He rode a tank, held a general’s rank
By Thoreau
Bush has announced that if the world does not do something about Iran we will face World War Three.
Of course, what could possibly go wrong if a global power with a lunatic leader invaded and occupied yet another large Muslim country with lots of oil resources in an unstable region? Surely nothing could possibly go wrong. Certainly nothing that could lead to a wider war or bigger problems on the global scene.
Some day, other countries’ versions of neocons will say “It’s just like 2007, and [insert leader here] is just like Bush. If we don’t start a pointless war RIGHT NOW, he’ll take yet another country! We must act NOW to prevent another world war!”
Comment by Nell —
October 17, 2007 @ 10:56 pm
Nothing substantive on the post, fine as it is, but wrt the post title:
Deep gratitude from the geezer cohort. I haven’t gottne an Eric Martin music-derived post title in two years. Aren’t you too young for this reference, by the way?
Comment by foolishmortal —
October 18, 2007 @ 12:04 am
The Bush Administration is clearly suffering from a dearth of neoconservatives and has allowed a World War Namespace Gap: the proper term for the next global conflict would be “World War V.”
Comment by Gary Farber —
October 18, 2007 @ 12:14 am
I keep trying to find the scenario that explains this, and missing.
I can see at least the claim that it would go Iran-nukes-Israel — or maybe vice versa. And then vice versa.
And then? Where’s the escalation? How does anyone else end up in a nuclear exchange, or in some sort of conventional world war?
What would even the hypothetical claimed scenario be?
Israel then nukes Syria for the hell of it? And then Russia nukes us because why not?
Does anyone have a storyline that could even remotely involve more than Iran and Israel, worst case?
Comment by Thoreau —
October 18, 2007 @ 12:53 am
I guess Iran could nuke Pakistan or India because of a regional dispute over…I dunno, something. And then India or Pakistan nukes the other country too because they want to get a few blows in while there’s a country to nuke, and then they nuke Iran for denying them a chance to destroy their foe all on their own, and then China intervenes, and then it all spirals.
Or they nuke the Saudis, and then everybody in the world piles on Iran, but that’s not really a world war, that’s more like a world coming together against a common enemy (and a whole bunch of innocent civilians caught in the middle).
Yeah, I don’t get it either. I just can’t find the scenario. Although I’m sure that if we give Bush a long enough leash he could find a way to start WWIII, or WWV, or whatever it is now.
Comment by wade —
October 18, 2007 @ 2:58 am
Anything could happen when none of the parties involved act rationally, and at least some of the parties actually believe war is a good thing.
how about… Iran nukes no one, but we “mini-nuke” Iran just to show we care, but in the process destroy some symbolic site. Iran, Pakistan go ape, theres an Islamic revolution in Pakistan and the Russians front up on behalf of Iran.Pakistan nukes India, Iran nukes Israel with recently acquired Russian missiles, so we nuke Iran properly this time. India nukes Pakistan, China nukes India, Russia nukes China and it’s left to the French to step up and nuke Washington and London.
North Korea try to nuke Japan but miss, and the nuke doesn’t work.
Comment by bob mcmanus —
October 18, 2007 @ 8:05 am
“In discussion, I developed a vision of possile excalation all the way to thermo-nukes. As it is our divine right, we bomb Iran, somewhere. They should down a tanker AND our naval vessels. Russian missiles are used.
We demand that Russia cease and desist supplying those dastardly weapons, and we accuse that Russia passed the position of our ships to Iran. Putin encourages Chimpy to take a hike.
Antother US Navy vessel hit. In retaliation, we destroy a Russian spy satelite.
Putin retaliates, their spy satelites are gone, and so is our GPS system. Chaos ensues as drivers have to learn how to read maps. Carnage of US roads. A warning missile is send to an uninhabitated part Russian territory.
Russian are rather paranoid about our first strike capabilities and put their big guns, 10-warhead beasts of megaton loads, on hair trigger alert. The trigger is triggered.”
…piotr, comments at MY
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/defining_world_wars_down.php#comment-710381
Comment by Jon H —
October 18, 2007 @ 8:57 am
It could be bad if, say, a deal were cut such that Russia deployed Russia-controlled nukes (and launchers, and personnel) to Iran, which were placed near Iranian nuclear program sites, and then we attacked those sites. Especially if we used tactical nukes. We would then have perpetrated a nuclear attack on the nuclear forces of a major power, even if the Russian nukes were ‘collateral damage’.
(Russia could probably also send dummy missiles. Then if we bomb the Iranian facilities, Iran and Russia could claim any evidence of radiation is from the Russian missiles, not some alleged Iranian program.)
Couldn’t be all *that* difficult for Putin to ship some mobile launchers across the Black Sea to Iran.
wade wrote: “Iran just to show we care, but in the process destroy some symbolic site”
Sites in Iran would likely be Shiite, if there are any (many are in Iraq). Shiites are a minority in Pakistan, and are occasionally subject to violence from the Sunnis there. I don’t think Muslims would get too bent out of shape if we blew up any of the pre-Muslim historic sites like Persepolis.
I’d be pissed about it, though.
Comment by bob mcmanus —
October 18, 2007 @ 9:10 am
“…deal were cut such that Russia deployed Russia-controlled nukes”
I think Russia would remember the early 60s, and doesn’t care about Iran that much.
However, I can imagine Russia taking smaller steps to deter or limit an attack against an ally or client-state (remember Kosovo?), or simply to embarrass the US. So the scenario of 8:05 seems not completely implausible. Such situations arose often during the Cold War.
The problem is of course this time we have a President with a messianic over-confidence/arrogance and a pattern of doubling down on losses.
Comment by jlw —
October 18, 2007 @ 9:15 am
Well, I dunno if a war with Iran constitutes World War III, but there is startling progression:
Afghanistan is about one-third the foe of Iraq, which is about one-third the foe of Iran . . . .
So the next iteration–after we lose in every but the most superficial sense in Iran–would be to start something with someone three times harder to beat than Iran. Is that Pakistan? Indonesia? Brazil? Still, I don’t know that that would constitute WWIII, though it might, depending on whether that foe can find allies or send commandos to American shores.
But the next step up after that–that’s the Big One. Figures. Bush is thinking two-to-three wars ahead.
Comment by Decline and Fall —
October 18, 2007 @ 9:51 am
Gary,
How about: Iran attacks Israel, then blockades the strait of Hormuz. Now every oil-producing country in the region, along with every single country in the world that uses oil, all of a sudden finds the Middle East to be worth fighting over.
The Sunni states in the gulf are already worried about Iran’s military prowess (they could do little to stop Iran from rolling right over them, which is the main reason why the Saudis are said to be behind Sunni insurgents), and the Russians would love to have the demand for their oil all of a sudden rise considerably. It’s not that far-fetched.
Besides, who would have predicted that the assissination of a prince in Sarajevo would turn into a world war?
Comment by Jon H —
October 18, 2007 @ 9:59 am
“I think Russia would remember the early 60s, and doesn’t care about Iran that much.”
Perhaps, but it’s a pretty low-cost way for Putin to checkmate Bush, in a highly visible way.
Comment by Jon H —
October 18, 2007 @ 10:01 am
” Iran attacks Israel, then blockades the strait of Hormuz. ”
The thing is, Iran needs the money from its own oil sales.
Comment by Barry —
October 18, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Comment by Decline and Fall —
“Gary,
How about: Iran attacks Israel, then blockades the strait of Hormuz. ”
Since you’re not using your brain, can I have it to play with?
Comment by Decline and Fall —
October 18, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Barry: “Since you’re not using your brain, can I have it to play with?”
Iran has actually threatened to block the strait of hormuz in the past. Perhaps I should have written “Iran attacks Israel and/or blocks…” or “Israel attacks Iran, then Iran blocks…” but the point is that it’s not at all outside the realm of possibility. If you read the Middle Eastern press you’d be quite aware of this.
Comment by Gary Farber —
October 18, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
This is clever, and I thank you for it, but I must point out that it fails, because it doesn’t meet the criteria of the hypothetical: this is all about how if/when Iran gets nuclear weapons, we get World War III.
So a necessary condition is that the nuclear weapons be crucial. Since deterence isn’t in effect in your hypothetical, therefore, by definition, they would have to have been used.
Therefore Israel would have been effectively destroyed, and major chunks of Iran, as well, leaving it impossible for Iran to continue to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, post-nuclear war.
Thus: your hypothetical fails to meet the requested condition.
Nice try, though. Thanks!
Bob’s more or less meet the conditions, so thanks, Bob. I’m, however, myself, not inclined to worry greatly about that scenario, as yet. But, again, thanks for putting forth a scenario that answers the question, however likely or unlikely.
