The situation with Iran

[el Guapo]

Frankly I'm worried about this one. Here are some facts as I see them:

The president of Iran is not nuts, but by western standards he might as well be. He seems determined to advance his brand of Islamic revolution to the exclusion of all other ways of life.

Islam, in its most fundamental form doesn’t tolerate dissent from within. And the Iranian President is playing to a hardened audience who may demand that the Iranians push the confrontation.

He has promised on numerous occasions, aware that the western press is taking notes, that he plans to remove Israel from the world.

Several experts believe that international isolation of Iran will not be effective because some nations will buckle under the energy demands of their citizens, and because Iran is not nearly dependent on the outside world as it is on them.

Iran has as many brilliant people they need to make a weaponized nuke that could ride atop a surface to surface missile.

Iran has removed the UN nuclear Inspectors from access to KNOWN nuclear facilities.

Iran very likely has the "plans" for a weaponized nuclear warhead that likely came from the helpful Pakistani Nuclear Scientist/proliferator of nuke designs.

Iran has a good surface to surface missile that is more than capable of hitting Southern Europe.

Israel has a right to exist.

I believe that a democratic and secular Iran with a moderate supply of nuclear weapons would not be considered the major threat that an Islamic Revolutionary Iran would be with even one or two nuclear weapons.

Israel is being regularly threatened verbally and actually threatened by terrorists funded by a nation that has funded Islamic terrorism for decades.

Israel may not have the conventional capability to make a decisive conventional pre-emptive strike.

US forces could essentially surround Iran by basing assets in Saudi Arabia, Diego Garcia, UAE, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey and launch a massive strike using short-range fighters, bombers, naval assets, US-based B2 bombers, cruise missiles, as well as surface to surface missiles.

Israel would have to push their conventional strike capabilties along way and over some potentially hostile territory to just damage the Iranian program.

Israel has the capability to make a devastating preemptive nuclear strike against Iran and remove its nuclear facilities as well as the current Iranian government.

Israel may not be as concerned about the **** hitting the fan after a conventional and nuclear strike against Iran as the rest of the world thinks it is.

Many nations may ask the US to conventionally strike Iran in preference to the Israelis doing the dirty work.

Many national leaders who have derided the US and President Bush for Iraq will quietly pledge their acquiescence to a massive US/British strike.

Small yield nuclear weapons may be required by both the US and Israel to effectively take out some of the more hardened Iranian facilities.

Both the US and Israel are working on their war plans.

If the Iranian program is destroyed there will be even greater pressure to remove the nuclear capability of Pakistan. They own the only other "Islamic" bomb.

We can count on North Korea to go a little nuts when this crisis heats up.

Israel will not wait too much longer.

Al Queda may time one of their strikes in the US with the planned Iranian strike on Tel Aviv.

Iran could give Al Queda a nuke.

Like I said, I'm a bit worried.

[Whose Yur Planner]

I'm with you on this one eG. The situation is not good and will get worse. Fanatism plus nukes and the desire to use them is never a good mix.

[Planit]

This one scares me more than the "Iraqi Threat" 4 years ago. Saddam was crazy, but he was greedy too and wouldn't have done anything to kill his cash flow. Irainian officials don't seem that concerned as much about their personal wealth.

[The One]

Go to war over WMD's and find none, then find out the neighbor is who you should have attacked.....DOH!

[PlannerGirl]

This is big bad and ugly. We have been chaseing shadows around in the hills while the serious bad buys are building a bomb

Israel has no desire to play nice on this one

We are already streached a bit to thin-something is gonna have to give and its gonna cost us dearly

I said 3 years ago that Iran and N Korea were much bigger problems than Iraqi but...
anyway yes I agree with Guap we have a mess unfolding

[Maister]

A nuclear Iran is not a good situation no matter how you cut it. The fewer nations that have nuclear weapons the better. Humanity would have been better off without ever having developed the damned things to begin with, but the genie is already out of the bottle, so the question now is how best to stop proliferation?

As I understand, just about anybody with a PhD in physics can tell you how an atomic bomb works. The necessary theoretical knowlege is floating in the ether (or at any rate is accessible to anyone smart enough to go to a university in the US or any number of other countries) and there is no way of preventing a nation from reproducing the knowlege base necessary for an atomic weapons development team. The real development difficulties lay with certain technological issues like developing triggers to start the chain reaction or refining fissionable materials and obtaining access to the resources necessary.

