The iron logic of our current nightmare

porkbelly

Hillary Clinton's pledge was made on the campaign trail and is not - and never will be - U.S. doctrine. Iran knows full well that the United States will not launch a nuclear retaliation if Iran destroys Israel, though a heavy conventional response is probably in the cards. Nevertheless they would probably calculate that they could weather that storm and emerge the dominant power in the Middle East and unquestioned leader of the Muslim world. The logic of the situation is inescapable, as you say.

Michael B

It's a bit too neat and sum-certain, for example the analogy with Pearl Harbor. Nonetheless, the factors underlying Chapin's analysis should be acknowledged forthrightly, without being diluted. It's a potent and preternatural brew, that much needs to be faced squarely and soberly, absent wishes and whimsy.

orionman123

Imaging if during the Carter Administration 30 years ago common sense,far-sighted reason and logic had prevailed and that particular Presidential"Commander In Chief" had decided that the so called Iranian Revolution represented a grave and serious long term threat to the national security interest of America and the civilised
Free World,consequently authorising the appropriate and decisive US military response to crush this late 20th century renaissance of 7th century Islamofascist Tyranny and liberate the civilian population of that nation at the same time.
We certainly would not be faced with this escalating and growing menace which presents us today and will surely reap a grim and bitter harvest in the near future as a result of the cowardly and currupt short-term diplomacy and political expediancy of past and present US/Allied/Administrations.

D.Smith

Interesting nightmare.
I am not sure that we should ignore present day Japan and how that country may view Iranian ambitions. Japan has a far far bigger navy than us and is dependent on middle east oil.
I am sure Iran would not wish to have Japan as an enemy. That country is still very much a nation state and will act as it sees fit without reference to liberal left soul searching.
Also Russia is by no means a natural ally of Iran which has consistently supported separatist movements in it's territory and on it's borders.
The Washington Post article assumed Iran had only to consider the reaction of the USA. Unlikely and another neocon scare tactic perhaps.

Frank P

I remember the conversations that took place in my family home in my first years of sentience, just before the Second World War. The debates on this blog evoke those childhood memories and instil a similar dread to that which I felt then. There will be blood! Except that on this occasion the blood will be dissolved in a flash. What then? This time "we" cannot prevail. The cunning Mullahs have made their calculations and plans for hunkering down. The lives of their masses are unimportant as Chapin and others above have pointed out. On this blog (and others) we have warned for the past five years of this new Gathering Storm. Our 'leaders', embroiled in their games of smoke ‘n’ mirrors, lies, venal scams and counter culture revolution, while lining their pockets and arranging their pensions and sinecures, have ignored the perils of inaction vis-à-vis Islamic militancy. As with fascism in the 1930s they have appeased it - for the sake of political expediency. Not just appeased it, but also collaborated with the enemy. Just as in the Thirties, our Government comprises a large cadre of traitors. Also, just as in the Thirties, the scapegoats for Fascism are Jews.

Unfortunately, this time there is no Bulldog Churchill straining at the leash. Prepare for death or Dhimmitude! On a planet that will be largely uninhabitable, no doubt. Presently it seems to be populated mainly by deluded fools. Which is worse?

May the ghosts of past heroes arrange for eternal damnation for those who have brought us to this ignominious moment with their infamy!

Dixon

Im afraid I have to disagree with Mel on this one. Its garbled codswallop. For a start, no explanation is given of what an "EMP" attack is. An Electro-Magnetic-Pulse attack was a staple sci-fi notion of the Eighties which formed the "mcguffin" of that highly entertaining action comedy "Escape from LA". The idea is that by detonating a suitable weapon at an apropriate altitude it will frazzle electronic technology on the surface.

Fortunately, the idea that Iran would have the ability to attack the US in such a way is daft because 1) the effect would be localised to only one small part of that vast country. 2) the US military has long taken measures to protect themselves from such an attack, such as using fibre-optic relays where radio and copper connections would be vulnerable and 3) nobody has ever demonstrated such an attack as possible in any case. The mere detonation of a nuclear weapon outside the atmosphere certainly does NOT result in the vaunted EMP. The US made a whole series of exo-atmospheric nuclear detonations in the early Sixties which had no such result.

