Paul Krugman: Yes He Would

Paul Krugman warns against taking the president's march to war with Iran too lightly:

Yes He Would, by Paul Krugman, More War? Commentary, New York Times: "But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.

Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh... Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran — and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. ...

As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we're already in.

First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion... In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.

Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war — a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds — rested on suspect evidence. For example, ... Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas reports ... that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.

Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so. According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned ... that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's Summary" containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public.

Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But ... Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq...

Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?

Previous (4/3) column: Paul Krugman: John and Jerry
Next (4/14) column: Paul Krugman: Weapons of Math Destruction

Summary and link to article in The New Yorker.
Krugman's follow up in Money Talks.

Comments

[jerryk]

Paul Krugman has about as much credibility as Brad DeLong.

[jerryk]

"The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion... In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed."

I don't think a British memo can prove this. After all, there was no US participation/comment in the memo. The fact that a memo does exist in Britain proves absolutely nothing about the US. Surely this is fairly simple logic.

[Bruce Wilder]

"Paul Krugman has about as much credibility as Brad DeLong."

Well, yes.

[Winslow R.]

C'mon Bruce I give Paul just a tad more.

With regards to the Iraq conflict, Krugman's observations/predictions were/are amazing.

I really hope he doesn't have a clue about Iran.

[camille roy]

Obviously an attack on Iran would precipitate a world economic crisis, and just as obviously, Bush doesn't care. He's a dangerous maniac, if Hersh's story be true. He doesn't have a popular base of support for this action. He's on his way to being a dispised figurehead. His presidency is running on empty. About the only thing he controls is 'the button'...

A nuclear attack on Iran would be digging a grave for American interests in the Middle East for generations. It would create a imperative for reprisals in a part of the world where cycles of vengeance go on for centuries.

This would be the act of a criminal nation. Bush has made my identity as an American problematic and difficult, but this would create passionate hatred in me for my own country. For the supporters of this cretin. For the religious robots who've brought us to the point.

[Lee A. Arnold]

One thing no one has pointed out in all of this is that the President's miscalculation in Iraq has handed that country to a Shiite majority who have become rapidly disenchanted with the United States -- and whose natural ally is Iran. Could the President believe that attacking Iran is a way to remedy this?

If the U.S. uses nuclear bunker-busters in bombing Iran, that could set history on a wrong course for hundreds of years. Millions of protesters will march on Washington D.C., but it will be too late.

If a nuclear attack is the only option, the U.S. should leave Iran alone. If Iran is destined to become that region's hegemon, the U.S. should take the moral high road (so little traveled of, lately,) stick closely with the U.N., declare another Cold War, work assiduously on counterterror policies, and ally itself with all the Sunni Arab nations who will be in opposition to the Shia.

The use of nuclear weaponry is itself a religious issue for all the peoples on the globe, and therefore, possession of its hellish danger may become an impetus to new retrospection and reformation in the Islamic world.

The idea that they are all lunatics should be strongly resisted. Even the suicide bombers are following a "rational" policy, pursuant to a grievance. Make this work against them.

Make an end to hopelessness.

If the issue is the existence of Israel, that is off the table. But the U.N. should offer the quid pro quo that was never made for Israel's creation. Perhaps the Arabs themselves should decide what this might be. Make it a world-class historical decision, and perform an inclusive ritual of agreement.

P.S. Paul Krugman has rarely been wrong, and he always admits it when he is.

[calmo]

I have to admire the idealism: Make an end to hopelessness.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/middleeast/10democracy.html?ex=1302321600&en=8eb83bb445c7f190&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 10, 2006

Democracy in the Arab World, a U.S. Goal, Falters
By HASSAN M. FATTAH

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Steps toward democracy in the Arab world, a crucial American goal that just months ago was cause for optimism — with elections held in Iraq, Egypt and the Palestinian areas — are slowing, blocked by legal maneuvers and official changes of heart throughout the Middle East.

Analysts and officials say the political rise of Islamists, the chaos in Iraq, the newfound Shiite power in Iraq with its implication for growing Iranian influence, and the sense among some rulers that they can wait out the end of the Bush administration have put the brakes on democratization.

"It feels like everything is going back to the bad old days, as if we never went through any changes at all," said Sulaiman al-Hattlan, editor in chief of Forbes Arabia and a prominent Saudi columnist and advocate. "Everyone is convinced now that there was no serious or genuine belief in change from the governments. It was just a reaction to pressure by the international media and the U.S."

In Egypt, the government of President Hosni Mubarak, which allowed a contested presidential election last year, has delayed municipal elections by two years after the Muslim Brotherhood made big gains in parliamentary elections late last year, despite the government's violent efforts to stop the group's supporters.

In Jordan, where King Abdullah II has made political change and democratization mandates, proponents see their hand weakened, with a document advocating change put on the back burner. Parliamentary elections in Qatar were postponed again, to 2007, while advocacy groups say that laws regulating the emergence of nongovernmental organizations have stymied their development.

In Yemen, the government has cracked down on the news media ahead of presidential elections this year, intimidating journalists who had been considered overcritical of the government.

In Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has refused calls that the country's consultative council be elected, while the arrest last month of Muhsin al-Awaji, a government critic, raised questions about how far the country's newfound openness would go. And in Syria, promises for reforms have been followed by a harsh crackdown on the opposition.

Administration officials do not deny that there have been setbacks in the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, but say that recent negative trends do not discredit their approach....

[anne]

Well, so far, evidently war at so ferocious a cost has not proven to be peace nor proven to be democracy. We must leave Iraq immediately.

[anne]

We went to war needlessly, against a country that was completely contained and could be no threat to America, and we have needlessly occupied that country for 3 terrible years at a cost beyond true measure in physical and psychological and moral and material terms. War is not peace, and this war has been tragedy on tragedy. We must leave Iraq immediately.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washington/10army.html?ex=1302321600&en=0c1816949098cf0e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 10, 2006

Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — Young Army officers, including growing numbers of captains who leave as soon as their initial commitment is fulfilled, are bailing out of active-duty service at rates that have alarmed senior officers. Last year, more than a third of the West Point class of 2000 left active duty at the earliest possible moment, after completing their five-year obligation.

It was the second year in a row of worsening retention numbers, apparently marking the end of a burst of patriotic fervor during which junior officers chose continued military service at unusually high rates.

Mirroring the problem among West Pointers, graduates of reserve officer training programs at universities are also increasingly leaving the service at the end of the four-year stint in uniform that follows their commissioning....

[dryfly]

Anne - Those young officers are voting with their feet but I've known a few of these folks & they still vote almost 100% conservative GOP as if Bush was a one time aberration.

[spencer]

Cheney has already stated in public that higher oil prices would be an aceptable cost of a conflict with Iran.

[Bruce Webb]

The key point in that NYT article is what it doesn't say outright. Take this paragraph at the end of the first page of the online version:

"That is the highest rate of loss over the past 16 years among West Point officers reaching the five-year mark. For young officers receiving their commissions in 2006, the Army will guarantee slots in the most sought-after branches of the service — aviation, armor or intelligence, for example — in exchange for an extra three years in uniform."

Note that infantry is not on that list. Not that it isn't dangerous to fly a helicopter, or ride a tank, or be in a staff position in Iraq, but it beats the hell out of leading an infantry company on patrol in Fajullah. How do you keep those Captains from bailing?

And dryfly no doubt you are right overall, but an astonishing number of returning vets are filing to run as Democrats this year. That Republican solidarity in the officer corps may well return to its traditional balance. This weeks revelations have got to shake the convictions of officers who have been sending their men to fight and die because they believed their Commander in Chief wouldn't send the Army to war on a lie.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=6371&exhibition=7&u=99|0|...

Wilson's Snipe Feeding
New York City--Central Park, The Ravine.

Heroism, now, among soldiers as among the rest of us, is standing out for peace.

[Bruce Webb]

And let me extract a small point from a lengthier post below.

Bombing Iran would be an act of war. Simpletons on the Right shrug and say "So what?"

Well here is what. Iran would then be in the position to attack American military forces anywhere in the world, and under international law would be perfectly justified in doing so. This isn't a game of Risk. Check out the breakdown of the Iranian military at this site:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/iran_detail.asp

Do we really want to add this to the mix in Iraq? Along with the 125,000 members of the Revolutionary Guard? And God knows how many volunteer suicide bombers?

One bomb and Iran can send those troops across the border. And if the US drops that bomb without Security Council approval (which it won't get) I doubt that any important nation would lift a finger to do anything more than assist in the evacuation.

Forget the possibilities of the whole region going up in Civil War. Are we really prepared to engage in all out war with a nation of 69 million? Nothing in recent Iranian history suggests that they will just sit back and let us bomb.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=5892&u=23210|14|...

Gadwall with Fall Foliage
New York City--Central Park, Harlem Meer.

This is a time to strand for peace; there resides heroism.

[ilsm]

It is liebensraum.

Take out the potential enemy.

Forget morality much less practical considerations.

[lonesome moderate]

Hmm. Bombing Iran means a further extension of our military obligations.

A further extension of our military obligations means our current military gets pushed beyond its limit. They would HAVE to have fresh blood.

Fresh blood means, almost certainly, a draft.

So....what would you do? Or, for those of us on the far side of forty, what would you advise your son (or daughter) to do? Would you serve, and risk your life, for a cause in which you do not believe? If not, then what? Canada? Prison? Try to convince the draft board you're gay?

[Bruce Wilder]

Iran has not been weakened to the point of collapse by a decade of sanctions and no-fly zones. We do not have the forces to occupy Iran, and Iran is not going to just "surrender". Can no one at the Pentagon read a map? Our supply line into Iraq is called the Persian Gulf for a reason, people. P-e-r-s-i-a-n, as in Persia, belongs to.

And, really, if Iran acquires nukes and comes to dominate the whole Persian Gulf oil region, ten years from now, partly as a consequence of our folly, by itself, that would not be the end of the world, unless we intervene to make it the end of the world. They will go on selling us, and everyone else oil. They cannot drink it.

