Forget, for a moment, the military capability to do so, and forget for a moment the moral issues around invading / attacking another country. I’m asking more about the tactics.
Should the US respond militarily if Iran develops nuclear weapons?
My personal opinion is after our past winning efforts in changing regimes in the Middle East, we should be quite leery as a nation of sticking our fingers in that particular pot. And it appears our talent pool in in making any governments in the region do anything they don’t already want to is pretty shallow… and the Ayatollahs really really want the bomb.
Military strikes might be an answer, but would determinedly put the entire populace (which doesn’t really like us much to start with) fully into the Anti-American camp. And it doesn’t really take care of the knowledge factor, either, unless we combine military strikes with targeted assassinations of top scientists working in the field for Iran…
That said, Israel has done it before (I don’t know the dates, but know they hit an Iranian nuclear reactor in the mid-80s with deep air strikes).
Israel has bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Incidentally the Israeli pilot/austronaut who was killed in the latest shuttle crash parcitipated in that attack.
The time to intervene, as Israel knew well, is before they aquire nuclear weapons. If it wasn’t for Israel, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons in time for Golf War I. Europe’s much vaunted critical diplomacy just had a reality readjustment, when Iran told the EU to go shove all agreements, but perhaps Israel will save everybody’s ass one more time - they just bought 500 bunkerbusters from the US. I doubt it.
First, it would be helpful if you could make a case as to why you believe that Iran would be more likely to launch a nuclear first strike than any other country that currently possesses nclear weapons, and give us some idea who you think they would use them against.
If the presumed target is Israel, and even if Iran has one or more weapons right now, Iran still has a long way to go to achive parity. Israel apparently has as many as 200 of the things. I think even the most wild-eyed fanatic can figure out that attempting to detonate a nuke on Israeli soil would have a high probability of provoking an extreme response.
If you want to contend that Iran would not actually use its weapons but keep the potential in the background to better enable plans for expansion, well, that may be so, and then I guess we can argue whether a US pre-emptive strike is warranted. I’d have to see a really strong case that Iran intends to use such weapons as soon as they have them to find pre-emption justified, however.
If Iran is developing them because they, rightly or wrongly, see an imminent threat from certain other countries, how is that different from the behavior of any other country that finds itself under threat?
Anyway, unfortunately, given the deep emnity between some of Iran’s leadership and the US, our options are highly limited. With neither side really willing to listen to the other, the military option currently seems the only one that would allow the US to sigfnficantly influence events there. I’m afraid other countries will have to do the heavy lifting diplomatically if everyone agrees that Iran absolutely should not pursue the development of these weapons.
Iran already has threatned Israel with strikes. Why do you think anyone believe Iran is more likely to launch nuclear weapons than Pakistan? But whereas Pakistan already has them Iran has yet to acquire them, meaning it’s still preventable.
I think much of the unease with Iran possessing nuclear weapons stems from a worry that they’ll pass them over to terrorist groups, who in turn will use them in Israel – or the US.
The concern over Iran’s impending development of a nuclear arsenal is its documented history of state-sponsored international terrorism and antipathy toward the United States in particular, beginning with the illegal taking of American hostages circa 1979 and continuing through the sponsorship of overtly terroristic operations against U.S. interests and the ensuing campaign to undermine the U.S./coalition efforts in Iraq.
Another concern is the exportation of nuclear technology to other hostile states or splinter groups–or nuclear blackmail–something that a U.S. military attack cannot solve. Similarly, among the more worrisome scenarios involves a future confrontation in the Persian Gulf between Iran and the U.S., and the Iranians resorting to the use of tactical nuclear weapons against a Navy fleet, which touches on the $64,000 question: Just how crazy/irrational/hateful are Iran’s leaders?
