I didn’t claim that Ahmadinejad was all-powerful. I claimed that he is not a puppet. In Iran today, he has less formal power than either the Ayatollah or Rafsanjani. But, while the Revolutionary Guard is formally answerable to the Ayatollah, we know that Amadinejad has important allies in that institution as well. The word is that it was IRGC units loyal to Amadinejad that captured the British sailors a while back and that the Ayatollah was furious and demanded a quick settlement of the issue.

There is a power struggle going on in Iran and Amadinejad is not without resources in that struggle. I don’t think he is any more a “puppet” of the mullahs than the Likud Party is a puppet of Ehud Olmert’s.

What is the fragile balance you believe should be preserved?

Arab/Islamic conventional superiority countered by Israeli nuclear superiority. Of course, as part of any final peace with the Arab world and the Iranians, the Israelis would have to give up their nukes as well.
You speak of the Arab world as if it’s a monolith. The Gulf States are as much aligned against Iran as the Israelis are. Military spending in Saudi Arabia alone is 4-5 times that of Iran. Iran’s conventional capabilities are very modest.Their making a nuke in several years won’t change the dynamic much, in my opinion.

Valid points, but the only one I dispute is the fifth about Ahmadinejad. He may wish to become a rival to Khameini, but the president is powerless without support from the Majles, and the clerics still have authority to remove any candidates they choose from the parliamentary elections, thereby destroying Ahmadinejad’s power base. That’s how they brushed Khatami aside when his proposed reforms got to be too much for them to put up with. Ahmadinejad may eventually find a way to overcome that, but the odds are clearly against him doing so. Right now, however, his position is secure because his histrionics serve as a useful tool for the clerics, but his true power is very limited and at this point they could cut him off at the knees if they so desired.

’1) Obviously Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. An Iranian nuclear weapon would encourage the Arab states to develop their own bombs, disrupt the fragile military balance in the Middle East, and create a larger risk of nuclear terrorism through either giving the weapon to a terrorist organization like Hamas or Hezbollah and/or destabilization of the Iranian government.’

Iran is a sovereign nation. There is no question of “allowing” her to develop a nuclear weapon. As long as she is a signatory of the NPT she cannot legally develop a nuclear weapon. But if she withdraws from the treaty, any effort to stop her would require a violation of International Law.

If there ever was a ‘fragile military balance’ in the Middle East, it is clearly the U.S. that blew it completely apart with our invasion of Iraq. Iran’s position is enhanced by the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s army. That is a fact that we cannot reverse even by remaining in Iraq indefinitely.

’2) Going to war with Iran is not the answer to Iran’s nuclear program. What should be tried is seven-party talks based on the Six-Party Talks that have been used with North Korea (and have been mostly successful). The United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, the Arab League, and Iran should start having regular meetings to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear situation.

It is the U.S. that has refused to participate in multi-party talks with Iran, not the Iranians. But it is difficult to see what could come of them. The Iranians have already offered round-the-clock inspections of their nuclear sites and their enrichment program, a limitation on the number of centrifuges that they would be allowed to employ, inspection of their imports to prevent importation of enriched uranium, immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to reactor fuel rods, and a limit on the degree of enrichment to allow commercial grade enrichment (about 5%) but not weapons-grade (about 90%). All they ask is that they be allowed to enrich uranium to commercial grade under these tight inspections. More recently, they have even offered to allow the enrichment to be done by an international consortium. The U.S. has rejected all such compromises and has, instead, demanded a complete end to all Iranian enrichment whatsoever. The U.S. has never offered a carrot to complement the stick. It has always been “my way or the high way.” So what would these negotiators actually discuss?

’3) At the end of the day, talk of an American attack on Iran is probably moot because the Israelis will probably strike if they think the Iranians are close to having the bomb. The Israeli nuclear weapons program exists for the same reason why the NATO countries maintained tactical nuclear weapons:* to make up for superior potential enemy conventional numbers. Like the Cold War where the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO forces conventionally, the Arab/Islamic states outnumber Israel conventionally. Justifiably, the Israelis will do whatever it takes to maintain this advantage.

