So if it happens, Israel makes a successful air assault on some Iranian targets – and then the Iranian Air Force counterattacks and, perhaps with a lot of losses, manages to hit some targets in Israel – is there any possible way it plays out from that point, where no third country (such as the U.S.) gets seriously involved? That’s what I’m worried about.
I agree. I’m not the one who made the analogy between nations possessing nuclear weapons and individuals possessing firearms.
My point is simply that to the extent the situations are analogous, it is consistent to support both the right to bear arms and the disarming of Iran.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So if it happens, Israel makes a successful air assault on some Iranian targets – and then the Iranian Air Force counterattacks and, perhaps with a lot of losses, manages to hit some targets in Israel – is there any possible way it plays out from that point, where no third country (such as the U.S.) gets seriously involved? That’s what I’m worried about.
[/QUOTE]
If Israel makes a successful air assault and either disrupts or sets back the Iranian nuclear program then that would be enough for most countries. There would probably be an effort to tone things down and get Iran back to the negotiating table at that point, by the Europeans if nothing else (my guess is that Russia and China would be pretty unhappy, publicly at least, and would definitely be pushing for dialogue and negotiation to tone things down). I don’t think that an Iranian counter strike is very likely, to be honest, at least not some sort of Iranian air force mission…the more likely scenario is renewed and ramped up terrorist attacks by groups like H&H, possibly some indirect irregular attacks (maybe Iranian speed boats full of explosives driven into Israeli ports or something along those lines). As now, the ball would be back into Iran’s court, and I seriously doubt they would officially escalate things (for public consumption they would be calling it a great victory as they valiantly repelled the horrible Israeli and US attackers, etc etc), but it would be up to them if it went further…or if they decided to tone things down afterwards. My guess is that would depend on how their own population took the attack (the nuclear program doesn’t exactly have the population in locksteps of joy, especially considering the increasing effects of the sanctions), and perhaps on the regional reactions, but I don’t see the Iranians kicking off some sort of general war with Israel or anyone else over this. They’d be plenty pissed, and the biggest threat would be their whole card of increased terrorist attacks, especially in Israel…possibly a new round of terror bombings and civilian rocket attacks, perhaps a general Palestinian uprising or something, if they could get their puppet groups to inspire the Palestinians to do some of the dying for them. With Syria having it’s own problems, though, I don’t see Iran getting much traction anywhere else…certainly China and Russia aren’t going to go to war over surgical strikes against Israel.
-XT
Yeah, they might break off diplomatic relations with Israel.
And they might start having rallies where people chant “Death to Israel!!”
And they might start referring to Israel as a “cancerous tumour which will be removed”
And they might start supporting anti-Israel terrorist groups.
So please Israel, let’s not inflame the Iranians. :rolleyes:
Y’know, Marley did not threaten you. He just reminded you of the basic rules of the forum.
If you find a gentle reminder to play nice frightening, perhaps you should not insist on violating those rules. Your personal hostility does not actually win you points in the discussion; if you actually want to persuade others that your opinion is correct, you might wish to refrain from attacking them on a personal level.
[ /Moderating ]
How?
Even if Iranian ruling elite would like to move the ball what’s stopping US or Israel to simply say: “Nah, not good enough! You’re building it. We know it. Come on… come clean!”
At what point does one realize that the voice of agreement one hears from the other side is nothing but an echo?
[QUOTE=newcomer]
Like Iraq did?
[/QUOTE]
You linked to an article in 2003 to prove…what? Certainly if Iran waits until the trigger is about to be pulled then it will probably be to late. Perhaps they should, I don’t know, try backing off BEFORE things get that far along? I know, it’s crazy talk, but work with me here. Let’s say that Saddam had thrown his weapons programs open to UN inspection (as he was supposed to, by treaty) in, oh, say 1995…or maybe 1998…or, let’s go crazy here…say 2001. Well, I don’t think it’s that far off the rails to think that maybe, just maybe, the entire mess might have been avoided, giving Saddam and his merry men a new lease on torturing and killing their people, along with living the high life for another decade. Assuming the old boys heart had held out this long and none of his joyful folks had offed him, he might have still been raping and murdering to his hearts content today.
