Suppose Bush decides to launch airstrikes on Iranian “nuclear facilities”, how badly could things plausibly spiral out of control?
Oddly, I don’t think that there is much Iran could do, well they could block of shipping, but I’m not sure how bad that would be.
Other states in the area might get narked, but it is possible that Saudi et al would be secretly rather relieved.
If Bush decides to do that, he would be wise to take out their airforce and trash their power stations at the same time.
Somehow, I don’t think any of it is a very good idea
- leaflets in Farsi explaining that the USA has no beef with 99% of the Iranian people, but is not keen on Ahmadinejad having a bomb, would be worth trying.
Oil at $200 a barrel or more?
The entire Muslim world united against us and their own US supporting govts?
A fundamantalist Saudi Arabia?
Massive terrorist recruitment drive along with a renewed determination to hit back by any means available?
As no one has demonstrated that Iran has either the desire for a bomb nor the capability and therefore is not a threat demanding immediate action all concerned should be treated as war criminals and the states involved as rogue states.
And the supporters of the action as ‘fool me twice,’ imbeciles.
Bolding mine
Suitcase nuke?
I would use a scheduled airliner - but I get your point, and consider it likely whatever one does to Iran.
@Tagos,
Maybe $200 oil, but a lot of people would love that
Most Iranians are moslems, but not Arabs.
- also the Sunni States are in danger of Islamisization anyway
While I don’t much like Nuclear power, they seem to want it. And nobody seems that determined to stop them.
I do find it odd that Iran insists on producing its enriched uranium itself - especially when the world and its dog is offering a source of supply.
Realistically, if anyone takes out Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will be the Israelis.
They have the most to lose, and have a track record.
The price of caviar would go through the roof, for one.
The US would be really stupid to launch such attack. Better leave Israel to do it. They are close enough to do it without having to ask for anyone’s cooperation and better able to dodge international scrutiny. Plus they have more of an interest to do it.
Agreed, plus there would be deniability - Israel would not apparently be involved.
In a “worst-case scenario”? I bet they would.
Air strikes on Iranian facilities, followed by a declaration of jihad against Israel by Iran. Iran either launches a nuke against Israel, or hands a dirty bomb over to some terrorist group or other and lets them do it. Israel retaliates with nukes against Tehran and Syria. Difficulties ensue. Fifty years from now, the survivors are fighting each other over the radioactive deserts of the region.
Regards,
Shodan
No person on the planet will believe Israel acted alone off their own bat. I wouldn’t. They have to fly through NATO/US controlled airspace to get there for one thing.
The whole attack idea is stupid but it is going to happen despite there being no solid evidence Iran has nuclear weapons in mind.
As a sig to the NPT they are completely entitled to nuclear power. As a sig they are also entitled to expect the nuclear powers to live up to their side of the bargain under Article VI.
Of course radiation mutated pigs will fly before that happens.
If Israel launches such an attack it should be treated as a rogue state.
Iran is nowhere near a bomb even if it is pursuing one. Rafsanjani will be gone soon enough and doesn’t set foreign or military policy anyway.
As by most accounts they are many years from a bomb, even under favourable circumstances, I think the push for war is just another example of Bush bellicosity and lies and the neo-con inability to see that the national interest of Israel and the USA are not the identical thing.
If and when it becomes a threat and other methods have failed then more drastic action may become necessary. At this point, with the example of the lies and misjudgements of Iraq before us, to believ anything the current US administration says or support any bellicose policy it spews up would be stupidity.
Iran 10 years from bomb - National Intel Estimate
The ‘rush’ to war is just the same old same old.
White House stovepiping intelligence
The Muslim world gets upset about cartoons. I think I’m on very safe grounds saying an unprovoked attack on a Muslim country will provoke something a lot stronger.
China and Russia would register their displeasure. Plausibly that could spiral quite badly out of control. Particularly given the current administrations diplomatic track record. If you’re looking for the worst case scenario. We all know China holds our debt, and Russia still holds a monstrous nuclear arsenal. We don’t need confrontations with either of them.
Pissing off the Muslim world, yet again, doesn’t seem that wise a move, IMHO. There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and about 50 countries are majority Muslim. Many of these countries in strategically important relationships with the U.S. The fallout is pretty hard to guess, but that’s a lot of variables to consider.
But unifying Muslims in outrage against the U.S. might be a better scenario than fracturing Muslims along ethnic lines - an alternative outcome. A U.S. strike against a Shi’ite nation might agitate Shi’ite populations throughout the middle east where they are largely oppressed minorities under U.S.-friendly(ish) Sunni governments. You can see how that might causes problems. I would also have a hard time imagining the Maliki gov’t in Iraq surviving the fallout.