Iran has every incentive to acquire nuclear weapons, and our threats (which would be empty, if Bush were not an idiot, ignorant of history and geopolitics) constitute only an additional incentive. It is actually hard not to believe that Bush wants Iran to get nukes.

If it were anyone, but Bush, I would dismiss the whole Hersh story as a calculated bluff by the Pentagon. But, it is Bush. Rumsfeld has been systematically undermining non-proliferation from the beginning of this administration, and part of that has been the promotion of tactical nukes. Bush manuevered North Korea into at least pretending to have nuclear weapons in record time; as far as I can tell, our policy with regard to N. Korea has been aimed at creating a justification for the "Star Wars" nuclear defense shield. The whole thing is stupid and destructive and unwise on a mind-boggling scale.

[Fred Hapgood]

> If it were anyone, but Bush, I would dismiss the whole Hersh story as a calculated bluff by the Pentagon.

The only reason this might not be a bluff (that I can think of) is that this is exactly how really smart people would put a bluff together. So you have to ask yourself if the administration is capable of displaying this level of competence.

[anne]

Likely, hopefully, what has happened is alarmed senior military or intelligence officers are trying to moderate policy by airing policy projections.

[john]

lonesome moderate and others, I don't understand why you doubt the strongest military power ever can't hold down two 3rd world countries.

[ilsm]

Bruce,

"our policy with regard to N. Korea has been aimed at creating a justification for the "Star Wars" nuclear defense shield."

Star wars is corporate welfare. Don't work, won't work and missiles hitting missiles is less effective than fast missiles hitting airplanes.

Which looking at the bombing campaign in Vietnam the SAM was not so effective.

The dream of air defense artillery, as well as star wars, is a zero close time, flat trajectory weapon.

It is known as a laser, but it is not a go for a long time.

So we build star wars missiles which have the same launch reliability as the space shuttle.

Thank goodness the North Koreans are not serious, and the Chniese own the US.

The Japanese have a far more imminent concern over NK, but they are not spending any money on corporate welfare because they know what honest science in the US knows.

Star wars is jobs no more.

Besides if the NK or Iran want to nuke us why build missiles? just put them in a 20 foot cargo container. Transshipped to the target by a US trucking company....

Bush will spend what it takes to free us from fear, not any of the other freedoms.

[ilsm]

John,

Who is holding down whom in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[jerryk]

I doubt Sy hersh has access to any information that rest of us wouldn't have. Nothing wrong with speculation, but let's remember that's what this is, pure speculation.

As to oil prices going higher if Iran were attacked. Maybe but oil is still pretty cheap, at least in the US. That's why we use so much of it, it's cheap.

It may be that Iran is givin a final opportunity to comply with the IAEA, much as Iraq was given a final opportunity. I do not think anything should be done absent a final opportunity warning. After that, air strikes would make the most sense. The goal would be to soften the country up enough so that the people themselves would overthrow the mullahs. If they see the mullahs bringing destruction down on them, they may become more active in hastening the demise of the mullahs.

[th]

If ever there was a President reckless enough to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle, it is this one. We all have to hope he is not as dumb as he seems.

[anne]

Evidently American forces can be held down by a single poorer country, but that is a smaller point than the betrayal of American ideals in going to war needlessly and in finding the terrible wake of war.

[DJM]

"The goal would be to soften the country up enough so that the people themselves would overthrow the mullahs. If they see the mullahs bringing destruction down on them, they may become more active in hastening the demise of the mullahs."
Posted by: jerryk

If "the people" could or would bring down a government that was leading them into a nuclear holocaust
then I think we should consider turning that argument around and proceed to take our own maniacs to task. Obviously it isn't that simple.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=5570&u=4|0|...

American Kestrel Chick Looks Out From Its Nest in a Rusted Cornice
New York City, Lower East Side.

Clever response :)

[jerryk]

"If "the people" could or would bring down a government that was leading them into a nuclear holocaust
then I think we should consider turning that argument around and proceed to take our own maniacs to task. Obviously it isn't that simple."

or the people don't see it the way you do. My guess is option b)

[Bruce Wilder]

"much as Iraq was given a final opportunity"

jerryk, we now know, as a matter of documented, historical fact, that Iraq was not, in fact, given a genuine 'final opportunity' to comply with U.N. demands. It was a mere pretense on Bush's part.

You really should write less, and read more.

[jerryk]

"jerryk, we now know, as a matter of documented, historical fact, that Iraq was not, in fact, given a genuine 'final opportunity' to comply with U.N. demands."

Yes, it was. It was called UNSC 1441.

[ob]

"I doubt Sy hersh has access to any information that rest of us wouldn't have."

I have found in the past that Mr. Hersh has had an incredible depth of both named and unnamed sources- most especially in military matters.

I don't make any claims about the validity of his current article, but his writing is the only reason I ever read the New Yorker, and I'm continually impressed by it. (I know, it is shallow of me not to like the short stories.)

[jerryk]

"I have found in the past that Mr. Hersh has had an incredible depth of both named and unnamed sources- most especially in military matters."

You think the US military tells Sy Hersh stuff? I really, really do not think so.

[dryfly]

You think the US military tells Sy Hersh stuff? I really, really do not think so.

Absolutely they do... the question is who & why (ie their motive). He's nailed too many inside jobs the Pentagon thought they had completely buried like Abu.

The question is who is telling him what & why.

[jerryk]

"Absolutely they do"

surely you're kidding.

"The question is who is telling him what & why."

I thought he got all his information through his tinfoil lined helmet.

[judasdisney]

To the first commenter, "Jerry":

I'd like you to cite some examples of Paul Krugman's issues regarding credibility, and provide an alternative.

I'm willing to challenge anyone on the issue of Krugman's credibility.

It strikes me that if there's a credibility problem, we have mountains of evidence pointing to the Bush Administration and its mouthpieces across the media spectrum.

[camille roy]

Just to note the obvious, this comment:

Paul Krugman has about as much credibility as Brad DeLong.
Posted by: jerryk | Apr 9, 2006 8:06:54 PM

is the comment of a troll. That is, it operates by snide innuendo while offering as little substance as possible. The purpose is to force you, the sensible one, to address an argument that hasn't been fully stated, and then to slam your attempts to address a point disciphered from these inadequate materials.

It's a waste of time to argue with a troll.

jerryk, if you want to participate, do so. if you want to troll, go elsewhere.

[DJM]

jerryk;
*Part* of my point is that the people of Iran won't react to being bombed with nuclear weapons in quite the way Bush and his serial delusionists believe they will.

[DJM]

I am not the only one to see this possibility of course
from Rich Procter: 'Wargasm II — Bush legacy edition!'...
http://www.SmirkingChimp.com/article.php?sid=25618
"The Bushies believe that a massive preemptive air assault on Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons will produce regime change, and a government more favorable to the United States.

This is so monumentally stupid..................

Just for jollies, turn this situation around. Let's say Iran decided to nuke every atomic weapons lab in America. Their goal? To reveal the power of their faith, and inspire Americans to convert to Islam. Makes sense, no?

They ( the neo-cons) have thought this through up till the moment the 'bunker busters' irradiate Iran. There has been no thought whatever to what happens next. They assume that this will all sort itself out, somehow (see Iraq for evidence how well this works)."

[tmpfile]

"There has been no thought whatever to what happens next." - Posted by DJM

Indeed this may be a real issue in broader terms. I would only like to point out some facts about median age:

Western world:

US - 36.5 yo (Total 300 million)
Germany - 42.6 yo (Total 82 million)
France - 39.1 yo (Total 61 million)
UK - 39.3 yo (Total 61 million)
Italy - 42.2 yo (Total 58 million)
Spain - 40 yo (Total 40 million)
Israel - 30 yo (Total 6 million)

And some countries of interest:

Iran - 24.6 yo (Total 69 million)
Pakistan - 19.8 yo (Total 169 million)
Iraq - 19.7 yo(Total 27 million)

Also the population aged 0-14 yo is as follows:

US - 20%
Germany - 14%
France - 18%
UK - 17%
Italy - 13.8%
Spain - 14.4%
Israel - 26%

vs.

Pakistan - 39%
Iran - 26%
Iraq - 40%

That's ~209 million kids vs ~96 million kids (or about half).

Now who is investing in their future, the old wise western world or these others?

[Bruce Webb]

Trolls like jerryk delight in thinking they have hijacked threads. Sometimes it works, but often enough it allows us to work them over as the straightman to an unending series of putdowns. Like this:

"I doubt Sy hersh has access to any information that rest of us wouldn't have."

Except for forty years Sy has been the chosen source for disaffected Pentagon types to link alternative views to the American press. Oddly enough he seems to end up privy to Pentagon secrets that work against the interests of the West Wing people while still supporting the actual interest of grunts on the ground (like returning home able to start families).

jerryk, UN Inspectors were on the ground. Anyone who suggests that Saddam was resisting Inspectors is an idiot or a liar. They didn't find anything and subsequently the Iraqi Survey Group did not find anything.

jerryk you are punching way above your league. Some of us actually know things and you are just embarassing yourself here. But in the words of your hero "Bring it on". Because we can always score more points on maroons.

[calmo]

Greetings Mr Webb. I agree with your assessment of Hersch and hear W's anxious responses ("pure speculation") as further support.
I need to know your opinion on the state of affairs wrt to the Democrat who signs the SSTF report "hours before its release" and why this is sticky. Is it that they will accept none other than the last candidate (it's traditionally an annual term, so this couldn't be it, yes?) or is it more substantial? Why won't they name the Dem they find is 'not suitable'? Does it stall without one signature?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/opinion/11tue1.html?ex=1302408000&en=463d85f4aed667b5&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 11, 2006

Military Fantasies on Iran

Iraq shows just how badly things can go wrong when an administration rashly embraces simple military solutions to complicated problems, shutting its ears to military and intelligence professionals who turn out to be tragically prescient. That lesson has yet to be absorbed by the Bush administration, which is now reportedly honing plans for airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Congress and the country need to ask the administration just what is going on, and just what it hopes to accomplish by this latest saber rattling.

