DLS- So does that mean the NIE would have reported that the Iranians were close to producing a nuclear weapon if we had had the military capability to attack them, lol???

You said that. I never did. [grin]

BTW, Up here in DC, I had heard a lot of buzz that the Pentagon refused to back Bush/Cheney if they attempted to start a third war, on the grounds that our military was already stretched too thin. I’m sure the Iranians realized we were already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe most Americans realize it, too, K.

Incidentally, here’s another difference between Iraq then and Iran now. Many of the neocons and Donald Rumsfeld are no longer in office.

Is Livni not in Olmert’s cabinet?

But anyways, let’s just say that I’m quite familiar with Efraim Halevy’s background and publicly-espoused positions and have great respect for him. FYI, he is not, nor was he ever, a cabinet level official. Perhaps Ariel Sharon would have been wise to accept his counsel when Halevy was head of his National Security Council (he quit when that didn’t happen).

Then again, perhaps not… This is all a phenomenally insane chess game of proxies and posturing and a whole lot of unintended consequences — and I’m not going to pretend that I know what the heck is what. As I said before, the only thing I’m willing to bet on is that there is more to this latest episode than meets the eye.

The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far.

DLS can you please tell me why we get to bomb Iran at all?

If that’s what is needed to stop aggression against us or to forestall worse things later, it is justified.

What makes it right for us to just start blowing up things

Mischaracterization. This is hardly random or non-deliberate behavior, done for no reason at all.

when they aren’t in a position to go to war, haven’t tried to annex any neighbors?

They have armed and used Hizballah for years; they have committed terrorism themselves and sponsored terrorism for years; they have gone to conventional war with Iraq before (even if Iraq was the aggressor, the correct point here is that they went to war); they have attacked shipping in the Gulf before (to which we responded with force); they have intruded in Iraq and are responsible for deaths and injuries to our forces. We have been very, very kind not to do more than we have done to date (which is, what? Anything other than unconfirmed commando raids in Iran against terrorist training and supply sites?).

They have long been in a position to engage in war and have engaged in war for years. Those are facts. They have menaced their neighbors and want stronger control over the Persian Gulf. Those are facts.

Why are you using terms like appeasement when they have stayed within their borders? Countries get to do that you know. Act like assholes that is as long as they don’t try to take over their neighbors.

I’m using “appeasement” toward Iran because that’s the correct word to use. Iran has long committed numerous acts of aggression — Iran has not stayed within its borders merely because its conventional military has. It has committed and sponsored terrorism for ages and Hizballah is a proxy force of Iran. (Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has been in Lebanon; I don’t know if it also has been in Iraq to date.) Iran has tried to influence if not control its neighbors and obviously has tried through Hizballah to control Iran (and will be more tempted now that Syria has receded).

When they commit illegitimate acts of war against others, which they often do, and when they try to muscle others to do their bidding, it’s not merely a case of bad acting.

I’d really love to know what’s going on in back channel discussions here… That’s where the real breakthroughs take place. The rest, IMO, is just posturing for different publics…

Congrats, Shaun, on yet another Sully hat-tip for the Sy Hersh reference.

“What is happening is that Iran is outsmarting the West, and we’re willingly falling into every trap it sets. Iran wants to portray the US as the devil, and we oblige by acting the part of the aggressor at every opportunity.”

A tremendous point and one that this White House — and presidential administrations in general — are unable to grasp: That is in the end, the PR war can be as important as the threat of war, let alone a real one.

Dead on man.

Those advocating for and even DEMANDING that we bomb Iran with only suspicions as a basis, make a crucial mistake.
Even if Iran were bombed into an ash heap, the Hamas and Hezbollah state of mind would not be obliterated. Look at the map of the Muslim world, and you see were new Hamases and Hexbollahs
would be springing up, three new ones for every one destroyed. Unless someone is ready to nuke half of the globe into the last century, the myth of military might as the primary solution to all problems (including the concern for Israel’s survival) has got to be put to rest. It doesn’t work in cases like this.
For proof,, see how Hamas is thriving in Gaza in spite of every kind of military and economic pressure. You can’t destroy a state of mind with bombs, nor with sttarvation.
Why did Jews thrive in spite of centuries of oppression? Because you can’t destroy the spirit when you destroy the body.

What is happening is that Iran is outsmarting the West, and we’re willingly falling into every trap it sets. Iran wants to portray the US as the devil, and we oblige by acting the part of the aggressor at every opportunity.

For onece, the US (and Israel) could now concentrate on outsmarting Iran, or at least match it in cunning.

No one over the age of 6 can believe that diplomacy alone can work, if one side has a militrary or terrorism capability and the other has only words and promises.. For diplomacy to work, there has to be something stronger to back it up. In diplomatic face-offs, like in competing PR, there is a choice, however, between coming in swinging bombs or talking peaceful resolution. The bombs don’t need to disappear, because everyone knows they are there.
They can, and should remain in the background, if a disasterous, (disasterous for both sides and every concerned party) military confrontation is to be avoided.

In spite of his spinning the NIE for the benefit of Bush, Hadley did come to a very sensible conclusion.
Now that there is good reason to think that the need for military haste has been delaryed, it’s a perfect time to make use of it, by throwing energy into other avenues of resolution. It’s the prrfect time to bring out US the reasonable and US the cooperatve and US the honest.
The PR opportunities are considerable and important. For once, let’s not fall into Iran’s trap by allowing it to cast itself as the victim.
These calls for bombing would destroy the opportunity in its cradle.

,

There seems to be this acceptance of the fact that we are americans and its ok for us to just bomb countries when they do things we don’t like. Stateless terrorists hit us and the world changes, but we get to strike with impunity, kill civilians and write them off as collateral damage, and thats ok. Sure.

