Quote :

"your rather lengthy response"

Translation: I just skimmed it.

Quote :

"Several European countries have been "negotiating" with Iran for some five years now."

Clearly they haven't offered the proper incentives (in terms of rewards and punishments).

Quote :

"NEWSFLASH: We're no better off now concerning the issue in question than we were five years ago."

Not especially, but things are better right now than they could be. We don't have troops trying to cover a stretch from Karbala to Kandahar and we don't have a smoking radioactive crater where Tel Aviv used to be -- in fact, we don't have any nuclear blasts at all. Now, maybe the negotiations are partly responsible for the current state of affairs, and maybe they aren't, but lack of improvement does not equal failure.

I still want to know what you recommend. At the moment, the only two options I've seen laid out on the table are

1) Talk
2) Fight

You have made abundantly clear that you think talking is a failed, perhaps even morally bankrupt course of action that will doom us in the end. So is it fighting you want? If not, why don't I see you expressing even a fraction of the loathing for that plan that I see for talking?

7/13/2008 1:12:20 AM

^

Quote :

"Translation: I just skimmed it."

Wrong. I read the whole tiresome piece--quantity does not equal quality, as some of you are so fond of chirping when it relates to my posts and threads.

Quote :

"Clearly they haven't offered the proper incentives (in terms of rewards and punishments)."

So, you admit that some form of "punishment" could be part of a solution to the problem at issue? GG.

Quote :

"Not especially, but things are better right now than they could be."

I like your emphasis on "right now"--it denotes the fact that "things" could change for the worse at any moment because of the hate-filled nutball Ahmadinejad and his cohorts. In addition, if Iran ever tried to create a "radioactive crater where Tel Aviv used to be," it would be the end of life as the current rulers in Iran know it.

Quote :

"1) Talk 2) Fight"

1. This is an either-or fallacy of logic. And if the rest of the world had the will, trade embargos and other sanctions would quickly bring Iran to its knees--the people of Iran must also have the will for regime change.

The Obama plan:

Quote :

"If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran

2. Do these things have to be mutually exclusive? Of course they don't. After all, one can continue talking to an enemy even as one is bashing that enemy's skull in--say, something along the lines of "Have you had enough?"

3. How long should the world continue to talk to Iran as it continues to march relentlessly toward a nuclear weapon? Five more years? Ten more? And please don't give me any of that "As long as it takes" bullshit. Iran will have a nuclear weapon soon enough--if it doesn't already--and any "talks" will be rendered moot.

Quote :

"So is it fighting you want?"

It's not what I "want"--ever--but sometimes war becomes necessary, does it not? I don't think we're there yet with Iran and we probably never will be. If that country develops a nuclear weapon, however, the war option will not only be on the table, it will be Plan A. We would certainly see air strikes--at a minimum.

Take heart, though. Talks with Iran seem to be the shape of things to come--no matter who is elected president:

Quote :

"When asked whether McCain supports Bush's pre-condition for talks with Iran — that it suspend uranium enrichment — the candidate's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, fudged. 'McCain does not support unilateral concessions to Iran that would undermine multilateral diplomacy,' Scheunemann said. McCain would drop the condition and talk to Iran, Scheunemann seems to be saying, as long as the allies agree. The allies, of course, are dying to be asked, so if McCain wins in November, look for talks with Iran early in his presidency. Likewise Obama, who says outright he'll drop the enrichment condition. In fact, once past the posturing, there seems little substantive difference between the two on talks."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1821465,00.html

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 3:54 AM. Reason : .]

7/13/2008 3:47:09 AM

Quote :

"I know this is coming from a guy who has explicitly stated that everyone should have to major in an engineering field, but there are subtleties to the situation that even you are not grasping -- and I respect you very highly among soapboxers. "

Well regardless of what I've said about the price of tea in China, you're factually wrong -- you said earlier:

Quote :

"The religious leadership's primary role is in selecting which people get into office, not telling people in office what to do."

The Guardian Council's religious body is directly appointed by the Leader. It:

Quote :

"All legislation passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly must be sent to the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council must review it within a maximum of ten days from its receipt with a view to ensuring its compatibility with the criteria of Islam and the Constitution. If it finds the legislation incompatible, it will return it to the Assembly for review. Otherwise the legislation will be deemed enforceable."

