An Iranian EMP

[Reub]

"The last time I checked Iran was a sovereign country."

A sovereign country whose leaders are in office because of an illegitimate  election?
One that brutalizes those who disagree?
One that threatens to wipe its neighbors off of the face of the earth?
One that recently plotted to kill a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil?
One that is close to acquiring nukes while denying it and is testing long range missiles that can reach our shores?
One that has sent thousands of troops into Syria to help that illegitimate regime suppress its people as well?
One that advocates jihad and end-of-the-world scenarios?

What kind of sovereign country is this?

[moda0306]

While one could question Iran's sovereignty based on simply being a thugocracy, every individual is sovereign, and if we start dropping bombs on them we've engaged in some awful activity that probably could have been avoided.

[stone]

stone, of course that's a big part of what it was really about, but if that was one of the primary reasons it should have been shared with the American people in an honest way.

Medium Tex, when I first heard about that notion with regard to the second Iraq war, I was shocked. I asked a Turkish coworker about it and he looked me oddly and seemed astonished that I hadn't thought that all along. I then asked a Pakistani coworker the same question and got the same reaction. I think we in the West were the only people effectively lied to about this (or the rest of the world wrongly jumped to the conclusion that it was really about the USD) .

[MachineGhost]

I too would like for the "Neocons" to help the oppressed citizens of Iran implement regime change. Wouldn't you?

Yes, but I'm not willing to sanction it by starting a war because it simply isn't even necessary.  If we really wanted to help the "oppressed citizens" of Iran, we would engage in "Assasination Politics" (which is even more taboo than anarchism) which would eliminate Iran's political ruling elite virtually immediately by marshaling the competitive free market.  That we don't do that is because: a) politicians don't want to eat their own cooking; b) theres huge money at stake in Iran's oil fields for American energy companies, oil services firms and black budget contractors; c) justification for the standing American military and its hegemony.

There's also the issue of murdering people that are innocent, either intentionally because they had the unfortunate luck to be part of the ruling class (seriously, a low-level bureaucrat in the basement deserves to be murdered by assocation for making a living?  Its not as if they were guards at Auschwitz.) or as innocent collateral damage.  This bothers me because this type of immoral crime forments blowback and the entire history of meddling in the Middle East can be summed up in just that one word.

How would you feel if your family members and/or close friends were innocent collateral damage because Iran decided to fend off a premptive attack by the USA over fabricated lies about its nuclear weapons capability?  You can't look at the issue asymmetrically just in your favor or you're just being bigoted, prejudiced or whatever the proper term is for the commanding heights of arrogance, ego and power over a foreign country filled with "lesser people".  Did you watch Rick Steve's IRAN that I posted elsewhere?  Do you still want to invade and bomb those people?

I'll let you in on a secret (with kudos to F. Mann):

There is a game called "U.S.A." The play of the game is concentrated on parts of a board called "United States of America." But players can move all over the world. The players have different pieces they move around. Some pieces are considered more important and more powerful than other pieces. The pieces are called names like "president," "senator," "representative," "secretary," "judge," "general," "captain," "governor," "attorney," "marshall," "sheriff," "policeman," "policewoman," "businessman," "businesswoman," "doctor," "soldier," "citizen," "employee," "taxpayer," "voter," "parent," "child," "teacher," "preacher," "journalist," "unemployee," "criminal," etc.

The pieces considered to be most important (joined in an association called the "government") make up the rules of the game as they go along. The rules are called "laws." The "most important players" change the rules whenever they like. The score of the game is kept with tokens called "money."

The board on which the game is played has good squares, neutral squares, and bad squares. If a piece lands on a good square, the player might win a million tokens or get a promotion and exchange his or her piece for a more important piece. If a piece lands on a neutral square, the player just continues as usual. If a piece lands on a bad square, the player might get sick and/or die, or might have "money" tokens or "property" "seized" by the "most important players," or is locked up in "jail" by the "most important players." Sometimes when two pieces land on the same square, they form a union called "marriage" - this could be good, neutral, or bad.

The "most important players" compel the players with pieces called "children" to move into squares (good, neutral, or bad?) called "schools," where the pieces are "educated" so they will learn that the game called "U.S.A." is the only game and the best game in the world. Of course, they are also "educated" on how to play the game.

