Recommend folks check it out.

The Dupont Circle conversation sounds grim and frustrating. My sympathies. Seems like you gave rational dialogue a chance.

Iran, of course, isn’t different. Former CENTCOM Commander, General Abizaid, a fluent Arabic speaker and with a Harvard MA to boot, testified before Congress IRC that Iran was deterrable. He rejected the ‘different’ spin, noting that the key to Iranian ambitions was its Persian culture and history, many thousands of years old. It is not a suicide culture.

What makes Iran ‘different’ for many is Ahmadinejad’s colorful invocations of Hidden Imans and all his anti-Israel language. Hollow rhetoric that means little. The Iranian president is not in the line of command for the military, Revolutionary Guards, or Quds Force. They all report directly to the Supreme Leader and always have.

Moreover, the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad have been at political odds for some time, with Ahmadinejad’s domestic power base suffering. The Supreme Leader and his entourage have not embraced Ahmadinejad’s empty rhetoric.

An Iranian nuclear project has broad public support not for apocalyptic reasons but for simple nationalism and pride. Even among the young and other protestors from 2010. Nothing would unite the country, radicalize it and set back reform than a transient strike.

An Iranian nuclear weapon would be less than ideal for the U.S. as it would be a powerful area denial deterrent against future interventions. The Israelis would find their cavalier use of First World military weapons on their neighbors and occupied territories attenuated. Saudis and other Sunnis would triple efforts to get their own weapon, etc.

There’s a substantial literature about deterrence and Iran rooted in area studies, history and language. Those granular details and facts are contagion to Neocon abstract memes. A reason why the foreign service and intelligence community are almost always Demon Number One before they launch the next Great Crusade.

And, of course, the big winner from the U.S.’ two failed wars last decade was . . . Iran. So we should thank the Neocons for that. A we leave Iraq, Iranian influence oozes.

YMMV.

I replied to him with a list of other unfriendly nations with nuclear capability, but, to be honest, I hate arguing like that. It’s a straw man. North Korea has nukes, Pakistan has nukes and is arguably more unstable, the USSR had nukes, etc. This is true, but one has to take seriously that ‘Iran is different’. I feel as though I need to be charitable to that argument. I need an imminent critique of that argument, and I need to refute it on it’s own terms. I don’t have the time to do so, though.

Regarding nuclear weapons generally, my whole attitude is one of resignation about proliferation. We’re talking about 100 year old science and 67 year old technology. All taught in undergrad science and engineering courses. It seems like it’s only a matter of time before there’s a boingboing post about some hacker who uses his 3D printer to make a bomb in his basement.

For some reason I can still sleep at night.

Russia Trek: Propaganda Posters of Soviet Space Program 1958-63

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NYPD_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=FLMYR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

It’s not like we have an Administration — or will get one regardless of who wins in November — that’s even remotely interested in even trying to recalibrate a balance between the subjects and National Security State.

The only relief in sight is the inadvertent side effect of dissolving consensual politics for budgeting. Even then, the parasite will devour its share resources before subjects see any relief.

Anyone differ?