Israel ready to attack Iran?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Lantern]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you obviously know (or maybe you don’t…;)…I seriously am learning lessons about condescension here from the master) that you need a LOT of centrifuges, so while it’s true that any one of them doesn’t take up a lot of space, hundreds of them or thousands of them require more than a basement.

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.

And yet, the UN/IAEA seems to have intelligence indicating that Iran is probably pursuing a nuclear weapons program, curiously enough. You obviously know that…right?

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.

Are they? How is the UN able to keep tabs on them, then? And perhaps you should apply for a job in military assessment either at the Pentagon or with the IDF, and give them the benefits of your experience, since they don’t seem to agree with your assessment that such a raid is impossible, and that a large percentage of the Iranian program is invulnerable.

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.

Hitting logistics could potentially set back Iran’s nuclear program, in conjunction with the other things they’d be doing (presumably bombing the crap out of the non-invulnerable facilities). Yeah, I KNOW logistics are dispersed in ‘space and time’ (if we are only talking about the supplies aspect), but they are vulnerable. As is infrastructure. I realize that YOU don’t think that any of this is important or vulnerable…I get that. Again, you might consider applying as an adviser to the various military planning agencies who DO seem to think that hitting the Iranian nuclear program is viable, since obviously you know something they don’t.

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.

Sorry, but I disagree that the only way to set back the Iranian program is to destroy ‘most of them’. And yeah, I realize this isn’t Osirak…it’s a completely different country, for one thing. There is the whole ‘n’ verses ‘q’ aspect to consider.

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.

Well, I’ve failed to note any evidence from you that the current Iranian regime are the creampuffs, while the REAL hardliners are just waiting in the wings, hopeful of gaining real power in Iran. Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that the folks who are really calling the shots in Iran ARE the hardliners, but this board is all about fighting ignorance so feel free to produce some facts to back up your assertions.

The thing is, Iran is not some monolithic entity. Current public opinion is pretty mixed about the entire nuclear program, and the current regime is under increasing pressure for it’s hardline stance on this issue. An attack, depending on how it panned out, might actually tip the balance the other way, and cause some of the moderates to get more of a voice…something that you completely ignore. The hardliners are the ones who are taking Iran down the current path, but right now things are hanging by a thread, and a successful attack on the program (even though it’s clear that the entire nuclear program is completely invulnerable to all forms of attack, natch) could tip things in such a way as to cause the Iranians to rethink pushing on this issue. I concede that it could go the other way, but I fail to see how the Iranians could take a harder line than they are now. The only thing they could do is openly build their program, instead of trying to hide it, but I don’t see how that helps them any, or makes the threat more serious.

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.

If Iran is already breaking their NNPT commitments then I fail to see how this would change anything. Yeah, Turkey and Egypt would publicly condemn Israel (and so will most of the other Gulf states…and probably not a few European countries, and possibly even the US, depending on how Israel did all of this purely speculative attacking)…as Israel has been condemned in the past for things it’s done by all and sundry. If they feel threatened enough, however, it’s moot…they WILL attack, and deal with the political/international fallout later. I seriously doubt either Egypt OR Turkey will ‘break off ties’ (by which I presume you mean break off all communications and recall their embassies)…but, at a guess, Israel would just have to resign itself to that if they feel they have too, and since at that point it will be clear that no non-violent methods such as sanctions are working (it’s pretty clear NOW that they aren’t, but there is still some room to keep trying for now).

And I’d say that none of the countries mentioned would, privately, be all that saddened by such an attack, assuming it was successful and there wasn’t a lot of hitting of nurseries, women’s hospitals or orphanages or the like. You seem to think that Turkey, Egypt and the rest are as blithe as you and others in this thread are about the prospect of Iran becoming a nuclear power, but I have my doubts, based on what I’ve been reading, that ANYONE (hell, even Syria) are jumping for joy over the prospect of a nuclear Iran.

BTW, why do you think that an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear program would cause the Europeans to go ‘into a tailspin’, economically (well, more than they are already)? Do you predict that Iran would try and close the straights in response, or something along those lines? What effect do you suppose THAT would have, if they actually attempted it?

