Any Penetration, No Matter How Slight . . .
Jeffrey Lewis at Arms Control Wonk says We Are Not Going to Nuke Iran, despite what Seymour Hersh writes in the latest New Yorker, because we have conventional bunker-busting munitions that will serve as well. (Via The Poorman.) There are a few problems.
The sheer grandiose insanity of nuking Iran makes the nearly-as-mad notion of launching an air war against the Islamic Republic seem like a comparatively reasonable option.
Whether or not nukes get used, the whispering campaign still tends to normalize discourse advocating the first use of tactical nuclear weapons as a policy option.
As Lewis’ first commenter suggests, Lewis’ thesis rests on the assumption that the Administration will choose munitions based on military necessity and not on establishing the political principle that the United States will use tactical nuclear weapons as it sees fit. Lewis may be right about this. My plan is to hope that he is.
James Fallows points out that even if the scary rhetoric about bombing Iran is a bluff, the talk itself creates “excess demand” for war. (Via Yglesias Cafe.) There’s also the perennial nationalist horror of appearing “weak.” Recall that, late in 2002 and early in 2003, some hawks argued that, having moved all those troops all that way and made all those threats, we simply had to invade because not invading would constitute backing down. But the same dynamic that applies to threats and preparations for war generally surely applies to threats and preparations for a nuclear strike. I can hear it now: We can’t let our warnings seem hollow.
Bottom line: I’m not consoled. Nuke jaw-jaw is better than nuke war-war, but some kinds of nuke jaw-jaw are still very bad. The larger issue is the threat of war with Iran itself. The same Administration that told us it was trying to avoid war in Iraq a year after having decided definitively on invasion is telling us now that it wants to avoid war in Iran. I’d like to believe them but I don’t.
Comment by Frank —
April 12, 2006 @ 1:38 am
Personally I think Hersh simply got completely took this time. Bush not only doesn’t intend to attack Iran, he isn’t even saber-rattling for their benifit. He’s just trying to distract us from all his present-tense fuck ups, and stir-up his base.
Take a second look at this: “A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb†if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,†and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.†â€
Could you come up with any more obvious bullshit? Bush doesn’t care about America’s security, he’s never cared about America, he’s just trying to distract the guards while he (and his accomplices) make(s) off with the loot.
The Bush administration has; cut funding for non-proliferation, had John Bolton in charge of non-proliferation, promised to allow Pakistani textile imports in return for cooperation then reneged. If anything the Bush administration appears to want more countries including Iran to develop nukes.
I think Hersh is a good reporter, but he thought US were going to attack Iran last year too. Maybe Bush will attack Iran, but if he does it won’t have anything to do with keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. You are right if you think that whether it is a bad idea or not for the country is irrelevant, but isn’t nuking Iran liable to lead to the total destruction of the US army in the middle east? I’d think that would end the Republican party in America forever and probably lead to the deaths of most of the Bush administration officials by lynching, but maybe I’m off base here.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 12, 2006 @ 5:19 am
No, no, it won’t lead to the destruction of the US Army in Iraq, because (1) the Army is being pulled back to the bases anyway and (2) in any case, the Iranian PEOPLE will throw off the YOKE of the OPPRESSORS once our patented Freedom Bombs come raining down, DROWNING the TYRANTS in a SEA of flower petals and ALL THE CANDY IN THE WORLD as the FREEDOM-LOVING Iranian people RUSH TO EMBRACE Democracy, Whiskey, and Sexy. And a Pony.
It IS possible that this is just a ”well, gosh, it’s a bad idea to engage in strategic bombing of Iran, but at least they didn’t use nukes” two-step.
(And Bush was just sabre-rattling to get the inspectors back into Iraq & take off the pressure to get the sanctions lifted, back in 2002, right?)
Comment by Jeremy Osner —
April 12, 2006 @ 7:52 am
By floating rumors of a plan to nuke Iran, the administration makes there be a debate over whether we should nuke Iran — once that debate is entered, it is taken as a foregone conclusion that we should attack Iran, the point of debate is what sort of weapon to use. The idea that it would be crazy to attack Iran is marginalized. What is the proper response?
