<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d6244729\x26blogName\x3dMr.+Alec\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://mralec.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://mralec.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d3381137936291539633', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Zakaria on Iran

Foreign policy superstar Fareed Zakaria has a sobering column on Iran this week. I say sobering not because he actually tries to scare people into worrying about Iran (that has already been done), but because he tries to make a best-case scenario about Iran getting nuclear weapons. This is preceded by him dismissing the effectiveness of any other strategy.

He logic is sound is dismissing any course of action against Iran. Invasion is not politically or militarily feasible. Air strikes are a pipe dream, especially seeing as we don't seem to actually know where the weapons sites are. Sanctions are not going to work. They never do, and they are guaranteed not to work against the world's second largest oil exporter.

But all of that does not mean a nuclear Iran is something that we should just come to accept.

We'll see what happens. Thankfully I am not in any decision making capacity on this one.

-Mr. Alec

5 Comments:

At 5:56 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Read the Zakaria column. It is halfway down the first page.

-Mr. Alec

PS I'll respond to the Tierney later.

 
At 10:52 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Israel is not going to be doing any striking. Iraq in the 80s was one thing, Iran is another altogether.

For one, Israel is a hell of a lot closer to Iraq than it is Iran. To strike Iran they would have to fly over Iraq, something that would implicity make the US responsible. So there is no plus to the US having Israel do its dirty work. Especially given that I think many have questioned whether Israeli planes could even fly deep enough into Iran to even make it back. That is problematic.

Second, it doesn't seem like people are even sure where the nuclear facilities are. The Atlantic article I linked in the post claims that no one is really sure of where the sites are. Logically this makes sense for Iran to do. It might be something that the media has gotten wrong, but I think if they were, someone would have struck by now.

The inaction, and the US's willingness to let Europe take the lead seems to indicate that anysort of action is out of the question.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 11:51 AM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

You misunderstood my point about flying over Iraq. The problem there is that you need air clearance to fly over something. If you don't have that you will got shot down. If Israel flys over Iraq, which it would have to do, then it shows that the US was involved by allowing Israel to fly over the airspace that it defends. So there is no point for the US to not just use its bases in the -stans, which are much closer to Iran than Israel, and attack. Because even if Israel attacks, the US is still at fault by letting Israel fly over its airspace.

Second, on the matter of intelligence. I have read in a number of locations (the atlantic, fareed's column, the economist) that the where abouts of the nuclear facilities are unknown. On top of that, many are supposedly underground. So even if Mossad is as amazing as so many Israeli's like to imagine it is, and it has the locations, then the problem still exists about how a bomb is going to get underground. I tend to think all of these are true, especially b/c the US or Israel has not moved yet. They really have no reason to stall unless their threats are bluffs.

So, that is where I think things stand. They might not, Israel might know exactly where everything is and it might not be protected. I would be happy to see that. I just don't see it happening.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 1:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another difference between Israel and Iraq is that Iran has a huge retaliatory capablility. Israel should not have to act alone to confront this threat to world peace, especially becuase it has the most at risk in terms of taking the brunt of an Iranian retaliation. Even if Israel has nothing to do with a strike, it faces the threat of an Iranian retaliation for a US or even a European strike.
Any military option that the world choses to use against Iran should preferrably be multilateral (not Iraq style) and should be very thourough. It should destroy any Iranian retaliatory capablility along with their nuclear program. Any partial strike will be counterproductive and dangerous.

 
At 8:14 PM, Blogger خدمات منزلية said...

 شركة تنظيف مجالس بالاحساء

 

Post a Comment

<< Home