(Article 94 of the Constitution of Iran)

It's well known that they can and do exercise these powers.

Moving on, what powers does the Leader actually have Constitutionally?

Quote :

"(1) Following are the duties and powers of the Leadership: 1. Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Exigency Council. 2. Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system. 3. Issuing decrees for national referenda. 4. Assuming supreme command of the Armed Forces. 5. Declaration of war and peace and the mobilization of the Armed Forces. 6. Appointment, dismissal, and resignation of: a. the religious men on the Guardian Council, b. the supreme judicial authority of the country, c. the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran, d. the chief of the joint staff, e. the chief commander of the Isalmic Revolution Guards Corps, and f. the supreme commanders of the Armed Forces. 7. Resolving differences between the three wings of the Armed Forces and regulation of their relations. 8. Resolving the problems which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council. 9. Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council, and, in the case of the first term of a President, by the Leadership. 10. Dismissal of the President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89. 11. Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation from the Head of judicial power. (2) The Leader may delegate part of his duties and powers to another person."

He controls the military. He controls the judiciary. He controls the media. He decides who can run for President. He controls the body that can veto anything the popularly elected assembly passes (presumably even a measure to "boot" him). And that's a short summary of his exclusive authority.

As a matter of fact per your previous statement that his role is not to "tell people in office what to do," see that in point #1 he does set the "general policy" of the nation which must presumably be implemented by the government.

I suppose you can argue that the Iranian Constitution -- byzantine as it is -- is just a scrap of paper and the Leader has no "real" power, or that there are real political limits to the powers he does have. If so you'd better have some damned good evidence to back that up; because where subtlety is concerned, I am rather seeing that the founding document of the nation beats me over the head with how much legal power this guy has.

And for that matter -- if you're a noted expert in Iran please do tell me; respect me as you might, I'm just another guy posting here. I generally take the approach -- subtle or not -- that if I read from noted experts in Iran that the Supreme Leader has all the power, and then I read in the Constitution that he has all those powers, and then I see the reform movement crushed in the last elections by people appointed by the Leader -- that the guy is really insanely powerful and the Constitution means what it says.

7/13/2008 3:56:22 AM

Quote :

"Should a general who deposed a democratically elected government in a coup be shunned? Or do we talk to General Musharraf if he's useful to us? How about Mubarak, who's been living under a "State of Emergency" for over 30 years now? Or hell, how about the House of Saud? "

I don't think anyone is asking whether we should use negotiation as a tactic with "bad" governments. Obviously we can't go to war with everybody to solve our problems.

But that doesn't mean force is off the table as an option, or that it is mutually exclusive with the negotiation tactic. Clearly if Iran capitulated tomorrow to all our demands and starting playing "nice," I wouldn't say we need to engage them.

The question is who comes to the table first, for one thing. Iran is building nuclear weapons in clear violation of international laws; everybody agrees what they're doing is wrong and very dangerous. It's pretty obvious to me that when someone breaks the law, you don't politely ask them to stop. You enforce the law!

I don't really buy these arguments that go along lines of "well, this is statecraft, everyone has interests, just negotiate, it's all quid pro quo" -- well everyone does have interests, but nation states have responsibilities as well. If we base our entire foreign policy just on playing mutual interests against each other, then we are inherently rewarding states for belligerence. Because when a state is belligerent, extremely so in Iran's case, then we have more incentive to make them stop. i.e. we're willing to "pay more" at the bargaining table for the negotiated "privilege" of a nukes-free Iran.

Surely any reasonable person can see that this approach to foreign policy is back-asswards. There has to be a carrot and a stick.

But that's what Obama is proposing. He proposes:

Quote :

"If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

(from his web site)

So basically -- if Iran gives in, there are carrots. If they don't? More of the same-old, same-old that hasn't been working. Force is presumably off the table. We'll just trust President Obama to do the right thing when the time comes.

Carrots but no sticks. Doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.

(apologies to hooksaw as he made a similar point ... worth repeating though)

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 4:31 AM. Reason : foo]

7/13/2008 4:29:05 AM

^

Quote :

"apologies to hooksaw as he made a similar point ... worth repeating though"

No apology is necessary--the point cannot be overemphasized--but I thank you nonetheless.

