I respectfully submit: One doesn’t surrender to thhe inevitable. One accepts the inevitable. That’s why it’s called, “inevitible.” Any further extension of this war only strengthens our enemies and further weakens us.

As I recall, the way Raegan brought down the Soviet Union was by supporting dissidents within those countries. From the pressure applied, this caused the Soviet Union and its satellites to collapse.

Well, there were many factors that brought Soviet Union down, but I’m afraid the main one is the one that you can’t use against Iran. Reagan engaged USSR in nuclear arms race which drained economy and forced party leaders to change direction. The only similar way to take down Iran would be to force Saudi Arabia to triple their oil output and to significantly lower prices. This would bring Iranian economy, which is already in very bad shape, to a halt.

The Islamic ability and willingness to build a world wide caliphate is no derangment. It is very real. It is not Muslims who are evil. The evil ones are those who use Islam as a basis for their goal of world domination.

Well, this is not some PC stupidity about Islam being religion of peace I’m talking about. I agree that Ahmadinejad, if left to his own devices, could do something crazy like nuke the world out of existence. And this is the thing to be dealt with.
But there’s just no way for him to “conquer the planet”. You know, “Islamofascists” are frequently compared to Nazis. But there’s a huge difference. Hitler, among other things, restored German economy that was in shatters after WWI. German fascism was a symbioses of politics with very effective corporate economics. Islamism is not an ideology that could conquer the world, because it’s not fit to function in reality. It thrives on oil trade, drug trade etc., but in the “real word” it’s dysfunctional. Regular people in Iran are fed up with Islamism, they don’t have enough resolve to fight it, but they certainly won’t have resolve to spread it across the world. Of course, there’s a big number of psychotic “jihad warriors” in the world, but don’t forget, all the Al-Qaeda is about 10.000 people max, same with Hezbollah. They can cause a lot of trouble, but they are zero compared to Nazi armies if you talk about regular combat that is required to “conquer the world”. The apocalyptic trash about “world caliphate” is just that, trash. They could as well talk about meeting the aliens.
Another comparison. Could you imagine something like this happening to Hitler:

Iranian students have disrupted a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a prestigious Tehran university, setting fire to his picture and heckling him. [...]
“A small number of students shouted ‘death to the dictator’ and smashed cameras of state television[...]

All the student resistance to fascism in Germany was, basically, limited to “White Rose”, and they are now “saints” of Germany, with schools and streets named after them all over the country.
This is not say that Ahmadinejad is “soft”. He’s just as likely to murder dissent as Hitler was. But there’s much more tension in the country now.

Iran, Syria, and the Communist allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. Our enemies are growing stronger literally by the week.

Well, you know, I live in Russia. I can honestly say, practically all the troubles that Russia causes have pragmatical grounds. It’s good for us to have Middle East in a mess, since our economy is depended on oil exports. We sell hi-tech weapons to bad guys because bad guys pay money and because weapons is basically the only hi-tech exports we have. Our crazies in command like to do some minor Cold War replays just to repay for humiliation of the Cold War we lost. But the country as a whole is totally demoralized, there’s no functioning army and nobody would care for a serious military conflict. Sure, we have nukes, but that’s all we have.
Chavez is just a stupid nut who will eventually destroy his country’s economy.
China is a different story — I believe they expect the second Great Depression in your country that will officially make them the lone superpower of the world. This is probably inevitable, but it’s a fair play. There are hard times ahead for US, but they won’t have anything to do with “existential threat of Islamofascism”, unless, of course, Ahmadinejad nukes the world to hell.

Iranian students have disrupted a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a prestigious Tehran university, setting fire to his picture and heckling him. [...]
“A small number of students shouted ‘death to the dictator’ and smashed cameras of state television[...]

All the student resistance to fascism in Germany was, basically, limited to “White Rose”, and they are now “saints” of Germany, with schools and streets named after them all over the country.
This is not say that Ahmadinejad is “soft”. He’s just as likely to murder dissent as Hitler was. But there’s much more tension in the country now.

Iran, Syria, and the Communist allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. Our enemies are growing stronger literally by the week.

Well, you know, I live in Russia. I can honestly say, practically all the troubles that Russia causes have pragmatical grounds. It’s good for us to have Middle East in a mess, since our economy is depended on oil exports. We sell hi-tech weapons to bad guys because bad guys pay money and because weapons is basically the only hi-tech exports we have. Our crazies in command like to do some minor Cold War replays just to repay for humiliation of the Cold War we lost. But the country as a whole is totally demoralized, there’s no functioning army and nobody would care for a serious military conflict. Sure, we have nukes, but that’s all we have.
Chavez is just a stupid nut who will eventually destroy his country’s economy.
China is a different story — I believe they expect the second Great Depression in your country that will officially make them the lone superpower of the world. This is probably inevitable, but it’s a fair play. There are hard times ahead for US, but they won’t have anything to do with “existential threat of Islamofascism”, unless, of course, Ahmadinejad nukes the world to hell.