But the real worry is one of nuclear blackmail and proliferation to like-minded Islamic fascists. The U.S. can delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but they will eventually get the technology and, later, the arsenal. Hoping that U.S. diplomatic pressure will get Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions or reform its ways is pie in the sky. The Iranian leadership wants the bomb and will not negotiate it away. BTW, military analysts, noting the redundancy in Iran’s nuclear program, doubt Israel has the ability to destroy it completely. If Israel does attack, they better be prepared for punishing retaliation.
I see this argument put forward all the time, but I’m afraid I don’t quite get it. Any country that would be stupid and/or crazy enough to provide nukes to such a group would a) risk having the weapons they provided used against them should that group get in a snit about one thing or another and b) suffer the direct consequences of retaliation if the weapon was ever used.
A country that wants to develop nuclear weapons and has the will, money and scientific resources to do so, will eventually develop them. The US certainly has the capability to carry out a relatively low- (immediate) risk strike that would push back Iran’s presumed development plans by months or years, but at the cost of still more of its already tattered reputation in the region, and with the knowledge that anything short of destroying Iran completely would likely result in their having such weapons eventually.
Best, I think, would be to help convince Iran, one way or another, that possession of nuclear weapons would not gain it the leverage it thinks they would (as, say, South Africa did on its own). As to how to do that, sorry, but my brain’s not big enough to come up with a satisfactory answer.
I agree with the point that if Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons there is ultimately no way to stop them short of invading and occupying the country. Bombing or raiding nuclear sites might set them back a bit. But the technology to build nuclear weapons is 60 years old. Once you’ve got the enriched uranium, building a nuclear bomb could be accomplished by any country with any sort of industrial infrastructure equal or superior to the technological giant of Pakistan. If Pakistan can build nukes, Iran can certainly build nukes.
Iran’s oil wealth makes it much more likely that there is nothing we can do to stop them. Most dictatorships are pretty shabby affairs, since the dictators are usually trying to squeeze taxes out of impoverished people. But when a country has oil, the money from the sale of oil provides a ready source of cash for whatever aspirations the dictators have. And most dictators are of course very selfish people…they want to enjoy their power and wealth as long as possible and don’t want to upset the applecart. But ideologically motivated religious fanatics are a different story. If the Iranian mullahs decide that what Allah really wants is for the world to go up in nuclear fire, well, that’s what they’ll do.
The solution to the problem isn’t to try to stop the mullahs from getting nuclear weapons, that only buys us some time, at most a few years. The only real solution is…regime change. And that’s not going to happen any time soon, and we aren’t going to invade Iran any time soon. The people claiming to believe that the Bush Administration is just itching to get involved in a war with Iran are delusional. Its not going to happen, unless Iran invades Iraq.
Well from that assumption of having to invade, we can safely bet then we have only seen the beginning of Western and American intervention in the Middle East.
Hell, once you’ve got enriched uranium, anyone with half a brain, access to the Internet, and some high explosives could build a bomb. The question is delivery, and especially, yield.
But still, the terror caused by detonating a Nuclear Bomb, even if it only caused a bit more destruction than a few fuel-air-bombs, would achieve the desired effect.
Does this mean we must consider military action against *any * state that develops nuclear energy? Sounds like a tough order to fill - the technology is becoming increasingly available. Should we go ahead start the draft now?
Why are we so hesitant to approach the Islamic world through diplomacy? Of course, now that we’ve proven to them beyond the shadow of a doubt that we will invade thier countries using specious rationale, I suppose we can expect an even further galvanization of the Isalmic world against us. Perhaps diplomatic efforts may have proven fruitless, BUT WE’LL NEVER KNOW NOW, WILL WE?
The real shame here is that Iran has been moving towards a more moderate stance for over a decade now and may be on the cusp of even greater democratic reforms. Unfortunately, our cheap little thug cowboy president, supported by jingoistic simpletons and greedy elite has managed to piss away any possibility of a peaceful progress in the middle east.
I’m not a member of the current US Government.
But I think it would be silly for Bush to ‘waste’ an invasion at present.
