The 29 year U.S. efforts at demonizing Iran, and threatening them with military attack of course have had no bearing on their attempts to safeguard their country and culture.

We are doing similar things to Russia, and then attempt to demonize Putin for his reflexive measures.
But of course, the Imperial power (us) is blameless.

Step back and examine history and with the only exception of our use, possession of nuclear weapons does not predicate nuclear exchanges. While not advocating universal possession, I merely note that possessors become more conservative and restrained in their international actions.

Have you forgotten our hostages held illegally for 444 days by these primitive and fanatical people?

I suppose that was our fault too.  We supported the Shah.  And that means, I guess, you can terrorize innocent American embassy personnel and treat these patriotic American public servants like common criminals.

Interesting essay.  Where does this line of thinking ultimately lead us, however?  Do we need to go to war whenever a non European/North American-style democracy is determined to acquire nuclear weapons?  How could we possibly undertake such a commitment, much less succeed in it?

The saber rattling didnt work with Kim Jong Il either. Now that he got a nuke [dud one at that] he got six party talks and the sanctions removed and is pretty much off the terror list.

In Bizarro World having a nuke gets you off the terror list and not having one keeps you on it.

What Calhoun’s War Hawk position in 1812 has to do with the Confederacy must remain shrouded in mystery.  Of course, the U.S. was the first to declare war in 1812, and the war enjoyed the support it did because it was intended as a war of conquest to expand American holdings at the expense of British Canada.  Southern supporters of the war were expansionists; the alleged cause of defending “sailors’ rights” was deeply unpopular among the mercantile states that had the most reason to take issue with the violations of neutral rights.  Calhoun was here engaging in the kind of rhetorical contortions that war supporters often have to make.  Doesn’t prudence also involve weighing the dangers of starting a new war against the demands of honor to avenge the soldiers who have been killed by Shi’ite militiamen?  We do agree that we shouldn’t re-fight the last war, but I would also hope that we can agree that we don’t need to fight unnecessary wars at all.

“Nuclear arms would make Iran an order of magnitude more powerful than it is and, more important, would increase the risk of nonstate actors such as al Qaeda obtaining such weapons as they proliferate among corruption-ridden and terrorist-supporting Third World nations.”

No state hands off its nuclear technology to nonstate actors.  This was a frequent talking point in the preparation for the invasion of Iraq, and it is no more credible now than it was then.  No state has any incentive to do this and all have many incentives to make sure that this does not happen.

Mr. Roach,

We did not “support” the Shah, we imposed him on them. I not only remember the hostage crisis,but also remember how we “removed” the previous Iranian leader to make room for our boy, Pahlavi.

The point is that the hostage situation was resolved on the day Reagan was inaugurated in January 1981. So why have we been at their throats since?

Sir, you seem to be comfortable living in the Imperium? False claims of patriotic response and jingoism remind us of neoconservativism.

That was ‘early’ and more Whig-like Calhoun.  He didnt have his ‘conversion’ to a Jeffersonian philosophy until the early 1820s. Fortunately, he came to his senses about war two decades later over the Mexican War.

“We did not “support” the Shah, we imposed him on them. I not only remember the hostage crisis,but also remember how we “removed” the previous Iranian leader to make room for our boy, Pahlavi.”

That is not totally accurate.  Remember, the British deposed his father in 1943 for him as he was see as more ‘Pro-western’.  Pahlavi was still the head of state in 1953 (which of course, we intervened in).

At that time, the middle east was not yet out of the British sphere of influence, although it would be after 1956.

Rick, your understanding of neoconservatism is superficial, at best.  Remind me what was a major issue in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980?

The Shah was a good guy, an anti-communist, and a friend.  Jimmy Carter was a son of a bitch for selling him out, and the Iranian hostage-takers all deserved to be killed and still do.

“No state hands off its nuclear technology to nonstate actors.  This was a frequent talking point in the preparation for the invasion of Iraq, and it is no more credible now than it was then.  No state has any incentive to do this and all have many incentives to make sure that this does not happen.”

Daniel, I think you are simply wrong on this point.  And part of that wrongness derives from your western and modern idea of states.  In the Third World the state is just an arena where tribal and other loyalties that are more fundamental play out.  You’ve got family members, clans, language groups, religious sects, and personal animosities creating constant disorder and state-on-state violence.  I agree, it’s doubtful Iran the state would officially pass off nukes to al Qaeda.  But it’s not doubtful that Iran the State has trouble controlling Mohammed the General, Reza the intelligence chief, or the Revolutionary Guards or some other paralllel authority.  And these groups for ideological and other reasons have every reason to discredit the state and pursue their private agendas.

I would hope that many on the paleo right would find themselves in cautious approval of any conventional strike on Iran, but ONLY if three variables were satisfied: 1. A Congressional declaration of war PRIOR to any attack, 2. Israel does not attack first and draw us in after the fact, 3. No post-attack/invasion nation building (probably impossible anyway after the aforementioned bog-down in Iraq).

I bring up Calhoun, Daniel, because some of the libertarian anti-war crowd seems to think libertarianism reaches its perfection in the establishment of the Southern regime, dedicated to the high libertarian principle of enslaving one’s fellow man.  They also make the mistake of thinking everyone more bellicose than Mr. Rogers is a neoconservative. I thought they might pause at Calhoun, whose paeans to slavery and abstruse legalistic defenses of secessionism seem to make their hearts swoon.

The Shah was a good guy, an anti-communist, and a friend.

Dont forget those anti-communist freedom fighters Reagan and Carter helped finance - who were our “friends”

Do you mean the Northern Alliance, Jet?

If we were talking about the Saudis getting a bomb, okay, maybe there would be the sort of lack of control that you’re talking about.  I’m not sure that it would apply even there, but I am willing to grant that there might be certain states that could not keep control over their arsenal.  Iran isn’t Saudi Arabia, and it’s a good deal less tribal, fissiparous and unwieldy than Pakistan, and no one in their right minds proposes that we fight a war of disarmament against them.  Even in Pakistan, the military maintains strict control over their nuclear arsenal.  It’s just not a remotely likely scenario that Iran will hand off a nuke to one of its proxies, since Iran will still be blamed for a nuke going off in Tel Aviv or pretty much anywhere else and it will suffer the same retaliation.  From the perspective of the political leadership of their government, it is far better for them to decide how and when their weapons are going to be used.  It doesn’t require you to believe that Iran is a fully modern state.  It simply requires that you believe that their government is filled with self-interested people who want to preserve their own power, which it is.

Leaving aside the mention of the Confederacy, one difficulty I have with invoking Calhoun here is this: citing someone who favored an expansionist, aggressive war at one point to justify another basically aggressive, “pre-emptive” war does not persuade skeptics, but rather reminds them of the reasons why they tend to resist the appeals of war supporters.  Also, the War of 1812 was pretty much an unmitigated disaster as a matter of military campaigning.  As precedents go, I couldn’t think of many that would be less likely to win over doubters.

The Brits burned the White House, jerked around our sailors, and generally could not stand our independence. 

Is the War of 1812 indistinguishable from the Bananna Wars now in the eyes of our so-called paleoconservatives? 

As for the Iranians, they don’t have a nuke now.  It’s much easier to stop them from getting one than to get them to do anything once they have it.  So why are you assuming we should presume they already have it?  And if them, why not every crummy Third World country on Earth that can’t even keep its power running 24/7?  Let’s campaign for the high principle Zimbabwe and Somalia should have nuclear weapons. Let’s sell them; after all, it’s inevitable.

It’s not inevitable, of course.  It’s something we can stop at relatively low cost.  We lack the will, and we lack the will because we make wars too complicated with idealistic nation-building instead of simply imposing our will on these uncouth Muslim people who mean us harm as a matter of religious principle.

“...instead of simply imposing our will on these uncouth Muslim people who mean us harm as a matter of religious principle. “

Funny, you seem to be the one urging a preemptive Bushian war on Muslim people.  Whom means harm upon whom? Some how, I doubt there are many serious Iranian war hawks.

