The problem is that too many people have the mentality that US power is ultimate and that violence is the ultimate answer to all problems. Sad.
Comment by Jan — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 8:11 am
Mr Hinderaker is clearly a believer that we can win a war with only air power and cruise missiles.
If you want to see a preview of what a war with Iran would look like, look at the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon. There would be lots uncontested air attacks, but the ground movement would be slow and very painful. Take a look at a map of eastern Iran. Messy, messy.
These weapons that Hinderaker correctly states are being shipped into Iraq to kill US Soldiers would be lined up on every major road from Iraq to Tehran. Don’t forget that the Iranian led insurgency will continue to attack US forces using both Iraq and Afghanistan as entry points.
Not only would it be strategically ridiculous, tactically it falls into the category of “too hard to do.” For the record, the death toll of American troops killed by Iranian surrogates is probably in the thousands (don’t forget Beirut in the 80s) and something should be done. But a military option would not be a solution.
Comment by bg — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 8:12 am
No-one has any hard evidence that Iran’s government is shipping weapons to Iraqi militias that they are willing to put up for public scrutiny. Every time they say they do, they end up retracting (in much softer voices, so that Hindraker et al don’t hear them). It’s all puff and no substance.
There’s no doubt weapons are getting to Iraq - but Iraq lies on the tangled skeins of the millenia-old Silk Road. There is no such thing as a closed border from Tunisia to Pakistan. Many of them are being smuggled in along the same routes as opium and heroin, originating most likely in the expert village arms bazaars of Pakistan, and probably by the same smugglers.
Further, over 700 small arms are missing from U.S. shipments to the Iraqi police, most likely re-directed in-country. Hezboullah learned from the IRA how to whip up an anti-armor IED in a small machine shop and promptly told other Arab groups. Brit troops have recently been convicted of selling weaponry in Iraq. Last year a U.S. security guard was arrested leaving base with explosives in the trunk of a private car. There is a massive demand for weaponry in Iraq.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that, far from requiring a conspiracy theory about the Iranian government, a free market is sufficient to explain arms traffic in Iraq.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 9:00 am
See, I know some people read PowerLine. But I don’t. Because they are not even especially smart. Like Prof. Taylor’s post demonstrates.
How did drooling idiots’ “views” on policy even become worth discussing?
I normally avoid Powerline, but I had seen a ref to this post elsewhere and then saw it on Memeorandum, so took the plunge.
It does, however, confirm why I avoid the place.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 9:31 am
Hindraker isn’t the only dunce in the “Corner” today. Arthur Herman has a plan to attack Iran too, over at Commentary Online. Amazingly, it makes no mention of how that would effect the situation for troops in Iraq.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 10:14 am
John Hinderaker can’t even come up with any original stuff, he just copies Fred Barnes. If you read last week’s Standard you would have gotten much the same crap from Barnes such as the following gems (including, but with a different point, Civil War references):
* Talk up the military option in Iran. Not with a public announcement, but in leaks. The Iranians seem to believe that they’re home free in pursuing nuclear weapons with American forces tied down in Iraq. But we’re not tied down. The destruction of Iranian nuclear sites would be carried out by airpower. Leaking the details of a contingency plan for doing this would provoke international debate and put the mullahs in a less truculent mood.
* Apply the Kennedy model to North Korea. Columnist Charles Krauthammer urged the president to repeat the warning that President Kennedy gave to the Soviets after they installed missiles in Cuba aimed at the United States. “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union,” Kennedy declared in 1962. Bush could update this with Kim Jong Il, telling him if a rogue nuke hits the United States or its allies, the United States will hit North Korea. That should deter him.
* A final gift to the world. As Bush is leaving office in January 2024, he could implement the military option and take out all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The world would be aghast–but also relieved and, without admitting it, enormously grateful. The new president would have one less crisis to deal with. So would the United Nations. Terrorists might respond, but we could brace for that. Anything they did would pale next to a nuclear attack by Iran.
One the one hand, I can see why this appeals as a solution. Something needs to be done about Iran, and they are belligerant. But I don’t think we could invade it, even if we wanted to. We don’t have the man power at the moment, and this presentation of the evidence that Hinderaker seems to want wouldn’t pan out, because the one leading up to Iraq was so wrong.
