The Shotgun Blog
« Details, details | Main | Stelmach's big slide »
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Iran and Canada
Is the US going to bomb Iran? This is a question I think most people should be asking. I happen to think George Bush will not bomb Iran, but that if Rudy Guliani is elected president, he will. This is all conjecture; nobody outside of the administration is sure what is going inside Bush's head, obviously. But Canada must still prepare for the possible. So: what should, and what will, Canada do if the US bombs Iran?
Interviewing David Harris of the Canadian Coalition of Democracies for an article I wrote a few months ago on why Canada should up the sanctions against Iran, I asked him his opinion. He was very clear: the West must stand together, and Canada should support the US in any attack on Iran.
I couldn't disagree more. I think any attack on Iran would have catastrophic, perhaps permanent, effects on America's legitimacy as a leader in the eyes of the world. Why should the US care what the world thinks? Well, because it needs the support of allies to give its actions legitimacy and bear some of its burden (think of France, Germany and Russia teaming up to block UN approval of the Iraq invasion). The more people hate the US, the harder this is to get.
More importantly, I think Iran is weak, fearful, defensive, and can be convinced, in a grand bargain, to give up its quest for nuclear weapons. But, even failing that, I think the world can live with a nuclear Iran. People might ask themselves how such a thing is possible. To that question I would say: look back on the debates over Mao's China (who threatened to use Nukes on America) and the Soviet Union being permitted to get nuclear weapons. The arguments are almost identical. And in both cases, China and the Soviet Union were contained (the latter doesn't even exist anymore). If those massive powers can be contained, a third-rate, poor, internally divided country like Iran can be, too. Canada should let America go down its own, destructive path if it comes to it. Let's hope it doesn't.
Posted by Jordan Michael Smith on August 21, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54ecdc2cb8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iran and Canada:
Comments
I completely agree with you, Mr Smith, though not wanting to attack Iran might get you taken off Winston's Christmas card list.
Posted by: JP | 2007-08-21 4:19:45 PM
Unless USA adopts a military draft there is no reason to invade Iran.
Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-21 4:26:58 PM
Edmontonian: ??????????
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-08-21 4:32:28 PM
"...I think the world can live with a nuclear Iran".
You may think so, however I am certain that all the jads and their leaders out there, would rather live in a world that is free of you and me.
It may warm your heart to think that before they go for you, that they will come for me--but nuclear missiles are not that discriminating.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-21 4:34:07 PM
Perhaps the Soviet Union no longer exists but it's nuclear weapons still do, and in similarly "...weak, fearful, defensive..." hands, joined tightly with Iran's Totalitarian government.
I hope America bombs Iran's nuclear facilities and shifts the War On Terrorism into the next phase, which is Iran (and Syria if that nation doesn't collapse immediately upon our entry into Iran).
Your beliefs and concerns about "the world" opinion of America suggests a steady state which ignores the 180 which YOUR (undoubtely) great "friends" in France don't seem to share.
America is a state of mind as well as a nation. We believe in doing that which is right, and we make the determination of right or wrong based on the impact on freedom (our own and the prospect for the same for all our fellow human beings).
And of course every individual American is hoping to steal the gasoline or oil out of somebody else's gas tank or garage (that's how we "all" got to be so RICH).
Come visit America. Talk to everybody who appears to be normal and I think you'll find that we are your best friends, rather than your fearful enemy. And we will consider your opinions but we will do what we consider to be right (even when it takes courage).
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-08-21 4:50:22 PM
Jordan ~
In comparing Iran to the commies, you are overlooking one crucial fact:
The commies are atheists, and are not prepared to die for the one life they believe exists. Muslims believe they will go to Paradise if they kill even one infidel in the name of "allah". How much greater will their reward be (in their sick minds) if they can kill a few million in a few days in the name of their god.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 4:59:44 PM
LizJ,
I think he lost it in translation from his language to English.
He seems to have confused power with reason.
Typical of islamofacists.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-08-21 5:08:07 PM
If we can live with a Nuclear Pakistan and India. How is a Nuclear Iran going to change anything? Iran is one of few Countries in the Middle East who are moving on, from there dependence on Oil. Unfortunately, there President is a lunatic who cowardly threats other countries just to rile up his people, into giving away their freedoms for security. Good blog, JMS.
Posted by: Edmontonian | 2007-08-21 5:08:13 PM
First of all, Bombing Iran is a suicidal act for the US.I do not know that why we think that we have the right to own atomic bomb and deprive a country with 7000 years of history from having access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and even this country claims that he is trying to make atomic bomb I think for a a country that his neighbours (Pakistan ,Isreal , India )have atomic bomb it is a necessity to decide so.