Iran would not be a problem if we only maintained good relations with the Russians, who do not really want a nuclear armed Muslim country facing them across the Caspian Sea.  Anyone who thinks they do knows nothing about Russia they haven’t seen in Cold War era movies.  But with our relations with the Russians as it currently is, whatever happens regarding the question of Iran can only mean disaster.

I was wondering when the next ridiculous post by Christopher Roach would appear and now I have my answer.

How is it you are so certain that “it’s something we can stop at relatively low cost” when Iran is not even seeking a nuke? But, even if they were how are you going to stop it at a relatively low cost? Unless, if by low cost you mean general chaos in the region, new attacks on our soldiers in Iraq, massive loss of life, missiles landing in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem in retaliation, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz cutting off the oil supply leading to price increases that make the current situation look like a small bump.

Also, no evidence has been presented that the Khobar Towers bombing was an Iranian operation unless you take Louis Freeh’s word for it in a WSJ op-ed ten years later.

From the link you posted:

William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense in the time that this bombing happened, in an interview in June 2007, said that “he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.”

In addition to Secretary Perry, Saudi Prince Nayef, head of the Ministry of Interior and the lead investigating agency, has absolved Iranian involvement in the attack.

I always love this “Carter is a XXXX because he didn’t support the Shah crap”.

What exactly was Carter supposed to do? The Iranian military could see the writing on the wall and had already switched sides. The Shah wasn’t even in the country. I am sure he was well aware that he and his family were soon going to be vacationing in one of his dungeons for their soon to be short lives.

So what could be done except for full-on military force BY THE US to help him. The country was exhausted from the Vietnam war. Imagine asking Congress for the draft back, billions for a naval armada and amphibious attack on Iran to save the Shah’s regime.

Maybe you think if St. Ronnie the Lionhearted were there and he gave a speech it would have stopped history in its tracks. I very much doubt that.

Face it, we can’t do everything we please whenever we want.

The mujahideen, Chris.
http://www.defencejournal.com/sept98/osamabinladen.htm

What does Iran Want?
I think more than anything to be able to defend their country.  Iran wants the same things as Israel, security.  Who can they trust?

They remember 1979; Arabic nations who supported Iraq against Iran.  The integrated financial, technical, and armaments that were provided by many Arab countries to support Arabic Iraq against non-Arab Iranians was responsible for death of about 500,000 Iranians ad injury of several millions.  They remember our financial and technical support of Sadam Hossein to use chemical bombs against Iranians. 

Please read Persian Paradox [http://www.geocities.com/stmtraveler/PersianPardox.htm]. What would you do if you were president of Iran?

http://www.geocities.com/stmtraveler/PersianPardox.htm

</i> Seems the italics are stuck on.</i>

<i></i> In religious history it was Cyrus [Persian] that freed the Hebrew people and allowed them to rebuild the temple. And Cyrus is the only gemtile to become designated a messiah by them.

About the hostages:

When you place people in dangerous places, there are bound to be some bad things happen to them.  Carter’s mistake was keeping an American embassy in a country undergoing a rather nasty revolution.

I don’t disagree with fighting and killing Muslims, however, I DO disagree with the United States government doing it.  The problem is the Protestant United States Army fights wars to spread Protestant secularism, not the One True Faith.  That is why “nation building” is the resultant of every single American military action - the US military is an organization run by Protestants who, despite their outwardly evangelical streak, can’t get away from installing secular governments.  The real problem is when they try and install a secular government in Shia dominated places, like Iraq.  It blows up in their faces.  Under the Old Republic, there was one war fought, and it was fought well: against Mexico.  The US Army went in, fought, and then controlled territory, all while leaving “nation building” out of it: the difference was that the United States was controlled more by old fashioned Democrats and less by the Whigs.  Needless to say, the USA is Whig dominated today, and has been since 1865.

“Is the War of 1812 indistinguishable from the Bananna Wars now in the eyes of our so-called paleoconservatives?”

So-called?  I’m not sure what that’s even supposed to mean.  As if the “real” paleoconservatives support expansionism into Canada and attacking Iran?  Let’s get something straight: the British burned the White House *after* we declared war on them and invaded Canada.  For people who couldn’t “stand” our independence, the British recognized us readily enough and were satisfied to leave us independent at the conclusion.  It was an incredibly stupid decision to go to war in 1812, and one that fortunately did not have more severe consequences for our country.  We were quite lucky that Britain had other things to worry about at the time.  Yes, there were provocations and violations of our neutral rights by both French and British forces prior to the declaration of war, but we went to war with the British in the end because the Democratic-Republicans were in power and the British had territories that we could attack (unsuccessfully).  If applauding Mr. Madison’s War is required to pass muster around here, I’m afraid I’m going to fail the test.

First, the brouhaha going around the web today about the fake Iranian missile photos reinforces my opinion that Iran is not in the same league as the USSR.  If we could contain them, why can’t we contain Iran?

Second, have we taken into account what will happen to our forces in Iraq if we attack Iran?  It is my understanding the US forces in Iraq are no longer assembled into division and even brigade sized units.  The policy during the surge has been to break them into smaller units to deploy in more buildings in more neighborhoods to help maintain the peace.  If so, any sudden attack against Iran could leave these troops hanging in the wind if the Shiaa were to rise up in response. 

Being split up into these isolated units would be a tremendous disadvantage.  Also, if the troops are consolidated in preparation for an attack, that would probably tip off the Iranians in advance.  If anyone has information suggesting our units are still assembled into larger formations please reply.  I don’t have first hand confirmation of this.

Third, since Iran is not an existential threat to the US, any reasons we have for attacking should be echoed by other nations.  I say this because if Iran were an imminent threat to us, other nations’ opinions would be immaterial.  But in this case, they are not.  Are the Chinese, Russians and Europeans concerned?  If so will they support an invasion knowing full well that the US will do all the leg work?  I can see the Euros and others not wanting to get their skirts dirty.  But if the US is going to do the heavy lifting, why aren’t they on board for an attack?

Fourth, isn’t Pakistan potentially more dangerous than Iran?  Yet we treat them favorably because they have joined the club, albeit they were not invited.  Our policy has established the precedent that you have to join the club to get respect.  If you are not in the club you are subject to being pushed around.  If you are in the club you get foreign aid, most favored nation status and meetings with the President.  A preemptive attack just reinforces this and provides incentives for others gain membership.

Bottom line, if Iran tries to interrupt commerce, that is a reason for a localized attack to remove the obstruction.  If they hit any US targets or harbor those who do, a massive retaliation would be warranted.

I am concerned if we do a preemptive strike we will just put off their obtaining nuclear power/weapons for a later time. Then you would be dealing with a nuclear armed nation with an even bigger grudge.  What’s to prevent them from pursuing nukes after our attack?  I guess we could try to stay and engineer their society like we are doing so well in Iraq.  But without the help of other nations that would be impossible with our current force structure.

Has it yet occured to people that the resources our little spaceship holds is reduced thru warfare.

Now, why, I ask, would GOD placed us all on this, what I call our Ark, planet?

What is the larger lesson?

I say “so called” because there is a new kind of conservative on the scene with which I feel little kinship that seems, like the left, to see nothing but evil and injustice in pretty defensible U.S. actions, like responding to blockades and kidnappings of Americans, as in the War of 1812.

If we or Israel attack Iran, we will further inflame the Muslim world, probably close the Straights of Hormuz to oil shipments thereby inflicting much higher prices on oil with the resulting crisis in the world’s economy, and possibly start a chain reaction of new alliances in the region and elsewhere which we might be powerless to alter or influence.

Should we risk all that to prevent Iran from “possibly, maybe, almost certainly” deploying nuclear weapons in the decades ahead? There is about the same level of evidence here that we had with Saddam’s Iraq. Are we to invite retaliation to our cities for this?

The globalist enterprise wants to attack Iran, but must we paleos line-up to be cannon fodder.

By the way, they have raised the enlistment age for the military services to the forties. All you hawks, Uncle Sam Needs You! Sorry folks, but I am too old now, but did 41 months of military and civilian contract service in Vietnam.

You stated unequivocally we could prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon even though intelligence says they are not even doing so.