The sensible thing to do is to wait till another election is due, then announce that Iraq - sorry, Iran - has WMD’s and is a danger to the US and is sort of responsible for 9/11. Then invade.
And, as a bonus, you get to reuse the banner ‘MISSION COMPLETED’…
Yes , its possible that you can take out their brain trust at the same time as their manufacturing center. Its not impossible to build nukes , but there is a learning curve to it. Reprocessing the uranium, building the triggers , adapting the weapons to the delivery platform.
Probably about a thousand different engineering disicplines that have to be mastered , just to get some thing that might fizzle.
Right now they can hit pretty much of the middle east , southern europe , and control a major waterway with their current technology , giving them time to perfect their devices , standardize and diversify their manufacturing sites , and pass on knowledge to the next generation , and its only a time curve before they can hit the continental north america.
Most of them will be living in apartment complex’s in the manufacturing sites, taking those out , with penetration nukes , would effectively do what you suggest.
Some has already said so , but Israel took out Iraq’s facility , the Iraqi’s were the ones who tried to take out Iran’s nuclear facility back in their 8 year war.
Why on Earth should Iran have any nuclear capability? Yes, they have a booming population, yes they have increased dependence on finding reliable energy supplies, but they are a state that funds suicide bombers and exports Islamist terrorism and desire the destruction of Israel and the US, we should bring them in line like we did with Lybia and Syria, their energy capabilities being limited is a good thing.
Anyway, we either do something soon, or we see a radicalised Islamist power, with nuclear weapons rising up wanting to ‘liberate’ the Muslim world by proxy with increased funding to terrorist organisations, and its own military.
The only way to stop Iran from getting nukes is a nuclear strike, or an invasion. Conventional bombing isn’t going to do much if they have done any work at all hardening their nuclear sites.
Since an invasion or nuclear strike is impossible, we have no way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It’s over. Iran will have nuclear bombs, sooner or later. So the question isn’t: How do we stop Iran from getting nukes. The question really is: What do we do when Iran has nukes?
I think if Iran keeps going the way they are going, bombing their facilities would be a reasonable first step. Invasion is an attrocious option under any circumstances, but now with our forces spread thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s probably impossible without a draft, and it’s hard to know how politically tenable a draft is. The (perhaps faint, but worth exploring) hope is that Iran can be repeatedly set back with minor force if necessary, and contained; and that those efforts, plus sanctions and inspections, could further deter them from an active weapons program, and they’ll settle on a scaled-back civilian program.
Those who feel it’s implausible Iran would supply fissile material to terrorirsts out of self-preservation must consider the support of the Taliban for al Qaeda. Mullah Omar was apparently well aware of OBL’s plans for massive attacks in the US. Did he discount the possibility the US would destroy his goverment and enter a full-scale invasion in Afghanistan? If the answer is yes, we can take comfort in the possibility that Mullah Omar was an ignorant simpleton, skilled in a narrow interpretation of Wahabi law and little else. Others like him in Iran will likely be less inclined to make the mistakes he did.
But what if Omar and the other mullahs in the Taliban did appreciate the risks they were taking in harboring OBL? Then they were willing to sacrifice their rule, and perhaps themselves, for their extremism. If there are even a few mullahs of this character in power in Iran, they’re incredibly dangerous. Allowing them access to fissile explosives seems to me to be a guarantee of a terrorist nuclear attack somewhere in the world.
Those are the kinds of questions and options we must weigh in our dealings with Iran. It’s a perilous situation, IMO, and Iran could make things a lot better for everyone by fully complying with the spirit of the Non-Proliferation treaty and inspections. Sadly, the US has provided the rest of the world with a piss-poor example of how nations should go about respecting UN resolutions and Charter. We’ve managed to fuck the War On Terror up so badly at this point, I’m not optimistic about any of this.
Why is a nuclear strike impossible? Do it with a stealth bomber and you have plausible deniability: “Gee, nothing on radar and no ballistic tracks - looks like their nuke accidentally detonated. What a shame.”