If the administration's real goal is to change minds in Iran and energize diplomacy, it is not going about it in a very smart way. If, instead, it intends to proceed with a bombing campaign when and if diplomacy fails, Congress and the public need to force the kind of serious national debate that never really took place before the American invasion of Iraq.

Routine contingency planning goes on all the time in the Pentagon, but the discussions on Iran seem to have progressed beyond this level, with high administration officials pushing the process and dropping indirect hints of possible future American military action in language that sometimes recalls statements made before the invasion of Iraq.

The Washington Post reports that two main options are being seriously considered — a limited strike against Iranian nuclear-related sites or a broader campaign against a wider range of military and political targets. The planners are also looking at ways America could use tactical nuclear weapons to penetrate Iran's heavily reinforced underground uranium enrichment complex at Natanz. The British government is said to take Washington's planning exercises seriously enough to have worked out security arrangements for its own diplomats and citizens in the event of American air attacks.

War with Iran would be reckless folly, especially with most of America's ground forces tied up in Iraq, where they are particularly vulnerable to retaliation from Iran and its Iraqi Shiite allies. Nor is there any guarantee that such a conflict would remain limited to airstrikes. Bombing alone probably cannot destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities, some of which are underground and fortified, and possibly others in unknown locations.

In fact, Iran already has much of the material and know-how to make nuclear bombs, and is believed to be about 10 years away from building them....

[Movie Guy]

Unfortunately, Paul Krugman does not understand what is going on.

Simply, he does not understand the overall strategies that the United States has undertaken in the Middle East, and Central and South Asia.

If Paul really understood the macro to micro picture related to the strategies, he would not have written this article.

[john i]

movie guy, would you expand on that please. I supported the war and still do, but am finding it harder and harder to defend this war and administration.

[anne]

America launched a needless war against a country that was completely contained and no threat to us, then we choose to occupy the country for no possible reason other than to create a state that would do our bidding. The war and occupation have been a physical and psychological and moral and material disaster. We have been continually deceived, though the deceptions should have been transparent from the beginning, this in a democracy that we would wish to be a model for others. We must leave Iraq immediately, and set aside any lunatic idea of waging war against Iran.

[Bruce Webb]

"lonesome moderate and others, I don't understand why you doubt the strongest military power ever can't hold down two 3rd world countries."

Bush came into office complaining that Clinton had "hollowed out" the military. Suddenly within a year it had transformed into "strongest military power ever"? Which is it?

Iran is not a 3rd world country. It is an oil rich country with a skilled military originally trained by the US. Either Iran is a advanced nation with a technology that can turn out a nuclear bomb in short order or it is a bunch of brown people living in huts. Wingnuts want to be able to choose their own reality at their own convenience.

says...

bruce, what happened in your childhoood that made you so angry. you refer to people you disagree with as -wingnuts, maroons, idiots (to name a few.) first of all, I find this to be very unliberal of you. 2nd I don't speak to you this way, I would appreciate mutual respect. I can't even pretend to know as much as you, I am trying to learn. As a professor you of all people should apreciate this. Have you left no sense of decency, sir?

[camille roy]

"Have you left no sense of decency, sir?"

Ah, a reference to the comment that brought down Joseph McCarthy - how troll-like, to insert that provocative reference without any substantive argument!

Flame wars based on insinuation and innuendo are discouraged here, 'sir'.

[Movie Guy]

John I,

I would be pleased to expand my first post. This will entail a few posts as I present the strategies involved, but I believe that you will follow the logic. Moreover, I have embedded an adequate number of key policy and initiative references to round the strategy positions outlined.

Please allow a few minutes.

Six posts follow, two of which are long. The last post will be titled "Iran: Crude Oil and Economic Impact Analysis".

[Movie Guy]

Understanding the U.S. Strategies for the Middle East, and South and Central Asia

I believe that if more news media representatives, financial analysts, and bloggers took the time to study U.S. foreign policy and global strategies in detail, the strategic picture would fall into place. Too much attention has been focused on one piece of the puzzle, when in fact there were many pieces to the overall U.S. strategies for the Middle East, and South and Central Asia. The overall plan is reasonably well designed once a person reads enough of the available documents to understand the scope of the initiatives and the level of achievement. It's a fairly aggressive package of positive macro strategies with supporting micro initiatives, most of which will be fully implemented with a few more actions.

Last November, I made this statement: "Yeah, Iran is a problem. Bush's order of battle list was wrong. He received poor advice. Iran should have been target one. No question. And, eventually, Iran will be dealt with, as PNAC's thinking on Iran went up in smoke. They didn't get it right, so the battle order error is more obvious."

I thought about this issue over the Christmas holidays and realized that President Bush and his staff principals had made the correct decision if Iran was the larger target in a broader Middle East strategy. The reason has to do with combat theater air base and airfield availability. That's what I failed to take into account. I knew about them, but I misjudged their most important purpose. That was quite an error considering my background for which I am embarrassed.

The U.S. Forces constructed three isolated major combat air bases in Iraq. These are key support operations in a potential air campaign on Iran. Any unit deployments of hardened active duty troops can be accomplished without fanfare. Such units or elements thereof can, in turn, be deployed as quick reaction forces to offset any activities or satellite projected movements that may flow across the Iran borders, whether to Iraq, UAE, or Afghanistan, as examples.

If the U.S., G-8, UN, and, by implication, Israel are unsuccessful in causing Iran to back down from its nuclear proliferation noncompliance position under the umbrella of negotiations, including those of the EU03, the issue then likely boils down to implementing the remainder of a larger strategy that has been in place all along. Since 2001.

At issue is whether Israel will abide by whatever closed door agreement with the U.S., or take on the Iran threat directly. Under that scenario, the U.S. would be obligated to cover the Israeli flank. No problem. Politically, though, the U.S. would raise the anger of Arabs throughout the Middle East and elsewhere in the world at a much higher pitch than would occur if the U.S. and NATO elements mounted an air campaign on Iran. So, an attack by Israel is not Plan B.

Plan B is for the U.S. to assume the primary attack role, supported by NATO elements and, as necessary under extreme conditions, Israel.

The elements of Plan B are interesting, including the President's recent visit to India and negotiated offer of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement. One could easily through in the DP World acquisition of P&O under the Plan B initiative. I include it in my external analysis, as I do a few other considerations.

I will post what I consider to be the primary U.S. strategies for the Middle East, Plan A Iran, and Plan B Iran. I have updated a few embedded link references to dress up the presentation, but it's obvious to me that Plan B was always on the table.

I will follow that information with some satellite image links that will provide others with an opportunity to note some of Iran's nuclear facilities and complexes that are raising concerns.

What is my judgment on the potential for a military or near military action by the U.S. and NATO elements? High probability. Iran's leadership is a growing dangerous group of radical elements organized primarily under the Guards, as evidenced by the ongoing large scale purge in the national government of Iran, and multiple interferences in the democratic processes of other Middle East nations. It's unlikely that they will back down until the last minute or not at all. They're on the edge of super crazy, and most assuredly over the edge on hating the West, U.S., and Israel as evidenced by their statements not only recently, but since 1979. It's a constant stream of hatred and disdain.

Bottom line: 80-20 in favor of a need for aerial bombardment operations. No in-country ground operations, other than along the borders with Iraq and Afghanistan, and other locations in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) nations where Iran's forces may lash out and attempt to destroy/disable oil field and delivery operations.

It is very likely that the GCC nations (5) fully support the removal of the Iranian regime, along with at least four other nations in the region. I have named this larger group as METO, the equivalent of a separate NATO in the Middle East. And, of course, NATO is actually performing some missions in the METO region.

There are certain signatures of this potential operation that will be obvious whereas a few other indications will not be so visible based on the availability of isolated air and ground operation locations. There should a smaller expectation that the public will have as much advance warning if this operation is launched. That is not to say that the President and others will not preannounce, but rather to distinguish this operation from the reasonably visible buildups of Gulf War I or Gulf War II.

We shall see what happens.

[Movie Guy]

Iran News Sources w/o the Iranian Government Filter

NEWS
Foreign Affairs Committee
National Council of Resistance of Iran

Iran Focus - NEWS

Iran Focus - Nuclear - NEWS

[Movie Guy]

Two key U.S. Government documents:

United States Policy Toward Iran
U.S. House International Relations Committee Testimony
R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
U.S. Department of State
March 8, 2006

This is an excellent read. Posting only a few remarks would be a disservice to the message provided.

U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States
John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence
Annual Threat Assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Washington, DC
February 28, 2006

[camille roy]

"Unfortunately, Paul Krugman does not understand what is going on.

Simply, he does not understand the overall strategies that the United States has undertaken in the Middle East, and Central and South Asia. "

MovieGuy, I wish that I could believe this!
So sad that this crew has destroyed their reputation for competence by their own actions.

I recall, MovieGuy, when there was something I think called 'The Iraq Project' which brought together hundreds of Iraqi exiles for a sort of brain dump to advise the US govt on how to handle the aftermath of the war.

Well our fearless, senseless, leaders dumped those reports into the waste bin, and staffed critical Iraqi projects with rightwing bunnies without expertise or credentials.

I simply do not believe that this crew is capable of having a coherent practical thought-out strategy. If they had one, I don't believe they are capable of implementing such a stategy. I believe this based on past performance as well as the utter failure to meet the disasters of the past with a change in staff or process.

There is no secret strategy that is capable of fixing the failures of this administration. Those failures are too massive and systematic.

This means that an attack/invasion of Iran would simply be another failure, on a larger scale.

It reminds me of the old saying, "Insanity is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results."

