Iran Predictions

[fifty-six]

I was hoping to get some more Doper insight on what may happen with Iran and whatever it is they are doing/claiming to do.

I suppose my semi-uneducated guess is that they just want something and are using this as a bargaiing chip. When We/Un give in to them they will chill out for a bit.

And maby they really do want to blow up Israel. Israel will likely be protected if they get scared enough and launch first. Neither country reall has anything to worry about as they will be backed by God and other countries no matter what happens. Is this a plausable senario?

Educate me please.

[wevets]

Sorry I can’t help you with insight, just some slap-dash WAGging, but I’m going to bet that with China’s dependency on Iranian oil, the Security Council won’t get anywhere. No one wants higher oil prices either, so long-term sanctions and military operations are out.

That leaves offering Iran something attractive enough that they’ll give up enrichment, or short-term military strikes. I would imagine the Iranians will try to protect their program against the latter, and I’m not sure what the US and Europe can offer as the former.

I think Iran will probably have nuclear weapons in 5-10 years unless proliferation somehow becomes a much higher priority.

I also think that despite becoming a nuclear power, Iran will neither give nukes to terrorists nor try to blow Israel off the face of the map. No one besides the Iranians will be happy with an Iranian Bomb, but the world will cope.

[Sam_Stone]

I think Iran will be referred to the Security Council. However, the Russians and the Chinese really have opposing interests to the west here. For one thing, their economies are fragile and it would hurt them a lot to embargo Iranian oil. For another, an Iran which is a serious thorn in the side of Israel, the U.S., and other western nations isn’t a bad thing.

So expect a replay of the Iraq war. China and Russia will play games, stalling final votes, demanding more evidence, yada yada. The Iranians will play along, offering last-minute compromises that mean nothing, announcing that they’ll stop enriching (and then starting again after some manufactured incident), etc. This will drag on until either the U.S., with or without allies, decides to take action without the blessing of the SC.

The wildcard here is Israel. Israel might decide to take matters into its own hands and attack Iran. Perhaps the threat of that will actually spur the Security Council into action this time, or perhaps they’ll just go ahead and do it, sparking widespread riots in the Middle East and giving the U.S. Middle East democracy project a world of grief.

Another possible outcome could be for the Security Council to agree to a milder form of punishment that doesn’t hurt China and Russia as much. Sanctions of some kind, stopping short of an economic embargo. The question is whether or not that will actually affect the leadership of that country enough to get them to capitulate. And that depends on how strong their grip is on power.

Ultimately, what should be done comes down to your belief in the nature of the mullahs. If you think they are shrewd guys who are just posturing in order to get something, you might argue for compromise. On the other hand, if you take their rantings at face value, then they are an apocalyptic cult that are attempting to get nuclear weapons as the first step in kicking off the events (starting with the destruction of Israel) that will bring about their version of armageddon, after which their kind will rule the planet.

What would you be willing to do to stop, say, a country ruled by Pat Robertson from getting the Bomb? These guys make Pat Robertson look sane and peaceful.

[Duckster]

WAG - Limited air strikes as early as March 2006.

[elfkin477]

@Duckster

WAG - Limited air strikes as early as March 2006.

I don’t know…the very first things I can remember politically were talks about Russia and Iran, and even back then people made it sound like a forgone conclusion that we’d go to war with one, if not both. A couple decades later and we still haven’t had a large-scale war with either. There must be pretty decent reasons not to attack Iran.

[Neurotik]

@Sam Stone

So expect a replay of the Iraq war. China and Russia will play games, stalling final votes, demanding more evidence, yada yada. The Iranians will play along, offering last-minute compromises that mean nothing, announcing that they’ll stop enriching (and then starting again after some manufactured incident), etc. This will drag on until either the U.S., with or without allies, decides to take action without the blessing of the SC.

Utterly ridiculous. The US doesn’t have the cability to invade Iran due to their force requirements in Iraq.

Another possible outcome could be for the Security Council to agree to a milder form of punishment that doesn’t hurt China and Russia as much. Sanctions of some kind, stopping short of an economic embargo. The question is whether or not that will actually affect the leadership of that country enough to get them to capitulate. And that depends on how strong their grip is on power.

Quite strong. But it doesn’t change the fact that Iran’s rulers are a fairly pragmatic and prideful lot. The Iranian government is actually fairly eager to extend its economic and cultural ties to the world. They want their state to have a regional gravitas that can’t be achieved by being economically and politically isolated - which is what this whole nuclear thingie is all about in the first place. Countries with nukes get respect and become players in the region.

On the other hand, if you take their rantings at face value, then they are an apocalyptic cult that are attempting to get nuclear weapons as the first step in kicking off the events (starting with the destruction of Israel) that will bring about their version of armageddon, after which their kind will rule the planet.