Posted by: james Patrick | 2007-08-21 5:13:49 PM
james~
So that's what a Leftoid thinks like! I almost forgot. Thanks for the reminder.
Pakistan & India make no threats to bomb anyone. Same with the US & Israel.
Iran, however, has been explicit that it wants to annihilate another 6 million Jews, to be followed by the US.
Right - they just want nukes for peaceful purposes. What flavour Kool-aid are you drinking today?
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 5:18:11 PM
This depends a lot on whether Iran can be trusted. You are not dealing with the run of the mill deterable bunch, like the Soviet Union. Soviets didn't really want to die, thus deterrents worked. No comparison.
As obc said quite correctly: "Muslims believe they will go to Paradise if they kill even one infidel in the name of "allah". How much greater will their reward be (in their sick minds) if they can kill a few million in a few days in the name of their god."
And that's not conjecture. Iran's Mullahs and ImANut, or whatever his name is, has said they want millions to die in Israel alone i.e "wipe off the map". So do we trust them? I say no, it's not worth the risk.
So what is to be done.
First, put the bombs away for now, but keep em polished.
Second, tell the Iranian people essentially what's going to happen, without all the details. Tell them the nuclear ambition must be verifyably ceased. Tell them to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc. and to cease influence, support & funding.
The useless UN should at same time come together with real harsh choking sanctions, including gasoline imports.
Blockade their ports.
If that doesn't work, take out their refining capability (not destroyed), put the country on extreme rations.
Then, take out their power distribution. Doesn't have to be destroyed. Just drop one into the transformer yards and that would shut them down for months.
If they reinstate those services, drop a few more. Put em down for months again.
Give the Iranian people a good reason and a chance to rise up and overthrow that regime. Grease the wheels so to speak.
Now if they don't, the world, especially Israel, has a very serious problem.
If thats the case, do not invade, but stop polishing the bombs..............
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 5:38:49 PM
Sounder, being of sound mind, speaks soundly.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 5:42:13 PM
Iran will self destruct over time and a new regime will come in. Will it be western leaning or even more radical?
How far is Iran from becoming nuclear armed?
It is all a matter of timing.
A series of personal threats followed up by selective assassinations against nuclear researchers might be interesting.
Lowest cost option and most politically favourable option.
Epsi
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-08-21 5:44:35 PM
Conrad-USA I agree with you, although I doubt the American government will act. As already pointed out here one cannot compare these fanatics to the communists, who never lost their sense of self-preservation.
There would be no need to invade Iran, since it only requires the elimination of their nuclear sites. They are convinced, and perhaps with reason, that the West lacks the courage and determination to do so. Why should they think otherwise? They are successfully pulled off every illegal and criminal act to date without consequences: hostage taking, murdering Americans and others, kidnapping British marines, and doing everything to destabilise Iraq.
The have never ceased stating openly their intentions and their behaviour only confirms that they mean what they say. The West ignores this at its own peril.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-08-21 5:49:07 PM
Alain ~
Well said!
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 5:54:09 PM
Alain says: "They are successfully pulled off every illegal and criminal act to date without consequences..."
Bingo! and without correction it will only get worse!
obc: Thanks, although it's a challenge to stay "sound" these days...eh?
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 5:54:49 PM
The Sounds of Silence works on occasion, sounder.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 5:56:27 PM
>If we can live with a Nuclear Pakistan and India. How is a Nuclear Iran going to change anything? Iran is one of few Countries in the Middle East who are moving on, from there dependence on Oil. Unfortunately, there President is a lunatic who cowardly threats other countries just to rile up his people, into giving away their freedoms for security. Good blog, JMS.
Posted by: Edmontonian | 21-Aug-07 5:08:13 PM
Edmontonian,
Do you know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?
"When an aircraft crashed in Teheran last month, killing 108 people, Mr Ahmadinejad promised an investigation. But he also thanked the dead, saying: "What is important is that they have shown the way to martyrdom which we must follow."
"Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable."
"The prospect of such a man obtaining nuclear weapons is worrying. The unspoken question is this: is Mr Ahmadinejad now tempting a clash with the West because he feels safe in the belief of the imminent return of the Hidden Imam? Worse, might he be trying to provoke chaos in the hope of hastening his reappearance?"
FROM>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html
"Ahmadinejad, who is only the second non-cleric to become president since the revolution, has made clear his immense respect for Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, a deeply conservative cleric with close ties to the Hojjatieh-founded Haqqani theological school in Qom."