This report in no way justifies ignoring the threats of Iran or appeasing that nation.

Th-th-thanks for going easy on me.

Hey, no problem. [Wiping few bloodstains off cudgel and stowing cudgel]

Typo fixed.

Again, no problem. You and others (I consider you an editor since you’re on the Team) are free to delete any posting I make that is only about typos ‘n’ such, if you correct those things. (Usually I include a remark that says you are free to delete my posting in such a case. This note here on this thread is provided in case I neglect to do this later.)

Please note that I do not take lightly the NIE’s conclusions: “And so while I would like to share the sense of relief many people seem to feel, I am unable to do so. Besides which, Iran could restart its nuclear weapons program tomorrow — or maybe already did yesterday amid great glee with the release of the intelligence report — since it continues to enrich uranium.”

I fear your possible fear and definite loathing of Bush and his administration still leads you to excess..

There’s no denying that the Bush administration rushed to war and was inept in the pacification that needed to follow it, during the occupation. (I believe this is largely at the root of the 2006 election results, which differed substantially, as we all know, from 2002 and 2004.) I have been enjoying a book by two authors, one from CSIS (not Anthony Cordesman, whom Rudi is familiar with, but someone else) and another author. They engage in some talking-head junk and some other cliched matter, and as with so many other people, they stupidly say “terror” when they should say “terrorism,” but with the Bush administration and the war in Iraq, there is no doubt this was an unusual process in which the Bush people engaged in and if anything, is worse than most people know or believe things to have been. It was a book DLS the Ace got on clearance for $2.00 and has enjoyed reading, even though much in there is highly disturbing. (The Bush adminstration reached and twisted for an excuse for war more than most people believe, and stole control over much that was normally done by the State Department for nation-building and other aid and put it under the control of an inner clique in the Defense Department and the office of the Vice Presidency. There is less there than the most conspiracist lefties and righties believe, but a neo-con ambitious, arrogant quest, indeed it was!) Make no mistake, this book is a direct attack on the Bush administration, and the portion of the book discussing how the war was engineered is disturbing. (I do not believe it will happen that way with Iran.)

Shaun (and other readers) — with the following links, I suggest you begin first with the Foreign Affairs links, the first of which is to an unfavorable review of the book by a Bush guy, followed by the authors; “THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND” is the section (with some comments preceding it) that addresses specifically the disturbing way the war against Iraq was engineered (which involves more information than the public overall has known). I’m not trying to make a big deal of this, but the way the war was set up by the Bush people is remarkable.

…

book

Amazon entry with parts of book, reader reviews

NY Times review

Washington Post review

NY Review of Books review

(related — chemical plant attacks — something formerly not mentioned much except by those explaining the case in favor of nuclear power and the relative risks of it)

Muslims in the USA vs. in Europe (one subject of the book in addition to such phenomena as “The Persistence of Error” by the Bush administration)

another book review

another review (Foreign Affairs, negative review)

More (also from Foreign Affairs — the authors reply to the reviewer, then the reviewer answers)

…

For a number of reasons, I don’t fear with Iran what we see with Iraq. An invasion is out of the question; air strikes are what most people see, directed against WMD and missile sites plus terrorist camps and other infrastructure. Retaliation by Iran is to be expected and I suspect the Bush people have been concerned about the risks (missile and air strikes on US bases in Iraq; more terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere; diversionary attacks on Israel; closing Hormuz and attacking shipping in the Gulf; attacking other nations’ oil installations to forestall our attacking Iran’s, etc.). And of course, then there is a dirtier reason to worry less: Halliburton is doing business in Iran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Some of my favorite lines:

“To me, the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community — to continue to rally the community — to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program,” the president said. “What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program.”

“He also asserted that the report means “nothing’s changed,” focusing on the previous existence of a weapons program and not addressing the discrepancy between his rhetoric and the disclosure that weapons program has been frozen for four years.”

“I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world.”

Lets face it, Stephen Colbert had it right about Bush. When he says he believes something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday. No matter what happened on Tuesday. People who don’t change position or tactics based on new information should just not be in charge.

Th-th-thanks for going easy on me.

Typo fixed.

Please note that I do not take lightly the NIE’s conclusions:

And so while I would like to share the sense of relief many people seem to feel, I am unable to do so. Besides which, Iran could restart its nuclear weapons program tomorrow — or maybe already did yesterday amid great glee with the release of the intelligence report — since it continues to enrich uranium.

1. You say this,

America’s spooks have put together a truly pathetic record over the years

but you have based this latest neurosis-and-psychosis-fest posting of yours on a report from those spooks. (What we must be concerned about is underestimation of the Iran threat, rather than the opposite.)

This is similar to the logically-laughable claim I saw earlier that the report that Iran’s bomb program was stopped in 2003 and remains suspended means Iran was not working on a bomb.

A little logic, for a change, which is so absent among y’all, would go a long way toward remediation and recovery of your reputations.

2. “Suppress” has two Ps, not one. I will say you are not the worst offender against the English language. It is not you that makes not only bizarre, demented truly-far-left assertions, but commits a number of gross English blunders in the process (“there” instead of “their” was the latest I saw).

Iran was working on an atomic bomb, and has been for years. It continues to deceive the world while engaging in uranium enrichment and is an obvious extreme diversion risk (in plain language, moving enriched uranium from its “civilian” program, which nobody sane trusts, to its weapon, i.e., bomb, program). Incidentally, what was its role with Syria and North Korea and that Syrian site that was bombed by the Israelis recently? (may have been an illicit reactor, may have been a bomb assembly site or stockpile site, possibly for transit to Iran)

Advice: Do not overreact to this news item and seize it like a Michael Vick fighting dog as another silly, foamy-mouthed Bush-bashing excuse.