Thank you for your thoughts and for the links you provide. The Israeli specialist nails when he points out that it would be difficult, if not impossible to trust the Americans right now. He or she can only conclude that their is no support for them among America and the West. My considered opinion on why we have an incosistency between Bush’s speeches and the words of colin Powell is because the American government has never been quite sure what it wants to accomplish. On the one hand we have many of Bush’s advisors who would go to the mat for Iranian dissidents and on the other hand we have people like Colin Powell who have a different approach to foreign policy than the President’s speech writers and many of his advisors. This leads to wildly inconsistent policies. In summary, Aemrican foreign policy is a mangled mess. This has to change.

The first step is to properly define the enemy. Once this is done, policy makers must decide on strategies to defeat the enemy that are workable and that they can all agree on.

As I recall, the way Raegan brought down the Soviet Union was by supporting dissidents within those countries. From the pressure applied, this caused the Soviet Union and its satellites to collapse. The Israeli specialist nails it when he points out that this type of effort is needed today. Frankly, it is the only method that we can actually implement today. The Western world and the US lack the stomach to undertake the major effort that a war with Iran would entail.

We should immediately get to work on an approach similar to the one employed by Ronald Raegan to get rid of the Iranian government and get rid of that regime we must.

The Islamic ability and willingness to build a world wide caliphate is no derangment. It is very real. It is not Muslims who are evil. The evil ones are those who use Islam as a basis for their goal of world domination. These are the people who insist on a literal interpretation of their religous religous text. The threat is very real and it must be confronted. I estimate the US and its allies have a five year window to deal with Iran, Syria, and the Communist allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. Our enemies are growing stronger literally by the week. There lacks a fundamental desire in the West to undertake a major military build up. In five years, we may well find ourselves facing lop sided military disadvantages with our enemies. We may have less time than that. Five years is likely the maximum amount of time we have. If our enemies are not contained or eliminated within five years, we will probably have no choice but all out war and by that time it may be to late.

I agree with you that talking to Iran and Syria simply so they can rescue us in Iraq would be wrong. I also hope the Democrats don’t choose that option. The way to rescue ourselves from the situation in Iraq is to properly identify the enemy, commit the corect number of troops to destroy them, and pursue the enemy with ruthless efficiency.

If we are not going to commit more troops, we should find militias and groups within Iraq who will help us oppose Iran and Al Qaeda in Iraq. With this method we should be able to contain Al Qaeda and Iran and, in time, roll back their influence in Iraq.

I’m not sure what policie the Democrats will adopt. I think I can be sure that their approach will be less confrontational. In public, at least, they will make nice. In other words, unless there is an attack on the American home land or on American interests outside of the Middle East by Iran or its proxies, there are unlikely to be any “axis of evil” speeches by the Democrats and any confrontation with Iran will be done by proxies.

I hope and pray that the Democrats do understand that we need to confront Iran. For now I’m assuming they will confront Iran. I also think it is higly likely they will use a less confrontational approach when dealing with Iran than the Bush Administration has. Of course, if Iran or its proxies attack the American home land, all bets could be off. Such an event would change everything.

America is my country and the Democrats are my leaders. I will work to impress upon them the need to get rid of this regime, as I tried to impress upon the former Republcan leadership of the need to eliminate the Iranian regime. If a less confrontational approach will work, lets do it. The survival of America and the survival of Western civilization may well depend upon containing or removing the Iranian regime. Time grows short.

There are really two dangers in regards to Iran. One is “axis of evil”, “they are going to build world caliphate” derangement, other is making nice with the _bad_ side of Iran so that dissidents will feel desperate. Here’s a quote from Israel’s specialist on Iran about the first danger:

The Iranians in Iran want the same standard of living as Iranians have abroad. But in order to encourage them they have to receive more significant messages stating that it’s worth their while to take to the streets. Instead, U.S. President George W. Bush placed the Iranians on the ‘axis of evil’ and the previous U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, said that the United States would not intervene in an internal conflict in Iran.

“So what is a student in Iran, who may want to demonstrate against the regime, supposed to understand from these words? That he has no backing in the West. What is needed is an international effort to bring down the regime. The same way the United States under the leadership of president Ronald Reagan brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union and the communist Iron Curtain in Europe.”

