Disabled by an alien idea of Islamo-Persian purity, the concerns of Iranian minorities have opened up a wellspring for democratic activity outside both the parameters of the theocratic Revolution and the rhetoric of Arab nationalism. The West has been more than a touch hasty in arrogating to President Ahmadinejad a monopoly of legitimate authority, which stands on a fast-diminishing political and demographic foundation.
Taking these alternative voices into account, a re-interpretation of Iran should shape a new response to the current nuclear crisis, not by propelling us into a drive for war, but by encouraging a more robust policy in the region; based unapologetically on liberal democratic virtues. Western powers can work to foster connections between minority groups, lend support to a unified vision of reform, and enhance the credibility of liberal voices at the forefront of the disaffected communities, to offset separatist claims.
The Iranian situation hangs on a knife edge. With Tehran destroying the moral and cultural case for national unity, the West’s failure to engage has installed the threat of an ethnic conflagration that could engulf the wider region. The prospect of a nuclear Iran is a fearsome enough creature; a fissiparous state, unravelling under terror, is even more deadly. Iran thus offers another potential example of the old holy grail of Middle East ‘stability’ slipping through our fingers; of ‘realist’ pessimism proving not so realistic in the end. Now is the time for the West to let re-interpretation bring about re-engagement, by embracing the democratic possibility.

On the other hand, having senior officials “leak” the “fact” that the use of nukes is being seriously considered is a great piece of psyops if you want to scare the hell out of Iran and bring them to the bargaining table.

More at The Cranky Insomniac

Some enterprising journalist in DC or Connecticut needs to ask Joe Lieberman, point blank, yes or no, if he is the sole Democratic member of Congress Sy Hersh mentions in this article.
In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks

Hersh is trying to cloud the issue by taking us back into the 1980′s and the Nuclear Freeze movement. The real issue is how do we destabilize the Iranian regime to the point that they are overthrown. Recently, I read something about the Iranian situation and the possible side-effects of a limited attack that put this whole debate in a different context. Looking at the Iranian situation through the prism of the Falkland Islands War, a massive military defeat can push an already-disgusted population to the breaking point with regard to the leadership. The embarassing loss in the Falklands campaign brought the military junta in control of Argentina down.

Everybody says the if we attack Iran, all we’ll end up doing is radicalizing the population. What if an attack on Iran, resulting in the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program, of the Iranian air and naval capabilities, and of the Iranian command and control infrastructure (this would be a long aerial campaign, possibly lasting weeks. Think Kosovo, not Desert Fox), the hostility to the regime already prevalent in the populace combined with the humiliating military defeat could push the Iranian people to the breaking point. Possibly, this crisis is also an opportunity to implement regime change and ensure that we won’t have to deal with this kind of foolishness from Iran again.

The debate is one that HAS to be engaged. Tactical Nukes are designed for just such situations, and their usefulness must be considered.

The moral dilemma is easily solved. On the one hand you have a Theocracy whose stated intention is to destroy Israel, and threaten the rest of the world. This same Theocracy has stated it’s intention to help establish a new Caliphate, to spread Islam throught the world and replace all other forms of government with Islamic law. This same Theocracy is engaged in building nuclear weapons, and has a delivery system capable of hitting targets as far away as Europe.

On the other hand, we have tactical nuclear weapons capable of destroying all or part of that same Theocracy. If you discover a rabid dog in your neighborhood, you don’t lock yourself in your house. You find the dog and kill it before he infects and destroys your family.

I personally have no moral dilemma with using nuclear weapons. This nation should not either. We had no moral dilemma firebombing Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg and other cities, where the casulties from those raids far exceeded those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the threat is sufficient, then the choice of response is simple.

Respects,

Gwedd

The bad thing is to hide from this saying it’s an attempt to rally support for the administration, or we should be devoting ourselves to affairs at home.

We have a real decision to make about whether we can tolerate a Mullah lead nuclear Iran.