Obsidian Wings

I'm Starting to Think We Deserve Neither

by Eric Martin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

Bruce Schneier offers wise words regarding our tendency as a people to focus on worst-case-scenario thinking - or, better yet, our tendency to put too much stock in the likelihood of worst case scenarios.

At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel of distinguished cybersecurity leaders what their nightmare scenario was. The answers were the predictable array of large-scale attacks: against our communications infrastructure, against the power grid, against the financial system, in combination with a physical attack.

I didn't get to give my answer until the afternoon, which was: "My nightmare scenario is that people keep talking about their nightmare scenarios."

There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis, and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.

Worst-case thinking means generally bad decision making for several reasons. First, it's only half of the cost-benefit equation. Every decision has costs and benefits, risks and rewards. By speculating about what can possibly go wrong, and then acting as if that is likely to happen, worst-case thinking focuses only on the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes.

Second, it's based on flawed logic. It begs the question by assuming that a proponent of an action must prove that the nightmare scenario is impossible.

Third, it can be used to support any position or its opposite...

Of course, not all fears are equal. Those that we tend to exaggerate are more easily justified by worst-case thinking. So terrorism fears trump privacy fears, and almost everything else; technology is hard to understand and therefore scary; nuclear weapons are worse than conventional weapons; our children need to be protected at all costs; and annihilating the planet is bad. Basically, any fear that would make a good movie plot is amenable to worst-case thinking.

Fourth and finally, worst-case thinking validates ignorance. Instead of focusing on what we know, it focuses on what we don't know -- and what we can imagine.

Adding to that analysis, political pressure tends to militate in favor of lending more and more credence to worst-case-scenario validation and prevention - at least, this has been the case for exaggerated fears like terrorism.  On that note, Charli Carpenter links to a Glenn Greenwald piece that, in her words, describes the unseemly "shift from denying basic human rights to non-US terror suspects under Bush/Cheney, to denying such rights to American citizens under Obama/Biden."  Quoting Greenwald:

A bipartisan group from Congress sponsors legislation to strip Americans of their citizenship based on Terrorism accusations. Barack Obama claims the right to assassinate Americans far from any battlefield and with no due process of any kind. The Obama administration begins covertly abandoning long-standing Miranda protections for American suspects by vastly expanding what had long been a very narrow “public safety” exception, and now Eric Holder explicitly advocates legislation to codify that erosion. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduce legislation to bar all Terrorism suspects, including Americans arrested on U.S. soil, from being tried in civilian courts, and former Bush officials Bill Burck and Dana Perino — while noting (correctly) that Holder’s Miranda proposal constitutes a concession to the right-wing claim that Miranda is too restrictive — today demand that U.S. citizens accused of Terrorism and arrested on U.S. soil be treated as enemy combatants and thus denied even the most basic legal protections (including the right to be charged and have access to a lawyer).

Consider this: our nation is on the verge of enshrining (or already has enshrined) a raft of legislation and quasi-legislation that will greatly erode the quality and durability of civil liberties for U.S. citizens for the foreseeable future.  These fundamental changes being proposed, and those already undertaken, are largely in response to a few bumbling attempts at terror attacks (one with a failed underwear fuse and another with a bomb made of bottle rockets and Miracle-Gro.* 

Of course, 9/11 was a far more serious matter, but 9/11 was also almost a decade ago, and pointing to that event does little to explain the ever-increasing encroachment on civil liberties gathering speed under an administration that purported to hold those rights in higher regard.  Regardless, even 9/11 doesn't justify treating the accused as the convicted.

*(via )

Give Up Education as a Bad Mistake

by Eric Martin

Camille Paglia complains about trends in education, and holds herself up as an example of her own critique: 

This whole thing about global warming – I am absolutely incredulous at the gullibility of people. What is this hysteria over drowning polar bears? And finally I realized, people don’t know polar bears can swim! For me, the answer is always more facts, more basic information, presented without sentimentality and without drama. To inflict this kind of anxiety on young people is an outrage.

Oh is that the answer is it?

