Krauthammer op-ed

This crap op-ed by Charles Krauthammer got me thinking about the nuclear club.  He claims the successful program in North Korea, and ongoing work in Iran mark the "end of the era of non-proliferation."  Really?  Let's look at the numbers:

Country/Year of successful weapon test

• US, 1945
• USSR, 1949
• Britain, 1952
• France, 1960
• China, 1964
• India, 1974
• Israel, prior to 1979
• South Africa, 1979
• Pakistan, 1998
• North Korea, 2006

Nearly every decade since the creation of the bomb has seen a nation, quietly or loudly, enter the nuclear club.  And with the arguable exception of Britain every one of those countries conducted the R&D work in strictest secrecy.  Secrecy in this context is not a sign of nefariousness, it is simply the way successful nuclear weapons programs get done. 

The idea that Iran's program marks some huge breach with the past is absurd, it would be a greater discontinuity if countries stopped trying to get nuclear weapons.

Snarkage:  Krauthammer on regime change:

Total safety comes only from regime change. During the Cold War, we worried about Soviet nukes, but never French or British nukes. Weapons don't kill people; people kill people. Regime change will surely come to both North Korea and Iran. That is the ultimate salvation.

Regime change equals remaking a country into Britain or France!  TOTAL SAFETY!

Interesting Analysis

M K Bhadrakumar has an interesting review in Asia Times of Iran's role in Basra.  There is a lot of quote-worthy material, such as his puzzlement over Iran's modesty:

In the highly competitive world of international politics, nation states very rarely miss an opportunity to crow about success stories. The opportunity comes rare, mostly by default, and seldom enduring. By any standards of showmanship, therefore, Tehran has set a new benchmark of reticence.

The real money quote though is on the Bush administration:

 

Out of the dramatic developments of the past week, several questions arise, the principal being that the Bush administration's triumphalism over the so-called Iraq "surge" strategy has become irredeemably farcical, and, two, US doublespeak has become badly exposed. What stands out is that Washington promoted the latest round of violence in Basra, whereas Iran cried halt to it. The awesome influence of Tehran has become all too apparent. How does Bush come to terms with it?

How indeed?

Rubin Op-Ed

Via Foreign Affairs

Michael Rubin has a generally wrong op-ed in the WSJ, but it has a few nuggets worth considering.  His thesis in a nutshell:  Democratic presidential candidates pose as realists, but their emphasis on diplomacy as opposed to military force makes them idealists.  Rubin implies this makes them more dangerous then the fantasist George Bush.

The problems with this thesis are clear.  Neither of the Democratic candidates have indicated a desire to disband the U.S. military.  They have not even indicated a desire to reduce military funding from it's current astronomical levels.  In fact, the only policy proposal from a Democratic candidate that Rubin cites is Obama's advocacy of aggressive diplomacy with Iran.

What is Rubin's take on Iran?

Attacking Iran isn't a viable option because it would likely only delay, not eliminate, Tehran's nuclear program. Risking the blowback from an attack would only be productive if there was a strategy to use the interim period to end the threat posed by the regime's ideology. Until there is a regime-change strategy, a military strike would merely allow politicians to put off conducting a serious national security debate.

In other words, to topple the government of Iran. 

PURE REALISM, BABY!!

Snarkage:  Rubin pushes the combination of threatening military force with diplomacy.  Is there a better example of successfully executing this strategy then Bill Clinton with North Korea and Iraq?  Is there a better example of the perils of this strategy then George W. Bush?

Bad news?

from a Washington Post article last week:

As he was preparing to take command, Fallon said that a war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch," according to retired Army Col. Patrick Lang.

Lang, a former analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in an interview that he asked Fallon how he would avoid such a conflict. "I have options, you know," Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.

From the Post today: Top Military Commander Resigns

This may or may not mean war with Iran is imminent. An alternative explanation is that Esquire published an article last week that flattered Fallon at the expense of the administration. Fallon could have been canned because he committed the unforgivable (the only unforgivable in this administration)- making Bush look bad.

Either way, the canary in the coal mine just died.