By that definition (and others) this administration is certifiable.

[Movie Guy]

The Bush Administration - Middle East Strategy: 2000-2008

President Bush and the administration principals identified specific national missions to accomplish when they came into power.

The largest single foreign policy and strategic focus, other than global terrorism, of the United States Administration is the Middle East. That focus has remained at the center of the planning table. It continues to this day.

The following is my analysis of which major strategies, by rank order, were adopted.

The Bush Administration - Middle East Strategy: 2000-2008

Strategy Order of Merit List (OML)

1. Nuclear Nonproliferation: Improve U.S., G-8, Near Asia (Middle East), South and Central Asia, Far East, and all other Independent States programs and initiatives directed at reducing and eliminating global concerns regarding nuclear nonproliferation. Status: Significant program improvements have occurred since 2000. U.S. policies U.S. National Security Strategy - Mar 06; U.S. State Department: The Bush Administration Approach to Combating the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction- 7 Nov 05; U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002: WPM Proliferation; U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN): Record of Official Statements; U.S. State Department: Countering WMD and Terrorism Through Security Cooperation - 6 Feb 06; U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN): Iran’s Challenge to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime - 2 Feb 06;
U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

2. Energy: Stabilize and advance the availability of global crude oil and natural gas supply access to Western powers and other powers as deemed appropriate. Status: 85% accomplishment at a minimum during the period, 2000-2004.

3. Terrorism: Coordinate programs and actions which will reduce the power threat represented by terrorist and dissident activity groups (listing) throughout the Middle East and World. Engage METO (U.S. and M.E. Strategic Partners - the equivalent of NATO) to actively move forward in addressing anti-terrorism initiatives while concurrently promoting phase one of METO democratic initiatives. Status: Significant program initiatives; first global terrorism conference hosted by Saudi Arabia. Multiple public and closely held governmental initiatives in progress. 'NATO and GWOT' is another initiative well underway, as is 'NATO and the Middle East'. U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06;

4. Iraq: Remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq in support of requests by or on behalf of Israel, Gulf Cooperation Council nations (5 nations), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. All are nations that the United States support with defense treaties and military cooperation agreements, including weapons systems, other equipment, and various forms of government funding. In essence, this is 'NATO Middle East alliance' or METO. Iraq Democracy Governance Status: In progress; 60% accomplishment. Map: Iraq; map 2

5. Iran: Support the replacement of the government of Iran with a moderate pro-West government; eliminate the threat of nuclear weaponry capability and finished nuclear weapons from falling in the hands of radical Islamic groups in Iran and elsewhere. Status: Failure to date. Map: Iran;
U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06 A HREF="http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_iran.jpg">map 2

6. South and Central Asia - Pakistan: Stabilize and promote pro-West relations with Pakistan. Status: Accomplished; moderately stable. Map: Pakistan; map 2

7. South and Central Asia - India: Stabilize and promote pro-West relations with India. Status: Accomplished. Map: India; map 2

8. Afghanistan: Remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Reduce the presence of AQ and strip bin Laden of his capability to further threaten pro-West interests and initiatives of Middle East nations in METO (U.S. and M.E. Strategic Partners - the equivalent of NATO). Further, establish a presence in Afghanistan to accomplish four principal goals related to Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran. Status: 75-85% accomplished. Map: Afghanistan; map 2; map 3

9. North Africa - Libya: Reestablish pro-West relations with Libya. Secure U.S. oil leases in Libya, dormant and unavailable at the beginning of 2000; under seizure threat by Kadafi. Status: Accomplished. Map: Libya; map 2

10. Middle East Democratic Initiatives: Promote democratic initiatives including voting rights, women's rights, and educational reforms throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. See the national government web pages of Saudi Arabia, as an example, for proof that such initiatives are underway. Status: In progress.

11. OPEC: Reduce the level of global crude oil market influence of key disruptive OPEC nation members. Undertake this initiative in such a manner as to not disrupt the viability of METO relations. Establish new oil supply relationship with Russia and other previously untapped sources of crude oil and natural gas supply. Status: Accomplished within the METO nations, including new METO member, Iraq; major obstacles persist with Iran and Venezuela.

=======

The Bush Administration - Middle East Strategy: IRAN 2000-2008

Strategy Order of Merit List (OML)

Iran: Plan A

U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06

Map 1: Iran Map 2: Iran

A1. Iran National Government - Plan A: Support the freely elected replacement the radical government of Iran with a moderate pro-West government; eliminate the threat of nuclear weaponry capability and finished nuclear weapons from falling in the hands of radical Islamic groups in Iran and elsewhere. Status: Failure to date. U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Iran - 8 Mar 06 U.S. State Department Background Note: Iran; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

A2. Iran Democratic Initiatives - Plan A: Promote democratic initiatives among Middle East nations with the hope that such initiatives will also be adopted by Iran. Status: Iran actions are a failure. U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Iran - 8 Mar 06; U.S. State Department: Reaching Out to the People of Iran Initiatives - 15 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: Iran Citizens' Voices Struggling To Be Heard - 3 Nov 05

A3. Iran Nuclear Weapons Program Capability - Plan A: Eliminate the threat of nuclear weaponry capability and finished nuclear weapons. Status: In progress; Plan A success or failure unknown based on present UN negotiations, threats of violence against Israel, and public display and demonstration of military hardware upgrades. SecSTATE - 29 Mar 06; UN Security Council Presidential Statement on Non-Proliferation and Iran - 29 Mar 06; U.S.-Russia Nuclear Security Cooperation Statement - 24 Feb 05; The Global Partnership and the G-8 Summits: Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction; G-8 Action Plan on Nuclear Nonproliferation - 9 Jun 04; Iran Focus - IRAN NUCLEAR NEWS; Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran - IRAN NEWS; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

A4. Energy - Plan A: Reduce the potential disruptive influence of Iran over global crude oil spot markets, Caspian Sea extractions and delivery; and Strait of Hormuz transportation movements. Status: Only the Caspian Sea initiatives appear to have proven to be reasonably successful. Iran has recently threatened to disrupt the crude oil spot market supply. Strait of Hormuz strategic threat remains a concern, though remedied as necessary. Map: Strait of Hormuz; Map: Strait of Hormuz, Depths and Shipping Lanes w/Enlargement Feature

A5. Reestablishment of Diplomatic Relations - Plan A: No meetings since 1979; one pending meeting regarding Iraq requested by Iran. Status: No forward progress by either nation in reestablishing diplomatic relations. Iran remains on U.S. Department of State terrorism watch list.

=====

The Bush Administration - Middle East Strategy: IRAN 2000-2008

Strategy Order of Merit (OML)

Iran: Plan B

U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 March 2006

U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06

Map 1: Iran Map 2: Iran

The following alternate Iran Plan B strategy was initiated during 2001. This strategy runs concurrent with the goals of Iran Plan A until such time as it is determined that Iran Plan B will be become the primary strategic means to achieve elimination of Iran nuclear capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons materials. The final preparations of this alternate strategy continue to this day.

B1. Iran Nuclear Weapons Program Capability - Plan B: Attempt to eliminate the threat of nuclear weaponry capability and finished nuclear weapons through G-8, IAEA, and U.N. negotiations. As necessary, the U.S., NATO, and Israeli military options remain available. Status: SecSTATE - 29 Mar 06; UN Security Council Presidential Statement on Non-Proliferation and Iran - 29 Mar 06; U.S. preparations underway for U.S. military option as stated by President Bush; U.S.-Russia Nuclear Security Cooperation Statement - 24 Feb 05; The Global Partnership and the G-8 Summits: Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction; G-8 Action Plan on Nuclear Nonproliferation - 9 Jun 04; Iran Focus - IRAN NUCLEAR NEWS; Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran - IRAN NEWS; U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

B2. Afghanistan: Provide a base of military operations for future requirements. Status: Pro-West national democratic government elected to power. NATO relationship established. Support facilities constructed. Airport and airfield operations restored. Kabul International Airport (KAIA) and Air Liaison Officers Cell (ALOC) operational. Joint Declaration of the United States-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership - 23 May 2005; U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices Afghanistan- 8 Mar 06; NATO Mission in Afghanistan; NATO in Afghanistan - Q&A 1 / Q&A 2; NATO Allied Joint Forces Command Brunnsen / International Assistance Security Force (IASF); NATO Preparing for Afghanistan; NATO Initial Deployments; NATO-Afghanistan revised operational plan (OPLAN) Map: Afghanistan; map 2; map 3

B3. Pakistan: Stabilize pro-West relations with Pakistan. India-Pakistan conflict reduced to minimal level. Status: U.S. Sanctions on India and Pakistan Waived by Presidential Determination- 28 Sep 01; President Bush-President Musharraf communication - 4 Mar 06; United States-Pakistan Strategic Partnership Statement- 4 Mar 06; India-Pakistan Relations; U.S. State Department Fact Sheet: United States-Pakistan: Long-Term Strategic Partners; U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Pakistan - 8 Mar 06; U.S. State Department Remarks, Press Releases and other Fact Sheets; U.S. Department of State Background Note: Pakistan Map: Pakistan; map 2

B4. India: U.S.-India relations are sound. India-Pakistan conflict reduced to minimal level. U.S.-India commercial trade expanded over the last 5 years. Nuclear Cooperation agreement reached. Status: U.S. Sanctions on India and Pakistan Waived by Presidential Determination- 28 Sep 01; India-Pakistan Relations; United States-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement - 5 Apr 06: SecSTATE 1, SecSTATE 2, UnderSecSTATE - 22 Mar 06; U.S. State Deparment: United States-India Relations - Current Updates, CRS Summary: India - Chronology of Recent Events - 26 Feb 06 Map: India; map 2

B5. Iraq: Establish U.S./NATO military operations capability for external or inbound support operations. Status: Three major combat theater air bases were constructed in remote desert locations, fully protected from ground and air assault; 100% accomplished.