The retreat of ice has implications beyond the obvious habitat loss. Remaining ice is farther from shore, making it less accessible. The larger gap of open water between the ice and land also contributes to rougher wave conditions, making the bears’ swim from shore to sea ice more hazardous.

In 2004, biologists discovered four drowned polar bears in the Beaufort Sea, and suspect the actual number of drowned bears may have been considerably greater. Never before observed, biologists attributed the drowning to a combination of retreating ice and rougher seas.

This is, as it were, pretty basic information.  Aside from the information being readily available, conceptually Paglia's argument is seriously misguided at the very least.  There are plenty of animals that can swim that can also drown.  Take, for example, human beings.

(via The Eds)

Reverse Reparations

by Eric Martin

While pondering the staggering costs of the Iraq invasion as partially detailed (and likely undercounted) in the recent CAP report (see, here), it is important to remember that the costs are still accruing at an alarming for all parties involved.  Most pointedly, and tragically, the Iraqi people.

Today, the news was particularly grim.  Gregg Carlstrom reports:

A series of coordinated attacks across Baghdad today -- 23 separate incidents, in Baghdad and seven other cities -- killed close to 100 people.

There's little to say about the violence, honestly. We've assembled a list of the attacks, and the casualty counts, after the jump. The scope is stunning: A dozen attacks on police and army checkpoints in Baghdad; coordinated car and suicide bombings in Hilla, Suweira and Fallujah; and other brazen attacks against security and political officials.

One hundred people in one day.  Meanwhile, on the eve of this most recent spasm of destructive violence, the McLaughlin Group was debating whether the "triumph of democracy" in Iraq vindicates Bush's decision to go to war (via).  That's whistling past the gravediggers with works in progress to toast the occasion.  Considering how cataclysmic a failed attempt to light one's underpants on fire (and subsequent failed Times' Square bombing) was viewed by many Americans, one would hope for some parity or empathy given the difference in outcomes. 

Instead, one of the Republican Party's most celebrated pundits, Sean Hannity, is feeling unloved and unappreciated:

Hannity: I've actually had an idea -- no one listens to little ol' Sean Hannity. But I'm like -- I think the Iraqis, with all their oil resources, need to pay us back for their liberation. Every single solitary penny. Because we really need --

Johnson: I really thought that from the beginning. I thought that that was kind of, part of the equation.

Hannity: It should have been part of the deal.

Johnson: Should have been part of the deal.

Despicable.

Clear as Mud

by Eric Martin

While perusing this post by Daniel Larison about Iran's nuclear program, and assumptions related thereto, I came across this line from Caroline Glick:

...[I]t is clear that Iran's nuclear project is aggressive rather than defensive.

In truth, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program (pdf) came to the conclusion that Iran didn't have (as of that date) an active weapons program at all - let alone one that is "aggressive rather than defensive."  As to the latter point, an April 2010 Department of Defense Report found the exact opposite to be true: rather than "aggressive" Iran's nuclear program was part of a strategy of regime survival and deterrence.  From that report (via Matt Duss):

Since the revolution, Iran’s first priority has consistently remained the survival of the regime.  Iran also seeks to become the strongest and most influential country in the Middle East and to influence world affairs. The theocratic leadership’s ideological goal is to be able to export its theocratic form of government, its version of Shia Islam, and stand up for the “oppressed” according to their religious interpretations of the law. In recent years, Iran’s ideological goals have taken a back seat to pragmatic considerations.

To ensure regime survival, Iran’s security strategy is based first on deterring an attack. [...]

Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external or “hard” threats from the United States and Israel. Iran’s principles of military strategy include deterrence, asymmetrical retaliation, and attrition warfare. Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy. [emphasis added]

So, contra Glick, the DOD report was consistent with the NIE in finding that Iran is not currently in active pursuit of a nuclear weapon and, even if it did acquire one - or at least the near capacity to build one - such a move would be undertaken in furtherance of regime survival and deterrence.

It is possible to interpret the situation differently, and to argue that Iran is both actively pursuing nuclear weapons, and that Iran intends to use those weapons aggressively should it eventually develop an arsenal.  But it is not possible to make categorical statements about how "clear," certain or uncontested that analysis is.  It would also help to provide actual evidence, other than fact-free assertion - no matter how sweeping the language of that assertion might be.