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.

I’m sorry, but first off I’ve repeatedly said that the ball is in Iran’s court. They can choose to stop this madness, or they can choose to continue, in the face of increasing pressure and sanctions by the international community (many of who are Not Israel™). So, that is Iran’s decision. If they choose one, then all is good, and things will cool off. If they choose the other, THEN Israel will have to make a calculation as to what THEY are going to do about it. Perhaps, after hiring you as their consultant on these things they will come to the same conclusion, and not choose a military option, since it’s bound to fail due to the invulnerable nature of Iran’s program. Perhaps they will go against your advice, having made a different calculation of their potential for success, and they will decide that the threat of a nuclear Iran is worth the military and political risks they would incur. All of international politics, as with business and even life, is a risk analysis, and Israel has to make their own assessment (hopefully with your help). Which means, at that point, that it would be Israel’s decision. Unless, of course, the US or the Europeans or someone else decides to make their own decisions wrt a military option about Iran’s nuclear program…in which case events will have overtaken poor Israel and they will have to simply watch.

-XT

[YogSothoth]

@brazil84

Interesting double-standard there.

Its not a double standard. Suicidal is a pretty big leap coming from invasion. We’ve already seen how a pointless and ill-conceived invasion can take place in the form of Iraq. Even in the darkest days of the Bush administration, I didn’t think they’d use nukes, nor do I think anyone is willingly going to do it among the countries that have them (with the exception of NK, they are certifiably nuts)

@xtisme

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.

But ask yourself if you believe Iran didn’t have weapons, would that change anything? We all know Iraq didn’t have weapons now, but that still didn’t stop them from being invaded. I think Iran’s thinking the same thing: “If we don’t have weapons, they won’t believe us, so might as well get them”

@xtisme

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 don’t think we can justify our invasion of Iraq with their belligerence. There were plenty of dissenting voices that pointed to no WMDs. I recall even Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, said Iraq didn’t have weapons. None of that mattered to Bush, who had his eyes seemingly set on invasion from the get-go. The first Gulf War contained Saddam, that’s all that was necessary and all that was authorized. Sure, they didn’t act nice, but none of what Saddam did after that justified invasion. The case was made by Bush that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, even though he later tried to deny it, and that’s all it took. I don’t trust future GOP administrations not to play that hand again with Iran

@xtisme

I know some of you think Iraq is the perfect example of, well, something, but it’s not. I

…

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.

I think what we had there was war fatigue. Its no coincidence that the GOP lost and lost big in the 2008 elections. People were tired of their shit. And I would like to submit that, even with our gigantic military, it would have been impossible for us to start yet another war in Iran. I don’t think Bush didn’t attack them because he didn’t want to, I think he didn’t because he couldn’t. But that doesn’t mean that in the future the GOP wouldn’t think its time we opened up another battle in the Mid-East

If the conservative elements in our government didn’t want to attack Iran, why were they onboard with the whole Axis of Evil thing? And that was in 2002!

@xtisme

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.

I would disagree here. Libya was a popular uprising. I see no problems with Obama supporting the toppling of a dictator by his own people in an unstable country. Iran’s different. Even if there are opposition forces, their government is quite stable and not likely to fall to an Arab or Persian Spring-type movement. I could not see someone like Obama marshalling our military to support an opposition in Iran.

@xtisme

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.

Here’s my assessment of the situation with regards to the major players, using your scenarios:

1. I think that the Israelis think that Iran’s a threat and they are willing to strike. Ultimately, I don’t think they’ll be successful, however, and would only be inflaming the Iranians

2. I think that the US, specifically the Obama administration, does not think Iran is a threat to ours or Israel’s existence, but has to sorta act like they do to maintain the public face of skepticism on their supposedly peaceful nuclear program. I think that whether or not Iran is going to get the bomb, Obama will not attack them. I would agree with that assumption as well.

3. NATO/Europe is split, so its hard to call it. But no matter what they think of Iran’s nuclear program, ultimately, I don’t think they will attack Iran unless the US pushes for it or attacks them first, and even then it’s not definite.

