Centerfield

Long week but I will bite later. It is clear that Iran designs and manufactures weapons that intentionally lack fingerprints to trace back to the source. This is the case in Iraq. It is obvious that their aim is to supply groups weapons that do not point to Tehran when used. They “wipe” Russian and Chinese weapons clean and given them Hizb”Allah. Right now they are back-engineering their "partners" weapons for further distribution and perhaps to use on Israel through proxy. Shoulder launched missiles are spreading from Iran outward. Given their public statements, their support of terror groups, their sponsorship of attacks in South America, Africa, Europe, Middle East, and Far East, who can deny that PART of their strategy is to hurt their declared enemies anonymously? Now add WMD or WMC and I think your question is answered. Would an America flatten Iran if a dirty bomb goes off in LA? Too bad Stewart didn’t ask Koppel that question. I will be back later with some links.

Russia is not Iran, nor is China. Applying the concept of containment to Iran might be a very big mistake and for now, Iran would be utterly foolish to confront us head on. Of course, Russia and China were (are?) the world’s biggest proliferators of wmd technology to radical regimes, so how was containment sufficiently successful if our worst adversaries get them now and use them clandestinely against us?

just a quick follow up

JON--please email me about some new ords to add to the filter. We just got sp*mslammed. I cleaned up what I could find.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the 12th Imam is all about?

I have no doubt that ahmadinejad and the mullahs intend to perpetrate another holocaust against the Jews. He means what he says when he threatens to anihilate Israel and threatens those countries he perceives as supporting her. To answer Max's question as to why containment works with China and Russia, the obvious answer is that they are not messianic, suicidal islamic fanatics.

Laura,
If we get hit by nukes that originated through Chinese or Russian help, Western "containment" of communism will not be described in future history books as very successful. It is foolish to think that Iranians can be contained using the same methods we used during the Cold War. One reason is that Iran appears to have proxies that can strike us and Israel while pretending they are not responsible. Just look at their terrorism in Argentina. They will point to others like the Muslim Brotherhood, or North Korea and say they had nothing to do with a radiactive bomb in NYC. The world is very different than the last century's configuration.

Silent running diesel subs, drones, cargo containers, illegal transport over our borders, remote-controled devices, etc. make terrorist threats far more global, cheap and unidentifiable. I am afraid America has to experiance this again, before we take our adversaries at their word.

Historical Truth We have all heard about the cartoon contest Iran sponsored to belittle Jews and their history. Iran has been THE champion of denying the Holocaust. Does Iran have anything in common with the Nazis? There are more similarities than meet the eye and one is the perversion of history. Far more than Bush, Iran leads the Orwellian top forty when it comes to NewSpeak. Even more outrageous than Russian and Chinese military simulations called Peace Mission 2005, Iranian cartoon programs showing children how to be terrorists, denying the Holocaust, declaring to wipe Israel off the map and then claiming to be a force for peace, oppressing women and claiming Liberal Democracy is tyranny, spreading weapons to terrorists at this moment and claiming to be a force for stability is just what Orwell detested.

The West will have to consider wmd proliferation by Iran sooner rather than later. I found this. It may help define what WMD are and brings into focus what WMC are. Would we go to war if there was a strong suspicion that Iranian operatives dumped radioactive waste in American estuaries via a remote sub we could not find?

If Russian or Chinese made weapons kill Americans via Iranian proxies, what should our response be to these enabling nations? Now that the stealth 117 fighter is retired (Russian proliferation of radar counter-measures?), Democrats seem to favor increasing production of F-22 Raptors that are rumored to have been designed to penetrate Iranian airspace.

Democrats know that the majority in this country consider national security to be the central issue. Read Kos for Lefty lamentations as the Democrats SEEM to be posturing themselves as more hawkish than these last several years would predict. In light of a centrist resurgence in America, Iran may feel a need to speed up their enmity and distribute various weapons and technology to third parties. I do not know about WMD in the near term, but WMC and delivery systems are already on the terrorist table.