At the end of the day, the Israeli’s cannot very likely do much damage to the Iranian nuclear program without American assistance. They can’t even get there without overflying Iraqi airspace and they would need the necessary codes from the U.S. to prevent shot down by us. That’s without ever getting into the question of getting the permission of the Iraqi gov’t which surely wouldn’t be forthcoming. Their planes lack the range to return home without refueling. Missiles lack the necessary accuracy. The only point of an Israeli strike would be to draw an Iranian retaliation which would then give the U.S. a pretext for attacking Iran. All of this debate is exclusively about pretexts. It has nothing at all to do with enriching uranium, much less about an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Israel’s conventional forces are superior to virtually every other Middle Eastern country so the analogy with NATO simply doesn’t hold. Iran has superior manpower but her air power doesn’t compare, and it’s doubtful she has the logistics to get those troops to Israel anyway. Turkey is pretty formidable, but her relations with Israel are friendly.

(And btw, why do we automatically assume that Israel’s interests are necessarily a matter that we should go to any lengths to protect, much less go to war over?) What has Israel ever done for us?

’4) The Iranians will be key in helping US forces withdraw from Iraq. They have a vested interest in a political solution, like all of Iraq’s neighbors, that will shore up the Iraqi central government and/or stabilize the violence enough so American forces can exit more rapidly. This is an opportunity to engage the Iranians on this issue and possibly open the door to eventual normalization of relations.’

The Iranians have a good deal of influence over the present gov’t of Iraq. But that gov’t has been notably unsuccessful in suppressing the insurgency or in agreeing to negotiations. It is more questionable how much influence they can exert over al Sadr’s militia and certainly doubtful that they can exert much influence of the Sunnis.

If the U.S. were to exit from Iraq, it would make an American attack on Iran LESS risky since American forces would likely come under attack from Shiite militia (and maybe Revolutionary Guards as well) if we bombed Iran. So the Iranians don’t have a very strong motive to help us exit Iraq.

’5) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a puppet of the Iranian Ayatollahs and should be seen and treated as such.’

Far from being a puppet of the Ayatollahs, Ahmadinejad is a strong political rival to them. He is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard and has placed many of his former IRGC cronies in important positions within the Iraqi govt. The IRGC is under the authority of the Ayatollah Kameinei, not the president. But in a showdown Ahmadinejad might have more support there than anyone in Iran wants to admit.

The recent replacement of Ali Larijani as Iranian nuclear negotiator may have been a big victory for Ahmadinejad. No one in the West really knows whats going on in Iran but Larijani was considered a moderate while the appointee is believed to be a hard-liner.

’1) Obviously Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. An Iranian nuclear weapon would encourage the Arab states to develop their own bombs, disrupt the fragile military balance in the Middle East, and create a larger risk of nuclear terrorism through either giving the weapon to a terrorist organization like Hamas or Hezbollah and/or destabilization of the Iranian government.’

Iran is a sovereign nation. There is no question of “allowing” her to develop a nuclear weapon. As long as she is a signatory of the NPT she cannot legally develop a nuclear weapon. But if she withdraws from the treaty, any effort to stop her would require a violation of International Law.

If there ever was a ‘fragile military balance’ in the Middle East, it is clearly the U.S. that blew it completely apart with our invasion of Iraq. Iran’s position is enhanced by the destruction of Saddam Hussein’s army. That is a fact that we cannot reverse even by remaining in Iraq indefinitely.

’2) Going to war with Iran is not the answer to Iran’s nuclear program. What should be tried is seven-party talks based on the Six-Party Talks that have been used with North Korea (and have been mostly successful). The United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, the Arab League, and Iran should start having regular meetings to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear situation.