Comment by B. Minich — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 1:15 pm
As you will realize from my website I am inclined to support Mr Hinderaker’s POV. However, Dr. Taylor does raise important points. The world is not likely to take our intelligence communities evidence seriously. How much domestic public support would an attack on Iran garner.
I would like to know what you would do in Iraq and how you would respond to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Do you believe a policy of deterence would prevent Iran from using its nuclear weapons? Would the a nuclear Iran cause an arms race in the region?
Thank you.
Comment by Bill C — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 1:42 pm
[…] “Verizon’s Faux PoliBlog“ Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
First you would have to show Iran has a nuclear weapons program. So far, its all assertion and no evidence. The IAEA inspectors seem to believe Iran most likely doesn’t have a weapons program.
Remind me, who was right on Iraq - U.S. intelligence or UN inspectors?
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 5:37 pm
Cernig,
Iran has said that they have a nuclear program. What they deny is that it is for weapons. What we need to prove that they are not enriching uranium that would be used for weapons is unfettered inspections.
I do believe that Iran is preventing the UN inspectors from inspecting all of the sites they would like. So we can never know what they are doing. Are you satisfied with this state of affairs? Maybe I am the suspicious type but I assume when they are hiding something they have something to hide.
Remind me, who was right on Iraq - U.S. intelligence or UN inspectors?
I don’t know. We did not find them but that does not mean a program did not exist. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Iraqi WMD program was dismantled and moved. Georges Sada, former Iraqi General has said as much. Nor is it unreasonable to say that the program did not exist but was a psy-ops operation to keep Iraqs neighbors wary.
It is good that you believe US intelligence failed and not the crazy notion that the Bush administration concocted Iraqi WMDs as an excuse for war.
Comment by Bill C — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 8:37 pm
Bill C,
It isn’t at all crazy to conclude that the Bush administration, knowing that there were serious doubts among parts of the intelligence community about claims for Iraqi WMDs, decided to gloss over them to aid the narrative for a war they had already decided upon. A major story broke in the UK to that effect today.
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 10:39 pm
WOW! Tony Blair lied about WMDs! That is a bombshell. I wonder why he did that. I can’t way to see how this story plays out. Given the nature of the British press I am going to wait and see how this plays out.
Rather than debate the Iraqi WMDs, let’s get back to Iran and the questions I asked in my previous post. I take it you are skeptical enough about all intelligence that you are willing to take the chance on Iran going nuclear. Or you believe their nuclear program is benign.
Comment by Bill C — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 12:24 am
Bill C,
I have no credible evidence that their program is other than benign. Neither does anyone else. As far as anyone can tell, Iran’s program is fully within its NPT rights. The lurid tales that get retold by the neocon noise machine come from the Mujahedeen e-Kalq, a terror group that used to do Saddam’s bully work and whose leader thinks he is the 12th Imam and from equally as reliable sources.
You cannot prove a negative i.e. that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. This is the same logic trap that was used to create a narrative for war with Iraq. Trying to prove a negative always leaves a possibility that there is as yet unknown evidence, no matter how much evidence there is. However, el Baradei has been as clear as that logic trap allows. Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat.
Don’t you think that its a bit of a double standard for the US and UK to be demanding further inspections in Iran when both nations refuse to have any kind of IAEA inspection themselves? Or when both nations give military aid to the proliferator of note, Pakistan, which has no inspections and is not a member of the NPT?
Regrads, C
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 6:09 am
Cernig,
You must admit that all of the info we have adds up to we just don’t know what Iran is doing. They are not being forthcoming with information. No?
Don’t you think that its a bit of a double standard for the US and UK to be demanding further inspections in Iran when both nations refuse to have any kind of IAEA inspection themselves? Or when both nations give military aid to the proliferator of note, Pakistan, which has no inspections and is not a member of the NPT?
Ok, this is a bit of changing the subject. Both the US and UK are not sponsoring terrorist organizations. I mean besides the military. BWahahaha. Just a bit of levity. And we do give aid to Pakistan to prop up a tyranical military dictatorship. The alternative is another fanatical Islamist regime. To paraphrase Johnson, Musharrif is our bastard.
Comment by Bill C — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 12:39 pm
Bill C,
Changing the subject - well, you were the first one, changing it to Iraqi WMD’s so i thought turn about was fair.
