I’m no great expert on Pakistan, so I don’t pretend to have any good answers to the situation there. But it does seem odd to me that we’re apparently quite prepared to send troops, bombs and missiles into that country–nominally, at least, a friendly country–while we are not prepared to do anything of the sort with regard to Iran.
If anything, I would think that our military and political leaders would consider it more urgent to strike at Iran’s support for terrorists. So far as I know, nobody is suggesting that the Pakistani Government per se is fully in support of the jihadis we are bombing and attacking there. At most, Musharaff was condemned for being ineffective in controlling elements of his intelligence and military services who tolerated or supported al Qaeda. In Iran, on the other hand, it is abundantly clear that the Supreme Leader and his minions are fully in support of a terror network that includes Hezbollah, al Qaeda, andn others who are operating in Iraq and Afghanistan against our troops.
I have long opposed military invasion of Iran, and still do. But I do think it is legitimate self-defense, and urgent, to go after the terrorist training camps in Iran and in Syria. And I also think we should be willing to go after the military-industrial facilities inside Iran where the latest generation of IEDs is being manufactured.
So my question is: why are we attacking on the territory of a friendly country and not on the territory of a regime that has proclaimed its enmity to us and is actively engaged in killing Americans? Seems odd to me.
PJM Home
Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West
The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ Quest for Destruction
The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened. Where We Are Now. How We’ll Win.
Tocqueville on American Character: Why Tocqueville’s Brilliant Exploraton of the American Spirit is as Vital and Important Today as it was Nearly Two Hundred Years Ago
Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago
Freedom Betrayed: How America led a Global Democratic Revolution, Won the Cold War and Walked Away
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. Jack Okie:Mr Ledeen:
An invasion of Iran is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. Plus any attack on Iran before the election could put Obama in the White House. Iran is vulnerable because it must import much of its gasoline. A blockade of Iran in the Persian Gulf would strangle the Iranian economy. We would have to suppress the Iranian military response, but would not have to commit ground troops, except possibly to seize some oil platforms. Several months ago Saudi Arabia mentioned (out of the blue, IIRC) that it could cover any shortfall of 1 – 1 1/2 billion barrels per day. China has just signed an oil contract with Iraq, so it seems any loss to China of Iranian oil is covered.
I believe we are pushing the war into Pakistan because the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated, and the heartburn from the Pakistanis is preferable to letting things continue as they are in Afghanistan. It might also be enough to encourage the Pakistani government to get serious about Waziristan.
Sep 15, 2008 - 3:23 pm 2. winston:The US policies on Iran really suck, IMO
Sep 15, 2008 - 5:45 pm 3. Simoko:@ Jack Okie. [1] The idea of a passive blockade is quite sympathetic. We should consider, however, that an effective sea blockade of Iran will certainly trigger a military reaction from Iran so the end result may be the same as an outright invasion.
[2] Iran, in recognition of its gasoline vulnerability has stepped up imports over the last year and now it has such a huge stockpile that it can survive an effective blockade for over nine months. Although gasoline rationing is still in effect, this rationing is now a farce because everybody can purchase unlimited quantities of gasoline [albeit at a much higher price] on top of the subsidized personal allotment.
The ‘free market’ gasoline aims to address demand and public dissatisfaction, but this arrangement can be revoked at a moment’s notice in case of changed circumstances. Furthermore this arrangement of ‘free market’ gasoline aims to somewhat reduce the huge strategic stockpile, following the recent assessment of Khamenei and his cohorts, namely that the threat of a real blockade is now non-existant due to ‘lack of courage’ of the USA and the EU.
Sep 16, 2008 - 3:53 am 4. j green:My personal opinion on Pakistan is as follows.
The criticism was that
Pakistan wasn’t doing everything gainst the terrorists who raid into Afghanistan and ran across the border.
Sound familiar? The Iranians use the same tactics.
The difference here is that Pakistan is an ally in a very delicate balance, and I actually think Musharraf did whatever he could–that was politically tolerable domestically in Pakistan–on the war on terror. The limitations to what he did were due to his internal situation. And now, we are raiding across the border into Pakistan.
How does this reconcile with what we know to be hapening with Iran? That regime is doing nothing–actually they are doing something:they are perpetrating the acts. Why can’t we raid across their border in legitimate self-defense but we violate an ally?
Sep 16, 2008 - 2:51 pm 5. Ardsgaine:Pakistan has essentially abdicated its sovereignity over Waziristan. They can’t have it both ways. Either they own the area in which case they need to be in there clearing out the Taliban, or they don’t in which case they need to turn a blind eye while we do the job for them.
Sep 17, 2008 - 6:00 am 6. Jeff:Attacks on Pakistan can be rationalized as not really attacks on Pakistan itself, but rather on a lawless quasi-independent frontier region. Attacks inside Iran would be going through the looking glass, and there is a powerful inertia among the foreign policy/diplomat class (hardly a warrior class) to preserve the status quo, and maintain the fiction that anyone can be influenced with soft cooing over tea and crumpets.