Those crying against talks with Iran on the right side are, I’m afraid, mostly suffering from “Muslim evil” derangement syndrome. Instead of seeing situation in Iran as something to work with, they believe in country all filled with “evil Muslims”, ready to overtake the world.
On the other hand, sending a message that you don’t care about Iranian people as long as talking with tyrants can help you save your ass in Iraq is very, very wrong, and it would be bad if Democrats did something of this kind.

I’ve seen little evidence of parliment working hard to undermine Amadinejad. If so, that is encouraging. It means there may be someone high up in the Iranian government we can work with.

Well, that could mean many things, not necessary good, but there’s a lot of internal tension in Iran at the moment, read this article as example. There were also student demonstrations in Tehran recently.
If they abandoned the nuke program, they would get all sorts of goodies from the US and the West. This would be HUGE for their economy and the confrontational party could get all of the credit. But they don’t need these goodies! They have enough of goodies for themselves, and the goodies you talk about — economical progress, trade, general thawing etc. would be good for people but bad for those in power. Of course, the more Iranians have taste for freedom, the more they would want it.

Ultimately whether or not the US will have permanent military bases in Iraq or not will be up to the Iraqi government. If we would commit enough troops to actually provide security for the average Iraqi, we would probably get more support for such a policy assuming that is what we want. In any event, assuming that is what we want the best place for them would probably be in Kurdish areas. The Kurds are generally more friendly to the Americans than the Sunni or Shia and they will likely need some type of American prescense as a defense against the Sunni, the Shia, and against Turkey.

Your analysis that a war cannot be fought with a kinder and gentler method is spot on. Wars are to be fought with extreme force in the manner that WWII was fought.

Americans do not understand the the Islamofascist enemy along with its allies in Russia and China pose an existential threat to the US. They don’t understand this because their elected leaders have not told them the unvarnished truth. There is little courage among American leaders to deal with hard issues. This will need to change. I hope and pray it changes before a WMD attacks occurrs on American soil.

As it stands right now, we can win this, if we get the proper commitment from the American government and the American people, however, if we wait to long to deal decisively with this threat it may be to late. Getting the support of the American people can be achieved, if only we had politicians who had the courage to face problems head on and be truthful to the electorate. If only…..

I hit the post button by accident. I think the US was at least tolerant of the Taliban prior to 911, possibly even friendly to them. Obviously the attacks of 911 changed that.

I see your point about Iraq being the first step to Iran. Putting oneself in the shoes of Amadinejad, the Iranian government, and the Syrian government they know that, if the US and its allies could have achieved a democratic Iraq that is allied with the US this would have been an existential threat to their regimes. This is coupled with the fact that Bush referred to them in his “axis of evil” speech. From the perspective of the Iranian and Syrian governments, it would have been only natural that they would want to try and to all they could to destabilize the young democracy in Iraq. The fact that the Bush administration did not seem to anticipate this fact when they planned the invasion and its aftermath is very likely criminal negligence.

Now personally I think the current regimes in Iran and Syria are evil and any thing possible should be done to remove them. The Democrats will likely use a less confrontational approach, in their rhetoric, than has been employed to date. If the less confrontational approach can inspire the Iranian people to rise up against that government, this would be great. The 1968 “leftist” approach you mention actually has merit. The key, as with any policy, will be the execution.

From what I can tell, you are likely spot on about the unpopularity of Amadinejad, however, the Iranian government closely guards what information comes out of that country. Its difficult to be sure precisely what is going on there. It does seem, from my reading about Iranian dissidents, if pressure were applied properly that government could be replaced and it could be done without any direct US intervention. With the toppling of the Iranian government this would solve much of our problems in Iraq. Also, there are probably groups in Syria we could support to against the Assad government. Maybe the 1968 “leftist” approach could work there to. Regime change in Iran and Syria will go along way toward solving our problems in Iraq.

Once the people rise up, the US will need to support them. Sadly the US has had a bad habit of betraying its allies. First there was the Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba, then Vietnam, recently forcing Israel into a ceasefire against Lebanon, not backing up the Kurds or the Shia after Desert Storm, and the list goes on.

Even if the people don’t rise up, the regime in Iran MUST be stopped. If the people don’t over throw them, then there will be no choice but to take military action. Iran right now is more dangerous right now than Nazi Germany or imperial Japan ever were or ever could have been. America’s standing as amjor world power and probably its very survival depends on removing the Iranian regime from power or at the very least containing it. As I ahve pointed out previously, the strategy for winning the cold war including containment. Perhaps a similar strategy can work against Iran.

