Breaking: This Should Be Interesting
AP News Alert
Jul 2 12:39 PM US/Eastern
KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine (AP) - President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin promise a united front against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.
UPDATE, 1:25 PM:
At press conference moments ago:
Bush: “We spent a lot of time talking about the Iranian issue. I’m hesitant to put words in his mouth, but I think he (Putin shares that same concern ). I’ve come to the conclusion that when the U.S. and Russia speak with one voice it tends to have an effect. And so we discussed a variety of ways to continue sending a joint message. We’re close on recognizing that we’ve got to work together to send a common message.And by the way, and one othe issue I didn’t put in my own comments, is that President Putin thinks we should work bilaterally on missile defense.”
Putin: “So far we’ve continued to be succesful working within the framework of the Secuerity Council. I think we will continue to work within that framework. Recently we’ve seen some signals from Iran in terms of willingness to work with the IAEA. ”
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
If GW believes that Bullshit. Then maybe he really does lack intelligence, or else he is very naive. Really disturbing!!!
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:31 amDah kommissar Vlad. Bullshit. Der Russian Furher is playing head games once again with GW. C’mon GW wake the fuck up will ya!
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 amAs Pat has posted before, this meeting that Bush had with Putin was all about our planned invasion (not just bombing IMHO) of Iran & what price we had to pay Ivan for their blessing.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:49 amThe Case for Invading Iran
by Guest Author at January 19, 2006 1:24 PM
by Thomas Holsinger
America has come to another turning point � whether our inaction will again engulf the world and us in a nightmare comparable to World War Two. This will entail loss of our freedom as the price of domestic security measures against terrorist weapons of mass destruction, though we might suffer nuclear attack before implementing those measures. The only effective alternative is American use of pre-emptive military force against an imminent threat � Iranian nuclear weapons, which requires that we invade Iran and overthrow its mullah regime as we did to Iraq�s Baathist regime.
All the reasons for invading Iraq apply doubly to Iran, and with far greater urgency. Iran right now poses the imminent threat to America which Iraq did not in 2003. Iran may already have some nuclear weapons, purchased from North Korea or made with materials acquired from North Korea, which would increase its threat to us from imminent to direct and immediate.
Iran�s mullahs are about to produce their first home-built nuclear weapons this year. If we permit that, many other countries, some of whose governments are dangerously unstable, will build their own nuclear weapons to deter Iran and each other from nuclear attack as our inaction will have demonstrated our unwillingness to keep the peace. This rapid and widespread proliferation will inevitably lead to use of nuclear weapons in anger, both by terrorists and by fearful and unstable third world regimes, at which point the existing world order will break down and we will suffer every Hobbesian nightmare of nuclear proliferation.
Iran has dramatically shortened the time required to acquire the necessary weapons-grade fissionable materials by purchase abroad of pre-enriched, but not yet weapons-grade, fissionable materials (not just from North Korea). Iran�s technicians already have the expertise to fabricate functional nuclear weapons. The latter opinion is held by, among others, Mohamed El Baradei, director-general of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, who said that Iran can produce nuclear weapons in a few months if it has the requisite weapons-grade fissionables: “And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far�a few months�from a weapon.”
It normally takes years to produce the highly purified fissionables required for nuclear weapons � that is the only obstacle after Pakistan let its nuclear weapons program director sell the knowledge of weapons fabrication to anyone with enough money. All estimates alleging that it will take Iran years to produce nuclear weapons assume that they will do so from scratch, but that is not the case. Iran purchased pre-enriched fissionables with the intent of �breaking out� in a short period to a fully stocked production �pipeline� of fissionables under enrichment at all stages of the process, from �yellowcake� at the low end to almost ready at the high end.