7/13/2008 5:10:07 AM

Quote :

"I realize that many of you will say it doesn't matter, but for my part, I recognize a difference between: 1) Torturing somebody to acquire potentially life-saving information, and 2) Torturing somebody to coerce them to participate in propaganda 3) Torturing somebody as punishment"

Assuming that you've managed to draw a valid distinction (which I'm not necessarily willing to concede), you're still left with the rather sticky problem of deciding who has the authority to judge which category a specific instance of torture would fall into. I wouldn't trust anyone in government not to abuse that power, would you?

"Here, we give you the power to torture, but you must use it only for good." Ridiculous.

The only person we can say for sure can or should be tortured is a statist fuck who supports torture, because they're the only person who has no basis whatsoever to complain.

In case you're wondering, it's neocon shit like this that made me anarchist.

[Edited on July 13, 2008 at 7:52 AM. Reason : ']

7/13/2008 7:46:35 AM

Quote :

"I don't think anyone is asking whether we should use negotiation as a tactic with "bad" governments. Obviously we can't go to war with everybody to solve our problems."

Forgive me for misinterpreting then, but this seems to be the very premise of your thread: Iran is so very heinous that diplomacy is unthinkable. Please correct me here if I have erred.

Based upon that premise is my question. Is heinousness really a condition of whether we talk to a government or not? Because if so, it invalidates much of our foreign policy.

Quote :

"The question is who comes to the table first, for one thing. Iran is building nuclear weapons in clear violation of international laws; everybody agrees what they're doing is wrong and very dangerous. It's pretty obvious to me that when someone breaks the law, you don't politely ask them to stop. You enforce the law!"

Let's be clear, for a moment. The "international law" you cite is the NPT. And enforcing does not immediately draw one to the conclusion of invading - there are intermediary steps (like sanctions). But none of this precludes going to the negotiation table in the least - like, for instance, we did with the DPRK. Sanctions and negotiation are not two mutually exclusive options.

Furthermore, with regard to the NPT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Iran

Quote :

"In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[29] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.[30] The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.[31] In its February 2008 report, the IAEA reported that most of the remaining safeguards issues in Iran had been resolved, except for "alleged studies" related to weaponization. The IAEA also reported that and that all declared nuclear material remained accounted for, but it was unable to make progress in determining whether Iran was engaged in undeclared nuclear activities.[32]"

Quote :

"I don't really buy these arguments that go along lines of "well, this is statecraft, everyone has interests, just negotiate, it's all quid pro quo" -- well everyone does have interests, but nation states have responsibilities as well. If we base our entire foreign policy just on playing mutual interests against each other, then we are inherently rewarding states for belligerence. Because when a state is belligerent, extremely so in Iran's case, then we have more incentive to make them stop. i.e. we're willing to "pay more" at the bargaining table for the negotiated "privilege" of a nukes-free Iran."

I think this overstates the case. With the DPRK, this is almost certainly the case, and what you are describing is belligerence as a form of extortion. Yet with Iran, their motivation to do domestic Uranium enrichment - the major bone of contention, regardless if this is parlayed into a nuclear weapons program or not - is about national pride. There are basically two ways you can stop them - by direct force or by providing a resolution that allows them to keep their "national pride" without the dual-use technology of enrichment. One can easily argue that there are tools in our arsenal to put our thumb on the scale towards encouraging them to give up enrichment without resorting to force - sanctions, for instance.

Extortion, however, does not appear to be the racket in this particular instance.

Quote :

"Surely any reasonable person can see that this approach to foreign policy is back-asswards. There has to be a carrot and a stick."

Of course there does. The stick does not necessarily need to be a bayonet, however.

7/13/2008 12:37:21 PM

^

Well, to be clear I don't really think we're going to get anywhere negotiating with them. For two reasons -- the first, as I've stated, is that I think the regime is basically a glorified junta that doesn't act purely on self-interest. But let's move on from that for a second and assume that they are reasonable negotiation partners.

The second problem I have is that when we negotiate with Iran, we are negotiating fundamentally from a position of weakness.

Iran doesn't have to do much to "win" in the game here except wait us out until they finish building nukes. If we're not willing to use force, then ultimately they can just accept increased sanctions, etc. for the few remaining years until the nukes are completed. Then they can go back to the table and re-negotiate past the sanctions because they'll have way more leverage.