It is the U.S. that has refused to participate in multi-party talks with Iran, not the Iranians. But it is difficult to see what could come of them. The Iranians have already offered round-the-clock inspections of their nuclear sites and their enrichment program, a limitation on the number of centrifuges that they would be allowed to employ, inspection of their imports to prevent importation of enriched uranium, immediate conversion of all enriched uranium to reactor fuel rods, and a limit on the degree of enrichment to allow commercial grade enrichment (about 5%) but not weapons-grade (about 90%). All they ask is that they be allowed to enrich uranium to commercial grade under these tight inspections. More recently, they have even offered to allow the enrichment to be done by an international consortium. The U.S. has rejected all such compromises and has, instead, demanded a complete end to all Iranian enrichment whatsoever. The U.S. has never offered a carrot to complement the stick. It has always been “my way or the high way.” So what would these negotiators actually discuss?

’3) At the end of the day, talk of an American attack on Iran is probably moot because the Israelis will probably strike if they think the Iranians are close to having the bomb. The Israeli nuclear weapons program exists for the same reason why the NATO countries maintained tactical nuclear weapons:* to make up for superior potential enemy conventional numbers. Like the Cold War where the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO forces conventionally, the Arab/Islamic states outnumber Israel conventionally. Justifiably, the Israelis will do whatever it takes to maintain this advantage.

At the end of the day, the Israeli’s cannot very likely do much damage to the Iranian nuclear program without American assistance. They can’t even get there without overflying Iraqi airspace and they would need the necessary codes from the U.S. to prevent shot down by us. That’s without ever getting into the question of getting the permission of the Iraqi gov’t which surely wouldn’t be forthcoming. Their planes lack the range to return home without refueling. Missiles lack the necessary accuracy. The only point of an Israeli strike would be to draw an Iranian retaliation which would then give the U.S. a pretext for attacking Iran. All of this debate is exclusively about pretexts. It has nothing at all to do with enriching uranium, much less about an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Israel’s conventional forces are superior to virtually every other Middle Eastern country so the analogy with NATO simply doesn’t hold. Iran has superior manpower but her air power doesn’t compare, and it’s doubtful she has the logistics to get those troops to Iran anyway. Turkey is pretty formidable, but her relations with Israel are friendly.

(And btw, why do we automatically assume that Israel’s interests are necessarily a matter that we should go to any lengths to protect, much less go to war over?) What has Israel ever done for us?

’4) The Iranians will be key in helping US forces withdraw from Iraq. They have a vested interest in a political solution, like all of Iraq’s neighbors, that will shore up the Iraqi central government and/or stabilize the violence enough so American forces can exit more rapidly. This is an opportunity to engage the Iranians on this issue and possibly open the door to eventual normalization of relations.’

The Iranians have a good deal of influence over the present gov’t of Iraq. But that gov’t has been notably unsuccessful in suppressing the insurgency or in agreeing to negotiations. It is more questionable how much influence they can exert over al Sadr’s militia and certainly doubtful that they can exert much influence of the Sunnis.

If the U.S. were to exit from Iraq, it would make an American attack on Iran LESS risky since American forces would likely come under attack from Shiite militia (and maybe Revolutionary Guards as well) if we bombed Iran. So the Iranians don’t have a very strong to help us exit Iraq.

’5) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a puppet of the Iranian Ayatollahs and should be seen and treated as such.’

Far from being a puppet of the Ayatollahs, Ahmadinejad is a strong political rival to them. He is a former member of the Revolutionary Guard and has placed many of his former IRGC cronies in important positions within the Iraqi govt. The IRGC is under the authority of the Ayatollah Kameinei, not the president. But in a showdown Ahmadinejad might have more support there than anyone in Iran wants to admit.

The recent replacement of Ali Larijani as Iranian nuclear negotiator may have been a big victory for Ahmadinejad. No one in the West really knows whats going on in Iran but Larijani was considered a moderate while the appointee is believed to be a hard-liner.

