http://www.ict.org.il/articles/a...m? articleid=460

Note when this was written.
Dan Darling | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:03 am | #

Oh, I know. That's why I think the Iranian regime needs to go. I'm less than convinced that war is the way to achieve it. There's quite a lot of discontent with the regime within Iran. Attacking the country may just serve to make Iranians patriotically support the regime. I'd like to see some attempts at supporting regime change from within.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:37 am | #

Personally?

I think most of the Bio/Chem weapons got poured down some oil wells before Saddam & co. (what's left of them) exited for less hostile climes. It's the sort of nasty suprisethat a sadist like Hussein would leave for those who drove him out of power.

But it's just speculation on part.
Dennis_Mahon | 05.30.03 - 3:49 am | #

When faced with a choice of believing the administration or the pope, pro-war Catholics chose the secular powers.
But look-
-Rumsfeld says no WMDs probably existed at the start of the war. Huh?
-The brits are saying that the "smoking gun" that led them to believe in WMDs and the war was a piece of false information.
If WMDs are your ticket you've got no seat on the train. Me, I never believed that WMDs was the critical factor. The issue for me would be WMDS capable of actually reaching the US and actually likely to be used. Saddam, restricted by no-fly zones and surveillance, was never a threat to the US.
Next time, listen to the pope. He does know a thing or two.
WRY | 05.30.03 - 7:36 am | #

Mark,

You "think the Iranian regime needs to go"? You're "less than convinced that war is the way to achieve it"? I'm not sure what you're saying here. I hope you agree that, as an initial matter, there is no just basis for the US to invade Iran and that there is no evidence that Iran is a threat to the US. Given that, what exactly are "attempts at supporting regime change for within"? A covert war? Fomenting rebellion? Or do you mean something less sinister?
Bill | 05.30.03 - 9:44 am | #

Actually I read somewhere, probably NRO, that broadcasting support through radio available to Iranians and Bush making public pronouncements in support of the people of Iran would go a long way to a—believe it or not—helping mobilize a relatively peaceful overthrow of the mullahs. They are deeply disliked and resented by Iran's growing younger generation.

So, we can pray. In fact, I think it would be a great thing to pray for, the way we used to pray for the conversion of Russia.

Having said that, I do think Iran is a threat to the US, and that Iraq was even more so. Leaving the tyrant in power, with the millions in cash we now know he had, represented a real possibility he could buy the materials he needed for a nice suitcase sized atomic weapon to give an Islamofascist freak to set off in New York. You don't need missiles to deliver nuclear weapons or chemical weapons.
John Farrell | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 1:52 pm | #

John,

Are you saying that Iran is a threat to the US such that, all other things being equal, the US would be justified in invading? If so, how do we go about defining what constitutes a threat? Is it merely a proclivity to nastiness coupled with policy disagreements with the US?
Bill | 05.30.03 - 2:14 pm | #

So what are you going to say if the WMD's are never found, Mark? You'd be hard pressed to call the President a liar -- if he were, I'm sure he would have pulled some planted WMD's out of his hat the day after the war ended. If you say he erred in good faith, then the war was still justified. And what will you say to folk like me who assert that the WMD's are still out there: sent to Syria for safe keeping or buried in the western desert under the cover of a sandstorm? If the US Army can loose all that less-than-nasty anthrax in Maryland and not have it found for tens of years, then how much more lost might the Iraqi gas and bugs be, buried in a desert that's bigger than quite a few states?
.
Francois | 05.30.03 - 2:32 pm | #

Bill:

I think Iran is guilty of far more than "merely a proclivity to nastiness coupled with policy disagreements with the US." It it perhaps the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the middle east and is actively working to subvert any attempt to institute a secular democracy in Iraq and seeks nuclear weapons. It is an active threat to the U.S. and peace in the middle east. I agree with Mark: for now, we should try means short of war to bring about regime change in Iran -- and there is reason to hope that this is possible given the regime's unpopularity and past precedent (the popular overthrow of the Shah) but it would be disastrous if Iran acquired nuclear weapons.
Ed Graham | 05.30.03 - 2:34 pm | #

Ed,

What I'm not seeing is Iran as "an active threat to the US", as you say. It was the same issue I had with Iraq. Moreover, once you get involved with bringing about "regime change" in foreign countries, aren't you engaging in warfare of sorts against them? (I suppose it depends on the means employed -- Hence, my question to Mark above.) What means for regime change in Iran do you suggest? Weren't we down this road before with the Shah? Does it matter whether or not we are obliged by treaties, the UN, etc. to respect the sovereignty of other countries?
Bill | 05.30.03 - 3:31 pm | #

Bill:

Iran has been cozy with al-Quaeda for a long time. I still agree with the basic Bush doctrine that the way to destroy terrorism is to destroy its habitat--sort of like spotted owls.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:43 pm | #

Francois:

Like I say, have doubts and questions at this point, not replies and answers.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 3:44 pm | #

Terrorist attacks are being staffed, equipped, and funded from somewhere The next place to go to attack their base of operations is Syria, Iran, or Pakistan -- which comes first is a matter of prudential judgment. If the Pope knows where the secret base is, please let President Bush know.
Patrick Sweeney | Homepage | 05.30.03 - 4:58 pm | #

Mark,

I think your wrong about Iran's coziness with al Qaeda. Hezbollah, yes, but not al Qaeda.