It is possible, and in my opinion has already happened, that Iran has purchased enough nuclear materials from North Korea to fabricate a few nuclear weapons and facilitate the following strategy. Iran could minimize the duration of a �window� of vulnerability to pre-emptive American or Israeli attack between their first nuclear tests (or announcement that they have nuclear weapons), and possession of enough nukes to deter attack, by postponing the announcement and/or first tests until they have a full-speed production line going � everything from enriching fissionables to weapons-grade and fabricating those into nuclear weapons, to stocks of finished nuclear weapons. At that point most or all of the latter will likely be of North Korean origin, but those will be quickly outnumbered by made-in-Iran ones under final assembly at the time of the announcement. I believe this is the plan Iran is following, and that the announcement will come late this year.
The recent spike in world oil prices gave Iran�s mullahs billions of dollars more in hard currency for use in acquiring material for their nuclear weapons program. The timing of their ongoing breakout to public nuclear weapons capability, and the public threats of Iran�s president, indicate that some recent event has given them additional confidence here. I feel this was their purchase of enough nuclear weapons materials from North Korea to fabricate a few nuclear weapons. They might have bought fully operational North Korean nukes. Such North Korean complicity carries other implications.
Whatever the reason, Iran�s mullahs no longer seem to feel a need to wait for final processing of fissionables, and fabrication of those into nuclear weapons, before their nuclear deterrent against the United States is ready. They act like they presently have that deterrent, and are proceeding to backfill their fissionable processing and weapons fabrication line before announcing that they have nuclear weapons. America�s election cycle plus the Bush administration�s fictitious budget estimates might also have a role in the timing of this announcement.
Those who have considered the consequences of Iran�s open possession of nuclear weapons (as opposed to covert possession) have generally focused on its avowed threats against Israel and the United States. Those are certainly enough grounds for pre-emptive attack by both � Iran�s mullah regime is the one government in the entire world whose possession of nuclear weapons would most pose a direct and immediate threat to America and Israel.
Iran�s mullahs will use nuclear weapons as a shield against foreign attack while they more openly support terrorism elsewhere. American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear weapons will lose the war on terror by ceding terrorists a �privileged sanctuary� in Iran. We�ll have let terrorists have in Iran what we invaded Iraq to stop. The invasion of Iraq will have been a complete waste of effort, and our dead in Iraq will have died in vain.
The chief threat of Iranian nukes, however, is what they will lead to elsewhere � something which will make all of the above trivial by comparison, something which will go on and on long after Iran�s mullah regime is overthrown by the Iranian people.
If the United States does not forcibly prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, every country in the area will know to a moral certainty that they cannot rely on the United States for protection against Iranian nuclear attack, or Iranian nuclear blackmail in support of domestic opposition to the generally shaky regimes of the Middle East. American prestige and influence there will collapse. If we won�t protect ourselves by pre-emption, we can�t be relied on to protect anyone else.
So every country within reach of Iranian nuclear weapons will have enormous strategic pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons to deter Iranian nuclear threats. As a recent strategic survey noted, Syria has many times the per capita and absolute GDP of North Korea, and Egypt several times the per capita and absolute GDP of Pakistan. If North Korea and Pakistan can develop nuclear weapons, so can Syria and Egypt, and also Saudi Arabia, all three of whose regimes are shaky. And they won�t be the only countries to develop nuclear weapons after Iran does - many more will join the nuclear �club� within a few years, some within months.
All of those countries having nuclear weapons will create a security nightmare � at some point terrorists will be able to buy or steal some (assuming that Iran doesn�t first give a few to favored terrorist groups). It is likely that at least some will use their nuclear weapons on each other, or in a domestic coup or factional fight. The latter might first happen in Iran.
Few have any idea of the degree to which international trade and prosperity relies on free movement of goods between countries. Container cargo is an ideal means of covertly transporting terrorist nuclear weapons. Once the first terrorist nuke is used, international trade will be enormously curtailed for at least several months for security reasons, and the entire world will suffer a simultaneous recession.