Their are Shia Arabs in the regions that control most of the oil in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. They have tried to rebel, and have tried to rebel with some degree of violence. if we pull out completely their is a likelyhood they will sort it out in such a way that would cause major fuel disruptions which would tank the economy of China and Europe. Ever wonder what 20-30 Million Chinese who are Unemployed would do? a extremely violent nationalist government.. thats possible.

Large scale economic depression in Europe with Riots against the Muslims who are the cause of the problems

this could be a VERY bad war in which many many people in the world would die and the US economy would suffer for decades to come.

We can’t waive a wand and pretend a system that has NEVER in human history existed can some how in a vacume come to exist and some how work. Thats beyond wishful thinking and bordering on Delusional Psychosis.

like the notion of the gold standard ever being possible

The Middle East and Islamic culture preceded the United States, they’ll survive just fine without our involvement. I don’t buy into apocalyptic millenarian arguments either…mainly because they’re all a bunch of bunk that never comes to pass.

Overthrowing dictators should be considered only in situations where those dictators have attacked us and forced us into combat…not because it “serves our interests”. What you’re talking about isn’t self-defense, it’s conquest…no different from the Nazis or the Soviets or any authoritarian regime you care to name has done throughout history. Nobody who cares about and supports individual freedom should want any part of that and frankly it’s the complete opposite of the nation our Founding Fathers set up, so I consider your entire argument invalid and garbage.

“It would be great to live in the world Ron Paul and his ilk thinks exists, but that aint so”

Well, Larry, I’ve traveled around this world long enough and gained enough experience to realize that Ron Paul’s ideas can and will work if we support them and frankly I consider defeatism a philosophy for losers. Settle for a culture of slavery, stagnation and slow death if you want…I’ll stick with fighting for freedom and prosperity, thanks.

You also forget the Modern middle east to the WEST of Iran was carved like the balkans was.

and their are scatterings of Arabs, Turks, Kurds, and Persians in Multiple countries.

Not to mention distributions of Shia and Sunni Arabs.

Can the United States afford a war that engulfs Turkey (which we would be obligated to help if they were attacked first), Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Lebanon

I am not sure anymore I can say which is better the status quo or the Shah…. and we get into lots of What If’s and counter factual……

But when Nixon decided to dial back US power in the Gulf the Shah of Iran was a very good thing for our interests and allowed.

Overthrowing the dictators should be the LAST phase of policy. But in the case we mention No one saw it coming.

and as for it not being behavior we’d tolerate from them…. We tolerated their Puppet in Syria doing it to Lebanon. and we have tolerated the more anti-Iran shia factions in Iraq getting thrown under the Bus by the Iranian backed factions because our government is not being well governed. We also Tolerated it a whole bunch when the Soviets and Cubans did it during the Carter years (until the Swamp Rabbits came home to roost.. and the Iranians put our boy the shah out to during that time)

and we also need to talk about the fact the Shah’s regime (due to postive US influence) was FAR better in the 70s then in the 50s, and FAR better then what replaced it

Now as for my statements of the realities. Just because the situation has been botched now does not mean their was no way to unbotch it. Thats a logical fallacy. As it is fallacious to assume we can get the countries allied to us ANYWHERE in the world to act against their own intrest.

Their is an old expression by a Rabbi that goes “If I am not for myself, who will be. If I do not speak for myself, no one will.”

The Ron Paul argument has no basis in what the founders thought. The people who helped George Washington say “No entangling alliances” later crafted the Monroe Doctrine. The Founders did not want an interventionist policy when we would LOSE. and in the time of Washington and Adams (though Adams is a bit more complicated case) that is indeed what would have happened. After Jefferson into Madison and Monroe we had the ability to intervene and the men young in the teeth who helped General Washington draft policy DID exactlly that.

If we leave the region we will be creating a situation like the late 19th and early 20th century balkan wars. Which will destroy the fuel of most of the global capital system. and right now the US, China, and Japan don’t need much to tip their countries into a bad place.

