I think "deliberate" is probably doing an awful lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

It was a tragic error and, for the Obama administration, a public relations disaster, further muddying the moral clarity of the previous strike on his father and fueling skepticism about American assertions of drones' surgical precision.

I don't think this is really true. As has been commented on here many times there hasn't been much public debate or outcry about drone usage and failures, public relations disaster implies that a lot of people in the US took note, cared, and made noise about it.

One thing, not worth much at all, that I remember about Carter were reports that he regularly micromanaged pretty much anything. The color of the Easter eggs at the White House hunts, the wattage in bulbs used there; it seemed a frequent occurrence, and counterproductive.

Does that fit other peoples' memories?

That's exactly right. Carter was a micromanager of epic proportion, and it drove everyone on his staff crazy.

Among the many contrasts between Carter and Reagan was their management styles: Carter was a workaholic who obsessed over every tiny detail, while Reagan was a nine-to-fiver who was happy to delegate (a trait that bit him in the butt with Iran-Contra, a fiasco for which he truly deserved to be impeached).

Agree, Steve. Iran-Contra was grotesque, as was Reagan's entire approach to Latin America.

@702: Jim, abroad the drone strikes have put the US in a very bad light. As usual, though, in the US there's little to no grasp of foreigh policy and its effects.

One would be remiss to not acknowledge, however, how effective the drone strikes have been in degrading Al Queda's capability. The most dangerous job in the world is being Al Queda's operational chief. The average life expectancy for that job must be something like 6 months.

I understand how unpopular it is in Pakistan. But Pakistan's harboring of international terrorists (including Bin Laden) and their irresponsible exporting of nuclear technology is also very unpopular, and far more dangerous. If they can't clean up their own mess, then they can't complain when someone else steps in to clean it up for them.

@705: if we grant everything in your post, what restrictions, guidelines, and legal processes would you put in place to try to eliminate error and the death of innocents?

Well, I'm not a legal expert so I don't know.

However, I don't think we should have a domestic drone program because think it's unnecessary. The reason we need the drone program overseas is because we have no other means of apprehension or interdiction. Domestic terrorists can be picked up by agents.

But all the overseas drone program is is another way of waging war. I don't have a problem with it per se. Military intervention is, as they say, a blunt instrument and it is impossible to completely prevent civilian casualties.

i'm a little uncomfortable with the way it is being handled, with the CIA carrying out the attackks. But I don't know enough of how it works to suggest an alternative.

That self-hatred amongst Jews is fairly common?

Well, that's a negligible bit of idiocy, so I'm not too worried about that.

But all the overseas drone program is is another way of waging war. I don't have a problem with it per se. Military intervention is, as they say, a blunt instrument and it is impossible to completely prevent civilian casualties.

i'm a little uncomfortable with the way it is being handled, with the CIA carrying out the attacks.

Agreed with all of this. Drones are just another form of weapon; the issue isn't drones, the issue is deadly weapons and their reasonable use. And as far as that goes, for all their shortcomings, as weapons go, drones fall low on the collateral-damage scale.

The issue of deadly force, and against who and when, is, as always, the terribly complicated and difficult one. I think the focus on drones per se is misguided, but I enthusiastically welcome the heightened interest and energy on the question of deadly force and its implications.

If they can't clean up their own mess, then they can't complain when someone else steps in to clean it up for them.

I love statements like this. On one hand they sound reasonable. But Pakistan is a sovereign nation. And technically an ally. I think pretty much every sovereign nation in the history of the world gets to complain when another nation stages unwanted military actions their borders.

I am not even saying all the actions are wrong, but seriously they do get to complain. Imagine the shrieking if Canada (politely) sent drones into Detroit to get some Quebecois terrorists the locals were hiding. And yes It is not a perfect analogy, it is not meant to be. Being a sovereign nation means, well ...

sov·er·eign
Noun
A supreme ruler, esp. a monarch.
Adjective
Possessing supreme or ultimate power: "the people's will is in theory sovereign".
Synonyms
noun. monarch - ruler - king - lord - potentate
adjective. paramount - supreme - independent

I have to say, our drone policy reminds me of the side-door gunner from Full Metal Jacket: "Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still ... is a well-trained VC!"

Terrorist = Terrorist
Live in the same house as a Terrorist = Terrorist
Neighbor of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Son of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Over the age of 15 and in the vicinity of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Attend the funeral of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Randomly stop on the road to help someone a Terrorist wounded in a drone strike = Terrorist
Young child with the bad luck to stumble into a the killzone of a drone strike on a Terrorist = Terrorist Dog

I have to say, our drone policy reminds me of the side-door gunner from Full Metal Jacket: "Anyone who runs is a VC, anyone who stands still ... is a well-trained VC!"