B6. Israel: U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 March 2006; The goal is insure that Israel does not act unilaterally in addressing the Iran regime problem, and the problem with Iran's nuclear nonproliferation noncompliance with G-8, IAEA, and UN requirements. Middle East Peace Dialogues Map: Israel

B7. NATO Missions in the Middle East: North Atlantic Treaty Organization; NATO Command links; NATO and Global Terrorism. Status: NATO and the Middle East; NATO Mediterranean Dialogue - 6-7 Apr 06 Update; NATO Rising Expectations in Middle East; NATO Mission in Afghanistan; NATO in Afghanistan - Q&A 1 / Q&A 2

B8. Russia: Seek the support of Russia in avoiding actions directed at supporting Iranian national government initiatives related to nuclear proliferation and military ambitions. Status: Questionable success. NATO-Russia Council, officially established in May 2002; ; U.S.-Russia Nuclear Security Cooperation Statement - 24 Feb 05 - "The United States and Russia will continue to work jointly to develop low-enriched uranium fuel for use in any U.S.- and Russian-design research reactors in third countries now using high-enriched uranium fuel, and to return fresh and spent high-enriched uranium from U.S.- and Russian-design research reactors in third countries."; U.S.-Russia Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement - 30 Sep 05 update; U.S. Financial Assistance to Russia, including WMD Destruction - Fiscal Year 2005 Map: Russia

B9. China: Seek the support of China in avoiding actions directed at supporting Iranian national government initiatives related to nuclear proliferation and military ambitions. Status: Questionable success. China in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG); CRS: China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and Missiles: Policy Issues - 5 Apr 05 - The China-Iran analysis begins on page CRS-9; many nonproliferation bilateral agreement violations by China national corporate firms during the Clinton Administration and Bush Adminstration. Map: China

B10. Iran Democratic Initiatives - Plan B: Promote democratic initiatives among Middle East nations with the hope that such initiatives will also be adopted by Iran. Status: Future U.S. actions to be determined. Iran actions to date are a failure. U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Iran - 8 Mar 06; U.S. State Department: Reaching Out to the People of Iran Initiatives - 15 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: Iran Citizens' Voices Struggling To Be Heard - 3 Nov 05; Iran Focus - NEWS

B11. Energy - Plan B: Reduce the potential disruptive influence of Iran over global crude oil spot markets, Caspian Sea extractions and delivery; and Strait of Hormus transportation movements. Status: Only the Caspian Sea initiatives appear to have proven to be reasonably successful. Iran has recently threatened to disrupt the crude oil spot market supply. Strait of Hormuz strategic threat remains a concern, though remedied as necessary. Map: Strait of Hormuz; Map: Strait of Hormuz, Depths and Shipping Lanes w/Enlargement Feature

B12. Iran National Government - Plan B: Seek Regime Replacement. Status: Announcements regarding the U.S. government desire for a regime change in Iran have made recently. Future U.S. actions to be determined. U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Iran - 8 Mar 06; Iran Focus - IRAN NEWS; Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran - IRAN NEWS; Iran Focus - IRAN NUCLEAR NEWS; U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

B13. Reestablishment of Diplomatic Relations - Plan B: No meetings since 1979; one pending meeting regarding Iraq requested by Iran. Status: No forward progress by either nation in reestablishing diplomatic relations. Iran remains on U.S. Department of State terrorism watch list.

B14. Eliminate Terrorist Threats from Iran - Plan B: Once a regime change occurs, potential progress can be accomplished. Status: 20 Terrorist Training Camps Identified in Iran - listed by name and location - 27 Feb 06; U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06; U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06;

Collection of Maps: Iran

Maps of Iran Directory
University of Texas Perry-Casta?eda Library Map Collection - Iran
Iran: Expandable Map
Iran: Road Map - Expandable
Map: Strait of Hormuz
Map: Strait of Hormuz, Depths and Shipping Lanes w/Enlargement Feature

[Movie Guy]

IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Nuclear Proliferation - Background

Global Assessment - Historical Summary of Military Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Programs

Global Assessment - 2003 Summary Table: Production and Status of Military Stocks of Fissile Material

Global Assessment - Historical Map of Military Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Programs

What is a Gas Centrifuge?

Cascade of a Gas Centrifuge Plant

The United States of America

President Bush, 2006 State of the Union address: "The Iranian Government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."

U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

U.S. National Security Strategy - Mar 06

U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06

U.S. State Department: The Bush Administration Approach to Combating the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction- 7 Nov 05

U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002: WPM Proliferation

U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN): Record of Official Statements

U.S. State Department: Countering WMD and Terrorism Through Security Cooperation - 6 Feb 06

U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN): Iran’s Challenge to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime - 2 Feb 06

The G-8

The Global Partnership and the G-8 Summits: Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction

G-8 Action Plan on Nuclear Nonproliferation - 9 Jun 04

G-8 Position: Nuclear Nonproliferation

"We strongly support UN Security Council Resolution 1540, calling on all states to establish effective national export controls, to adopt and enforce effective laws to criminalize proliferation, to take cooperative action to prevent non-state actors from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and to end illicit trafficking in such weapons, their means of delivery, and related materials. We call on all states to implement this resolution promptly and fully, and we are prepared to assist them in so doing, thereby helping to fight the nexus between terrorism and proliferation, and black markets in these weapons and related materials."

"The trafficking and indiscriminate spread of sensitive nuclear materials, equipment, and technology that may be used for weapons purposes are a threat to us all. Some states seek uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing capabilities for weapons programs contrary to their commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). We reaffirm our commitment to the NPT and to the declarations made at Kananaskis and Evian, and we will work to prevent the illicit diversion of nuclear materials and technology. We announce the following new actions to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and the acquisition of nuclear materials and technology by terrorists, while allowing the world to enjoy safely the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology."

G-8 Position: Iran Nuclear Proliferation

"We remain united in our determination to see the proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program resolved. Iran must be in full compliance with its NPT obligations and safeguards agreement. To this end, we reaffirm our support for the IAEA Board of Governors' three Iran resolutions. We note that since Evian, Iran has signed the Additional Protocol and has committed itself to cooperate with the Agency, and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing related activities. While we acknowledge the areas of progress reported by the Director General, we are, however, deeply concerned that Iran's suspension of enrichment-related activity is not yet comprehensive. We deplore Iran's delays, deficiencies in cooperation, and inadequate disclosures, as detailed in IAEA Director General reports. We therefore urge Iran promptly and fully to comply with its commitments and all IAEA Board requirements, including ratification and full implementation of the Additional Protocol, leading to resolution of all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program."

IRAN - NUCLEAR FACILITIES AND SATELLITE IMAGES

The following analysis and satellite images of part of the Iran nuclear complexes and facilities represent some of the concerns expressed by the IAEA and other parties, including the leadership of the G-8, United States of America, European Union, Israel, and United Nations.

Map: Iran

Iran: Expandable Map

Iran: Road Map - Expandable

Lavizan-Shian Technical Research Center

Satellite image - Lavizan-Shian Site - BEFORE - August 11, 2003

Satellite image - Lavizan-Shian Site - AFTER - March 22, 2004

Satellite image - Lavizan-Shian Site - AFTER - May 10, 2004

Esfahan Facility

Esfahan Facility Tunnel Construction - February 17, 2005

Satellite image - Esfahan Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) - February 12, 2005

Satellite image - Esfahan Tunnel Construction (2 tunnels) for New Underground Facility - February 12, 2005

Arak Facility

Arak Facility - Construction of 40 MW Heavy Water Reactor - March 4, 2005

Satellite image - Arak Facility - Overview - September 26, 2002

Satellite image - Arak Facility - Close-up of Initial Construction - September 26, 2002

Satellite image - Arak Facility - February 29, 2004

Satellite image - Arak Facility - February 27, 2005

Kalaye Electric Facility

Kalaye Electric Facility - Component Manufacturing Operation - March 31, 2005

Satellite image - Centrifuge Research and Development Facility - January 30, 2005

Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex

Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz became the primary centrifuge research and development facility.

Natanz Facilities Complex - Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Plant - March 14, 2003

Satellite image - Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex - Overview - September 16, 2002

Satellite image - Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex - Close-up - September 16, 2002

Satellite image - Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex - With Details - September 16, 2002

Satellite image - Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex - February 7, 2003

Satellite image - Natanz Tunnel Entrance to Underground Gas Centrifuge Cascades - February 7, 2003

Satellite image - Nantz Complex Gas Centrifuge Pilot Plant - February 7, 2003

Satellite image - Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex - February 29, 2004

Satellite images (4) - Natanz Underground Facilities at Natanz - Tunnel Entrance 2002-2003-2004 satellite updates - May 2, 2005

Satellite image - Natanz Uranium Enrichment Complex - January 2, 2006

Collection of Maps: Iran

Maps of Iran Directory
University of Texas Perry-Casta?eda Library Map Collection - Iran
Iran: Expandable Map
Iran: Road Map - Expandable
Map: Strait of Hormuz
Map: Strait of Hormuz, Depths and Shipping Lanes w/Enlargement Feature

[Movie Guy]

Iran: Crude Oil and Economic Impact Analysis

If you are analyzing the possible outcomes of a large scale bombardment of Iran nuclear weaponry facilities, or determining reasons why the United States would not likely undertake such an operation, the following Oil ShockWave Scenario results may answer many questions.

No disappointments. Well worth your time and interest. Note the 'Results Summary' for a quick look.

OIL SHOCKWAVE

Securing America's Energy Future (SAFE)

What is Oil ShockWave?

Oil ShockWave Scenario, Washington, D.C.

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Background

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Video and Audio Clips

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Results Summary

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Full Report

23 June 2005 Oil ShockWave - Additional Documents

[Movie Guy]

That's the group of posts.

