Not to trivialize the issue, but Joel Rosenberg has written three novels addressing middle-eastern politics and projections that (at least for the first 2 novels) have been spot on in their accuracy.

He also has a weblog at http://joelrosenberg.blogspot.com/, and today's post is titled "IRAN COULD PRODUCE NUCLEAR BOMB IN 16 DAYS, U.S. SAYS."

Interesting.

I never understood the possibility of Jerusalem getting nuked. It is a holy city for the world's three major faiths. Why would Islamic radicals nuke a city so important to them? I always thought that although the threat of terrorism was high in Jerusalem, the city as a whole seemed too important to everyone to be destroyed completely.

Tel Aviv, on the other hand...

Good point, Josh. Although Jerusalem is only the third holiest site for Muslims, and they'd be killing a lot of fellow Muslims either way.

Wow. That article is full of gems. Like "(Its sole resource, oil, would stay in the ground were it not for foreign technology, foreign manpower, and a Western fetishization of domestic environmental aesthetics.)" Since he is onto his the clash of civilizations idea here, he is making the claim that we would not need Middle Eastern oil if we could get over our fetishization of domestic environmental aesthetics. Besides pompous phrasing, Steyn also fails by making a claim that has no basis in reality. He should take Energy Economics 101 before writing stuff as stupid as that. Then he can spare us by not writing it.

Unfortunately, the rest of the article is far more dangerous. The seriousness of the analyses is all too frequently just as weak.

In the end, I can't help but feel surprised. What conservatives everywhere are now saying is that a nuclear Iran is more dangerous than a nuclear Soviet Union, China, and North Korea? Are you serious? That we are more scared of Ahmadinejad than we were of Stalin, Mao, and Kim the Delusional? That Islamism is a greater threat than Communism was? Why?

I never understood the possibility of Jerusalem getting nuked. It is a holy city for the world's three major faiths.

I am not a Muslim scholar, but it is my understanding that Sunni and Shia Muslims have different holy places. I don't think Jerusalem has any religious significance for Shia Muslim

Jerusalem is universally accepted by Muslims as the third holiest city. Both Sunnis and Shias believe that Muhammad was taken to heaven at the city. And even if Shia Muslims didn't regard it as holy (and they do) nuking Jerusalem would piss off the other Muslims so much it would be a foolish move.

All in all, Jerusalem may be the safest city in the world to avoid a nuclear attack, while at the same time being one of the most prone to general terrorism.

Peter,

I'll grant you that the statement about oil seems inaccurate. However, I believe it's absolutely true that a nuclear Iran is much more dangerous than the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea were/are. With the Soviets and Chinese, we could count on them behaving rationally. Even North Korea looks sane compared to the religious fanaticism that controls Iran. Seriously, half a century has gone by, and has there been even a single hostile action at the DMZ?

The main threat from communism was that it would expand through conventional means. Sure, we worried that a nuclear war could break out and destroy the entire world, but the prospect of Iran nuking a city or two seems much higher. Deterrence doesn't work so well against people who believe in martyrdom.

The Islamists view Israel as a modern-day crusader state: a den of infidels recently arrived to despoil holy land. They won't destroy Jerusalem; they seek to recapture the Dome on the Rock, not destroy it. Josh is correct that they may attack Tel Aviv - even that city is close enough to Jerusalem that fallout may be a serious problem in the city, depending on the direction of the wind. The most likely nightmare scenario is an attack on Tel Aviv and the delivery, by some kind of sabotage, of an Iranian nuke to New York harbor or the East End. This initial attack to be followed, of course, by holding the West hostage until it demands that Jews return to America and Europe.

Whether that scenario comes to pass depends on the sanity of the Iranian government, the skill of governments in the West (their tools are limited by the strategic situation of the region: on the one hand we are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the other hand our occupations their may be seen as a threat to the Iranian government, accelerating their efforts at development), and the willpower of liberal peoples around the world. In all those measures, our situation is dire.

I fear that someday the war in Iraq may be viewed as the single biggest strategic blunder in the history of the nation. Some future Gibbon may mark it off as the beginning of the end of the American age. I say this as someone who started out in cautious favor of action in Iraq.

It's deja vu all over again!

Okay, lets all take a deep breath. A workable Iranian nuclear weapon is at least 3 to 5 years away, according to Hans Blix. Others, like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Joseph Cirincione say it's 5 to 10 years away --- and that's assuming the Iranians don't encounter any of the technical problems that typically plague these programs.

