September 15, 2006
Alarmist?
Last week Charles Krauthammer argued that the United States must stay the course in Iraq and even increase its troop strength.
Now, parsing a statement by President Bush, Krauthammer writes about what the United States plans to do to Iraq's neighbor, Iran, in the Tehran calculus (here as well) as wells as the possible, economic, military and diplomatic costs.
Krauthammer also gives a deadline for America taking action against the Iranian bomb: one year.
I have to admit, I'm not totally convinced by this column.
For one thing the economic costs that Krauthammer predicts include $100 a barrel oil that leads to a severe economic downturn. The economy recently absorbed an approximate $20 a barrel increase in oil prices. It inflicted hardship, to be sure, but the economy kept chugging along. $100 a barrel is more than the highest levels of this past July. It will necessarily be a burden, if it reaches that level, but will it lead to a severe recession? Maybe. But I hardly see the price of oil, nor a consequential recession to be inevitable.
Second, while considering the possible military actions of an American strike on Iranian nuclear capabilities, Krauthammer suggests
Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.
If that's the case, why isn't the U.S. doing more to fight the Mahdi Army now? Being prepared is essential to any reasonable strategy. If the Mahdi army isn't degraded, I don't think we'll se an attack on Iran.
And of course, if one believes that the U.S. must step up its involvement in Iraq, I don't see how taking on Iran's nuclear facilities will be possible. I may think that such an action is necessary, I just don't see the United States as having the political or military capacity right now for carrying out such an action, especially if the consequences are likely to be as terrilbe as Krauthammer suggests.
Technorati tag: Iran
Posted by SoccerDad at September 15, 2006 6:15 AM | TrackBack
Out of sitemeter
Hamas's novelty wears off
Council speak 09/14/08
Still not barking
The Media and The Hubris of Hope?
Osama didn't bark. why not?
Palin's coming out party
I go flying so high
A piece of peace
Seven year ago plus
One of the things Krauthammer DIDN'T address in his article was the chance of success bombing Iranian nuclear facilities would have.
Most of what's been written about it lately makes it sound like bombing would only set them back a year or so. Is this worth the cost?
"Is this [US pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities] worth the cost?"
Depends on whether you believe the Iranians would actually provide one of their bombs to terrorists or not, ones who then try to smuggle it into the US for detonation. I can think of several "non-anticipated" ways for them to get it here (ie other than the usual cliche ones, shipping containers etc).
Compared to this scenario the costs Krauthammer cites are trivial.
Deep down inside, many will be utterly convinced that Iran would never dare to do such a thing. As far as I'm concerned, those who believe this are ignoring precedent; prior to 9/11 those who feel this this way about Iran now would have also probably scoffed at the idea of anyone being able to get away with hijacking airliners and flying them into the WTC/Pentagon.
If a dedicated group of Mohammed Atta-like agents of Iranian state intelligence can smuggle in a device and set it off in DC, it might just decapitate the US government; would we really have the will to launch a large strike back at "the usual suspects" and kill multi-millions? Who knows what could happen then, vs a vs China and Russia; so we might just be constrained to respond conventionally.
And that would be a "victory", in the same way the Hezbollah's current situation is seen by them as a "victory". Either way (as the Iranian key govt decision-makers will see it), they win; the 12th Imam is coming regardless of the fate of the Islamic Republic. (Yes of course the vast majority of the Iranian population doesn't see it this way, but what makes you think they will have any say in the matter?)
Bush 41's comparison of Saddam Hussein to Hitler was inapt, as SH's role model was Stalin. Ahmadinijad (sp?) truly does remind me of Hitler, in that I think he represents a will by the Islamic Republic to bring about a Gotterdammerung.
If you ask me what I think is actually going to happen, though, I would say "no attack on Iran by US". So I reckon we're going to see Iran get nukes in 1 year (or 5 or 10 or whenever) and then we can all get really interested in what is actually going to happen.
Maybe we'll get lucky and the nuclear flash will happen somewhere else (ie other than on US territory). Then, the aftermath of that occurrence will really make for some interesting political debate: will we really be willing to actually employ nukes in defense of others?
"When the attack on Russia starts the world will hold its breath." Adolph Hitler.
Posted by: Paul H. at September 15, 2006 12:22 PM