Actually, the Iraqis have been very forthcoming for a nation with a supposedly secret nuclear program. Unforthcoming is defined by Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.
Both the US and UK are not sponsoring terrorist organizations You mean other than the MeK? How about in the past, when they didn’t have inspections either? Would you like to talk to Steven about past U.S. support for South American dictators and terror groups?
Musharrif is our bastard No, he isn’t - but he wants America to keep thinking so. The real dynamic is that he is still his own America-hating bastard, as ever, but is reliant on appeasing the Islamists for his domestic power and the U.S. (and China) for his external security. This happens to be something I’ve been following very closely over the years, partly because in a previous job I did a hell of a lot of business with Pakistanis and like to think I know their cultural approach to “firm deals”. Start here and follow the links. Or if you don’t like my writings, then maybe you will take the folks at Jane’s Intelligence Digest as knowing what they speak about.
Pakistan’s dangerous Afghanistan policy
Afghans are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the performance of Hamed Karzai’s government and as the country slides into ever more instability, Pakistan’s ultimate game plan in Afghanistan has begun to unfold.
Shifting its policy of half-heartedly cracking down on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, implemented in the wake of the 11 September 2024 attacks on the US, Islamabad appears to have made a sombre decision to create the necessary conditions for regaining its strategic depth in Afghanistan by resuming its political and military support for the Taliban.
The Taliban card
Ever since the Taliban regime was overthrown in 2024, Afghan officials and coalition commanders have criticised Islamabad for not doing enough to crack down on the Taliban operating from Pakistani territory and have often accused the Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for actively supporting them.
The evidence from NATO’s two-week long Operation Medusa in Kandahar province in mid-September, in which hundreds of Taliban were killed, further confirm Pakistan’s involvement in the Taliban resurgence. Several independent intelligence estimates from the region also indicate that in recent months the ISI-sponsored training camps and jihadist madrassahs have swelled along the Afghan-Pakistan border.
Clear enough? I would go as far as describing Pakistan as the largest sponsor of terror, a rogue state, and the greatest current threat to world stability.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 2:36 pm
“Do it our way or we’ll pound you” hasn’t been tried. When I see an Iranian city subjected to a Dresden or a Tokyo fire raid (like in WWII — you know, the last war we won (or fought)) then that statement might be true.
Comment by SDN — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 9:45 pm
SDN regrets our failure to repeat the war crimes of WW2. Yuck.
Cernig may be too generous to the Iranians, but when Bill C. says stuff like this–
We did not find them but that does not mean a program did not exist. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Iraqi WMD program was dismantled and moved.
–it becomes very, very difficult to take even his good points seriously.
Is this guy really serious?
The problem is that too many people have the mentality that US power is ultimate and that violence is the ultimate answer to all problems. Sad.
Comment by Jan — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 8:11 am
Mr Hinderaker is clearly a believer that we can win a war with only air power and cruise missiles.
If you want to see a preview of what a war with Iran would look like, look at the recent Israeli invasion of Lebanon. There would be lots uncontested air attacks, but the ground movement would be slow and very painful. Take a look at a map of eastern Iran. Messy, messy.
These weapons that Hinderaker correctly states are being shipped into Iraq to kill US Soldiers would be lined up on every major road from Iraq to Tehran. Don’t forget that the Iranian led insurgency will continue to attack US forces using both Iraq and Afghanistan as entry points.
Not only would it be strategically ridiculous, tactically it falls into the category of “too hard to do.” For the record, the death toll of American troops killed by Iranian surrogates is probably in the thousands (don’t forget Beirut in the 80s) and something should be done. But a military option would not be a solution.
Comment by bg — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 8:12 am
No-one has any hard evidence that Iran’s government is shipping weapons to Iraqi militias that they are willing to put up for public scrutiny. Every time they say they do, they end up retracting (in much softer voices, so that Hindraker et al don’t hear them). It’s all puff and no substance.
There’s no doubt weapons are getting to Iraq - but Iraq lies on the tangled skeins of the millenia-old Silk Road. There is no such thing as a closed border from Tunisia to Pakistan. Many of them are being smuggled in along the same routes as opium and heroin, originating most likely in the expert village arms bazaars of Pakistan, and probably by the same smugglers.