And I take a skeptical view of sanctions. Not that I don’t think they work sometimes, but they are an easy thing to do and not at all indicative of how serious an issue is. I get that Europe is concerned, but I don’t think sanctions would be the way for them to show that. Plus, sanctions can be placed on a country for years, decades even, so they’re more of a long-term solution rather than a short-term fix

[XT]

[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
But ask yourself if you believe Iran didn’t have weapons, would that change anything? We all know Iraq didn’t have weapons now, but that still didn’t stop them from being invaded. I think Iran’s thinking the same thing: “If we don’t have weapons, they won’t believe us, so might as well get them”
[/QUOTE]

Yep, absolutely I believe things would change. Dramatically. However, as with the other side of the coin, the real question to ask is…does Iran think so? I’d guess not, as it’s clear that THEY think they need these nukes to ward off the tigers. There are other reasons, of course, why they are stubbornly pursuing these things, and just because I think it would be a wrong calculation doesn’t mean that they would agree with me…or want to hire me on as a consultant to show them the error of their ways.

I don’t think we can justify our invasion of Iraq with their belligerence. There were plenty of dissenting voices that pointed to no WMDs. I recall even Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, said Iraq didn’t have weapons. None of that mattered to Bush, who had his eyes seemingly set on invasion from the get-go. The first Gulf War contained Saddam, that’s all that was necessary and all that was authorized. Sure, they didn’t act nice, but none of what Saddam did after that justified invasion. The case was made by Bush that Iraq had a hand in 9/11, even though he later tried to deny it, and that’s all it took. I don’t trust future GOP administrations not to play that hand again with Iran

Sadly, there was no proof that Iraq had no WMD, and there was a history of Iraq playing fast and loose with the inspectors. It lead to questions…WHY were they being coy about it if they really didn’t have the things and really weren’t attempting to make them? Why not allow those transparent inspections if they had nothing to hide? While it’s a matter of course here on this board that everyone who was anyone KNEW that Iraq didn’t have the things, I think the reality at the time was more mixed…and there were more folks surprised that they had nothing at all than admit it today, when with hindsight we know they didn’t.

It’s moot anyway, since I’m pretty sure the IAEA does have evidence that Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, and that Iran could do things to ensure that the IAEA and the UN are comfortable that such programs have been halted. I also believe that this would massively ramp things down all around. It’s pretty obvious that no one (on the US/Israel/European side anyway) REALLY wants war…because if they did, there has been opportunity and justification for military strikes that haven’t been tried. Of course, it could be that Lantern’s assessment that the Iranian nuclear program is completely invulnerable to all forms of attack, but that would beg the question (to me anyway) of why the Iranians are being coy about it and trying to hide the program, if it’s so invulnerable to attack? Also, why it seems to still be something that is being planned for and talked about as an alternative by Israel and the US. Sure, it could be a bluff on their part, but surly the Iranians would know if they have their facilities locked down so tight that nothing can hurt them.

I think what we had there was war fatigue. Its no coincidence that the GOP lost and lost big in the 2008 elections. People were tired of their shit. And I would like to submit that, even with our gigantic military, it would have been impossible for us to start yet another war in Iran. I don’t think Bush didn’t attack them because he didn’t want to, I think he didn’t because he couldn’t. But that doesn’t mean that in the future the GOP wouldn’t think its time we opened up another battle in the Mid-East

I suppose this isn’t a hijack, but I’ll just say that I disagree. There was nothing stopping the US from launching air strikes against Iran, even at the height of the Iraq/Afghani wars. Our Navy and Air Force were hardly fully committed to the fight in Iraq or Afghanistan…we could pretty easily launch a large raid on Iran anytime we want too, assuming you don’t buy into the invulnerable Iranian nuclear facilities theory. And we could have launched such a raid any time from when their nuclear ambitions first came to light until today. Bush et al COULD have gone after Iran, if you believe that it was all a put on about Iraq, for that matter. Plenty of oil there for us to steal, after all.

f the conservative elements in our government didn’t want to attack Iran, why were they onboard with the whole Axis of Evil thing? And that was in 2002!

