Thing is, unlike Iraq, this may actually be something that warrants serious threat. Iran, like North Korea, is engaged in brinkmanship, only this time the game has teeth. What’s really dangerous here is Israel’s stance. They’ve made it amply clear that if Iran were to develop a bomb, they will be forced to act. Air strikes of the kind made on Iraq’s facilites would be impractical, given how spread out Iran’s nuclear assets are, and how hardened some of the targets are. Many of Iran’s nuclear facilities are deep underground.
So what can Israel bring to bear on this problem? I shudder to think.
Too bad for Bush and our armed forces we’re spread out like warm jelly.
Still, no action from Bush of any kind (besides sabre-rattling) before November; after that, possibly a draft. If we “must” take military action, what other option is there?
Read the first story above. The U.S. is selling Israel 500 “bunker-buster” bombes that could be used to destroy Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities. They won’t need to use nukes. But if they use conventional bombs – that could start an all-out war just as easily.
How? How could taking out their nuclear capabilities start an all out war? Lets speculate for a moment that Israel DOES decide to raid Iran and take out the capabilities to make nukes…its not outside of the realm of possibility, especially since they’ve done it before in Iran. Ok, so they stage a raid…and then what? How exactly would this escalate into an ‘all-out war’? Would Iran attempt to attack Israel? :dubious: I don’t think so. Would Iran attempt to attack the US directly? :dubious: ! Would Iran attempt to attack into Iraq to get at the Americans? :dubious: Would Iran give support to the Iraqi insurgency, sending men, weapons, ammo and money? Perhaps…but then perhaps they are ALREADY doing these things, so how would the situation change.
I don’t see how taking out Iran’s nuke program via air strikes COULD escalate into a general all out war. Maybe you could go into YOUR theory on how this could happen. IMHO, the only way there will be a war is if the US or someone else invades Iran…because thats the only way the Iranians CAN have a war. They have almost zero capabilities to stage an external war. The MIGHT be able to stage a raid back at say Israel (if they wanted to get a bunch of their fighters turned into balls of fire), and they might be able to do some terrorist type raids (gods help them if they get caught doing it though)…but an all out war? Not going to happen in this reality BG.
By making the Iranians mad, x. By making them really, really mad – even madder than they are on an ordinary day. And by giving them a great big bitch-slap with the whole world watching – the kind of thing you just have to respond to, you know?
All possible (except, of course, for a direct military attack on American soil – because the U.S. has the only navy that matters any more). The CIA and DIA war-gamed what would happen if the U.S. bombed Iran, and they could find no way to stop the conflict from “escalating.” Do you think it’s be any easier to stop it from escalating if the Israelis do the dirty work instead?
But what could they DO BG? I really can’t think of anything they could do that would escalate into an ‘all out war’ as you put it. I can’t even think of anything they could do militarily that would constitute a successful RAID. Sure, they could go rogue and ramp up their support for terrorists…but then, that might bite them big time right on the ass.
Also, you are making an assumption I think that the average Iranian would get that made at the US (if we were the ones) if we took out their nuke program (i.e. that the average Iranian WANTS a nuke program or thinks its a good idea…or that the US is not justified in taking it out). It might be a GOOD assumption…but then again, it might not be as solid as you think. Of course, if its Israel, then you are probably right…they will certainly be pretty mad. Again, I don’t see how they could do much about it though.
I’d have to see the analysis AND the assumptions made. I can think of no way for Iran to directly attack Israel. Air raid? IF they could scrape up enough planes that actually worked, and IF they could find enough qualified pilots to fly to Israel, it would be a slaughter…and not on the Iranians side. Armed invasion of Israel (lets forget the distance and the fact that they would have to go through a bunch of other nations to get there…and pretend that once they arrive there they wouldn’t be wiped out immediately by the IDF)? No chance…they don’t have the logistics for it. Attack into Iraq? Again, no way.
That leaves the unconventional stuff. And that doesn’t constitute an ‘all out war’, because unless they wanted to come out in the open, they would have to carefully cover their tracks (like they are doing now…IF they are involved, which I think they are). If they come out in the open, then they will be subject to MORE raids and air strikes on their infrastructure. Still doesn’t make it an ‘all out war’
though.
Look, I don’t really think it will come to any of this. The most likely scenerio IMHO is Iran backs down at the last minute…or at least makes major concessions. The next scenerio I find likely is limited air strikes by the US or Israel that surgically takes out their breeder reactors and other nuke weapons development facilities…and thats the end of it. Iran beats its chest and tears its hair and eventually we get back to normal.
