Fearless Predictions (Heather Hurlburt & Daniel Drezner)

[Bloggingheads]

[Baz]

Heather says she doesn't think there will be an attack on Iran because there's too much talk about it. What about the lead up to the invasion in Iraq? Constant threats of war...Saddam must disarm...etc...etc.

Maybe a better explanation is that Iran can retaliate where as Iraq couldn't.

Edit: Happy 2012 to Heather and Dan.

[Diane1976]

Well, I certainly hope to see Heather and Dan again, on Bloggingheads.

Re their comments about being ambassadors somewhere: Maybe they would like to be ambassadors to Canada, which might be sort of obscure, and small, at least in population. (Canada is at least as awesome as New Zealand, Dan.)

Canada certainly qualifies as a place Washington plays no attention to, Heather. I hope we matter, however, in some way. (Like maybe being a good source of stable and safe oil, etc., as long as we are kept happy.)

And, for Heather, we DO have really good parties here.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Baz

Heather says she doesn't think there will be an attack on Iran because there's too much talk about it. What about the lead up to the invasion in Iraq? Constant threats of war...Saddam must disarm...etc...etc.

Maybe a better explanation is that Iran can retaliate where as Iraq couldn't.

Edit: Happy 2012 to Heather and Dan.

It's not clear to me how Iran could retaliate any more than Iraq. They both seem like sitting ducks to me, not necessarily a good reason for attacking them based on some "defence" rationale. Maybe you could explain. I guess you mean that Iran could help some terroist group to fire off a couple of rockets at Israel before it goes under.

[Mattfugazi]

These are getting to be EXTREMELY sad for longtime fans. I really hope that Mr. Wright's update commenter klatsch gives a little more cause for optimism.

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by Mattfugazi

These are getting to be EXTREMELY sad for longtime fans. I really hope that Mr. Wright's update commenter klatsch gives a little more cause for optimism.

Oh, ye of little faith. I'm confident BHTV will carry on in some form and all our favourites will appear again, like the "second coming".

I hope Bob tells us how we might help bring that about.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

It's not clear to me how Iran could retaliate any more than Iraq. They both seem like sitting ducks to me, not necessarily a good reason for attacking them based on some "defence" rationale. Maybe you could explain. I guess you mean that Iran could help some terroist group to fire off a couple of rockets at Israel before it goes under.

Well, Iran is more militarily robust than Iraq was.

Tell me what you think of this scenario: US imposes sanctions. Iran tries to close the gulf. US intervenes to protect shipping. Iran sinks two oil tankers. US bombs Iranian naval assets. Iran throws a fit; declares war; fires on US ships. Obama ignores declaration; takes advantage of confusion to bomb some known Uranium enrichment facilities. Iran's leadership is in chaos. Romney is tongue-tied. Obama wins election; removes sanctions, declares peace.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Simon Willard

Well, Iran is more militarily robust than Iraq was.

Tell me what you think of this scenario: US imposes sanctions. Iran tries to close the gulf. US intervenes to protect shipping. Iran sinks two oil tankers. US bombs Iranian naval assets. Iran throws a fit; declares war; fires on US ships. Obama ignores declaration; takes advantage of confusion to bomb some known Uranium enrichment facilities. Iran's leadership is in chaos. Romney is tongue-tied. Obama wins election; removes sanctions, declares peace.

That is a pretty unhappy scenario. I find it hard to see Obama taking the opportunity to hit the Iranian nuclear program. I also think that an Iranian attempt to close the straights would be a huge escalation from a sanctions regime. If the US didn't make such a closure an act of war, we would be engaged in suicidal diplomatic malpractice.

[Hume's Bastard]

The audio if isolated at the end as Dan was showing his office sounded like a man being swallowed by his office.

This is another pairing I will really miss. Fortunately, Heather has been on Up with Chris Hayes on msnbc, and I hope she returns there too.

On North Korea, what Heather says is called the "long view" by Marcus Noland. North Korea is very patient and measures time by the tenure of its leaders in office not years. It's like the old way of counting years by the monarch's or dynasty's beginning date. Most responsible commentators want stability, but none of them are South Korean, who left or right ideologically want some sort of unification. And then, there are the neocons and lib internationalists who gauge North Korea by its nukes and human rights record and want regime change. They have the moral high ground. North Korea punditry is such a tight clique, but this past week showed that pundits and non-expert generalists like Heather can still manage to ignore the perspectives that don't fit their worldview.

[Florian]

My (not so) fearless prediction: Heather and Daniel will be back, if only to correct their fearless predictions. I hope so in any case.

[Simon Willard]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

That is a pretty unhappy scenario.

You make good points, but let me flesh out the argument.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I find it hard to see Obama taking the opportunity to hit the Iranian nuclear program.