GOP: Slavery and Disenfranchisement of Women Were Features, Not Bugs

by Eric Martin

Via Adam Serwer, here's an interesting tack for the GOP to take in attacking Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan:

Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”

“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document. “And Does Kagan Still Believe That The Supreme Court's Primary Mission Is To ‘Show A Special Solicitude For The Despised And Disadvantaged’?”

Serwer provides the useful context from the speech Kagan quoted:

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we need look no further than the first three words of the document's preamble: 'We the People." When the Founding Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America's citizens. "We the People" included, in the words of the Framers, "the whole Number of free Persons." United States Constitution, Art. 1, 52 (Sept. 17, 1787). On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for representational purposes at three fifths each. Women did not gain the right to vote for over a hundred and thirty years. The 19th Amendment (ratified in 1920).

These omissions were intentional. The record of the Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear: The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade. The economic interests of the regions coalesced: New Englanders engaged in the "carrying trade" would profit from transporting slaves from Africa as well as goods produced in America by slave labor. The perpetuation of slavery ensured the primary source of wealth in the Southern States. [emphasis Serwer's]

The only proper response to such questions would be for Kagan to ask, in return, whether or not her interrogators believe that a document that officially designated each black to be three fifths of a person, enshrined slavery as law and denied women the right to vote was perfect, as written. 

This is what happens when you count on Davids for your Armies

by von

Bear with me.  I won't tell you why, except that I have a point coming.  Someday.

I was pretty pissed off at this raid of (according to the evidence) a small time dealer of marijuana.  Maybe that's too mild a description of my tone.  Here's an alternative:  I ate the apple of the Garden in that post, and, with the knowledge so gained, declared the folks who participated in that raid "evil."  (Actual quote; of mine.) 

Perhaps not surprisingly, my surety fled as my testosterone dropped:  I no longer have enough security to cover my claim.  Until I read the response by the Chief and the department. 

It's human, really.  In every sense and on all sides.  Read the response in full, and try to ignore (the first time through) my emphasis:

SWAT officers raided the home of Jonathan Whitworth, the dog's owner, eight days after securing the search warrant on suspicion that Whitworth was dealing marijuana, Burton said.  The officers encountered a pit bull and a Welsh corgi when they burst through the door of Whitworth's home at 1501 Kinloch Court in southwest Columbia. They fatally shot the pit bull and wounded the corgi. Whitworth's wife and child were also in the home when the police executed the raid, according to a report in the Columbia Tribune.

Whitworth pleaded guilty on April 20 to a misdemeanor charge of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia and was fined $300.

As Mayor Bob McDavid stood next to him, Burton said that the warrant to search Whitworth's home was "stale" and that he has changed department policy to conduct raids immediately after a search warrant is obtained. Burton said the department moved slowly in Whitworth's case because the SWAT team is made up of part-time members who hold other jobs within the department.

(As alluded, emphasis mine.)

Look: I want everyone to be involved members of the community.  I want everyone to question, to probe, to think for themselves.  Please do not go quietly into that good night:if I have half your chutzpah, I won't either.

But.

Should you buy Glenn Reynolds' book, Army of Davids, please don't believe that you are David.  Almost no one is.  (I'm not.)  Part time, amateur, blogger:  These are all synonyms for incompetent.  The last team I want beating down my door at 3 a.m. is a SWAT team composed of "part-time members who hold other jobs within the department."  Really:  Are you f-cking kidding me?  The guys with battering rams, assault rifles, and a de facto license to kill my four year old if he stumbles into the crossfire because he doesn't understand your commands?  (Have you been around four year olds lately?  They don't understand much.)  This distracted bunch of part-timers gets the job? 

It's stupid.  Expertise matters.  There's a certain breed of libertarians in their forties and fifties -- ahem, Reynolds -- who sniffed baby-boomer optimism without understanding Generation X dissent. Let me fill you in. You are not capable of doing all things. I have sung this before and I will sing it forever. Mother, father, executive, lawyer:  pick one.  You might be half good at it.  But you won't be an expert at them all. 

