Shades of Ken Pollack . . . has Prof. Kuperman got a forthcoming book on this topic?

from my reading of Fred Hiatt he does not really seem like a frothing maniac, although I don't dispute a certain predilection at times--at least to folly if not froth. and, whatever its failings, lumping the Post in with the Journal and FOX is unreasonable to say the least. it's not even the same league, and yes, i am talking about their editorializing. i think you should walk this back a little bit, personally. otherwise, great work as usual.

well, not to pile on, but to what degree do you think Obama has been forced into the Afghan escalation by political realities? it's pointed out endlessly that he is doing exactly as he promised, and i'm not exactly sure why, but i too believe that he is actually doing what he wants in Afghanistan given what he's been handed and the tools available. maybe i'm naive. i don't discount political realities, but with Gates advocating civilian efforts and Hillary at State, Dems in control of Congress, overall i would think that the administration's general efforts are fairly well-aligned with their desires, no? and i find it strange to think that Obama would be forced by political realities to bomb Iran against his own better judgment.

...

If this were 2003 I would have expected it, but it isn't. As Mr. Drezner mentioned in his own article, it is exceedingly difficult for a president to drastically change policy. One of the ironies of the an executive position is that they have to rely on officials on lower levels to further those policies even if they threaten the policies that those officials have sought for their entire career. It would take something literally earthshaking like testing a nuclear weapon for the U.S to bomb Iran.

it has been obvious for some time that neither the u.s. nor europe has the slightest intention of doing what is necessary to stop iran from getting nukes, despite obama's many statements on the campaign trail and thereafter that such an outcome is "unacceptable." the truth is, that to obama, and bush2 for that matter, that outcome is/was acceptable and iran will get its nukes. so, world, get ready to deal with that, because it's going to happen if the current policy (including new sanctions) remains in effect.

let's play pretend, however, and imagine that such an outcome is "unacceptable." if that outcome is unacceptable, then if obama could talk iran out of its nukes, great; if it takes finger pointing, fine; if it takes sanctions, all to the good; but if it takes bombs, well they may have to used if an iranian nuke is truly "unacceptable." therefore, taking this president at his word, it is entirely proper for the nytimes to run such articles.

here is a tougher question for mr. lynch, however. the left always wants uncle same to look at himself in the mirror and ask, "how does the world see me; am i bringing this all on myself by myopia and my own ill-suited words and bad conduct?" let's assume that the answer to uncle's questions are all, "yes." well, if looking at oneself in the mirror is the world standard, then when nations such as north korea and iran (and saddaam before them) spout off about "setting [south korea and japan] on fire; and wiping israel off the map, why shouldn't the intended, if still hypothetical, victims simply take north korea and iran at their words and destroy them? why does the intended victim have to take ANY risk that the threat-maker is not serious?

keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

It's time for Mr. Lynch to grow up and think outside the ivory tower box. This is not a game, Iran is not some abstract actor, and moral preening is not a serious intellectual argument. The Iranian threat is manifestly growing more and more dangerous. It could have been eliminated with far greater certainty of success and at much lesser cost, in lives and money, had the U.S. dealt resolutely with Iran five years ago. Instead, from Bush to Obama, the delusion that negotiations, direct or indirect, with eschatological Islamic fanatics has any hope of success as advocated by Mr. Lynch is now clearly being inconveniently trampled upon by reality. Let Mr. Lynch be honest. He would rather face a nuclear armed Islamic Republic of Iran than prevent one by force if necessary. So how different is that really from those who took the same position against those Nazi fanatics during the lead up to World War II? The only difference I can see is that today's Chamberlains enjoy the benefit of past experience that their forbears did not have. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

If we go back to square one, Iran denies that it intends to develop nuclear weapons, and there is no tangible evidence yet which is contrary to its claims.

Therefore, the talk in the US for a military strike against Iran, cannot even be justified as pre-emptive, because it is solely based on assumptions that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons, and that it has the knowledge to do so.