Comment by Phillip J. Birmingham —
April 12, 2006 @ 8:16 am
The obvious response is to ignore the ”nuclear” part and remind the listener that attacking Iran is really not that good an idea.
Comment by IOZ —
April 12, 2006 @ 8:53 am
I like that, Phillip. ”Attacking Iran is really not that good an idea.” Sort of like: trepanning while drunk is really not that good an idea.
Still, we should probably feel privileged to live in an age where even hysteria seems like understatement.
Comment by Rob —
April 12, 2006 @ 9:12 am
I feel like this is the same conversation about how an administration would never knowingly lie in order to bring about a war because the backlash if found out would be too great. I can’t wait for the Post editorial calling it a good nuclear blast.
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 12, 2006 @ 9:15 am
As you are doubtless aware — without doubt! — my most recent comments on all this are here, with some appended thoughts here.
I knew you wanted to know, even though you are aware!
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 12, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Well, you know, it’s not a REAL nuke, just a TACTICAL nuke, and how can you question the judgment of the soldiers on the ground and the military’s expert planners? Are you on the side of the mullahs?
Comment by Leonard —
April 12, 2006 @ 9:39 am
In contrast to #1, I think Bush is sincere in thinking what he’s doing is about America’s security. That’s what’s scary about it. The most dangerous people in history are not the self-conscious manipulators, but the men who come to believe myths about themselves. Things like that they’ve been called by God to lead their nation into battle, to lead the workers to utopia, to stamp out slavery, make the world safe for democracy, get living room, etc. Bush thinks that he’s been called by God to deal with ”terror”.
My guess is that Bush has been told about the Osirak strike, and is aiming to replicate it. At this point, I believe the saber rattling has two aims. First is to try for the diplomatic solution, which everyone would prefer. But the second is to prepare the American people for war. Hence the nuclear option being thrown around. As Jeremy says, when you debate whether or not to nuke them, it’s impossible not to concede the point about war, at least arguendo.
I think Bush will initiate war (woops, I mean ”preventative police surgical strikes”), without Congressional approval. (He’ll get it after the fact, of course.) I think he sees this as his lame duck legacy to America – taking one for the team, as it were, since he will surely be publicly reviled worldwide.
Comment by david —
April 12, 2006 @ 9:41 am
”My plan is to hope that he is.”
I’m going to steal your plan.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 12, 2006 @ 10:26 am
I’ll just ditto Leonard.
Comment by Nell —
April 12, 2006 @ 10:29 am
I’ve tried five times to post on this thread, without success. So I posted my comment, slightly altered, on my blog.
Sorry to ’pull a Farber’. {I kid because I love, Gary!}
Comment by Nell —
April 12, 2006 @ 10:46 am
My reading differs from Leonard’s, as the post I linked makes clear.
Repeated, public saber rattling is not an effort to ”try for the diplomatic solution, which everyone would prefer” — it is threat escalation. It is un-diplomacy. It is an effort to create a climate in which the debate becomes how and when to attack Iran, not whether.
Nor is it true that everyone would prefer the diplomatic solution. If they did, it would be being implemented. It is not.
How important is it what Bush actually believes? Who’s in the driver’s seat: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? The Baker-Botts-Carlyle conglomerate? Or the dim, defensive, self-righteous prince?
Comment by Rich Puchalsky —
April 12, 2006 @ 10:59 am
There comes a time in human events when one’s country has gone so crazy that it no longer seems important to diagnose just how crazy it is.
It’s not merely a matter of what does Bush believe vs. what do his handlers or his backers believe. When the country as a whole believes that this is not really newsworthy, one can’t just blame it on the administration.