Back to the point:  Part time SWAT should not exist. We need folks who can respond with precise and overwhelming force in those (rare) instances that require it. But we do not need half-trained yahoos who shoot dogs and endanger kids.  See:  The Columbia, Missouri, part-time and half-assed, swat team.    

There Was a Pregnant Pause before He Said OK

by Eric Martin

The always interesting Hooman Majd recounts his recent travels to Iran, debunking some misconceptions such as Secretary of State Clinton's admonition about Iran becoming a military dictatorship, and of the Green movement's alleged revolutionary aims, as well as the level of domestic support for that same movement.

Majd also addresses the nuclear issue, stressing two facets that receive far less attention than they deserve in Western media/analysis: First, even for many in the Green Movement/reform movement, nuclear power is popular, and attempts by the West to curtail its progress are seen in terms of nationalism, national pride and double standards.  Second, nuclear weapons have been repeatedly described as "forbidden" under Islam by Iran's leading clerics (including, especially, the Supreme Leader):

The nuclear issue looms large here in Tehran -- there has never been as much talk and even anxiety over the possibility of a military assault on Iran, not even during George W. Bush's days -- but the issue seems to have become a distraction that impedes progress on all fronts, and not the weak point for the regime. My airport cab driver reminded me...Iranians had one thing in common. "We Iranians have namoos," he said, "and if anyone even thinks of ravishing her, our gheirat will take over. Iran is our namoos." Namoos is a man's wife, his woman; her chastity his responsibility to protect, and gheirat is pride and dignity -- concepts both Persian and Islamic and one reason women, "sisters" in the Islamic Republic, wear the hijab and many did even under the secular shah. What the driver meant was that if Iran were attacked, Iranians, and he presumably thought me as well, would defend her with their lives.

Tehran's nuclear summit in mid-April, dubbed "Nuclear Energy for All; Nuclear Weapons for None" and timed to contrast with Obama's own summit in Washington (to which Iran was not invited), was, despite a paucity of media coverage in the West, successful in laying out Iran's stated nuclear agenda -- non-proliferation as well as complete disarmament -- for a domestic audience and sympathetic listeners in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the developing world. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's opening address to the conference, read by his top foreign-policy advisor Ali Akbar Velayati, in which he emphatically proclaimed weapons of mass destruction haram, strictly forbidden in Islam, went a long way in convincing at least the pious that Iran is not developing nuclear arms (although it begged the question of whether nuclear and Muslim Pakistan, present at the conference, is a sinner state, a question the Japanese representative put to Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency and a moderator at one panel I observed).

But Iranians seem to also know that no summit, fatwa, or public proclamation by their officials will convince the United States that Iran is not hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and then either deploying it against Israel, handing it over to terrorists, or using it to threaten the world at large (none of those scenarios appearing to be particularly plausible to the average citizen or even to citizens of the region). There are no scientific polls that can accurately gauge public support for Iran's nuclear posture, but here in the capital it is hard to find an Iranian who doesn't agree with at least the concept that Iran deserves to enjoy the same rights as other states when it comes to nuclear energy, even as many may find Ahmadinejad's diplomatic tactics distasteful. In that sense, the military parade in Tehran on the second day of the nuclear summit and the Revolutionary Guards' maneuvers in the Persian Gulf a week later were simply expressions of the national gheirat, particularly in light of escalating threats emanating from Washington and Tel Aviv.

The above excerpt also addressed the risible claim by neoconservatives that Iranians would rise up in support of the West, to topple the Iranian regime, if only the U.S. and/or Israel would attack Iran. 

His conclusions are hard to argue with as well:

From Tehran, despite the ambiguity of what the future holds, of what the Green Movement might be or become, or how the government will deal with the fundamental problems it faces, it is evident that neither debilitating sanctions nor military action (nor continued threats) will accomplish the Obama administration's stated and unstated Iran policy goals -- to induce Iran to alter its nuclear course, or to lend support to an opposition that even if successful in bringing about change in the leadership, might not do so.