One is the first to admit that the Iranian regime is dangerous, and it may require a military strike against it once evidence can be acertained, that Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, but not on the basis , of might, and may, sometime in the future. In this argument often, the subjects of Israel and Pakistan crop up, and why not ? on moral grounds at least. However, what makes the Iranian regime different, is the fact that while Israel's nuclear weapons have been accepted as a fait accompli by most in the international community; save for between now and then making noises about a nuclear-free Middle East, and Pakistan remains firmly under the US' thumb, almost everyone in the international community does not wish to see Iran with Nuclear weapons. Is this fair and moral?, indeed might not be, but then again, an Iran with nuclaer weapons will increase the potential for a nuclear war in the Middle East and probably beyond, and will certainly enable Iran to impose its hegemony on a region which has proved to be more than once; very volatile.

I know that sanctions will not work, but an attack by the US or Israel on Iran, will throw the region into far more turmoil than probably the advocates of war can anticipate, unless there is intelligence on the ground, which indicates that in the event of such an attack, the Baluch of Iran, Arabs of Khuzistan, and Kurds of Iran, will rise up and the regime with collapse. Mind you the last time such an assessment was made, it was in Iraq when thousands of Kurds and Shi'ite were massacred after the liberation of Kuwait.
khairi janbek.paris/france

Israel, which, with its American made jet planes and weapons systems is the unquestioned supreme power
in the region. Iran is now actively seeking to challenge Israel's supremacy. From this background emerges a cast of characters who seem intent on persuading America to attack Iran on Israels behalf. For me, this begs the question of what was the point of arming Israel to the teeth if it is reluctant to take on its challengers?
In op-ed columns you find articles written, often by Iranian exiles who, probably think that (like Chalabi) they can return to Iran, after we have softened it up, and run it in their own vision, along with the ever present AIPAC worthies who, it sometimes seems, would have us believe that Israel is a defenseless little country in need of protection from its big brother. I suspect that the neo-cons who sold the Bushies the Iraq invasion idea are now perplexed at the strengthened position that it has put Iran in, and seek an American/Iran military confrontation to change that, but, since the American military is already engaged in cleaning up one of their earlier messes in Iraq, it is a tough sell.
Who would buy another war from these guys, one that would probably see the price of oil go up to 1000 dollars a barrel and send the U.S. economy back down to where it was a year ago?
As I said, the ball is in Israels court for this one.

Conservative news outlet along with Fox and WSJ? uhhhhhhhh

I once loved the NYT, but now I look forward to the possibility that some day it will ‘go under’ (hopefully not ‘down under’). The only recent thing I can credit them for is the 2007 resale by Tishman Speyer Properties of the old New York Times (15 story) Building to Lev Leviev (Africa-Israel diamond magnate & builder of illegal settlements in Judea/Samaria) at the height of the real estate bubble (for three times what the NYT sold it for in 2004). The building (along with others) has lost so much in value since Leviev’s 2007 purchase, that his empire is now on the verge of bankruptcy. Well done, NYT (and Tishman Speyer)!
P.S. FROM WIKIPEDIA: …New York Magazine reported in 2007 that a security company hired by Leviev [at his Angolan mines] had been accused by a local human rights group that year “of participating in practices of ‘humiliation, whipping, torture, sexual abuse, and, in some cases, assassinations.’[12] Leviev did not directly respond to the charges, but noted his charitable activities in Angola.[13]… SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Leviev

RE: "His argument is like a caricature of such war advocacy, hitting each predictable theme like a sledgehammer." - Lynch

MY COMMENT: "Sticks and stones may break our bones, but facts will never sway us." - Neocon Creed (a/k/a 'Team B' Creed)

What a disgrace. It is hard to believe that the New York Times- a paper that is already highly discredited by many scholars across the IR field- could dig itself deeper into amateurism. But with Mr. Kuperman's "bomb-Iran or face armegeddon" argument, this is precisely what the editors of the New York Times did. How can anyone take this paper seriously if warmongers like Kuperman are allowed to boast their ill-fated arguments on such a national platform?

Sure, everyone is entitled to free-speech and free-expression. But there comes a time when moronic views with no rationality overshadow our most cherished First Amendment right. There are neoconservative print sources around, so it is amazing that the NYT would even consider an op-ed of this magnitude.

