Thanks for the reply. Josh SN has added his own thoughts. [1]

The primary concern of the Iranian mullahs is to stay in power. Part of how they do this is by the alliances that they make. If they make alliances with nations like Russia or China which do not care what the mullahs do to the Iranian people they can pretty much depend on those alliances as long as the interests of Russia or China are satisfied. If the mullahs find themselves in a position where their continuing in power depends on an alliance with the United States rather than Russia or China, their position is much more precarious

What’s being said here is that it’s dangerous for any regime to be so weak that its existence to depend on the good will of another. That is certainly true. You then outline the particular ways in which its dangerous for a weak government to be a US client. This is true. There are other particular ways that it’s dangerous to depend on Russian, or Chinese, good will.

When so much of this website includes discussions of 5th generation warfare where the losers don’t even realize that they have been in a war, the contention that war is nothing more than systematized murder seems bizarre.

Why bizarre? That a group may not realize it’s been victimized doesn’t mean that some pawns aren’t dead.

Iran has been involved in an asymmetrical war against the United States for almost three decades. They have captured and blown up American embassies. They have kidnapped and murdered American officials in Lebanon and Iraq. They have fielded, supplied and directed insurgents in Iraq who have killed a significant number of Americans. My judgment is that Iranian bad behavior towards the US has been worse than anything the Russians have done towards us since they became a nation in 1992.

Ending symetrical threats does not seem possible now. Indeed, as they by definition attack where one is strong and the other is weak, they are perhaps the hardest form of war to eliminate.

Interstate war, by contrast, had been virtually extinguished until now. Putin decided to bring it back. This is worse than anything Iran has done.

Every American administration has made overtures to the Iranians since 1989 but all of those overtures have been rebuffed. Since the embarrassment of Robert McFarlane and his key shaped cake, the overtures have been somewhat more reserved, but the end result has always been the same. The Iranians don’t want to play with us. For whatever reasons they have, rational or irrational, the Iranians don’t want better relations with the United States. I wish it were otherwise but I do not think that is going to change any time soon.

You would likewise say the same thing about the present administration?

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/08/10/iran-starting-to-back-georgia.html#comment-119209

The primary concern of the Iranian mullahs is to stay in power. Part of how they do this is by the alliances that they make. If they make alliances with nations like Russia or China which do not care what the mullahs do to the Iranian people they can pretty much depend on those alliances as long as the interests of Russia or China are satisfied. If the mullahs find themselves in a position where their continuing in power depends on an alliance with the United States rather than Russia or China, their position is much more precarious. The administration can change every four years. The majority in Congress can change every two years. Many of the prominent players in US politics do not seem to have much idea of what constitutes American interests or much sympathy for those interests so there is not even that level of stability.

It is not that we would require the mullahs to leave power (the way we did for Pervez Musharef) that would be a problem for them. It is that we are too unreliable an ally for them to place their fate in our hands.

When so much of this website includes discussions of 5th generation warfare where the losers don’t even realize that they have been in a war, the contention that war is nothing more than systematized murder seems bizarre.

Iran has been involved in an asymmetrical war against the United States for almost three decades. They have captured and blown up American embassies. They have kidnapped and murdered American officials in Lebanon and Iraq. They have fielded, supplied and directed insurgents in Iraq who have killed a significant number of Americans. My judgment is that Iranian bad behavior towards the US has been worse than anything the Russians have done towards us since they became a nation in 1992.

Every American administration has made overtures to the Iranians since 1989 but all of those overtures have been rebuffed. Since the embarrassment of Robert McFarlane and his key shaped cake, the overtures have been somewhat more reserved, but the end result has always been the same. The Iranians don’t want to play with us. For whatever reasons they have, rational or irrational, the Iranians don’t want better relations with the United States. I wish it were otherwise but I do not think that is going to change any time soon.

Yes, I agree it makes our life harder than if things were not as they are.

Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, the “elected leader” is not a puppet – he has a substantial independent power base – loyal to him – in the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force.

Certainly one can assert that President Ahmadinejad has managed to unseat the Ayatollahs as, say, the effectice commander-in-chief of the Islamic Republic. I don’t know how you would support this claim, though.