It won�t stop there, though. These same security precautions, once implemented, will significantly impede future economic growth � a ballpark estimate of reducing worldwide growth by 20-30% is reasonable. Consider the worldwide and domestic effects over a twenty-year period of a one-quarter across the board reduction in economic growth.
This will be just from security precautions against terrorist nukes �not physical destruction from such use nor, more importantly, the consequences of nuclear wars between or within third world states. Physical destruction from these will be bad enough, but that pales compared with the social and consequent economic effects � enormous tides of refugees, economic collapse and outright anarchy over wide areas.
We cannot avoid that washing over us from abroad even if we manage to avoid terrorist nuclear attack at home, and we are unlikely to be so lucky. Scores if not hundreds of thousands of Americans will likely be killed, and many more injured, from terrorist nuclear devices used in America when so many politically unstable countries possess hundreds of the things.
We better than most can economically afford the thoroughly intrusive security measures required to protect against terrorist nukes when the threat can come from anywhere, as opposed to Islamic extremists alone.
But the price of domestic security, when foreign security fails due to a failure of leadership and will by President Bush, will be something much more precious � our freedom.
Freedom everywhere will suffer due to those same security precautions. The greatest loss of freedom will come in those countries which are freest, i.e., especially America. Especially us.
THIS is what is really at stake � the freedom which makes us Americans.
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.
There isn�t time to overthrow Iran�s mullah regime through subversion before the end of this year, and President Bush�s toleration of factional disputes in our national security apparatus means that we lack the capability to do so, period.
Iran seems to be in a pre-revolutionary state such that its mullah regime will collapse from purely domestic reasons within a few years even if we do nothing, but by then it will have openly had nuclear weapons for several years, possibly used them against Israel and/or been pre-emptively nuked by Israel, and widespread nuclear proliferation will have started with all the horrors that will bring.
Only military force THIS YEAR can prevent this nightmare. Bombing alone won�t do it � it will only postpone things, and Iran�s mullahs won�t just sit there while we�re bombing them. War is a two-way street. They have spent years preparing for this conflict, and will try to stop Persian Gulf oil exports. There will also be an instant massive uprising by Iranian-led Shiite militias in southern Iraq.
Half-measures in war only make things worse. If we really want to find out how much Iran�s mullah regime can hurt us, and relearn the lessons of Vietnam, we need only bomb without invading. That will maximize our losses. Those who advocate mere bombing have not considered that Iran might already have some nuclear weapons.
Israel does not have the military capability we do. Israeli air attack against Iran�s dispersed and hardened nuclear facilities will at most postpone Iranian production by a few months. The United States Air Force can postpone it for as long as we keep up the attacks, but the mullahs will counterattack such that we�ll be at war whether we want to be or not, only with no chance of victory while we�re afraid to win.
The only effective way to stop the mullahs from building nukes, while minimizing our losses from their counter-attacks, is to overthrow their regime by invasion and conquest as we did against Saddam Hussein�s regime in Iraq.
Democratic military experts agreed in a recent Atlantic Monthly article that eliminating Iran’s mullah regime with a ground invasion is feasible - they were more optimistic about it than I am (my emphasis:
“In all their variety, these and other regime-change plans he described had two factors in common. One is that they minimized “stability” efforts�everything that would happen after the capital fell. “We want to take out of this operation what has caused us problems in Iraq,” Gardiner of CentCom said, referring to the postwar morass. “The idea is to give the President an option that he can execute that will involve about twenty days of buildup that will probably not be seen by the world. Thirty days of operation to regime change and taking down the nuclear system, and little or no stability operations. Our objective is to be on the outskirts of Tehran in about two weeks. The notion is we will not have a Battle of Tehran; we don’t want to do that. We want to have a battle around the city. We want to bring our combat power to the vicinity of Tehran and use Special Operations to take the targets inside the capital. We have no intention of getting bogged down in stability operations in Iran afterwards. Go in quickly, change the regime, find a replacement, and get out quickly after having destroyed�rendered inoperative�the nuclear facilities.”