What could Iran specifically do? Cause serious problems in Iraq and Lebanon (maybe Afghanistan?), bomb Israel, blockade the strait of Hormuz…hello - 40% of the world’s oil goes through there. Also, Iran has a low median age, with the young having a *relatively * favorable view of the U.S. That would be out the window if we bombed the country.
The upside? You couldn’t stop nuclear development, most likely, but you might slow it down a hair. The more likely motivation is to prevent Iran from turning Iraq into a puppet government, which for obvious reasons, scares the bejezus out of the Bush administration. Bombing Iran into instability might accomplish that purpose.
An Israeli attack on Iran could be the straw that breaks the camle’s back-it might actually succeed in removing all US support for israel. face it-we have destroyed any goodwill we have in the Moslem world-and an oil embargo on the USA would put the US into a depression. Bush would be impeached, and the israelis might realize their worst fear-no more access to the US congress. This might result in the establishment of a Palestinian state and an end to the middle eastern wars.
How exactly would Bush get impeached if Israel attacked Iran?
Regards,
Shodan
Everyone who hopes that Israel will bomb Iran and spare the United States the neccessity is fooling themselves. Israel would only do so if such a bombing would actually work. Any such bombings would only delay Iran’s nuclear program. They don’t have a prayer of duplicating the Osirak bombing.
And the idea that we let Israel do it and let them take the blame is also a fantasy. The Israelis would have to overfly Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Syria/Jordan then Iraq to bomb Iran. Turkey and Saudi Arabia aren’t going to allow such overflights, and if they overfly Iraq with American permission how exactly do we avoid taking the blame?
No matter what, if Israel bombs Iran the United States will get the blame, because there’s no way they could carry out such a bombing without the cooperation of the United States, even if such cooperation is limited to allowing them to overfly Iraq.
And our chances of destroying Iran’s nuclear program with a few days of bombing is pretty much nil. Oh, we’ll knock it back a few years, but what good does that do exactly? Unless we hope to remove the Iranian regime before they get nuclear weapons a simple delay isn’t helpful and is much more likely to spur the nuclear program than stop it. And of course, the idea that we can bomb the Iranians one day and the next day we return to the status quo ante except Iran’s nuclear program is in tatters is simply laughable. The Iranian regime would be obligated to respond if they want to remain in power.
And of course, we can’t forget not everything is about the United States. The sunni states have good reason to be wary of shia Iran. Not that they’ll support bombing Iran openly or anything, but don’t expect a unified Islamic front any more than one would expect a unified Christian front.
One more thing about an oil embargo. The reduction in exports due to the ensuing crisis would send oil prices up, but an embargo against the United States while continuing to sell to Europe wouldn’t accomplish much. Oil is fungible. Iran can shut off oil exports and close the Straits of Hormuz, but an embargo against one country won’t accomplish anything besides shifting a bit of marginal profit from the Iranians and Americans to European middlemen.
Everyone who thinks bombing Iran is a necessity is fooling themselves.
All the way. Military and diplomatic experts wargamed that scenario in 2004, and nobody could come up with a way to stop it from escalating into a regional war.
Last night, on the BBC World Service radio, I heard a report that N Korea had teamed up with Iran, and that Iran was getting N Korea’s latest technology.
My guess is that Iran is sh/t scared, it just does not understand how to negotiate with the USA, a bit like Saddam.
This is an interesting point.
How do you negotiate with Bush?
Tony Blair had no luck persuading him to wait for a UN resolution, and we’re supposed to be allies…
My guess is that the story was disinformation planted as part of the ongoing low level campaign to prepare us for another pointless conflict. The original story was in the UK’s Daily Telegraph from an interview with an unnamed 'western intelligence official. Looks like classic disinfo to me. Especially the use of the Telegraph.
(Remember the ‘story’ about the non-existent Jewish badges legislation passed by the Iranian Parliament?)
To quote the Telegraph itself in another related context.
All our defaults - with the knowledge we now have - is not to believe one ‘ra-ra-war with Iran now’ word of any story unless there is highly credible independent evidence.
Not one Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling word, not a single utterance of ‘wolf’ from a politician, unnamed intelligence sources or whoever should be met with any other response than ‘fool me once…’.
And exactly how do you negotiate with the USA other than by dropping your pants and bending over? There is no negotiating with the US once they put you on their do-not-negotiate-with list. This is why we are in such a pickle now, the US abandons negotiation at the drop of a hat (or a building, or an atom bomb) and there is nothing after that.
In a rational world, this scenario would be possible. Regrettably the governments of the U.S. and Israel are often just the opposite. I can’t imagine anything which would remove U.S. support for Israel.