You said: “it’s something we can stop at relatively low cost,” please back up that statement.

How do we do that without the consequences I laid out in my previous post?

You went on to say that the reason we do not do so was due to weak-kneed paleo’s and others without the will to act. Please present your plan to action and discuss why my scenario would not happen, a scenario that almost every General in Washington understands to be the consequence of a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Also, please take back your statement that Iran had anything to do with the attack on the Khobar Towers when the vast majority indicted were Saudi’s (no Iranian in the midst) and intelligence, foreign and domestic, states they were members of Al-Qaeda.

Moreover, what say you of the approval recently given by the US Congress for a USD 400 million package for clandestine operations against Iran. More an act of war, really. Clandestine operations apparently means supporting terrorist groups, subversion, sabotage, kidnapping and assassination within Iranian territory. What would be the USA’s reaction if, say, China or Russia or North Korea or even Switzerland were to allocate similar funds and undertake similar activities against the USA?

Not to mention that this show of missile strength by Iran did not begin before Israel began their war games of testing fighters to destroy certain targets…

Posted by Christopher Roach on Jul 10, 2008.

The past has been rceonciled Chris, and is not of your worry.

I don’t even get it. What has one Iranian done to you to threaten your way of life? Have you even stepped in country and experienced their way of life? You seem to have a very limited and Fox News oriented description of life in the Middle East with no nuance whatsoever.

The fact remains: Iran is controlled by Muslims and the American military is controlled by Protestants.

Two Satanic cults fighting one another...what else is new?

When the option of being able to restore the Faith to Mesopotamia becomes available, let me know, I will then take sides; but, until that time, I have no interest in supporting Satanic cults fighting one another.

Methinks Mr. Roach is deliberately trying to rile you up.

Not enough hits to your columns, Mr. Roach?

Mr. Roach is right. Let’s definitely stop those Iranians from aquiring nuclear weapons. Let’s also make sure Israel dismantles and gives up her already present 400+ nuclear warhead arsenal.

The US could do it. If not her, then who? If not now, then when?

Larison wrote:  “It doesn’t require you to believe that Iran is a fully modern state.  It simply requires that you believe that their government is filled with self-interested people who want to preserve their own power, which it is.”

This assurance may sound comforting but it is surprising coming from someone as well-read in history as Mr. Larison.  History is replete with examples of states acting against their self-interest because of ideology, mistaken reasoning, passion, shortsightedness, ego, etc.  Consider WWI.  Or consider Saudi Arabia.  Why is it in their rational interest to fund terrorists who try to kill the people who buy the one product they “produce”?  Or for that matter, why did the U.S. try to democratize Iraq?  Was it in our self-interest? 

Golly jeez, how about Napoleon or Hitler?  Was their aggression best designed to keep them in power, or were they more motivated by ego, ideology, a belief in their destiny, etc, etc.  Who’s to say A-jad is any different. 

These blithe self-assurances about rational Iranians merely interested in self-defense against aggressive neo-con Americans is another example of how many on the Right have fallen into the Leftist habit of putting internal domestic opponents much higher on the enemy list than foreign forces actually intent upon our harm.

Iran is currently killing our soldiers.  “Death to the Great Satan America” is more than just a catchy slogan.  Whether we should invade or bomb or apply diplomatic pressure is an answer I don’t have.  But let’s not pretend that Iran isn’t our enemy, and doesn’t mean us harm.

Impressment and trade interference were indeed much more than just a pretext to declare war on Britain and steal Canada.  Let’s not forget that we nearly went to war with France over similar issues.  We fought ten naval engagements with them and raised an army in preparation for war, and this was only a few years after France had helped us win independence. 

By 1812, France’s naval power was 7 years past, while Britain had continued to interfere with U.S. trade and impress its sailors.

And if we were so trigger happy, why did we first try a painful and unpopular trade embargo?

And the merchants in the northeast weren’t upset about the war because they didn’t care about impressment.  They were upset about it because the war was more economically damaging than impressment was.  But for the majority of Americans sovereignty and national honor were more important considerations.

I am not sure why you bear the Iranians such ill will.  Yes they took some hostages but that was a long time ago.  We openly trade with Germany and Jajan now as well.  I also remember that the Iranians sent a contingent to Lousiania after Katrina as a sign of good will and in appreciation for U.S. help in the areas in Iran that suffered earthquake damage.  The U.S. and Iran should treat each other as suffering from similar disasters in leadership and help each other out as we have during other disasters.

If military action is taken against Iran, the enthusiasm of the American people to stop Iranian developing nuclear arms will be shown by what the American people think of the inevitable $200+ price for a barrel of oil that will be a consequence of such an action. Considering the fact that current oil prices are causing a serious state of katzenjammer amongst much of the populace, I’d suggest that those favoring strikes against Iran should not get their hopes high.

And if Jimmy Carter was an SOB for ‘selling out’ the Shah, I would like to know what Christopher Roach thinks of what went on under Reagan (Iran-Contra)?

With memories of their terrible conflict with Iraq still relatively fresh, I doubt Iranians would welcome war, or any actions taken by Mr Ahmadinejad which might cause their country to be attacked. 

On the other hand, the constant (and depressing) sabre-rattling emanating from Washington and Jerusalem might just drive Iranians to support their unpopular President and prolong his stay in office.

An effort should also be made to understand the political rhetoric of some arab states, which tends towards the dramatic.  Diplomacy has to be the way forward, arduous though the process may be.

Ironically, America’s great anti-communist buddy, the Shah of Persia, an autocrat whose rule was marked by political repression, wasn’t even granted asylum in the US after he was deposed.

(Correction for arab state, read muslim state)

“The Shah was a good guy (SAVAK), an anti-communist (Hitler), and a friend (keep that oil flowing).  Jimmy Carter was a son of a bitch (peace, not war maker) for selling him out (how much did Carter make on this deal?)_, and the Iranian hostage-takers (tortured and repressed for years) all deserved to be killed and still do (they killed no one).

I’ve never seen anything like this article on this site before.

I always thought that being a conservative meant that, no matter how pretty and shiny the bauble was, if we didn’t have money in our pockets to buy it we couldn’t buy it.

While I have a long list of reasons that attacking Iran would be a bad idea, let me discuss only one of them: the fact that we could lose an army, and a navy, if we do.

Anyone besides me remember USMC Gen. Paul van Riper and Millenium Challenge?  (I’m sure the mullahs don’t google, though, so hey who cares!)

Look at where our supply lines run for our troops in Iraq.  Think about what Iranian agitators could do to them with some co-religionist Shia help.

Maybe I’m being overly cautious.

Maybe the Sunburn ASMs aren’t all that great, or maybe the Aegis system can handle them.

Maybe our supply lines would be safe; maybe Moqtada al-Sadr wouldn’t cause a Shia uprising against our troops.

Maybe THIS TIME we could intervene with no blowback . . . HA!  That’s like saying, “Maybe this time I can jump out this window and fly away to Cloud Cuckoo-Land.”

Think about the Exocet’s score in the Falklands/Malvinas war, and think about whether antiship missiles have gotten better.

Half the time I read Mr. Roach’s columns or comments and think “Right on!” and half the time I read them and despair.

“...some of the libertarian anti-war crowd seems to think libertarianism reaches its perfection in the establishment of the Southern regime, dedicated to the high libertarian principle of enslaving one’s fellow man.”

Mr. Roach, I’m guessing you’re obliquely referring to writers like Joseph Stromberg, who suggested that, given a chance, the independent Southern states could have experienced a populist, libertarian groundswell.  Neither he nor any other writer in this vein has endorsed human slavery.  The main thrust of his/their writings is that the Confederacy represented the right to throw off a repressive, nationalist regime.

Mr. Roach’s article is a classic pro-war diatrabe. It holds an allure for many, insulting as “womanly” those who are sceptical of a possible war in which, once more, our ostensible enemy HAS NOT COMMITTED AN ACT OF WAR AGAINST US, Mike Ledeen be damned.