Getting down to business, let's review some possible counter measures that Iran would take in the event of a U.S. or Israeli air-strike on its nuclear facilities:

1) Iraq and Afghanistan would be far more conflicted than they already are for U.S. troops. Shia militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan would step-up their attacks on U.S. and NATO forces; not only diminishing the operation's success but demoralizing the troops in the process.

2) Through Iran's Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, Israel would be forced to endure a wrath of asymmetrical violence that would be far more devastating than the deadliest Palestinian intifada.

3) Yemen- a state that is already grappling with a Shia insurgency to the North and a separatist movement in the South- would become a failed state without any resemblence of order or authority. And with a fragile Yemen, Saudi Arabia would probably feel compelled to step-in the mix.

4) World oil prices would rise to cataclysmic levels

5) Lastly, Arabs that were once hopeful for a peaceful future would be held hostage to Iranian retaliation.

Good job Mr. Kuperman, your NYT op-ed just solidified the neo-conservative image as an irrational and baseless camp in American politics. And this is a Republican speaking!

http://depetris.wordpress.com

This idea is so bad, and the op-ed so horrible written that I wonder if this is a deliberate attempt by the New York times to main-stream the stupidity of the idea.

I remember one poorly written article by a New York Times columist of the Responsibility to Protect school who has written much in favour of intervening in Darfur. I guess New York times had changed their editorial policy at that time towards withdrawing from Afghanistan so he wrote a wonderful article about why the Americans should learn from the Soviets and withdraw, subtling hinting that the chain of events which followed the collapse of Najibullah lead to the rise of the Taliban, the coming of Osama Bin Ladin and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Could this be a trojan horse of similiar nature?

What is it with these academic bloggers of a certain political persuasion like Juan Cole and Stephen Walt who seem to eschew all their analytical training in favor of hysterical insinuations and ad hominem attacks when writing a blog post? Take the above post for example - Mr. Kuperman's original op-ed used evidence of the 1) domestic beating that Ahmedinajad took when he appeared open to the nuclear compromise proposed by Obama and 2) the subsequent rejection of that compromise and 3) the continued belligerent response of Iran to proposals from Obama, to come to the conclusion that Iran will not halt its nuclear program.

If indeed a nuclear Iran is unacceptable as Obama has stated, then a military option remains the only viable option for stopping such a program. Even Obama, who staked his foreign policy on coming to a compromise with the Iranians has declared that he is losing patience and seems to be coming to the same conclusion about the futility of Iran and the United States coming to a mutual agreement that would prevent Iran from having the capability to quickly build a nuclear weapon. This all SEEMS logical.

Now if a serious academic were to want to counter Mr. Kuperman's argument in a thoughtful and analytical way he/she would

1) Provide evidence that stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons capability IS possible and perhaps even likely WITHOUT the use of force.

OR

2) Provide an argument for why a nuclear Iran that would be able to initiate a weapons program quickly is ACCEPTABLE and NOT SUCH A BAD OUTCOME for the Middle East

AND

3) Provide concrete facts and evidence to suggest that a military strike is futile because it would not stop the program or its costs would outweight the benefits.

This does not seem like such an ambitious task for International Affairs intellectuals. Indeed such an article would provide a sound refutation of Mr. Kuperman's argument. So why instead of any of these things do we have a blog post that responds to the op-ed through:

1) astonishment that NYT allows such an opinion on its pages and dosent provide a homogenous echo chamber of prof. Lynch's opinion (although that opinion is never actually stated)

2) Attacks the background of Mr. Kuperman by pointing out that he opposed US intervention in Rwanda (an opinion prob. shared by Prof. Lynch's "IR Realist" colleagues Walt and Mearsheimer) and also points out that Kuperman has no expertise on Iran without suggesting why that has any sort of relevance on the merits of Kuperman's argument.

