Iran: Timing:: Iran has its own clock and priorities - which is coming first? nuclear weaponry, or Iranian democracy

.
The prestigious Israeli daily newspaper, Ha'aretz has a vitally interesting article, "The Iranian clock" by Shmuel Rosner (live-linked in the Blog-entry title above).

"...James Fallows writes that 'realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb'

The burning failure of the hostage rescue[s in Iran and Somalia], [as explained by a briefing session] on behalf of the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM), is what has led to a re-examination of the modus operandi of the elite US military units, their training and their command structure. SOCOM, which leads the small war against terror organizations, mans a number of buildings at the MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, entry to which is permitted only to those who have the appropriate security clearance. Also located at the base is the American Central Command, CENTCOM, which coordinates the military operations between Central Asia and the Horn of Africa, including the Arab expanse in the Middle East, and is overseeing two wars - in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

Brigadier General Mark Kimmet, who has one star on his lapel and whose position is "deputy director of plans and policy" at the Central Command, is one of the busiest briefers, and also one of the most experienced, in the US army. He carefully weighs his answer to a question about a military option in Iran - especially at a time when the command is so busy with the ever-increasing problems in Iraq: We hope, he says, that a diplomatic process will solve the problem. This is the best, most desirable way to deal with it. However, he continues, if there is "any country" that believes that the problems in Iraq will prevent us from carrying out other missions that will be delegated to us, it is not calculating its steps correctly. ... There is a military option in Iran. The means exist, and so do plans. A possibility of failure also always exists. Hitting the nuclear installations is an option; and even if this does not destroy them, it will cause damage, which will delay Iran for many years.

Rosner has his own quesions:

How much damage can Iran cause in a response to an attack? And what is the price that the United States (and the other countries of the West, including Israel) will pay for this? What will happen to the oil market and its prices, and thus to the world economy? What will be the amplitude of the terror attacks that will be directed from Tehran? And to what extent will the ayotollahs be able to undermine the already undermined stability in the Middle East and Asia? If the United States decides not to attack Iran, it will not be the result of a lack of ability, but rather because of concern about the price. ... What will come more quickly - the nuclear capability or the democratic revolution? If the nuclear move is stopped by a military action, will this accelerate the process of democratization in the country or will it set it back by igniting a new explosion of deadly hostility?

Another voice rises in the same key. In this round, it's Paul Rogers, "Iran: War by October?," OpenDemocracy (Apr20.2k6)

At a press conference on 18 April, President Bush – in repeating the formula "all options are on the table" in response to a reporter's prompt – gave renewed credence to the idea that nuclear weapons could be used against Iran. For his part, President Ahmadinejad – when reviewing a parade of troops on Iran's army day – pledged resolute action in response to any assault; this followed the extensive naval and Revolutionary Guard exercises in the Persian Gulf.

If the net effect of these comments from both sides has been to increase the levels of tension, there have also been voices raised in both Washington and Tehran on the need for direct dialogue. Two former senior state department officials, Richard Haass and Richard Armitage, have taken this line; even more significant was the comment from Richard Lugar – the longstanding Republican senator who chairs the senate foreign-relations committee – that the two countries had interests in common, not least in relation to energy resources, and should engage in dialogue.

It is true that these comments emanate from people outside the key circles of political power, and that they contrast with other ... views [like Lt-Gen] Thomas McInerny [Retd], a former vice-chief of staff of the US Air force, arguing that the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities is militarily feasible. ...

Neither writer in these survey articles asks what the profliferation of nuclear weapons will mean for future states and terrorist movements in their aspirations to can power over the destinies of so many of the world's people and institutions? If the US doesn't stop them, who will? Who should? - Politicarp