On top of which, it would need more than a feeble third-world nuke to carry out such an attack, rather a collossal THERMO-nuclear warhead, were it possible, coupled with a delivery system that Iran is unlikely to possess anytime in the next twenty years, and technical knowledge they are unlikely to have in this century.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Now, a weedy nuke the size of a Mini smuggled into a US port inside a freight container...that IS plausible. But so would be Irans denial of responsibility. Thereby making a US reprisal, certainly under this administration, completely implausible. The Iranians know that if the US dont stop them getting the weapon, they certainly are not going to attack them "preemptively" AFTER they have got it!

Tommy

The video Obama should be watching and learning from
http://tinyurl.com/ccjt8a

Carl

Yes, Iran will launch an EMP attack on the USA. Hilarious - you couldn't make it up.

Yarrow

Iran's desire to have nuclear weapons makes good sense, sadly. The regime feels threatened by the USA and (probably) by Israel too. If your enemies carry a big stick, it is reasonable to provide yourself with one. Meanwhile Obama's wish to engage in talks with Iran is sensible. Jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Now, who said that?

Dixon

Carl
March 20th, 2009 4:51pm
Yes, Iran will launch an EMP attack on the USA. Hilarious - you couldn't make it up."

Well, Carl, it is one of the positive attributes of open, unfettered debate that even though we have castigated each other in other contexts, we can agree on this one.

An American

Our girlie-boy President and Hillary will stand by and do nothing if Iran attacks Israel.

I doubt they will have the courage to do anything if Iran attacks the US.

However, Iran will be asking for it, if/when they attack Israel. Israel is armed to the teeth with nukes...even if Israel were destroyed...Iran will be in pathetic condition afterward.

I feel very sorry for the Iranian people...they need to take power before these madmen destroy them and their country... all in the name of their Mullah's religion. I don't believe the majority of Iranians believe in this backward version of Islam.

Young Iranians are reading the web...The Iranian government is jailing them for blogging or critizing the government.

The only thing that will save them is for them to rise up and take back their country from these madmen.

What better reason? These madmen's death wish is on its way to them anyway.

beloved

Dixon: Fortunately, the idea that Iran would have the ability to attack the US in such a way is daft because 1) the effect would be localized to only one small part of that vast country.

beloved: like Katrina was merely localized? How could you think destroying one region has no affect on the whole?

Pops

I'll bet on the Iranians to win. They'll soon obtain nuclear weapons and when they have sufficient quantities, they'll use them.

As one poster has mentioned, they merely need to ship them to the USA in containers.

If it isn't clear who nuked New York and Boston then who should the US hit back? But, with the Obama administration I doubt if they'd respond even if they did know who hit them.

Obama will probably survive because he'll be campaigning somewhere outside Washington. No doubt he'll ask for an international conference and Saudi financial help to deal with the nuclear strike

Simon

The United States currently has a nuclear arsenal of approximately 10,000 warheads including the Minuteman ICBM force (450 missiles) and the Trident submarine fleet. Each of the Ohio class boats carries 24 Trident SLBMs each with multiple warheads. Yet Mr Chapin is asking his readers to believe that the Iranian leadership and the bulk of Iran's population would survive the devastating and immediate retaliation that would follow an Iranian "EMP" attack on the USA. It seems to me that this is complete fantasy. A single Ohio-class submarine has enough firepower to devastate Iran completely - imagine the twenty-four largest population centres in the country each struck by a multible warhead SLBM. Once again Ms Philips and others are asking people to believe that Iran's political leadership is completely insane.
Personally I do not relish the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and I can understand the strong feelings the prospect arouses among Israelis. Yet I think the real problem for the United States is that a nuclear armed Iran would be much less vulnerable to US military pressure. Had Iraq possessed only a handful of nuclear weapons it is unlikely that the US would have risked an invasion to topple Hussein's regime.
I repeat I do not relish the prospect of Iran joining the ranks of the nuclear powers but does Ms Philips really believes that plunging into another Middle Eastern war, this time with the most populous state, bar Turkey, in the region is truly the lesser evil? Moreover what of the views of the Israeli military analyst Martin van Creveld who seems to think that the world can live with a nuclear Iran. We have after all been here before. There were those who warned of the dangers of China aquiring the bomb fifty years ago but in the event her political leadership proved responsible enough.