Further, over 700 small arms are missing from U.S. shipments to the Iraqi police, most likely re-directed in-country. Hezboullah learned from the IRA how to whip up an anti-armor IED in a small machine shop and promptly told other Arab groups. Brit troops have recently been convicted of selling weaponry in Iraq. Last year a U.S. security guard was arrested leaving base with explosives in the trunk of a private car. There is a massive demand for weaponry in Iraq.
Occam’s Razor would suggest that, far from requiring a conspiracy theory about the Iranian government, a free market is sufficient to explain arms traffic in Iraq.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 9:00 am
See, I know some people read PowerLine. But I don’t. Because they are not even especially smart. Like Prof. Taylor’s post demonstrates.
How did drooling idiots’ “views” on policy even become worth discussing?
Comment by Anderson — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 9:14 am
Anderson,
I normally avoid Powerline, but I had seen a ref to this post elsewhere and then saw it on Memeorandum, so took the plunge.
It does, however, confirm why I avoid the place.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 9:31 am
Hindraker isn’t the only dunce in the “Corner” today. Arthur Herman has a plan to attack Iran too, over at Commentary Online. Amazingly, it makes no mention of how that would effect the situation for troops in Iraq.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 10:14 am
John Hinderaker can’t even come up with any original stuff, he just copies Fred Barnes. If you read last week’s Standard you would have gotten much the same crap from Barnes such as the following gems (including, but with a different point, Civil War references):
Comment by Talmadge East — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 12:43 pm
One the one hand, I can see why this appeals as a solution. Something needs to be done about Iran, and they are belligerant. But I don’t think we could invade it, even if we wanted to. We don’t have the man power at the moment, and this presentation of the evidence that Hinderaker seems to want wouldn’t pan out, because the one leading up to Iraq was so wrong.
Comment by B. Minich — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 1:15 pm
As you will realize from my website I am inclined to support Mr Hinderaker’s POV. However, Dr. Taylor does raise important points. The world is not likely to take our intelligence communities evidence seriously. How much domestic public support would an attack on Iran garner.
I would like to know what you would do in Iraq and how you would respond to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Do you believe a policy of deterence would prevent Iran from using its nuclear weapons? Would the a nuclear Iran cause an arms race in the region?
Thank you.
Comment by Bill C — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 1:42 pm
[…] “Verizon’s Faux PoliBlog“ Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
Pingback by The American Mind / What’s in a Name? Verizon Copys Weblog Name — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 5:10 pm
BillC,
First you would have to show Iran has a nuclear weapons program. So far, its all assertion and no evidence. The IAEA inspectors seem to believe Iran most likely doesn’t have a weapons program.
They were, as recently as August, very annoyed at the U.S. for hyping meagre allegations from questionable sources.
Remind me, who was right on Iraq - U.S. intelligence or UN inspectors?
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 5:37 pm
Cernig,
Iran has said that they have a nuclear program. What they deny is that it is for weapons. What we need to prove that they are not enriching uranium that would be used for weapons is unfettered inspections.
I do believe that Iran is preventing the UN inspectors from inspecting all of the sites they would like. So we can never know what they are doing. Are you satisfied with this state of affairs? Maybe I am the suspicious type but I assume when they are hiding something they have something to hide.
Remind me, who was right on Iraq - U.S. intelligence or UN inspectors?
I don’t know. We did not find them but that does not mean a program did not exist. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Iraqi WMD program was dismantled and moved. Georges Sada, former Iraqi General has said as much. Nor is it unreasonable to say that the program did not exist but was a psy-ops operation to keep Iraqs neighbors wary.
It is good that you believe US intelligence failed and not the crazy notion that the Bush administration concocted Iraqi WMDs as an excuse for war.
Comment by Bill C — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 8:37 pm
Bill C,
It isn’t at all crazy to conclude that the Bush administration, knowing that there were serious doubts among parts of the intelligence community about claims for Iraqi WMDs, decided to gloss over them to aid the narrative for a war they had already decided upon. A major story broke in the UK to that effect today.
