Iran Predictions

[Wesley_Clark]

Do you guys really think Iran would nuke Israel? I don’t really see it.

It was my understanding that the mullahs backed off of Ahmadinejad’s claims because they were too radical (I can’t find any news articles on the subject right now though). That is what I remember happening. Ahmadinejad is more of a figurehead than anything since his predecessor Khatami was pretty impotent too.

If Ahmadinejad were the dictator for life of Iran then I’d be worried. But he is a transient president in a nation where there is a massive feeling of discontentment with the hardline religious leadership. I’m sure one of the main reasons Ahmadinejad won is because so many moderates and reformers were disqualified before the elections, leaving only the radicals to pick from.

Iran already has a good chemical weapons program

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/cw/index.html

Iran manufactures weapons for blister, blood, and choking agents; it is also believed to be conducting research on nerve agents. Iran’s stockpile of chemical weapons is believed to include nerve and blister agents. Iran is estimated to have an inventory of several thousand tons of various agents, including sulfur mustard, phosgene, and cyanide agents.

They haven’t given any to Al Qaeda that I know of yet.

[Sevastopol]

@Wesley Clark

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear
Israel’s defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action.

Who knows what that will entail though or if Israel will do anything.

Neocons go suddenly silent on the right of nations to engage in '“pre-emptive defense.”

[KidCharlemagne]

It’s not as simple as Iran “lobbing a nuke towards Israel,” or “US invading Iraq.” There are ways around the former and shades of grey within the latter. If it gets down to the likelihood of Iran finishing the Tehran Project then Israel will do SOMETHING, probably airstrikes. They may not have the reach they need or want but they’ll do something. Israel is the Mid East’s Nanny 911.

China could flank the oil issue by blocking imports of refined oil to Iran. Iran is as dependent on refined as China is on crude. China might however have to give an official denunciation of sanctions/military ops while unofficially supporting both.

My prediction is a half-assed sanction back and forth while UN diplos create some sort of humanitarian aid. Perhaps they’ll do something completely new, like an oil for food program or something like that. Kojo will upgrade to the 2006 Mercedes. Al-Qaeda will get an attack off somewhere and it will be blamed on Iran followed by an anemic coalition air campaign, a al Clinton’s in Iraq.

@Neurotik

Ridiculous. Why would Iran give al-Qaeda nukes? Iran hasn’t worked with al-Qaeda, and in fact, Iran was on our side in Afghanistan and had been supporting the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for years before we got involved.

Christ you’re obtuse. Since when in the course of history have short term expedient alliances grown into long term loyalties? If that were the case then OBL would be helping us hunt him down and kill him.

[KidCharlemagne]

Does anyone have an opinion on the ability/effectiveness of the US to wage a major psyops and economic war? The former with taking over various electronic media and leaflet drops and the latter with counterfeit currency introduction? I know leaflet drops seem a little third world but a couple million pamphlets floating around downtown Tehran would be quite a sight.

[Neurotik]

@KidCharlemagne

Christ you’re obtuse. Since when in the course of history have short term expedient alliances grown into long term loyalties? If that were the case then OBL would be helping us hunt him down and kill him.

Don’t be dense, please. The statement has nothing to do with Iran showing any long term loyaly to us. It has to do with the fact that Iran and al-Qaeda have diametrically opposed interests in the region and come from diametrically opposed versions of messianic Islam. There’s no rational basis for Iran wanting to help al-Qaeda in any way.

Especially when things are working towards Iran’s favor right now, aside from this nuclear weapons kerfuffle. Iran had been increasing its economic and political ties with the wider world. The American invasion of Iraq has resulted in a democratically elected government that is sympathetic to them and their eastern border has been stabilized with a government that, again, is far more sympathetic towards them than the Taliban were. So why would Iran rock the boat by giving a nuclear weapon to their political and religious rivals?

[August_West]

@Neurotik

Especially when things are working towards Iran’s favor right now, aside from this nuclear weapons kerfuffle. Iran had been increasing its economic and political ties with the wider world. The American invasion of Iraq has resulted in a democratically elected government that is sympathetic to them and their eastern border has been stabilized with a government that, again, is far more sympathetic towards them than the Taliban were. So why would Iran rock the boat by giving a nuclear weapon to their political and religious rivals?

Pardon me if I consider the possibility of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that has pledged to wipe Israel off of the map and destroy the United States as slightly more than a “kerfuffle”

Perhaps you missed the elections in August of 2005, when a hard-line conservative took power? All of these movements toward establishing ties with the rest of the world were BEFORE Ahmadinejad was elected. I haven’t seen a lot of reaching out since then.

[Post.Rinse.Repeat]

I’m sure their scientists (which are all imported from Pakistan’s program) are simply continuing their grudge match with India. Israel is not as important in Iran as we think. We tend to ignore the fighting between India and Pakistan but it is right on the border of Iran.