Well, I don’t really know. Perhaps at the point where the bunny jumps?
Well, see, if the UN’s inspection reports came out and said ‘we have full and transparent access to everything, the Iranians have bent over backwards to facilitate our access, and we are highly confident that all of the Iranian nuclear weapons programs have indeed been dismantled’, perhaps along with ‘In a stunning turn of events, Iran has completely repudiated both Hezbollah and Hamas, killing all funding to both organizations and spending the money on new ponies for all’, that might do the trick. It would be pretty tough for the US or Israel to justify an attack on an Iran doing even the first half of this. Yeah, I know, I know…what about IRAQ!! The thing is, as I’ve said before, the keen eyed observer will note that prior to and after our Iraqi adventure we STILL haven’t attacked Iran…and neither has Israel. Despite the pretty certain knowledge that they are in fact pursuing nuclear weapons. I know this logic is hard to accept…I really do…but it is pretty ironclad. If Iran actually DID throw open their programs to full and transparent UN inspection, it would be even harder to justify any sort of attack than it would have been in the several decade or so we’ve been dicking about with the possibility of an Iranian nuclear program…a decade or so that we have still not attacked Iran.
-XT
The IAEA has certified that, with the implementation of the Additional Protocols, they can verify non-diversion and that there isn’t a weapons program running parallel to the civilian program. That would seem to satisfy just about all onlookers.
As for Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran has used them to attack the US military forces, murdering hundreds, on multiple occasions. If we were really so eager to bomb them back into the stone age, one thinks we would have done it already. Iran repudiating their terrorist network would probably help, but I’d wager that simply implementing the AP’s would serve to quiet both Israel and America, who would go back to business as usual.
Yep…totally agree. The pony thingy would be nice though.
-XT
It does shed light on the Tiger Repellant claims, however.
You are continuously evading the issue. 20-30 meters of concrete is not a mountain. Please show me the bunker buster which is capable of breaking through a mountain.
You probably don’t know that Iran is already enriching uranium under a mountain near Qom. You seem to be thinking it’s some utterly exotic Bond villain technology that Iran couldn’t possibly possess but it really isn’t. There could easily be other facilities under mountains dispersed around the country.
I also love the way you keep handwaving “logistics”, “logistics”, “logistics” without having a clue what you are talking about. Could you define precisely what you mean by a logistics chain for a nuclear facility. You do understand that a logistics chain is dispersed over both space and time, don’t you? Do you think a single air raid can destroy an entire logistics chain, a lot of which will be fairly well hidden also? I am sure Israel could destroy a few tunnels around facilities it thinks are nuclear. That isn’t going to cripple Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran could get a lot more hardline if it wanted to. For starters it could just leave the NPT and throw out all inspectors. It could make a massive and explicit push for weaponization, ultimately testing, building and deploying weapons. As you obviously don’t understand, building nuclear weapons is not a binary decision. There are several transition points between being non-nuclear and a full nuclear weapons state. It’s not clear where Iran wants to be on this continuum right now. After an attack it’s a fair assumption, that Iran’s position will harden considerably and hardliners will gain more legitimacy at home and greater leeway internationally.
Thermobaric weapons at tunnel entrances would have slightly negative effects on the meatbags resident within. A nuclear program with no scientists is somewhat less effective. Logistics chains are vulnerable. Do your centrifuges require energy? Power plants are not somewhat non-resistant to high explosives.
This is a really good articleby the widely respected defense analytsis Anthony Cordesmann about the problems of attacking Iran:
And if you really want to geek out, here is an excellent report (pdf) which details just how hard it would be to hit Iran’s gas centrifuge facilities
To prove that the whole assumption about Iraq WMD’s was patently FALSE. Also, to demonstrate psychological effect on masses, both in Iraq and US/UK of an accusation that is very, if impossible to defend from. The verdict is, just like with Iraq, guilty until proven otherwise and proving otherwise in Iraq took lives of hundreds thousands of innocent civilians.
I mean, you can go on and bog everyone down with he said that and some organization said this but the whole approach is very difficult to fight.