Sometimes the "most important players" organize a subgame called "war." The purpose of this subgame is to destroy as many pieces as possible. When a player's piece is destroyed, the player is killed and buried.

The silly little game called "U.S.A." also has elements called "problems" that need to be "solved." These "problems" are called names like: "terrorism," "unemployment," "inflation," "depression," "drug addiction," "pollution," "crime," "rape," "child abuse," "suicide," etc., etc.

Practically all humans have been "educated" to believe that they must play silly little games like "U.S.A." throughout their lives. And if they don't like their silly little games, they must change their silly little games, for example, by begging "the most important players" to change some of the rules of their silly little games.

Horror of horrors! Humans are "educated" to believe that their silly little games are real life. They have no idea that what they are doing is just playing a silly, arbitrary, optional game, and that they can play many other games if they wake up. Is it justified to ask whether practically all humans are like characters in an Alice-in-Wonderland dream who never wake up?

MG

[Reub]

MG, this not a game. This is about the future of the Middle East and beyond. It is about keeping real nuclear weapons out of the hands of real vicious regimes and ultimately real terrorists. 9/11 really did happen.

[Lone Wolf]

Medium Tex, "And for what?  Why are we doing all of this?  Because George Tenet thought Hussein had WMDs 10 years ago, but it turned out that he didn't?"

Do you think there is no credence to the notion that it was because Saddam refused to accept USD as payment for oil?

Isn't the Iran sabre rattling at the moment  really about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

stone, of course that's a big part of what it was really about, but if that was one of the primary reasons it should have been shared with the American people in an honest way.

I read this sort of thing and I get a "conspiracy theory" vibe.  Help me out -- why is this a more likely explanation than the obvious one?

The simple explanation seems most convincing to me.  Like most government programs, US intelligence gathering in Iraq was deeply flawed.  Hussein wanted to represent that he had WMD, Ahmed Chalabi and other defectors badly wanted the United States and the UK to believe that he had them, and the government bought the story.

[Indices]

MG, this not a game. This is about the future of the Middle East and beyond. It is about keeping real nuclear weapons out of the hands of real vicious regimes and ultimately real terrorists. 9/11 really did happen.

And what are you doing to prepare for this, in your mind, very real possibility?

[stone]

I read this sort of thing and I get a "conspiracy theory" vibe.  Help me out -- why is this a more likely explanation than the obvious one?

Lone Wolf, the petrodollar explanation seems awful but ties together in a sort of grim this can't be true can it? way. The WMD explanation just fails to make sense to me at all.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark

    “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”?
    – President George W. Bush, February 2005

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian “petroeuro”? system for oil trade.

Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of ‘petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam’s long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq’s hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam Hussein.[1][2]

Candidly stated, ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency (i.e. “petroeuro”?).[3] However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

In 2003 the global community witnessed a combination of petrodollar warfare and oil depletion warfare. The majority of the world’s governments – especially the E.U., Russia and China – were not amused – and neither are the U.S. soldiers who are currently stationed inside a hostile Iraq. In 2002 I wrote an award-winning online essay that asserted Saddam Hussein sealed his fate when he announced in September 2000 that Iraq was no longer going to accept dollars for oil being sold under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and decided to switch to the euro as Iraq’s oil export currency.[4]

Indeed, my original pre-war hypothesis was validated in a Financial Times article dated June 5, 2003, which confirmed Iraqi oil sales returning to the international markets were once again denominated in U.S. dollars – not euros.

    The tender, for which bids are due by June 10, switches the transaction back to dollars -- the international currency of oil sales - despite the greenback's recent fall in value. Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq's recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar [5]

[MediumTex]

Medium Tex, "And for what?  Why are we doing all of this?  Because George Tenet thought Hussein had WMDs 10 years ago, but it turned out that he didn't?"

Do you think there is no credence to the notion that it was because Saddam refused to accept USD as payment for oil?

Isn't the Iran sabre rattling at the moment  really about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_oil_bourse

stone, of course that's a big part of what it was really about, but if that was one of the primary reasons it should have been shared with the American people in an honest way.

I read this sort of thing and I get a "conspiracy theory" vibe.  Help me out -- why is this a more likely explanation than the obvious one?