Terrorist = Terrorist
Live in the same house as a Terrorist = Terrorist
Neighbor of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Son of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Over the age of 15 and in the vicinity of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Attend the funeral of a Terrorist = Terrorist
Randomly stop on the road to help someone a Terrorist wounded in a drone strike = Terrorist
Young child with the bad luck to stumble into a the killzone of a drone strike on a Terrorist = Terrorist Dog

Sounds like something a terrorist would say!

Sounds like something a terrorist would say!

Have I already won?

Sweet!

What's my prize???

Oh, right ... drone strike.

But Pakistan is a sovereign nation. And technically an ally. I think pretty much every sovereign nation in the history of the world gets to complain when another nation stages unwanted military actions their borders.

Well, what about the Mumbai attacks and other repeated incursions into India, especially Kashmir? Those terrorists were and are being trained by the ISI. What about their continued and relentless efforts to destabilize and enfeeble the fledgling Afghan government? What about the shielding of international arms terrorist A. Q. Khan?

Pakistan is our ally in name only. They're happy to take our money, but only pay lip service to what it is supposed to be used for. They divert most of it to fortify their arms for a future war with India. And what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They can't comp[lain about foreign intervention when that's what they do to their neighbors.

Here's a nice summary of our "ally" in an article written by Hitchens in Vanity Fair right after Bin Laden got his:

From Abbottabad to Worse

Imagine the shrieking if Canada (politely) sent drones into Detroit to get some Quebecois terrorists the locals were hiding. And yes It is not a perfect analogy, it is not meant to be.

If Quebeqois terrorists were hiding in Detroit, the Canadian ambassador would ask our government to have them arrested and extradited and we would comply. Pakistan was hiding a man who funded and organized terrorist operations that bombed our embassies, attacked one of our warships, captured, tortured and then beheaded numerous American citizens including journalists, and killed 3000 Americans by hijacking jetliners and ramming them into the countries largest skyscraper and most important military facility. Yet, there he was, ensconced in a facility in a city analogous to Annapolis. And then, when we located him, we had to fly a hit squad in in radar-defeating helicopters and without informing their government because we knew he would have been tipped off and would have been allowed to escape.

Oh, and to make the analogy fit better, Canada would have to be paying us a few billion in aid every year. The analogy is terrible.

The US does not have a particularly pure history of acceding to legally and morally justified extradition requests.

Matt, what do you think would have happened if we went to Pakistan and told them that we thought Bin Laden was hiding in that compound and we wanted him arrested and extradited?

Hitchens isn't wrong, but what he declines to note is that there is one, very good reason to give Pakistan three billion dollars a year, and that is to stabilize the country so that their nuclear arsenal doesn't fall into the hands of Islamic extremists hostile to the west. The U.S. does have a habit of cozying up to the worst dictators and the most repressive nations, but forgetting that sorry history for a moment, three billion a year is one price you pay for increased safety.

Everything else is window dressing. The pretense to an alliance is exactly that. It's a little like paying the lunatic down the road every year not to dump her toxic garbage into the pond bordering both your properties. Expecting her as a result to be a decent human being who stops beating her husband seems unreasonable.

The problem is that the government of Pakistan is run by Islamic extremists. The fact of the matter is we're being extorted into giving them money so they don't continue to behave badly.

Matt, what do you think would have happened if we went to Pakistan and told them that we thought Bin Laden was hiding in that compound and we wanted him arrested and extradited?

What would Reagan or Bush have said if the Phillipine government had demanded that Marcos be arrested and extradited?

The Pakistani government can only remain in power by retaining a state of not-war with various incredibly nasty groups and individuals. This means they are going to defend incredibly nasty people. They shouldn't do that, and it makes them a bad government supporting very bad things, but the logic of power here is intelligible. The US has done relatively similar kinds of things in its past, but with dictators instead of terrorists.

I support the use of means of doubtful legality to capture or kill Bin Laden and some various other incredibly bad people. I think it's a bad idea to write laws or dictate general policy based on a presumption that Bin Ladens are everywhere and such measures should be used regularly. I think that it's perfectly understandable why Pakistan complains, and Pakistan is not a uniquely bad state in world affairs, just a normal bad one.