Time is always a factor in a negotiation. If you're negotiating and you have a strict time limit, you're at an inherent disadvantage. A severe one. In our case our "time limit" is the time it takes Iran to complete their technology.

So I don't agree with the approach of continued sanctions because it fundamentally ignores the realities of the situation. Our goal is to prevent an arms race, not bleed them until we get into one.

And finally, I don't really think we should care what their particular intentions are vis a vis enrichment. The point in your quote above about how the IAEA "was unable to make progress in determining whether Iran was engaged in undeclared nuclear activities" is key. Personally I think a strong sense of "trust but verify" -- with an emphasis on the "verify" -- is a pre-requisite to any reasonable negotiation process. You can say many things about Iran; but one thing they are not, is transparent -- even though some here seem to argue their cases from the perspective that they are.

7/13/2008 1:54:49 PM

Quote :

"And finally, I don't really think we should care what their particular intentions are vis a vis enrichment."

Here is why I think you are incorrect: Iran's fundamental position from negotiations has been that enrichment is an essential component of a civilian nuclear power program. Which, in fairness, it feasibly could be. It's simply that we know enrichment technology is easily diverted into weapons programs, which Iran has in the recent past worked upon. Therefore, our goal is to stop Iran from enriching and therefore from having a nuclear weapons program. This fundamentally does not deny them the right to have a civilian nuclear energy program, nor should it.

Now, you ask, why is that important? I believe the ability of Iran to produce a homegrown civilian nuclear program is in fact a point of pride with them - as a way of demonstrating their technological prowess to the region. Furthermore, if negotiations could present themselves in such as way that there is no possible reason for them to enrich - for instance, guarantees of fuel sales - and they were to still refuse, it would cut the legs out from under their subterfuge.

In other words, if they deny even an agreement which would allow a civilian nuclear program to go forth without the sensitive dual-use technology, then it would be patently obvious and indisputable that Iran is intransigent about a nuclear weapons program.

This is key - namely because of two issues. For one, countries like Russia have been blocking tougher sanctions regimes, arguing that Iran's work is exclusively toward peaceful nuclear energy. Thus if the ruse is exposed openly - that no means of negotiating out the sensitive, weapons-capable components (with, of course, a strict monitoring regime), then countries like Russia are forced out into the open: either they must openly declare themselves in favor of a nuclear-armed Iran or are thus forced into the position of conceding the need for a tougher sanctions regime.

One of the reasons Iran has been able to get as far as it has is because of the fact that any sanctions we've attempted to impose have been horrendously porous - thanks again to Iran's allies such as Russia. Call this bluff out into the open, and should Iran refuse to blink, then it calls the bluff of each of its allies.

7/13/2008 2:50:42 PM

Quote :

"So, you admit that some form of "punishment" could be part of a solution to the problem at issue? GG."

Have I ever said otherwise? "Admit," nothing. I'm just not in such a tearing hurry to go straight towards punishment.

Quote :

"I like your emphasis on "right now"--it denotes the fact that "things" could change for the worse at any moment because of the hate-filled nutball Ahmadinejad and his cohorts."

That's true but beside the point, which, as usual, you are ignoring. I'll reiterate it anyway, there's the possibility that things could be much worse without the diplomatic efforts that have already been made.

Quote :

"In addition, if Iran ever tried to create a "radioactive crater where Tel Aviv used to be," it would be the end of life as the current rulers in Iran know it."

I'm not sure what your point is here. Certainly if Iran ever used a nuclear weapon against Israel (or pretty much anybody else), they'd get obliterated. I'm aware. So is everybody -- including, I'm quite sure, the Iranian leadership.

Quote :

"This is an either-or fallacy of logic."

No it isn't. I stated quite plainly that those were the two courses of action that I'd seen laid out so far. I didn't deny or try to preclude the existence of others.

Quote :

"And if the rest of the world had the will, trade embargos and other sanctions would quickly bring Iran to its knees"

Yes, you'll recall the swiftness with which Cuba, Iraq, and North Korea were brought to their knees by sanctions. We even managed to keep North Korea from getting a nuc...oh, right.

Quote :

"Iran will have a nuclear weapon soon enough--if it doesn't already--and any "talks" will be rendered moot."

Moot? Do you think the day we confirm that Iran has a nuke we're going to attack them?