I believe the durations mentioned in the Atlantic article should be at least doubled � it won�t take us only 7-10 more days to overthrow Iran�s regime than it did Iraq�s, not to mention locating and destroying the known and secret nuclear facilities scattered over a wide area. I feel the Atlantic panel significantly underestimated logistic problems. Our forces must pass through mountains to get to Iran�s capital of Teheran, while getting to Baghdad required passage only through deserts and broad river valleys. Iran is much bigger than Iraq, so our ground forces will have a greater distance to travel, while even minor resistance in mountain passes will cause significant delays.
The Atlantic article concluded that eliminating the mullah regime was feasible � we agree that Iranian ground resistance will be minor, especially compared to our forces� extreme effectiveness - but the Atlantic panelists felt that the consequences had too high a price. I agree that the occupation campaign afterwards will be much worse for us, in terms of intensity and required manpower, than the occupation campaign in Iraq � they felt the necessary manpower required for several years� occupation duty would be prohibitive. They did not, however, even attempt to weigh that against the consequences of letting Iran have nuclear weapons, the effects of it already having some, and the probable duration of an occupation campaign. I do. The tradeoffs between the cost of an extended occupation in Iran, and its desirability, change dramatically if we must search for easily concealed, ready-to-use nuclear weapons, as opposed to merely destroying the physical ability to produce them.
I also feel the occupation campaign in Iran will take much less time than the one in Iraq for the following reasons:
(1) Iran has a functioning civil society and democratic tradition while Iraq didn’t. The mullahs veto candidates they don’t like, more in the past few years than earlier, but the systems and mindset for a functioning democratic society are present.
(2) We can use many of the Iranian army’s junior officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel as a cadre for the new democratic regime’s security forces. We couldn’t do that with Iraq’s army as the officers and non-coms were almost exclusively Sunni Arabs aka Baathist regime loyalists, and the mostly Shiite conscripts had almost all gone home.
3) Iran has at least one order of magnitude, and probably several orders of magnitude, less loose explosives than were present in Iraq, for possible use in improvised explosive devices. The mullah regime die-hards will die much faster than the Baathist die-hards in Iraq, because the ones in Iran will be attacking our forces mostly with direct-fire weapons. That is suicidal against American forces.
4) Language and ethnicity differences mean that Al Qaeda’s purely Sunni foreign terrorists won’t be able to operate much in Iran. The latter operated only briefly in Shiite areas of Iraq - those that didn’t leave quickly died horribly at Shiite hands. While there are a lot of Sunnis in Iran, few of those are Arabs - they’re Kurds, Azeris, etc.
My rough estimate of American casualties in the conquest and occupation campaigns for Iran, assuming that the mullahs don’t nuke us, or use chemical weapons, is that we’d take about 50% more casualties in the first 18-24 months in Iran than in three years in Iraq, mostly in the twelve month period after the initial conquest.
I agree with the Atlantic panelists that the conquest campaign in Iran would, in terms of casualties, cost little more than Iraq�s - several hundred allied KIA. I just think it would take longer.
Everyone I know of with opinions on the subject agrees that the occupation campaign in Iran would be more intense than Iraq’s, but Iraq’s has seen only about 1700 KIA (or is it total fatalities including accidents?) during the 33 months of the occupation to date. That is about 50 fatalities per month for an average of about 120,000 troops (1 fatality per month per 2400 troops).
If Iran’s occupation entails 200,000 men and is twice as intense as Iraq’s in terms of casualties, we’re looking at 1 fatality per 1200 men per month. 200k x 12 months = 2400k divided by 1200 = 2000 fatalities per year. This is certainly a lot compared to Iraq�s occupation campaign, but it also indicates that American casualties in Iran will be acceptable by any reasonable standard.
In my opinion the occupation campaign in Iran will be awful only for the first year, and then conditions will improve much faster than in Iraq for reasons mentioned above in this post. My guesstimate at this point is about 3000 American fatalities over two years for both the conquest and occupation campaigns in Iran, though the first year would be ghastly.
