Rob Tracinski recently wrote that the NIE is "a kind of political Rorschach test: everyone tries to see in it what they want to see." In characterizing the NIE as an intel community warning against attacking Iran, Kaplan forgets to mention a few things, starting with the NIE's confirmation that some al Qaeda leadership is now resident there. Add that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan training and equipping insurgents to kill US troops in Iraq, attempting to build nukes (which used to be considered a capital offense for terror-sponsoring regimes) and you kind of wonder what this fool is talking about when he says 'Don't attack Iran because they will hit back.' Iran is already hitting us directly or through proxies all over the Mideast.

Could the view that Iraq is a regional war that won't be won until regimes are changed in Iran and Syria have been the more "intelligent" idea all along? Or should we wait until we have to fear Iran's "hitting back" with nukes--just to make things more exciting?

Though don't expect too many sensible responses. I've been reading Nick Cohen's book What's Left, about liberal opposition to the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Some of them have lost all sense of perspective on this issue.

Key to all the fear about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons seems to be the belief that the day after they finish their first bomb, they're going to drop it on Tel Aviv -- or give it to some terrorists to smuggle into the USA.

But if they did that, they would immediately suffer massive, and undoubtedly nuclear-based, retaliation from the US (or Israel -- remember, they've got nukes, and they'd surely use them under such circumstances; word is they were considering it during the Yom Kipper War's darkest hours.)

The people running Iran are demogouges, but they're not suicidal -- and they're not stupid. They're not going to ensure their own doom by launching their nukes at us.

After all, why would they want to start a war with us? The entire Bush admin has been one big bonanza for Iran. We've destroyed Iraq, Iran's bitterest rival, and allowed them to turn southern Iraq -- home to the some of the country's richest oil fields -- into a defacto Iranian province, Plus, our shenanigans have helped boost the price of their major export. And if Bush (or rather Cheney -- credit where credit's due) is crazy enough to bomb Iran, the Iranian government (which is currently facing widespread internal discontent) will suddenly have the entire persian population united behind it.

I agree with all your arguments except the statement "they are not stupid"! If not stupid, Ahmadinejad is doing an awfully good job imitation of an illiterate moron. Almost as stupid as our President.

And Khameini who has read about 1 book in his life, the Quran,is likely not better.

Gerry

clear war aims, mobilization, all of these would have been more intelligent than what occurred. Mark Helprinhad the right idea of how to deal with Iran, if we were really concerned about their having a nuke. But let's face it, the President, or whoever runs him, just isn't the leader to pull it off. Fortunately, I think the Israelis will render it moot. If Iran looks like they're on the verge of a deliverable nuke, Israel won't be able to tolerate it.

Now let's see. We should invade Syria and Iran while we are achieving "victory" in Iraq. I wonder what right-wing politician would then go before the American people and state the obvious: We must re-institute the draft because there is no way that we can find the million or so volunteers necessary to do the job, and we must budget at least $24 billion per month instead of the $12 billion we are spending now ---- this at a time when we can't afford to fix the potholes in the Interstates or provide health care for one seventh of our population. .

Varian:

Rob Tracinski recently wrote that the NIE is "a kind of political Rorschach test: everyone tries to see in it what they want to see." In characterizing the NIE as an intel community warning against attacking Iran, Kaplan forgets to mention a few things, starting with the NIE's confirmation that some al Qaeda leadership is now resident there. Add that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan training and equipping insurgents to kill US troops in Iraq, attempting to build nukes (which used to be considered a capital offense for terror-sponsoring regimes) and you kind of wonder what this fool is talking about when he says 'Don't attack Iran because they will hit back.' Iran is already hitting us directly or through proxies all over the Mideast.

He's actually saying that the folks who wrote the NIE are saying this, but never mind. Iran is 'hitting' forces which it sees as threatening it and the Middle East, namely, ours. Why wouldn't they do this, given that they've been characterized by Bush since the beginning as part of an 'axis of evil,' and that our interests in the region (starting with unqualified support of Israel) are antithetical to theirs?

And speaking of Israel, why wasn't their development of nukes a 'death sentence,' given the terror they've repeatedly visited upon the Palestinians, the Lebanese, and most of their other neighbors over the years? Oh, that's right - we either gave them the nukes or turned our back while they developed them because they're our proxies there.

Could the view that Iraq is a regional war that won't be won until regimes are changed in Iran and Syria have been the more "intelligent" idea all along? Or should we wait until we have to fear Iran's "hitting back" with nukes--just to make things more exciting?

It's not a 'war,' and it can't be 'won.' It's an occupation intended to establish a permanent base of ops in the Middle East and at the same time, a source of oil on terms advantageous to American and Western oil companies. The 'fear' of Iran's use of nukes is just that...fear, useful for pushing the Neocon agenda.

...I think you forgot to mention PNAC and the Bush Regime. Invading a non-hostile, non-threatening country, turning it into an abbattoir for its people, and expanding terrorism worldwide are the kind of 'perspective' one would expect only a madman to possess.

...could, OTOH, turn out to be a positive scenario. We'd be rid of the two biggest saber-rattlers in the region, and the world would get a new and major impetus towards reduction or elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide.

FWIW

But the neocons have already started the rhetoric for invading Iran. It starts with little snippits about the threat Iran poses, and escalates to reports that Iran is a definite threat, which leads to the conclusion that an invasion is necessary.

If the neocons gain the whitehouse in 2008, we will invade Iran before 2012.