An American

Simon,

I agree with most of your common sense take on this problem. Iran will have their nuclear bomb/bombs shortly.

But, I'm not sure that Iran's religious leaders care about their country's future and a future life for their people. They believe they must help their messiah return to walk on earth...in the near future of 2012. And, I believe they may be capable of doing something truly destructive to reach that crazy goal.

I hope your scenario is correct for all of our sakes.

An American

Dixon,

In our weakened state politically and financially, it wouldn't take much to destroy us.

Obama and the liberal far left have made us sitting ducks.

An American

Dixon,

In our weakened state politically and financially, it wouldn't take much to destroy us.

Obama and the liberal far left have made us sitting ducks.

Dixon

beloved
March 21st, 2009 4:51am
Dixon: Fortunately, the idea that Iran would have the ability to attack the US in such a way is daft because 1) the effect would be localized to only one small part of that vast country.
beloved: like Katrina was merely localized? How could you think destroying one region has no affect on the whole?"
Beloved...you see thats where you misunderstand fundamentally the article. An EMP attack doesnt "destroy" ANYTHING, it merely disrupts e;ectromagnetic communications and electronics. It wouldn't kill a single person or knock down a solitary building. It would be a flash in the sky followed by a blackout.

The implication of the article was that the US would have no option but preemptively eliminate the threat of an attack whioch would deprive them of their retributive capacity. But thats nonsense, for the simple reason that a localised effect, one city, one district, even one state, would have no such result.

Dixon

Simon, you fail to acknowledge the psychological and political realities of the contemporary Western zietgeist: the US, under any foreseeable administration, would nEVER use ANY nuclear weapons against ANY third world country, WHATEVER happens.

As I said on another thread, in my opinion the use of nuclear weapons would make the world a much safer and cleaner place, had we in the West the gonads to use them!

Michael B

Whatever such things as the Tehran/Damascus/Pyongyang axis - which includes a nuclear aspect - suggests more precisely, it isn't propitious in terms of regional and global stability. A more generous but still responsible reading of Chapin would suggest he's more simply advancing the EMP scenario purely as a hypothetical/example, for purposes of emphasizing the underlying realities that do warrant notable, front-and-center attention. A certain softness in the west (e.g., Dixon's zeitgeist note, Obama's Carteresque communications to Tehran) cannot be discounted either, in some dismissiveness sense. Demonstrated weakness on the international stage is virtually never propitious. Jimmy Carter's example is in fact notable, resulting in the Iranian Shi'a revolution, also resulting in a power vacuum, post-Vietnam, that eventuated in Soviet and Maoist initiatives in Latin America, Africa, S.E. Asia, inroads in South America, the Philippines and elsewhere. The difference this time includes but is not limited to factors such as demographics; continuing and evolving Leftist/Islamic alliances/sympathies in the west; a greatly increased willingness to use terrorism against civilian populations, including on a massive scale, dependent upon exigencies; a far greater and much more determinative religio-social and metaphysical impetus; petro dollars and Wahhabi and similar influences; etc.

