Actually, I was saying that the reasons and rationalizations which were used, in error, for the Iraq war would hold true for a conflict with Iran.
Why?
We shouldn’t, necessarily, launch a military campaign now. (Israel is another matter) But we should take this to the Security Council now, as we are doing. If that fails and it looks like Iran may have nukes, what reason is there to wait until they’ve launched a first strike?
Perhaps, and perhaps not. Their continued proxy attacks on Israel have certainly not doomed them. The world has not treated them as a declared war, for some odd reason. And unless a rock solid case could be made to prove where, exactly, various terrorist groups might have gotten their WMD’s from, Iran might very well just thumb its nose at the world.
Who would convince the UN that Iran had been behind it, Colin Powell?
I would say that the “odd reason” is the same as the “odd reason” that the world did not treat the U.S. attacks on Angola, Guatemala, Nicauragua, and El Salvador as declared wars.
As for a nuclear terrorist strike on Israel: since the world’s nuclear community is known, I don’t think that there would be any question as to the source–a point that I have already noted we should convey to Khameini in terms that he cannot possibly misunderstand.
Frankly, I really think that Iran wants nuclear weapons as defensive armament, just as every other nation wants/wanted them. If it really wanted to destroy Israel, nukes are about the worst way to bring it about since it would bring retaliation from the U.S., as well as alienating every Muslim country that would suffer the effects (from collateral damage to radiation poisoning) of such an attack.
Um, who’s us? They may not be able to reach the US, but how long until Europe is within their range? Are you seriously suggesting we allow a theocracy with a habit of funding terrorism to develop nukes because they can’t reach us yet? What do you propose? Let them develop a nuke and then bomb them when they start building missiles capable of reaching you?
Of course, military action is by definition unjustified if it can’t achieve the goal we set for that military action. In other words, it wouldn’t be justified to bomb Iran to knock out its nuclear program if after the bombing Iran’s nuclear program was mostly intact.
And this seems to me to be the likely case. A one night bombing campaign isn’t going to decapitate Iran’s nuclear program, and even if it did Iran could simply rebuild again, having been set back a few years or months perhaps.
Iraq was vulnerable to decapitation because the program was highly centralized, not surprising due to the security concerns any dictatorship would have. But there’s no way we can just bomb the hell out of the Iranians and end up with a nuclear-free Iran. Not gonna happen, unless we plan on dropping bombs on them regularly for the next dozen years.
And there’s no way we can bomb Iran and have it just stop there. Yeah, when we bombed Libya in the 80s Gaddafi just took it. But somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen with Iran. Iran is going to fight back. And how are they going to fight back? With a clandestine bombing campaign against the US and Europe, of course. Right now there are no Iranian suicide bombers attacking the west, because the Iranian theocracy correctly believes that we’d retaliate severely agains tthem. But if we’re openly bombing Iran, why should they hold back? They have plenty of psychopathic religious fanatics for suicide bombers, the only reason we haven’t seen any from Iran is that Iran hasn’t ordered any. Expect that to change.
Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities means open war between Iran and any country that participated in the bombing, and probably many that haven’t. Are we willing to accept that? How many people are going to be killed by Iranian sponsored terrorism if we bomb them?
Yes, that was wrong too. You don’t think it’s a bad idea for countries to get away with warmongering as long as it’s a proxy war? You don’t think that it’s an “odd reason” to excuse a country from attacking another country as long as mercenaries are used?
Tactical nukes might very well provide low yield destruction of, say, Tel Aviv. With limited effects for the surrounding nations. And, again, unless we had rock solid proof to tie it to Iran the global community might very well do nothing. Although the US might act alone.
Probably not alone, I think we can count on the UK. Germany might help out of past guilt. Once Germany was on board several other EU nations would join.
But I agree, we would probably flatten Iran and not worry about land troops. Just knock them back to the stone age. Every bridge, power plant, factory, government office and Military location. We would destroy their hardened bunkers and generally let the Air Force really enjoy themselves. We might leave them their pipelines but that would be about it.
Of course Israel would use Nukes on at least Tehran.
France and China would protest the whole action.
Do you think Israel might just drop a few nukes on Syria while they’re at it?
At what point in Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb are we justified in attacking?
Not until they attack us with one. I still can’t fathom why people trust Israel and Pakistan and North Korea and China with nukes but are freaked about Iran. All of them are equally worrying, but, I think, all are sovereign nation-states that deserve the right to defend themselves (even from us).
Not really. Israel can at best do a half-assed job and will then leave the Big Decision to Bush and his successor. Israel knows this, the US knows this, Iran knows this. It’s axiomatic. The Pentagon’s war gamers have been through this simulation many times and the outcome isn’t going to get rosier. A limited US bomber/cruise missile attack isn’t going to provide the confidence level the US needs, especially knowing that the day the US attacks Iran soil begins the countdown to when Iran someday responds in kind.
Given the presumed hardening of the Iranian sites–and we’re talking possibly dozens–there’s no way the US can neutralize the iranian threat without boots on the ground–and thousands of them. Any offensive scenario that doesn’t include Rangers/Special Forces/Marines is a scenario that leaves the US open to downrange retaliation. Connecting the dots, we’re now talking strategic occupation, which is impossible on many levels, thus pointing to the futility of any US attack and the unstoppability of Iran’s nuclearization. The die is already cast. Iran will have a nuclear arsenal.
Makes for an interesting scenario, though, if western forces detect a sub approaching the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Oman, or trying to sneak into the Persian Gulf.
Him? No chance. He’s a big talker, but he ain’t got the huevos (pardon my Ladino). He’ll fold faster than a beach chair in a tropical storm - it’s what he does best.
Funny, all the clips I saw of him made him sound like real hawkish, but after I just got done reading a bit more about him, it does seem like he backpedaled from some of his aggressive stances.
Hm. I wonder what the post-Sharon government will be like?
Lets not try to paint the U.S. as being the shining example of all that is good and right in international diplomacy. We’ve given assistance to much worse countries than Iran when it suited our needs. In fact we even supported a corrupt dictator that oppresssed his people in Iran when it suited our needs. I don’t think anyone seriously considers Saudi Arabia a good world citizen that does not oppress their people. We have no problem dealing with them becuase they sell us oil.
I am not going to defend Iran’s statements regarding Israel or their human rights record. All I am saying is that its not substantially worse than other countries that we are allied with.
I didn’t say the U.S. was perfect. The fact is, if Iran believes that it needs nuclear weapons to prevent an attack, it’s only because it intends to continue doing the things that could lead to an attack. Specifically, supporting terrorism, destabilizing neighboring countries, whipping up middle east rage against the west, oppressing its people, and threatening to destroy Israel.
If it was only interested in avoiding attack, it could dismantle its nuclear program, allow inspectors in, and renounce terror.
Why would any country agree to do that after watching what happened to Iraq? The U.S. used the inspectors to spy on Iraq and when Iraq rightfully booted them the U.S. invaded. You are telling Iran to give up the one weapon that can stop a country that has made noise of invasion from doing so while admitting spies from that country? Why on earth would Iran do that?