Quote :

"After all, one can continue talking to an enemy even as one is bashing that enemy's skull in--say, something along the lines of "Have you had enough?" "

That's not diplomacy, that's taunting. But if by "bashing that enemy's skull in" you mean sanctions, I don't fundamentally disagree with you. I don't think it's bound to be terribly effective, but I don't think it will disastrous, either.

Quote :

"It's not what I "want"--ever--but sometimes war becomes necessary, does it not?"

I have long been a vociferous proponent of war being necessary in a number of circumstances. The day Iran's leadership gets strung up will be a very happy day for me indeed. But the simple fact is that right now it's not necessary and not feasible.

Quote :

"We would certainly see air strikes--at a minimum."

This is not what I've been hearing in interviews on NPR and the BBC, which is the only place I've seen meaningful commentary about the logistics of invasion. Iran's nuclear program involves a large number of hardened facilities with substantial anti-air defenses, in some cases necessitating special forces or other troops on the ground to pave the way for airstrikes.

I'm not denying that an initial air offensive would be an integral part of a conflict, but they wouldn't come alone. And if Iran has any sense at all they will wait until they have at least a handful of weapons before testing one or otherwise revealing themselves as a nuclear power.

----

Now, hooksaw, I do so hope you'll forgive me, but as I have several at least medium length posts to respond to, mine is probably going to be a bit lengthy. My response to your initial post is done, though, so you can skip the rest.

----

Now onto Smoker4,

Firstly, you're right, I was wrong about the scope of Leadership powers in Iran, but much of the gist of my argument remains intact nonetheless.

The Guardian Council doesn't, from its description in the Iranian Constitution, sound all that different from the Supreme Court, albeit with a Muslim dictatorship twist. They're appointed by a powerful man and can reject legislation for all sorts of very silly reasons.

The Leader is indeed powerful, which I have not denied. It still seems to me that his primary power is in selecting members of government. "General policies" is pretty vague, for one thing.

And beyond all this, the number one reason talking to Ahmadinejad isn't such a big problem: he's the head foreign relations guy.

Quote :

"Article 125 [Treaties] The President or his legal representative has the authority to sign treaties, protocols, contracts, and agreements concluded by the Iranian government with other governments, as well as agreements pertaining to international organizations, after obtaining the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly."

Yes, he has to go back and ask an assembly -- just like the POTUS.

Quote :

"I suppose you can argue that the Iranian Constitution -- byzantine as it is -- is just a scrap of paper and the Leader has no "real" power, or that there are real political limits to the powers he does have. If so you'd better have some damned good evidence to back that up"

OK, I will argue that and the best evidence that leaps to mind is the presence of Chapter III of the Iranian Constitution, entitled "The Rights of the People," especially in the context of this thread. I'll point specifically to:

Quote :

"Article 23 -- The investigation of individuals' beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief."

There's also article 32, which basically grants habeas corpus, and article 37, which describes Iran's firmly held policy of presumption of innocence.

But the winner, ladies and gentlemen, and the centerpiece in tonight's show, I bring you Article 38 -- Torture!

Quote :

"All forms of torture for the purpose of extracting confession or acquiring information are forbidden. Compulsion of individuals to testify, confess, or take an oath is not permissible; and any testimony, confession, or oath obtained under duress is devoid of value and credence. Violation of this article is liable to punishment in accordance with the law."

That's it. No qualifications that say, "Except in so-and-so vague, ill-defined circumstances," which is a cop-out they gladly use throughout the rest of the chapter. It's right there in the Constitution -- we're not allowed to torture.

Smoker4, the fact that Article 38 exists and you were still able to write this thread is exhibit A in proving that the Iranian constitution isn't exactly ironclad.

Now, having said all that, I don't think it's completely worthless, either, and it probably does a passable job of describing the powers of various offices -- in large part because many of those descriptions are so vague and allow for delegation to other individuals.

7/14/2008 2:01:25 PM

Quote :

"But that doesn't mean force is off the table as an option, or that it is mutually exclusive with the negotiation tactic."

Force shouldn't be off the table, but it's awfully optimistic to think that it can be used concurrently with diplomacy, unless your idea of the latter is capitulation -- which, based on your next sentence, it appears to be. I'm afraid there's a difference between negotiating and beating someone until they beg you to stop.

Quote :

"Iran is building nuclear weapons in clear violation of international laws; everybody agrees what they're doing is wrong and very dangerous."