Therefore, preventing proliferation can be accomplished by the following:
1. Voluntarily. Nations such as Japan or Germany have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons tomorrow but choose not to do so out of ethical or economic considerations (developing nuclear weapons is a very expen$ive proposition). Nearly every country on earth has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but several have chosen to surreptitiously pursue nuclear programs. Most nations have investigated the technology necessary to develop nuclear weapons. Others have obtained the resources necessary (e.g. uranium) for weapons development. Typically, this has been done under the guise of operating a legitimate atomic energy program. These programs are voluntarily monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
2. Control the strategic resources (including technology necessary for enrichment of fissionables etc). There are a relatively small handful of locations on earth where strategic resources and technology can be obtained. In theory, the IAEA was to monitor all purchases of these materials and it has been largely successful in this regard...unfortunately, several nations have proved that it is possible to pull the wool over the IAEA's eyes and have developed nuclear programs in spite of the IAEA's efforts.
3. Control the resources physically/militarily. That's right invade all the countries where the supply exists and cut it off. For everyone. Might makes Right.
4. "Surgically" destroy new development facilities. That's right, just bomb them suckers whenever and wherever you find 'em - not always possible to say for certain if in fact the facilities are really intended for weapons development (satellites can be fooled several ways) but that is an option. Again Might makes Right.
5. Invade the country developing the weapons. Hard to devote resources towards expensive nuclear development programs while the 82nd Airborne is seizing bridges and highways behind your lines. Yep, Might makes Right.
6. Eliminate them once and for all before they are able to hit you. In other words nuke 'em before they ever make that first bomb. Option 4 might delay things a while but would undoubtedly galvanize the national will to build the things. Think of it as a preemptive strike - they're bad people and they'll probably end up using them on us in the end and force us to annihilate them anyway. This way you make sure they're the only ones who get annihilated. Needless to say, Might makes Right is the guiding principal behind this scenario.

[Gedunker]

I voted for the UN/Russia 'solution'.

BUT

It won't hold and there'll be a heap o' trouble after that.

[Man With a Plan]

Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community, and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn and you will understand.

[michaelskis]

Maybe we should wait and have the UN inspectors go in and find examples of the specifically making Nuclear weapons. And then if they said that they have reason to believe that they are, the UN should vote on weather or not to do something about it. Maybe trade sanctions against Iran! Yea, that will teach them.

WTF… If they are making Nukes, go in, and stop them. A responsive invasion won’t be good enough because one of tree things will happen.

A) Iran will be invaded by every other country in the world, a war will be waged, and the threat will be eliminated, and then the liberals will criticize the conservatives because of the aggressive approach.

B) Iran will Nuke several of their neighbors, millions will die, and then the US and the UN will get blamed.

C) Iran will Nuke their neighbors, millions will die, and Iran will have nothing happen to them because it is caught up in committed with the UN as the rest of the world stands waiting, so Iran will start Nuking other countries.

[Maister]

Maybe we should wait and have the UN inspectors go in and find examples of the specifically making Nuclear weapons. And then if they said that they have reason to believe that they are, the UN should vote on weather or not to do something about it. Maybe trade sanctions against Iran! Yea, that will teach them.

WTF… If they are making Nukes, go in, and stop them. A responsive invasion won’t be good enough because one of tree things will happen.

A) Iran will be invaded by every other country in the world, a war will be waged, and the threat will be eliminated, and then the liberals will criticize the conservatives because of the aggressive approach.

B) Iran will Nuke several of their neighbors, millions will die, and then the US and the UN will get blamed.

C) Iran will Nuke their neighbors, millions will die, and Iran will have nothing happen to them because it is caught up in committed with the UN as the rest of the world stands waiting, so Iran will start Nuking other countries.

Mskis, these argument are entirely premised on the assumption that Iran would launch nukes with no regard for the repercussions. Why do you believe the idea of MAD would not govern their actions? Has the Iranian leadership acted in a manner (apart from rhetoric) inconsistent with preserving themselves? I think the answer is the Iranian government has acted on rational principle and will continue to do so.

Older Cyburbians will remember the US/USSR Cold War rhetoric and posturing/games/brinksmanship that was the order of the day up until the early 80's. Believe me, everyone at the time was rattiling on about how the Russkies were kooks and we all maintained the deeply held conviction that 'they' would be the first to launch and we would order a defensive counterstrike (and the end of civilization). Really not so different than what we see coming down the pike with Iran.