As for Sada, he doesn’t know anything. His testimony depends upon alleged hearsay from two supposed Iraqi officers whose names he will not reveal. To take his word, or his publicists’, for anything is indeed crazy.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Friday, December 15, 2024 @ 10:39 pm
WOW! Tony Blair lied about WMDs! That is a bombshell. I wonder why he did that. I can’t way to see how this story plays out. Given the nature of the British press I am going to wait and see how this plays out.
Rather than debate the Iraqi WMDs, let’s get back to Iran and the questions I asked in my previous post. I take it you are skeptical enough about all intelligence that you are willing to take the chance on Iran going nuclear. Or you believe their nuclear program is benign.
Comment by Bill C — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 12:24 am
Bill C,
I have no credible evidence that their program is other than benign. Neither does anyone else. As far as anyone can tell, Iran’s program is fully within its NPT rights. The lurid tales that get retold by the neocon noise machine come from the Mujahedeen e-Kalq, a terror group that used to do Saddam’s bully work and whose leader thinks he is the 12th Imam and from equally as reliable sources.
You cannot prove a negative i.e. that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. This is the same logic trap that was used to create a narrative for war with Iraq. Trying to prove a negative always leaves a possibility that there is as yet unknown evidence, no matter how much evidence there is. However, el Baradei has been as clear as that logic trap allows. Iran is not an immediate nuclear threat.
Don’t you think that its a bit of a double standard for the US and UK to be demanding further inspections in Iran when both nations refuse to have any kind of IAEA inspection themselves? Or when both nations give military aid to the proliferator of note, Pakistan, which has no inspections and is not a member of the NPT?
Regrads, C
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 6:09 am
Cernig,
You must admit that all of the info we have adds up to we just don’t know what Iran is doing. They are not being forthcoming with information. No?
Don’t you think that its a bit of a double standard for the US and UK to be demanding further inspections in Iran when both nations refuse to have any kind of IAEA inspection themselves? Or when both nations give military aid to the proliferator of note, Pakistan, which has no inspections and is not a member of the NPT?
Ok, this is a bit of changing the subject. Both the US and UK are not sponsoring terrorist organizations. I mean besides the military. BWahahaha. Just a bit of levity. And we do give aid to Pakistan to prop up a tyranical military dictatorship. The alternative is another fanatical Islamist regime. To paraphrase Johnson, Musharrif is our bastard.
Comment by Bill C — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 12:39 pm
Bill C,
Changing the subject - well, you were the first one, changing it to Iraqi WMD’s so i thought turn about was fair.
Actually, the Iraqis have been very forthcoming for a nation with a supposedly secret nuclear program. Unforthcoming is defined by Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.
Both the US and UK are not sponsoring terrorist organizations You mean other than the MeK? How about in the past, when they didn’t have inspections either? Would you like to talk to Steven about past U.S. support for South American dictators and terror groups?
Musharrif is our bastard No, he isn’t - but he wants America to keep thinking so. The real dynamic is that he is still his own America-hating bastard, as ever, but is reliant on appeasing the Islamists for his domestic power and the U.S. (and China) for his external security. This happens to be something I’ve been following very closely over the years, partly because in a previous job I did a hell of a lot of business with Pakistanis and like to think I know their cultural approach to “firm deals”. Start here and follow the links. Or if you don’t like my writings, then maybe you will take the folks at Jane’s Intelligence Digest as knowing what they speak about.
Clear enough? I would go as far as describing Pakistan as the largest sponsor of terror, a rogue state, and the greatest current threat to world stability.
Regards, C
Comment by Cernig — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 2:36 pm
“Do it our way or we’ll pound you” hasn’t been tried. When I see an Iranian city subjected to a Dresden or a Tokyo fire raid (like in WWII — you know, the last war we won (or fought)) then that statement might be true.
Comment by SDN — Saturday, December 16, 2024 @ 9:45 pm
SDN regrets our failure to repeat the war crimes of WW2. Yuck.
Cernig may be too generous to the Iranians, but when Bill C. says stuff like this–
We did not find them but that does not mean a program did not exist. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Iraqi WMD program was dismantled and moved.
–it becomes very, very difficult to take even his good points seriously.
Comment by Anderson — Sunday, December 17, 2024 @ 1:30 pm
I’d just like to tell u guys that this is the best thing next to popcorn.
Comment by Yan — Monday, December 18, 2024 @ 12:05 pm