But, regardless, what exactly is involved in destroying the terrorist habitat? I don't think this is a matter of "secret bases", as Patrick would have it. Their habitat is their culture. Do we really want to undertake the project of remaking the Middle East in our image? Wouldn't such an undertaking (apart from being impossible to achieve) invite the sort of terrorism it was initiated ostensibly to prevent? And all of this would supposedly be justified on the theory that the US was legitimately defending itself? I don't see it.
Bill | 05.30.03 - 5:14 pm | #

Our terrorists are not like Spotted Owls, but more like cockroaches. The 9/11 plot was brought to fruition on the soil of the U.S., U.K., and Germany. The 9/11 attackers were Saudi and Egyptian. Their leader just happened to be in Afganistan, but could have been anywhere. Several other nations were also probably involved, however indirectly. What the actors had in common was a belief system that wants to rid Islamic countries of U.S. presence and influence. So what do we do? Go invade and occupy an Islamic country and start planning to invade another -- which is like going after roaches with a jackhammer on one hand, and feeding them sugar on the other. It is a prescription for perpetual war and chasing shadows.
T. Marzen | 05.30.03 - 5:31 pm | #

Bill:

I would refer you to the link at the beginning of the comments regarding al-Qaeda's documented ties to the Iranian military and intelligence establishment. You can split hairs about whether or not the elected and impotent civilian government is aware of it, but the ties are far less ambiguous here. Just consult Ali Mohammed's testimony in the 1998 Embassy bombings trial or the recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald stating that al-Qaeda's leadership is shacking up at one of the shah's old hunting lodges that is now an IRGC military base.

As far as al-Qaeda's secret base goes, it's called Saudi Arabia. They bankroll most of the crap that goes on in the Muslim world and al-Qaeda is dependent upon 12 wealthy Saudi magnates that are known as the "Golden Chain" within the organization in order to function. I think you would be hard-pressed to prove that al-Qaeda and its financiers and fellow travelers are not attempting to realize politically what was first preached by Ibn Abd al-Wahhab back in the 1800s.
Dan Darling | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 2:54 am | #

Dan,

What do you imagine would happen if "the 12 wealthy Saudi magnates" were dealt some rough justice, courtesy of the US of A? Would their "dependents" cease to be a problem for us? Of course not. Is a well-financed, sophisticated network really necessary in order to hijack a plane with a box cutter? Or to blow oneself up in a crowded restaurant? Or to shoot people randomly on a crowded street? As I asked Mark, doesn't the rationale for an invasion of Iraq and now perhaps Iran call for a remaking of the entire Middle East and a reformation of Islam generally?
Bill | 05.31.03 - 9:30 am | #

"What do you imagine would happen if "the 12 wealthy Saudi magnates" were dealt some rough justice, courtesy of the US of A?"

For starters, al-Qaeda's financing would quickly start coming upon hard times. This diminishes their ability to maintain infrastructure and if the grunts aren't paid, they'll soon go to other militant groups for employment. If nobody with parallel assets steps in to replace the twelve, al-Qaeda would soon be out of business big-time.

"Would their "dependents" cease to be a problem for us? Of course not. Is a well-financed, sophisticated network really necessary in order to hijack a plane with a box cutter? Or to blow oneself up in a crowded restaurant?"

Somebody has to pay for the flight training, the cost of living while they were training, the materials for making the explosives, ect. While terrorism is not terribly expensive, the infrastructure behind it is. This where the cash comes in.

"As I asked Mark, doesn't the rationale for an invasion of Iraq and now perhaps Iran call for a remaking of the entire Middle East and a reformation of Islam generally?"

The same folks who fund al-Qaeda also fund the global spread of Wahhabism that is responsible for many of the problems, social or otherwise, in the Islamic world. The Saudis have financed extremism throughout dozens of nations in the last century, whereas Iran ever since 1979 has become the capital of Islamic terrorism and maintains a network of organizations similar to the old Comintern. Al-Qaeda is a combination of both, which is one of the reasons why it's so dangerous.

Some nations in the Middle East don't really need to be remade. In Morocco, for example, tens of thousands demonstrated against the suicide bombings in Casablanca. The Moroccans, however, are ruled by a fairly benign monarchy. Other nations, however, are ruled by thug dictatorships or theocracies, some of them supported by the US. Those, combined with Wahhabism, are the primary problems in the region.
Dan Darling | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 2:49 pm | #

Dan,

I think you fail to realize how easy it is for a terrorist to kill a bunch of people, especially if he himself is not overly concerned about surviving an attack. A terrorist doesn't need some zillionaire to show him how to do it. That's why I say some large scale project to remake the Middle East (save Morocco) would have the effect of generating terrorism against the US. Just think how Catholics would (or at least should) react if a militarily superior Islamic nation tried to remake the Church to be more in accord with Islamic preferences. Wouldn't that prompt some sort of reaction?
Bill | 05.31.03 - 4:40 pm | #

"I think you fail to realize how easy it is for a terrorist to kill a bunch of people, especially if he himself is not overly concerned about surviving an attack."

True enough, but there has to be a sufficiently persuasive ideology or religious belief for him to carry out such actions. Wahhabism provides that framework, which is one of the reasons why removing it from the framework of mainstream Islam is a service on behalf of humanity.

"That's why I say some large scale project to remake the Middle East (save Morocco) would have the effect of generating terrorism against the US."

I tend to agree, which is why I don't favor remaking the Middle East. However, to sit back and allow people and regimes whose stated desire is to annihilate or subjugate us under the sha'riah regroup or gain possession of nuclear weapons is an unacceptable security risk. The same goes with the kind of terrorist financing that the Saudis are kneck-deep in.

"Just think how Catholics would (or at least should) react if a militarily superior Islamic nation tried to remake the Church to be more in accord with Islamic preferences. Wouldn't that prompt some sort of reaction?"

It would, but we aren't talking about remaking Islam over in the image of the US. What we're talking out is removing or at least minimizing individuals, regimes, and sects that seek to destroy us. Islam can sort out its own problems, it's when they start dragging Westerners into these types of internal disputes that outside mediation is needed.
Dan Darling | Homepage | 05.31.03 - 8:40 pm | #