We have the ability to knock the suspect facilities down and only hurt people on the site. We should do it. Soonest.

But we won't, so I pray the Israelis have the common sense and survival awareness to knock them down for us all.

Problem: A number of these facilities are reported to be buried deep underground - even below cities. If so, the only way to knock such facilities out is via "bunker-busting nukes". Which aren't really developed yet, and would you use one on a target below a city?

Iran has received advice from North Korea in this matter, so thank Comrade Kim. But the military options may be more complex than Iraq/Osirak... we're really depending on the ability to disrupt the various upstream processes enough that construction can't finish. Can we break enough links in that web, even with a military strike?

I don't know.

So was Trent right? Must we invade? Can we invade? What will international support be like after the Halloween deadline?

It looks to me like our choices are invasion and crossing our fingers. It seems to me that Bush has selected the finger-crossing option. Start looking for administration officials to use words like "containment" and "deterrence."

This newest David Warren column suggests a new way forward. The problem is, this approach depends on very good intelligence.

And the US clearly doesn't have that.

Guess who pushed Iran to start its nuclear program? You know it's the usual suspect.

King of Iran who happened to be a dictator like Saudi King was persuaded by USA to initiate a nuclear program three decades ago.

Why suppose that the wackier parts of the Iranian government should have their statements taken at face value? There is a long history in the region of people saying things they know to be false, threatening actions they have no intention of taking.

Is it not possible that the possession of weapons that have the possibility of bringing about the destruction of the regime and millions of its subjects might throw the center of power towards the moderates? I suspect that it would. Whether or not this shift would be enough to defuse the threat is another question...

A nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing by any measure, but the consequences of using force to prevent it may be worse. Proliferation of WMD capabilities is an inevitable consequence of industrialization. Iran may be prevented from obtaining nukes, but there's no way to prevent it from obtaining chemical or bio weapons. An attack aimed at stopping nukes may shift power into the hands of even more extreme elements willing to follow a strategy of putting other types of WMD into the hands of the likes of OBL.

Andrew, the wackier elements are taken at face value because they are still part of the government - and Rafsanjani is one of the most powerful men in Iran. Did he mean it? Nobody can know - but nobody can assume he DIDN'T mean it. Especially when we see follow-ups of the kind I've linked above.

When the s---t hits the fan and an alert comes in, and there are minutes to decide, what's going through the ISraelis' heads? "Must be a glitch, those guys couldn't have meant it" or "Oh f---k, those bastards have finally done what they always promised they'd do."

Responses to those 2 scenarios differ slightly.

As for power dynamics inside, no that's not necessarily how it works. In fact, it tends to be the reverse - the crazies are emboldened by their "shield," and since they have a hammerlock on violence internally, all it does is remove what little restraint on them that the prospect of external violence once held. Which makes conflict more likely now. Which makes escalation, and miscalculation, more likely as well. And once again we're back to Armageddon scenarios.

Indeed, the very fact that we're having this conversation, and that powerful elements of the Iranian regime have raised this level of doubt, is a perfect illustration of why these guys can't be trusted with nuclear weapons and other sharp obejcts. The very structure of their regime and ideology demands war, acompanied by the most fearsome threats they can muster.

That's one thing when you're playing with AK-47s. It's another thing entirely when playing with nukes. These guys are fixing to get a HUGE number of people killed.

Speaking of which, is the grandson of Khomeini, who relocated to Iraq, now in Washington, DC? If so, how did he get here? Was his visa fast-tracked, and if so, did the White House have a hand in this? It looks like there is a very interesting story here.

Andrew,

History 101

When a driven lunatic dictator says that he is going to kill you, you better believe it and take the necessary preventive measures.

Joe,

When I saw Rafsanjani's statement in English newspapers two years ago, I was surprised because even though he is a man who has been behind many awful things that has happened in Iran, he is relatively careful with the language he uses. I found a Persian transcript of the sermon. What he had said was a hypothetical statement. He had said that if Israel uses an atomic bomb against a Muslim country, she would face an annihilaition while the Muslim country will face only some damage.

Just a little background on Rafsanjani: He was the person who had contacts with Israel and America during Iran-Contra affair. He is quite pragmatist. During late 80's and 90's, he advertized himself as a pro-western reformist to get western governments support. After he left his post as a president in 1997 and when he observed popularity of president Khatami, he felt bitter and moved towarded the conservatives. He said the words above when Khatami was trying to work with the Americans in Afghanistan after Taliban's fall. I believe he knew that his words are already politically incorrect and can be easilly misinterpreted to be used against Iranian government and as result making trouble for Khatami. This is almost around the same time that the shipment of 50 tons of weapons were sent to Palestinians. I won't be suprized that he was involved with this too.

Mehdi, I know this is asking a lot, this is important and MEMRI is usually very careful with translations. Could you do a translation of that key passage, so we could compare and contrast?

