in part because of people like Rick [Santorum] who’ve had the courage to tell the truth about the Iranians for a long time.
Dan Drezner, Foreign Policy: Even a nuclear-armed Iran led by the current regime of nutball theocrats cannot threaten America’s survival. I get why the United States is concerned about Iran going nuclear, and I get why Israel is really concerned about Iran going nuclear. The only way that developments in Iran could threaten America’s survival, however, would be if the US policy response was so hyperbolic that it ignited a general Middle East war that dragged in Russia and China. Which… come to think of it, wouldn’t be entirely out of the question under a President Gingrich.
Lemkin: Yep. In line with suddenly making this “rotten discourse day” around here, this is just one more symptom, to be filed under “imaginary foreign policy | Serious Person edition.” Yes, existential threats to the United States and to “civilized” life on Earth as we know it are real and do exist. Climate change is very, very high on that list and may, in fact, far outweigh any other risk currently facing either the United States or, more generally, humanity itself in a truly existential fashion. That one party is allowed to categorically deny its very existence in defiance of the preponderance of evidence and inevitably in the name of journalistic integrity or “not taking sides” will be, perhaps, marveled at by whatever future race digs through the ashes of our long forgotten society. But there is simply no way a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to these United States at any time in the near- to mid-term future. It is the height of folly to think otherwise and utterly laughable to suggest it on the national stage in the hopes of being taken seriously. And yet one party is allowed to do so frequently and in direct contradiction to any reasonable estimation of the empirical reality of the Iranian situation specifically or Middle Eastern policy in general. And, what do you know, here we are, back at our rotten discourse again. Funny that.

Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Wall Street Journal: Insurgents Hack U.S. Drones; I love how the Journal (and/or their military contact) works Iran into this. Indeed, only Iran could have the wherewithal to back an effort of this expense and complexity…

A photograph of the Iranian president holding up his identity card during elections in March 2008 clearly shows his family has Jewish roots. A close-up of the document reveals he was previously known as Sabourjian – a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver.

The short note scrawled on the card suggests his family changed its name to Ahmadinejad when they converted to embrace Islam after his birth.

The Sabourjians traditionally hail from Aradan, Mr Ahmadinejad’s birthplace, and the name derives from “weaver of the Sabour”, the name for the Jewish Tallit shawl in Persia. The name is even on the list of reserved names for Iranian Jews compiled by Iran’s Ministry of the Interior.

Wow. Didn’t see that one coming.

(And click the picture for the full story.)

The Shahab of Iran

Why, why, why is context never supplied? Oh, right, because it might ruin a perfectly good (and preferred) story. In this case, the NeoCon paymasters of your MSM want you to be terrified of Iran. Likewise, the ever-powerful Israeli lobby. Thus, you are instructed to assume the world is near its end because Iran has tested the terrifying Shahab-3 missile.

But what is it, exactly? It’s a medium-range ballistic missile with a payload capacity of around 700 kg (1,500 lb). It has an operational range of 2,100 km (1,300 mi), meaning it can deliver 1,500lb of whatever about 1,300 miles away. Now, it’s true that payload capacity likely includes highly sophisticated warheads like the those found in a Trident II MIRV. But nobody on this Earth thinks Iran’s nuclear program is anywhere near that level of sophistication. Hell, the United States worries that it’s not near (or soon will lose) that level of sophistication any more. Instead, Iran is (most likely) busily developing Fat Man. It weighed 10,000 pounds and required a modified B-29 for delivery. Even assuming they can halve the weight of a similar design, you’re still at 5x what they can lift off the ground. To continue the rather apt WWII theme, the Shahab-3 is really more consistent with the B-17; it had a range of about 800 mi with a bomb-load of 4,500 lb (2,000 kg). Oh, wait, that’s still almost 4x the payload capacity of this missile. How about a well-regarded, frequently ship-based fighter/bomber of the same era? Well, at 2000lb we’re at least getting close.

It’s also worth noting that the damage potential from a North Korean high-explosive carrying missile of similar capabilities is considered so minor that:

As a result, Washington and Seoul have not placed the highest priority on North Korean short-range missiles in their negotiating strategies

Ultimately, we’re talking about a relatively low-payload, unguided missile. Even if they could rain them down like arrows on Tel Aviv, the damage would be scattered and relatively minor. Think: SCUDs. Or, to close the loop: V2s.

But: more to the point. What, exactly, is the New York Times providing here? Internet, TV, and radio can give us quick-hitting, context-free “OMG Iran is going to kill us all!!!!!!!” stories much more quickly (and probably more cheaply) than can the NYT or any other dead-tree news source. Why in the world do they spend time and resources aping that? To be first? Please. For print media to survive, it needs to be better than this; if any paper-source were churning out indispensable, immediate context and analysis the day after the news initially broke, with long-form analysis a day or two later, don’t you think they’d be just slightly more relevant? And infinitely better for our National Discourse? Instead, they provide us this. More of the same. Truly, a national treasure…