Meanwhile, Middle East specialist, Trita Parsi wrote in Lebanon’s Daily Star:

"Israel views the regime in Tehran as rational (but extremist), calculating and risk-averse.

Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability...

...an Iran that does not have nuclear weapons - but that can build them - will significantly damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations.

It will damage the image of Israel as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region and undercut the myth of its invincibility.

Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans."

Steven Clemons director of the American Strategy Program, reported after a recent trip to Israel that Israeli diplomats and generals think there are numerous non-military potential solutions to the problem.

"One of the issues that came up in many of the national security related discussions I had was that Israel has maintained and cultivated a very strong human intelligence network inside Iran. The two nations were close strategic allies 25 years ago -- and continue, in many behind-the-scenes ways, to communicate and possibly even to coordinate certain actions. It doesn't mean that Israel is ready to appease Iran's regional ambitions, but it does mean that I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Many serious Iran watchers in Israel think that chances are relatively high that "internal developments" will emerge in Iran to constrain Ahmadinejad's "political options and political life."

Thus Chris Nelson reports in his Washington newsletter for foreign policy professionals, the Nelson Report:

"Our sources have consistently maintained that Israel has repeatedly warned the US that it would NOT attack Iran, due to Israel's vulnerability to missiles and terrorism. We reported at the time, two years ago, then-Prime Minister Sharon standing in the Oval Office to warn Bush precisely on this point."

Finally, it might be a good idea to consider this: Iran has offered in the past to make a deal and Bush showed no interest. Former Bush aide to the National Security Council, Flynt Leverett wrote in the NY Times:

"In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan.

But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.

In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences.

The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations.

It was presented as having support from all major players in Iran's power structure, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

A conversation I had shortly after leaving the government with a senior conservative Iranian official strongly suggested that this was the case.

Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line..."

Considering all of the above (and now the steady drumbeat of calls by leaders of the military establishment for the
dismissal of Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld), for the sake of the planet, we might consider putting off Iran hysteria until after we've cleared out the current White House, and elected credible, new leaders.

It would be easier to dismiss alarm over Iran's successful enrichment of uranium if its president wasn't so explicit in his denial of the holocaust, in seeing himself as the leader who will call the Mahdi down from his cave, and in his stated foreign policy goals, including (1) the destruction of Israel, (2) the spread of the revolution, both within the Umma and in the House of War, and (3) the end of a world order dominated by the Great Satan. All these objectives may be nothing more than a populist demagogue's rants meant to secure his own power of a largely conservative Islamic society, but, frankly, what else are we to judge the regime on? I might add that we need more credibility in our own government, and in governments around the West, and that the sheer incompetance of Mr. Bush's administration has emboldened our adversaries, but the crisis is upon us now. If you knew anything about nuclear weapons (might I suggest Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb), you understand that Iran has just crossed one of the biggest obstacles in the production of nuclear weapons. This is for real, JohnS. It might be easier to "put off the hysteria" until tomorrow, but then it will be too late.

This is for real, JohnS. It might be easier to "put off the hysteria" until tomorrow, but then it will be too late.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Anyway, per your alarm over the wildly inflammatory statements by Iran's president. As I'm sitting here working, I've got the Lehrer News Hour on, and both Iran experts are pointing out that Iran's president issues them, mostly for domestic consumption, in reaction to perceived bellicosity from the US (Condi Rice). They added that Iran's president has no authority over the military, or even foreign affairs.

Let me assure you Chuck, the American military, the foreign policy establishment and even the Democrats are not gonna roll over for the neocons' BS this time.

Iran can and will fight back, and that means in southern Iraq and on American soil. Hezbollah has sleeper cells in this country, and as a NYer, I will be mighty pissed off and Bush does something that I think Jack Straw dismissed as too stupid for words --- I'll be sitting on ground zero here! But then again, Hezbollah can always send suicide bombers to Indiana, too. Most certainly they will choke off the Strait of Hormuz to oil shipments, resulting in huge spikes in oil prices and a global economic catastrophy.

So, again, let's turn down the hysteria, a bit.

I can't imagine Iran (or any other US enemy) nuking New York City, either - not as long as the United Nations is headquartered there, and not as long as the UN is useful to our adversaries.

"I can't imagine Iran (or any other US enemy) nuking New York City, either - not as long as the United Nations is headquartered there, and not as long as the UN is useful to our adversaries."

The London Sunday Telegraph leaked what the Bush Administration is planning in the way of military action if Iran doesn't come into compliance with the IAEA by the end of this month.