Israel has had nukes for years and not used them. Is it really any more likely now that Iranian rhetoric will cause them to order a preemptive nuclear strike considering the whole 'death to the Zionist entity' rhetoric has been going on for years?

[michaelskis]

Mskis, these argument are entirely premised on the assumption that Iran would launch nukes with no regard for the repercussions. Why do you believe the idea of MAD would not govern their actions? Has the Iranian leadership acted in a manner (apart from rhetoric) inconsistent with preserving themselves? I think the answer is the Iranian government has acted on rational principle and will continue to do so.

Older Cyburbians will remember the US/USSR Cold War rhetoric and posturing/games/brinksmanship that was the order of the day up until the early 80's. Believe me, everyone at the time was rattiling on about how the Russkies were kooks and we all maintained the deeply held conviction that 'they' would be the first to launch and we would order a defensive counterstrike (and the end of civilization). Really not so different than what we see coming down the pike with Iran.

Israel has had nukes for years and not used them. Is it really any more likely now that Iranian rhetoric will cause them to order a preemptive nuclear strike considering the whole 'death to the Zionist entity' rhetoric has been going on for years?

If this is true, why has Iran failed to comply with UN inspectors and requested them to leave the country and have all the security cameras removed from the Nuclear power plants?

More so they have threatened to stop oil supply to the US if any UN trade embargo is put into effect.

Much like the game of Poker, those who think that they have the best hand will do crazy things. It is just a matter of time before Iran goes all in unless we call them on it.

[Globetrotter]

I am more worried about Israel taking a preemptive strike than I am about Iran doing anything crazy. If I recall correctly, Israel has done this before.

If Israel strikes, then I believe we may have a WWIII on our hands. But I do not believe Iran would strike first.

[cololi]

If they are making Nukes, go in, and stop them. A responsive invasion won’t be good enough because one of tree things will happen.

Why is it that the good ol US of A thinks that we are the only ones, and our allies, that should have nukes?

Personally, Iran is a world issue. We cannot and should not go it alone and need the support of the overwhelming majority of the world leaders (including the Germans, French, Chinese, etc.). I don't necessarily see them as any crazier than non americans view our leadership right now. Heres hoping that good ol diplomacy reigns and the whole thing ends like the cold war did.

[jresta]

Does no one else see a correlation between Bush's Crusade and the increasing instability in that region? The Iranian leadership may be a lot of things but they're not dumb. They know what the US strategy looks like and it looks like this




http://www.citypaper.net/articles/20...09/slant.shtml

Let Them Have Nukes
If Iran wants weapons of mass destruction so bad, who are we to stand in their way?

by David Faris

U.S. hypocrisy about nuclear proliferation is truly boundless. For the past year America and its allies have warned Iran that it must halt its nuclear activities or the country will be sent to bed without dinner and have its TV privileges taken away. Meanwhile the United States sits atop a stockpile of nuclear weapons large enough to erase every man, woman and Republican from the face of the earth.

From the perspective of the Global South, this is like Bill Bennett telling you not to build casinos while he's shooting craps. In reality, it's even worse, since Bennett is at least repentant about dropping millions of dollars at gambling houses, while the U.S., France and Britain are utterly unapologetic about possessing nuclear weapons.

Many people point toward the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's unhinged statements about Israel—it needs to be "wiped off the map"—as proof that the typical calculus of nuclear weapons does not apply to Iran. His religious millenarianism indicates that he may not be deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—the idea that Iran would not launch a nuclear strike on Israel or any other nuclear-armed state because of the knowledge that Iran would, in turn, be destroyed in retaliation.

Of course the decision to launch nuclear weapons ultimately rests not with Ahmadinejad but with the actual center of power in Iran—the profoundly conservative Council of Guardians, stocked with clerics who would not sign off on a suicidal decision to destroy the Israelis. MAD may be just a theory, but it has proven to be a pretty good one, since no two nuclear-armed states have ever gone to war with one another.

But more importantly, this scare tactic is coming from the U.S., a country that in 2002 released a Nuclear Posture Review that indicated our willingness to launch first-strike nuclear attacks against countries who do not possess nuclear weapons. What's crazier—a virtually powerless Iranian president making empty threats against a sworn enemy, or the world's most powerful country threatening to obliterate you any time it pleases? Keep in mind that this country is still, 60 years after the dawn of the nuclear age, the only country ever to use nukes in combat.