This gives you an insight into Iranian military thinking. Why should we disbelieve declarations coming from Iran? Why should we think twenty years and alot of help won't enable Iran to test American resolve during a moment of national disunity? Perhaps they read Kos daily or mistake our nation-building skill with our lethality.

Or are we mistaken in our readiness and resolve?

This misses the point a little bit.

We may be able to assume that the governing regime in Teheran is a rational actor that would not distribute nuclear weapons and technology to terrorist cells (and this assumption would be rather tenuous). But no regime in practice is actually a single unitary actor, and I'm not sure if there's anyone who would argue that it's not possible (if not downright likely) that a mid or low level Iranian official affiliated with an Islamist movement and working in the nuclear weapons program might and probably would pass weapons or technology to a terrorist cell-- especially, for example, if he were passing them to a cell that promised to use them against, say, Israel (and, of course, one can easily see how this weapon may instead be used against us).

Even if we assume Teheran would never use nuclear weapons against the US, to believe that no "A.Q. Khan" could emerge and seize the opportunity to bolster terrorist organizations with nuclear weapons or technology seems, to me, to be requiring a leap of faith.

And that brings up another point. Let's say some mid level Iranian group gives terrorists highly enriched material to release in a Western city. The Don Corleone School of Massive Retaliation would then nuke Tehran? Where is the logic in this? The only sane way to prevent proliferation is to peacefully unite and confront behavior before it reaches out and starts WW3 and lots of innocent people are killed.

Today Russia WARNS THE WEST not to be too strong in its non-violent means to curb Iran and North Korea. And it does this knowing full well that its weapons are spreading out from Iran.

> ... Western "containment" of communism will not be described in
> future history books as very successful.

How quickly we forget! WoT worst cases aren't exactly in the scale of threats faced in the Cold War.

> Let's say some mid level Iranian group gives terrorists highly
> enriched material to release in a Western city. The Don Corleone
> School of Massive Retaliation would then nuke Tehran? Where is the
> logic in this?

Welcome to MAD. Though we also have the option of taking out Tehran conventionally. MAD HAS WORKED for 50 years. The real point is that regimes that use nuclear weapons against us or our allies understand that they are very likely, indeed, to become ex-regimes in short order.

You still haven't explained WHY Iran is likely to risk the dangers from handing WMDs to terrorists. After all, they could be used against Iran, and the regime would have to fear existential danger from retaliation.

> a mid or low level Iranian official affiliated with an Islamist
> movement and working in the nuclear weapons program might and probably
> would pass weapons or technology to a terrorist cell

Now, that's true. So far, Pakistan's A.Q. Khan has been more of a real worry than our, er, enemies.

Jon,

You still haven't explained WHY Iran is likely to risk the dangers from handing WMDs to terrorists.

You then turned around and quoted my answer to it: because states are not unitary actors, and just a few irrational mid-level government officials could completely unbalance deterrence by transferring nuclear weapons or technology to a terrorist organization that may very well (try and) use it against us. The agents could even be quite rational: if the payoff was sufficiently large enough, they could be in Indonesia before the bomb exploded, and enjoying their lives of luxury with no repercussions.

MAD is only guaranteed to work if we can assume states are rational actors and the state's officials will not undermine the regime by acting as free agents (potentially against the state's own best interests). This is the equivalent to the Cold War's "Dr. Strangelove" or "Fail Safe."

I'm not saying MAD wouldn't work against an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons; I'm saying we have to cross our fingers and hope there's no A.Q. Khan in their employ who destabilizes the entire arrangement. You don't seem to want to acknowledge that point.

Jon,
I think Iraq should give us a clear lesson in our intelligence capabilities. How do you identify WHO placed a dirty bomb on top of a building in NYC? I can list fifty ways to deliver WMD or WMC without there being fingerprints. I posted a great article from DefenseTech.org recently that discusses just this issue.

Mad worked because it would have been practically impossible NOT to link terrorist attacks here to our two adversaries. Giving third parties WMD led to the Cuban situation. MAD was built upon our intelligence capabilities AND a deterrent force. Yes? If you are suggesting we wait to retaliate against terrorist WMD, then MAD might be better applied to our reasoning process and not to our NSS.