That Iran may already have some nuclear weapons (IMO this is likely) complicates a prospective invasion. We�d had a plan for several years to destroy Iran�s nuclear weapons capability (i.e., the launchers as well as the warheads) � it is called variously �Global Strike� and CONPLAN 8022. The United States Air Force excels at blowing things up.
Consider also, that, if small numbers of Iranian nuclear weapons are enough of a threat to seriously menace an American invasion, they are enough of a threat to merit pre-emptive attack with American nuclear weapons. Get real - our nukes are bigger than theirs, and we have lots more than they do. And if Iranian nuclear weapons aren�t enough of a threat to merit pre-emptive use of our own, they�re not a reason to avoid invading. It is not likely, however, that the USAF will need nuclear weapons to keep the mullahs from getting any off.
Did I mention the bribes? Now is the time for some breathtaking bribes � say a billion dollars per Iranian nuke delivered to us, which would be cheap given the alternative. Once we demonstrate the will to invade and eliminate the mullah regime, such bribes would be more effective than most think. Psychological warfare was wildly successful in the invasion of Iraq.
Fear of possible Iranian nuclear weapons use against an American invasion is not a valid reason for doing nothing. A thousand more American civilians have been killed by enemy action at home in this war than American servicemen killed at home and abroad. Not invading Iran will increase this disparity by several orders of magnitude. We have armed forces to protect our civilians from the enemy, not vice versa � soldiers die so civilians don�t. We will invade Iran to protect the American people from nuclear attack. That is worth the risk posed by Iranian nuclear weapons to American soldiers, and the burden of deploying 200,000 troops there for several years. Our reserves knew when they enlisted that they�d be called up for the duration of a major war. Invasion of Iran to protect America from nuclear attack, and preserve our freedom, counts as a major war.
This would, however, make absolute hash of the Bush administration’s quite fictitious future budget estimates, which are the reason why it refused to significantly expand our ground forces after 9/11 though such was obviously necessary. Those phony budget estimates are arguably the biggest obstacle to our invasion of Iran this year. Iran�s mullahs might even have counted on this in timing their breakout to public nuclear weapons possession.
And if we don’t invade this year, it won’t matter much after that. We’ll be in the worst case scenario. And President Bush will be reviled as America�s worst President � the one who through inaction cost us our freedom.
UPDATE: Joe responds here on Winds with “Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War”. It begins with Chesterton:
“I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.
Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?”
——————————————————————————–
All rights reserved. This article can be found on the Internet at:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 amI didn’t see the news conference. Did Bush kiss Putin on both cheeks, ala Carter/Brezhnev in 1979, one month before the soviets invaded Afghanistan? Ah shucks, I call him Vladamur.
Benefit of the doubt time for our commander-in-chief. He has been known to employ the head fake.
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:58 amI’m all for smacking Iran down. However, even if Kommisar Putin agrees, what will the dhimoratz do? Who amoung them would agree?
If Bush were a smart guy, he’d be taking his case for an Iranian shitkicking to the American people.
A remake of the “These are the Stakes” LBJ commercial in 1964, might be an appropriate place to start.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 amI’m not real high on an invasion. However, a 100% surprise assault on the hierarchy, the Republican Guard and all nuke facilities would be a good place to start. None of this telegraphing your intensions BS like we did with Saddam.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:21 amTrue Jam. MY faith in the Commander-in-chief has been shaken, but I do hope he will surprise me and I would have been worried for nothing.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 amPutin has the cleanest sphincter in Kennebunkport! What a world class butt smooch!
Has GW “seen into his soul” again. Comrade Vladimir has got his own plan and that is turn the tables against the West all the while enhancing his personal fortunes.
