Bush: Stay in Iraq so Iran doesn't get The Bomb.

[link|http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aouQPjBprae0&refer=politics|Bloomberg]:

April 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush warned of a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too quickly and lets Iran, which has an atomic development program, extend its influence.

Bush, raising the stakes in the debate over U.S. strategy in Iraq, said in an address in Tipp City, Ohio, that al-Qaeda and ``surrogates for Iran'' are trying to establish a foothold in Iraq and would gain a safe haven if the country falls into chaos after a U.S. withdrawal.

Bush is battling against falling public support for the war and attempts by Democrats in Congress to set a timetable for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said today that ``this war is lost,'' and the increase in troops Bush ordered in January is ``not accomplishing anything.''

The president, in his speech at Tippecanoe High School in the west-central Ohio town, said the power vacuum left if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq ``could cause the Middle East to enter into a nuclear arms race.''

``The scenario I'm beginning to describe to you I believe is a real scenario,'' he said.

[...]

The transcript of the speech is [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070419-3.html|here]. Ay Carumba...:

My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision-maker. And I make a lot of big ones, and I make a lot of little ones. Interestingly enough, the first decision I made happened right before I got sworn in as President. I was at the Blair House, which is across the street from the White House, getting ready to give my inaugural address. And the phone rang, and the head usher at the White House said, "President-elect Bush." I said, "Yes." He said, "What color rug do you want in the Oval Office?" (Laughter.) I said, this is going to be a decision-making experience. (Laughter.)

The first lesson about decision-making is, if you're short on a subject, ask for help. So if you're a student listening and you're not very good at math, ask for help. Don't be afraid to admit that you need help when it comes to life. I wasn't afraid to admit I wasn't sure how to design a rug, so I called Laura. (Laughter.) I said, they've asked me to design a rug in the Oval Office; I don't know anything about rug designing; will you help me? She said, of course. But I said, I want it to say something -- the President has got to be a strategic thinker and I said to her, make sure the rug says "optimistic person comes to work." Because you can't make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better tomorrow.

Silly me - I thought the President's job was to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

:-/

Anyway...

Iran wanted The Bomb for many years before the US invaded. Us being in Iraq isn't in any way preventing a regional arms race. How could it? Iraq wasn't able to build up its military after Gulf War I due to the sanctions, so us being in Baghdad isn't changing that side of the "race" equation.

But let's consider what might happen if we were to leave Iraq before Bush leaves office. (By leaving Iraq, I mean having no more than a token force there, similar to what we have in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.) Iraq could be in 2 conditions: 1) suddenly peaceful, self governing, and able to control its borders; 2) devolving into a Rwanda on the Tigris and Euphrates.

I think 2 is much more likely.

(But short of replacing a majority of both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities that force a change in Bush's policy, I don't see our presence in Iraq being reduced that much for many years - so it's an academic question.)

How would Iran benefit from an even bloodier civil war in Iraq? The mullahs surely have a memory of the war with Iraq. Do they really think that if no holds are barred that any conflict will stay to the west of the Shat-al-Arab? They don't really believe that Sunni groups wouldn't retaliate in Iran if things started to go worse for them in Iraq, do they? Do they really think that they (or the Iraqi government) can quickly end the Sunni attacks and impose some sort of Shia dominated government?

How would a rational neighbor respond to an increase in violence in Iraq? By starting a nuclear bomb program? I don't think so. It would probably increase the size of its army and police forces to try to minimize internal unrest. Nuclear bomb aren't much good against suicide bombers and riots. :-/ Saudi Arabia supposedly would be one of the states most interested in a nuclear bomb if Iran gets one. Wouldn't it be more likely for the Saudis to try to use their money to negotiate an accommodation with Iran? Yes, it would upset al Qaeda, but the Saudi government hasn't seemed too worried about upsetting al Qaeda in the past. They try to play both sides of that equation for domestic reasons. If Iranian-backed Shia groups succeed in taking over the Saudi oil fields, then having a nuclear bomb won't do much good anyway, and having such a weapon wouldn't prevent a takeover in the first place.

Iran's nuclear ambitions will continue whether we're in Iraq or not. Other states in the region will make their own decisions about nuclear weapons based on what Iran does, and based on the response of the international community. For instance, if the US stations more troops in friendly states in the region and gives a [link|http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcubanmissilecrisis.html|Kennedy-esq statment] that, "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from [Iran] against any nation in the [Middle East] as an attack by the [Iran] on the [vital interests of the] United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon [Iran]" and be willing to dedicate lives and treasure for the policy, then an arms race could be prevented. Arguments could be made that that would be a sane approach, even if very risky, but the risks to the region of having 5 more nuclear powers is likely greater. But who would accept such a statement from Bush? :-/

We could have such a policy with or without US troops on the ground in Iraq. Iran's nuclear ambitions and us being in Iraq are only tangentially related. Conflating them is muddying the waters. But Bush has a history of doing that....