I will state again; if containment against communism ( and China still stalks our navy) ends up to have failed in preventing Russian and Chinese WMD technology from ultimately passing from today’s hostile regimes to numerous proxies and we get hit, then how good did that policy work? "Somewhat" won’t cut it for today’s voters when NYC is being evacuated. I am NOT saying that for the last fifteen years it appears to have liberated Eastern Europe and stood down significant WMD triggers. I am NOT saying that containment applied to our old foes cannot eventually lead to a peaceful world.

I think it IS crazy to think our present adversaries (helped by our past ones) will launch missiles from their own soil against us. North Korea and Iran will proliferate. They are not stupid enough to leave a clear trail back to themselves. Today Iran laughs at the suggestion that Argentina now holds them responsible for terrorist attacks against their citizens. Will the world sanction Iranian intransigence? I first posted you a link to how Iranian manufacturing wipes weapons free of fingerprints. Why do they do this? We don’t as far as I know. There have been numerous links here to show that despite Shiite and Sunni hatred towards each other, THEY ARE ACTING IN SOME UNITY AGAINST OUR INTERESTS. The joke is that many of the weapons now being re-distributed by our adversaries are originally from Russia and China. The Russians and Chinese deny this. How would they like an American weapon taking out their leaders?

So will we flatten Tehran and kill millions of innocents without PROVING Iran was behind a particular attack? And if we can't prove Iranians are killing US soldiers now, how will we prove that some dirty bomb was theirs? It could be a terrorist group that acquired material from Russian arms merchants, or North Korean operatives. Some Lefties will say Israel was behind the attack or that Cheney ordered it from a secret bunker. Doesn't the last six years tell us something about force and intelligence capabilities?

Iran and North Korea are careful not to say they are actually in a "state of war" with us. They do claim we are at war with them. If someone was at war with me, I would certainly be justified in attacking them. Yes? Iran does say it will defeat us and Liberal Democracy. Iran does say they will wipe Israel off the map. Iran sponsored attacks in Argentina, which killed Jews, not Israelis. Syria murders political opposition leaders in foreign countries. Sudan murders hundreds of thousands. There are at least twenty significant Islamic proxies plotting to kill someone at this moment. As time moves forward, the means to deliver WMD and WMC becomes cheaper and more anonymous. Soon there will be twice as many operational theaters to set up terrorist activities including the use of criminal gangs in Central America, Chavez in South America, extremists in Africa, the Far East and even Europe. It is not so much that our adversaries are becoming nastier, it is that developing technology and prolonged effort funded by oil wealth will bare fruit. Our adversaries are neither stupid or weak.

I can't believe I have to say this to you; Iran would do anything to hurt us and promote their hegemony IF THEY COULD AVOID RETALIATION. Right now that means not attacking us head on. So they wipe fingerprints off IED in Iraq and use proxies. That is why they want a bomb and missiles on their soil; -not to fire at us, but to make us think twice before we retaliate for terrorism we cannot PROVE was Iranian-sponsored. The real threat now is 1. they get this trump card against retaliation and 2. they give (through high or mid level sources) the technical means for proxies to hit us indirectly. Then they will denounce such terrorism, give us their condolences and claim it is immoral to hold them accountable WITHOUT PROOF and kill innocents in retaliation. Want to bet the world agrees?.

You are right however, that giving out such weapons runs risks for the Mullahs themselves. I do believe they consider the risks of not promoting terror before the world wakes up to their strategic plan (including the Arabs, Europeans, Russians, Chinese and Israelis) to be greater. That is why their President eggs on confrontation. His fanatical ideas puts him in Heaven with the Prophet anyway. He believes his window is now, rather than later.

One important note: I do not believe my view is pro-war. In fact, I put these ideas here to bolster support for international unity against Iran BEFORE force is needed or a terror attack here produces the Corleone effect. I fear our anger after the fact will kill alot of innocent people. I want peace not war. If more people understood the menace we are facing, maybe they would send a clear message to Iran; WE WILL NOT WAIT TO BE HIT.