And yet, here it is 10 years later and still no attack. In fact, both Bush AND Obama have pretty much not only NOT attacked Iran using our forces, but they have also held Israel back from doing so.

I would disagree here. Libya was a popular uprising. I see no problems with Obama supporting the toppling of a dictator by his own people in an unstable country. Iran’s different. Even if there are opposition forces, their government is quite stable and not likely to fall to an Arab or Persian Spring-type movement. I could not see someone like Obama marshalling our military to support an opposition in Iran.

We’ll have to disagree then. I think that if Obama et al really thought that Iran was a year away from gaining nuclear weapons, and that it was obvious that sanctions weren’t working, that they would pull the trigger or take the restraints we are putting on Israel to hold them back (or Israel would just say fuck it, and do what they thought was best anyway).

1. I think that the Israelis think that Iran’s a threat and they are willing to strike. Ultimately, I don’t think they’ll be successful, however, and would only be inflaming the Iranians

I disagree about the potential of success, but yeah…Israel really does see this as a direct threat to them and their existence.

2. I think that the US, specifically the Obama administration, does not think Iran is a threat to ours or Israel’s existence, but has to sorta act like they do to maintain the public face of skepticism on their supposedly peaceful nuclear program. I think that whether or not Iran is going to get the bomb, Obama will not attack them. I would agree with that assumption as well.

Totally disagree. The US wouldn’t be pushing for more and harsher sanctions if they didn’t see a nuclear Iran as a threat. We want to resolve this in a non-violent way, despite which administration we are talking about, but I think if push comes to shove the US will act if all non-military options have been exhausted. I disagree that Obama won’t act if he thinks it’s in our best interests to do so.

3. NATO/Europe is split, so its hard to call it. But no matter what they think of Iran’s nuclear program, ultimately, I don’t think they will attack Iran unless the US pushes for it or attacks them first, and even then it’s not definite.

Europe is certainly a big place, but several of the major European countries are certainly willing to ramp things up with some pretty harsh sanctions…sanctions that are certainly going to hurt Iran, and are going to ratchet up the tension. I think that, as with Obama, that the Europeans are taking this more seriously than you and some others in this thread are, and that if they believe that Iran is a year out from having nukes they will also act, even if it’s just to support the US in doing what needs to be done. I wouldn’t be surprised to see other NATO forces along with the US in a major raid on Iran’s facilities if all non-military options are exhausted. Guess we’ll find out, since it doesn’t seem Iran is going to back down, even in the face of increasingly harsh sanctions and international condemnation.

And I take a skeptical view of sanctions. Not that I don’t think they work sometimes, but they are an easy thing to do and not at all indicative of how serious an issue is. I get that Europe is concerned, but I don’t think sanctions would be the way for them to show that. Plus, sanctions can be placed on a country for years, decades even, so they’re more of a long-term solution rather than a short-term fix

I think sanctions are the only real non-military way to get countries like Iran to shift their course, so I’m a fan of at least trying to solve these sorts of problems without a lot of bloodshed. The results have been mixed, to be sure…sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. I don’t know if they will work here or not. I HOPE they do, and that Iran drops this mad quest for a weapon they don’t really need and one that is taking us to the brink of war. But I don’t know…they don’t seem to have worked so far, unfortunately.

-XT

[brazil84]

@YogSosoth

Its not a double standard. Suicidal is a pretty big leap coming from invasion.

Your claim was that there was “there is no end to the kind of crazy things they’ll attempt.” I happen to think this is true for Iran’s leadership. Their are plenty of examples from history of leaders engaging in suicidal aggression.

[Lantern]

@xtisme

How is the UN able to keep tabs on them, then?

Please read the pdf that I put up a few posts ago. The UN has good information about major nuclear facilities like Natanz. It has very little information about additional centrifuge facilities that Iran may have created around the country. Perhaps Iran has created a secret program with lots of small clusters which require little in the way of infrastructure. Even if Israel bombs a few that won’t really damage the program.