By the way, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the panic over the possible U.S. use of nuclear tactical bombs. That's unlikely, but it one was used on the Natanz complex to penetrate the multi-story underground facilty (which you view in the process of construction, then covering in the satellite images), the radioactivity would be gone in three weeks or less. These types of tactical nukes are not like the nukes of the 50s. More like a payload of conventional 2,000 bombs than anything else. It's not high radiation that has a long life.

I seriously doubt that they would use them, but if so the short life radiation would be gone quickly and would be contained in the immediate area based on the geography involved.

If the Iranian leader and Guards follow the decision of the national cleric leader, this should be resolved without major bombardments on a limited number of target facilities. Of course, the Guards are pursuing many positions in the national government, so it's a question of how hardline the cleric leader is at this point.

[john i]

thank you movie guy,

cant wait to go through all the info!

[Movie Guy]

John I,

You're welcome.

I noticed that a couple of links that were bad, the most important of which is the first link in the following series of satellite photos.

The Iran map link in the first strategy portion was bad; my error.

Iran map 2

Here is the satellite image series again, with error fixed:

Lavizan-Shian Technical Research Center

Destruction at Lavizan-Shian Site [Lavizan-Shian Technical Research Center] Raises New Questions About Iran's Nuclear Activities - June 17, 2004

Satellite image - Lavizan-Shian Site - BEFORE - August 11, 2003

Satellite image - Lavizan-Shian Site - AFTER - March 22, 2004

Satellite image - Lavizan-Shian Site - AFTER - May 10, 2004

[camille roy]

MovieGuy,
thanks for the links, I will keep them handy and read as time permits.
I do wonder how you make sure you are not attributing reason to irrational actors. In other words how much of the sense in the policy is the sense in your interpretation, and not a sign of a sensible policy? E.g., the statement above:
"The following is my analysis of which major strategies, by rank order, were adopted."

How do you verify that your analysis has detected the major stratgies? And how is success measured? To wit:

"2. Energy: Stabilize and advance the availability of global crude oil and natural gas supply access to Western powers and other powers as deemed appropriate. Status: 85% accomplishment at a minimum during the period, 2000-2004."

85% accomplishment?

If the Bush administration had done anything right in any major policy endeavor these questions would not arise. But as their record is one of consistent failure, your attempt to justify the record, while honorable, attracts questions. Again, thanks for the links!

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Webb -- "jerryk you are punching way above your league. Some of us actually know things and you are just embarassing yourself here. But in the words of your hero "Bring it on". Because we can always score more points on maroons."

Bruce Webb -- "Iran is not a 3rd world country. It is an oil rich country with a skilled military originally trained by the US. Either Iran is a advanced nation with a technology that can turn out a nuclear bomb in short order or it is a bunch of brown people living in huts. Wingnuts want to be able to choose their own reality at their own convenience."

We are talking about the same military that fought Iraq for eight years along the border, right? That military?

I would like to learn more about your knowledge of the Iranian Army, Air Force, and Navy. You say that it has "a skilled military originally trained by the US."

My father was part of the Military Assistance Group (MAG) in Iran. I would like to compare your knowledge to his knowledge, and then I will call a Colonel (RA-Retired) I worked for early on in the 1970s who retired and moved to Iran to work for Bell Corporation. He's pretty quick on his feet, as he ran combat tank rebuild at Anniston Army Depot. I spoke to him during the hostages situation and we talked at length upon his return. I would certainly like to compare your notes to his and those of my father, plus whatever small amount of information I may possess. And, yeah, they know each other, so they can talk back and forth, too, and give me the bottom line of what they know through their contacts. But I won't waste time bothering them unless you provide some substantial information. No point in passing along crackpot stuff to them, as they would laugh.

Oh, yes. One more item. Iran does have plenty of crude oil, but it might a stretch to call it an oil rich country in terms of its budget/expenditure situation. Or not. Perhaps you have good info on that, too.

Share what you know and I'll go from there.

[DJM]

This reminds me of my sons comment; Beyond everything else, remember that people are basically too lazy or too busy, and would in most cases rather ignore something than devote the time and mental energy to learn more about it or assess the strength of their own opinions. Even the best-formed argument could be ignored if it takes thirty minutes to read and someone doesn't want to give you that.

This looks like quite a job to go through all that.....although if a person keeps up daily it is less of a chore.

[Movie Guy]

camille roy -- "How do you verify that your analysis has detected the major stratgies? And how is success measured? To wit:

"2. Energy: Stabilize and advance the availability of global crude oil and natural gas supply access to Western powers and other powers as deemed appropriate. Status: 85% accomplishment at a minimum during the period, 2000-2004."

85% accomplishment?

If the Bush administration had done anything right in any major policy endeavor these questions would not arise. But as their record is one of consistent failure, your attempt to justify the record, while honorable, attracts questions. Again, thanks for the links!"

You answered your own question by ruling out anything but failure for this U.S. administration. You must know quite a bit about each operation in the Executive Branch.

It's not enough to hate President Bush, as many in blogland do, unless one is willing to strap on steel-clad blinders and pretend to know that the Administration has failed on everything single action.

I may not like this Administration, but I will not lie about the President or those serving in the Executive Branch. If they accomplish something, I have no problem acknowledging it. If they screw up badly against their milestones for achievement, I take note of that. I don't necessarily run out on the blogs and slime them on every little thing. That's a sign of immaturity as well as severe unbalanced bias and reasoning which can result in stupid remarks as well as general ignorance of the facts.

I can list the Administration's major failures about as quickly as most other people and bloggers. I can also list some of the accomplishments, however large or small as they may be. Instead of gutting the Administration or cheering them on wildly, I take a balanced approach. I don't expect them to get everything right any more than I did the Clinton Administration.

While administrations always bear the blame for Executive Branch failures and shortcomings, we also have something else occurring in government service below the political appointee level. We're dealing with a severe brain drain as more experienced employees age out and retire. We've lost almost all of the WWII and Korean War era civil servants, and they were well versed in many of their fields. These were some selfless and dedicated people. And we're moving on, but the brain drain is a big deal, and it's everywhere with few exceptions. Each successive Administration will be burdened with more problems associated with the brain drain and loss of experience as well as common sense that used to drive many decisions.

Katrina is a good example. Too many of the problems were and are down at operator level. Plenty above that level, but that's the bulk of what is happening there. It's an accounting exercise that, by regulatory requirement, is going out of control. Young people who read the rule and allow for no leeway. Firemen who couldn't get fuel for their firetruck at a fuel point manned by the National Guard but controlled by a FEMA youth who wouldn't allow the NG to pump fuel because the municipal fire department and station unit wasn't on a list. Meanwhile, fires were still burning and they were offline. That's just insane. But it happened. And that type of issue was happening a month ago on motel rooms for FEMA First Responders. So, some of them said to hell with it and went home, after they finally got a key so that they could retrive their personal belonging from rooms that they had been using for weeks. Yeah, brain drain is real.

To your question: I worked on the crude oil information a few years ago, tracking all government and commercial movements that led to new access to fields by country, and also resulted in pipeline reroutings. It was astonishing to note the level of success across the board. It was a well coordinated effort. I believe that you could build a reasonable history by using BBC's search engine, as that one of the public data bases I used in addition to other source information. At one time, I have every BBC crude oil related article from 2001 to November 2005 rolled up on a link and summary list. That information along with other data bases is on another computer I don't use anymore. I am of the opinion I stated the percentage of success at the lower margin. The administration and the majors simply didn't not lose much that they worked in coordination to lock down. One country bordering Russia did roll over later on, but that was to be expected as China and Russia were tugging on it. Similarly, there are fights and disagreements between China and Russia over pipeline routing and takeoffs to the north of China, but we're not involved in most of those messes.

I never considered Iraq oil fields as a net gain because they were so damaged from pumping abuse prior to 2003. Moreover, Iraq is a net importer once you factor in finished product. And with the low gas prices which serve as stimulation for the local economies and prove alternate sources for generating electricity (diesel generators, primarily), little will change for a few years unless the Iraqis want to face massive protests.

Yes, I am comfortable with my 85% figure. It's a conservative estimate.

To your broader point less your example: "camille roy -- "How do you verify that your analysis has detected the major stratgies? And how is success measured?"

I can read and analyze because I am schooled in that discipline as well as blessed with a bit of common sense. It's not that hard to sort out what the major strategies are, particularly when the abundance of materials that are readily available support the appearances of what I observe.

It's my impression that were few bloggers who post spend much time reading the Administration's policies, initiatives, or under oath testimony, let alone pay much attention to foreign policy agreements. That information is just sitting to cross check across the pond. It's not hard. I believe that I am one of the few bloggers, regardless of political leanings, who even posts information links from the U.S. government beyond the basic accounting numbers flowing out of BLS, BEA, FED, and TREAS. There is a general absence of studying the full range of policies, initiatives, and agreements that do exist. Plenty of ranting, but not much supportive homework to back it up. It's rather boring for those who do research some subjects. Sometimes I just smile and move on. There's just very little effort put into backing up the crying, barking, and whining. That, unfortunately, is a political error of considerable magnitude.

I have very little confidence in the present Democrat leadership within certain circles, including the DNC. It's one amateur operation after another. That's not the way it was previously. It's a sad state of affairs when you have Republicans who present glass jaw opportunities to go down TKO or KO almost every month, but the Dems can't put it off. Screaming and yelling doesn't get it down. Just go over and tap the glass jaw. They will go down. But you have to do a little homework and pull real facts together. Not banter. Not mush and arrogant wild-eyed junk that most Americans distrust when it comes time to make a decision. The Republicans are screwed up, but the Democrats offer very little in my opinion. It's a sad state of affairs.

Anyway, I didn't have to identify percentages. That was my call. I stand by what I presented. Someone can do some serious research and prove me wrong. That's fine with me. I am comfortable with my level of research effort on the subject of national strategies as relate to the Middle East, Asia, and Iran.