And I know this because, I and many of my friends, and other Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats, were interrogated with exactly the same question “Where did you hide your gun or rifle that you intended to use to kill Serbs?” In the summer of 1992. I’ve heard people scream under torture so vile your head would spin to elicit “truthful” answer to that question. While the reality was that Serbs already had plans on what to do and who to kill, what cities in Bosnia and Croatia to take over for themselves and what cities to leave. And, most importantly, they were the ones with guns. On moments it was surreal and absurd: a guy with an AK47 to your face asking you to tell him where you hid yours. You say “I didn’t” you just get already crazy person even crazier (in “are you making me stupid” kind of way) until he is so crazy he shoots you. Or, you say “I did hide it” and you get the bullet right away.
There was no 3rd option.
Same goes for the situation we debate here.
[QUOTE=Lantern]
You are continuously evading the issue. 20-30 meters of concrete is not a mountain. Please show me the bunker buster which is capable of breaking through a mountain.
[/QUOTE]
I’m evading nothing. I’ve gone over this already. Please show me that all Iranian nuclear facilities and all the facilities that supply those mountain strongholds are in mountains and you might have a point.
BTW, you don’t have to break through the mountain to do damage to such a facility (as I’ve already said), you merely have to damage the people or equipment inside, damage the infrastructural (water, electricity, sewage, etc) or disrupt the logistics to set the program back…and you don’t have to destroy every facility to do this.
You would probably be surprised what I know or don’t know about this subject. They have multiple sites scattered throughout Iran that are doing their weapons grade enrichment…the one you mentioned is just one facility. Not all of their facilities are going to be invulnerable, and a disruption of just one of them would set their program back months or even years. Which is the point I’ve tried to repeatedly make to you and why I’ve mocked your insistence on evil mountain strongholds. Unless they have ALL of their facilities (plus all of the things needed to make those facilities continue to run at optimal levels) hidden away in such invulnerable strongholds, then THE PROGRAM AS A WHOLE is vulnerable. It’s a pretty simple point, really. And your own cite (which I’ll get to in a few pretty much says the same thing).
Again, I’m not ‘handwaving’ anything. Sure, I’ll define ‘logistics’ as I’m using it here if that will help you. What it means in this context is all of the supplies, deliverables, consumables (including infrastructure consumables such as power, water both for consumption and the incredible amount needed by some of these facilities to do this work, power, etc) and everything else needed to keep such a facility in operation. No, a single air raid can’t destroy an entire logistics chain…I never said that. What I said is that logistics could be disrupted and that by doing so it would delay operations. You simply can’t protect everything all the time.
Ok, so you concede that you COULD get to parts of it. Here’s the thing…a little damage here, a little damage there and it adds up to delays. I’ve said this over and over again, but Israel isn’t going to wipe out the entire Iranian nuclear program. I doubt they would even try. But if you disrupt things enough it will set their programs back for months or years. Damage is cumulative, and if you do enough little damage to enough parts of the program it WILL be crippled for a time. It’s called a ‘systemic’ attack, and it’s probably the route Israel is looking to do.
Again, I don’t see how this makes them more ‘hardcore’, or what the downsides for Israel would be compared to the benefits of hitting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. The hardliner types ALREADY are in control, as I’ve said, so gaining more legitimacy at home doesn’t seem to be a key aspect. I can’t see a hard line government pushing through a nuclear program (more than they are already doing so) gaining greater leeway internationally…can you explain how that would work in the wake of an Israeli surgical strike?
It’s a decent article, and there isn’t much in there that contradicts what I’ve been trying to say to you, but it’s a bit dated and a lot of the attitude is shifting (it was written in 2009 before the latest IAEA report and subsequent fallout…I’m unsure that the ‘red light’ from US administrations will continue, or that if they do that Israel will continue to heed them if they think Iran is getting close to completing their programs and building a weapon).
From your link there, here are some of the highlights I see:
There are also a lot of parts of the article that are negative, especially concerning more than a single raid (the writer doesn’t feel a series of strikes is feasible and feels that a single raid would merely delay Iran, and ‘harden their resolve’ to rebuild…I’m unsure about either of those speculations, especially in the changing atmosphere that has occurred between when the article was written and today). Also, it’s assumed in the article that the US would be holding Israel back, and that many of the Arab neighbors would not allow more than a single strike, but, again, with things heating up and with neighboring Arab nations having their own problems at home (such as Syria, one of the countries Israel would probably have to overfly to get at some of the targets) I’m not sure that would still be the case.