Most Iranians believe their country is powerful, and unlikely to bend to any Western threats. "The rahbar basically told Obama to go fuck himself, didn't he?" said my South Tehran friend, a little admiringly. "And what happened? Nothing. No one can touch these guys." Iran's nuclear program is entrenched as important, legal, and valid in the minds of most Iranians, and many of them with whom I've spoken find it hard to believe that there is no solution to the crisis short of armed conflict, fewer still believing that the U.S. military would even win a war.

Many Iranians can forgive Obama for his hesitancy to enter into serious negotiations with Iran in the aftermath of the elections of 2009, but given what they know now -- that barring a major natural calamity the government is here to stay -- it seems the U.S. president's only real option is to negotiate with Iran in good faith and reach an agreement that satisfies Western concerns about its nuclear program while also satisfying Iran that its rights as a sovereign nation have not been eroded. Perhaps only then might Iranians turn to seriously addressing domestic concerns; economic concerns about the gaping inequalities between the privileged and working classes, as well as political concerns about civil rights and the nature of the regime, which Iranians are perfectly capable of doing without outside interference. And only then will we be able to better judge whether Iran is turning into a reflexively anti-American military dictatorship, or is on the path to fulfilling the needs and wants, economic and otherwise, of its people.

Our diplomatic intransigence, and attempts and punishing/isolating the Iranian regime, are not weakening that regime as much as providing it with plausible excuses for not dealing with more pressing issues, as well as distracting the population from emphasizing the necessity of that same reckoning.  Which suits the regime just fine - which at least partly explains their own intransigence.

I'm Told the Eventual Downfall Is Just a Bill from the Restaurant

by Eric Martin

Matt Duss, Peter Juul and Brian Katulis have authored a detailed and informative report on the many costs associated with, and resulting from, the invasion of Iraq.  Here is just a sample - there is, quite tragically, much more in the actual report: 

Human costs

• Total deaths: Between 110,663 and 119,380
• Coalition deaths: 4,712
• U.S. deaths: 4,394
• U.S. wounded: 31,768
• U.S. deaths as a percentage of coalition deaths: 93.25 percent
• Iraqi Security Force deaths: At least 9,451
• Total coalition and ISF deaths: At least 14,163
• Iraqi civilian deaths: Between 96,037 and 104,7542
• Non-Iraqi contractor deaths: At least 463
• Internally displaced persons: 2.6 million
• Refugees: 1.9 million

Financial costs

• Cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom: $748.2 billion
• Projected total cost of veterans’ health care and disability: $422 billion to $717 billion

Strategic costs

The foregoing costs could conceivably be justified if the Iraq intervention had improved the United States’ strategic position in the Middle East. But this is clearly not the case. The Iraq war has strengthened anti-U.S. elements and made the position of the United States and its allies more precarious.

Empowered Iran in Iraq and region. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the primary strategic beneficiary of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. The end of Saddam Hussein’s regime removed Iran’s most-hated enemy (with whom it fought a hugely destructive war in the 1980s) and removed the most significant check on Iran’s regional hegemonic aspirations. Many of Iraq’s key Iraqi Shia Islamist and Kurdish leaders enjoy close ties to Iran, facilitating considerable influence for Iran in the new Iraq. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the primary strategic beneficiary of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. The end of Saddam Hussein’s regime removed Iran’s most-hated enemy (with whom it fought a hugely destructive war in the 1980s) and removed the most significant check on Iran’s regional hegemonic aspirations. Many of Iraq’s key Iraqi Shia Islamist and Kurdish leaders enjoy close ties to Iran, facilitating considerable influence for Iran in the new Iraq.

Created terrorist training ground. According to the U.K. Maplecroft research group, Iraq is the most vulnerable country in the world to terrorism.The years of U.S. occupation in Iraq created not only a rallying call for violent Islamic extremists but also an environment for them to develop, test, and perfect various tactics and techniques. These tactics and techniques are now shared, both in person and via the Internet, with extremists all over the region and the world, including those fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Regarding that last paragraph, it is incontrovertibly true that military action in this region generates opposition, and that opposition (fueled in part by reinforcement "the narrative") can and will come in the form of terrorism.  Of course, some terrorist activity would have persisted absent an invasion of Iraq and/or Afghanistan, but that point is as tautological as it is largely beside the point. 