What would Reagan or Bush have said if the Phillipine government had demanded that Marcos be arrested and extradited?

I don't know. I think they would have been obliged to turn him over. Mrs. Aquino was popular on both sides of the aisle.

The Pakistani government can only remain in power by retaining a state of not-war with various incredibly nasty groups and individuals. This means they are going to defend incredibly nasty people. They shouldn't do that, and it makes them a bad government supporting very bad things, but the logic of power here is intelligible.

It's intelligible, but not for the reasons you state. The Pakistanis surreptitiously support the Taliban because they think the Taliban can serve as a useful proxy for manipulating and destabilizing Afghanistan, so that Afghanistan will be forced to be a compliant vassal of Pakistan after the US leaves.

I think the Pakistani policy towards the Taliban is both geo-politically repugnant and domestically myopic. By cultivating the Taliban, they have let the wolf in the door. The Taliban serve only a violent and angry Allah. They do not countenance moderation, modernity or respect for others unlike themselves. And not only do they not countenance it themselves, they do not allow others to countenance either.

I don't know. I think they would have been obliged to turn him over. Mrs. Aquino was popular on both sides of the aisle.

In great part because she promised not to seek Marcos' extradition. She understood the reality of power - a part of America's projection of power through proxies in the developing world has always been the promise (not always kept, of course) of safe haven after you get thrown out by a popular revolution. Once that promise has been kept, it basically always stays kept. The US doesn't give asylum and then rescind it.

As I remember it, it wasn't about an understanding of the reality of power. The US gave Marcos asylum in return for him relinquishing power peacefully and allowing elections to occur. The Phillipinos were more than happy to make that trade.

I agree with the policy that a grant of asylum should be binding and permanent. You have to be good to your word to remain credible.

So, you understand that Marcos was a humongous shitbag who should have been tried for his crimes, and whom the US would have protected against such prosecution?

The problem is that the government of Pakistan is run by Islamic extremists. The fact of the matter is we're being extorted into giving them money so they don't continue to behave badly.

No argument, but there are Islamic extremists, and then there are Islamic extremists. There are those who want a nuclear weapon to use against the west (this is the great fear, not simply another WTC) or who are simply less able than the current Pakistani government to prevent the spread of weapons or weapons technology.

I don't imagine that US foreign policy wrt Pakistan would become magically enlightened if Pakistan did not possess nuclear weapons, but those weapons are a driving force in current US policy. Imagine the Taliban with a nuclear arsenal. Far more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons, and it's clear the US isn't going to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, a policy I've come to agree with.

So, you understand that Marcos was a humongous shitbag who should have been tried for his crimes, and whom the US would have protected against such prosecution?

Yes, I think he was a humongous shitbag. Under normal circumstances, he should have been tried for crimes. But the deal to leave in return for asylum was agreed to by both governments and should have been abided by.

I think the trade-off was a good one, asylum for one man in return for a stable transition to democracy. The Phillipines has its problems but it was way better off doing what it did then than having a transition something like Syria is going through now. Mandela did not go after his political enemies, even though they deserved to be gone after, and I think South Africa is the better off for it.

Far more dangerous than Iran with nuclear weapons, and it's clear the US isn't going to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons, a policy I've come to agree with.

Meh. I've reconciled myself to the fact that Iran is going to have nuclear weapons in the next year or two whether we like it or not. Their nuclear program has essentially zero internal opposition and short of an invasion, I don't think we can stop them from making a few. If we couldn't stop the North Koreans, how in god's name are we going to stop the Iranians?

@727: Bombing raid. While you may be resigned, I believe the Israeli government has all but announced Iran can't have a nuke. They may have even been more explicit than that. I've heard Netanyahu is pushing for a summer raid. Keep in mind they've done it before.

While it's possible that key elements of Iran's program are buried so deeply they'll thwart even bunker busters, there's no doubt a bombing raid rather than a ground assault is how the program will be stopped.

North Korea was a very different situation. I imagine, though, there are a lot of people who were in government at the time that would like a mulligan wrt N. Korean nukes.

A bombing raid might slow things down some but it isn't going to stop them. Additionally, a raid will just stiffen their spine and cause them to redouble their efforts.

Iran having a bomb actually doesn't worry me that much. North Korea is much more reckless. They're liable to do anything. The Iranians tend to be provocative but realistic.

Let the Israelis start a war with Iran. The important thing is that we stay out of it.

While it's certainly possible that nothing short of significant military action would have prevented North Korea from developing nukes, the path they followed to do so is another illustration of how costly the Bush administration's belligerence was.