The simple explanation seems most convincing to me.  Like most government programs, US intelligence gathering in Iraq was deeply flawed.  Hussein wanted to represent that he had WMD, Ahmed Chalabi and other defectors badly wanted the United States and the UK to believe that he had them, and the government bought the story.

Perhaps I should say that Hussein's decision to modify the petrodollar arrangement was likely a catalyst for what a lot of people already wanted to do for ideological reasons.

In the same way that WMD was sort of an overt ruse to create a pretext for war, the petrodollar change was probably something that a lot of people inside the system saw and said "If we didn't have a good enough reason before to take out Hussein because we don't like him, we now have a specific provocative act that can't be ignored."

I'm not saying that the CIA and others didn't really think that Iraq had WMDs; rather, what I am saying is that people like Dick Cheney probably didn't care that much whether the WMD story was true or not--it provided the needed pretext to do what they had been wanting to do for a long time.

Paul Wolfowitz had been talking about regime change in Iraq for years before 9/11.

The whole thing is like a game of Stratego being played by a couple of meth heads.

[Ad Orientem]

"The last time I checked Iran was a sovereign country."

A sovereign country whose leaders are in office because of an illegitimate  election?
One that brutalizes those who disagree?
One that threatens to wipe its neighbors off of the face of the earth?
One that recently plotted to kill a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil?
One that is close to acquiring nukes while denying it and is testing long range missiles that can reach our shores?
One that has sent thousands of troops into Syria to help that illegitimate regime suppress its people as well?
One that advocates jihad and end-of-the-world scenarios?

What kind of sovereign country is this?

Reub
You just described half the countries in the world.  How many nations are you planning on invading?  Your comments suggest a view where you regard the United States as the ruler of the world and arbiter of what is and is not legitimate with the right to invade any country we don't agree with.  For the record, Iran has not had a "legitimate" government since the 1950's.  And we had the CIA overthrow that one and install a highly repressive absolute monarchy in its place.

Enough with this modern day imperialism.

[moda0306]

While I agree with Ad Orientem, let's try to keep this convo as cool as possible (sorry to barge in on policing duties MT, and yes, the usual instigator of sarcastic retorts is calling for calmer language)... any time we hit the middle east we get heated.  What is it about that damn place? 

We live in a world with weapons that can blow up entire cities, and crazies that don't care about their own lives.  The question of whether to act preemptively becomes a whole lot more complicated when simply walking softly and carrying a big stick doesn't deter the wackos from blowing up NYC with a backpack nuke.

I disagree with hawks, but I'm always worried I'm wrong... I am not very confident in my position.

[Lone Wolf]

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark

Thanks, although I find myself terribly distracted reading anything by an author named "William Clark" and trying not to picture these guys! 

Perhaps I should say that Hussein's decision to modify the petrodollar arrangement was likely a catalyst for what a lot of people already wanted to do for ideological reasons.

I think I see what you are saying.  If you've got a lot of people playing tug-of-war on the same side, it doesn't matter whether they're all pulling on the rope for the reason.  It just matters that they're pulling.

What keeps a politician concerned about the end of the petrodollar awake at night?  Is it the fear that we'll be unable to keep running such large trade deficits (and running such large deficits, period)?  Wouldn't a simpler solution be to simply... not have such an enormous, all-consuming federal government?  I can think of many, many ways of building a sound dollar that don't involve warfare.

The whole thing is like a game of Stratego being played by a couple of meth heads.

I do believe that Walter White had something to do with the tragic loss of flight 515 over Albuquerque but I'd never considered how his business ventures might have had a hand in causing the War in Iraq... 

[Ad Orientem]

While I agree with Ad Orientem, let's try to keep this convo as cool as possible (sorry to barge in on policing duties MT, and yes, the usual instigator of sarcastic retorts is calling for calmer language)... any time we hit the middle east we get heated.  What is it about that damn place? 

We live in a world with weapons that can blow up entire cities, and crazies that don't care about their own lives.  The question of whether to act preemptively becomes a whole lot more complicated when simply walking softly and carrying a big stick doesn't deter the wackos from blowing up NYC with a backpack nuke.

I disagree with hawks, but I'm always worried I'm wrong... I am not very confident in my position.

Moda,
Thanks for you gentle reproof.

Reub,
I apologize for the intemperate tone in my last comment.