[Movie Guy]

DJM,

Sure, it's a lot of work, even if spread over time. But it is worthwhile because its knowledge and familiarity.

I believe that there is sufficient information available, much of which I linked, which demonstrates that Iraq regime change was not the prime strategy in the Middle East but rather part of an overall larger strategy package. If Krugman and others don't have the slightest clue on this point, then it's very likely that they simply don't understand the U.S. strategies for the Middle East, or Central and South Asia.

The various major strategies and initiatives are pieces of the overall Middle East puzzle. If one wastes all of one's time banging on one piece and trying to force it into the puzzle or intend to throw it away, then one never understand what the United States was actually doing.

It might help to simply think, read, study, and evaluate the bigger picture. But Krugman missed it, as have many others. The larger issue and more important regime change strategy was always Iran.

[ilsm]

Camille,

"I do wonder how you make sure you are not attributing reason to irrational actors. In other words how much of the sense in the policy is the sense in your interpretation, and not a sign of a sensible policy?"

In a post earlier on Iran, Movie Guy, a retired military officer, conflated Iran nukes with Al Qaeda getting nukes.

If one sees the military as the only option then all these make sense.

His paradigm appears to be forward defense, the issue is when does forward defense/offense become irrational and take the place of other means of national action.

It is far too early to talk military action.

Sadly, the guys who support military options are often in charge of the risk assessments.

They often deny "expert" status to anyone outide the "fraternity".

They are not looking beyond a reason for the Air Force and Navy team (not football) to show off their expensive stuff.

Good point when does the analyst become an advocate?

Worse when does forward defense become empire.

[DJM]

I have been trying to catch up and keep up with political "truth" for years now....and it would be a lot easier if all we had to do was read historical data and the daily news...but we also have to sift through so many lies, exaggerations, contradictory "facts", spin control, revisionist history, cover ups and of course just plain mistaken opinions ... I eventually had enough background information that certain editorials and news coverage made sense and certain others scream out "HIDDEN AGENDA HERE!" I don't believe for a moment that I know it all and always recognize truth from lies, but I do often recognize the arse who thinks he does .......

[DJM]

Sorry I don't intend to throw sticks and stones...that rapidly gets nowhere....

[DJM]

In Mollie Ivins latest column; "The daily drip"
April 11, 2006, which you can find here; http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1350
she ends with this;
Long ago, Abraham Lincoln wrote, "Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in few hands and the republic is destroyed."

It is about the "endless succession of special favors for special interests performed by Congress.."

I believe if there is anything that needs to be understood by the citizens of the United States and the world it is that the "overall larger U.S. strategies for the Middle East, and/or Central and South Asia...." mentioned by Movie Guy (and I will add Central and South America among others) has much more to do with Corporations than it has to do with the average persons security and safety.

[anne]

Evidently, DJM knows what she knows :)

[ilsm]

For an alternate opinion of "military experts".

Link; http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_4_11_06.htm

[Movie Guy]

In reading your remarks, it strikes me that you may not have ever read most of the U.S. State Department materials that I have cited. I encourage you to read them and then draw your conclusions. Absent that effort, I am not confident that you can grasp the whole picture in a meaningful manner. Obviously, you do not appear to know the source of my information regarding the concerns of nuclear components and weapons transfer to AQ and similar terrorist groups. That information and related concerns came from the U.S. State Department, not DoD. And it is State, not DoD, that has frequently discussed military options to resolve the Iran nuclear proliferation issues.

One important consideration that you did not mention is the role that Israel may play in the situation with Iran. A few news articles indicate that Israel is particularly concerned about the status of events ongoing with Iran. Moreover, Israel may be pressuring the U.S./G-8 to take action or stand aside so that Israel can address the situation directly. I assume that this consideration, if reasonably accurate, is a concern that the U.S./G-8 must take into account as the EU-3 diplomatic initiatives move forward or stall. Perhaps you should broaden your perspective and take into consideration other factors which may be involved.

I approached my analysis based on foreign policy initiatives related to the Administration's national security plan(s) and economic programs readily available from the White House web site and U.S. State Department strategies, initiatives, and programs. It is very clear that more than enough documents, including testimony, are readily available from the U.S. State Department to assembly the foundation for what I presented. The references speak for themselves, and anyone can link to the documents embedded.

Iran: News Sources

Foreign Affairs Committee, National Council of Resistance of Iran - IRAN NEWS

Iran Focus - IRAN NEWS

Iran Focus - IRAN NUCLEAR NEWS

Iran: Terrorist Training Camps

20 Terrorist Training Camps Identified in Iran - listed by name and location - 27 Feb 06

U.S. Government Documents: Human Rights in Iran

U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Iran - 8 Mar 06

U.S. State Department: Reaching Out to the People of Iran Initiatives - 15 Feb 06

U.S. Department of State: Iran Citizens' Voices Struggling To Be Heard - 3 Nov 05

U.S. Government Documents: Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Noncompliance and Terrorism Threat

SecSTATE - 29 Mar 06

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on Non-Proliferation and Iran - 29 Mar 06

U.S. Department of State: United States Policy Toward Iran - 8 Mar 06

U.S. Annual Threat Assessment: Terrorism and WMD Proliferation - Threats, Challenges, and Opportunities for the United States - 28 Feb 06

U.S. State Department: Countering WMD and Terrorism Through Security Cooperation - 6 Feb 06

U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN): Iran’s Challenge to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime - 2 Feb 06

U.S. State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN): Record of Official Statements

U.S. State Department: The Bush Administration Approach to Combating the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction- 7 Nov 05

U.S. National Security Strategy - Mar 06

U.S. National Security Strategy of 2002: WPM Proliferation

G-8 Position: Nuclear Nonproliferation and WMD Spread

The Global Partnership and the G-8 Summits: Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction

G-8 Action Plan on Nuclear Nonproliferation - 9 Jun 04

[dryfly]

Iran is not a 3rd world country. It is an oil rich country with a skilled military originally trained by the US. Either Iran is a advanced nation with a technology that can turn out a nuclear bomb in short order or it is a bunch of brown people living in huts. Wingnuts want to be able to choose their own reality at their own convenience.

Exactly.

Any country with metal working industry & a source of fissile material (enriched uranium 238 or plutonium) can make a bomb suitable for deterrence purposes. The hard part is getting and/or enriching the fissile material. It appears Iran is almost there so they are very close. I bet they have a device by the end of the year if they are enriching now... not a lot & probably not deliverable but enough to 'go to press' with it... just like NK.

And they won't be the last ones. With 'Peak Oil' & countries accelerating nuclear power programs there is going to be no shortage of at least semi-enriched fuel... going the last mile to bomb grade won't be that difficult.

Everyone's going to have the bomb soon.

[Movie Guy]

dryfly -- "With 'Peak Oil' & countries accelerating nuclear power programs there is going to be no shortage of at least semi-enriched fuel... going the last mile to bomb grade won't be that difficult. Everyone's going to have the bomb soon."

It's interesting how often this type of thing is stated as if such remarks are based on facts, research, and extrapolation. Where did you come up with this one?

This organization doesn't agree with you in three separate summaries:

Global Assessment - Historical Summary of Military Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Programs

Global Assessment - 2003 Summary Table: Production and Status of Military Stocks of Fissile Material

Global Assessment - Historical Map of Military Fissile Material and Nuclear Weapons Programs

[calmo]

This bit:
administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran ['regime change' sounds so clinical compared to 'assassination', no? Now if only we can forget just how un-nifty it was with Sadam...]

reminds me that the US was shocked that Syria would take out/assassinate/shorten the retirement of/ snuff the former Lebanese leader Hariri.
Apparently this 'regime change' is perfectly acceptable provided the US is doing the changing. The democracy stuff, the freedom stuff, comes later --as we see with Iraq.

[DJM]

Movie Guy said "Obviously, you do not appear to know the source of my information regarding the concerns of nuclear components and weapons transfer to AQ and similar terrorist groups. That information and related concerns came from the U.S. State Department, not DoD. And it is State, not DoD, that has frequently discussed military options to resolve the Iran nuclear proliferation issues."

Would that be the or so trustworthy "smoking gun= mushroom cloud" group? Perhaps you should check out this site called Claim vs Fact;
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702

[DJM]

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702

[DJM]

Sorry I guess it is just too long...just go to American Progress Action Fund claims vs fact it is easy to find

[anne]

DJM

Whether Martin Luther King was a military strategist, was less important than an understanding of the needlessness of a widening and continuation of the Vietnam War. Those who are for peace can have significant knowledge beyond the tactics of war.

The address you posted is fine, even if Typepad appears to miss and hides part of the address :)

[Movie Guy]

Purposes of the U.S. Strategies Posts

All Posters and Readers:

I created the U.S. Government strategies and Iran nuclear program posts to offer some insight and information that is frequently obscured in discussions concerning any activities that the U.S., NATO, G-8, and other parties, including the Middle East governments, may be undertaking in the Middle East and Central and South Asia. To that end, I pulled together what I believe are the strategies by order of priority. Providing background links to U.S. Government source documents, whether such are program overviews, initiatives, Congressional testimony, or speech materials, was a personal effort to round out what I perceive are the U.S. strategy objectives in the areas I discussed.

It is generally the case in blogs main and comment posts that U.S. Government program information and data is seldom mentioned or referenced beyond the realm of supporting economic data, energy data, and occasional posts related to environmental initiatives. Instead, the reader is treated to personal opinions and a pile of news articles that are supposed to represent fact and well informed speculation. All fine and good, but that is second or third tier analysis, at best, of government strategies and supporting initiatives, actions, and performances.

I provided some program documents that form the basis or report status for U.S. Government activities upon which many blog and news media rants and attack claims, by default, are based. If posters and readers on this blog want to know the overviews and specifics of some government strategies, programs, and positions regarding Middle East, and Central and South Asia actions, I believe that I have provided quick access to some of that information. What you do with the information is your business.