From the wiki on "North Korea and Weapons of Mass Destruction":

According to John Feffer, co-director of the Foreign Policy in Focus, in 2006

The primary problem is that the current U.S. administration fundamentally doesn’t want an agreement with North Korea. The Bush administration considers the 1994 Agreed Framework to have been a flawed agreement. It doesn’t want be saddled with a similar agreement, for if it did sign one, it would then be open to charges of "appeasing" Pyongyang. The Vice President has summed up the approach as: "We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat evil."[39]

Diplomatic efforts at resolving the North Korean situation are complicated by the different goals and interests of the nations of the region. While none of the parties desire a North Korea with nuclear weapons,[40] Japan and South Korea are especially concerned about North Korean counter-strikes following possible military action against North Korea. The People's Republic of China and South Korea are also very worried about the economic and social consequences should this situation cause the North Korean government to collapse.

Of course, Bush administration officials blamed North Korea getting nuclear weapons squarely on Clinton. After all, well, Monica.

I don't see Israel going to war with Iran either. Bibi might want to but most Israelis won't want to g along with him.

I'm trying to imagine how a war between Israel and Iran would transpire. There's no shared border and neither country has the ability to project much power onto the other. Bombing raids are possible but require the violation of neutral airspace so would be intermittent if they happened at all. Neither country has much of a navy, certainly nothing that could support anything larger than a regiment-sized raid. Israel has nukes but can't use them, or even threaten to use them.

It would be like two dogs trying to fight through a chain-linked fence.

A bombing raid might slow things down some but it isn't going to stop them. Additionally, a raid will just stiffen their spine and cause them to redouble their efforts.

Some problems with this. Repeated bombing raids can probably prevent Iran from getting a nuke. Redoubling their efforts won't make much difference if every three years bombing runs destroy their capabilities.

Iran having a bomb actually doesn't worry me that much. North Korea is much more reckless. They're liable to do anything. The Iranians tend to be provocative but realistic.

The current Iranian government is not especially worrisome, but a far more radical government is well within the realm of possibility. Further, it's not just a given government we need to be concerned with, but the more radical elements within that government who might covertly give weapons or weapons technology to radical factions or other nations. Imagine Iran's close ally, Syria, with a 20 kiloton warhead, for example.

Also, we have to think in terms of, not one bomb, but a dozen, or a hundred. On top of this, the fear of use and the leverage that comes with the implicit threat of use, makes a potential enemy that much more dangerous.

Finally, it's not just governments, but physicists themselves. Abdul Qadeer Khan smuggled bomb-making tech and some materials out of Pakistan.

edit: keep in mind, Israel's already done this sort of thing. In 1981 they bombed an Iraqi reactor of French design they suspected was contributing (iirc) fissile material to Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

They bombed the Syrian reactor too. Bombing Iran is a lot harder though. They would have to violate Iraqi airspace, or get the US to let them take off from carriers in the Persian Gulf.

Points above well-taken but, as you mentioned previously, bombing raids will just cause them to move more and more of their operations underground where even the bunkerbusters can't get at them.

To paraphrase Burke, nuclear weapons and religious zeal go ill together but an invasion is off the table, I think, and the Iranians have all the time in the world to build that nuke brick by brick.

I don't see Israel going to war with Iran either. Bibi might want to but most Israelis won't want to g along with him.

I'll check it out, but I'd be amazed if among Israeli voters the following question got a majority 'no' response: "If it was the only thing Israel could do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was bomb their weapons-building facilities, would you support such a raid?"

I'm trying to imagine how a war between Israel and Iran would transpire. There's no shared border and neither country has the ability to project much power onto the other.

Sorry if I'm misreading what you mean by "power", but Isreal does have the ability to vaporize Baghdad and turn Iran into a desert. The total is unclear, but every estimate I've read gives Israel between 70 and 450 nukes.

edit: re 734, I agree it's a logistical nightmare, but at this point the Iraqi Air Force and Iraq's ground to air defense is dysfunctional to the point of being non-existent, so I don't believe today Iraq would be an obstacle. I do think the last thing the US wants to do is be visibly associated with an Israeli raid. Well, maybe the second to last thing, the first being keeping Iran non-nuclear. Hasn't Obama been explicit on this?