[Neurotik]

@August West

Pardon me if I consider the possibility of a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that has pledged to wipe Israel off of the map and destroy the United States as slightly more than a “kerfuffle”

That’s fine. Just understand that the chances of them actually using it is fairly remote. I’d be a lot more worried about Pakistan and North Korea.

Perhaps you missed the elections in August of 2005, when a hard-line conservative took power? All of these movements toward establishing ties with the rest of the world were BEFORE Ahmadinejad was elected. I haven’t seen a lot of reaching out since then.

The only issue that’s been at the papers has been the nuclear issue. At the same time, Iran has been actively pursuing (and getting) foreign investment contracts to expand their oil production infrastructure, etc. But that’s mainly business as usual.

If I was in Iran’s place, I wouldn’t budge off of the nuclear issue either. Neoconservatives were once openly talking about Iraq as an opening before moving on to replace the regimes in Syria and Iran. And they also know that Europe, China , etc. won’t be able to guarantee their security. The only thing that will is a nuclear weapon.

[RTFirefly]

Seems Moqtada Al-Sadr has some things to say on the subject:

“If neighboring Islamic countries, including Iran, become the target of attacks, we will support them,” al-Sadr was quoted as saying. “The Mahdi Army is beyond the Iraqi army. It was established to defend Islam.”

While I wouldn’t put it past the Bush Administration to be total idiots, ISTM that airstrikes against Iran would be a pretty dangerous thing to do while we still have troops in Iraq. Right now, the main threat to our troops’ security is the Sunni insurgency. If we attack Iran, we lose the acquiescence of the Shi’ite majority in Iraq, and quite possibly get forcefully evicted.

IOW, we’re in deep shit over there. Once again, our adventure in Iraq deprives us of options in dealing with more significant problems. It’s as if someone said to Bush a few years back, “You and your country should go fuck yourselves,” and he said, “Sure, sounds like a good idea to me.”

[tagos]

@BrainGlutton

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.

And as the Iranian electorate all want to see Iran a nuclear power there is no regime to change to, short of another jackbooted puppet dictator.

[tagos]

And as for ‘economic’ warfare. Oil gives them the whip hand.

Best just accept they’re going to have the Bomb sometime (and as Iraq and NK shows, it’s the sane way to go if you don’t want to be invaded on some made up pretext) and find diplomatic ways to live with it.

If we are so worried about nukes getting into the wrong hands we’d better deal with Pakistan first.

[RTFirefly]

@tagos

If we are so worried about nukes getting into the wrong hands we’d better deal with Pakistan first.

True. And equally impossible, of course.

If we were really worried about nuclear proliferation, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Now everyone’s gonna want an anti-invasion insurance policy.

[RTFirefly]

Back in another era (the 1990s and the preceding few decades), conservatives were constantly prating about the “unintended consequences” of liberal do-gooding, and how liberals never considered the possible negative repercussions of their favored policies.

Funny how they don’t talk about unintended consequences much anymore.

[wevets]

@xtisme

The US certainly has the military strength to regime-change Iran…even with so many troops tied up in Iraq. What we dont have is the will as a nation to do so. Oh, it would take a major committment by the US, and probably draw down our last reserves. It would be ugly and messy, especially the occupation phase. But we COULD certainly do this if we wanted to.

I’m not sure I know where this is coming from. The US has about 150,000 troops in Iraq. According to one of the late Col. David Hackworth’s books, for every deployed soldier you’ll also have one in training getting ready to be deployed and one who has rotated out and can’t be deployed again for a long time. That means the 150,000 troop commitment ties up 450,000 US soldiers. Then there’s another 18,000 deployed in Afghanistan, tying up 54,000 more troops. 5,000 more in the Balkans, tying up 15,000. That’s 519,000 soldiers both active and reserve tied up in current hardship deployments.

Then there’s 30,000 troops in Korea, not on hardship duty so they’re not “deployed” in the sense Hackworth means. And 90,000 in Germany, England, and Italy. 40,000 more in Japan.

Now we’re up to 679,000 out of a total of 1,043,000 active (only 485,000 are active duty) and reserves. Keeping in mind that Iran would undoubtedly be a hardship deployment, of the 404,000 active duty and reserves left, a third is 135,000 that you think we can attack Iran with? And Iran wasn’t defeated in 1991 and hasn’t had 12 years of sanctions sapping its strength. Ambitious, to say the least.
Most of the numbers come from these sites:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

United States Armed Forces

But I may be confusing Army troops with troops from other services, so if anyone can help me parse it out better, please do.

So I agree with you, it’s not viable. I would go farther and say not possible without the sort of mobilization we haven’t seen since World War II.

On the other hand, I would vastly prefer a non-nuclear Iran. Can anyone think of what we could possibly offer that might make them want to bite?

[KidCharlemagne]

@tagos

And as for ‘economic’ warfare. Oil gives them the whip hand.

