« Thursday Quick Picks | Main | How Barbaric! How...Insensitive! »
January 20, 2006
Iran: Should We Invade?
I wrote the other day about my concept of life as a statistical continuum--the idea that the natural laws of statistical probability give results that are sometimes counterintuitive to everyday life. A good example is the recent hurricane season in which two category five storms formed and threatened the Gulf Coast within two weeks of each other. This seemed extraordinary but really wasn't when you consider that one storm has no "prior knowledge" of what's gone before--conditions were extremely favorable for storm formation, so a bunch of storms formed.
Likewise I think that we must approach the Iranian problem with a similar mindset. It's accepted that fear of reliving World War I led to timid and appeasing policies in dealing with the rising threat of German National Socialism, and likewise I strongly feel that the Iranian threat must be analyzed on its own merits--disconnected as far as possible from the Iraq experience.
Thomas Holsinger at Winds of Change has an exhaustive and sobering analysis of our choices in dealing with Iran. His conclusion: invade now.
It is obvious that Iran’s leaders cannot be deterred from developing nuclear weapons. The U.N. won’t stop them. Diplomatic solutions won’t – the mullahs’ bad faith is obvious. Their diplomacy serves the same purpose as Japan’s with us in late 1941 after their carrier attack fleet had sailed for Pearl Harbor - to distract us from the coming attack. We are at that same point now, only we know the Kido Butai is coming and have no excuse for surprise. Iran’s President has openly stated their real intentions. Iranian diplomacy merely lets the willing deceive themselves
According to Holsinger, there isn't time for a home grown regime change--our military must overcome the mid-1930s mindset and act now, preemptively. He feels that Iranian possession of nuclear weapons will spur a regional arms-race, and Holsinger ominously notes that several neighboring countries have more economic resources than Pakistan or North Korea--both of which have developed nuclear weapons.
Commenter CatoRenasci put it concisely:
Starkly put, we have the choice of fighting now without being full prepared politically or militarily, or fighting later when we or Israel have been attacked. [...]The Iranians know -- as most politicians and intellectuals in the West either don't know or are unwilling to admit -- that if they use nuclear weapons, even against Israel, they will have opened a Vernichtungskrieg - a war of extermination in which the Israeli's and the West's overwhelming nuclear superiority will really make most of Iran a radioactive glass parking lot.
The key question, of course, is do they care? Given the history of Iranian behavior over the past three decades, I don't think the answer can be said to be yes with sufficient certainty to be the safety of our entire civilization on the answer.
The broader questions, in a way, is do the mass of the Iranian people -- who are not by and large fond of the ruling mullahs -- understand that they are on the verge of being exterminated if the mullahs are not removed? I doubt that as well.
"The key question, of course, is do they care?" This is the key question, of both the mullahs and western anti-war Left. I think there is a tendency of Republicans and centrist Democrats to assume that the Leftists just have a (radically) different opinion about policy, but their goals ultimately align with our own. I think this is a mistake.
I believe there is a strain of suicidal fatefulness that underlies both the postmodernist radical Left and regimes like that found in Iran. It is a mistake to attempt to deal rationally with either, because I think in the final analysis they don't care--nihilistic destruction is their goal.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/505
Comments
Seriously, I can tear your article apart. You know nothing about iran and it's policies.
do you not care about mankind, all differences put aside? you talk of destroying countries like its nothing. What 'pearl harbour' has iran ever done to us? You people wont be happy until the whole middle east is one BIG ISRAELI STATE.
Posted by: Daniel O'Rourke at October 14, 2007 05:47 PM
I think the historical record of Israel and the historical record of Iran both speak for themselves. What a great thing it would be if the Arab countries would embrace the kind of liberal democracy that Israel has practiced since its inception. Don't hold your breath.
It's clear by now that invading Iran would be a grave mistake. We obviously need to support the people in Iran who wish to be rid of the murderous mullahs.
Posted by: Jeff at October 15, 2007 11:42 PM
Well you know they have nukes and we need to do something about that. If those are in the possesion of a corrupt government then we might need another surge to get rid of them.
Posted by: Roger at November 15, 2007 08:21 PM
You have heard Mahmoud Amidinijad;
He plans to wipe Israel off the map,
They denied having any contact with Abdul Qadeer Khan from 1988.
Since 1988, Iran has procured a shopping list of lasers, balancing equiptment, FU6, centrifuges, etc.
When the IAEA conducted swab tests they fond fissile Po210 - their hand in the cookie jar, they admitted that it was residue from A.Q. Khan... AQ Khan doesn't sell peaceful energy tech.
A.Q. Khan had recently apologised to the world for what's going to happen.
Recently, their ally China informed Vienna that Iran has the plans for a warhead.
The Supreme Guardian Council has chosen many hard liners from Amadinajad's party for the recent elections.
We all dread what's next, but make no mistake, we're up to it.
Posted by: Brett at April 9, 2008 06:55 AM