It may also be that the Israeli government believes a nuclear Iran is an existential threat to the point that you simply do whatever is necessary to destroy its ability to build nukes; if that only pushes the problem five years down the road, then so be it. Maybe you figure that in five years your bunker busters will be able to dig deeper, or that you'll have a better version of the Stuxnet virus, or that a new government will be more tractable, and willing to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for bigger and better rewards...

I'd be amazed if among Israeli voters the following question got a majority 'no' response: "If it was the only thing Israel could do to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was bomb their weapons-building facilities, would you support such a raid?"

"If carefully targeted drone missiles were the only way the U.S. could prevent overseas American citizens from conspiring with terrorists to blow up American embassies all over Europe and Asia, would you support such a program?" Three guesses which way that that one would go.

I think between the US and Isreal it's simply not going to happen:

Obama pledges to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon

Preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is a national security interest of both Israel and the United States, President Barack Obama said Sunday in calling for continued diplomatic efforts but also pledging that all options -- including a military effort -- remain viable.

"All elements of American power" remain an option to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including "a military effort to be prepared for any contingency," Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobby group.

That was March 2012. Obama hasn't wavered.

Can't link to it, but it's at
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-04/politics/politics_obama-aipac_1_nuclear-weapon-weapons-grade-uranium-obama-pledges?_s=PM:POLITICS

The Atlantic also ran a persuasive article:

I'm in the camp of people, however, who take him at his word, in part because he's repeated himself on the subject so many times and in part because he has laid out such an effective argument against containment and for disruption, by force, if necessary. With the help of Armin Rosen, of The Atlantic's International Channel, I've posted below a partial accounting of Obama's statements on the subject. Of course, it is possible that in a second term, should he win his bid for reelection, he will change his mind on the subject, and it is possible, of course, that Iran will somehow manage to defy his demands. But the record is the record: Given the number of times he's told the American public, and the world, that he will stop Iran from going nuclear, it is hard to believe that he will suddenly change his mind and back out of his promise.

A lot of good details, and quotes, follow.

From http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/obamas-crystal-clear-promise-to-stop-iran-from-getting-a-nuclear-weapon/262951/

That article in turn links to another Atlantic article,

"Obama to Iran and Israel: 'As President of the United States, I Don't Bluff' "

In the most extensive interview he has given about the looming Iran crisis, Obama told me earlier this week that both Iran and Israel should take seriously the possibility of American action against Iran's nuclear facilities. "I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff." He went on, "I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

That, in turn (the a function isn't working) is from

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/

Let's not kid ourselves here ...

Should the U.S. actually take Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice and attack Iran, don’t expect a few sorties flown by a couple of fighter jocks. Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.

There’s been a lot of loose talk and leaked tales about what an attack on Iran might ultimately entail. Anthony Cordesman, one of Washington’s best-connected defense analysts, has put together a remarkably detailed inventory of what it would take to strike Iran (.pdf), cataloging everything from the number of bombers required to the types of bombs they ought to carry. He analyzes both Israeli and American strikes, both nuclear and not. He examines possible Iranian counterattacks, and ways to neutralize them. It leads Cordesman to a two-fold conclusion:

* “Israel does not have the capability to carry out preventive strikes that could do more than delay Iran’s efforts for a year or two.” Despite the increasingly sharp rhetoric coming out of Jerusalem, the idea of Israel launching a unilateral attack is almost as bad as allowing Tehran to continue its nuclear work unchallenged. It would invite wave after wave of Iranian counterattacks — by missile, terrorist, and boat — jeopardizing countries throughout the region. It would wreak havoc with the world’s oil supply. And that’s if Israel even manages to pull the mission off — something Cordesman very much doubts.

* The U.S. might be able to delay the nuclear program for up to 10 years. But to do so, it’ll be an enormous undertaking. The initial air strike alone will “require a large force allocation [including] the main bomber force, the suppression of enemy air defense system[s], escort aircraft for the protection of the bombers, electronic warfare for detection and jamming purposes, fighter sweep and combat air patrol to counter any air retaliation by Iran.”

Wired

Link to PDF

I'm not sure what the issue is. There is a simple two-pronged test to determine if a drone strike violates due process.

@738: I'd never argue it's not an appalling, sickening, bloody affair with horrible civilian deaths surely a part of any raid. I just don't think that between their two governments the US and Israel are going to let Iran develop a bomb in the next couple of years. I'm not sure it's the wrong course, either.

I wonder at the morality of something like (while realizing it's bullying), simply asserting,

"We will help you in numerous ways to compensate you for our refusal to allow you to develop nuclear weapons, and we will do everything possible to find an adequate substitute for what nuclear energy programs would otherwise give you, but you can't have weapons, and we will bomb your facilities if you persist".