Best just accept they’re going to have the Bomb sometime (and as Iraq and NK shows, it’s the sane way to go if you don’t want to be invaded on some made up pretext) and find diplomatic ways to live with it.

If we are so worried about nukes getting into the wrong hands we’d better deal with Pakistan first.

I’m not sure if this was addressed somewhat to my use of the term but I wasn’t speaking of sanctions. I’m talking guerilla economic warfare - counterfeiting currency, sabotaging infrastructure, etc…

[XT]

wevets, you are trying to parse the numbers so that we can essentially have our cake and eat it too…and then saying it won’t work. Read what I said (repeatedly)…we’d most certainly have to go to the wall in order to both invade AND occupy Iraq (assuming the Euro’s won’t send any troops to assist in the occupation part…a good assumption I’d say). It would be the occupation of course that would take the majority of our manpower…probably much more than Iraq is taking (maybe double, maybe more…I’ve seen both mentioned). You are right…we can’t maintain troop strength in Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, England, Italy, etc AND invade, conquere and occupy Iran.

However, that doesn’t mean we couldn’t do it…it means we can’t do everything and would have to choose whats more important. Essentially it just means we’d need to compromise, to withdraw from some or all of those places to accomplish our goal…if in fact that was our goal. Again, I’m speaking to the possibility. BG stated categorically that we could not force regime change in Iran…and thats wrong. We most certainly could…but would we want too? I’d say most definitely we don’t.

@wevets

So I agree with you, it’s not viable. I would go farther and say not possible without the sort of mobilization we haven’t seen since World War II.

Only if it was our intention to do everything at once (and assuming we’d be doing it essentially alone a la Iraq…perhaps with even less help this time around with reguards to the Brits). Otherwise it would me reprioritizing our military commitments abroad. I don’t think it would require a mobilization such as WWII in order to take out Iran…it would just require the US to be reasonably unified that this was what we wanted to do. Something not likely to happen (unless something really chilling happens in the next decade or so…like an Iranian nuke going off in a major city).

@wevets

On the other hand, I would vastly prefer a non-nuclear Iran. Can anyone think of what we could possibly offer that might make them want to bite?

I doubt there is much more that could be offered that hasn’t already been offered by the Euro’s. They have that whole good cop/bad cop thing going (with us as bad cop of course), have offered loads of incentives to Iran (I think Russia offered to even enrich the stuff FOR them and they turned it down IIRC), etc, and they just don’t seem to be going for it. The reality is that unless the Euro’s can pull a rabbit out of their collective hats, or unless China/Russia get fully on board with slapping down Iran via the SC with sanctions and such that a military option of some kind might be the only alternative to Iran going nuclear. In which case, unless the Israeli’s want to go for it I’d say Iran will be nuclear sometime in the foreseeable future. JMHO that.

-XT

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@RTFirefly

If we were really worried about nuclear proliferation, we wouldn’t have invaded Iraq. Now everyone’s gonna want an anti-invasion insurance policy.

That only makes sense if you ignore the fact that we invaded Iraq because of their nuclear and other WMD programs. So the lesson of Iraq is that you should not pursue nukes, because that will give the US all the justification it needs to invade.

@RTFirefly

Back in another era (the 1990s and the preceding few decades), conservatives were constantly prating about the “unintended consequences” of liberal do-gooding, and how liberals never considered the possible negative repercussions of their favored policies.

Funny how they don’t talk about unintended consequences much anymore.

Oh, goody! The strawman game! Can I play?

"Back in another era (the 1990s and the preceding few decades), liberals were constantly prating about ‘human rights’ and ‘spreading democracy,’ and how conservatives never considered addressing the root causes of extremist regimes.

“Funny how they don’t talk about spreading democracy much anymore.”

Both sides have switched rhetoric on a lot of issues. I realize you’re blind to Democratic flaws. But I find it incredible that you seem to think that the current course of action is the only one that might bear unintended consequences. If that’s what you think, I’d suggest you leave the “unintended consequences” argument to the folks that understand it.

[Sevastopol]

@RTFirefly

Back in another era (the 1990s and the preceding few decades), conservatives were constantly prating about the “unintended consequences” of liberal do-gooding, and how liberals never considered the possible negative repercussions of their favored policies.

Funny how they don’t talk about unintended consequences much anymore.

That’s because they are well versed in hard-nosed economic management and talk of “opportunity cost.”

[RTFirefly]

IMHO, if Israel attacks Iran, the Muslim world is liable to react pretty much the same as if we do so: they see us operating hand-in-glove. So we’d better be telling them to leave well enough alone until we’re out of Iraq.

@Sevastopol

That’s because they are well versed in hard-nosed economic management and talk of “opportunity cost.”

[ElvisL1ves]

@Age Quod Agis

That only makes sense if you ignore the fact that we invaded Iraq because of their nuclear and other WMD programs.

That’s a fact, is it? You really think so?