Obama is not the timid peacenik detractors make him out to be. Evidence for this is his expansion of drone attacks along the Afghan border and the bin Laden raid.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

I also think that an Iranian attempt to close the straights would be a huge escalation from a sanctions regime.

This is where it gets interesting. Because the situation is win-win for Obama, he can be bold and dial-up the painfulness of the sanctions. If Iran's leadership doesn't take the bait, they may face the kind of increasing domestic restlessness that threatens their hold on power.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

If the US didn't make such a closure an act of war, we would be engaged in suicidal diplomatic malpractice.

This is where Obama's cool-headedness is a virtue. Why must war be a binary choice? See the drone argument above. My assumption is that the US can force open any closure of the straights with the application of a little military force. Problem solved. And if the timing is right, election won.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Well they did say that they would come back to evaluate their predictions! So that's a good sign. I agree, Heather and Dan have always been one of the most enjoyable pairings here. Things like the opening segment where they fantasized about which countries they would want to be embassadors for, is just the kind of wonky fun that I have always loved about BHTV.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer

Well they did say that they would come back to evaluate their predictions! So that's a good sign. I agree, Heather and Dan have always been one of the most enjoyable pairings here. Things like the opening segment where they fantasized about which countries they would want to be embassadors for, is just the kind of wonky fun that I have always loved about BHTV.

Oh, I agree. It's just that within the scope of the one subject area where, given my location now, I can't ignore, I have been really annoyed by the media punting on the future and digging up any pundit or professor, to say the same things over and over again. I'm tired of scenes of crying North Koreans, too. It's a distraction now. It's like saying, "It's weird, so let's not try to analyze what little information we do have." It's very smug. Meanwhile, South Korea just sucks up defense money. Is it the best use of a dollar, is all I ask that the media to consider.

[jimM47]

Mea Culpa: Bob and I recorded said diavlog, but my computer, for reasons unknown, stopped recording a bit into it. Not sure if we'll be doing a replacement or not. But the upshot was that, yes, there is already some good news and definitely cause for optimism.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Canada certainly qualifies as a place Washington plays no attention to, Heather. I hope we matter, however, in some way. (Like maybe being a good source of stable and safe oil, etc., as long as we are kept happy.)

Hear! Hear! And here's to the Keystone Pipeline in 2012 and no more political shenanigans. Let's get our oil from those boring Canuks! (hope that's not considered an insult.)

Happy New Year!

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by jimM47

Mea Culpa: Bob and I recorded said diavlog, but my computer, for reasons unknown, stopped recording a bit into it. Not sure if we'll be doing a replacement or not. But the upshot was that, yes, there is already some good news and definitely cause for optimism.

Do tell!

[Diane1976]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Hear! Hear! And here's to the Keystone Pipeline in 2012 and no more political shenanigans. Let's get our oil from those boring Canuks! (hope that's not considered an insult.)

Happy New Year!

Harper threatened to sell oil to China. Maybe he would even consider selling it to Eastern Canada.

Happy New Year!

http://www.vancouversun.com/Canada+m...701/story.html

http://gordonlaxer.ca/home/comments/...ds_come_first/

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

Harper threatened to sell oil to China.

Hey, I want to see that pipeline built!

Maybe he would even consider selling it to Eastern Canada.

Now, seriously, good articles.

I was thinking about green house gases and how global warming could potentially benefit colder regions like Canada, when I got to the end of the second article where the thoughtful writer did address, in passing, the issue of climate change.

Happy New Year!

And to you!

[rfrobison]

Hulburt: Dan, are you there? ... Happy New Year, everyone.

And from your humble commenter Rob: Happy New Year, everyone.

Are you there?

[Diane1976]

Happy New Year to Ocean, Rob and everybody else.

Simon: I don't think any of that will happen, but I'm sure Obama would like to attack Iran. He just wants lots of support internationally and within Iran and he doesn't want to be accused of doing it on false or flimsy pretenses, so it probably wont happen any time soon, IMO.

Happy New Year to you too.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Diane1976

It's not clear to me how Iran could retaliate any more than Iraq. They both seem like sitting ducks to me, not necessarily a good reason for attacking them based on some "defence" rationale. Maybe you could explain. I guess you mean that Iran could help some terroist group to fire off a couple of rockets at Israel before it goes under.

It all depends on how the attack would happen. A few weeks ago on BHTV we heard Larry Derfner say if Israel attacks Iran they are committing mass suicide so certain people in Israel don't see Iran as a sitting duck.

Here's a little taste of what American planners would expect if the US strikes Iran.

Edit: And bear in mind that a tactical strike against Iranian nuclear targets would at best just delay it by a couple/few years. And also bear in mind that according to the US' own intelligence the Iranians are not even working on a nuclear weapons program.

[miceelf]

I have to say regardless of content, this is always one of my favorite pairings and what I will miss the most. Both of them are always so pleasant with each other (and for that matter, with other interlocutors).