What is wrong and dangerous? Building nuclear weapons? Isn't it a bit hypocritical that most of the countries saying that this is wrong and dangerous are nuclear powers in their own right?

Let's face the sad reality here. Until every current nuclear power starts going balls-out dismantling its own arsenal, all regulations on nuclear proliferation and pretty goddamn illegitimate. Those laws are how all the nuclear bad boys got together and tried to make their club exclusive. It's not even about protecting stability; it's about protecting the nuclear oligarchy from competition.

Now, you could say that ultimately you don't care, because hypocritical or not it gives us a legal framework to go whip some Persian ass. And I basically feel the same way. But let's not act like we're valiant policemen here. We're bullies who have the muscle to be good at it.

Quote :

"If we base our entire foreign policy just on playing mutual interests against each other, then we are inherently rewarding states for belligerence. Because when a state is belligerent, extremely so in Iran's case, then we have more incentive to make them stop."

Few people are saying that foreign policy should only consist of mutual interests, and I'm certainly not one of them. However, it is equally unfeasible to base it solely on responsibility, or else, as I suggested earlier, we'd have to go around punishing most of the countries on Earth, including our own.

We can afford some give and take. And even if all we ask for is a cessation to their nuclear program, we won't be getting the "privilege of a nukes-free Iran;" we'll be taking a part of their national sovereignty in trade.

Quote :

"It's pretty obvious to me that when someone breaks the law, you don't politely ask them to stop. You enforce the law!"

This seems like a dangerous philosophy on the international stage. Lots of countries are violating international laws; many, of course, are more minor than producing nuclear weapons. Exactly how do you propose we deal with all of them? Do we bomb half the world or just stop trading with it?

I agree wholeheartedly that there should be sticks, and they should be very visible. But we don't need to start waving them just yet.

---

Now an epilogue with Megaloman and I'm out.

---

Quote :

"I wouldn't trust anyone in government not to abuse that power, would you?"

At least in this country I would trust that abuses would be few enough to fall within an acceptable range, and also that they would be aggressively pursued and prosecuted.

I don't think government is full of angels, but I think it has better mechanisms for punishing wrongdoers than anarchy does.

In other words, "Here, we give you the power to torture, but you must only use it in these situations or else you're going to go to jail."

Quote :

"In case you're wondering"

I wasn't.

7/14/2008 2:01:56 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4: It's pretty obvious to me that when someone breaks the law, you don't politely ask them to stop. You enforce the law!"

This door swings both ways.

Those neat Happy Camps(TM) in Cuba don't exactly agree with international law.

[Edited on July 14, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : barrio]

7/14/2008 4:23:10 PM

GrumpyGOP:

Well, I am certainly not trying to argue that the Iranian constitution illuminates properly the inner goings-on of their government. I'm just giving some paper-trail evidence in addition to current events and what I consistently read from experts on Iran in various sources. Honestly no one really knows what goes on in their government, internally, but we do know that the Leader has vast Constitutional powers, he appoints practically every high-level official either directly or indirectly, and he was one of the key figures of the original revolution -- Khomeini practically rewrote the Constitution so he could be the next Leader. As to the Guardian Council, they are known to act as his proxy and it directly vetoed a lot of Khatami's Reform agenda before finally cutting the party off the ballot.

I simply don't agree that their President should meet with ours; on some level, I'd say so purely because our Presidency is the highest office in our land, and their Leader is in theirs (in their own Constitution, article 113). I don't see the parity between our man who controls the military, and their President who is emphatically not their ultimate authority on military matters (the Leader is their commander-in-chief per above).

And perhaps that's key here -- what are the grounds of the negotiations? I'd think if force is off the table then maybe you're right. What need does a President Barack Obama have to discuss military matters with Iran? Presumably none if we know in advance that the outcome of negotiations will be either a treaty or sanctions. Let's hope that our options are not so limited, for everyone's sake.

Quote :

" Let's face the sad reality here. Until every current nuclear power starts going balls-out dismantling its own arsenal, all regulations on nuclear proliferation and pretty goddamn illegitimate. Those laws are how all the nuclear bad boys got together and tried to make their club exclusive. It's not even about protecting stability; it's about protecting the nuclear oligarchy from competition."