Ridiculous. No serious analyst believes that.

[Mr.Blue_Sky]

WAG (no basis whatsoever): Between now and 2015, somebody in that region will get nuked.

[Sam_Stone]

@Neurotik

Utterly ridiculous. The US doesn’t have the cability to invade Iran due to their force requirements in Iraq.

I don’t think a full-scale invasion is in the cards. But air strikes against nuclear and/or missile facilities, a leadership decapitation strike, a full naval embargo, or other hostile actions could happen.

Quite strong. But it doesn’t change the fact that Iran’s rulers are a fairly pragmatic and prideful lot. The Iranian government is actually fairly eager to extend its economic and cultural ties to the world. They want their state to have a regional gravitas that can’t be achieved by being economically and politically isolated - which is what this whole nuclear thingie is all about in the first place. Countries with nukes get respect and become players in the region.

Ridiculous. No serious analyst believes that.

Really? I’ve read a few that worry about it a lot. Now, it’s hard to separate bluster from reality sometimes, but there are other times that when a leader says he intends to kill you you might want to consider that he’s telling the truth.

[ZebraShaSha]

@Neurotik

Utterly ridiculous. The US doesn’t have the cability to invade Iran due to their force requirements in Iraq.
…
Quite strong. But it doesn’t change the fact that Iran’s rulers are a fairly pragmatic and prideful lot. The Iranian government is actually fairly eager to extend its economic and cultural ties to the world. They want their state to have a regional gravitas that can’t be achieved by being economically and politically isolated - which is what this whole nuclear thingie is all about in the first place. Countries with nukes get respect and become players in the region.
…
Ridiculous. No serious analyst believes that.

I’m with him. Iran is diametrically opposed to American democracy, but that doesn’t necessarily make them a vile country. They do a lot of things and say a lot of things that are hard for us to stomach, but they are a strong, prosperous country that is very civilized and quite modern. If we were discussing some third world country, or an unstable African country who could lob a nuke off with no repercussions, we’d have to worry. As for now, Iran is crazy, but they are not stupid, and I am almost positive they would not use nuclear weapons first. To do so would be a definite act of war that every nation could get behind, making them v. the world. Not only that, but they know us and our allies could completely oblierate their country if push came to shove, especially if that shove was nuclear.

Call me naive, but they simply want the power.

[Neurotik]

@Sam Stone

Really? I’ve read a few that worry about it a lot. Now, it’s hard to separate bluster from reality sometimes, but there are other times that when a leader says he intends to kill you you might want to consider that he’s telling the truth.

Maybe, but that leader’s actions also say a lot more. Iran has never invaded another country, and even though they have very large, known stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, they have never shared them with any terrorist group, I think it’s pretty safe to say that they have no intention of lobbing nukes at anyone. Not only that, but they have been actively courting foreign investment in their oil industry and seeking to diversify their economy. They also worked with the United States fairly closely in destroying the Taliban.

They have displayed no comfort at being economically or diplomatically isolated like North Korea or Burma (or Myanmar or whatever they are now), and while they have walked the line very closely with Israel, they have also been careful not to push too far. The Iranian leadership has shown no desire to have their country wiped off the map. I think it’s safe to say that would continue.

[Rune]

Here’s a prediction:

The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented

With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.

http://www.arts.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=AAHGLZBI5QK2XQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/01/15/ixportal.html

[BrainGlutton]

@Sam Stone

So expect a replay of the Iraq war. China and Russia will play games, stalling final votes, demanding more evidence, yada yada. The Iranians will play along, offering last-minute compromises that mean nothing, announcing that they’ll stop enriching (and then starting again after some manufactured incident), etc. This will drag on until either the U.S., with or without allies, decides to take action without the blessing of the SC.

Not an option. The U.S. does not have the military strength to regime-change Iran. Not so long as we have so many troops tied up in Iraq – and, perhaps, not even if we pulled out.

[Knowed_Out]

Iran supposedly has a radical element which is gaining popularity, so the UN might decide to wait to see if they win the next presidential election. Plus, even though Iran wants nukes, they may not have the resources or the knowledge to make them. In the meantime, Isreal’s got so many missiles pointed at Iran, even if Iran dropped the bomb on them, Israel’s retaliation would wipe Iran off the map.

Iran’s president is engaging in the time honored tradition of saber rattling. He’s showing a hardline front to intimidate his enemies and possibly to worry them into compromising a scenario that benefits Iran better than they originally intended to do.

But that didn’t work for Iraq.