I’m just trying to inject some reality into the discussion…Iran simply doesn’t have the military capability to do much of anything from an ‘all out war’ perspective…unless they are invaded, and then its to die a lot if they give open battle. They have old US made military equipment in very poor shape with little or no spare parts. They also have a mixed bag of captured Soviet equipment (from the Iran/Iraq war), and some other stuff they’ve picked up along the way…all mostly junk. They are poorly trained, lead, and their combat doctrine (such as it is) sucks. Finally they have almost no logistics capabilities to speak of…and thats the real killer (as if the other stuff wasn’t bad enough).
xt, I don’t think it’s what Iran as a state will do to us that is the major issue that concerns American forces. In practical terms, “all out war” means regime change. If Iran’s nuclear weapons program can be destroyed without regime change, of course all opposing parties would prefer that. But if Iran successfully repels or evades “surgical strikes”, then what are the options?
We ought to at least take out their nuclear capabilities. An atom bomb in the hands of radical Muslim ayatollahs is not something we should be prepared to tolerate. Or the rest of the world for that matter, but who else has the courage to do anything when they know we’ll do it for them if they won’t? Nobody.
“People say we shouldn’t be the world’s policeman, but you’ll notice that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, nobody called Sweden.” (Paraphrase from P.J. O’Rourke)
Does Iran have a nuclear weapons program? Where’s the evidence for that?
Having just been scammed over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and “weapons of mass destruction related programs” I’d think a little more skepticism of the US claims regarding Iran might be in order here. So far, the IAEA hasn’t said that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Is the CIA, or the current incarnation of Ahmed Chalabi, really all that much more accurate than the UN?
Why? ISTM many people would be happy to see the Mullahs overthrown by internal opposition. There is a significant pro-western (or at least pro-modernization) population in Iran that would be far more preferable, and unlikley to continue the pursuit of nukes.
How *likely * that is is another issue. But it’s surely desirable.
All evidence points toward Iran developing nuclear weapons capability. For example, to provide civilian nuclear power, they don’t need uranium enrichment ifrastructure at all; they could simply purchase the enriched uranium, and in a manner that would make weaponization easy to detect and monitor. Why not do so, if all they wanted was electricity? Iran has developed the capacity to manufacture heavy water. Again for civilian power, they simply do not need this. They claim they want to use this resource to for reaserach purposes, but research into what? As it is, isotopes for research applications can be bought, and hence monitored. It is well known that heavy-water breeder reactors can be used to produce plutonium from unenriched uranium fuel, leapfrogging the unranium enrichement needs altogether. Given that Iran has options for peaceful applications that do not in any way involve the development of weapons-capable technologies, why are they so keen to do so, in defiance of international will? They are courting sanctions and possible military retribution, yet they are undeniably constructing a nuclear infrastructure that, while having the potential to serve only civilian needs, is equally capable of producing weapons. Why are they so determined? They’ve also been highly secretive in their pursuit of these purportedly civilian facilities. If they have nothing to hide, why hide it?
Iran has vast fossil fuel reserves, both oil and natural gas, easily enough to serve their civilian power needs. Certainly, nuclear electricity generation capability is more environmentally-friendly in terms of certain pollutants, e.g. greenhouse gas emissions; but it’s difficult (for me, at least) to accept that such an energy-rich third-world nation must be so motivated to generate nuclear power, when gas power can be had so inexpensively, because the mullahs are environmentalists.
In sum, there’s no compelling reason for Iran to develop a full nuclear infrastructure for the sole purpose of civilian power and research. Their fossil fuel assets give them ample power-generation capability, and wealth enough to purchase isotopes for peaceful esoteric uses. If they so badly want nuclear power plants, again, enriched fuel can be bought and monitored from input to output by the UN. Iran may bristle at UN inspections and other challenges to their sovereign will; but the alternative is sanctions and armed conflict, and again I cannot see a compelling motivation to court such severe consequences unless they felt a military rather than civilian urgency.
If Iran is only interested in peaceful nuclear capability, they’re going about obtaining it in an awfully suspicious and unnecessary way. The burden is on them to open their programs up to inspection and justify their enhanced capabilities; but they have become increasingly uncooperative and closed, increasing rather than assuaging the concerns of other nations. Why chart such a course?
First , right across from the caspian sea is Russia
But second , more importantly , Irans oil exports only go two ways , one is through the straights of hormuz , which they say they are going to close , but thats non news really. And the other side is a pipe line that goes through turkey.
If American officials present two options to the rest of the countrys that you mentioned , one being an embargo , and the other being a counterforce strike , its highly probable that the border nations will go with the more peaceful option.
That only really leaves smuggling out of the borders.
Methinks though that the Iranian leadership is betting on a kerrr victory in november , which would buy them at least two years. A Bush victory in November , will most likely bring a more restrained Iranian leadership, and more open to diplomatic solutions.
Who could they purchase it from, the US? I’m sure that’d go over like a lead balloon. Even if they could purchase it, why should they be forced to pay the ridiculously high markups the fuel producing companies charge?
What is this “all evidence” you speak of? Do you have anything that goes beyond an inherent distrust of anything the Iranians do?
Are you sure about that? I suspect Bush is taking advice from parties who are committed to “regime change” in every country with an anti-American regime, no matter what. What else could account for the Iraq war? It’s easy to see the same scenario playing out again:
IRAN: OK, you win! We’ve dismantled our nuclear program!