I think you're too cynical -- the main reason we have so many nuclear weapons is because until only a few decades ago we were locked in an arms race (one might say a "war," if a cold one) with a counter-balancing power of terrifying strength. We do forget history quickly.

It's also fair to say that intentions factor into the nuclear equation and nobody would be quite as alarmed if Iran weren't obviously bat-shit crazy. And if we didn't need enough reminders of that fact, they have President Ahmadinejad to remind us of it on television (or, better yet, at Columbia University) regularly.

Which gets me back to the point about negotiation -- clearly we're not going to bomb or ostracize every crazy power in the world. I don't know why anybody feels they can legitimately extrapolate what is going on in Iran to every other nation in the world; they're Iran, not Burma. This is a nation that is belligerent in its public rhetoric, that has been belligerent towards us in Iraq, that has always been directly or indirectly threatening towards us, and that is now incredibly defiant where nuclear arms are concerned. When they get nuclear arms, it is a sure fact that the Middle East will be, at the very least, a Cold War type arms race with Israel on one side and Iran on the other.

We need a big stick with these guys, and soon.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 1:14 AM. Reason : foo]

7/15/2008 1:13:18 AM

^^

Stop trolling. You took that out of context and you know it.

7/15/2008 1:15:20 AM

Quote :

"This is not what I've been hearing in interviews on NPR and the BBC, which is the only place I've seen meaningful commentary about the logistics of invasion."

GrumpyGOP

Sweet Jesus! Enough said.

There is good reason to believe air strikes will happen--and since I'm not sure you know your history. . .

1981: Israel bombs Baghdad nuclear reactor

Quote :

"The Israelis have bombed a French-built nuclear plant near Iraq's capital, Baghdad, saying they believed it was designed to make nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. It is the world's first air strike against a nuclear plant. An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The army command said all the Israeli planes returned safely."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

^ (Since you love the BBC so much.)

Israelis 'blew apart Syrian nuclear cache'

Quote :

"IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way. At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames."

Quote :

"By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake. As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites. This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new 'axis of evil' may have lost one of its spokes."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

Will Israel Strike Iran

Quote :

"But sources inside the U.S. intelligence and Defense communities are telling us, there is an increasing 'probability' that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will soon strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The strikes -- if they take place -- will be far more extensive than that which occurred during the strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981. The new strikes will target much more than just the nuclear sites. The extent to which America will or will not provide support will depend on multiple variables. And the strikes will not be over in a single night."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27392

You really should venture outside your BBC-NPR information comfort zone once in a while, Grumpy.

7/15/2008 5:15:55 AM

Smoker4:

I won't quibble about anything in your first paragraph because most of it seems valid and the rest isn't far enough from it to be worth quibbling about, since the real crux of the matter comes later.

Quote :

"I simply don't agree that their President should meet with ours; on some level, I'd say so purely because our Presidency is the highest office in our land, and their Leader is in theirs"

It is not uncommon for Presidents to meet with figureheads from other countries. Ideally, yes, you want them to sit face-to-face with actual policy makers, but in this unusual case not doing so might actually provide an advantage. Ahmadinejad (whose name I'm certain I continue to misspell) is, for all his faults, at least somewhat secular compared to the rest of the government. I've seen more than enough indication that he is as much a political animal as anything, and one with some sway in his government, if perhaps not the lion's share. Assuming for the moment that anyone in the Iranian government is willing to compromise at all, having him as a conduit between our President and Iran's Leader could very well allow our message to get across more agreeably.

Ahmadinejad no doubt has clear guidelines, at the very least, regarding what he can and can't accept in negotiations. At the bare minimum this makes him an acceptable proxy for our purposes and for appearances.

Quote :

"I don't see the parity between our man who controls the military, and their President who is emphatically not their ultimate authority on military matters"

Though you may have a case to make, I'm not sure this is it. That is to say, I don't think that negotiation should be viewed through such a military lens. This issue is as much political as it is martial, and so doesn't necessarily require a meeting of military leadership.

I think I may know what you're driving at, though, which is that any agreement made by the Iranian president is not exactly binding. Of course, this is the case regardless of whether he has authority or not. Hitler had all the authority a man can have, and when he promised to stop at Munich he did rather the opposite. I'm a firm believer that any deal made should come with the caveat that breaking it will result in consequences at least proportional to the severity of the violation. This position should be made clearly, as specifically as security interests will allow, and with the obvious implication that it is a promise and not a threat.