On the contrary, the analysis should focus on the scope and degree of the problem of terrorism, and how certain policies can ameliorate or exacerbate the risks - especially with respect to the levels of support the would-be terrorists receive in the underlying population.  In other words, counterterrorism policies are not, individually, magic bullets that will (or won't) eradicate all threats of terrorism in perpetuity.  But just because some risk would remain even if we adopt the optimal course of action does not mean thatan effort to perfect our policies is useless.  Quite the opposite.  Mitigating risk, at an acceptable cost, is the essential goal.

On this topic, Stephen Walt does a good job of putting the recent attempted attack in Times Square in context, with appropriate caveats that I would second:

Whether [Faisal Shahzad] was acting alone or in cahoots with Pakistani extremists, his abortive attack was probably a response to our efforts to eradicate terrorist groups in Pakistan via drone strikes and other special operations. In short, he decided to enlist in the "war on terror," but not on America's side.

If this is correct (and I'm prepared to revise my views as we learn more about his alleged motives), it would remind us that illegitimate violence directed at innocent Americans is mostly about what we do and less about "who we are." (This was also true of the suicide bomber who killed a cadre of CIA agents in Afghanistan earlier this year). To say this is not to argue that what the US is doing is necessarily wrong, however, or to sign up for the "blame America first" crowd. Whether the current drone war in Pakistan is a good idea is a separate question that involves both cost-benefit analysis (i.e., on balance, is it weakening al Qaeda or not?) and moral judgment. And yes, even realists can worry about morality.  

Instead, recognizing "why they hate us" is critical to understanding the overall price tag associated with America's global military presence and interventionist foreign policy. When the United States is waging war in some far corner of the world, some people aren’t going to like it and will try to make us pay. It's a very good thing that this guy failed, but it would be naïve to believe that we can maintain our present global posture and be wholly immune from attacks here at home.

It also means that we should continue to analyze and debate whether our current counter-terror strategy is the right one.  On the one hand, one could argue (as this BBC report does), that drone strikes are disrupting militant leadership and organization in places like Waziristan, and thus making these organizations less lethal or effective. The fact that Shahzad seems to have been poorly trained and forced to act more-or-less on his own could be seen as a sign that this aspect of our strategy is working.  

But on the other hand, our continuing military engagement there also reinforces the accusation that the United States is engaged in illegitimate interference in foreign (i.e., Muslim) lands, an argument that Osama bin Laden has repeatedly emphasized and that appears to resonate with people like Shahzad. Our ultimate goal, therefore, ought to be to lower our footprint (including the shadow cast by Predator and Reaper strikes) as soon as we possibly can.

Right.  We need to reassess the prevailing panglossian attitude about the utility and adaptability of military force generally speaking.  War is, literally, only very rarely the answer.

I'm on the Edge of Something Shattering

by Eric Martin

Daniel Larison on assumptions about Iran and its "pursuit" of nuclear weapons:

It is worth noting here that Ahmadinejad recently repeated his government’s formal opposition to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. Obviously, no one takes this at face value, and most of us assume that Iranian officials must be lying whenever they say this. Nonetheless, it could be useful to consider the possibility that what we assume about Iranian intentions is simply wrong. Just as “everyone” agreed that Iraq had WMD programs (even though there were actually quite a few vocal skeptics), practically everyone in the U.S. is quite sure that Iran is working on building a bomb. In almost everything I have written on Iran for the last five years, I have taken this for granted, but as more time passes the claim that Iran is eagerly working toward a bomb and will have a nuclear weapon very soon becomes less and less credible. Everything else in the debate on Iran policy centers around what is a fairly questionable assumption. If it is wrong, we are all making sanctions vs. containment vs. military strike arguments about something that may not be happening at all, and we are throwing away any chance of opening up normal relations with Iran on account of what could be a fantasy.