3) Brings in the usual cast of unpopular names to link to Kuperman that may have nothing to do with him, to cause an emotional reaction to Kuperman's op-ed instead of simply logically attacking the merits of Kuperman's argument. (John Bolton, Fox News, neo-cons - for Stephen Walt add "Israel Lobby" - For Juan Cole add "Far-right Zionists) - and of course libel the author by painting him as part of this war-mongering conspiracy that wants to use force against the nuclear reactors not because they actually believe that it would make America or its Arab allies or the Middle East safer, but because they are apparently monsters who love "war for the sake of war" - (even as you complain about the same treatment, complaining that that anti-war opinions are denounced as treasonous and not based on what you think is best for the country). Of course if a popular figure like Obama takes the view of this hated evil war-mongering "cabal" it couldnt have been because he saw merit in their arguments, it must have been because the President of the US is powerless to shape policy in face of the *insert bogeyman neocons, israel lobby* - a popular "progressive" president always agrees with us BY DEFAULT even when he dosent.

4) Sarcastically IMPLYING that Kuperman's arguments are ridiculous without actually explaining WHY ("He reduces the policy options to strike or nuclear acceptance!" - Well can you explain the other options Mr. academic - "He rules out the alternative policy by default!!" - Can you explain why the alternative policy has a chance of success despite evidence to the contrary Mr. academic? - "Hes scaremongering by claiming that Ahmedinajad will give weapons to terrorists!!!" - Can you explain why he wouldn't Mr. Academic??)

Only at the end, after all the condescension, sarcasm, ridicule, ad-hominem attacks, and insinuations of an evil cabal, do we actually get a sentence or 2 about WHY war would be bad:
"on the grounds that it would not likely stop the nuclear program, would kill lots of innocent Iranians and inflame Iranian public opinion, would destroy Obama's hopes to transform America's relations with the Islamic world and inflame anti-Americanism back to Bush-era levels"

Thank you! Logical and analytical arguments! If only youhad expanded on these and pointed out WHY, for instance, a strike would not stop the nuclear program and given a third option to explain WHY Kuperman was wrong to reduce the options to strike or nuclear Iran. You might have convinced those like me who are skeptical of the success of a strike, but think logically rather than get stirred into some kind of pseudo patriotic fervor against "neo-cons, war-mongers etc." Its posts like that that are unoriginal, with every single policy decision that an academic like Stephen Walt, Juan Cole, Mearsheimer et al. disagree with simply stirring up an emotional reaction againts "neo-cons, israel lobby, and far right zionists" instead of, you know, actually logically analyzing and refuting said policy.

I am seeing and hearing evidence of Iran's intent being leaked and suggested and I think this is the propaganda that precedes military action. I am positive that this is a last resort as it will require the United States to reveal some of it's military capacity.

The revolutionary Guard has made clear that they control Iran and they have an agenda. We have plenty of evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons programs. The equipment to form warheads has been purchased from German and Taiwan and enriched uranium has been detected in on site visit of the nuclear regulatory commission.

The centrifuges can be heard from space, you really can't hide them. destroying the anti-aircraft defenses will be difficult but also can be done. Then the rockets and missiles need to totally destroyed along with their factory.

The leadership and command and control must be taken out at once along with their naval forces.

Leave the people be. Syria and Lebanon will attack along with Hamas.

Isreal is thought to have a large arcenal of nuclear weapons which were built to protect themselves from Russia. They have threatened no one.

Perhaps they may use one in a high altitude EMP burst knocking out all their electronics.

Iran has warned them that they will not stop until the very last Jew is dead.

Perhaps we could help them. Perhaps we don't need to. All their planes are not US made. They have many trading pardners.

WE could pay back a favor long owed to the Jews of the revolution Haym Solomon was an investment banker and friend of George Washington. In today's dollars he raised $40 billion dollars from his personal accounts and the rest in loans from France and Spain. He wanted the [personal freedoms that he could have anywhere in the world.

Without Hayam George Washington would of lost at valley Forge

He was never repaid for his loyalty.

Best

I am seeing and hearing evidence of Iran's intent being leaked and suggested and I think this is the propaganda that precedes military action. I am positive that this is a last resort as it will require the United States to reveal some of it's military capacity.