[moda0306]

Ad,

Your post wasn't really all that cremudgeonly... I just feel like it doesn't take much for political arguments to get heated, and if Craig or MT have to get strict on political debates this forum will have lost a lot of its appeal, as now you've nixed half of the meat of macroeconomics.

[MediumTex]

While I agree with Ad Orientem, let's try to keep this convo as cool as possible (sorry to barge in on policing duties MT, and yes, the usual instigator of sarcastic retorts is calling for calmer language)... any time we hit the middle east we get heated.  What is it about that damn place? 

We live in a world with weapons that can blow up entire cities, and crazies that don't care about their own lives.  The question of whether to act preemptively becomes a whole lot more complicated when simply walking softly and carrying a big stick doesn't deter the wackos from blowing up NYC with a backpack nuke.

I disagree with hawks, but I'm always worried I'm wrong... I am not very confident in my position.

Note, though, that no U.S. cities have been bombed by foreign governments.  9/11 was not the product of a foreign government.  Thus, attacking foreign sovereign states in the hope that it will keep them from attacking us seems like faulty reasoning.

Turn the case for war with Iran on its head--let's say you are a college student in Iran without any radical beliefs.  Suddenly, one day a flock of foreign aircraft comes flying over the city you live in dropping bombs, one of which lands on your house and kills your parents.  After you bury your parents you begin educating yourself about the sequence of events that led to your parents being blown into small pieces.  As you study the matter, you find that the U.S. attacked your country because it believed that your country was about to attack it.  You think about this matter for a while, and you come the conclusion that while the U.S. thought that Iran might attack its cities (even though it never did), the U.S. actually did attack Iranian cities without any provocation that is recognized under international law as a justification for attacking another country.

Do you see how this could turn a whole generation of young Iranians into haters of the U.S., even though they don't like their own government very much either?

The idea that I will do something to you because I think you might do it to me seems to lead to the obvious conclusion that after I have attacked you preemptively, you now have a much stronger case for defending yourself than I had for attacking in the first place.

It's sort of comical how we called the people shooting at us in Iraq "insurgents."  How is someone an insurgent if another country attacks his country, puts an occupying army in place, executes the head of state and begins installing what is intended to be a puppet government, and that person simply resists?

Were the colonists in the U.S. fighting against the British in the Revolutionary War "insurgents"?  When you compare the "insurgents" in Iraq to George Washington's troops, it's hard not to conclude that the insurgents in Iraq actually had a much stronger case for armed resistance.  Iraq was a sovereign state prior to the U.S. invasion, while the original U.S. colonies were under the rule of Britain, and thus Britain had a right to put down what it perceived to be an insurrection.

[moda0306]

MT,

I totally, 100% agree with what you said.

I am on your side.

We still live in a world where one person could theoretically do absolutely massive damage, though, so I don't blame people for having somewhat skeptical attitudes to allowing those weapons to get into the hands of a country that probably wouldn't keep a tight watch on the back door.

That's all I'm saying... I understand the fear.

[MediumTex]

MT,

I totally, 100% agree with what you said.

I am on your side.

We still live in a world where one person could theoretically do absolutely massive damage, though, so I don't blame people for having somewhat skeptical attitudes to allowing those weapons to get into the hands of a country that probably wouldn't keep a tight watch on the back door.

That's all I'm saying... I understand the fear.

What you are describing is also a rationale for attacking Pakistan and North Korea (and the argument may actually be stronger with respect to these two countries than when applied to Iran).

This whole issue is just hard to reach a satisfactory position on.  Almost any approach seems deeply flawed.

[Storm]

MG, this not a game. This is about the future of the Middle East and beyond. It is about keeping real nuclear weapons out of the hands of real vicious regimes and ultimately real terrorists. 9/11 really did happen.

Wow, nuclear weapons, 9/11, and vicious regimes... 3 totally unrelated topics.  Did Rush Limbaugh's one remaining brain cell misfire?

[MediumTex]

The whole thing is like a game of Stratego being played by a couple of meth heads.

I do believe that Walter White had something to do with the tragic loss of flight 515 over Albuquerque but I'd never considered how his business ventures might have had a hand in causing the War in Iraq... 

I was thinking more along these lines:

[Lone Wolf]

MG, this not a game. This is about the future of the Middle East and beyond. It is about keeping real nuclear weapons out of the hands of real vicious regimes and ultimately real terrorists. 9/11 really did happen.