As if on cue, Muhammad Sahimi does yeoman's work chronicling the past 30 years of experts predicting that Iran is just a few years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon:

For nearly three decades we have been hearing or reading dire predictions by the officials of the United States, Israel, and their allies that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Such “warnings” have been common, but none has come true. Now that the talk of imposing “crippling sanctions” on or even attacking Iran is heating up again, it is instructive to take a look at the history of such false prophecies.

The most astonishing aspect of the predictions about Iran’s “imminent” nuclear bomb is that, when Iran actually declared in the 1970s that it was indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, the West and Israel were absolutely silent, but Iran’s declarations since the mid-1980s that it is not seeking nuclear weapons have been greeted with disbelief and mockery. [...]

First, in April 1984, Jane’s Defense Weekly reported that West German intelligence believed that Iran could have a nuclear bomb within two years. Twenty-six years later, that bomb has not been produced.

On June 27, 1984, the late Sen. Alan Cranston was quoted by The Age, a broadsheet daily newspaper published in Melbourne, Australia, claiming that Iran was seven years away from being able to build its own nuclear weapon. When Cranston passed away in 2000, Iran’s nuclear bomb was nowhere to be found.

On April 12, 1987, David Segal published a piece in the Washington Post titled “Atomic Ayatollahs: Just What the Mideast Needs – an Iranian Bomb,” sounding the alarm about Iran’s forthcoming nuclear weapon.

The next year, in 1988, it was America’s reliable ally Saddam Hussein who put the world on notice that Tehran was already at the nuclear threshold.

In late 1991, in congressional reports and CIA assessments, the first Bush administration estimated that there was a “high degree of certainty that the government of Iran has acquired all or virtually all of the components required for the construction of two to three nuclear weapons.” In 1992, the CIA changed its mind and predicted that Iran would have nuclear arms by 2000, then pushed that back to 2003.

A February 1992 report by the House of Representatives suggested that Iran would have two or three operational nuclear weapons by February-April 1992.

And, of course, David Albright, the all-world nuclear expert, also weighed in in March 1992. In an article written with Mark Hibbs in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, he claimed that the spotlight had shifted to Iran and its nuclear program. [...]

Things got more interesting in early March 1992 when The Arms Control Reporter reported that by December 1991 Iran had four (not two) nuclear weapons, which it had obtained from the former Soviet Union, including a nuclear artillery shell, two nuclear warheads that could be launched on Scud missiles, and one nuclear weapon that could be delivered by a MiG-27 aircraft.

1993 was a very busy year for making grim predictions about Iranian nuclear weapons. On Jan. 23, 1993, Charles Radin of the Boston Globe quoted Gad Yaacobi, then Israel’s envoy to the United Nations, claiming that Iran was devoting $800 million per year to the development of nuclear weapons.

A month later on Feb. 24, new CIA Director James Woolsey (who would later play a leading role in the propaganda for invading Iraq) said that the U.S. was concerned about Iran’s nuclear potential, even though “Iran is still eight to ten years away from being able to produce its own nuclear weapon.”

Then, on March 21, 1993, U.S. News and World Report reported that North Korea and Iran had an agreement to develop nuclear weapons. On April 8, Douglas Jehl of the New York Times reported that the Clinton administration claimed that Iran had paid North Korea $600 million for further development of the Nodong missile to deliver nuclear or chemical warheads.

The list goes on and on like that for more than a dozen paragraphs citing examples of dire predictions, and deadlines come and gone. 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has picked up the baton from prior administrations and has, again, repeated with certainty that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon, that it  is rapidly approaching the date of acquisition and, thus, that the UN should impose "crippling sanctions" that themselves will be counterproductive and unduly punitive.  Not to mention futile should Iran actually decide to develop a nuclear weapon at long last, or at least develop the capacity to create one which is what I believe they are after.  

That, and a valuable, legitimate civilian power source and victory in a larger symbolic struggle, with nuclear power becoming a source of national pride and an affirmation of Iran's sovereignty, its status as a regional power and its sense of deserved respect.  For much of the Iranian population, the nuclear power issue is viewed through the prism of Iran's recent history of subjugation by Western powers (colonized, exploited and interfered with). 