We actually have two wars in Iraq which give us a picture of how difficult it is to obtain good intelligence on WMD and in both cases intelligence estimates were terrible. In Iran any attack would require the much more difficult task of obtaining intelligence which is fresh and reliable at the time of the attack. Israel could perhaps with great difficulty obtain information about a centrifuge facility today but it would likely be of little or no use for an attack that was ordered a few months later.

Again, you might consider applying as an adviser to the various military planning agencies who DO seem to think that hitting the Iranian nuclear program is viable, since obviously you know something they don’t.

This sounds awfully like the arguments which I remember from the Iraq war where hawks used to claim that the Bush administration had all sorts of awesome secret intelligence which really showed the extent of Iraq’s WMD. It turned out that a sane person reading the news had a vastly better idea about what was going on inside Iraq than the Bush administration did. Sorry to prick your bubble of faith, but intelligence about large, secretive countries is often crap. Even worse, intelligence services consistently overestimate how much they really know; after all they can’t very well admit they know squat. And when the political bosses want a particular outcome, intelligence services can be very good at supplying what they want.

Current public opinion is pretty mixed about the entire nuclear program, and the current regime is under increasing pressure for it’s hardline stance on this issue. An attack, depending on how it panned out, might actually tip the balance the other way, and cause some of the moderates to get more of a voice…something that you completely ignore.

This is a ridiculous idea. Large, proud countries which are attacked don't become more moderate, they rally around the flag and harden their stances. If Israel attacks, Iranian hardliners will have a very good argument to leave the NPT and kick out inspectors; after all what is the point of allowing  inspectors who provide information that could be used for future attacks by Israel and the US. And actually what I have read suggests that there is actually strong and widespread public support for the nuclear program in Iran. There is probably nothing that could rally the entire Iranian population around the regime than an Israeli attack on Iran's nucler facilities.

Currently Iran is co-operating for the IAEA for the most part though it is refusing to accept additional safeguards demanded by them. All that will probably end after an attack and Iran will likely permanently throw out inspectors. It will probably drive its entire nuclear program underground, both metaphorically and literally, and perhaps make a massive push to build and deploy nuclear weapons something it's far from clear it is doing now.

BTW, why do you think that an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear program would cause the Europeans to go ‘into a tailspin’, economically (well, more than they are already)?
-XT

An Israeli attack will almost certainly create a massive freakout in the global markets and at least a big short-term spike in the oil price even if Iran doesn’t engage in retaliation in the Straits of Hormuz. Perhaps in normal circumstances the EU could ride that out but in today’s circumstances the EU economy is already in a very fragile state. Their banks are heavily exposed to bad debt just like US banks in 2008 and it wouldn’t take much to send them over the edge. A rising oil price and inflation would also deter the ECB from lowering rates and may even induce it to raise rates.

[RedFury]

I note that no one has brought-up the legal ramifications of a strike vs Iran.

Guess “legal” is a meaningless term when it comes to war and certain nations.

[XT]

Ok Red, I’m game…what ARE the legal ramifications of a strike vs Iran?

-XT

[Frodo]

@RedFury

I note that no one has brought-up the legal ramifications of a strike vs Iran.

Guess “legal” is a meaningless term when it comes to war and certain nations.

Legal is a meaningless term when it comes to war, and any nation sadly.

[FinnAgain]

Legal ramifications would require a vote in the UNSC under Chapter VII.
I wonder, are there any nations with veto power in the UNSC who would block a Chapter VII resolution?

[XT]

[QUOTE=Lantern]
Please read the pdf that I put up a few posts ago. The UN has good information about major nuclear facilities like Natanz. It has very little information about additional centrifuge facilities that Iran may have created around the country. Perhaps Iran has created a secret program with lots of small clusters which require little in the way of infrastructure. Even if Israel bombs a few that won’t really damage the program.
[/QUOTE]

You mean the one from 2008 by the Institute for Science and International Security? If so I did skim it. I read the other article you linked to as well. What, specifically, do you want me to be seeing here? Neither cite seems to address the recent UN/IAEA report as far as I can tell (since both are from several years ago, this is hardly surprising).

