Our Wager on War With Iran - Part II

Elaborately argued. Your points detailing war scenarios are well laid out but a bit obvious, as you admit in your "positions" section. Your principal contention that "Bush [is] going to perform another no-holds-barred predetermined baseless drive to war: fabricating and distorting evidence, pounding doubters into submission, manipulating Powell (even easier now that it's Rice), etc." is, I think, an exaggeration of the issue. You might agree with this since you go on to say that the drivers of war are clear, NOT "baseless fabrications." How can war conditions be clear yet the case for war be comprised of hearsay? I would argue that the numerous Iranian diplomatic forays into Iraq supporting Sadr and his militia make for a very easy war argument in and of themselves, especially compared to the Iraq abomination.

On the other hand, I find your argument for Iranian containment to that if the USSR during the Cold War extremely compelling. We must play the passive and thoughtful protagonist to the compulsive antagonist of the Iranian administration. Perhaps that does lead us to a prolonged stand-off. I would argue that a principal difference is that the international community (for what it's worth) did not exist to thwart the Soviet Union as it does Iran today. We couldn't say "stop enriching/stop installing nuclear infrastructure etc.)"

I think the administration has learned a thing or two since its most recent debacles in the Middle East. It will proceed cautiously and, as much as Cheney is doubling over with the desire to blow the hell out of the Iranians, it is the tremendous reality of world affairs that will keep him drooling like a Mastiff instead.

So:

The timing is within the end of this administration.
The protagonist is us or anyone of our allies
The prize is a hefty dinner

You have until February 1st 2009...

By the way, stop sourcing bizarre Israeli sympathizing publications for evidence. Forgiven this time as your last name is Schumann."

Letter vs. Spirit of Our Bet

My memory on the wager regarding war with Iran is hazy. Key details that have evaded me are:

1. Timing
2. Identity of technical aggressor (but see below)
3. Stakes ;-)

But I do remember that the spirit of the thing was that Rony was claiming, "Bush is going after Iran next," i.e., Iran's gonna get the Iraq treatment. The notion that we're going to play Chamberlain (or, how many times worse, Turney) to Ahmedinijad and be passive in the face of any insult is obviously ludicrous. My impression was that we were debating whether Bush was going to perform another no-holds-barred predetermined baseless drive to war: fabricating and distorting evidence, pounding doubters into submission, manipulating Powell (even easier now that it's Rice), etc.

So let's be more precise about my position. What will happen if Iran seizes any American personnel as it seized the British sailors? War. What will happen if any Iranian missile, conventional or otherwise, explodes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or the Gulf? War. What will happen if a dispute along the Iran/Iraq border gets hot? War.

That's obvious and always has been; so let's explore the more interesting scenarios. What will happen if Iran becomes an officially declared nuclear weapons power? Hmm. Note that it's already an officially declared nuclear power; and yet the drums of war beat not. The fact is that I think that this administration, and this country, have had realpolitik beaten into them with a blunt instrument in the Centcom theater. For decades on end, we tolerated an "evil empire" in Russia with a huge nuclear stockpile, and fought them by containment. For the entirety of this decade, we have done the same with a far more evil empire in North Korea, despite the relative puniness of their capability. The Chinese have a handful of devices, too.

So let's outline two possible outcomes if Iran gets a nuke or is really truly on the verge.

• We get a strong, explicit authorization of force from the Security Council along with at least a fig-leaf's-worth of military allies. Probability? Non-zero but certainly very low. I think that Bush certainly, and the next President almost certainly, will take the opportunity to wipe Lil' Squinty off the map.
• We don't. We get some wussy little resolution, again (remember how the Council couldn't even "condemn" the seizure of the British sailors??). What will happen? I'll wager a top-shelf drink - no, that's boring, a top-shelf bottle - that we'll go into containment mode and there will be no hot shooting war.

Our Wager on War With Iran

A list of US/UN grievances with Iran might make this post more compelling but I trust that you know the context well. This latest, inspiringly stupid, announcement makes me all the more certain that someone is going to blow the hell out of Ahmadinejad's administration and end up taking down a portion of Iran's good people with it. (Funny that many Iranians may think and feel the same way about us). I would be mortified if the Iranians actually get nukes because of our (and the UN's) administrative incompetency. Grow a backbone or risk playing 1930's Western Europe!

Had that idiot Bush not gone into Iraq we might be able to deal with Iran who actually IS dangerous and growing more so. Coming on the heels of that insulting British catastrophe, it looks more dangerou than ever!

That said, I would like to reiterate Rony and I's position that we will blow the hell out of these guys, even if it falls to another administration to do it. A nuclear Iran is incomprehensible on so may levels. I will continue to track the progress on this front for my eventual vindication, at which point you will owe me dinner and wine at a location of my choosing.