Against that backdrop, from the Iranian perspective, the West is now seeking to deny Iran the right that it has as a signatory to the NPT, and as a powerful nation, to develop domestic nuclear power, whereas other states allied with the US (Israel, India, etc.) are given a pass as non-signatories, while others still are allowed to push ahead with full nuclear programs (and near weapons capacity) as signatories without the harrassment and scrutiny (Japan, South Korea).

You're not a victim, and neither am I

by von

I urge you to watch the following video, with the following warnings:  It's disturbing.  And it's not safe for work.

(From Radley Balko, via Andrew Sullivan.) 

Put aside the wisdom or morality of the drug war.  Balko and Sullivan both pivot that way.  I want to talk about something different.  Something a bit larger.  Folks talk about the banality of evil.  It's one of those cliches that you hear from time time.  But I don't think that folks stop very often to think about what that phrase means.  Or what it looks like in action.  Evil becomes banal when people -- good people -- stop recognizing it, stop appreciating it, and come to accept it as normal.  When evil becomes so routine that good people accept it as the way of doing business.

I am not comparing the cops in the video to Nazis (whence the phrase comes).  But it's hard for me to see their actions, here, as anything other than evil.  Maybe I'm overly influenced by having kids; maybe I'm not thinking straight.  But my reaction to watching these cops, dressed to kill, bashing down a door and shooting two dogs (a pit bull and a corgi) in front of a seven year old child all because his father had a little bit of pot ... well, my initial reaction was shock.  This video literally took my breath away.  Followed, quickly, by anger.  This kid could easily have been killed for nothing; he certainly will be scarred. 

The second greatest trick the Devil ever played was to convince folks that being good, and having good intentions, means that you can't do evil.  That is bullshit.  These cops are likely good people who do a lot of good in their community. But this was a cheorographed raid.  They had overwhelming force.  There was no resistance.  This wasn't a war.  They weren't being shot at.  The target was clear.  Their acts were premeditated.  This wasn't stupidity, or error, or chance.  No conceivable hypothetical -- no matter how outlandish -- justifies the behavior of these men. There was no ticking time bomb.  (They were simply looking for "a large amount of marijuana at the location." Which wasn't there.)

This is what evil looks like.  On this night, these cops decided to be thugs.

(And, yes, I'm back.)

UPDATE:  Fixed video.

UPDATE 2:  I should clarify one thought.  And then add another, different thought.

First, the clarification:  I wrote, "They were simply looking for "a large amount of marijuana at the location. Which wasn't there."  I meant literally that:  a "large amount of marijuana" wasn't located at the residence, but a small amount of pot, plus a pipe and other items, was present.  I realized in retrospect that my statement could mislead people to think that these officers completely f'ed up, i.e., there was no pot in the house.  In fact, they almost completely f'ed up.  If that matters.  It still would have taken only one of those bullets misdirected to kill a seven year old kid (instead of a pet).

Now, the other, different thought -- and one that is admittedly off topic:  The concept that evil is perpetrated, in the main, by good people is a idea that I've always found best expressed in Christianity.  It really is the nub of Christian belief, in my view, and why Christianity is worth (including, in these times, the Catholic Church).  That doesn't necessarily make be a believer, mind you.  I never wanted something to believe in.  But it does make me sympathetic, and deeply so.  (The modern phrase to use here is "spiritual," -- which I will refuse to use on ground that it is complete and utter bullshit.  Either believe or don't.)

So that's my ramble, on reflection.  I tend to think that a truly jarring event should produce a ramble.  It needs processing.  And this is jarring.  Doubtless, tomorrow I'll have a different spin to bore y'all with (if I choose to share it).  Doubtless, by tomorrow, someone would have dug up some dirt on Mr. Dime-bag to try to justify the above, and I might even reconsider my views. 

But not tonight.

UPDATE 3:  Like a moron, I misspelled Balko's name.  Sorry, Radley; fixed now.