-XT
Sorry, I probably should have clarified that invasion remark. To me, that includes a sustained or severe strike inside the country. Having a bomb strengthens their hand and would make other countries more wary about attacking a nuclear power. All the talk now is about how and when Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear reactors and facilities. If Iran was a declared nuclear power, I don’t think Israel would be blustering about that.
Also, as we’ve seen in Iraq, when a terrible administration gets in office, there is no end to the kind of crazy things they’ll attempt. There was no reason to attack Iraq after 9/11, but Bush did it anyway. Obama may be reasonable, but there’s no guaranteeing his replacement will be. If the country goes through another insane GOP administration, with ultra-right extremists in Congress, or even moderate ones who like to joke about bombing Iran, then I really don’t see invasion off the table. They’ll whip up fervor cloaked in patriotism and demonize their enemies just like they’ve always done.
Consider a Gingrich presidency, with people like Bachmann surrounding him. If Iran were a year away from getting the bomb, do you really think a President Gingrich would just let them have it?
It doesn’t matter if you think they are spurious, it matters if they do. As they’ve seen next door in Iraq, even if they don’t have WMDs, they can still be attacked. You chastise me for assuming their leaders are sane, yet you need to also acknowledge that our leadership may not be in the future either.
Ultimately, the reason why I’m so cavalier about Iran having the bomb is because I don’t think it would do any harm. They are not suicidal, they are not going to use it, and having it definitely cuts of any talk of invasion permanently. Countries will be forced to deal with them diplomatically. That would be a beneficial outcome for everyone
Interesting double-standard there.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
Sorry, I probably should have clarified that invasion remark. To me, that includes a sustained or severe strike inside the country. Having a bomb strengthens their hand and would make other countries more wary about attacking a nuclear power. All the talk now is about how and when Israel would attack Iran’s nuclear reactors and facilities. If Iran was a declared nuclear power, I don’t think Israel would be blustering about that.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s sort of a Catch-22…no one would be talking about attacking Iran if they weren’t trying, despite treaties to the contrary, to become a nuclear power. Hell, even with Iran pretty much being shown TOO be trying to develop nuclear weapons (despite treaties, blah blah blah), there has STILL been no attack from Israel or the US.
9/11 wasn’t a justification for our invasion, but it’s going beyond the pale to say ‘there was no reason’. We had the history of the first Gulf War invasion by Iraq of Kuwait, we had all of the head butting over the no-fly zones, with the Iraqi military periodically butting heads and pushing limits, and then we had the unresolved issue of whether Iraq HAD dismantled it’s WMD programs, had stockpiles still, had secret programs, etc. A lot of that could have been resolved by Iraq simply opening up their WMD facilities and stockpiles to full and transparent UN inspection, instead of periodically opening up a little, then tossing the inspectors out or acting secretive as if they had something to hide.
I know some of you think Iraq is the perfect example of, well, something, but it’s not. It was pretty much a one off…a small window of opportunity that existed because of 9/11 and fear by the American people, coupled with the fact that we had already fought a war with them in recent memory, that they were periodically on the news concerning clashes between their military and ours over the no-fly zones. During the entire period from the Iranian revolution to today, despite all the shit Iran has done, we have not attacked them. And we’ve specifically held the Israelis back as well, despite the fact that they have become increasingly alarmed over this (whether you think their alarm is justified or not, it’s reality). And that’s through multiple administrations, including Bush II, widely considered (here on the SD) to be both an idiot and a blood thirsty barbarian out to pillage and conquer at the drop of a hat. Well, several hats have hit the ground, and still not attack.
Do I HAVE to consider a Gingrich presidency? 