It goes like this. First, Iran is a threat, and armed with nuclear weapons (which we don’t even know they are building), we aren’t sure what they would do. Even thus, let’s imagine all the worst case scenarios (Iran attacks Israel, gives a nuke to bin Laden, cuts off US oil supplies) and then operate under the assumption that the worst-case is also most likely. Second, let’s say that all options short of war are something akin to “womanly” (I can hear the footsteps of Munich/Hitler/1938 not far behind). Third, let’s distort the “lessons” of previous failures (i.e. the Iraq War was just going great until we tried to occupy the country- did you really think we were going to leave once we invaded?!). So doing allows one to (five) present any worst-case scenarios of attacking Iran as defeatist, too negative, etc. Now what are we left with? War, and no one (except the womanly) should doubt that it will go exactly as planned.

Going further, there are so many weak spots in the argument for a war of aggression against Iran (does not the very phrase argue against it?) that it would take too much time to examine them here. Here are a few: 1) does Iran have a right to nuclear technology in international law? 2) does Israel? 3) If the UN is a body we are going to use in making war on Iran, does its charter at all apply to us 4) will Iran simply lie down and absorb a Israel-US strike? And if they don’t, what are there counterstrokes ?5) What happens to the economy one the first bombs start to fall? 6) Barring a declaration of war, we would have another unconstitutional conflict. Would that not put the US government in total crisis? 7) How long would war last, would it spread, what would it cost, would we even win something like a decisive victory without the use of nuclear arms (wouldn’t that be ironic?)? 8) If Iran gets nukes (which we don’t even know they’re building) then why would we think it would be any more dangerous than now with Russia, China, or Pakistan having nukes? 9) Finally, can we even trust the intelligence, let alone take the Bush Administration’s word for it (they did NOT tell us the truth before and during Iraq- period), when they talk about Iran? I’m sorry Mr. Roach, credibility still does matter.

Each of these points would take endless argument to try and resolve. Some can’t because they are speculative. Still, that didn’t stop the US from invading Iraq. Fervid speculation might yet get us into Iran.

First, it is important to note that Roach rarely presents an actual argument; indeed, I now question his ability to structure, present and defend a logical line of argument.  Rather, he simply engages in assertion, hyperbole, sarcasm, name calling, the cherry-picking-of-evidence, talk of “manly toughness”, fear mongering and other forms of transparently fallacious reasoning.

Second, Roach rarely answers his more serious and knowledgeable critics and he seems to never seriously consider what they write in reply to his posts.

Third, regarding his latest post, if you take the moral conditions of war seriously then you must reject his latest line of “argument”.  It’s that simple.

Fourth, the above line of “argument” would seem to imply that Iran and just about every other country on earth are justified in launching a preemptive (or preventative) war of aggression against the United States.  If you embrace his latest “argument” what rational and moral basis remains for you to oppose the entire world ganging up on and attacking the US?

Fifth, while I’m not an expert on Iranian history it would seem that Iran hasn’t engaged in unjust military aggression against another country, let alone the US, in decades.  During that same period, however, the US has engaged in or enabled countless unjust military operations, including unjust military and non-military actions against Iran.  Maybe we need to remove the beam from our own eye before we try and remove the splinter from another’s eye; maybe we’re a little self-righteous and are deaf to the legitimate grievances of others.

Fifth, Roach has yet to come to terms with even the possibility that the true patriot is the one who is inclined against or even hateful of the neo-Marxist beast on the Potomac.  Maybe the guy defending and encouraging the beast –a guy like Roach - is the one who suffers from a lack of patriotism (properly understood).

Finally, why don’t self-described tough guys like Roach ever advocate aggression against countries that can actually fight back?  What kind of “womanly” inhibitions keep guys like Roach from advocating war with China or even North Korea?

Some time I doubt about the fidelity of my senses especially my view and my hearing. I had this feeling of doubtfulness today again reading Christopher Roach. Is what I’m reading what Christopher Roach really wants to tell us, or my eyes plays a dirty trick to me once again?
-The Iranian nation is not an unfriendly nation to the American nation Mr. Roach.
-The situation in Iraq is not an unlucky situation but the logical consequence of a bad decision Mr. Roach. A bad decision and a bad luck don’t make sense.
-Iran and al Qaeda are enemies Mr. Roach! Do you really think that Iran goes to offer a nuke to al Qaeda like a lovers gift?
-Darwinism doesn’t always work in international affairs Mr. Roach. The fittest can hardly breath in Iraq to not mention Vietnam and Lebanon for the fittest Israel.
-An honest patriot Mr. Roach offers him self-first to participate in the land invasion of a foreign country. I didn’t sow that in your text! I guess the unfortunates young Americans go to do the work for you paying with theirs lives.
-The overall cost goes to be paid by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, or Halliburton Mr. Roach?
-Regime change, exploitation of WMD sites? What you mean by exploitation of WMD Mr. Roach?
-Decapitating the regime and decapitating Saddam Hussein himself. But Saddam was our ally Mr. Roach! We armed him, financed him, instructed him, gave intelligence to him for an eight years war against Iran. Saddam was our friend for long time! Kim Il Sung is an enemy and he is still alive. Why?
-Misused force and mistaken intelligence Mr. Roach?  And the Fittest principle? 
- Iranian interference Mr. Roach?  The Iranians knows very well what real interference means. They experienced the interferences of two Empires in the last 50 years or so. The ones failing and the others rising; England’s and American’s.
I think the Persians must have a long memory; they have a long history any ways.

To hell with Calhoun, the South, Paloeconservatives, Neoconservatives and all of that. Do we need to get involved in the affairs of others? China and Japan get all the oil they want from the Middle East and have no troops and hardly any involvement there at all. As Ron Paul said “They attack us because we’ve been over there for years.”

And one more thing Mr.Roach. As Ron Paul said in the Congress about the anti-Iran resolution, from where the USA takes the moral and legal authority to attack or the threaten an other country? From the American constitution? The UN Charter? The International law? An International well established custom? Or well from the USA government pocket? Like the little change we take out from our pockets to bye a candy?

There’s a lot to respond to.  A few points.

One group above seems inclined to the UN, international law, “golden rule” view of foreign policy.  Others are inclined to the “prison yard” view.  I incline to the latter view.  Without tackling this major premise, I think these two groups will talk past one another. I find the former view fundamentally liberal, idealistic, Wilsonian, and unworkable. It’s true, we need allies and need to show the big boys respect, but being nice won’t mean other people are nice back. Ask the Belgians.

Two, a second premise I’m employing above is that our military is very good at conventional attacks, but very bad at nation-building and that we’re unsuited, particularly on the homefront, for a years-long counterinsurgency.

One of my reasons for arguing that dealing with Iran conventionally would be easy is that we easily dealt with Iraq (and before it Iraq in ‘90 and Panama in ‘89) conventionally in 2003. Our unpopular counterinsurgency failures in Vietnam and Iraq are important facts that must guide our policies in general.

I did not say it was “womanly” to oppose war with Iran. This is a lie and a straw man. Prudence may dicate not attacking Iran, even under my own philosophy.  The quality of intelligence on Iranian nuclear weapons, the state of our forces in Iraq, and one’s view on nonproliferation in general will dictate such a course or not, as well. 

I argue instead that *proliferation of nukes to the Third World, and in particular to Iran, is a bad thing because of the Third World’s instability.  I argue also that our difficulties in Iraq should not distract us from this problem or the possibility of addressing it conventionally.*

Some agree in principle that proliferation is a bad thing, but say we should use diplomacy.  I agree.  But if diplomacy does not work, which I don’t think it will here and has not so far, then what?  One view is that we should suck it up in that case, a view I recognize as potentially defensible in my original article citing to the happy end of the Cold War without much shooting.

The “womanly unreason” point consisted instead of an error in reasoning common among opponents of intervention in Iran:  the rigged comparison of our current problems in Iraq attributable to an unnecessary campaign of idealistic nation-building with the costs and benefits of a swift conventional attack on Iran and its nuclear facilities. 

The economic arguments raised above should not be sneezed at. But what price can we put on dealing with nuclear Iran?  I don’t know the number.  It’s above zero. I think the other releated costs could be very high.  Finally, I think it’s a calculating and mean spirit that would sacrifice our rights as a nation--rights here not to be molested on the high seas, to trade with whom we will, to protect our friends in Iraq if we choose without dealing with foreign trained terrorists--for cheaper gas or some other calculating interest. 