"Founded in 1953 and used by the Shah of Iran to try to eradicate followers of the Bahai faith, the Hojjatieh Society is governed by the conviction that the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth."
"It seems that they (Hojjatieh members) have recently become more active and are spread through the government," said a political analyst who declined to be named.
"The president has repeatedly said his government will pave the way for the Imam's return."
FROM>
http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945
Posted by: Speller | 2007-08-21 6:10:07 PM
I must learn to read my posts before pressing Post. I meant "they have successfully pulled off.." instead of "are". Sorry.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-08-21 6:12:40 PM
Forgiven.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:15:01 PM
I agree with Speller. The last thing we should do is "assume" ImANut is just a loudmouth, without underlying motives. We, in the west, do not have not much of a clue to what's driving Iran, unless we study them and understand how religious this battle is and why. Some have studied them and become fully informed, only to be called lunatics themselves.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 6:23:56 PM
Sounder -
The notion that we don't "have to" bomb or invade Iran is really the same situation as with Iraq.
The first Gulf War in Iraq to push Sadaam back out of Kuwaite (spelling?) was stopped short of overthrowing Sadaam, under the belief that the people of Iraq would overthrow him.
But the degree of utter TERROR in those horrible middle east nations has just frozen the ability of those people to trust even one another sufficiently to allow coordinated action to create a free nation.
We "have to" militarily overthrow the corrupt existing Terrorist Mullahs and "guarantee" the broad population the chance to rebuild a reliable Rule of Law and minority rights respecting government.
Who died and made us king?
This is not a Boy Scout do-gooder mission, these folks arm terrorists with nuclear weapons and chemicals, bio-agents, etc. to actually threaten all of us.
We must help them to regain their ability to establish and enforce human minority rights respecting (secular) government which then overcomes the fear that their perverted religion teaches and enforces with Terror.
Eventually the successes will convince other Islamic national leaders to act responsibly rather than as tyrants, or their populations will be see that tyrants can be overthrown.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-08-21 6:27:35 PM
And don't forget Iran's bombing of a Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 which killed 200 people. They have demonstrated their intentions with their actions before. No need to doubt them now.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:29:39 PM
JMS - you're portraying a bit of sanity here? OBC is babbling and Winston has crumbled; Lady is lost. Only Conrad, the yank, blithers blindly on.
Unbelievable.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 6:30:50 PM
Until marilyn admits he's been a liar & fabricator, nothing he says can be trusted as not being further lies & fabrications.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:31:34 PM
Sanity is a difficult state of mind, eh OBC.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 6:38:49 PM
You ought to know. Admit your lies and be forgiven. Otherwise:
BEGONE, UNION THUG SCOUNDREL!
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:40:40 PM
Conrad-USA: "The notion that we don't "have to" bomb or invade Iran is really the same situation as with Iraq."
Yes it is, I know. However, the American people will not condone or support all out military action, at least not right now. So, if Iran is given a chance to right itself, after strong sanctions etc. etc. and then is seen to positively reject UN Resolutions, nuclear power etc., the cause is more palpable. Then one could honestly say everything that could be done, was done, to avert an attack, unlike the Iraq thing.
I say give them a chance, limited in time, then, well.... gloves off.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 6:41:18 PM
Sounder, with OBC at your side, aren't you just a bit worried?
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 6:46:00 PM
You are not welcome here marilyn - unless you 'fess up.
BEGONE, UNION THUG SCOUNDREL!
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:47:11 PM
No munroe, no worry. Now if Roger was at my side, I be a gonner.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 6:50:35 PM
No sane person or non-Muslim wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. But imagine this scenario: A US-led bombing or invasion of Iran leads to the overthrow of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan by hardline Islamists supported by the vast majority of Pakistan's virulently anti-Western population. Now the Islamists have an estimated 40-50 nuclear weapons to launch at Western or Israeli targets, or pass them to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS, etc. Now the Islamists have the nuclear technology and raw materials to spread throughout the Muslim world.
This is the law of unintended consequences. The Taliban fell in November 2001, and Saddam in April 2003. Who would have predicted that Western troops would still be there in massive numbers, with the native populations unrelentingly hostile, and with no end in sight? Going to war with Iran will lead to...who knows where it will lead? Let's extricate ourselves from the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq before even contemplating yet another war.
Posted by: JP | 2007-08-21 6:53:43 PM
OBC Sounder - Alberta's answer to ????? I love it - go get a political party, please. OBC, Old Blind Coward, will at least keep you out of harm's way while he sends kids to do his fighting.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 6:53:56 PM
A man's word is his bond. Your word is untrustworthy, marilyn - a proven liar.