We actually have two wars in Iraq which give us a picture of how difficult it is to obtain good intelligence on WMD and in both cases intelligence estimates were terrible. In Iran any attack would require the much more difficult task of obtaining intelligence which is fresh and reliable at the time of the attack. Israel could perhaps with great difficulty obtain information about a centrifuge facility today but it would likely be of little or no use for an attack that was ordered a few months later.

I don’t disagree with how hard it is to get good intelligence…one of the recurring themes concerning Iraq’s purported WMD programs/stockpiles was the lack of transparency and the blocking of inspectors. It’s one of the things that caused so much mistrust and misunderstanding.

However, as I said, the UN seems to be pretty confident that they have indications that Iran is in fact pursuing a military nuclear program. You have yet to show why this is incorrect, or that they are merely guessing…in fact, I’m not even sure what your point IS, to be honest. That 3-4 years ago Israel couldn’t strike a dispersed Iranian nuclear program in hardened facilities? Even if this groups assessment of that ‘fact’ is correct, how does that bear on today? That 3-4 years ago a lot wasn’t known about the locations of Iran’s nuclear development facilities? Well, 3-4 years ago the UN wasn’t as convinced that Iran WAS pursuing a program, at least not with the high confidence they seem to be feeling now. And, again, that was several years ago.

Unless I’m missing something here, or looking at the wrong cite of course. The last thing I’ll mention in passing is that I believe that hiding attempts to creating chemical/biological WMD is a bit easier than hiding the creation of a nuclear program, so it’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison with Iraq in any case.

This sounds awfully like the arguments which I remember from the Iraq war where hawks used to claim that the Bush administration had all sorts of awesome secret intelligence which really showed the extent of Iraq’s WMD. It turned out that a sane person reading the news had a vastly better idea about what was going on inside Iraq than the Bush administration did. Sorry to prick your bubble of faith, but intelligence about large, secretive countries is often crap. Even worse, intelligence services consistently overestimate how much they really know; after all they can’t very well admit they know squat. And when the political bosses want a particular outcome, intelligence services can be very good at supplying what they want.

As you’ve yet to present any reasonable evidence that the UN is incorrect in their assessment, I’ll just let this pass with a chuckle. It was a nice try, and you probably did get quite a bit of traction with Red and the gang by trotting this out.

This is a ridiculous idea. Large, proud countries which are attacked don’t become more moderate, they rally around the flag and harden their stances. If Israel attacks, Iranian hardliners will have a very good argument to leave the NPT and kick out inspectors; after all what is the point of allowing inspectors who provide information that could be used for future attacks by Israel and the US. And actually what I have read suggests that there is actually strong and widespread public support for the nuclear program in Iran. There is probably nothing that could rally the entire Iranian population around the regime than an Israeli attack on Iran’s nucler facilities.

I’m sorry, but have you been keeping up with current events in Iran AFTER the 2008 time period of your cites? They have had major public protests that were brutally put down, and their public has been under increasing pressure (that’s only just starting to really ramp up) from the sanctions. Which is to say that the myth of an Iranian lockstepping public that will rally around their government (widely perceived in Iran as pushing things on this nuclear issue) due to an attack on said nuclear program is hardly ‘ridiculous’. It might not play out that way, which I was big enough to acknowledge, but your assertion that it’s impossible really does nothing (to me anyway…not that this is going to seemingly matter to you) to win your case any points.

Currently Iran is co-operating for the IAEA for the most part though it is refusing to accept additional safeguards demanded by them. All that will probably end after an attack and Iran will likely permanently throw out inspectors. It will probably drive its entire nuclear program underground, both metaphorically and literally, and perhaps make a massive push to build and deploy nuclear weapons something it’s far from clear it is doing now.

Interesting. So, you assert that Iran is actually cooperating with the IAEA (I assume you mean on their actual nuclear energy initiatives, not the whole nuclear weapons program thingy)…yet I noticed just this week that several more countries ramped up sanctions.