It would be great to live in the world Ron Paul and his ilk thinks exists, but that aint so

Yes, but the Shah’s regime wasn’t good for them either. It was brutal and dictatorial and (most importantly) not their choice…it was ours. It’s not our place to go overthrowing governments simply because we don’t like the choices their people make. It’s not our place to force our will on them because they don’t want to play ball with us. It’s certainly not behavior we would tolerate from them, it’s not something they should have to tolerate from us. And our interventionist policies are what create this huge level of blowback that gets us into so much trouble over there.

None of your suggestions on the original post are arguments for our intervention in the Middle East in any fashion…if anything they’re examples of why we should withdraw immediately without setting up any alliances, contigencies or plans at all. The Middle East is an unpredictable snakepit and any deals we make will have unforseen repercussions that we will not be able to control. Therefore it needs to be left up to the Iraqis and the nations of that region to decide for themselves, without any interference or influence from us, because they’re the ones in the best position to do so and any decision we make there will ultimately screw that up. This is what Ron Paul is saying.

the whole Mosadeqq… thing, to be frank, I think he would have been far more pro moscow then Nasser and given Russian history of Invading Iran (and later Afghanistan) that would not have been good for the Iranians

not saying how we did it was good.. but lots of dirty stuff like that hit both sides of the cold war

The Saudi’s *MAY* ally with the Israeli’s for protection -or- what I would deem as more likely they would have a military build up of their own. and an arms race thats occurring in that manner would not be in anyone’s interests

as for Hezbollah with Nukes, that would be the least effective way Iran could use nukes.
———–
2) Going to war with Iran is not the answer to Iran’s nuclear program. What should be tried is seven-party talks based on the Six-Party Talks that have been used with North Korea (and have been mostly successful). The United States, UK, France, Germany, Russia, the Arab League, and Iran should start having regular meetings to achieve a peaceful resolution to the Iranian nuclear situation.
—————
ATM Russia and China have Iran’s back. they know the US has no leverage that could bring Iran to the table ATM. North Korea is in a very bad way and the US and China both have significant leverage over North Korea and -as bad- as things are in Iran economically right now, they are no where near North Korea bad
—————–
3) At the end of the day, talk of an American attack on Iran is probably moot because the Israelis will probably strike if they think the Iranians are close to having the bomb. The Israeli nuclear weapons program exists for the same reason why the NATO countries maintained tactical nuclear weapons:* to make up for superior potential enemy conventional numbers. Like the Cold War where the Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO forces conventionally, the Arab/Islamic states outnumber Israel conventionally. Justifiably, the Israelis will do whatever it takes to maintain this advantage.
————————

The Iranians already planned for that contingency….. thats why they’ve been helping out the Palestinian Militants. They have helped fuel the current Intifada so Israel would have to think long and hard about doing it JUST from a domestic perspective. Internationally the EU and (lesser extent) US would rape Israel if they tried it. Israel is in a no win situation and if they did set Iran up the bomb it would be very bad for them.
——————-
4) The Iranians will be key in helping US forces withdraw from Iraq. They have a vested interest in a political solution, like all of Iraq’s neighbors, that will shore up the Iraqi central government and/or stabilize the violence enough so American forces can exit more rapidly. This is an opportunity to engage the Iranians on this issue and possibly open the door to eventual normalization of relations.
————————–
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia (to a lesser extent) and Turkey all have a vested intrest in Iraq being a weak Rump state. The only neighbors with an Intrest in Iraq not being Crazy

Jordan
Kuwait

Largely because they are SMALL

Furthermore Syria, and Iran have a vested interest in the US getting a very bloody nose. In turkey I would say allowing the US to get a bloody nose is good politically

Saudi Arabia Is a bit more of a question mark
—————–
5) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is nothing more than a puppet of the Iranian Ayatollahs and should be seen and treated as such.
——————————-

Well…… YES in the same since Prior to Gorby whomever was the titular President of the Soviet Union was a figure head…….But the Central Committee still puts the figure head into place

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071102/ap_en_ce/people_bernstein