Instead, sheltered Americans hope Israel does our bidding for us. Many here think there is no consequence for us. China could shut down North Korea tomorrow if it wanted to. Russia could turn Iran as well. My position is not using force to dominate and resolve every issue. My point is that if we do not deploy credible force and make it very clear what the consequences are for those supporting proliferation and terrorism, nothing will get done. I am pro-action, plain and simple. By Nic's logic, if I am pro-war about the Sudan after years of failed diplomacy, then he must be pro-genocide. If we refuse to stop genocide, proliferation and terrorism sponsored by extremist ideology under the cover of our former adversaries, then we don't deserve peace and prosperity, nor liberty and freedom. His label of pro-war is just an ideological tactic that calls for carrots without sticks. I doubt he distinguishes between an Iran with WMD and us.

People point to MAD as a viable solution to proliferation, and many of those same people bitterly opposed MAD this last century. People hated Reagan for building up deterrence and Star Wars and now begrudgingly accept that a big stick did make Russia blink. History is not just a repeating cycle. There exist the historically new, requiring new policies and new defenses. That was one lesson from 9/11. Another lesson was the effect of waiting to retaliate and the limits of intelligence capabilities. Drones and subs are stalking our forces. A coalition of the extreme is forming. Iran still stones women to death for adultery while denouncing our liberty. This is right up there with Hitler’s activities. In fact, he was a bit shrewder in the beginning. If you could transport an American from 1947 and let him watch a day of CNN, I think he would cry; -not because tyranny still is alive and well in the world, but that we Americans and Westerners in general fail to learn from the horror of our immediate past.

Peace through verification. Iran and North Korea could PROVE their intensions tomorrow if they wanted. Until they act differently, I suggest we assume the worst and consider those possibilities now.

Jihadists

Bobby or Tully, I was wondering why Shiite extremists such as Hizb"Allah have be excluded from this West Point Study. Their definition of Jihadism does not address Shiite offshoots. Is there another map that combines the Shiite network with the "Jihadist" one that appears in the "terror" matrix at the back? This thread does relate to the overall map and how even a mid-level Iranian (or NK, Syrian or rouge third party)transfer of WMD might flow outward under the guise of numerous interconnected proxies.

Just one more interesting link. Again, from West Point.

I think it goes to the point that our adversaries are more sophisticated than most Americans believe. I have no doubt the Iranian leadership with help from others are just as aware of our intelligence efforts. Iran must be sure they can fool our intelligence community if and when they transfer more serious weapons and resources. Or at least make it ambigious enough. They have succeeded in some level of transfer so far in Lebanon.

It is interesting how sure this Sunni spymaster thinks Iran is on the chopping block.I wonder if Biden reads this stuff.

Iran's partner, Syria calls this government a friend and Western claims of genocide, nonsense

And this from Iran's proxy, Hizb'Allah.

A network of transfer seems clear enough. The motives seem clear enough. From Iran to Syria and then to Sudan and down to Somalia and out to sea. Just a speculative route, but the means to distribute globally has already taken shape. Add to this scenario, the mid-level bleed and even meddling from other sources, knowledge of Western intelligence networks and you have the nightmare: a nexus of WMD or WMC and terrorist groups not likely to be directly linked to the source.

We shall see what game of risk the West decides to play. Diplomatic unity and strong economic measures maybe the last peaceful means left to redirect this steamroller. Note that Russian wins approval into the WTO and then warns the West not to put forth any serious sanctions towards North Korea or Iran. Wonderful.

Perhaps the question should be how to get that global unity to avert disaster rather than ask; will disaster happen.

Obviously it's possible that a nuke could reach the hands of a true, pure fanatic determined to reduce the west to rubble, a la the AQ Khan scenario Bobby describes. Hoiw possible? Who knows? Not I. And I don't see much in the way of remedies to this possibility besides diligently tracking known existing weapons and fuel insofar as we can, and hoping the AQK scenario doesn't happen.