As I’ve indicated before, I still don’t see how a pissed off Iran with a large number of smoking holes where parts of it’s nuclear weapons development program was is preferable to an Iran who is steaming ahead with it’s weapons development program but without any smoking holes, even in the face of increased international censure and sanctions. You keep asserting that it will, but I’m not seeing it. Perhaps I’m the only one and everyone else gets it, but it no make sense to me, mon.

An Israeli attack will almost certainly create a massive freakout in the global markets and at least a big short-term spike in the oil price even if Iran doesn’t engage in retaliation in the Straits of Hormuz. Perhaps in normal circumstances the EU could ride that out but in today’s circumstances the EU economy is already in a very fragile state. Their banks are heavily exposed to bad debt just like US banks in 2008 and it wouldn’t take much to send them over the edge. A rising oil price and inflation would also deter the ECB from lowering rates and may even induce it to raise rates.

Causing a short term spike in the market is not the same thing as an economic tailspin, at least not by my definition of that term. I agree that a short term spike might really upset the apple cart in the EU TODAY, but I don’t think anyone, including the Israelis, are planning to strike Iran next Tuesday. After all, not ALL non-military efforts have been exhausted yet. And, at least afaik, Iran isn’t close to a year out from having a bomb. The only way I see war happening right now is if Iran is REALLY stupid, and DOES try and close the straights (due to those increased sanctions impacting them and causing more hardship and hard feelings by their public towards the Iranian government), which I think is pretty unlikely.

-XT

[Lantern]

However, as I said, the UN seems to be pretty confident that they have indications that Iran is in fact pursuing a military nuclear program.

You are missing the point here. First of all the evidence that the IAEA has uncovered is very sketchy and is mainly about experiments that Iran conducted before 2003. AFAIK they haven’t uncovered any serious weapons-related activities going on now and neither has the US.

Secondly what the IAEA has uncovered is of little use when it comes to attacking any secret enrichment facilities that Iran may have. Such facilities , if they exist, could be small-scale centrifuge clusters without much of a logisitics trail. As I said previously, they could be moved around quite easily so you would require fresh intelligence to attack them successfully. The IAEA doesn’t have this kind of information and I doubt the US or Israel do either. Everything we know from Iraq suggests that this kind of intel is extremely difficult to obtain.

The last thing I’ll mention in passing is that I believe that hiding attempts to creating chemical/biological WMD is a bit easier than hiding the creation of a nuclear program, so it’s not exactly an apples to apples comparison with Iraq in any case.

Please tell me that you aren’t ignorant of the fact that Iraq had a nuclear program which was successfully hidden until after the first Gulf war. Even in the second Gulf war a lot of the discussion was about nuclear programs including the famous Niger uranium. In this case the US went in the other direction and grossly overestimated what Iraq had but the underlying point is the same; it’s really hard to get good intel about countries like Iraq and Iran. And you would require a lot of extremely good and timely intel to even think of seriously damaging any secret facilities that Iran may have.

As I’ve indicated before, I still don’t see how a pissed off Iran with a large number of smoking holes where parts of it’s nuclear weapons development program was is preferable to an Iran who is steaming ahead with it’s weapons development program but without any smoking holes, even in the face of increased international censure and sanctions.

An attack will make it easier for Iran to leave the NPT and stop all co-operation with the IAEA. This means that it can divert at will any nuclear materials at major facilities like Natanz. Unless they are completely destroyed by an attack which is highly unlikely, that will make it a lot easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Secondly it will make nuclear weapons a much bigger priority for the regime. Right now it’s far from clear that it is the top priority, if it were Iran would have diverted materials from their reactors and thrown out all inspectors. Today Iran is doing a balancing act between developing its nuclear capabilities and staving off diplomatic isolation. After an attack Iran will have much greater diplomatic freedom to pursue nukes.

And thirdly it will probably increase the popularity of the Iranian regime at home. You are confusing opposition to the clerical regime (which may not represent a majority of Iranians anyway) with opposition to the nuclear program. What I have readsuggests that the nuclear program is broadly popular and a matter of national pride. If Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities of course it’s going to rally the people around their government.