BEGONE, UNION THUG SCOUNDREL!
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:55:56 PM
The Soviet Union and Red China were "permitted" to acquire nukes??
And yes they have not used them - yet.
Posted by: Monty_inBC | 2007-08-21 6:57:27 PM
JP ~
Under those circumstances, India could be persuaded to handle Musharaff's "successors".
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 6:58:37 PM
Monty - only the US has been that irresponsible. THEY are the ones not to be trusted.
Full Moon tonight OBC - you're howling.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 7:00:43 PM
Howling at a proven liar & fabricator. You are not welcome here any longer, now that you have exposed yourself to be untrustworthy.
Debate here is meant for open-minded people - not Union Thugs like you.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 7:02:58 PM
OBC Sounder - Alberta's answer to ....... moon worshipers. LOL!
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 7:07:08 PM
JP: "A US-led bombing or invasion of Iran leads to the overthrow of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan by hardline Islamists supported by the vast majority of Pakistan's virulently anti-Western population."
Thats exactly why no Islamic nation should have these weapons ever. Their own demise is not a deterrent, its a reward. Dangerous. Dangerous.
Posted by: Sounder | 2007-08-21 7:10:52 PM
The major problem with attacking any country with military resources is that you risk uniting the citizens behind the government even when that government is not worth supporting as in the case of Iran. It would better to find a way to support those Iranians who want to mount a rebellion against the government. LLoyd Axworthy's method of "soft power" has not proven worthwhile.
Selective airstrikes worked in Serbia but the geographic problems of mounting such attacks against Iran are formidable. During WWII, air attacks against German industrial targets were not particularly successful. It takes boots on the ground and lots of them. How much can the US stretch its resources.
It is in Canada's national interest to support the US when we can. They are our biggest trading partner. While our soldiers are awesome in the field, they are few in number and stretched to the limit. We are not in a position to give spear-point aid but we can lend moral support and material support. We can also give some naval blockade support should that become necessary. At that we would have to rely on US combat air patrols to not be exposed as sitting ducks. Altogether, a dicey proposition.
Posted by: DML | 2007-08-21 7:12:42 PM
Roger, please call 911 and have OBC taken care of. He's losing it. If you post again, it will be the Old Blind Coward singing Moon River for his buddy, Sounder.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 7:12:46 PM
That's why the US has agreed to work with India in regards to nuclear matters. I think they are preparing to wink when India nukes Islamofascists that take over Pakistan.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 7:12:46 PM
marilyn ~
Your posts may be flushed alongside of Roger Rabid's if you persist on being his tag team buddy.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 7:14:20 PM
OBC, I only respond to nonsense from the lunatic fringe. Now, if Ezra wanted to stop misdirecction he would look very carefully at certain Cowards.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 7:17:39 PM
obc
What's all this repetitious stuff about Munroe being a liar? Inside joke? I'm not saying that he isn't, I'm just curious about what is behind your comment.
Posted by: Zog | 2007-08-21 7:17:54 PM
Just some videos from Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ywoL...elated&search=
" Death to Isreal.. "
" Are they [ Israeli ] human beings? "
" A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians "..
..and so on..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhNyFsYqy-8
" the waves of this explosion will not be restricted to this region .. "
" the rage of the Muslim people is accumulating .. "
and some other nice words..
Many people inside Iran are religious fanatics, that is the main difference with the former USSR and China.
I beg you to soncider also this point of view.
Posted by: Matteo Martini | 2007-08-21 7:24:12 PM
Zog ~
So marilyn - now that you've been proven a fabricator & liar once again, how dare you show your face here?!?
Did you miss the radio interview on CKNW? Or are you to ashamed to admit you were wrong or lying?
marilyn is not man enough to admit he was wrong, nor man enough to apologize either. Typical Leftoid behaviour!
marilyn accused me of making up the fact that I would appear on CKNW radio live. When I did, he disappeared for a few days, reappearing with no apology or admission of error.
Posted by: obc | 2007-08-21 7:25:04 PM
obc,
Would India risk New Delhi or Bombay to prevent Pakistan from attacking Tel Aviv or Rome? Not a chance.
Posted by: JP | 2007-08-21 7:30:55 PM
Zog, OBC made the cardinal error of outing his real personality. He is the famous Alder of neocon radio. ow he denies, denies, denies....cowardice is catching.
Posted by: munroe | 2007-08-21 7:34:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.