Finally, I think the idea that Iran is this passive, decent, stable, and just nation whom we wrongly provoke and antagonize is ignorant.  Lisen to their leader.  Listen to their fanatical Mullahs.  No principle of self-defense required Iran to keep our people hostage 444 days, nor to fund various terrorist groups such as Hezbollah from that time to the present. Lebanon has many reasonable beefs with Israel, but does Iran?  I don’t know exactly who attacked Khobar towers, but Iran’s bad track record is undeniable.  Its various attacks on US Navy ships since the 1980s, as well as its support of anti-America Shia radicals in Iraq in the present day, all suggest an ideological and aggressive nation concerned with much more than mere national self-defense, but instead with power, including power to dictate terms to us and its neighbors.

Craig and Joseph above make snarky points about why don’t we attack China, NK, and others?  Why?  It’s simple, we would lose or it would cost too much compared to whatever we would gain.  War is not some macho game. Who goes to war to lose?  It’s designed to accomplish foreign policy goals.  It’s much more sensibly used against weaker nations like Iran where we can do so cheaply than big nations like Russia, China. Nuclear weapons, unfortuantely, turn every pipsqueak Muslim outhouse into a big powerful country that gets to eat at the big kids table.  Do opponents of defanging Iran have anything to say about what would happen if they get the nukes? Daniel Larison does above, but I think it’s totally unrealistic and pollyannish.

What if nuclear Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf or demands tribute from Iraqi, UAE, Omani, and other tankers passing through?  What can we possibly do to them in that case?  What if we found out they were responsible for arming our opponetns in Iraq and Afghanistan?  What could we possibly do if they had a nuclear shield? 

Notice how hamstrung we are with putative ally, Pakistan.  We don’t need any more Pakistans in the world, because such countries operate with a cloak of perfect self-defense against us no matter what they do, because of their nuclear options.

A. MacGarr, Derrick Smith, and David Manley all make good points above.

Cota 13, just because there’s no ideological formulaic answer, does not mean we can do nothing. Doing nothing is a policy too with predictable consequences.  All decisions must be made under uncertainty.  Life’s hard like that.

Joseph, I think you’re reading comprehension is off, and you classify every argument you disagree with as a bad one. You also seem to see nothing wrong with hostage-taking, American-ship-and-soldier attacking nations, as if they are compelled by some force of nature to do these things. My assumptions, major and minor premises, and chain of reasoning above are pretty transparent, and I’ve tried to deal with more intelligent responses in the latest.

Hi Roach,

I appreciate your reply.  I’ll give just one example of the type of flawed or at least incomplete reasoning you sometimes engage in,

“You also seem to see nothing wrong with ... American-ship-and-soldier attacking nations”

This is mere assertion and on a very contentious and vital point; you have to actually cite evidence and show that this is the case (that Iran has attacked US forces in Iraq) and you haven’t done that - not even close.  You would then have to show that the Iranian attacks, assuming they happened at all, were unjust.  Finally, assuming you were able to show that Iran had engaged in the unjustified use of force against the US you would then have to show, at a bare minimum, that the use of aggressive military force by the US against Iran is morally justified.  Keep in mind, too, that the Iranians probably *think* the US deliberately shot down that Iranian airliner a few years back.  However, unless they could show that was the case nothing much – at least as far as aggressive war goes – follows.  We could play this game all day along but instead, let’s cut to the chase: until one nation launches an unjust attack, with grave and lasting consequences, against another nation, it is morally impermissible for the latter nation to attack the former.  If you doubt the truth of the proposition, see your Catechism.

I just wrote a longish reply that got zapped.  I’ll just try to jot something quickly.

There are many news articles quoting not the Wolfowitzes of the world but US commanders in Iraq that point to Iranian involvement based on the source of weapons and technology in different attacks on civilians and US forces in Iraq, including the Karbala attack, viz.:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/06/iraqi_police_detain.php

The USS Samuel Roberts hit an Iranian mine in international waters. 

These behaviors matter for two reasons.  One they are unjustified and against our people.  Two they suggest the kind of irresponsible behavior we can expect from a nuclear Iran. 

Incidentally, I don’t think it’s good for the US that Israel has a nuke.  I think some of its more provocative actions derive from that status, including its recent attack on Lebanon.  That said, I don’t see why we should not stop such proliferation to even less friendly nations such as Iran or Saudi Arabia or anyone else.

I don’t always offer factual cites to my premises when they are easily available through a google search, but I’m happy to provide on request, as I have here.

Assuming arguendo Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, can and should we do anything to stop them?  And, if so, what should that be? Where should it stop? And should we accept this development if it can’t be stopped without military action?

I think your standard of when to go to war would leave the US at the mercy of unstable and unfriendly nations.  It would demand evidence that is impossible to obtain and relies on a legalistic view of things that the inherent anarchy of international relations does not involve.  As for the Catechism, I can only say that it’s not a suicide pact.  I don’t want us going to war for any reason than self-defense after exhaustion of non-military means.  But self-defense must be understood broadly or we’ll end up the vassal state of the biggest bullies on the scene.

When I hear the phrase “fanatical mullahs”, the name Hagee comes to mind.

Sayeth Roach:
“I certainly don’t think fairness or reciprocity should be a major consideration in the moves we make.  International affairs are a bit like a prison yard; it’s survival of the fittest, and what we have and enjoy should sometimes be denied to others who are unfriendly, unstable, or simply ‘not us.’”

Mr. Roach, your sentiments bear strong affinity with those of the Ziocrazy Michael Ledeen:  “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

Both values expressed, yours and his, rely on the same immoral, anti-Christian justifications for murder, especially against those who are “not us.” Now - Mr. Ledeen shares, most enthusiastically, your bent for primitive tribal brutality, though, to be sure, he considers his tribe quite superior to yours, and could even be said to be working assiduously to wipe yours out. 

The bullying nonsense you espouse goes such a long way in greasing the skids of the neocon takeover.

Michael, the neocons are fundamentally idealists.  Ledeen said what he said, but he also has written eloquently about the beauty of Iraqi democracy and the world-transformational power of this force in the Middle East.  He is an activist international relations idealist. My conservative, “just war” tradition critics (along with the resentment-driven ones), and non-activist international relations idealists.  Both think force is passe, largely unnecessary, and that something like the “golden rule” will get it done in foreign policy.  I strongly disagree.  I disagree we should aim to transform the Middle East into a demoracy.  I disagree with the equally idealist idea that if we ignore them, they will ignore us.  Perhaps as a long-run goal that is a wise one.  I’m all for pulling our permanent bases out of Europe and South Korea.  At the same time, I’m all for naval power projection, anti-proliferation strategies, and the maintenance of US rights to trade and travel wherever we wish.

What a dog’s breakfast of an article, long on motivation and predjudice, short on rational ideas. A waste of space and very disappointing.

A dog’s breakfast of an article. Much motivation and predjudice and little rational policy. What a disappointment.

Mr. Roach, if what you gleaned from my post is that I have a love and need of ideology then I do believe your reading comprehension is more than a bit skewed. Naturally, you glazed over the gaping holes in your “case” for war with generalities and cited an incident that happened in 1980 as a possible causus belli in 2008. If the Barbary Pirates’ degradations had gone unrequited in the 1700’s would you strike them now with just cruise missles or would you really sock it to them with a full-ground assault?