[RedFury]

Israel’s anti-Iran fibs may cause catastrophe: Russia

A senior Russian foreign ministry official has lashed out at Israel for “inventing” allegations about Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and warned that such fabrications could entail “catastrophic consequences.”
On Wednesday, Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of Security and Disarmament Department at Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, denounced Tel Aviv’s hawkish rhetoric on Iran over its nuclear program as “inventions” that “are increasing the tension and could encourage moves towards a military solution with catastrophic consequences."

The top Russian official also described the speculations over Iran’s nuclear program as “noise” and reiterated that such allegations “have political and propaganda objectives, which are far from being inoffensive.”

Also on Wednesday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned against the repercussions of any military aggression against Iran and underlined diplomacy as the favored solution to Tehran’s nuclear issue…

Some are beginning to take a stand against the building madness.

[Farmer_Jane]

If the JPost is to be believed…

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s strategist provided the legal and religious justification for the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people, in a document published on conservative Farsi website Alef. Reports of the document began to circulate the internet this week.

The document, written by strategy specialist Alireza Forghani, outlined the reasons why, “In the name of Allah, Iran must attack Israel by 2014.”

Claiming to only represent the personal opinion of its author, and not the Iranian government, the doctrine was published on a website believed to have close ties with the Ayatollah.

Forghani called the Jewish state a “cancerous tumor for the Middle East” and reminded his readers that “All our troubles are due to Israel!”

[FinnAgain]

@RedFury

Some are beginning to take a stand against the building madness.

Indeed, some of us are quite willing to point out the absurdity inherent in disregarding the IAEA’s findings and instead glomming onto the Russians’, the same Russians who just rode in to Syria’s defense, as a good judge of what is or isn’t true regarding Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program.
If pressed, I’m sure some of us might be able to muster some stand-taking about the practice of dropping off a fairly worthless block-quote along with a soundbyte level blurb o’ opinion instead of, ya know, debating.

Then again, we’re in, what, Year Eight of the Iran Will Be Attacked Any Day Now campaign? Perhaps asking to stop the building madness is too much. Perhaps we should only hope that it can be dialed back a little bit and that the “what’s wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons, it’s not as if they aren’t fungible with every other nation on the planet!” rhetoric gets dropped.

One may hope.

[BrainGlutton]

@FinnAgain

Then again, we’re in, what, Year Eight of the Iran Will Be Attacked Any Day Now campaign? Perhaps asking to stop the building madness is too much.

Actually, that sounds more like an indicator that the building madness will never amount to anything.

[RedFury]

@BrainGlutton

Actually, that sounds more like an indicator that the building madness will never amount to anything.

Mebbe not this time. The combined Aipac/Israel hysterical propaganda campaign seems to be drawing more and more traction.

Bomb Iran? Nearly half of Americans say ‘yes’ to halt nuclear program.

Making progress for yet more bloodshed in the name of…who cares?

[FinnAgain]

@BrainGlutton

the building madness will never amount to anything.

Well obviously it won’t amount to anything as it’s not tied to reality and those folks possessed of it limit their actions to ranting about The Imminent Attack via various political blogs and The Guardian, and such.

They may even become more entertaining; if anybody does do something about Iran’s nuclear weapons program we can at least see quite a few amusing tirades about how Iran’s government is pure as the driven snow and a global cabal of neocons and Jews are unfairly persecuting their innocent desire to have clean, non-polluting energy sources. Expect the words “Hamas”, “Hezbollah”, “Marine barracks” and “khobar towers” to appear not once.

[Spoke]

U.S. military bases in the region. The map is a little dated, but you get the point. Who is threatening whom?

Is it really any wonder that Iran might want nukes?

[tagos]

@CitizenPained

If the JPost is to be believed…

IF. A link to this document and some indication of its provenance would be nice. Sounds like an Intelligence scam to me.

But if true then they have probably just signed their own death warrants given Israel’s nukes aren’t fantasy and the USA will support them.

[brazil84]

@Spoke

Is it really any wonder that Iran might want nukes?

It’s completely rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. So what?

I think what you are really trying to insinuate is that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons simply as a defensive measure against a possible US invasion; that if the US were to simply leave Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran would probably abandon its nuclear weapons program. Correct?