Joe & Marek: Iran has real elections. That changes everything. Dictators can hope they'll ride out the retaliatory strike in a bunker somewhere and be alive to negotiate peace. The general populace knows that even if they survive there's a good chance that someone they love won't. Don't confuse Iran with Iraq or North Korea- Saddam was a bastard who could only be removed by force - ditto KJI. The existing Iranian government can be reformed from within, and in fact there already exist reformers within Iran. The audience for US action has to be the people of Iran, not their leaders. Use of force confirms the assertions of the extremists that the west wants to control Iran, and shifts power towards the extremists. If we can sway the people, they will change their leaders. If we sway them in the wrong direction, they will pick even more extreme leaders. This fight has to be won with diplomacy and horse trading, not force.

Andrew, what colour is the sun on your planet? "Iran has real elections..." Iraq had real elections, and so did the Soviet Union. They never meant anything, and Iran's don't either. The Guardian Council is in control, backed by the Basij, Revolutionary Guards, et. al. Or haven't you been paying attention?

Joe: Real elections doesn't mean full, fair, and free - just that the results aren't completely constrained the way they were in Iraq and the USSR. People actually have choices, albeit constrained ones. The Council of Guardians may vet candidates, but in any given election there will be a choice: the more radical candidate or the less radical candidate. In the other examples you give there was no choice. In Iran they actually count votes. Any analysis of Iran policy has to have this fact front and center. There is real hope for reform from within in Iran, in a way that there isn't for NK or Saddam's Iraq. Eventually the CoG will have to be confronted and removed, but the chances of a positive outcome in the long term are much greater if that confrontation is driven from within than if it comes from outside.

Does anybody remember the "countdown to nuclear war clock" that was given such a high profile not so long ago? Every time the US or Soviet Union moved some troops or had a diplomatic confrontation the nuclear clock people would advance the hands of the clock a minute or two, the idea being that when the hands struck midnight (or high noon) there would be a nuclear conflagration. Strange now that "rogue" states and religious nutjobs have nuclear weapons and are threatening to use them, the atomic clock guys are nowhere to be seen. You'd think that they'd be frantically moving those hands forward and screaming that the end is near or at least calling for UN action. Looks like they're just another bunch of leftie wankers who can't be bothered paying attention if they can't blame America. Those people never did give a fat rats ass about the fate of the human race.

Andrew,

To borrow Armed Liberal's line: my head hurts. Lecturing Marek about Iranian democracy? "Real elections doesn't mean full, fair, and free..."?!? Your certainty on these matters puzzles me deeply, because it doesn't appear to be backed by anything resembling research or experience.

"Eventually the CoG will have to be confronted and removed..." Love your sense of urgency. Would this be before or after they obtain nukes and screw up with them? Just wondering.

I thought the funniest line of all was this one:

"In Iran they actually count votes."

Wow! They don't just cast the votes, they actually take the trouble to count them. I guess that solves everything then.

The naivete on display here is simply breathtaking, on all levels.

Joe: I think you are reading the wrong tone in what I wrote. I'm not lecturing anybody on anything - merely expressing the view that the Iran situation is different in a fundamental way from the various other situations to which it is being compared. That fundamental way is that there is a feedback mechanism from the people to the government, albeit a weak one, corrupted and distorted - but it's there. That's what I mean by the phrase "real elections" - apparently my attempt to clarify the wording came across as something else . This is a qualitative difference from the situation in all the places folks have tried to compare it to. Failure to acknowledge this essential distinction is a serious error, IMO. I you believe this feedback mechanism is so completely ineffective as to render Iran comparable to NK or Iraq, I'd be interested to know why.

As far as sense of urgency - the WMD game is over already. The genie is not going back into the bottle, and trying to force it is not going to work, at least not if the US takes measures short of invasion and occupation.
The error scenario can be dealt with by discussion between Israel and Iran. Take away the error scenario and the whole thing becomes much more manageable. It's in everyone's interest to deal with it - the US and USSR managed to work something out (the hotline) after cuba - there's no reason why Israel and Iran can't too. It'll have to take a different form due to the differences in the situation, but it can be done, given the will.

As far as naivete - hmm... I've certainly been wrong on a number of important points in my life, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that Iran fits the same mold as the totalitarian dictatorships. My view is based on discussions with Iranian expats and reading the news - things are bad in Iran, but not even close to being bad in the same way as Iraq or NK. The ability of the government to change leadership in response to events is what sets it apart. I believe that applying the stick will result in a hardening of the Iranian government line, and applying the carrot will result in softening of that line[*] - There's a concrete prediction based on my assessment of Iran, one with verifiable results - if I am as naive as you think we'll have proof inside a year. If not, I'll mail you the dunce cap.