Hayward Maberley

Several strtegically placed EMPS would bring down all or most nationwide Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCADA units in:
1,Communiations: Radio, tv, telephone both fixed lines and mobile
2.IT and server farms: Government, Banking, Finance and Insurance.
3. Control Systems: Electricity Generation, including Nuclear Plants, Sewerage and Water Supply.
4. Traffic Management Systems: Air, Rail and Road Transport.
Plus every PC/Laptop together with any car, truck, airplane with an EMS and most hitech military equipment within the calculated range of the EMP. It need not be delivered by an external source. It could be built in the middle of a target area in a high rise office building.
Problems with SCADA
@ http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf
page 2 highlights those caused in 1999 to the San Diego Water Authority and the Electricity and Gas Utilities by a ship's radar 25 miles off the coast.

Hayward Maberley

An American,
The Wall Street Tsunami that swept around around the world and is now receding to expose such noisome items as the Madoff Affair was not caused by Obama and the Liberals. It was when the Faux Texan and Friends were in charge. With control of Congress 1995-2007 and an Administration from2000-2008, He the late unlamented encumbrance in the White Hose who managed to outdo even the Gipper and his pop in pushing the deficit and the National Debt into orbit. This after the previous Clinton Administrations had reversed the deficit into a surplus and started to wind back the National Debt.

Hayward Maberley

An American,
The USA has its own Far Out Religious Looneys, Dominionists. They with the justification for why Israel must be allowed to keep behaving the way it does to enable the establishment of “Eretz Ysrael”
For when Israel re-invaded Lebanon the many Dominionists web sites were abuzz. Believing this was to be the start of “End Times”. There were postings on expectations of being “Raptured”
The reason for Dominionists being so big on “Eretz Ysrael” is not because they are full of compassion and love for Israel and the Zionists that keep stealing more and more of the Palestinian land and resources. No, it is because according to their looney belief “Eretz Ysrael” has to be re-established for “ The End Times” to be put in train. ”The End Times” leads to the conversion of some Jews to “Evangelical Christianity” Followed by Armageddon where every one else , including non converting Jews plus all we unbelievers disappears in the great conflagration. Leaving only “True Believers” to greet the second coming of Christ.

An American

Melanie

Maybe the small number of comments on the posts lately have something to do with very few of my/our comments appearing.

What's gives? It's frustrating to reply to comments and most of them not be posted....

An American

Hayward Maberly,

My last comment to you didn't make it in.

The reason that we are in this financial mess is because under Clinton the Congress passed a bill 'forcing' banks to lend to unqualified home buyers. This bill was written by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd with strong support from the black caucus.

While Bush was president, he signed the Sarbanes Oxley bill in 2002 which was written after the Enron scandal. Sarbanes Oxley enforced stronger oversight on lending companys. But the same old crowd of Frank, Dodd and Waters exempted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from the Sarbanes-Oxley bill. At first Bush supported the Congress on this housing bill but later he began to see the abuses happening at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush then began to warn the Congress multiple times about the overextension of FM&FM and warning of future problems that would be occurring at these two government-backed loan institutions. But the political cronies continued to protect FMae and FMac. They were getting big bucks for their campaigns, low home loans, etc.

Unbelievably, we still have these same Congressional creeps blaming everyone in sight except themselves.

It's also true that many unscrupulous banks took advantage of the liberal left's socialist housing agenda.

But the only blame that Bush is responsible for is not having the foresight to realize that our biggest enemy were our enemies within...the far left socialists in Congress, not Iraq.

Original Tony

If my memory is ok and I have got the sciptures correct, the Bible says 2/3rds of Israel will disappear in an up-coming conflict, but so will most of Syria, lebanon and Iran.

Sounds Nuclear to me.

Hayward Maberley

An American,
Something else to consider, the Iraq Fiasco and Afghanistan Imbroglio. US$3 trillion Iraq Fiasco engendered by the Faux Texan and his Friends, not the "far left socialists" This US$3 trillion cost is the cost to the USA alone, not rest of world. AND It does NOT include the on costs as you might call them for the US economy over the next ? years. Also the Fiasco is being fought on credit! The first since the War of Independence. The on costs include
Family costs & Social costs
Cost of seriously injured to society
Loss of life and work potential for the private sector
Mental health costs and consequences
Quality of life impairment viz multiple amputees
National Guard shortfalls needed for Civil Defense viz Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters. When National Guard units are shipped out both personnel AND heavy equipment that would be used in these situations go.