[Captain_Lance_Murdoch]

I think we’ll see weak sanctions against Iran. China needs the oil, Russia needs trade with Iran and European oil companies do loads of business with Iran. So what I think will happen is that there will be a tightening of non-oil trade trade with Iran. Since most of Iran’s economy revolves around oil this will not make a huge difference. It will help to strip what little diversity there is in Iran’s economy, however. Plus the oil industry in Iran is government owned. Private folks wishing to do business with the west will be the ones who would be hurt by this. The Mullahs also do an amazingly bad job of running Iran’s economy. Expertise is Islam is more important than economics to earning a high position in Iran’s government. Iran would be even more dependent on its government ministers in this situation. Sanctions would cause a moral hit in Iran as well. To read the Iranian press on a regular basis is to see that Tehran has absolutely poured itself into the notion that all the world loves Iran and hates the U.S. and the “zionist regime.” Sanctions would be played as trickery of Americans and zionists, but it would be a slap to the perception that Iran has spent years trying to develop - at least domestically.

Air-strikes are an eventual possibility, but Iran is ready for them and has spread its nuke sites around the country and has buried key facilities far underground in an effort to make them impervious to strikes. The sites are also heavily defended. The bottom line may be that there is nothing (short of an invasion) that will stop the Mullahs from getting the bomb. An invasion is unlikely given that the U.S. is tied down in Iraq, there is no political will for it and Iran is no push over. There are around 65 million people in Iran. They have an air force, a navy with nulear subs, a variety of Chinese and North Korean missiles as well as chemical weapons.

Will they give the bomb to Hezbollah for use against Israel? We simply cannot say.

[wevets]

[nitpick]
Iran’s navy has conventional submarines, not nuclear.
[/nitpick]

[BrainGlutton]

@Knowed Out

Iran supposedly has a radical element which is gaining popularity, so the UN might decide to wait to see if they win the next presidential election.

“Radical” which way?

[Carnac_the_Magnificent]

@Sam Stone

However, the Russians and the Chinese really have opposing interests to the west here … an Iran which is a serious thorn in the side of Israel, the U.S., and other western nations isn’t a bad thing.

This can’t be overemphasized. Applies to North Korea, too.

[Neurotik]

@Carnac the Magnificent!

This can’t be overemphasized. Applies to North Korea, too.

Yes, it can. Neither Russia nor China particularly want either Iran or North Korea to have nukes.

[August_West]

I predict that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will be in al-Qaeda’s hands within a week.

I predict that the U.N. will do nothing other than talk.

I predict that the U.S. will be forced to invade because no one else (China, France, Russia, Germany) is willing to stand up and act like the superpower they claim to be. Israel is the wild card in this equation.

In case no one noticed, Iran is flanked by Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to me we have enough troops in that area of the world. I would expect Iran’s government to last about as long as Iraq’s did after our invasion, about 3 days.

[sjc]

@August West

I predict that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will be in al-Qaeda’s hands within a week.

I predict that the U.N. will do nothing other than talk.

I predict that the U.S. will be forced to invade because no one else (China, France, Russia, Germany) is willing to stand up and act like the superpower they claim to be. Israel is the wild card in this equation.

In case no one noticed, Iran is flanked by Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to me we have enough troops in that area of the world. I would expect Iran’s government to last about as long as Iraq’s did after our invasion, about 3 days.

I don’t know about the nukes going to al Qaeda, it seems to me that if Iran wants nukes for regional prestige they wouldn’t give them to al Qaeda but keep them for themselves. Plus, unless I’m very much mistaken, Osama bin Laden is Sunni and the Iranian mullahs are Shiite.

As to your second point, it may have taken 3 days to topple Saddam Hussein, but we still haven’t really subdued the country. There are still plenty of people who have weapons and are fighting against our troops and the local government. In the ensuing chaos following a collapse of the government I can very well imagine that some nukes or other weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists.

Remember as well that Afghanistan was much less cohesive and militarily prepared when we invaded and Iraq had weapons inspections, no-fly zones and sanctions placed on it. It seems to me that both Iraq and Afghanistan were already crippled when we went in. Nevertheless, we still haven’t really brought things in those countries to a stable point. Even though we have troops stationed on either side of Iran, I’m pretty sure that most of them are tied down in those countries.

I just Googled the populations of Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan and found that the combined population of Iraq and Afghanistan is less than the total population of Iran. Even if Iran were somehow less effective militarily than Iraq or Afghanistan, it would likely take more troops to keep the peace and administrate the country.

I suppose the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan might improve to the point that we can spare more soldiers, but I’m not holding my breath.

With Iraq and Afghanistan we weren’t facing an enemy who was likely to have nuclear weapons or lots of other WMDs, the Bush administrations claims notwithstanding.