Although we would like to treat foreign countries as rational players, that is not always possible. History is replete with leaders and countries starting wars that were not in the rational self interest.

So are you arguing such behavior is usual, or not?

To complicate things further, appearing irrational is a useful strategy (practiced by Reagan per US MAD doctrine, for example).

This argues for the importance of not being taken by such appearences.

So are the Iranian’s pretending or are they serious about their willingness to create an apocalypse? There is enough evidence for the latter that we cannot take a chance.

Is there any more evidence for this than, say, that the Israelis are about to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians out of Israeli controlled territories?

If Iran is not rational, they need only the ability to launch one primitive nuclear weapon above our country in order to do vast damage (EMP), or to have one of their terrorist proxies set it off in, say, downtown Manhattan.

Perhaps, though I’m not sure how many irrational 29 year old regimes survive to till 30th birthday. Nor how many of those regimes radicalize over time.

Mark in Texas,

Thanks for your comment.

I’m confused why you think that encouraging the leadership of the Islamic Republic to give up power is a good idea. We did not do that with China, another authoritarian nut that’s hard to crack.

Any agreement that the Iranian Mullahs are likely to find acceptable is unlikely to include 100k + American troops on two of their borders.

Quite true. Again, however, as we largely have the same client-base in the area, switching support for their anti-Qaeda/nti-Taliban efforts from Washington to Tehran would be relatively smooth.

And the goal of an Arab democracy or even an Iraq that is not hostile to the US seems unlikely if Iran is allowed to dominate Iraq as would seem to be a basic requirement of an agreement with the Iranian Mullahs.

Certainly not if we insist on being hostile to Iran, and keeping Iran hostile to us.

I find it hard to see that as anything other than a betrayal of the Iraqis who trusted us and of the Americans who sacrificed their lives, limbs and service in Iraq.

Why?

This seems to me to be a significantly more important moral issue than whether or not Russia gets to keep South Ossetia.

Clearly when one works up from the individual level of analysis, it’s hard to see war as anything other than systemized murder.

Working down, however, we have in Russia a use of interstate conventional war as a tool of diplomacy: a bad behavior that Iran is not expressing.

Any agreement that the Iranian Mullahs are likely to find acceptable is unlikely to include 100k + American troops on two of their borders.

And the goal of an Arab democracy or even an Iraq that is not hostile to the US seems unlikely if Iran is allowed to dominate Iraq as would seem to be a basic requirement of an agreement with the Iranian Mullahs. I find it hard to see that as anything other than a betrayal of the Iraqis who trusted us and of the Americans who sacrificed their lives, limbs and service in Iraq. This seems to me to be a significantly more important moral issue than whether or not Russia gets to keep South Ossetia.

We cannot know if the Iranian leadership is serious about their apocalyptic views, but we also cannot take the chance that they might be.

tdaxp wrote:

If you are serious about this view, the only rational course of action is a massive nuclear bombing campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in whole.

I know you’re not, though.

Certainly as we look at Iran’s foreign policy orientation, the military and the Supreme Leader are problem the ones to focus on: not an elected leader in a sham election who reports to the latter and has little control over the former.

I am serious about that, but doubt that a “massive nuclear bombing” campaign is necessary. Bombing, yes. Nuclear? Unnecessary.

Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, the “elected leader” is not a puppet – he has a substantial independent power base – loyal to him – in the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force.

Also, he is not the only one throwing around nut-case ideas: his” bosses,” the top two Ayatollahs (the Supreme Leader and his #2, Rafsanjani) have both made similar statements.

Remember, it is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Although we would like to treat foreign countries as rational players, that is not always possible. History is replete with leaders and countries starting wars that were not in the rational self interest. To complicate things further, appearing irrational is a useful strategy (practiced by Reagan per US MAD doctrine, for example).

So are the Iranian’s pretending or are they serious about their willingness to create an apocalypse? There is enough evidence for the latter that we cannot take a chance.

If Iran is not rational, they need only the ability to launch one primitive nuclear weapon above our country in order to do vast damage (EMP), or to have one of their terrorist proxies set it off in, say, downtown Manhattan.

Iran is probably the least rational of the potential nuclear powers at this time. Russia appears to be far more rational.