A war with Iran is beginning to be talked about in a serious way as a preemption against it attaining nuclear weapons. Would you support such an action? What could be the implications of a war or Iran acquiring nuclear capabilities?
My perspective…
I’m generally anti-war, I protested against the 2nd invasion of Iraq and I genuinely think we should do everything in our power to stop Iran getting the nuke by other means. I think a war in Iran would be extremely bloody, would involve a huge number of troops, potentially destabilise the entire region, dramatically increase terrorism both in the middle east and in the west, lead to the death of far far more Allied troops than both Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and send oil prices soaring leading to a great risk of a financial depression. However I think this is still preferable to Iran getting the nuke. Assuming they didn’t immediately use it (which is unlikely but not impossible), I think it would lead to a three-way Cold War involving Iran, the US and Israel (we’d eventually get the oil blockade anyway and perhaps some the increased terror) and it wouldn’t be like the Soviet/US Cold War - there would be no guarantee that it didn’t end without serious bloodshed.
This time the UN needs to be on board, and because there is proof this time I think it should be easier than with the Iraq War which was based on a set of false assumptions. The biggest error of the Iraq War however was that it will cause hesitation with regard to this issue.
Hopefully it won’t come to it. I can’t think of an issue that has had this importance (in my mind) since the 1930s. Perhaps I’m wrong but that’s the way I feel. I desperately hope it wont come to this, although I fear Tehran will not back down from its desire to arm itself.
I firmly oppose a war, and support the Iranians getting nukes and would probably hand them some myself if I could. The danger to the region isn’t Iran; it’s the US. It’s the US that is the out of control, insanely aggressive rogue nation that is running about conquering and slaughtering nations and people. Iran is just an irritant in comparison.
I would be interesting in hearing about your “proof” that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. I was under the impression that the consensus among Israeli and American intelligence is that they aren’t even pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Also what makes you think that, if they got a nuke, it would be used on the U.S?
A preemptive strike on Irans presumed nuclear facilities might or might not lead to a real war. Personally, I think not, but no one knows. I’d be opposed, regardless…even if there was iron clad and concrete proof (to mix my material embellishments) that they were developing nuclear weapons. I think the current strategy of ramping up sanctions is the best course.
Of course, this still might lead to armed conflict, if not war. If Iran is idiotic enough to actually try and close the straights then my wants go right out the window, as conflict at that point is inevitable.
Pakistan and North Korea already have nuclear weapons and Iran is to my mind more stable than either of those two nations. Plus I’m unconvinced that they’re even pursing nuclear weapons (as WillFarnaby points out above). And I’m absolutely certain that Iran has no capability to deliver a nuclear weapon beyond 1000 or so kilometres from its borders.
The closest analogy I can think of from the 30s is Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia. ANything more is hysterical hyperbole.
Fromm my understanding, that would pretty much require the use of tactical nuclear weapons or a ground invasion. So it would certainly count as an act of war.
I disagree that it would require tactical nukes, but it’s moot to the discussion. I wouldn’t support it in either case. I would only ‘support’ war with Iran if they actually tried to close the straights, and then only in so far as we achieved showing them the errors of their ways…not a general hunting license.
I’m sure that’s not what the OP was talking about. But if they want to go war, it’s their decision. However they, alone, are not going to convince the UN, which is something the OP mentions as well.
I think there seems to be a belief that Iran is seeking and appears to have undertaken a nuclear weapons program, although they claim it is for civilian use. Of course absolute proof needs to be provided and I should have covered this in my OP.
However in November the IAEA reported on Iran’s nuclear programme saying it had carried out activities “relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”.
It said many of their actions could only be used to develop nuclear weapons - though it did not say that Iran had mastered the process, nor how long it would take Iran to make a bomb.
The report documents Iranian testing of explosives, experiments on detonating a nuclear weapon, and work on weaponisation. It also claimed that Iran was using computer modelling on the behaviour of a nuclear device.
It’s not total proof, and that should be sought as Iran says it’s program is about developing nuclear power. But one must presume that with increased pressure and a threat of war then if this was true than Iran will have to provide more solid evidence.
To be fair I don’t know too much about the IAEA - how neutral they may be, how reliable they are etc. But it makes for worrying reading that’s for sure. If you take what they say seriously it looks pretty bad.