My instincts tell me that most states are rational enough to understand the virtue of using nuke capability as a strong persuader. I believe most governments (including those across the middle east) understand the tradition and necessity of tossing of red meat and singing simple pop tunes to the populace, especially when it galvanizes and unites the people against a foreign threat and leaves the regime itself off the hook for its own shortcomings.

That means that America and other western nations must read between the lines and speak in earnest privately with governments who make a big show of bellicosity. Our leaders and diplomats don't have the luxury of getting all bent out of shape and responding by talking out of our asses and making big threats. That's left to the most bellicose of bloggers and entertainer/flamethrowers.

Increased global unity as a realistic solution to the AQK scenario strikes me as a bit of a pipe dream. And when I say that, I DON'T mean "because so many nations have their own interests at heart we can't come to substantive agreement." That's very true, and it's a high hurdle. But what I mean is "even if we come to a point where many nations are ready and eager to act diligently to try to prevent the AQK scenario, we'd STILL be at a similarly high risk.

The most simple model boils down to motive, which we know exists, and means, which may be on the way. When it comes to means, my guess is that the theoretical means ( the knowledge of what you need to make a small nuke and how to build it) has probably already spread much farther than we prefer. If that's true, that leaves terrorists seeking the real-world means to acquire or construct a small nuke, and the means to deliver it.

IMO, any assessment of the risk from there would be wise to acknowledge that if acquisition or construction is successful, then delivery would be extraordinarily hard to prevent via a skilled and committed and crafty suicide bomber who should be able to find a spot to cross our border in the dark of night.

Hersh Remember, if this is his spin to the left, imagine what the real situation must be like. Personally. I think Reagan would fire Baker and Gates before he would capitulate to the fear some would ask Israel to live under. But then Reagan did not govern like Bush nor substitute inemptness for strategy. I am not at all comfortable with Kissinger leading the way.

And for all who think mistakes, political blunders and international distain can't weaken our security; I present the mess we are in at the moment. Chaos in Iraq and a dead Saddam favors Iran. How our adversaries emerge from American blood and sacrifice as "peacemakers" AND enemies of international law is the hieght of absurdity. It did not have to be like this. I doubt anyone here thought in 2003, that Saddam was a greater threat than Iran. The center consistently argued that the results in Iraq would have great consequences. Blowback is a dangerous thing.

Brian, it is impossible to defend against every possible terrorist attack, everywhere. The possibilities increase every hour while our masterful policies have not weakened the beast. Did you look at the Sunni Jihadist side of the equation in the West Point paper?

I hope those Blue Dods and DLCers are tough. This mess will get worse and there is a limit as to how long Israel will wait.

"My instincts tell me that most states are rational enough to understand the virtue of using nuke capability as a strong persuader. I believe most governments (including those across the middle east) understand the tradition and necessity of tossing of red meat and singing simple pop tunes to the populace, especially when it galvanizes and unites the people against a foreign threat and leaves the regime itself off the hook for its own shortcomings."

BK,

I think you are looking for comfort where it doesn't exist. History is replete with examples of states deciding to follow courses that were exactly the opposite of what your instincts would have suggested.

It is less "rationale" for a North Korea or Iran to assume that they can can get away with using a terrorist proxy to attack us and get away without it being clearly traced back to them then it was for Japan to assume that we would fold like a house of cards rather then retaliate when they bombed Pearl Harbor?

What about Hitlers contention that he need not worry about U.S. industrial capacity because the U.S. was a "mongeral country" and therefore couldn't possibly wage war effectively against Germany?

Or France's Pre-War decision to ally with Poland rather then Russia, because the Polish millitary capacity (lancers and all) was far superior to the Soviet Unions?

What about all of Europe being drawn into war over the assasination of an Austrian Arch-Duke? Was that a rational response?

No offense, but I think putting that much faith in the objective rationality of others ends up being a fools bargain. Especialy when some of those others honestly seem to believe that they are on a Divine mission and will recieve thier rewards not in this world.... but in the next.