U.S.: We don’t believe you.
IRAN: We’ll let in UN weapons inspectors to prove it!
U.S.: We don’t believe them either. Besides, it’s gone too far for that. Your mullahs have to step down. Regime change or war.
IRAN: sigh War it is, then . . .
Only, I envision a rather different ending than the last time we went through this.
Why do you insist on making assertions like this? Do you really see the only threat from the regime of Saddam Hussein was that he did not like America? Really? He was just sitting there like Denmark except he occasionally gave an anti American speech?
Dude, have you been living under a rock? Got google? Why do you make arguments like this, except to be obfuscatory? Is denial a congenital Republican trait or something?
Here, then, if you can’t be bothered to do a simple search, but Iran’s been playing this game for a few years now. None of it is news. Read the paper, for fuck’s sake, and stop inviting me into arguments that don’t need to be made. Move the discussion forward for fucking once, not backward.
By “anti-American regimes,” I meant those with a vociferously anti-American posture, some of whom might post a threat to their neighbors or to U.S. interests, some not. Castro’s regime, for instance, is no longer a threat to anyone outside of Cuba. But I’m sure the neocons, if they could, would jump to invade Cuba on the slightest pretext, if Castro were reckless enough to give them one. And the neocons have a lot of influence in the Bush Admin.
The same applies to Iran. They’re always talking about the “Great Satan,” we’ve had a score to settle with them since the '70s, they’re a threat to Israel (though that’s really more rhetoric and support for terrorists than an actual military threat) . . . plus they’ve got all that oil! Yes, I really do believe there are some persons advising Bush who would force a war with Iran, if they could, even if Iran gave up its nuclear program and proved it. After what happened last time they probably couldn’t sell the idea to the American people, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t try.
I think there’s a couple arguments against us taking the approach we took in Iraq.
We now have a “regime change” experience under out belts, and despite the cakewalk promised by the Wolfoshitz’s of the world, it’s proven to be an incredibly difficult affair. Iraq had barely a military left to speak of, so winning the war there was never an issue. Winning the peace, our leaders have been shocked and awed to find, has cost 1000+ US soliders, and at this point a 4-6 year American presence in Iraq looks realistic. Without a massive draft and probably half-a-trillion dollars spent total, a simultaneous campaign in Iraq and Iran is simply untenable.
Iran can fight back. Not only will winning the peace be difficult there, winning the war will be far more costly in terms of American lives. Lots more coffins, and coffins is bad politics.
Thank you , that makes it more clear. But I have to ask you why you think any serious neocons want to invade Cuba?
Ok, but the same does not apply to Iran. It is simply not true to suggest that Iran is totally impotent in the region. Nor that it is not a threat. You could certainly make the argument that the threat posed by Iran is not sufficient to go to war. But to say that they pose identical threats to the MENA that Cuba does to Latin America seems silly.
Forgive me, but this is because you refuse to see any rational reason for the war in Iraq. You have deomonized those who advocated it and those who still believe it was a good thing. So, you are willing to believe much foolishness about these “demon’s” future motives. Good political fun, to be sure. But a rational discussion of possibilities it is not.
Well, Bush himself (whom I would not class as an actual neocon but he obviously listens to them) has made noises that, if not presenting an actual threat of invasion, certainly sound like the first steps of a demand for “regime change.” From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba):
No, I did not mean to draw that particular parallel between Iran and Cuba. Certainly Iran is more of a threat to . . . well, not to Pakistan or Afghanistan or Turkmenistan or Azerbaijan or Georgia or Turkey . . . potentially, a threat to Iraq, but last time they fought Iraq was the clear aggressor . . . certainly a threat to Israel but only through its support of terrorist groups, and Palestinians would keep up the bombing with or without Iranian support . . . well, anyway, relatively speaking, Iran certainly is more of a threat to the Middle East than Cuba is to any country in the Western Hemisphere. But I do see a parallel between Iran and prewar Iraq: The threat is there, but it’s not as grave as the Admin is making it out to be; and I’m sure the neocons know that, but want to force “regime change” anyway, and are strongly encouraging Bush to fight for it. They’re not the only ones advising him, of course. As yesterdays NYT article (linked above) put it, " The Bush administration has yet to forge a clear strategy on how to deal with Iran, partly because of a lack of attractive options and partly because there is a debate under way between hard-liners and advocates of diplomatic engagement."
I see rational reasons for the war, just not sufficient reasons. And some, not all, of those rational reasons were “rational” only from the point of view of business execs who stood to make money off it and who would not be expected to fight in it. I “demonize” – and justly so! – only those execs, and the intellectually dishonest neocon intellectuals, and the fundies who see the whole thing as a playing out of End Times prophecy. I do not demonize the millions of Americans who, for one reason or another, advocated the war and still believe it is a good thing. The latter group I accuse only of mistaken, but in most cases honest, judgment.