The reasons Iranians do not believe that a war is imminent is not because Rumsfeld is not saying there is war planning. The reason is that Iranians have looked at the alternative war scenarios and concluded they are unfavorable to the Americans. Broadly there are three scenarios:

1) Airstrikes. Won’t end Iran’s nuclear program. May delay it by a few years. But those who rule Iran are willing to wait a few years. After all it is a country with a history over three thousand years, what does ten more years matter?

2) Ground troops. In three years of war with 5 million Iraqi Sunnis the Americans have suffered 2,300 casualties. Iran has 70 million Shias. Also Iran now has a blueprint for fighting Americans from their observations of the Iraq war. To “pacify” a population an Army needs brutal methods (ask Saddam how he was able to keep the peace). As long as the American army is constrained in their methods by public opinion at home, they will not be able to use such methods and will keep suffering casualties at the rate they are suffering in Iraq (scaled up due to Iran’s larger population).

3) Nuclear strikes. This may be able to delay or permanently stop Iran’s nuclear program without immediate significant American casualties. However this can remove the inhibition against using nuclear weapons by all countries, something which has lasted over 50 years. A world in which it becomes acceptable to use nuclear weapons is a world that will die.

One should also factor into their thinking the reality that Kristol–along with a goodly number of other PNAC neoconservatives–have been flatout wrong in every single piece of advice they have offered and every single eventuality they have forcast as an outcome of going to war in Iraq.

In the words of an old soldier who was on Meet The Press recently: “Why should we believe them?”

To “rattle your sabres” is an appropriate option in discussions with Iran. But it should not be the overriding alternative.

Clauswitz also wrote “Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa.”

Is there a disconnect here?

Second, I distrust the current Bush Administration regulars to effectively wage war in Iran, given the religious, economic and political complexities in the region.

The thought of a nuclear Iran scares me to death. But you’re reached the correct conclusion, Rick. America, as great as she is, will be unable to extinguish the nuclear ambitions of Asian nations, North Korea being the most recent example. I’m old enough to remember when nuclear proliferation was a relatively abstract notion. We’re here, baby. It’s a brave new world.

If the West values its future it better hope Dubya is thinking along these lines. He likely already has the friendly half of the Saudi Royal family on his side. What more could any self respecting POTUS ask for ?

” Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster. ”

“If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking. ”

It should be crystal clear by now, that nothing but brute force will make any difference in stopping the Iranians.
Nothing.
Nothing will deter those people from use, at the earliest opportunity.

We need to do WHATEVER IT TAKES.
No limit.
That is the essence of Bill Kristol’s position.
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/2006/04/the_leader_in_the_war_against_1.html#more

But, your approach swings to the other extreme that by trying to stop them by force would incite a terrorist riot across the world. Is that outcome worse than the realistic possibility of a nuke going off in some major city within the next ten years?

In a rational world, this crisis should be played out along the lines of the Cuban Missile Crisis. What we don’t know is how “rational” the other team is at this point. We know from historical hindsight that the Soviet Union was much more rational in their approach to a nuclear war. Can we say the same about Iran or a terrorist organization with a nuke?

Current day Iran has been trouble for years thanks to Jimmy Carter. The worse-case scenario would be for Iran to develop an arsenal of nukes and the reliable means to deliver them. Their status in regional and world affairs would explode exponentially. An Iranian conventional military buildup would soon follow. Within years, they would be moving into Iraq (with or without a US presents). Would they be rational enough not to use tactical nukes to capture Iraq?

I agree with a deliberate and cautious approach to handling Iran, but the worst-case scenario in my opinion is much, much worse that a ten fold increase in Islamic terrorism.

If you saw your peculiar acting, farm neighbor carry bags of ammonium-nitrate fertilizer, and gallons of diesel fuel into his barn from a rented moving van, would you call the police or close your blinds?