Nobody mentioned the real author of this soon-to-be disaster: Russia. For the past 20 years , Russia has supplied Iran with the technology and materials to produce nuclear bombs.
Hopefully :smack: , the Iranians have been sold Chernobyle-type reactors…perhaps they can persuade the Mullahs to test them all by shutting down/disconnecting their coolant pumps…
The question I have has to do with a nuclear war between the two. Each launch several. That area of the world is under watch for such activity by the American technology, so I doubt we would do much but watch at first (that is unless our technology that hasn’t been tested under real life conditions works). What I’m worried about is the other missile detection systems of other nations. Would anybody else think “Oh crap! There’s a nuke somewhere in the air! Launch everything at enemies #1, 2, and 3!” and accidently set off a global nuclear war?
Also, in all the confusion right after the launches would N. Korea or some other nation try and do something major before we know what has happened?
Huge premise error.
Western analysts of every stripe are convinced that Iran’s nearing nuclearization has nothing to do with energy production and everything to do with the development of a nuclear arsenal. Given Iran’s egregious track record on the national/regional/international scene–and its explicit threats of attacking Israel and other Western interests–why would you conclude Iran’s motives are peaceful? What in Iran’s past 25 year history demonstrates peaceful intent or resolve to smooth regional tensions?
Point two, do you really think Iran would allow access to ALL of its nuclear facilities? What teeth/credibility have the IAEA or UN inspectors? Do you remember the charade in Iraq? Iran is clearly stalling the international community (and would similarly dupe IAEA inspectors) while it races to develop a nuclear arsenal. Given the track record, why assume anything other than duplicity on the part of Iran’s mullahs? They have zero interest in negotiating away/emcumbering the development and subsequent profileration of their future nuclear arsenal.
Your moral equation of Israel and Iran is perplexing, but your willingness to “run the risk that [Iran] will somehow manage to produce nuclear weapons without the inspectors finding out” is mind boggling.
There has been an American aircraft carrier stationed in the Gulf of Oman, just south of there, for decades to prevent that from happening. I have been on one of them myself for two deployments.
What credibility do the UN/IAEA inspectors have? Well, they were right about Iraqi nuclear weapons, and the United States was wrong.
It’s worth remembering that Iran repeatedly insists that Israel has no right to exist. They violently oppose any group that suggests the Israelis and Palestinians peacefully coexist. Israel does not say Iran has no right to exist.
So what would happen after an Israeli strike? It’s hard to say.
The Iranian government has said they will attack America after such a raid (or before it if they feel like it), but this could be a bluff on their part. An Iranian invasion of Iraq seems highly unlikely as that would force the U.S. into a full scale war with Iran. I doubt the Mullahs want to see that happen. Missile strikes against American targets in the region are possible. The U.S. would retaliate of course. Would Iran risk that? I don’t know.
They could block the straight of Hormuz, but that would bring the U.S. Navy down on them. Iran has a fleet of nuclear submarines in the gulf. Things could get nasty. Would the Ayatollah Khameini risk his expensive navy in an attempt to close the gulf? I don’t know.
Iran would strike Israel with missiles. But what would those missiles be armed with? Will they put nerve gas on them? That would surely invite a response in kind from Israel. Would they risk such an escalation? Again, I don’t know. An extended match of Missile hockey seems pretty certain, though.
Another issue is Iran’s Jewish population which is larger than many people might imagine. The government casts a suspicious eye on these people and several of them have been tried as spies on laughable evidence. Would Jews become scapegoats after an Israeli raid?
It’s entirely possible such a raid would lead Iran to cooperate more closely with Al Qaeda.
Such a raid may involve Israeli commandos on the ground in Iran. If any commandos or pilots are captured they would likely be marched through the streets and publicly executed.
There is also the issue of Turkey. Would they give Israel fly-over permission to execute such a raid? If they do will Iran strike them? Would NATO respond?
All told, it would be better to avoid the whole scenario. The foot dragging in the U.N. over this is getting kind of frustrating. I don’t know if sanctions from the EU would be enough to stop, hinder or defer Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it might and it might help to defuse this crisis.
I neglected to mention it, but Iran would also likely order Hezbollah to attack Israel. More than they normally do, that is.
I do. I remember the “charade” was not played out in Baghdad or New York, but in Washington, where Bush made a show of pretending he was going to be guided by the reports of the UN weapons inspectors, when in fact he had already made up his mind to invade. We could’ve avoided this pointless, stupid war if only we’d listened to Hans Blix. Have we learned nothing?
I am afraid that Iran might have made secret deals with N. Korea, and they agreed to a massive contingency plan if Israel indeed tried to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The charade I referenced was the fact that Iraq steadfastly hindered the ability of these inspectors to do their jobs–and the added fact that the IAEA has no teeth whatsoever.
Please answer the remainder of my points, BG. I’m curious.
CAPACITOR Please be more specific. Are you suggesting a North Korean offensive? Any cites for that?
Analysts of “every stripe” and no significant dissension on the point? I’d like to see a cite for that.
Iran has not fought a war of aggression since the 1979 revolution. The only war in which they were involved was one in which their enemy, U.S.-backed Iraq, was the clear aggressor. I rather think that rhetoric about destroying Israel is just that – rhetoric, like China claiming Taiwan, and the old Kuomintang vowing to take back the mainland next year.
As for “peaceful intentions” –
-
Iran does need nuclear power – they generate most of their power from fossil-fuel-powered plants now and their level of air pollution is awfu. Also, they know the oil can’t last forever. And they want to be modern and nuclear power is something modern industrial nations have. We had a whole GD thread just on that point – did you miss it?
-
If they also want nuclear weapons – isn’t that very understandable, even if they have no aggressive intentions? Kim Jong Il must know very well that he can make no first use of his nuclear arsenal that would not lead directly to the total destruction of himself, his regime, and most of his country. He also knows that his nuclear arsenal is the only thing protectiing him, at this point, from a U.S. invasion and “regime change.” The Iranians, who are very much aware that Bush placed them on the “axis of evil” together with Iraq and NK, are capable of taking a lesson from this. What would you be doing in their place?
The UN inspectors did get access to everything in Iraq, eventually. In the existing climate, I don’t see how the Iranians could develop weapons under the inspectors’ noses; denying them access to anything could provoke undesirable pressure, if not military action, from the West.
I do not morally equate them. Each regime has its own sins. If you weigh them in the balance the Israelis come out much better on a lot of measures – the more so as they have been fighting for national survival since 1948 and we have to make allowances. That does not mean we should turn a blind eye to oppression and atrocities when Israel commits them, nor does it mean the U.S. should always back Israel’s plays under all circumstances, nor vice-versa.
Of “every stripe” that I listen to. 
Time will prove you wrong, wrong, wrong.
Correction: Iran has resorted to advancing its agenda by funding international terrorism.
As for the rest, we see vastly different realities. No hope in agreement, no point in debating further. Again, time will tell.
Perhaps we can reach agreement on the issue of the thread, which is more a practical one than a matter of moral judgment: Which course of action will be more dangerous – allowing Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or allowing Iran to continue on its path with nothing but diplomatic pressure, sanctions, etc., to deter it? Both are dangerous. I believe the first course of action is more so because it might spark a multi-sided regional war between several different governments, ethnic groups, and religious and political factions – like Lebanon on a continental scale, as I said. Do you see any reason to be assured that couldn’t happen?