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:03 am 7. Mr. Huehls:The excursion into Pakistan was into an area outside the governments’ control. You might say it’s the “wild wild west” to refer to the history of the U.S.. It’s a place the biggest meanest guy says what the law is. The legitimate government of Pakistan is unstable and ineffective, and it is in a state of flux. Anything can happen. We would like Pakistan to move pro-western but lack the hegemony to move it. In the mean time Wahabist radicals are using the lawless part of Pakistan as a safe haven for hit and run tactics against the powers that be in Afganistan and the Pakistani Government can’t or won’t police them. We’ve started to.
Iran on the other hand has a majority population under 35 years old that is largely pro-western. We want to keep them that way. The rulers are by and large in-place by corruption. The majority of the people do not like them and want regiem change. They will get it too, if a legitimate election is ever held. The current Iranian Government may well be overturned soon.
Sep 17, 2008 - 2:07 pm 8. enscout:Pakistan has nuclear weapons, which we cannot allow to fall into the hands of terrorists. If Pakistan’s gov’t fails – and it is failing – the situation there immediately becomes critical for the ME. The threat to Israel and the new Iraq may be existential.
Iran, so conventional thinking now goes, does not yet have nukes. So we think we can put off any incursions until we are certain they do.
Sep 17, 2008 - 6:00 pm 9. Ira Zad:I think this is in part due to the change of guards in Pakistan from Musharraf(US ties) to Zardari, the late Benazir Bhutto’s husband(British ties). US is trying to re-establish its hegemony in Pakistan-Afghanistan border area. A detached, “independent”, and US-controlled Vaziristan is not beyond imagination in the future if this thing goes into operation stage.
As for Iran, it is every bit the appeasements of Condi Rice and Bob Gates(’yellow Bob’) who think confronting Iran will be dangerous to their legacies. President Bush has been reduced to their sub-ordinate and follower, and has become very small on Iran policy.
The flip-side of this argument is that, understandably, Bush does not want to attack Iran now, but wait until Nov. 4th– If pro-Islamist Hussein Obama and Euro-stooge Biden get elected, then the probability of an Iran strike(Israelis would most likely initiate it)goes up astronomically with the timing of the strike between election day and January 20th, 2009.
Sep 20, 2008 - 2:33 pm 10. Kourosh:Apparently we are waiting to make sure IRI can get her hand on the dirty bomb, and situation with Russia become so bad that we can’t do anything about IRI even if we want to. Today Russia blocked the efforts in UN against IRI and we can predicts it will get even worst. US have had many opportunities to shake things up in Iran, but none was used. In the past many demonstrations were conducted against Khomeinists in Iran, but with no reflection in Western media and no support from the Western governments. When Carter wanted to change the government in Iran, Western media including BBC were in charge of daily propaganda against the regime. What happened today in Pakistan, is very similar to what happened in Iran in 1978-79, where terrorists bombed and burned hotels and Cinemas including Hotel ShahAabs in Esfahan, and Cinema Rex in Abadan where score of people were burned to death. Those of us who follow the news and history, realize there were no such bombing and burning anywhere or at least not in this scale before Khomeinie come to power with the help of Stalinists and Marxists come. The old left still is taking revenge from the capitalists.
Sep 20, 2008 - 2:41 pm 11. a Duoist:We do not pursue an aggressive policy into Iran because the Iranian government has successfully raised the stakes for any intervention, regardless of how small or how it was provoked.
Since we are morally corrupt, we are naturally inferior; this is the public superiority of a theofascist’s subconscious worry about his inferiority.
So long as we continue to mis-identify the nature of the threat, we will continue to merely react to Iran’s moves.
Sep 20, 2008 - 9:39 pm 12. adam poorshed:We should cut to the chase and tell it the way it is:
The USA considers _Mullah-Iran a great asset in the ME. This smoke screen of ” US wanted to do something but somehow ended up unable to” has dissipated long time ago and the view is very clear now. The USA will destroy all the countries surrounding Iran while publicly talking war with Iran.
The USA needs Iran as the mail destabiliser of the ME.
If and when Iran decides not to become a menace to its neighbors, it will be destroyed by the USA.
All Iran has to do is chill out and enjoy the spoils of two wars that were foughts for Iran’s glory: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Make no mistake about it: the last two wars were designed to give Iran the influence Iran craved and the USA craved on behalf of Iran.
Sep 29, 2008 - 11:19 am 13. j green:For your information, B. Hussein Obama is leading McCain with the deceased, canine, and feline vote. McCain can’t seem to make a connection with them. My George and Max indicate they will vote for Obama, also, if they can get doggy treat welfare.
Oct 8, 2008 - 6:18 pm