Putin is no friend of the US. We only have to deal with this two-bit hustler because we know he in fact has nukes. He cracks down on Jihadis in Chechnya while enabling those in the Middle East to strike at the West.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:55 amDan: Reality is Reality. Ivan is still the second major nuclear power on earth & their current military doctrine is the first use (Preemption)http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/over/doctrine.htm of nuclear weapons in the event of a military confrontation with the USA. & if Bush planning what I think he is planning he needs the Putin to sign off on it.
July 2nd, 2007 at 10:57 amOne-Shot: Wishful thinking. Invasion & removal of Mullahs from power is the only way to remove the threat from Iran.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 amWendy: My faith in President Bush has not been shaken. Look at the sedition he has faced in our country & he has remained steadfast in his endgame in removing the Mullahs of Iran threat to the USA.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 amThe President has shown remarkable resolve in keeping the traitors in congress from flushing this country down the shitter.
We can’t know everything the President knows but sometimes we get a little arogant thinking we do. It is pretty easy to call for a nukin’ from a blog site. I’m guilty.
The President has to nuance his nukin’ and if he has to kiss the wee one’s ass or cut a deal with him, it can’t be any worse than dealing with Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha. At least Putin doesn’t pretend to be an American.
Whatever it takes to get this thing done.
July 2nd, 2007 at 11:54 amskip1:
I’m an old Soviet hand bud. I know all about those fuckers. I’ve never considered them to be anything but the enemy.
Be that as it may. Making a case for a strike on Iran makes perfect sense. Making deals with Kommisar Putin is fine.
And what about Congress? You think GW can buy their cooperation? I doubt it.
Hence, my reason for taking the case to the American people and by-passing the Pelosniks in Congress.
We can still choose the time and place of our attack.
On the other hand, just how much of that conversation that Bush and Lennin Jr will get back to mookie anyways.
Care to guess how many more SAMs the Russians are going to provide to Iran?
I bet there is a new “weapons” contract all ready signed from mookie on Lennin Jr’s desk.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 pmI sure hope GW doesn’t get duped by [ras]putin again. Talk about russia reverting to its’ old ways..
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:02 pmDan, AMEN! And why does history repeat itself? Because no one was paying attention the first time.
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust. ~Demosthenes
July 2nd, 2007 at 1:18 pmHouse6
History repeats itself because people don’t teach it anymore. The crap that kids study nowadays is pure junk.
So, we’re doomed to repeat it. Being stuck on stupid in History class in this country is being taken to an art form.
That’s what happens when dullard teachers use idiotic fecal matter like James Loewen writes.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 pmPres. Bush: “Well, the other night Vlad offered to make drinks for everyone, but Laura said, ‘No thanks, Vlad. We’re all allergic to plutonium’ …”
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pmGooooooood one Drillanwr.
July 2nd, 2007 at 5:33 pmReason why you must speak to Ivan before we invade Iran
VRYAN: was a Soviet analytical method to predict an expected United States surprise attack. It was originally begun in May 1981 by Yuri Andropov, then chairman of KGB. When Andropov took power in 1983, however, VRYAN took on an new significance, particularly after the planned deployment of the Pershing II missile to West Germany was announced. These missiles were launched from road-mobile vehicles, making the launch sites very hard to find. The flight time from West Germany to European Russia was only 4 to 6 minutes, giving the Soviets little to no warning. Also, on 23 March 1983, Ronald Reagan publicly announced development of the SDI program. The Soviet leadership felt that the only use of SDI technology was to render America invulnerable to Soviet attack, thereby allowing the US to launch missiles against the USSR with no fear of retaliation. This surprise attack paranoia prompted sudden expansion of the VRYAN program, using deductive methods that incorporated worldwide intelligence of US “surprise attack†indicators such as US military exercises and domestic blood bank increases (in preparation for mass casualties). Through the analysis of these numerous indicators, the VRYAN program intended to predict the US “surprise attack”. One of the consequences of this belief in a surprise attack was the 1983 war scare, triggered by Exercise Able Archer 83.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm