January 20, 2006

Typhoons of Change

As a rule I don't usually drop Instapundit-like references to another blog. Nothing wrong with that, but I tend to think of myself as a short-winded essayist. However Winds of Change has two extremely provocative posts about the Iran dilemma, that are both long and well worth the effort:

"The Case for Invading Iran" - Thomas Holsinger

and the even more pessimistic,

"Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War" - Joe Katzman

Bottom line: There aren't any "good" options left, only bad, very bad, and very very... From Joe (who is Canadian, by the way, if you're not familiar with WoC):

Perhaps if we had acted with greater firmness earlier, the situation might be different. There was, and is, wisdom to waging the war in an order dictated by the situation's logic - but not in abandoning the Iranian front entirely. Perhaps if we had backed the Iranian dissidents to the hilt with a relentless campaign of rhetoric and material support, and worked hard to create a pre-revolutionary situation as a strategic state-level priority in the USA and/or Europe, things might be different. But Europe values riches over rights (and will, in time, have neither), while American action would only happen over the State Department's dead body. Regardless of the obstacles, however, the cold hard fact is that we consistently refused to act - and so we'll never really know.

I tell you naught for your comfort, here, and naught for your desire.

It's 2006, and here we stand. "Faith without a hope" is now all that is left to us. Faith that someone will step up with a successful Hail Mary play, executed against all odds. That they will somehow avert the nightmare we in the West have so diligently allowed, with our endless appeasement, inaction, and miscalculations, to build on our watch over the last 25 years. Perhaps.

Also read the comments to both posts. Why we've been so distracted that these scenarios haven't had greater play I just don't know, but I'm culpable. I suppose I assumed that a pro-democracy population in Iran would somehow come to the rescue. I failed to remember the Lesson of Tiananmen: Popular idealism alone, absent the credible threat of violent retaliation, isn't enough to end totalitarian rule. I fear we'll reap the whirlwind.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:24 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 3 kb.

1 What about bad/very bad/very very bad/WORST: There is an article from News dot com dot au (which I cannot seem to post a link to for some reason)... From the article: IRAN may have received three shipments of sophisticated P-2 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium, diplomats said overnight, which could support Western claims that Tehran is hiding sensitive nuclear work. There were reportedly three shipments of one centrifuge each from the black-market network of disgraced Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan in 1997, one diplomat said. Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium for either nuclear reactor fuel or atom bomb material. Iran, which already has the less high-tech P-1 centrifuges, denies having received the more advanced machines, which make enriching uranium easier. Tehran says its nuclear program is a peaceful effort to generate electricity but the United States alleges it is hiding covert work on atomic weapons, for which highly enriched uranium is necessary. A second diplomat said the UN watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been investigating Iran's nuclear program for three years, was investigating the P-2 report. Asked if this could be the "smoking gun" for the West's fears, the diplomat replied: "Yes. If this is confirmed the game is over." --------------- The game has been over since 1997 I would imagine...

Posted by: Ariya at January 20, 2006 02:47 PM (uxW3N)

2 I swear it just kills me to see everyone pissing their pants over a backwoods shithole like Iran. Sure, they've got a lot of cold-war era Soviet hardware and a large military, which worked out so well for Saddam, and yeah, they're developing nuclear weapons, and are only about sixty years behind us in technology, but let's look at the flip side. In Afghanistan and Iraq we have enough troops, battle hardened veterans, mind you, to stage an invasion and drive toward Tehran like a knife through butter. We could put three or four carrier battle groups, along with attack subs and missile subs, in the Gulf or Indian Ocean, and we could put one or two Marine divisions in anywhere along Iran's long coastline. This isn't even considering the Air Force's long range strike abilities, which would probably be the first, and last, the mullahs would know of the invasion. In short, we could have military supremacy within a month or two at most, possibly sooner, considering that muslims of any type are generally inept at warfare, and most Iranians don't really have a vested interest in seeing their government continue unchecked. It's forgivable that anyone who is not a student of warfare would not be able to grasp all the concepts of modern war, or understand all the complexities and intricacies of waging such, but anyone who isn't a complete idiot, (i.e., liberal), or who hasn't been living in a cave, (and many who have been), should be able to see that anyone who stands up against the most lethal military in the history of the world will not be long shuffling off this mortal coil. To put it in perspective, even with the tactics of remote bombing, suicide bombing, sniping, and rockets and mortars, the terrorists are losing men, if you can call them that, at a ratio of 20:1 compared to us. Any time they face US forces head on, they lose closer to 100:1. In Desert Storm, our approximately 50,000 combat forces faced, and destroyed, Saddam's forces which numbered over ten times more. Their losses were in the tens of thousands, while ours were less than 300 for the entire campaign, most of which were accidental deaths or friendly fire deaths. Our technology, equipment, battle doctrine, training, and the individual soldiers themselves are superior to anything Iran can put in the field, and is so by several orders of magnitude, and anyone who says otherwise is simply an idiot whose opinion is based in ignorance, and who should be roundly ignored. Not only could we invade, be we should invade, and by the end of the year if we can get the Afghans and Iraqi forces up to speed so they can fight the terrorists themselves and leave us to more important tasks. Let them keep the heads of the hydra busy while we go for its heart.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 08:04 AM (0yYS2)

3 It looks like the US will let Iran get nukes --meaning it will make Israel do the dirty work of stopping them, if they are stopped. It looks like we are losing the race: democ racy in the ME, vs WMDs in the hands of Jew-haters.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at January 21, 2006 02:31 PM (7QHXX)

4 Don't call the race until it's over.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 21, 2006 07:14 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
23kb generated in CPU 0.0159, elapsed 0.1497 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1423 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.