I don't really buy the "middle-east arms race" argument at the moment. Iran should not have a nuclear bomb, but neither should Pakistan and India. We've survived with them having it, and if it happens that Iran gets it as well, then life will go on either way. They'll all learn that nuclear weapons aren't very useful for a state any more. We have the power to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, but we don't have the power to impose our will upon them. The most we could do is delay their progress. Short of us having an [link|http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/mobpam.htm|8 M man army again], that's not going to change.

If Bush really believes that us staying in Iraq is preventing a nuclear arms race in the region, then his "decider" seems to be even more broken than I thought. Iran is not going to change it's current approach until either: 1) it gets new leadership; 2) the government sees that they would achieve their goals of greater regional influence, greater respect from the major powers, and greater support at home by giving up the nuclear program.

[/soapbox]

Cheers,
Scott.

For instance, if the US stations more troops in friendly states in the region and gives a Kennedy-esq statment [*] that, "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from [Iran] against any nation in the [Middle East] as an attack by the [Iran] on the [vital interests of the] United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon [Iran]" and be willing to dedicate lives and treasure for the policy, then an arms race could be prevented.

Agreed, but I'd go even further, stating to Iran in no uncertain terms that any nuclear detonation in which civilians are harmed anywhere in the world would be considered to have been orchistrated by Iran, and would therefore be tantamount to an attack by Iran on the vital interests of the United States, etc. This puts Iran in the unenviable position of having to police all the fundie middle eastern whackjobs in their "sphere of influence 9and a few over which they currently have no influence, e.g. North Korea). They want the bomb? Fine...but there are responsibilities that go along with the privilege. Mr. Armidinijad [sic], welcome to our MAD MAD world. Now, go forth and police your little corner of it.

It's amazing how far a little enlightned self-interest will go.