Secondly, I’m not claiming they’d use it on the US. In fact I severely doubt they could deliver a weapon to US cities in the near future if ever, although I’m sure they’d like to have that capability (not necessarily to immediately launch such a weapon but probably as a threat). I think there would be a kind of a cold war but not with American cities being directly targeted (at least not at first). The immediate threat would of course be against Israel.
Why would you be sure of that? The OP did specifically mention Israel as one of the potential combatants in the OP itself, after all.
That they wouldn’t convince the UN in toto is a foregone conclusion. That they wouldn’t convince the Security Council is, perhaps, less certain. If Russia and China could be convinced that it would be a solely Israeli-run attack and the US would be uninvolved, no nation-building would be involved and the US offered some seriously sweet back room deals? I wouldn’t entirely rule it out, however I’d wager it’d still remain highly unlikely. And remember, with the backing of a SC member with veto power, you don’t need SC authorization, just the ability to block any SC resolutions stopping conflict.
No, it isn’t. I mean, I understand it’s something people are concerned about, but it isn’t something that is likely to happen. And it’s not something that just popped up either - people have been saying since around 2005 that the U.S. was on the verge of going to war with Iran. It hasn’t happened and it’s about as unlikely now as it was then. It’s somewhat more likely that Israel will take matters into its own hands, but I’m not sure that would happen either.
No.
You’re wrong. I don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons either, but that outcome wouldn’t be worse than the kind of death and world catastrophes you’re talking about.
No, that’s essentially impossible. Iran is run by religious nuts, but they’re not suicidal. They have a vested interest in keeping control of the country, which means not nuking someone and then getting smashed flat by the U.S., Israel, and most of Europe combined. I don’t think Iran is a match for Israel alone, nevermind everyone else who would hop on board if Iran nuked anyone or were seen as responsible for a nuclear terrorist attack. I am concerned about the risk of nukes going to terrorists if Iran gets them - it might not take more than a few people to make that happen - but they’re not doing this so they can blow someone up. They’re trying to deter threats from the U.S. and Israel and increase their power regionally. If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, “Iran” will never use it. It’s someone else getting it that I’m concerned about.
I don’t know what you’re imagining here exactly. Why would the U.S. and Israel be on different sides of this Cold War? How would Iran (which is a regional power and doesn’t have a whole lot of international friends) be on equal footing with one of the largest economies and militaries in the world? How would that work out in Iran’s favor?
Russia and China are very unlikely to go for this, for starters.
That’s about the 111th biggest error of the Iraq War.
You say you would support a war if they closed the straits. They threaten to close the straits in retaliation for escalating sanctions. You also support imposing sanctions. This seems to be the current state of mind for the U.S. government and it seems conflicting to me.
I don’t understand the logic behind imposing sanctions on a nation when our own intelligence has been unable to uncover proof of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It seems like they’re just aiming for regime change.
This is, ultimately, a flawed calculus. Remember that Iran attacked US millitary assets not once, but twice in the period between the early 80’s and mid 90’s. The US’ military response was essentially nil. Further, protecting itself from possible invasion and attack (by Israel and the US at least) would be as simple as letting the IAEA conduct the Additional Protocols and stopping its support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Talking about Iran ‘deterring threats’ is a bit like talking about a robber ‘deterring threats’ by carrying a weapon into the homes he breaks into.
Instead, your phrase “increase their regional power” is much more likely. But for that you must keep in mind just how Iran has gone about projecting its power regionally in the modern era. It has, in general, relied upon proxy forces and attempted to subvert or dominate neighboring states, including ongoing attempts in Lebanon that have nearly sparked civil war on at least one occasion. The real threat behind Iran gaining nuclear weapons is not that they would use them, but rather that they would ramp up their attacks and use of proxy forces and would count on a nuclear deterrent as a counterweight to potential military action against them. Imagine a Khobar Towers or Marine Barracks style attack every few months/years against various targets, with a “mess with us and we nuke Tel Aviv!” sword of Damocles hanging over the situation.
To say nothing of the fact that Iran’s actions have most likely already sparked a regional nuclear arms race.
You’re not reading for comprehension John. The statement was in the context of Iran not using the bomb once they got one, and war resulting from their simple possession.
As for the UNSC absolutely not authorizing limited military strikes against Iranian nuclear sites? That’s quite a leap. Most of the civilized world is against Iran getting nuclear weapons and the rest of the world may very well be willing to turn a blind eye. And the UN’s authorization is not necessary, only the UNSC’s inaction in the face of attacks on Iran.