I realize it's bullying, but I'm not sure it isn't the best course to simply assert, "We will help you in numerous ways to compensate you for our refusal to allow you to develop nuclear weapons, and we will do everything possible to find an adequate substitute for what nuclear energy programs would otherwise give you, but you can't have weapons, and we will bomb your facilities if you persist".

In that case, logically the only think Iran could do to lift the threat is to develop a bomb.

In that case, logically the only think Iran could do to lift the threat is to develop a bomb.

Logic (or reason) suggests another course, though. IF you knew that your country would be subjected to extremely destructive bombing raids that would continually make your nuclear program the equivalent of towing bargeloads of rials every month into the middle of the Persian Gulf and sinking them, you might decide that an agreement that stabilizes your economy and your own political power even as you maintain the region's most powerful conventional army, is in your best interests.

The alternative could well be a decade long struggle costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives and that ends in still not having the bomb. I won't pretend to understand Iran's internal politics enough to ably predict, but at some point national pride can turn into resentment if a course of action--the pursuit of nuclear weapons--becomes an extraordinary drain impoverishing the country.

If you were a sovereign nation like Iran it makes total sense to do everything possible to develop the bomb. Look next door at the country that did n't compared to say Pakistan or North Korea which has. Notice any differences in how they are treated by the US?

Oh, and to make the analogy fit better, Canada would have to be paying us a few billion in aid every year. The analogy is terrible.

If only I had put in something ...

And yes It is not a perfect analogy, it is not meant to be.

Oh wait, if only you could read.

The point is of course sovereign nations get to complain about violations of their sovereignty. They always have and they always will. And when they have the power they do something about it. Pretending because we are the USA! and "our cause is pure" so it is OK we violate other countries sovereignty is silly. We get away with it because we are the biggest kid on the block with bombs and money and connections. However the original statement that Pakistan doesn't get to compalin is asinine.

If you were a sovereign nation like Iran it makes total sense to do everything possible to develop the bomb. Look next door at the country that did n't compared to say Pakistan or North Korea which has. Notice any differences in how they are treated by the US?

Of course. If I was Iran I'd want a big bomb too. Who thinks otherwise?

Iran is a big place, and sattelites don't see well underground. If I am Iran, I have a two pronged approach to devepope nukes underground and a Intel/diplo ripple plan to stall attacks until it's a fait acomplii

That's what they are doing (building and stalling) and its been very effective so far.

Logic (or reason) suggests another course, though. IF you knew that your country would be subjected to extremely destructive bombing raids that would continually make your nuclear program the equivalent of towing bargeloads of rials every month into the middle of the Persian Gulf and sinking them, you might decide that an agreement that stabilizes your economy and your own political power even as you maintain the region's most powerful conventional army, is in your best interests.

It won't destabilize their political power. It will fortify their political power. An attack on their nuclear facilities will be seen by the rank and file as an attack on Persian sovereignty and national pride. The people will take the economic hit willingly if the alternative is to lose face before the world.

Having nuclear weapons seems like the only insurance against having the US fiddle with your sovereignty. I would think that's the beginning and the end of Iran's attitude towards their nuclear program.

It won't destabilize their political power. It will fortify their political power. An attack on their nuclear facilities will be seen by the rank and file as an attack on Persian sovereignty and national pride. The people will take the economic hit willingly if the alternative is to lose face before the world.

If there is perhaps one thing that would most fortify the Iranian regime's political power, it would be a military attack by the US and/or Israel. And, as has been pointed out, in the long run it's probably impossible to prevent their development of a bomb. Thus I'm far from thrilled about Obama's posture on this one so far, though it likely matters little what the US does.

Oh wait, if only you could read.

There's a big difference between an imperfect analogy and an unfit one. Your analogy just doesn't fly. At all.

However the original statement that Pakistan doesn't get to compalin is asinine.

They can complain all they want. We just don't have to listen to it, as we are paying them the right to not listen. I haven't yet heard one Pakistani leader say he's not interested in the money.

And when they do complain, they have to not forget that what they are complaining about, they are guilty of in spades.

Maybe the analogy could have been to how you would feel about a Cuban/Venezuelan raid into Florida aimed at kidnapping or killing Luis Posada Carriles. With maybe some collateral casualties. (OK, Posada was actually tried and acquitted in Venezuela. That doesn't entirely prove that he's not a terrorist.)