Wow, nuclear weapons, 9/11, and vicious regimes... 3 totally unrelated topics.  Did Rush Limbaugh's one remaining brain cell misfire?

Eeeeeeeasy now.

I think the broader point Reub is touching on is that 9/11 stripped away a feeling of security and (relative) invulnerability that many people had felt since the end of the Cold War.  The idea of a biological attack or a nuke detonating in a US seaport no longer seemed quite so far-fetched.  Is it really very hard to imagine a US city, especially a coastal city, being struck with a nuclear device?  Not for me.

None of this is to say that war will solve these problems.  Rather only that there exists a major vacuum in terms of clear ways to address the problem of nuclear proliferation.  When you really, really want a problem solved, it's easy to give short shrift to the unintended consequences of your chosen solution.

War obviously comes with a huge number of big downsides.  But God help me, I can't promise that my Thomas Jefferson "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none" doesn't come with some as well.

I find that any time you've got a big problem with no obvious answer you often find a pack of unpleasant solutions elbowing eagerly to the forefront.  (The latest and least effective of these has been TSA's Grope Patrol.)

[Ad Orientem]

I was thinking more along these lines:

EYE BLEACH! For the love of God, someone pass me some eye bleach!

[fnord123]

Please read this before lookiing to cut the military budget.

Imagine what an Iranian EMP would do to us.

I would be interested in some sources that show the chances of Iran creating an EMP, having a delivery vehicle, or of an atomic/fission bomb even being possible of creating a significant EMP.  Note that most EMP studies were with fusion bombs.

In the interest of furthering the discussion with some sources of my own, here are some which argue against Iran being the threat that some parts of the media have cast it to be:

In January 2012, the United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said, "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability.". Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdiGahJI ... r_embedded

In March 2011, the United States Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he had a high level of confience that Iran had not decided to restart a program to build a nuclear weapon. Source (see middle of page 14): http://armed-services.senate.gov/Transc ... -10-11.pdf

In June 2011, Mohamed ElBaradei,  who was Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency for 12 years, said that during his time in the agency, there was "[Not] a shred of evidence that
Iran has been weaponizing, in terms of building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials.”?.  He also stated any nuclear work Iran was doing (such as enrichment to 20%, which is useful for medical isotopes, not weapons use, where you need more like 90%) was being done as "providing a sort of insurance against attack.".  Source (see http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun ... 6-6-11.pdf

In June 2011, six former ambassadors to Iran (from England, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, France, and Italy) wrote, "Iran is not in breach of international law. There is no evidence that the country is building nuclear weapons. The west's strategy has helped create the standoff." Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... reat-peace

In January 2012, the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency stated that all of the uranium that Iran is enriching to 20% near Quom "remains under the Agency's containment and surveillance,". Source:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... JF20120109

[Coffee]

They said the same thing about N. Korea, didn't they?

And now we've got that nonsense to deal with.

[stone]

What keeps a politician concerned about the end of the petrodollar awake at night?  Is it the fear that we'll be unable to keep running such large trade deficits (and running such large deficits, period)?  Wouldn't a simpler solution be to simply... not have such an enormous, all-consuming federal government?  I can think of many, many ways of building a sound dollar that don't involve warfare.

From what I can see, the petrodollar depends on the huge US military and the huge US military requires the petrodollar system to fund it. The USA could undoubtedly have a home defense orientated military (that was still the worlds most powerful military) and be as prosperous as Denmark or Switzerland or whatever without the petrodollar system but it wouldn't be able to continuously strike fear and loathing across the entire world all the time or whatever the goal of the current US military is .

It is a bit like how Alexander the Great's army required half a tonne of silver coins every day in wages. The only possible way to sustain that was to rampage across the entire world.

[fnord123]

They said the same thing about N. Korea, didn't they?

And now we've got that nonsense to deal with.

There are two recent historical examples:

• Iraq - where they were right.  The USA initiated a war against another country, spent a vast sum of money, for what benefit?
• North Korea, where they were wrong.  The USA did not initiate a war and North Korea may have a few fission bombs. We did not spend hundreds of billions/trillions.  We have not had thousands of dead soldiers and tens of thousands maimed.

So, let's stipulate they are wrong again, and Iran indeed is developing nuclear weapons.  Why wouldn't a North Korean outcome be a good one?