The revolutionary Guard has made clear that they control Iran and they have an agenda. We have plenty of evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons programs. The equipment to form warheads has been purchased from German and Taiwan and enriched uranium has been detected in on site visit of the nuclear regulatory commission.

The centrifuges can be heard from space, you really can't hide them. destroying the anti-aircraft defenses will be difficult but also can be done. Then the rockets and missiles need to totally destroyed along with their factory.

The leadership and command and control must be taken out at once along with their naval forces.

Leave the people be. Syria and Lebanon will attack along with Hamas.

Isreal is thought to have a large arcenal of nuclear weapons which were built to protect themselves from Russia. They have threatened no one.

Perhaps they may use one in a high altitude EMP burst knocking out all their electronics.

Iran has warned them that they will not stop until the very last Jew is dead.

Perhaps we could help them. Perhaps we don't need to. All their planes are not US made. They have many trading pardners.

WE could pay back a favor long owed to the Jews of the revolution Haym Solomon was an investment banker and friend of George Washington. In today's dollars he raised $40 billion dollars from his personal accounts and the rest in loans from France and Spain. He wanted the personal freedoms that he could not have anywhere else in the world.

Without Hayam George Washington would of lost at valley Forge

He was never repaid for his loyalty.

Best

A military strike on Iran would be disastrous--not least because it's not necessary.

I keep hearing the same argument that Iranian leadership (particularly Ahmadinejad) has vowed time and time again to wipe Israel of the map. But the truth is that actions speak louder than words. If Ahmadinejad/the Revolutionary Guards/Khamenei wanted to destroy Israel, why aren't there daily suicide bombings in Tel Aviv? Why aren't masked gunmen terrorizing the streets of Haifa? Iran or its proxies, like Hezbollah, clearly have the ability--witness the truck bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut or Hezbollah's near-constant rocket attacks of a few years ago. So, why isn't this happening? To me the most logical conclusion is that whoever's calling the shots in Iran is far more pragmatic than we give him credit for. Iranian leadership has clearly calculated that the costs of conducting war on Israel far outweigh the benefits. Even adding a nuclear weapon to Iran's side of the equation wouldn't tip the scales. Right now, an Israel nuclear strike is off the table, but that all changes if Iran strikes Israel with nukes first. At best Iran could only produce a handful of bombs compared to Israel's arsenal of a couple hundred, so the equation once again favors Israel. No matter what Iran does, a war with Israel simply isn't in its best interests.

The argument for justifying a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is often that either A) Iran will attack Israel, or B) Iran will give nukes to terrorists that will attack Israel. Iran's current actions blow both of those arguments to pieces. So, let's start talking sensibly and stop pretending that Iran is run by a bunch of long-bearded, Quran-toting fascists.

Have all these war enthusiasts who still believe the only solution is a military strike and invasion of Iran considered how well this is turning out in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Are there any facts to support the conclusion that a nuclear armed Iran will pose any greater threat to peace in the region than nuclear armed Israel, or the continued mistakes of the blundering colossus of the world (Uncle Sam)? North Korea achieved the production of nuclear weapons while we were preoccupied with islamic terrorism. It did so at least partly because it saw that the US is inclined to invade those countries which do not have nuclear weaponry. Iran may feel the same way - build it and they will not come!

It is so stunningly ignorant of us that we ignore even very recent history by fulminating against a potential Iranian nuclear capability. The failures, thus far, of our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan should have at least caused us to view our own capacity to wage unlimited war with a great deal more humility. Recent news reports that our CIA has covertly opened another from against al Quaeda in Yemen show again that our ability to control our military and intelligence services resembles that of a third-world country - perhaps Pakistan? We simply do not have the military to fight another war in the Middle East". At some point, it is hoped the American people will wake up an realize they have been sold a false bargain - that these wars will cause our nation to become bankrupted morally and economically, while they actually contribute little to our safety and security. The Leibermans, Cheneys, and their kind will never comprehend the fact that our ability to wage war is eventually going to be curtailed by the capacity of our faltering economy to pay the bills and our families to send their sons and daughters to die or be maimed in far away places in endless adventures.