If Iran doesn't back down, Bush will repeat his pre-Iraq-war maneuverings. He will seek another "coalition of the willing" to try sanctions, and will let that let that play out until mid summer, just before mid-term elections.

Keep in mind that our Iran intelligence is even spottier than our deeply flawed Iraq intelligence. Why?

Because a CIA officer screwed up. He accidentally sent a message to ALL of our human assets in Iran, in a that was openly discernable to the Iranians.

Iran then rolled up our network of assets and shut down our eyes and ears there.

Don't forget that former CIA agent Valerie Plame affair was also working to get intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, and her operation got 86ed, too.

And that intelligence is desperately needed. Why? Because Iran's nuclear facilities are hidden underground near Iranian Iranian population centers.

When discussing retaliation for a US bombing campaign, the first thing mentioned is our troops in Iraq. The second thing mentioned is Hezbollah, Alan. Hezbollah is described as being much better organized and probably much more lethal than al-Qaeda. And they they have sleeper cells in Europe and in this country right now. Iran would unleash Hezbollah on us, and by that I mean suicide bombings and worse. (though well short of nukes, they don't have them yet, remember?) My family and I are sitting on ground zero for suicide bombings in the subways, on buses, truck and car bombs, etc. I suspect the rest of the US will get hit, too.

Additionally, the WH plans to launch tactical nuclear weapons in response to any Iranian retaliation. When that happens, we will become an international pariah.

Again, it is only the US that is freaking out here. The Israelis think it is stupid to be engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this very early stage, and Israel has repeatedly warned the US that it would NOT attack Iran because of it's vulnerability to missiles and terrorism.

This has all the makings of a truly Bushian major global catastrophe.

None of that relates to the choice of NYC as a nuke target, or the UN's usefulness to Iran and Iran's terrorist allies.

Regarding your topic, the US is freaking out because of many believe that a nuclear Iran will arm terrorists who will in turn nuke us.

Another country heard from.
Russian nuclear chief says Iran far from industrial-scale uranium enrichmentr

Apr 13 2006, 20:05

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's nuclear chief said Thursday that Iran is far from being capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment, the Interfax news agency reported.

Russian Federal Nuclear Energy Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the enrichment facility in the Iranian city of Natanz, equipped with 164 gas centrifuges, could not produce any significant amount of enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel power plants or produce atomic weapons.

"These centrifuges allow Iran to conduct laboratory uranium enrichment to a low level in insignificant amounts," Kiriyenko was quoted as saying. "The acquisition of highly enriched uranium is unfeasible today using this method."

I'd like to hear some opinions from other nuke experts.

"...the US is freaking out because of many believe that a nuclear Iran will arm terrorists who will in turn nuke us."

Why the selective hysteria? What about Pakistan?

"I'll grant you that the statement about oil seems inaccurate." I guess charity is in for Easter and all, but this seems an extremely generous way to describe such an absurd assertion.

The article is riddled with them, starting with the core premise. Steyn concludes his first section, which the entire article than builds upon, "Who better to unite the Muslim world under one inspiring, courageous leadership? If there’s going to be an Islamic superpower, Tehran would seem to be the obvious candidate." Does this man have any understanding of the Arab-Persian rivalry? Of the Sunni-Shiite relations? Of the fact that there a multiple Muslim countries more powerful than Iran, including the one right next door? People who do not display even such a basic understandings (or who understand these but willfully distort the situation) should not be taken seriously.

So here's my question for everyone who thinks that Iran's leaders are lining themselves up to strap on a nuclear suicide belt: why is a country who's goal behind building a nuke or two so that it can blow up Tel Aviv and Haifa only to watch as Israel's 200 or so nukes rained down and utterly destroyed the entire country worried about economic sanctions? Why worry about that when you are planning on destroying yourself anyway? It's not like the sanctions are going to stop you from getting the bomb. And why worry about economic carrots? If America and Europe boost trade or help build some infrastructure, who cares? You're just planning on getting yourselves destroyed anyway.

"Why the selective hysteria? What about Pakistan?"

Several reasons:

1. Pakistan's head of state isn't saber-rattling against the US in press conferences every other day. It demonstrates at least some interest in cooperation with the West.

2. As far as the general public knows, Pakistan is not as cozy with terrorist organizations as Iran is.

3. Iran has committed blatant acts of war against the US. It held Americans hostage for 444 days. Troops have intercepted arms shipments intended for Iraqi "insurgents" originating from Iran. Iran has long been a state sponsor of Hezbollah, a declared enemy of the US. The average citizen cannot cite a Pakistani act of war against the US, although he or she may feel (with reason) that the country isn't our most responsible antiterror ally. (The pardoning of A. Q. Khan was certainly an affront.)