Mr Roach’s ramblings seem to be plumbing new depths of foolishness. His article lacks reason from start to finish and is a childish distortion of reality. The basic premise of the article is that Iran poses a serious military threat to the USA. This is totally untrue. Indeed, the converse is true. The real reason, of course, for sabre rattling directed at Iran, is that Iran is a serious obstacle to Israeli efforts to become the sole power in the Middle East by wasting all potential rivals. In fact, it is Iran (and not the USA) which would have every right to be extremely bitter and aggressive towards the USA for various reasons:
1. The USA is currently financing armed insurgencies by ethnic minorities within Iran.
2. The USA has surrounded Iran with its military bases and is attempting further intimidation with battleships in the Persian Gulf.
3. During the Iran-Iraq war, the USA armed Iraq, supplied Iraq with ongoing battlefield intelligence from the likes of spy satellites, and supplied Iraq with materials for waging chemical warfare that inflicted horrific injuries on Iranian troops.
4. The USA has done nothing to check Israel’s build-up of a vast nuclear arsenal that it has threatened to use against enemies. Indeed, the USA assisted in the illegal acquisition of these weapons.
5. In the late 1980’s, an Iranian commercial jet on a routine flight was shot down by a missile fired by an American warship. Over 200 people, including many women and children, were killed. The American government then insulted and frustrated the Iranians by continuing to insist, long after the event, that the shootdown was the fault of the Iranian pilot.
6. The CIA arranged the assassination of Mossadegh which led to the installation of the repressive regime of the Shah, and allowed the continued exploitation of Iranian oil by US and British companies.
etc

Joseph, your comments on Mr Roach are very accurate. I would urge readers not to bother replying to Mr Roach’s articles. They are rubbish unworthy of the reputation of this site and unworthy of a response from intelligent readers.

Cota, my point was not that you are ideological, but rather that your criteria of action demand the kind of certainty that only an ideology can provide.  Since we can’t get that certainty, we can’t act, but inaction has consequences too, which I don’t believe you have addressed. I was specifically addressing my last point addressed towards your grand conclusion, viz., “Each of these points would take endless argument to try and resolve. Some can’t because they are speculative. Still, that didn’t stop the US from invading Iraq. Fervid speculation might yet get us into Iran.”

“...the neocons are fundamentally idealists.  Ledeen said what he said, but he also has written eloquently about the beauty of Iraqi democracy and the world-transformational power of this force in the Middle East.  He is an activist international relations idealist.”

Incredible! Roach, as I have written several times before, neoconservatism and the neocons were born when the international left turned against Israel and embraced the Palestinians. Just go back to the Wall Street Journal editorial pages of late 60s and early 70s. Sequencing of events often proves enlightening as true motives are frequently obscure.

As to suggesting that Iraquis and others enjoy the beauty and transformational power of democracy, well, naivety is your name. I suggest you get out and about a bit. I’ve worked and lived in five different countries and don’t for a minute project western values on the locals. They have their own traditions and ways of rationalizing their own interests.

But then again, maybe Roach, your whole blog is a put-up job. Are you “funnin” us?

And you don’t see my point, obviously. Using the hypothetical of “what if Iraq/Iran gets nukes and gives them to Al Queda or bombs is Israel” as both a likely scenario and urgent grounds for preventative war is a faulted, dangerous rationale. It got us into Iraq and threatens to get us into Iran; and, ultimately, it has been damaging to the national interest and destabilizing to the world. It has created more enemies that we initially had: Al Queda in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, and the “special groups” are all new enemies created in Iraq. What new ones would we create in Iran? Put plainly, my point is this: the burden of proof is totally on the interventionists this time prove every part of their case for war with Iran. Nothing should be taken for granted, and if you want a sceptic to believe such a war is necessary then you should move beyond platitudes and into the specifics. Absent an act of war (and there hasn’t been one) and in the light of Iraq, the rationale for attacking Iran has to be at least three times as strong. A war should not be launched on Iran based solely on the speculations people like yourself and your neoconservative fellow-travelers are putting forward. It makes hysterical, worst-case scenarios the fundamental basis for state action.

Rick, I didn’t say democracy was good or that the Iraqis are happy about what’s been given to them.  Foreign policy idealism is a bad approach in my view.  I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.  But it clearly motivates the neoconservatives, who when they are not talking about going to war with every nation that has looked at Israel the wrong way, are talking about the transformational power of democracy, our creeal heritage, and the merits of open borders.

I am a nationalist and a foreign policy realist with a strong streak of tribalist ire against folks that do or threaten my people with harm coupled with great appreciation of the value of punitive raids.

We should leave Iran an honorable path of retreat. Engaging Iran in the global economy is the only approach that has merit.

Regardless of Iran’s size however, we should be careful what we assume about Iran; it has some ten million men of military age.

Puor bien savoir les choses, il en faut savoir le detail, et comme il est presque infini, nos connaissances sont toujours superficielles et imparfaites.

Unfortunately, what we do know is that the Bush administration cannot be trusted to do what it says. Iraq taught us that lesson. Many experts have long been predicting that Bush would invade Iran before he leaves office. But of course, the Bush administration would never admit to such a thing.

“On ne donne rien si liberalement que ses conseils.”

But it is the man who follows his own counsel, he’s the one that should lead.

“...tribalist ire against folks that do or threaten my people with harm...”. Who are “your people”, Mr. Roach? And what is your “Tribe” for which you conjure “ire”?

Roach,

This is my last post on the subject.

First, I reject as false the law-of-the-jungle ethic in international affairs.  Instead, I follow the natural moral law in all things, especially when it comes to the state and war.

Second, and within the bounds set by the natural law, I think Washington’s Farwell address is a sturdy and reliable guide to a sound and specifically American approach to foreign policy – with all that this entails.

Third, I reject the government in Washington as fundamentally evil.  From abortion, to affirmative action, to confiscatory levels of taxation, to unsound money, to unconstitutional usurpations of state authority, to the latest attacks on our traditional liberties, to countless immoral wars of aggression, Washington has shown that it is a committed enemy of all that is good and true.  There’s no moral crime you can accuse other governments of that Washington isn’t complicit in as well.  Indeed, as Ian has shown above, Iran has real and legitimate grievances with Washington.

Fourth, it seems to me that Washington can no longer be trusted and the history of the last 60 years or so bears this out.  Consider that just about everything we’ve been told regarding important historical events has either been largely false, crude propaganda, or pure lies.  From Perl Harbor, to the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, to the strategic bombing of German cities, to operation keelhaul, to mass executions during the Korean War, to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, to the attack on the USS liberty, to operation Northwood’s, to operation Gladio, to US support of the mujahideen, to the lies and misinformation that triggered the first gulf war, to US support for the KLA, to the lies and propaganda of the latest Iraq debacle, we have been taken for fools and idiots (I can post links or recommend books for all of this).  I for one no longer trust the US government and it seems to me that I’m justified in this.

What’s the old saying: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.  We’ll, I’m done being made a fool of and I guarantee that the “evidence” of Iranian attacks against US forces will soon be shown to be false, too.  I mean, there is a pretty well established trend here – isn’t there?  Anyhow, I find it hard to believe that while we supplied the mujahideen with stinger missiles the Iranians are supplying propane tank bombs (ask for the reference).  For Pete’s sake, if Iran is willing to antagonize the US and risk war, why not supply an effective squad level anti-armor and/or anti-air weapon and have an impact?

In all, it seems to me that this all adds up to opposing war with Iran and all future wars (unless we are the victim of an unjust attack).  Rather, we need to re-focus our efforts here at home and get our own house in order; we need to remove the plank from our own eye.  Heck, if we can’t get our own government and fellow citizens to live according to right reason, I doubt we’re going to have much success with total strangers.  Finally, I dare say that what I’ve written is the only truly conservative way of seeing things today.

Whether or not war with Iran is morally justified, it will invariably be commanded by Washington’s ‘pushbutton warriors’ and fought by the American underclass.  Such a war should require a universal draft, including the sons and daughters of our congressional elitists.

While I am unconvinced that present circumstances justify a full-blown war with Iran (for now), I sense that Chris is defending a “Jacksonian” approach to war over and against a “Wilsonian” one.  The former is the only approach that ever works, since it is motivated by self-interest and winnability.  Only Jacksonians consistently confront these two questions: is the war in our interests, and are we prepared to fight it at all costs?  If not, then don’t fight it.  This prudential calculation is sadly missing in both neocon and liberal foreign policy. “Realistic” Wilsonianism, which is a bad joke, fogs the brains of both parties, and ties the hands of the unfortunate GIs who have to fight wars of idealism.

My last missive on this subject.