Another war? Is this all they can offer as a solution to the world's problems? We started one war of opportunity in Iraq based on lies and deceptions from these same people. We do not need to follow their lead again. Their belief in the invincibility of American arms is incredibly short-sighted.

We will not be directly threatened even if Iran does build a bomb. The day before they employ such a weapon will be the last best day of their existence as a nation. They probably know that, even if we and the Israelis don not.

Guys, please relax, America is not going for the third war. Kuperman just wants to prepare the wide public (that's why he chose NYT) for the upcoming *Israeli* attack on Iran.
Though the money for the operation, of course, will still come from our taxes :)

To Kingpaddy: Your assertion is that Iran is run by the Revolutionary Guards, and they desire above all else the destruction of Israel. If that is true, why aren't there more Revolutionary Guards or Revolutionary Guard proxies killing Israelis? If they hate Israel as much as you say they do--"a sworn duty to kill all Jews," as you put it--how would they be able to control their urges to murder Jews? You can make all the claims you want, but the facts are clearly on my side: there are no Iranians running around Tel Aviv with guns and grenades, which proves that the Revolutionary Guards don't actually care all that much about the fate of Israel.

Furthermore, Khamenei is not an idiot. He obviously wants to hang on to power, which is why he is using violence and other heavy-handed tactics--including assassinating Mir Hussein Mousavi's nephew--to quash the protesters that are, for the first time, calling for his death. He knows a nuclear attack on anyone would spell the end of the regime. There's absolutely no chance he'll let that happen, especially when his hold on power is teetering and tottering.

I also doubt that a successful Israeli air strike will occur on Iran's nuclear facilities. Yes, Israel, especially under the leadership of the hawks of Netanyahu and the Likud party, will want to bomb Iran if Iran gets too close to having the bomb. Israel may have succeeded in bombing Iraq's Osirak plant in 1982, but Iran is not Iraq. There are two probable attack routes on Iran: crossing the Mediterranean into Turkey and then into Iran, or going through Jordan, Iraq, and then Iran. Neither option is feasible because going through Turkey, a country that won't even support sanctions on Iran, certainly isn't happening, and American won't allow a flight plan through Iraq because such a move would brand the attack as American, unleashing waves of terrorism and radicalism that would undermine American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I take back my rash cussin'.

of course such a thing cannot really be taken back once uttered.

which is the precise situation in Israel or any other similar struggle with political / ideological components. to say that Israel is a problematic albatross that we would be lucky to have the Iranians 'solve' for us strongly suggests extreme naivete coupled with hubris, at least to me. and so it seems quite dangerous. that's all. although sometimes unpleasant, there are indeed 'facts on the ground' that, once having materialized, cannot be unmade. to me, the desire to unmake past events signals a fundamentally uncertain disposition, in practice it does not correspond to our experience of reality, and it cannot serve as a reasonable starting point for any political prescription. i will not belabor well-known views on how the formation of a Jewish state was an arguably inevitable / logical outgrowth of a contextualized and broadly formative (regional, then global) nationalizing experience, nor should i have to needlessly emphasize the illustrative power of an almost uniformly tragic set of historical examples in the practice of forced population exchanges and other mass-alterations, which are invariably the work of leaders impatiently forcing the hand of history to speed up / slow down / fully reverse, and doing so they tend to commit epic crimes. but the past cannot simply be unmade just because it contains tragic elements.

as far as this translates into a practical opinion about the Arab/Jewish state you mention, i don't know how you conceive of such a polity becoming functional within the near or medium term--no reasonable observer i know seems to have too many strictly applicable notions that are readily at hand, and i do mean the nitty-gritty specifics--but unfortunately i suspect, with the admittedly meager information at my disposal, that such a view may be a fruit of justified anger coupled with impatience leading to erroneous judgment. it is a desire for rashness that is reflected in your commentary.

and this is a phenomenon to which i am not immune. i try to only draw conclusions based on my own reasoning, attempting to remain aware that, sadly, sometimes my reasoning can be quite flawed, and my conclusions dead wrong.