Comments on: Cognitive Dissonance: The State of America’s Iran Policy http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/ Big Ideas for a Better World Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:06:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Daily Pundit http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-4942 Daily Pundit Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:59:30 +0000 http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-4942 <strong>Iran Freedom Support Act</strong> Fullosseousflap notes the passage of the so-named “Iran Freedom Support Act.” Despite its title, the first half of the Act deals with potential sanctions. And despite Forbes’ statement that the Act “would impose mandatory sanctions on entities... Iran Freedom Support Act

Fullosseousflap notes the passage of the so-named “Iran Freedom Support Act.” Despite its title, the first half of the Act deals with potential sanctions. And despite Forbes’ statement that the Act “would impose mandatory sanctions on entities…

]]> By: Daily Pundit http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-1972 Daily Pundit Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:43:13 +0000 http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-1972 <strong>Axis of Weasel</strong> Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » Cognitive Dissonance: The State of America's Iran PolicyWhy would the Iranian clerical regime, which has clandestinely spent hundreds of millions, if not a few billion, dollars over twenty years on nuclear weapons and b... Axis of Weasel

Cato Unbound » Blog Archive » Cognitive Dissonance: The State of America’s Iran PolicyWhy would the Iranian clerical regime, which has clandestinely spent hundreds of millions, if not a few billion, dollars over twenty years on nuclear weapons and b…

]]> By: Hellblazer http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-1970 Hellblazer Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:15:39 +0000 http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-1970 <strong> A liberal is a conservative who got thrown in jail without charge</strong> In another of our of "Liberal is the New Conservative" series, check out a rather entertaining - or not - post by the Cunning Realist on the subject of politics changing experiences. Here's the link to the LA Times story... A liberal is a conservative who got thrown in jail without charge

In another of our of “Liberal is the New Conservative” series, check out a rather entertaining - or not - post by the Cunning Realist on the subject of politics changing experiences. Here’s the link to the LA Times story…

]]> By: Justus For All » The State of America’s Iran Policy http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-1969 Justus For All » The State of America’s Iran Policy Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:45:03 +0000 http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/09/reuel-marc-gerecht/cognitive-dissonance-the-state-of-americas-iran-policy/#comment-1969 [...] This Cato Unbound essay on Iran matches my thoughts on the subject quite well. I am not as sure as the author that the Bush administration is as indecisive on the issue as he claims, I hope at least that Bush is waiting for more serious action to show he gave Iran every chance rather than because he is paralyzed and unwilling to act. Regardless of that though, the cruz of the problem remains, and this except illustrates it quite well in my opinion: Which brings us back to the question that senior US officials have been assiduously avoiding since 2002, but which nevertheless defines the nature and intensity of America’s diplomatic dialogue with the Europeans and the Iranians. Would you rather have the mullahs get a nuclear weapon or would you rather have the United States try to militarily stop them from acquiring the bomb through preventive air strikes? Do you fear the repercussions of a nuclear Islamic Republic more than you fear the repercussions from an American attack? As I have written elsewhere, I think the risks to us and others from a nuclear-armed clerical regime are too great and that we should make every effort, including repeated military strikes, to thwart the clerics’ quest for the bomb. Containment and deterrence seem a poor fall-back strategy. Iran is too rich in oil and gas, and the likelihood of Iran’s neighbors, as well as the Europeans, growing more fearful and thus more accommodating to a nuclear-armed clerical regime is high. Americans and Europeans did a poor job of responding to Iranian terrorism in the past, when the Islamic Republic didn’t have the bomb in its arsenal. We, not the Iranians, are the ones most likely to be deterred by nuclear chicken.It seems unthinkable that the United States would, for example, unleash any massive military strike against Iran that would kill thousands of innocent Iranians for the terrorism of its dictatorial leadership. The theory of deterrence just doesn’t give that much comfort to Western powers confronting terrorism-fond radical Islamic states. We have never before confronted a terrorism-supporting regime whose very identity and survival is inextricably tied to divinely-sanctified anti-Americanism. We can easily think up many reasons why we would not want to bomb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites, but all of these reasons are subsidiary to how you calculate the risk of giving a nuclear weapon to Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. [...] […] This Cato Unbound essay on Iran matches my thoughts on the subject quite well. I am not as sure as the author that the Bush administration is as indecisive on the issue as he claims, I hope at least that Bush is waiting for more serious action to show he gave Iran every chance rather than because he is paralyzed and unwilling to act. Regardless of that though, the cruz of the problem remains, and this except illustrates it quite well in my opinion: Which brings us back to the question that senior US officials have been assiduously avoiding since 2002, but which nevertheless defines the nature and intensity of America’s diplomatic dialogue with the Europeans and the Iranians. Would you rather have the mullahs get a nuclear weapon or would you rather have the United States try to militarily stop them from acquiring the bomb through preventive air strikes? Do you fear the repercussions of a nuclear Islamic Republic more than you fear the repercussions from an American attack? As I have written elsewhere, I think the risks to us and others from a nuclear-armed clerical regime are too great and that we should make every effort, including repeated military strikes, to thwart the clerics’ quest for the bomb. Containment and deterrence seem a poor fall-back strategy. Iran is too rich in oil and gas, and the likelihood of Iran’s neighbors, as well as the Europeans, growing more fearful and thus more accommodating to a nuclear-armed clerical regime is high. Americans and Europeans did a poor job of responding to Iranian terrorism in the past, when the Islamic Republic didn’t have the bomb in its arsenal. We, not the Iranians, are the ones most likely to be deterred by nuclear chicken.It seems unthinkable that the United States would, for example, unleash any massive military strike against Iran that would kill thousands of innocent Iranians for the terrorism of its dictatorial leadership. The theory of deterrence just doesn’t give that much comfort to Western powers confronting terrorism-fond radical Islamic states. We have never before confronted a terrorism-supporting regime whose very identity and survival is inextricably tied to divinely-sanctified anti-Americanism. We can easily think up many reasons why we would not want to bomb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites, but all of these reasons are subsidiary to how you calculate the risk of giving a nuclear weapon to Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. […]

]]>