If one enters another’s house without permission and starts to rearrange the furniture and knock down walls, one should not be surprised if the owner of that house leaves a knuckle imprint on your jaw. And, this does not then give you the moral right to bring in reinforcements to “kill” the owner and inhabitants of that house.

I think your standard of when to go to war would leave the US at the mercy of unstable and unfriendly nations.

Son of a bitch. This is just flat-out crazy. The United States is going to be at the mercy of piddly ass little Iran?

What the hell are they going to do, bleed on us?

When I hear men like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck saying that Iran is like Germany in 1938, I laugh at the radio. I expect better at this site.

The United States is King Arthur and Iran is the Black Knight, guarding the bridge of Hormuz, I guess.

The size of our military with its world-wide reach is so VASTLY superior to Iran in both world-wide reach and power that when I hear or read such claptrap such as we will be at their mercy it makes me wonder if someone hasn’t been banging the bong.

Mr. Roach. Please join a gang of mercernaries, cross the border into Iran, burrow deep into the belly of the best and send us dispatches describing Iran’s Duodenum for all I care.

Just do it. Yourself. Do not send anyone else. YOU go. Be a leader.

Iran is no more realistically a threat to the United States than Bush, upon leaving office, is a realistic threat to become President of Mensa.

It was not that long ago that Iran reached out to The United States, and we refused their extended hand because Bush has had them on the list of countries to attack for a LONG time.

And we can ALWAYS rely on a certain sort of “conservative” to do the shilling for a war of aggression on behalf of either some nitwit Jacobin President or Israel.

It is so damn sickening to read this crap.

Mr. Roach, while I agree that the democratizing of the middle east is utopian nonsense I believe it is only a pretense to the necessity of occupation for the exploitation of oil rights.  I have noticed that we are generally unconcerned in the democratic politics of countries with very little strategic or economic booty to be had.  Iran, unfortunately, has both.  I also am cynical enough to believe that Bush and the neo-cons intentionally sacrifice American soldiers to entrench us in their mistaken adventures. After all, nobody wants to betray the dead soldier’s family and friends.  U.S. troop deaths are sadistically manipulated to draw an emotional response and abandon any rational one.  I would surmise that by now every town, village, and municipality in America has something named after a dead soldier.  In my own home town it is Captain Timoty Mosier Memorial Highway.  It can’t be a mistake after all when there is a highway named after one of the heros can it? Of course there is also the need to portray Muslims as dangerous and what better way to convey that message than to send our boys out on “patrol” in hostile territory?  Walter Reed is loaded with the walking wounded who are used as props to promote a mythical modern day American camelot.  The media never lets up on this.  How is it that the American military are always fighting for our freedom?  I didn’t feel that my freedom was threatened by Iraqis or Iranians so I guess I just don’t understand how someone fighting these groups is defending my freedom.  If I felt my freedom was threatened I would insist on fighting for it myself rather than hoping to see some young boys give their lives in my place.

About war, Mr. Roach wrote “It’s much more sensibly used against weaker nations like Iran where we can do so cheaply than big nations like Russia, China. Nuclear weapons, unfortuantely, turn every pipsqueak Muslim outhouse into a big powerful country that gets to eat at the big kids table.”

Doesn’t this reinforce the notion that a weaker nation must go nuclear lest it be pushed around by others?  Nations like Canada, Australia, Italy, and the like, could easily obtain nuclear weapons, but choose not do because in part they are in the cultural and political realm of the US and don’t need them.

Nations like Iran who are not culturally similar, and have their own ways which may conflict with our Western, liberal ideals, feel they need them.  Why?  Probably because they feel pressure from the outside to conform to a set of principles they don’t adhere to.

I do not welcome the thought of a nuclear armed Iran, Pakistan or even Canada.  There are enough nukes between Russia and the US to destroy the world.  However, I don’t think Iran is a threat to take over the world like the USSR. 

It is probably too late to get Iran to stop trying to get nuclear power.  I don’t know how you can prevent peaceful nuclear energy.  It might take some action to stop them from getting nuclear weapons because we have already laid down the gauntlet through our posturing, sanctions and clandestine operations in their territory.

But the point is why do we have to force every shit hole nation to conform to our social standards just to trade and interact?  Stop forcing our will upon these guys to change their ways to conform to us and maybe they won’t feel the need to nuclear.

Taki, it is time to remove the claptrap that is Christopher Roach before he brings this whole site down with him. When Mr. Roach pretends to speak from a “Just War” sensibility with this nonsense it is best to cut your losses. Sure, he may be good for increased page views, but at the expense of any and all credibility?

Let’s look at the possible consequences of a US attack on Iran:

1) US ships attacked in the Persian Gulf

2) $300+ oil prices

3) US troops under heavy fire in Iraq and Afghanistan

4) Possible need for the US to use nuclear weapons against Iranian cities

5) global hatred for America

Why on earth would any one who cares about American interests advocate a preemptive war against Iran?

There is no doubt, for example, that Iran has armed insurgents who have killed our soldiers in Iraq.

Yes there is doubt.  Care to provide evidence that Iran has supplied weapons to kill US soldiers in Iraq?

Hey Roach,

Why don’t go fight/bomb all those Iranians for us? Just go to the next recruiting office, sign, ship off and sacrifice your arm/legs/life for the greater good of cheap oil and manliness. Be the meat in your pro-war blog sandwich. Set an example for the rest of us cowards, testosterone deficient plant-eaters.

And then, I’d say, 5-20 years later, you (or your family) will learn that it was all for nothing.

Energy innovations and/ or gasoline alternatives will have substituted traditional energy suppliers by then.

How about this? We (the West) will, from now on, just buy oil from the Middle Eastern Mad Mullahs, leave them to their degenerate cultures of violence and backward stupidities, and stay the hell away from all the madness constantly happening over there.

ian said:

Joseph, your comments on Mr Roach are very accurate. I would urge readers not to bother replying to Mr Roach’s articles. They are rubbish unworthy of the reputation of this site and unworthy of a response from intelligent readers.

I have to concur.

Sorry to have wasted my time on that article, embarassing for this site.

I’m surprised anyone still disseminates the notion that the intelligence provided was mistaken. All the information of the nonexistent WMD threat was already acquired, but the administration did it’s damndest to skew it (as did Britain’s).

Actions in both Iraq & Afghanistan (& now the handy Iran gets the war machines selling high all over eastern Europe) were simply another step in the imperialist agenda, a very manly need for ultimate control and wealth, if you will.  ;)

For all those using the “why don’t you enlist then” argument: 

Presumably you think that crime should be repressed.  Then why don’t you become a cop?  And
you think that fires should be put out.  Then why don’t you become a fireman?  Your standards
of judgment are ridiculous.  By these standards, only veterans should be able to vote on whether
to go to war or not.  Actually, restricting suffrage to people who have served in the uniform is
not that bad an idea.  Do you share it?  If not, then you don’t really buy your own argument against
Roach on this point.

Tobias, your analogy does not hold.  You, CR, and I can act (and should act) as our primary line of defense, whether against fiends or fire.  We can and should also support our family, friends, neighbors, and community if possible.  But to go thousands of miles out of our way to assault strangers who have done us no harm is a totally different matter. Are you familiar with the term ‘chickenhawk’ and its origin? If you are sound of mind and body and yet feel others should do your fighting for you in far off lands, then yes, there is hypocrisy involved, as you are willing to see others do your dirty work. One of the reasons I have more respect for true mercenaries than regular troops is that the mercs fight when and where they fight.  The moral issue of fighting for pay is another story (although I don’t know if many US troops would do DC’s bidding without stipends.) I disagree with you and CR on several issues, but I enjoy your thought-provoking posts.  Liberty.  ST

Sorry for the typo. After the word ‘mercs’ above should come the word ‘chose’, not the word ‘fight’.  ST

Substitute ‘choose’ for ‘chose’ above. Sorry.  ST

Well, Tobias, the analogy is a rhetorical queastion, not a real question. Rethorical questions don’t need to be answered. During older times, political leaders, thinkers, opinion leaders and elites were always part of war eforts. They died alongside the rest of us. There’s some justice and loyalty to that principle. They put their guns where their mouths were. I don’t see that attitude among war enthusiasts anymore—dunno why.. (hint: another rethorical question)

Roach kind of connects manliness with war. That’s so absurd (and stupid) that it’s laughable. There’s no honour in war. There’s suffering and that’s it. If there’s one institution in the history of civilization that was all-out anti-man, it was/is war—hardcore lesbian feminists ain’t got nothing on war in that department. You know, how many men have been killed during combat. I don’t, but I do know that a lot of us have been killed. And for what?