[*] obviously we need some definitions here - hard line means go full bore on nukes, increase ties to terrorism, ratchet up anti-US activity generally - soft line means accept nuclear inspectors, cut ties to terrorism, ratchet down anti-US activity. I don't think either will result in abandonment of nuclear ambitions (not with the India/Pakistan example of how seriously the world takes proliferation), but as I said above, I don't think a nuclear Iran is necessarily a disaster for the US or Israel.

Andrew, your recent comment is indeed helpful in clarifying your position. I still don't agree with it, but it's clearer and makes more sense now.

I had taken your comments' tone the wrong way before, and apologize for my sharpness.

Andrew Case, The Mullahs vet candidates. Then once the elections are held and the elected officials try to make decisions the Mullahs override those decisions and make their own decisions.

Joe, The Gumbys of Monty Python's Gumby Theatre had a similar line when they knocked themselves up side the head with a brick: "My brain hurts!"

As for Iran's nuclear program: Putin just stood next to Bush at the White House and told the reporters that Russia is not going to end the contract that Russia has to build the Bushehr reactor. Iran continues cruising toward the construction of nuclear weapons. I think it is unlikely the US will stop either North Korea or Iran at this point.

As for the democratic forces in Iran: My analysis continues to be that the reining Mullahs will remain in power.

The real tragedy of the Iraq war is that it is now cited by lots of people on the Left as a reason not to use military force to stop North Korea and Iran from going nuclear.

Andrew writes;

"An attack aimed at stopping nukes may shift power into the hands of even more extreme elements willing to follow a strategy of putting other types of WMD into the hands of the likes of OBL."

This is exactly the scenario outlined at The Three Conjectures. You need to read it all, but essentially;

Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold
Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam
Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the 'Golden Hour' -- the final chance

It's a very bleak scenario.

This quote "Now, one may note that Israel has these weapons, why doesn't the same logic apply to them? Of course, it does. They have nuclear weapons because they believe, with good reason, that losing a war means their wholesale murder and destruction anyway." Didnt Israel start the whole race by developing nuclear weapons first in the region and note they have not signed up to the NPT.
Perhaps thats why Iran feels it should develope them as well to prevent wholesale murder on their side.

Chris, you just managed to miss the entire point of my article. Congratulations.

There are situations where the development of nuclear weapons makes sense from a strict national security perspective. Despite my very public reservations about Pakistan's weapons, for instance, you'll note that I included them as an example where development both makes national security sense and does not raise the stakes any further because they're already pegged to the limit.

For the reasons described in the above article, Iran does not meet those tests. Unlike Israel, or Pakistan, nuclear weapons don't DETER a game with annihilation stakes - they INTRODUCE one where it did not exist before.

And please spare us the dishonest blather about equivalence. Key elements in Iran have made it quite clear that they see the primary asset of these weapons as the ability to COMMIT wholesale murder, not deter it.

If Israel uses nuclear weapons, it will be as the last act of a people at war and facing annihilation anyway. That is why having these weapons does not raise the risk level for Israelis, and also the reason that having these weapons makes sense under the logic of classic national security frameworks.

If Iran wishes to avoid being a target in that scenario, there is a very simple way to accomplish this. It doesn't involve atomic bombs and threats of genocide. Not only is it free - it will even save them money. Ready? Here it is...

Stop seeking Israel's destruction, and do not participate in campaigns that have as their end goal the destruction of the State of Israel and the wholesale murder of its Jewish inhabitants. This provides 100% protection.

But of course, this is not the course being pursued by the mullahs of Iran... and the results have escalated to the point where they now endanger every inhabitant of that country. Pointing that out serves them far better than chris' choice, which is to support access to nuclear weapons by 12th-century theocrats who preach suicide, remain the biggest backers of terrorism worldwide, and seem to regard public threats of pre-emptive nuclear genocide as an acceptable diplomatic strategy.

But then, if the result of that approach kills millions in Iran and Israel, it's not as if it affects chris' daily life very much. Something to read about in the paper and tsk tsk about, I suppose, while moaning about the 'cycle of violence'.

I am not defending Irans or anybodys right to develope Nuclear Weapons and I agree that an Islamic state with nuclear weapons is dangerous because of the principle that Islam will live on after whatever. However from a practical point of view you must admit Iran and the Arab world feel very threatened by Israel, and efforts by the West to solely destroy Iran´s nuclear weapons program will only confirm this view. More effort should be made by the West and by Israel to reduce their own weapons programs and Israel signing up to the NPT would be a start.
As for my daily life I am concerned about the mess in the Middle East because it effects all our daily lives in the long run, and effects my life in the short term because I like to travel there. However, like most of us, all I can do is read papers and get annoyed and sad, and make comments that probably nobody reads anyway. What happened to Democracy?.

Just a reminder that on this date (3rd October 1952) The first British Atomic test took place in the Monte Bello Islands code named Operation Hurricane
Is the world a better place?