Quote :

"I think you're too cynical -- the main reason we have so many nuclear weapons is because until only a few decades ago we were locked in an arms race"

I know that's why we have nuclear weapons. That fact alone doesn't really speak much to the existence of international law as regards nuclear proliferation.

Quote :

"It's also fair to say that intentions factor into the nuclear equation and nobody would be quite as alarmed if Iran weren't obviously bat-shit crazy."

I have two arguments to make in response to this:

1) Clearly intentions factor, but they aren't the only consideration -- often enough, they're not even the biggest one. National pride -- something the Iranians have in abundance -- is also a major factor, as are institutional concerns. Even within "intentions," there's a great big slice of "deterrence" in there, which isn't exactly the most aggressive thing in the world.

2) "Bat-shit crazy" means irrational. And, as far as I've seen, Iran's government hasn't shown many signs of irrationality. Their nuclear program has pissed the world off, but not enough to cause serious problems; meanwhile, both the program and the world's response to it has bolstered Persian pride and faith in their government. Their constant appeals to religion and the "evils" of Israel have maintained the loyalty of a large, religious segment of the population. Thus, two things that seem very silly to us have in fact strengthened their government's domestic position.

You can see the same thing during the Cold War, when our own Presidents would shriek about how Marxist governments in podunk Central American countries presented a threat to global democracy. Sure, it seems pretty unlikely that the Nicaraguans were going to to destroy American capitalism, but making a big deal out of it increased the power and influence of the leaders that did so.

On the international stage, Iran seems to have played the game alright to get in good with Russia and China -- hardly anything to sneeze at.

In short: I'm gonna need to see some evidence that they're crazy.

Quote :

"This is a nation that is belligerent in its public rhetoric, that has been belligerent towards us in Iraq, that has always been directly or indirectly threatening towards us, and that is now incredibly defiant where nuclear arms are concerned."

One could argue that very, very similar things could be said about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, especially with that lovely word, "indirectly." Except with regards to Iraq, the same things could be said verbatim about North Korea, which is just as threatening to our allies in its reach -- these being more numerous than those in Iran's reach.

I'll even ignore the part where you say it has "always" been threatening towards us; I assume the government under the CIA-installed Shah was at least mildly friendly. The fact is, even your very specific criteria apply quite well to other countries with whom we are great friends.

Quote :

"When they get nuclear arms, it is a sure fact that the Middle East will be, at the very least, a Cold War type arms race with Israel on one side and Iran on the other."

Only if we cut Israel off as an ally. As it stands, they have us behind them, with a nuclear arsenal that would take Iran decades upon decades to match even if we sat still and they worked balls-out.

Quote :

"We need a big stick with these guys, and soon."

Very clearly explained and severe consequences to bad behavior, as it were.

To be specific, something along the lines of:

"For every nuclear weapon you use against anyone else, we will completely and utterly annihilate your three largest surviving population centers with our own nuclear weapons."

The Leader and his cronies can be as crazy as shithouse bats, but with a promise like that the military would sooner launch a coup. Pretty damn likely that a key figure in the nuclear launch process is going to have people in those three centers that they love more than the leader.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 5:30 AM. Reason : ]

7/15/2008 5:29:56 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4: You took that out of context and you know it."

Out of context?

I thought your words represented a high-minded principle about the application of International Law!?

Obviously we should and we do take an adversarial role against Iran. The regime committed an act of war by storming our embassy, and have made no about-face on their disposition toward us since. Likewise, their active support of terrorist groups is far more clear. We're spending hundreds of millions to destabilize the regime right now, and I support the move.

But since you recognize the practical reality that puts us in a weaker diplomatic bargaining position, let's run with your idea of strikes:

1) Where does the financing of the attack come from?
2) What measurable goal defines a successful operation against their regime?
3) WHAT IS THE EXIT STRATEGY?

I've got other questions about the greater economic impact of these attacks, but we can start here.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: In short: I'm gonna need to see some evidence that they're crazy."

Agreed.

[Edited on July 15, 2008 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ...]

7/15/2008 4:03:23 PM

^

You're so far removed from the discussion and the points I've been making that you aren't worth talking to at this point.

7/15/2008 9:07:05 PM

Silent No More

7/15/2008 9:11:51 PM