It does not matter to me that posters and readers treat all U.S. Government information and supporting links that I posted as lies, junk, pure trash, or whatever description as you may apply. That is your choice. You may or may not be accurate in your assessments. What does matter, though, is that posters and readers should not, in ignorance or by purposeful omission, pretend or dismiss out of hand that such information upon which U.S. strategies are implemented does not exist. It does exist and I have identified some portions of the information. If posters and readers want to dispute U.S. government testimony, strategies, and initiatives, by all means do so. Hopefully, though, we will treated to more substantial arguments that are typically the case when such poster challenges are presented.

[DJM]

In the end it still comes down to trust....and it is true that (borrowing words from one journalist) : ".. people believed in 1994...that the 'Net could become a way to spread information quickly, debunk rumors, and correct other forms of misinformation....[but it has also been] used to spread lies and innuendo " "...Internet [can] fuel extremism, paranoia and tin-hat conspiracy theories at cyberspeed. It also fosters hate, bigotry and racism."
But thankfully it can and has, been instrumental in finding the truth, or some portion of it which has become more and more difficult to do when the official channels are so filled with lies.

[ilsm]

Movie Guy

"government strategies and supporting initiatives, actions, and performances."

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice......

Strategies, supporting initiative, actions, performances all have an agenda.

Bush broaches no debate.

This agenda seems to be not what I see as right for the US.

The state department and DoD are agenda oriented. There appears to be no debate.

The lies from 2002 and the run up for war are agenda of certain people not debated in open.

When you post those sites you assume we agree they are based on science, truth, trusty observations etc.
None of this trust has been earned and the opposite is the case in Iraq informnation or disinformation.

There is no one in the administration who see the emperor has no clothes.

You agree but you may have an agenda as well.

Patton said: 'If there are no disagreements someoneis not thinking.'

So, yes I will not read the official statements as truth.

I go back to MacArthur's 1963 speech at West Point. The officer corps cannot let the nation down.

War is the life and eath of a nation. It can only be based on truth and trust and hearing opposing opinion bulds truth and trust.

I cannot read propaganda.

[ilsm]

Maybe, studying Divinity will help understand our enemies.

If you study the Bible, as I am sure Dr. King did in great depth, you gain insight into major wars like Joshua storming Jericho and guerilla war like that of the Maccabbees’ or in Jesus' time the Zealot rising against the Romans.

The admonition to go the 'extra mile' and 'turn the other cheek' are believed by some to be passive responses to Roman tyranny.

Up to the New Testament war was a central theme of the Bible.

Judging from results, Dr. King was more in tune with the Vietnam situation than either State or Defense.

State and defense have different agenda which shade their thinking.

[Movie Guy]

ilsm -- "When you post those sites you assume we agree they are based on science, truth, trusty observations etc."

That is such an ignorant statement. I simply posted the information that has been provided by the U.S. Government on the subjects that I addressed.

ilsm -- "You agree but you may have an agenda as well."

Agenda? I simply provided the information available from the U.S. Government in order to develop what I believe are the government's strategies for the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran.

I review the official position information, look for disconnects, review measures of performance within and external to the U.S. Government, and think about all of the news reports and commentary. That's how I do things.

I have yet to observe your challenge of any content within any documents that I provided links for readers and posters. So much for your efforts at dismissal other than normal rants.

ilsm -- "I cannot read propaganda."

I take this to mean that you did not read any of the linked materials nor do you have any informed knowledge of such materials, strategies, initiatives, policies, and written agreements regarding Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Iran strategies.

If true, you are living in a state of denial that is so severe that you really do not know the Administration is undertaking collectively on such subjects as Pakistan and/or India, let alone the Middle East nations.

[ilsm]

"Administration is undertaking collectively on such subjects as Pakistan and/or India, let alone the Middle East nations"

What I know about this administration.............

Have we any honor, are we so devoid of principle through fear and greed, to deal with dictators and monarchs?

The regime spreads fear.

HL Mencken had this one in mind:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

I do know the mendacity reigning in the land is devastating, I do not wish to so refresh myself.

[dryfly]

It's interesting how often this type of thing is stated as if such remarks are based on facts, research, and extrapolation. Where did you come up with this one?

MG - I didn't work at any of the sites but a number of my buddies did. I was recruited by Du Pont to go to Savanna but turned them down. Did fuel ethanol instead.

That was late 70s & early 80s. I was a Chem Engineer & lived with a guy who had a masters in nuclear physics & a PhD in Mechanical Engineering (Thermo & Heat Transfer). We discussed this a lot. Plus in one of my classes we had to run a graphite pile. The job recruiters from Du Pont were all over that.

So while I'm not even close to an 'expert' I'm not completely ignorant to how the stuff is processed either.

'Yes' weapons facilities in NPT signatory countries are shut down... for now. Supposed to be anyway.

In many cases they are mothballed rather than completely dismantled. Or as in the case of the US there is such a significant stock pile we won't need more in the foreseeable future, just reprocess... so no need to fire up the canyons. So the worst & oldest & most obsolete units are torn down... almost like we really are going non-nuclear.

But the folks who built the systems haven't disappeared and wondered away - not all of them anyway. My buddies went from designing processes to process isotopes in the build phase to handling isotopes in clean up... Hanford, LA, Rocky Flats, and now he's at Oak Ridge. Their skills are still sharp.

Plus as oil gets tighter there will be more cries for nuclear to power our 'clean electric vehicles'. There is a 'Peak Uranium' problem just like 'Peak Oil'... there isn't enough for everyone to get energy too cheap to meter.

The only way out is through breeder technology... with breeders a small amount of U238 and a lot of U235 and you can produce almost an infinite amount of power as long as you have the technology to reprocess the plutonium.

And as I'm sure you know that's where the proliferation problem gets acute. That's the nut in Iran... who reprocesses & how. In the years to come lotsa countries will demand & get their own reprocessing capability. Some will be countries we don't like. There will be lots more plutonium produced that we - the world - will be able to keep track of.

Its technically tougher to make a crude bomb from plutonium but certainly possible. And with the spread of manufacturing technology (thanks to MNCs & WTO & globalization) I would guess it will be plenty easy in say 30 years for about any country able to produce say a PC or automobile to be able to fab a simple fission bomb if they have access to breeder technology & reprocessing... not a bomb like one of our thermonuclear bombs but big enough to wreck anyone's day. And plenty dirty too.

I can't point to gov't studies 'proving' its going to happen but all the ingredients will be there... the technology, the motivation, the materials... it will be like water running down hill. Everyone who wants the bomb will have it.

But nice links just the same.

[Bruce Webb]

"Bruce Webb -- "Iran is not a 3rd world country. It is an oil rich country with a skilled military originally trained by the US. Either Iran is a advanced nation with a technology that can turn out a nuclear bomb in short order or it is a bunch of brown people living in huts. Wingnuts want to be able to choose their own reality at their own convenience."

We are talking about the same military that fought Iraq for eight years along the border, right? That military?"

This illustrates my point. Either the Iranians are a bunch of sand monkeys that cannot fight their way out of a suicidal campaign of suicide attacks on the border of Iraq or they are diabolical Dr. Evils that are just weeks away from producing nuclear weapons. MG and Jerry (in various forums) want to argue both positions at the same time. Is Iran simply helpless at the prospect of an air campaign or just this close to producing and delivering a nuclear bomb against the United States?

It is all too reminiscent of the Social Security debate. The US economy is going into the tank to the degree that we will not be able to pay benefits going forwards, yet tax cuts are magically expanding growth. You don't get to have two sets of assumptions, pick one and accept the consequences.

[Movie Guy]

Bruce Webb,

Instead of responding to my request for information, you wander back to your original remark.

I said this, along with a few other things, after reading your original post: I would like to learn more about your knowledge of the Iranian Army, Air Force, and Navy. You say that it has "a skilled military originally trained by the US."

You answered nothing. After the repost, you come up with this:

"This illustrates my point. Either the Iranians are a bunch of sand monkeys that cannot fight their way out of a suicidal campaign of suicide attacks on the border of Iraq or they are diabolical Dr. Evils that are just weeks away from producing nuclear weapons. MG and Jerry (in various forums) want to argue both positions at the same time. Is Iran simply helpless at the prospect of an air campaign or just this close to producing and delivering a nuclear bomb against the United States?"

You haven't once asked me about my opinion. That must require too much effort - just easier to make a bogus claim and lump me in with some other poster whom you called many childish and distasteful names. Normal blog trashing that serves no purpose other than to demonstrate immaturity and rudeness.

All you had to do was say that you didn't know anything, or clear up what you originally stated instead of going circular.

And forget the comparison to Social Security Land.

Your attempt to paint the Iranian military as black or white in terms of ability is absurd. You have yet to state what their projected ability really is, based on whatever Google search you conducted, or whatever books, magazine, articles you have read, and those with whom you have spoken.

I wouldn't make the type of bogus comparisons that you have provided not once but twice. Besides, you are mixing two subjects - military capability today vs. nuclear technology capability today and tomorrow.

Black and white presentations on subjects like this are weak. No reflection of reality. Yet you appear to want to box readers and posters into the two mental camps that you invented. Reality, on the other hand, of Iran's military and nuclear capabilities, treated as two different subjects, do not mirror caveman or unintelligent suicide bomber and full high tech societies as you created.

Either/Or is a poor way to view these two critical subjects. And the G-8 certainly aren't wasting their time thinking along these lines.

But Either/Or is the general political thought these days. Perhaps that is bleeding over into analysis on any subject. If so, we're in big dumb down trouble.

[DJM]

Odd isn't it that many people who believe that technology will protect them have not considered that currently the "caveman (Osama?) or unintelligent suicide bomber" have been keeping the "full high tech societies" in a state of panic ....no wait, that is our government who tries to keep us in a state of panic.....so they can proceed with their PNAC agenda.
I know that doesn't add to the kind of intellectual debate I would like to see either.