I’ve seen little evidence of parliment working hard to undermine Amadinejad. If so, that is encouraging. It means there may be someone high up in the Iranian government we can work with.

With regards to the Iranian nuke program, if the Iranians are faking it, this means they do not understand their enemy. If they abandoned the nuke program, they would get all sorts of goodies from the US and the West. This would be HUGE for their economy and the confrontational party could get all of the credit. I don’t think they are faking. The leadership has stated that they desire world dominace for Islam. As such, they would want nuclear weapons.

Iran is different from Iraq. In 1981, Iraq’s facilities were in one place. Iran has them all throughout the country and buried in hardened places. Elininating Iran’s nuclear program will be much more difficult.

Israel’s leadership is weaker than it was 25 years ago. Of that, I think there is no question and they face a much greater threat than they did 25 years ago. To say this is not a good situation, understates things dramatically. All os this means is that Israel will wait until the last possible moment to act. This is when it will be most difficult. Israel probably does not have to act now but time grows incredibly short. I hope and pray this issue can be solved before Israel has to take military action.

I’m skeptical of the claims that Saddam’s WMD were moved to Syria, however, convoys of something were transferred to Syria and the Iraq Survey Group was never able to fully eliminate the possibilty. The bottom line is while, at this time, I do not think Saddam shipped his WMD stockpiles to Syria but the ISG was never able to complete the investigation into that possibility. For now, I’m assuming Iraq faked his WMD. if so, this means he did not understand his enemy. Had Iraq come clean on their WMD, Saddam would still be in power and there would be no sanctions.

Thanks for the additional analysis. I was not yet born in 1968, however, I have seen pictures of the protests on tv. I think I now know what you mean by “leftists.” Thank you for the clarification.

I agree with you that Bush is probably not going to inspire Iranians to take to the streets. Iran does have some legitimate grieveances and some imaginary ones. We also have some legitmate grieveances. If Iran had more rational leadership, it would probably be possible to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to all parties. With the Democrats coming to power the US will be using a gentler approach when dealing with middle eastern tyrants. In other words, the American side will have someone willing to reach a negotiated settlement. We just need someone on the Iranian side with real power who has the same goals of a peaceful settlement.

But that’s for the future. For the present, we have utterly lost.

When I think of leftist, I think of folks like Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, the people who blab about national secrets to the NY Times, the reporters who gleefully report them, Seymor Hersch, the editors of counterpuch.org, adn so forth. These “leftists” would be more likely to actually help the current Iranian government and actively oppose any Iranian disidents. I’m assuming by leftists you mean a leader who takes a more diplomatic approach and a less hawkish approach. You may be on to something there.

By “leftist” I actually mean “leftist” as in 1968 protests. Blind opposition to authority etc. I don’t believe that Bush government could inspire Iranian students to take it to the streets as they did in 1999.

I had read about Iranian oppostion to the Taliban. I understand they did not really care for one another, however, from the best I can tell both the Taliban and the Iranian government like the US less than they like one another. In other words, they would gladly come together for the purpose pf opposing the US. If Itan were really doing all it could to help us take down the Taliban, they could have overthrwon that government for us and even bagged Osama for us.

Well, that’s hypothetical. The fact remains, Iran was supporting Northern Alliance long before US did so. (And there are enough grounds to suspect that US was actually OK with Taliban before 9/11).
And this thing about “not liking US” — of course, Iran doesn’t like US messing in the region. Since Iraq was widely seen as “the first step to Iran”, it was just a natural self-defense for them to make it is bad in Iraq as possible. This doesn’t mean Iran would support someone as crazy as Osama. You know, there is rational antagonism and irrational hatred, these are different things.
Of course, there is not much rational about Ahmadinejad, but he is in fact a product not of “regime”, but democracy. He was elected, and I suspect that his main platform was about economic populism, not insanity. He is about as popular as Bush in his country now, and parliament works hard to undermine his presidency (they already stole 1.5 years from him).

For a coup to work in Iran, time grows short. The current Iranian regime will be acquiring nuclear weapons very soon.

Well, first thing, you remember Saddam behaving as if he had WMD when in fact he hadn’t (unless you buy “they moved it to Syria” line). So, there’s no proof that they are really trying to acquire nuclear weapons, maybe pretending is just a way for confrontational party inside Iran to stay in power. On the other hand, for Israel to act military doesn’t mean throwing their own nuke at Iran. They had successfully stopped Iraq from getting the nuke in 1981, so you can expect them to do the same thing again, although one must agree that their current leadership is much weaker than that of 25 years ago.