An American

Hayward Maberley,

No sane person wants or likes war...but after 9-11, Bush took the war to the terrorists ...yes, Islamic terrorists traveled to Iraq from all over the Middle East and the world to fight Americans. Bush basically killed two birds with one stone...he got rid of Sadamm and he killed most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants and... He won the war.

It's true we had 4,000 soldiers die with many maimed. But, compared to other wars, this was the smallest number ever.
And remember, these soldiers sign on...they chose to be warriors.

The most important thing that came out of the Iraq war was that we didn't have another attack on our homeland for seven years...that does mean something to me as an American.

But Bush failed in a very big way, while he was fighting the war in Iraq, he wasn't watching our enemies within. Obama and his socialist cronies used the war to turn many Americans against Bush and the Republicans... and look at the predicament we're in now. We have a very dangerous far-left Socialist president that's hellbent on destroying everything I love about my country...my freedoms, independence, self-sufficency, reward for hard work...he wants to take it all away and make us into a socialist gulag.

I don't believe that Hurricane Katrina was militarily understaffed or lacked enough funding..billions were spent. The evacuation was terribly mismanaged by the New Orleans Mayor and Louisiana Governor. That was their jobs, not the Presidents. Bush's people mismanaged the aftermath. But, the biggest fault lies with the people who didn't leave the area...it's not that large of city. Most of them left their cars in their driveways and went to the Superdome to have free drinks and food...a party while the storm blew over...they misjudged, big time. Now, many of them are living in Houston, where the crime rate has doubled.

Obama is now sending incredibly weak messages to the terrorists. He is going to putz around and lose the Afghan war..Pakistan has already turned their northern territory over to Muslim extremists, which is bad news for our soldiers in Afghanistan.

We are now in a weakened state financially and we are sitting ducks... I believe we will have another attack while Obama is president...let's just hope it isn't nuclear.

Haywrd Maberley

An American,
Federal housing data reveals that your claims are untrue, that in fact it was the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, which was behind the soaring subprime lending that created the ocean of toxic debt from which the Wall Street Tsunami arose. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height between 2004 -2006.
Federal Reserve Board data shows that:
Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that you have mentioned.
Between 2004 and 2006, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have now gone bankrupt or are in deep trouble and are having their toxic assets bought up with US taxpayers money.
Now in 1999, the year critics like yourself will say that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages. However by 2005, 2006, the private sector securitised almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, not Fannie and Freddie.
Furthermore only commercial banks and thrifts had to follow CRA rules. The investment banks did not, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest et al. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. Those mortgage brokers, who also were not subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created these problems.
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."
In “Subprime Mortgages: America's Latest Boom and Bust “published in June 2007, the recently deceased ex Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
Incidentally Gramlich had strongly opposed then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in Greenspan's refusal to impose regulation on derivatives. Greenspan himself in 2008 did his mea culpas to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Obligations under the CRA were tiny compared with the number of sub-prime mortgages that were actually sold. For the crisis was really brought about by the unregulated packaging of them into financial instruments that were traded on a secondary market. It meant that those who wrote the loans had no long term responsibility for them. The mutual pocket pissing between the packagers like Lehmann Bros taking a package to the ratings agencies like Moodys and then to AIG who would then insure these “financial instruments" beause of a AAA rating given by Moodys
An American, blaming the CRA is desperate and ignorant blame shifting. There is a lot more of which to write viz. Chris Cox, The Faux Texan’s appointed head of the SEC and the Special Five on Wall Street, 3 of whom have been washed away in the Tsunami.
But let this suffice @ http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
A report done by a legal firm specialising in CRA and related acts, which shows that CRA-regulated banks were actually less likely to make loans that led to default and foreclosure.