Syria It is astonishing that one can fail to see terrorism for what it is. See how Syria and Hizb'Allah call this event despicable? What a friggen joke. What utter bullshit. When the crap hits our shores, these same bastards will give us their condolences. They will cry to the world they had nothing to do with it. MAD only works against rational regimes and an intelligence network capable of identifying the source of attacks. As long as we could link terrorism to our adversaries, they would not dare let these proxies attack us. MAD will not work against a multitude of adversaries hiding behind civilians, working through proxies with the support of our former adversaries. To think otherwise is a fool's perception (not that Brian is anyone’s fool).

Our present adversaries are only partially rational and they do not intend to launch nukes at us from their soil. This is a different game than the Cold War using technology that can obliterate a building with a package the size of a car. A dam for the price of a shoulder-launched missile. An estuary for the price of medical waste.

Russia is accused of poisoning a former KGB agent for denouncing the actions of Putin and company. This is not the first time. The new left believes WE are the big shark. Fortunately, Americans do not agree, but what will our leaders do. Kissinger wants to go begging to the Iranians.

I am disgusted at this administration's strategies (or lack of one), the absurd view of reality by the new left (and media in general) and our allies spineless defense of Liberal Democracy after centuries of war and suffering. We are darkening our grandchildren's future by a gutless, lazy and intellectual insincere effort to contain the only threat we really have beside the climate getting warmer and species going extinct. Our adversaries believe we are weak, confused, over-stretched, divided, arrogant, sloppy and inept. At this moment, I wonder if they are right. What will the Democrats do?

Rangel's call for a draft is NOT to confront real threats, but to make it more unlikely by creating a greater backlash against the use of force. Although I called for a national service draft, my intensions were completely different.

As of January 1, I hold both Republicans AND Democrats responsible for any failure to lead the free world to a better and safer future. So should we all and make it know through blogworld. This will hardly be done by hoping, denying, pretending, lying, hiding, or capitulating to a growing ideology of religious extremism seeking to refashion the world according to their interpretation of the Koran, communist manifestos or outright fascist fantasies. Proliferation and terrorism WILL grow and our adversary’s behavior is more than obvious. Just because the options seem limited is no excuse to surrender.

Syria and Iran hold a peace conference for Iraq? Hitler wasn’t as bold, was he? And France had a great plan as did Russia.

We are abdicating the demse of liberty intil the strom clouds darken the sky. And then what will our wonderful options be? Peace now through bold, united opposition to tyranny, terrorism, proliferation and extremism. That is the only way to avert a likely war.

Sorry for the anger, but I am pissed at the general dellusional, self-absorbed converations, America is over-indulging in, given the growing bad news. It's a shame more bad news will be required to shake us from our foolish sleep.

Please excuse the emotive multitude of typos. I don't proof-read when I'm irritated.

"We are abdicating the defense of liberty until the storm clouds darken our sky." That was the worst typo corrected.

And I'm aware of the clichés by the way,

But sometimes reality seems like its imitating a cliché just to annoy me…....

Cooperation, liberty, freedom, self-defense, justice all sound a bit cliché as “words” these days. It has become almost satire to use them in meaningful sentences like; “freedom from fear is a requisite state of an open society”, or, “the right of self-defense is not limited to retaliation”. How about, “liberty requires cooperation and sacrifice”?

And the definitions themselves have become cliché; “to protect oneself from harm”, a hackneyed phrase outside of court made trite by the inconsistent qualifications of its application by those entrusted to protect Liberal Democracy and forcefully resist the most grievous advances of proliferation, genocide, terrorism, oppression and aggression. (48 words)

Russia and China don’t seem to be defenders of Liberal Democracy…….

And that term may become cliché too.

The Syrian/Iranian Pact

Imagine Iran getting some of Russia's polonium I would love to know where the murder weapon came from if not Russia. Not only should we be concerned about Iran, but their partners are becoming a bit dangerous too. Yes? And just look at our inability to trace this terror. Tell me how MAD works here?