Comment by Decline and Fall —
October 19, 2007 @ 1:50 am
Gary,
I don’t want to get into a childish back-and-forth on this point, but who says that Iran has to use its nukes for World War III to ensue? Bush certainly hasn’t said that! I submit that a nuclear Iran is fully capable of going to war without deploying its nukes at all, just like all the rest of the nuclear powers, up to and including Israel.
The fear, I think, is that Iran’s batshit crazy leader will flex his muscles because he’s now got them to flex, while our batshit crazy leader takes the bait and escalates it.
All I’m saying is that it certainly is possible for the mere existence of Iran to push us and Israel, if no one else, to war, and that it’s well within the realm of possibility that other nations would end up getting mixed up in it.
Any scenario, incidentally, is made more likely by the fact that the guy who made the declaration is the guy most capable of starting said world war.
Comment by Gary Farber —
October 19, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
“I don’t want to get into a childish back-and-forth on this point, but who says that Iran has to use its nukes for World War III to ensue?”
I dunno, who does?
“I submit that a nuclear Iran is fully capable of going to war without deploying its nukes at all, just like all the rest of the nuclear powers, up to and including Israel.”
Who are you arguing with?
It certainly isn’t with me, who clearly wrote “Since deterence isn’t in effect in your hypothetical….”
Now you’re putting forth an entirely new scenario (or, if you like, clarifying something you totally left out of your previous scenario — I can only read what you write, not what was in your head that you didn’t write), in which deterrence is in effect.
So, sure, when you completely change the scenario to put nuclear weapons back into it, as a deterrent, you’ve fixed what I specified was previously broken (not making nuclear weapons a crucial aspect of how we get to World War III).
“All I’m saying is that it certainly is possible for the mere existence of Iran to push us and Israel, if no one else, to war, and that it’s well within the realm of possibility that other nations would end up getting mixed up in it.”
Fine. I take it you’ve dropped any effort to outline any actual scenario that answers what I asked, but that’s fine: it was hardly obligatory.
Comment by Decline and Fall —
October 20, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Gary,
Look, I wasn’t trying to answer you so much as I was trying to answer the original question posed by, who was that again? Oh yeah, you:
“I keep trying to find the scenario that explains this, and missing.
I can see at least the claim that it would go Iran-nukes-Israel — or maybe vice versa. And then vice versa.
And then? Where’s the escalation? How does anyone else end up in a nuclear exchange, or in some sort of conventional world war?
What would even the hypothetical claimed scenario be?”
Can we just agree that Iran having nuke knowledge increases the likelihood of WWIII, but that it’s far from the determining factor? Any new nuclear state does that, of course, but a nuclear power that we’ve been rattling our sabres at for the last few years is demonstrably scarier than, say, Belize.
You may now commence the picking of nits.
Comment by Anthont Teamson —
March 3, 2008 @ 1:30 am
What I find interesting about the posts I have read so far is the underlying arrogance of Americans. America is the only country with troops in over 120 foreign lands. America is the only country that protects and defends Israel, even to the extent that its leadership would rather see its Subjects pay $5.50 a gallon for gas, then question its alliance with Israel. Americans go on and on about China. However China has never invaded, to occupy, another country, never. So far, the only country occupying sovereign nations is America. Having said that I will move on. Everyone writing has no clue as to what is going on in Eastern Europe and what America is doing there. The American government is forcing Poland to accept the placement of nuclear missiles within its borders. Now , I know most American’s can’t remember much beyond the last tryst of a character on Sex and the City, but the Russians can. For the last 500 years, a center of their foreign policy has been to secure its western border against the Germans. Poland has been the buffer zone. The American’s are telling people that they are putting those nuclear missiles in Poland to protect Europe from terrorist attacks. Now, that piece of dribble is solely for consumption by the Sex in the City crowd. Putin, the Russian leader, knows there are no terrorist treats coming out of Poland or across it for that matter. That the only target for those missiles is Russia. What really is happening is that the US is pushing its military advantage by placing nuclear missiles on or near Russia’s western border. The Russians are not going to let it happen. So, you Americans may get your nukes on Russia’s border in the short run, but the process of destabilizing eastern and central Europe has already begun. And that is going to lead Russia to push its interests in South Central Asia and to control all that oil and gas that America is drooling over. For those interested in knowing what the Russian’s will do to protect their national integrity: learn about the battle of Stalingrad, you know, when the Germans tried to get the Caspian Oil fields. You prognosticators can look outside America for the start of WWIII all you want, but it is you guys and your arrogant self-righteous ignorance that are going to get you radiated. Besides, America is flat ass broke so its a good time to start a war, they can balance the treasury the old fashion way by stealing wealth.