Comment by DBL —
April 12, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
My question for you all is this: Can we live with a nuclear Iran? You seem to think so. I would be grateful if you could please explain why you think that wouldn’t present a grave threat to the US. Please be sure to explain why you think that people who boast about their desire for martyrdom and apocalypse can be deterred by the threat of martyrdom and apocalypse.
Please also explain why you aren’t worried about a nuclear war between Israel and Iran. Even if you don’t give a hoot about Israel, how bad would it be for the US if Israel and Iran exchanged, say, a few dozen nukes?
If you think that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear arms, then please explain how you would stop them from doing so.
It would be nice if the Administration’s critics could present a serious alternative once in a while.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 12, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
You’re demanding a ”serious alternative” to a profoundly UNserious proposal (bombing Iran with conventional or nuclear weapons).
Comment by jlw —
April 12, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
DBL asks us whether we are concerned about people who boast their desire for apocalypse having a nuclear capability.
Well, I, for one, am. And I have been since, oh, December 2000.
Comment by Leonard —
April 12, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Yes we can live with a nuclear Iran. We’ve lived with worse. Remember the cold war? Then we weren’t talking about maybe, if things go very bad, losing Baltimore. We were talking about the incineration of much of the human species, with most of the rest to follow in the resulting collapse of civilization.
That was a real grave threat. We lived with it. By contrast, as horrible as it would be to lose 1m people to a terrorist nuke, that’s not the end of civilization.
Furthermore, we don’t even need to be enemies with Iran. The Soviet Union at least had an expansionist ideology with appeal in the West. There is no appeal of Islam here. We can easily be neutral with Iran, and vice versa. All we have to do is mind our own business.
Minding our own business — what a concept! But it’s not revolutionary. Most other nations do it (consider, say Japan or Argentina’s relationships with Iran). We can do it too.
As for Israel, it also has nukes. So it can deter Iran just as well as we can, by itself. Better, in fact: Iran’s elites may convince themselves that we won’t retaliate for Tel Aviv.
You demand seriousness; I am serious. Peace works now for most nations, and has worked in the past for us. It is quite serious.
Comment by Jon H —
April 12, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
”Please be sure to explain why you think that people who boast about their desire for martyrdom and apocalypse can be deterred by the threat of martyrdom and apocalypse”
And Bush boasts of his desire for spending control. Yet it never happens.
What’s your point?
Comment by wade —
April 13, 2006 @ 4:20 am
I’ve got a plan – lets get rid of all our nuclear weapons before telling other countries that they shouldn’t have any. That way they might believe us when we tell them that we think having nuclear weapons is a really bad thing. Or is that just not expensive enough?
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
April 13, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Deterrence only works with adversaries who value their lives. Jihadists don’t. The ”moderate” mullah Rafsanjani has said that the extermination of Israel will soon be within reach, because any Israeli counter-strike would only harm a small part of the Islamic world.
The Iranian regime has done the evil calculus. The fact that they hate Bush as much as his domestic opponents do doesn’t make them by default reasonable people.
But, let’s worry about the important stuff:
American Islamic Leaders Warn Of Anti-Muslim Backlash Following Next Month’s Nuking Of Tel Aviv
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 13, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
They’re MAD I tell you, MAD MAD MAD! Mad Mullahs, it’s even alliterative! How can you not be convinced? Must I use EVEN MORE Exclamation Points?!?
Remember, words speak louder than actions.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 13, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Sanity Fellow: I happen to know that that’s NOT what Rafsanjani said. You may like to THINK that’s what he said, but it’s not.
Hysteria is not ”serious.” So when hawks manage to control their five-year attack of the vapors then I’ll start to credit them with offering ”serious proposals.” Gibbering cowardice disguised as belligerence was an understandable emotional reaction for a short time in late 2001 and even early 2002. Now it is simply unmanly (or unwomanly as the case may be).
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 13, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Have you read Arkin today? (Yes, I could link directly, but that would be wrong.)
Also, we’re about up to a general every ten minutes calling for Rumsfeld’s head. (Bring me the head of Alfredo Rumsfeld.)