Post #282,560 by Another Scott 4/21/07 8:47:33 AM Reply	Bush: Stay in Iraq so Iran doesn't get The Bomb. [link\|http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aouQPjBprae0&refer=politics\|Bloomberg]: April 19 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush warned of a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq too quickly and lets Iran, which has an atomic development program, extend its influence. Bush, raising the stakes in the debate over U.S. strategy in Iraq, said in an address in Tipp City, Ohio, that al-Qaeda and ``surrogates for Iran'' are trying to establish a foothold in Iraq and would gain a safe haven if the country falls into chaos after a U.S. withdrawal. Bush is battling against falling public support for the war and attempts by Democrats in Congress to set a timetable for the U.S. presence in Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said today that ``this war is lost,'' and the increase in troops Bush ordered in January is ``not accomplishing anything.'' The president, in his speech at Tippecanoe High School in the west-central Ohio town, said the power vacuum left if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq ``could cause the Middle East to enter into a nuclear arms race.'' ``The scenario I'm beginning to describe to you I believe is a real scenario,'' he said. [...] The transcript of the speech is [link\|http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070419-3.html\|here]. Ay Carumba...: My job is a job to make decisions. I'm a decision -- if the job description were, what do you do -- it's decision-maker. And I make a lot of big ones, and I make a lot of little ones. Interestingly enough, the first decision I made happened right before I got sworn in as President. I was at the Blair House, which is across the street from the White House, getting ready to give my inaugural address. And the phone rang, and the head usher at the White House said, "President-elect Bush." I said, "Yes." He said, "What color rug do you want in the Oval Office?" (Laughter.) I said, this is going to be a decision-making experience. (Laughter.) The first lesson about decision-making is, if you're short on a subject, ask for help. So if you're a student listening and you're not very good at math, ask for help. Don't be afraid to admit that you need help when it comes to life. I wasn't afraid to admit I wasn't sure how to design a rug, so I called Laura. (Laughter.) I said, they've asked me to design a rug in the Oval Office; I don't know anything about rug designing; will you help me? She said, of course. But I said, I want it to say something -- the President has got to be a strategic thinker and I said to her, make sure the rug says "optimistic person comes to work." Because you can't make decisions unless you're optimistic that the decisions you make will lead to a better tomorrow. Silly me - I thought the President's job was to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. :-/ Anyway... Iran wanted The Bomb for many years before the US invaded. Us being in Iraq isn't in any way preventing a regional arms race. How could it? Iraq wasn't able to build up its military after Gulf War I due to the sanctions, so us being in Baghdad isn't changing that side of the "race" equation. But let's consider what might happen if we were to leave Iraq before Bush leaves office. (By leaving Iraq, I mean having no more than a token force there, similar to what we have in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.) Iraq could be in 2 conditions: 1) suddenly peaceful, self governing, and able to control its borders; 2) devolving into a Rwanda on the Tigris and Euphrates. I think 2 is much more likely. (But short of replacing a majority of both houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities that force a change in Bush's policy, I don't see our presence in Iraq being reduced that much for many years - so it's an academic question.) How would Iran benefit from an even bloodier civil war in Iraq? The mullahs surely have a memory of the war with Iraq. Do they really think that if no holds are barred that any conflict will stay to the west of the Shat-al-Arab? They don't really believe that Sunni groups wouldn't retaliate in Iran if things started to go worse for them in Iraq, do they? Do they really think that they (or the Iraqi government) can quickly end the Sunni attacks and impose some sort of Shia dominated government? How would a rational neighbor respond to an increase in violence in Iraq? By starting a nuclear bomb program? I don't think so. It would probably increase the size of its army and police forces to try to minimize internal unrest. Nuclear bomb aren't much good against suicide bombers and riots. :-/ Saudi Arabia supposedly would be one of the states most interested in a nuclear bomb if Iran gets one. Wouldn't it be more likely for the Saudis to try to use their money to negotiate an accommodation with Iran? Yes, it would upset al Qaeda, but the Saudi government hasn't seemed too worried about upsetting al Qaeda in the past. They try to play both sides of that equation for domestic reasons. If Iranian-backed Shia groups succeed in taking over the Saudi oil fields, then having a nuclear bomb won't do much good anyway, and having such a weapon wouldn't prevent a takeover in the first place. Iran's nuclear ambitions will continue whether we're in Iraq or not. Other states in the region will make their own decisions about nuclear weapons based on what Iran does, and based on the response of the international community. For instance, if the US stations more troops in friendly states in the region and gives a [link\|http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcubanmissilecrisis.html\|Kennedy-esq statment] that, "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from [Iran] against any nation in the [Middle East] as an attack by the [Iran] on the [vital interests of the] United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon [Iran]" and be willing to dedicate lives and treasure for the policy, then an arms race could be prevented. Arguments could be made that that would be a sane approach, even if very risky, but the risks to the region of having 5 more nuclear powers is likely greater. But who would accept such a statement from Bush? :-/ We could have such a policy with or without US troops on the ground in Iraq. Iran's nuclear ambitions and us being in Iraq are only tangentially related. Conflating them is muddying the waters. But Bush has a history of doing that.... I don't really buy the "middle-east arms race" argument at the moment. Iran should not have a nuclear bomb, but neither should Pakistan and India. We've survived with them having it, and if it happens that Iran gets it as well, then life will go on either way. They'll all learn that nuclear weapons aren't very useful for a state any more. We have the power to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, but we don't have the power to impose our will upon them. The most we could do is delay their progress. Short of us having an [link\|http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/documents/mobpam.htm\|8 M man army again], that's not going to change. If Bush really believes that us staying in Iraq is preventing a nuclear arms race in the region, then his "decider" seems to be even more broken than I thought. Iran is not going to change it's current approach until either: 1) it gets new leadership; 2) the government sees that they would achieve their goals of greater regional influence, greater respect from the major powers, and greater support at home by giving up the nuclear program. [/soapbox] Cheers, Scott.
Post #282,573 by JayMehaffey 4/21/07 4:11:49 PM Reply	It makes sense from Bush's point of view One of the fatal flaws of the neocon* is their bullying sense of self superiority. They invariable think they can frighten others into doing what they want, even though they know it wouldn't work against them. I don't know about Bush personally. But many in his circle subscribe to the idea that Iran is made up of dirty Arab Muslims. And therefore they lack the strong character of good white male** Christians like themselves. Thus they always expect the other side to cave when faced with a major threat. Jay * And Facist ways of thinking in general ** Both the white and male are somewhat optional now. But the neocon cabal is built up from the old US patriarchy, and the members are overwhelming white males.
Post #282,575 by CRConrad 4/21/07 5:14:59 PM Reply	***: Like Ann Coulter, for example.
Post #282,581 by Another Scott 4/21/07 8:37:42 PM Reply	She eats Puppies! [link\|http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/2007/04/22/index.html\|Opus for 4/22/2007]. (It won't be active until 4/22.) :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #282,606 by tuberculosis 4/22/07 2:17:04 PM Reply	He's just trying to maximize profits for his pals We posture as apostles of fair play, as good sportsmen, as professional knights-errant-- and we throw beer bottles at the umpire when he refuses to cheat for our side...We save the black-and-tan republics from their native [statesmen]--and flood them with "deserving" democrats of our own. We deafen the world with our whoops for liberty--and submit to laws that destroy our most sacred rights...We play policeman and Sunday-school superintendent to half of Christendom--and lynch a darky every two days in our own backyard. H.L. Mencken, 1914
Post #284,251 by jb4 5/8/07 5:47:12 PM Reply	I'd go even one step further For instance, if the US stations more troops in friendly states in the region and gives a Kennedy-esq statment [] that, "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from [Iran] against any nation in the [Middle East] as an attack by the [Iran] on the [vital interests of the] United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon [Iran]" and be willing to dedicate lives and treasure for the policy, then an arms race could be prevented. Agreed, but I'd go even further, stating to Iran in no uncertain terms that any nuclear detonation in which civilians are harmed anywhere in the world* would be considered to have been orchistrated by Iran, and would therefore be tantamount to an attack by Iran on the vital interests of the United States, etc. This puts Iran in the unenviable position of having to police all the fundie middle eastern whackjobs in their "sphere of influence 9and a few over which they currently have no influence, e.g. North Korea). They want the bomb? Fine...but there are responsibilities that go along with the privilege. Mr. Armidinijad [sic], welcome to our MAD MAD world. Now, go forth and police your little corner of it. It's amazing how far a little enlightned self-interest will go. jb4 "It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment." — George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)

Welcome to IWETHEY!