That’s why an antiwar attitude is justified a priori. Those who fight can and will lose their lives and limbs. Roach believes conservatives should just man up about that—I don’t. I think we should think about that and act wisely.

I think men should not man up in a Roach-wise way, i.e. to devolop a willingness to fight other men for stuff like oil (or in previous times, kings with territorial ambitions, religious fanaticism, nationalism, communism, etc.). I think, us men, should grow up, become real men, and settle our disputes by other means than AK47s.

More importantly, I don’t have a dispute with Iranians. So why should I kill them or be killed by them? Hell, what’s the worst that could happen if oil got expensive, I’d have to take the bus sometimes. Bummer. I’d rather do that, than die from gut wounds in the Middle East.

So, why did I ask Roach to enlist? He’s, clearly, willing to fight and die. Much more than I am. If war is inevitable sooner or later, than let Roach have his war. He can take my place.

But seriously, war isn’t about manliness, it’s about killing, be killed, losing limbs and see your buddies die.

No thanks.

Quote: “Do the newfangled “pacifist conservatives” have no sense of honor or revenge in the face of these provocations?”

Vengence is the Lords.

Roach is a bloodthirsty mindless beast who’s heart is set on wickedness namely murdering thousands of innocent women and children because fantasy of American security might be improved by causing the universal and everlasting hated of the Earth’s population.

Madness is Enemy of the Republic and Roach preaches madness.

The Shah was a good guy? By this Roach must approve of torture, murder and thuggery for that is how the Shah ruled. Roach has no virtue and non sense of Christian/Western morality and no shame.

How much longer must we be subjected to these insane calls for murdering innocent people? 

I’m tempted to think that Roach has a problem with a demon. Seriously dude, chill on the calls for violence and mayhem.

A few quick thoughts. 

First, there is a serious issue.  Nuclear proliferation.  Do those who think Iran is not a menace on some level think that it’s not a problem for the U.S. if Iran goes nuclear? Since deterrence depends on the threat of massive retaliation against civilian targets and cities with nuclear weapons, isn’t this too problematic?

On this idea that war is always the worst thing imaginable, I don’t buy it.  It’s necessary some times.  We have a small professional military that is there to be used for the purpose of furthering American interests, including in things like nuclear non-proliferation.  Such a goal fits into a broad notion of self-defense, even if as I admit above there are many practical and prudential questions about how this shakes out in real cases. 

I am loathe to bring up my biography, but as has been brought up in other threads, I’m not in the military. I’m not in the military even though I volunteered long before 9/11 in college but was dinged for medical reasons. I’m no coward and my conscience is clear.  I moved on with my life. My two brothers, however, are in the Marines, which is more than most peaceniks can say.  Since they both are pretty gung-ho on Iraq, I suppose you all would have to come up with some other obnoxious insult against them, perhaps attributing their views to the natural bloodthirstiness of military men. 

Finally, none other than Barry Obama supports strongly the war in Afghanistan as a legitimate `act of retaliation cum defense against al Qaeda, as do most Americans, including most who oppose the war in Iraq.  I don’t see anyone bringing up the Chickenhawk debater’s point against them, however, because it’s basically a dishonest and lame personalization of what should be a public policy question:  is a particular military action justified on the merits? As with cops, firemen, and other dangerous and necessary government tasks, in a free republic, there is no need that one actually takes the risks that volunteer professionals are rightly called upon to make by our elected representatives, any more than not being a veteran disqualifies one to be President. I think it’s funny the Chickenhawk argument is raised so reflexively, though, because it is a sign of the intellectual poverty of a certain kind of war critic.

This article’s jingoism, sophistry, appeals to emotion, and sheer mendacity in the interest of aggressive imperial wars on behalf of Israel is worthy of Feith, Krauthammer, Kristol and Ledeen.

Luckily, as the NYSE will possibly not open on Monday (14.07.08), a new realism will hopefully be forced on these ghastly chickenhawks.

Next time you wonder why why the economic apocalypse beckons, just remember that the republic has been long left to the Roaches.

“First, there is a serious issue.  Nuclear proliferation.  Do those who think Iran is not a menace on some level think that it’s not a problem for the U.S. if Iran goes nuclear?”

No.

Just look at the worldmap. Only Russia and China together could, on a good day with lots of luck, beat the US. Iran can and will be a regional threat to Israel. So, if, and only if, we describe Israel as a strategic key ally to the US, than yes. In that case, there may be a realist interest to prevent Iran from going nuclear.

“On this idea that war is always the worst thing imaginable, I don’t buy it.  It’s necessary some times.”

Sure, nobody here denies that war is sometimes necessary. That’s a strawman, we’re no pacifists. War with Middle Eastern madmen, though, are unnecessary. Just leave those people to their backward habits. Who cares?

And yes, war is the worst thing imaginable. Seriously, what’s worse than war?!

“I am loathe to bring up my biography, but as has been brought up in other threads, I’m not in the military. I’m not in the military even though I volunteered long before 9/11 in college but was dinged for medical reasons. I’m no coward and my conscience is clear.”

Well, okay. In that case, I retract some of my claims. I wasn’t out for insulting you, just a reality check.

“I think it’s funny the Chickenhawk argument is raised so reflexively, though, because it is a sign of the intellectual poverty of a certain kind of war critic.”

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I don’t the reflexive nature in this argument. It’s quite important to conront chickenhawks (in general) with their cowardice. That may not count for you or your family, but it surely hits target with a lot of war enthusiasts.

But, let’s stick to your argument. You basicly state that war with Iran is necessary to prevent them from going nuclear and that deterrence doesn’t work.

I believe that deterrence works. And history is on the side of those who believe in deterrence. The West deterred the Sovjets and China, it can certainly deter Iranian theocrats. The realist position would be deterrence.

Except, ofcourse, if you believe that key ally Israel should be the regional hegemon in the Middle East. In that case, Iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear. I’m probably in the minority here on this forum, but I think that’s a legitimate position. To suggest that the US could be rivaled by Iran or any other country in the Middle East, well that’s plain lunacy, the intellectual poverty of a certain kind of pro-war conservatives.

“Do those who think Iran is not a menace on some level think that it’s not a problem for the U.S. if Iran goes nuclear?”

Mr Roach, surely you are capable of answering your own question. Even if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, they would be no threat to the USA. The Iranians know well that use of such weapons against the US, for example on US troops in Iraq, would be suicidal. And indeed, as even acknowledged by US intelligence agencies, the Iranians are years from developing their own nuclear weapons. But, of course, the real issue here is not any threat to the US, but rather a threat to Israel’s ability to intimidate its neighbours. Israel is hell-bent on using the US to flatten all opposition in the Middle East. An important part of this policy is Israel’s ability to use extreme measures (eg attacking anyone it chooses) safe in the knowledge that it is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Any reasonable observer would have to acknowledge that there is a very strong incentive for a country like Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, simply to avoid constant harrassment from a maniacal enemy like Israel. In fact, this whole problem is largely of the US government’s making. If they operated an even-handed and sensible policy towards the nations of the Middle East, this problem would not have arisen. If the US government were to force Israel to scrap its nuclear weapons, then its current stance towards Iran would have some justification.

You might also consider the track-record of the respective countries. Since its founding, Israel has continuously engaged in provoking wars with its neighbours by deception. For example, its 2006 incursion into Lebanon was initiated under false pretences and then degenerated into an excuse for destroying much of Lebanon’s industry and infrastructure (much of the destruction done with bombs that were paid for by US taxpayers and rushed to Israel for this purpose). In contrast, to my knowledge, Iran ha