13, Nell: ”{I kid because I love, Gary!}”
And yet you won’t have my baby? Why? Amn’t I good enough? (There’s still time to reconsider!)
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
April 13, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
Is this a misquotation, then?
I don’t believe that this threat can be dealt with by a few JDAMs down the chimney. But I do believe that it is a threat, and must be dealt with. How, I don’t know. If the mullahs exterminate Israel, it’s foolish to think that they will stop there, that they will just disband Hezbollah, raise a toast of pomegranate juice, retire to their Caspian Sea villas, and trouble the world no more.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 13, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
You’re getting there, SI. You’ve got the right quote. Now think about what the word ”stalemate” means in this context. I’d also recommend looking at the surronding paras in Rafsanjani’s actual speech, not in the second-hand reporting of a bunch of exiles with a vested interest in ginning up hostility to the current regime.
As an exercise toward regaining your sense of composure, put yourself in the Mullahs’ shoes and ask yourself, what could go wrong with nuking Israel and/or the United States. We’re not the only ones who can dream up worst-case scenarios.
Gary: I think Nell’s husband would object to her having your baby.
Comment by Nell —
April 13, 2006 @ 11:23 pm
Gary: we’re about up to a general every ten minutes calling for Rumsfeld’s head
Yeah, it’s getting to be a dizzying parade. We’re wondering if he’ll be an ex-Worst SecDef Ever by the times he comes to town next month. Won’t put a crimp in our demo — we’ll just lay more stress on the war crimes message… (one of the reasons I don’t think he’ll be gone by then or anytime real soon).
Another is Cheney; it would mean a serious setting of his sun for Rumsfeld to go. And there’s the whole admission-of-failure bit that this admin is allergic to.
Clearly, almost anyone else would make the brass happier. And certainly there are a lot of people who’d really like to believe this regime was moderating, and others who see the electoral benefit of large numbers of people thinking such thoughts.
It’s nonsense, of course. The egg can’t be unfried. If it were to mean anything, he should have been canned in the summer of 2004, or let go before Bush’s second term began.
Being ”more moderate than Donald Rumsfeld” leaves plenty of room to do serious damage. It’s too low a bar.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
April 14, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
”You’re getting there, SI. You’ve got the right quote. Now think about what the word â€stalemate†means in this context. I’d also recommend looking at the surronding paras in Rafsanjani’s actual speech, not in the second-hand reporting of a bunch of exiles with a vested interest in ginning up hostility to the current regime.”
If, instead of Rafsanjani, it were Bush openly speechifying about how the West could get off easily in a nuclear exchange with Iran, I doubt you’d be directing me to the surrounding paragraphs for further context.
Moral equivalence, like suicide, is the coward’s way out.
Trackback by protein wisdom —
April 14, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
Some of us heard you the first time, Mahmoud…
From the AP:The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first ti…
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 14, 2006 @ 7:08 pm
Oh god, ”moral equivalence??” Can’t you people learn some new lines? You started out okay, SI, but you’ve jargoned yourself into irrelevance.
IT’S NOT 2002 ANY MORE. You and Jeff Goldstein aren’t the arbiters of political and moral seriousness. You’re the guys who cheered and trembled us into what’s been revealed to the country as a stupid war and the country is much less inclined to let you do it again.
You’re a bunch of scared little girls, starting at shadows. Admittedly, that’s an insult to little girls. But we have to compare you to something. You’re Annie Hall demanding that Alvie Singer kill every spider in the world before it can bite her. It’s unseemly.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector —
April 15, 2006 @ 7:18 am
Well, for everyone’s sake, let’s hope you’re right. I just don’t think hoping is going to be enough, is all.
Trackback by protein wisdom —
April 19, 2006 @ 11:54 am
Persian Shrugs
I had the opportunity to have a few drinks with a visiting Matt Heidt (formerly of Froggy Ruminations) last evening, who was in from California on business. One of the topics we spent a good deal of time discussing is how the US might (and should) hand…