Iran is ready to defend its’ right to possess nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”
This from ADBOI
The difference between Irans’ position and Iraqs’ position is quite stark.
Before the Iraq war, Saddam was doing everything he could to prevent an invasion while still saving face. It was obvious that he knew his days were numbered and that any invasion would lead to his demise as President. Back channel communication before the Iraq war was all about Saddam trying to work out a deal with the US and the UNSC that would satisfy the UNSC/US and keep him in power. In Public Saddam never made real threats to the American forces on his doorstep… they were always over the top and obviously just postering. It was his desperation behind the scenes that betrayed his lack of confidence in his own forces.
Iran seems to be very different. They seem to be saying, in public and private, that they are ready for an attack. They have plans, and while I’m sure they realise that their defeat would be inevitable, I think they know that they could still inflict serious economic, financial and even some military damage were a conflict ever to break out between it and the US.
Why is Iran so different? In three words? Straits of Hormuz. This represents the entrance to the Persian Gulf. Iran is on one side, with the UAE and Oman on the opposite shore.
Udpated 3 times
(Map Copyright U of Texas)
As you can see they are incredibly narrow, and a real bottleneck. They are also quite shallow… so even one sunken tanker could seriously limit traffic through the straights, cutting off the flow of oil from a large number of ports in the Gulf and likely sending Oil prices through the roof.
This is Irans’ ace in the hole… that and the unpredictability of Israel.
That is why the US must concentrate not on saber rattling and preventing Iran from obtaining Nuclear power… but rather on supporting the already significant, and young, opposition to the Mullahs inside Iran.
Update 3
Thomas Barnett says this about Iran and North Korea:
We kill the mullahocracy with connectivity because isolation won’t work any better than it does with Cuba and because there is no military solution to this problem, which isn’t Iran getting the bomb, but the mullahs being in control of politics there.
…
There is no conventional military solution on North Korea either, but there we don’t need an invasion to topple the regime, we just need Kim gone. Doesn’t matter how it happens, just so that it happens, and China is the key. But what are we offering Beijing on this? Opposition to their purchases of arms from the EU? Japan joining in our defense guarantee for Taiwan? If Kim is such a serious enemy, then why aren’t we dealing?
I seriousley doubt they are buidling a nuclear facility to be eco-friendly despite sitting on huge oil and natural gas reserves.
I don’t think anyone doubts the Iranians want the capability to build a bomb.
The question is:
What’s the best course?
Attack Iran and risk alienating the population and radicalizing the elite even more?
Or help the population turn Iran into a respectable and responsible, democracy… which may or may not have Nuclear capabilities like its’ neighbours Pakistan, India and Israel.
No one with any sense believes that Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. We have no reason to trust the mullhas statements to the contrary. The Euros joined by the US need to keep up the intensive diplomacy, with lots of pressure on Putin, at the same time rattling our sabers and doing whatever we can to encourage revolutionary sentiment in Iran.
As far as Juan Cole, even when you look at his facts, I suspect most emphatically that they are very selective and wonder what he is leaving out as so many biased (on EITHER side) pundits, historian, and self-appointed spokespersons do without much compunction. I have made it a practice to never overlook the lengths that anyside will go to to make their case…Michael Moore a case in point. I’m sure Chris can give some right sided examples as well – Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter come to mind…