Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (65677)	8/30/2004 11:40:42 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793991

Barry Rubin is pessimistic I agree with his analysis of what is going on. I have no doubt Bush agrees. How to handle it will be decided after the election, of course. This is a great example of why Kerry would be such a disaster. He wants to withdraw from the ME.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (65677)	8/31/2004 9:41:32 AM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793991

It is rare nowadays to read anything that has not been discussed unto meaningless chatter. Harder yet to find is anything new that is insightful and incisive. Barry Rubin consistently delivers. Thanks for linking his recent piece. It is a treasure. It is indeed difficult to argue with his conclusion that we are slowly entering into a new phase of the Iraq war, one in which Iran and Syria are more than nominal players. Iran's nuclear efforts as a result will undoubtedly go forward. Whether they would have been curtailed even if we had not gone into Iraq is doubtful, but it nonetheless seems that any chance that diplomacy might have worked is long ago dead. We are now in a position where the most dangerous direct threat to the region and to the US is from Iran's developing nukes. Whether Iran will use its nukes for deterrence or aggressively, and our response to what Iran decides to do, are questions which will define the next decade and the next presidency. I'd like to think that the Mad Mullahs are not mad enough to countenance nuclear suicide. However, the deadly convergence of virulent anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, groupthink and religious zeal could lead to some very stupid decisions on their part. So, despite my belief that their instincts towards self-preservation will eventually prevail, I'm not betting the farm on their rationality. We'll see. We might ultimately be in an impossible position vis-a-vis Syria, Iran, and Hizbollah, one in which we are forced to attack their military and defense assets without actually invading either. I am sure we can do it, and inflict substantial damage on both, but it would mean a more or less constant state of low intensity war for years, a state I'm not sure is politically sustainable since it would mean redoubling our terror and security measures within the US to levels which might be unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Here's the basis for Rubin's pessimism, which I am still thinking about--haven't necessarily agreed with him yet, and will not reach my own conclusions until the elections are over, though overall I think the future is a lot more grim than anyone imagines: It is thus unlikely that the US, regardless of who is elected president in November, would take strong and direct action if Iran announced it possessed nuclear weapons. These are uncomfortable realities, and they must be faced. No matter what anyone argues, this passivity is not going to change. Having gone into Iraq and found that step so controversial and relatively unsuccessful, the US is not going to undertake other offensive actions, whether or not they seem justifiable to some observers. Arguably, any gain in the "fear factor" brought about by the US overthrow of Saddam is being eroded. Those who argue, in the words of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini two decades ago, that the US cannot do a "damn thing" are having that feeling reinforced today. The Iraq war's outcome has undermined the credibility of US power no matter how long American forces remain in Iraq. Indeed, one could argue that the longer they remain, the worse the problem will become.