Ok…I’m considering it. Basically, I think that if the US really thinks that Iran is a year from getting the bomb at some point, regardless of who is president, that the potential to pull the trigger on some sort of surgical strike or raid will be increased. Regardless of who is at the helm. You might THINK that Obama would shy away, but after Libya I’m pretty sure he won’t, despite right wing mouthings to the contrary. The REAL question is, do I think that Gingrich or whoever would just attack Iran half cocked for no reason at all (i.e. if Iran DID stop this idiotic quest to get nukes and decided to play ball), and, to me, the answer is ‘no’. We haven’t in the past, and we wouldn’t in the future…especially if Iran DID decide to take those steps. If Iran continues to pursue this, and if sanctions are definitely not working (i.e. if Iran gets to the point where they ARE a year out from being able to build the nasty things), then I think the US would take steps at that point…and I also think that NATO and the Europeans would be there with us. And probably several of Iran’s neighbors as well.
Again, Iraq, to me, is not a good example, so using it might get you traction with some, but I’m unconvinced it shows anything. As to the rest, as I’ve said over and over, it doesn’t matter what YOU OR I think about any of this stuff…or whether the calculation about Iran is or isn’t accurate. What matters is whether the ISRAELIS THINK that the threat is real, and act upon it. And whether or not the US THINKS that the threat is real, and acts upon it. And whether or not NATO/EUROPE THINKS the threat is real, and acts upon it. Pretty obviously, based on the increased and increasing sanctions, the calculation that you and others in this thread are making aren’t being reflected in these other countries analysis of the level of threat here.
And ultimately, I disagree with you, obviously based on what I’ve said in this thread, but it’s neither here nor there. It’s not MY assessment of the risk that matters here. Nor is it your’s. Nor is it Red’s. Nor is it Finn’s. Nor is it Lantern’s. And gods be thanked it’s not newcomer’s (whatever his assessment actually is…I have no idea :p). The only assessment that counts is going to be those who feel threatened and think that a military option is the only one available, considering that all the other alternatives would already have been exhausted at that point.
-XT
Well you obviously know (or maybe you don’t) that this is a silly request. Nobody knows where all of Iran’s nuclear facilities are. Centrifuges aren’t very large and they don’t require that much power compared to earlier methods of enrichment. You could have centrifuges located in basements in buildings all over Iran for all we know.
Obtaining intel on even a significant fraction of these facilities is an enormously difficult task, far more difficult than just proving the extent of Iraq’s WMD programs, on which US intelligence failed so spectacularly. The intelligence isn’t of much use if it isn’t fresh, centrifuges could easily be moved from one location to another in a matter of days or even hours.
It’s a fair bet that most of Iran’s nuclear assets are in locations which are extemely difficult to hit like the mountain facilities near Qom or secret locations on which little good intelligence exists.
Hitting logistics chains in a single air raid is not going to be seriously damage Iran’s nuclear program. The logistic chains are dispersed in both space and time, meaning that at any one point of time only a fraction will be vulnerable. And they are much less valuable than the enrichment facilities and easier to replace. What is really valuable are the centrifuges and the UF6 gas supplies which are probably heavily protected and the top scientists who don’t really have to be at the actual sites most of the time.
No, the program as a whole is not vulnerable if the assets are dispersed around the country and only a small fraction are destroyed. Uranium enrichment by centrifuges is a highly modular process and you haven’t achieved jackshit unless you destroy most of them. This is not Osirak where destroying a single reactor does the job.
You keep repeating this without any evidence whatsoever. Do you seriously believe that Iran has pursued the most hardline positions possible. Why is it staying in the NPT? Why does it allow any inspections at all? The fact is that it’s far from clear that Iran has made a decisive policy decision to develop nuclear weapons. There are probably disputes between different factions and worries both about international pressure and domestic public opinion.
An Israeli attack will strengthen the hardliners in every conceivable way. Iran would gain the perfect pretext to leave the NPT. There will be enormous anger in the Muslim world. There was a time when Arab governments could perhaps ignore their public opinion but that day is long gone. Countries like Turkey and Egypt will severely condemn Israel and perhaps break off ties. I doubt European countries will be happy when their economies are sent into a tailspin.
You keep saying that it’s Israel’s decision to make but it’s not. An Israeli attack will have enormous consequences for the region and the world economy. Countries whose interests are damaged by Israeli actions aren’t just going to grin and bear it.