4. India has nukes. Some sense that having a nuclear rival right next door makes Pakistan less likely to court more such rivals.

5. Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time. Some believe that if it were supplying terrorists with suitcase nukes, they would have gone off by now.

Get your head out of the sand, Alan. Pakistan has a track record of selling nuclear technology on the open market (North Korea, say thank you to Pakistan) and it's spy unit is famous for it's ties to militant groups, including the Taliban.

Of course, Ahmadinejad’s "crazyman" routine plays righty into the hands of the neocons, who would like nothing better than to portray him as, in the words of Karl Rove, “not a rational human being to deal with.”

First off, as I said earlier, Ahmadinejad isn't a president like an American president. He’s not the top bananna ---the mullahs are. He has no authority over the military, or even foreign affairs.

The Israelis consider Iran's leadership to be very rational --- Republican Rep Bob Ney's Middle East specialist, Trita Parsi wrote: "Even those Israeli officials who believe that Iran is hell-bent on destroying the Jewish state recognize that Tehran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons due to the destruction Israel would inflict on Iran through its second-strike capability..." Parsi explained that Israel's primary concern with Iran having a nuke is not fear of attack, it's fear of a loss of diplomatic leverage.

Regarding this article by former Bush aide (he was senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council) Flynt Leverett wrote that back in 2003, the Iranian government offered Bush "a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences ... about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations..." and was rebuffed by the White House!

In that same article Flynt revealed two more things: that "Tehran also offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan"--- Bush "axis of evil" speech effectively scuttled any possible deal; and that in October 2003, "the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed."

The "crazy regime" excuse is just another neo-con job. The leaders of Iran are sane and ready to talk, it's the White House who's doing the refusing. A growing bipartisan chorus of American lawmakers like Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Richard Armitage, Richard Haass, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd can hopefully change Bush/Cheney's mind.

Is it just me, or do most of JohnS' comments rely on name-calling, flinging around terms like "neoncon" and "Bushian," and/or quoting selected pundits and analysts whose writings support his opinions--as though because one of those people said something, it's the gospel truth?

I would take your charge of John S name-calling more seriously if you, or any conservative I've read on this issue, would address his relevant points. And they are relevant. He uses the word Neocon once in his last post. He also makes extremely relevant points. So could you address why

1. Conservatives constantly quote Ahmadinejad about the danger posed by Iranian nukes when he a)is widely believed to be making the comments for domestic political purposes and b)has as much control over nukes and the military in Iran as does our Treasury Secretary in the U.S.?

2. Most knowledgeable players (Middle East experts, Israel, our own venerable Senator) believe Iran is a rational actor that can be negotiated with.

3. For being on a suicide nuke mission, Iran was bizarrely willing to a)help us in Afghanistan, b)give up their nuke program when it looked like Iraq was going to be a stunning success, and c)have shown to be susceptible to diplomatic carrots and sticks.

You might be more careful about charging people with name-calling and cherry picking, and I might take the charge more seriously, when Steyn's article is a paragon of both vices. Besides mocking "President Ahmaddamatree" (wow, literally, name-calling!) he provides helpful flags in case you don't realize how bad some of these people are: "Machiavellian mullahs," "nuclear theologians," and Bill Clinton as our "first Islamist ex-president."

And beyond cherry picking, he is often just spectacularly wrong. I have already picked out two: energy economics and Iran as ideally suited to be the Muslim superpower. Add to that the idea Josh had to correct you on (Muslims nuking Jerusalem) also comes from his article, as well as his depiction of the European response to the Mohammed cartoon saga as "craven." Last time I checked, it was European papers picking them up and reprinting them with abandon and American papers avoiding them like the plague while the producers of Comedy Central's South Park finally discovered something so offensive and incendiary that they wouldn't show it.

Are you ready to defend the Steyn article and the larger point that Iran is on nuclear suicide mission so that we have to use military force to stop them, or are you just going to paper it all over with because while Steyn "seems to be inaccurate" he is basically right. Or are you prepared to denounce the Steyn article for its cherry-picking, name-calling, and blatant inaccuracies? If you are going to denounce what JohnS writes in a comment on a blog, at least be fair in your denounciation and admit that Steyn was the far greater sinner in these respects for what he wrote in a published article, where the standards are a little higher.