(emphasis mine
And who could blame the Iranians for wanting nuclear weapons? Every developing country must look at nonnuclear Iraq, which was invaded and occupied by the U.S., and nuclear-armed North Korea, which was left alone, and draw the same conclusion: If you don't want your country crawling with American GIs, build some nukes.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which the Iranians are still a part of for the time being, makes it clear that the nuclear weapons states are eventually expected to disarm. The Cold War gave states an excuse to keep their nuclear weapons, but the disappearance of the Soviet threat left the nuclear weapons states with no rationale for their stockpiles. It's the same thing that happens to every pothead who graduates from college—what exactly to do with that brick of weed now that there's no dorm room to smoke it in?

And like most potheads, the U.S. is not thinking very clearly. Nobody can stop a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons unless they are willing to unleash a bombing campaign. And with the U.S. military tied down in Iraq, even this administration is unlikely to start another war, particularly against a country that is much more capable militarily than circa-2003 Iraq.

The Iranians know this. They also know that they could cripple the world economy just by taking their oil off-line for a few weeks. So if you try to send them to bed without dinner, they may burn down the house. I say let them have their nukes.

[Maister]

If this is true, why has Iran failed to comply with UN inspectors and requested them to leave the country and have all the security cameras removed from the Nuclear power plants?

More so they have threatened to stop oil supply to the US if any UN trade embargo is put into effect.

Much like the game of Poker, those who think that they have the best hand will do crazy things. It is just a matter of time before Iran goes all in unless we call them on it.

I don't agree that failing to comply with UN inspectors or requesting them to leave are indications of insanity. Nor is the act of developing nuclear weapons to begin with. They may not be actions to our liking, but as EG noted in his original post, the country has existed in relative isolation for the last 25 years. It is not such a sacrifice for them to forego international cooperation. Other countries have succeeded in doing so and managed to maintain their viability as a nation-state for decades.

Why then should we think that Iranian leadership will not continue to act with self-preservation in mind? Why would the principle of MAD not apply?

The 64 thousand dollar Question that I don't have an answer for is how should any nation respond if a terrorist organization were to obtain access to nukes. Surely they would have no compunctions about using them. MAD does not apply to irrational people or actions. Does it necessarily follow that if Iran develops nukes it would hand them over to madmen? Now that would be an act of insanity.

[BKM]

Why is it that the good ol US of A thinks that we are the only ones, and our allies, that should have nukes?

Personally, Iran is a world issue. We cannot and should not go it alone and need the support of the overwhelming majority of the world leaders (including the Germans, French, Chinese, etc.). I don't necessarily see them as any crazier than non americans view our leadership right now. Heres hoping that good ol diplomacy reigns and the whole thing ends like the cold war did.

I've had similar unpatriotic thoughts. Plus, throw in the possibility that a major reason why we have a "nutty" Iranian President is because our pre-emptive war frightened the reactionaries anough that they no longer allowed a "liberal" president (quote marks are deliberate). Not that I find said government particularly appealing, but...

Let's be honest, frightening rhetoric aside, some of our nuclear armed allies are far more dangerous to world security than Iran. Our good buddy Pakistan, for example, was busily peddling nuclear technology to all kinds of fun people. Why are we not invading Pakistan? The only "ally" there is Mubarak himself and a few commanders, the rest of the politicans and population appear to be gung ho pro-Taliban.

The bottom line, I have so little trust in this Administration and the cabal in charge that I cannot trust them leading us into another war. This cabal is so incompetent. We are definitely talking about an "Athens to Syracuse" situation here. Invading Iran will be the downfall of our republic.

[illinoisplanner]

Iran will send their WMDs out of the country in the moments leading up to the war...just like Iraq.

[Maister]

Iran will send their WMDs out of the country in the moments leading up to the war...just like Iraq.

Which border would they send them over (look at jresta's map)?
But I think I see where you are headed. You are saying that Iranians are Bad people and will do all they can in their power to deceive and harm us and given this premise we should kill them first before they can do us wrong? Would this summation be correct?

[BKM]

Which border would they send them over (look at jresta's map)?
But I think I see where you are headed. You are saying that Iranians are Bad people and will do all they can in their power to deceive and harm us and given this premise we should kill them first before they can do us wrong? Would this summation be correct?

And, of course, a prescription for eternal, unlimited war.

[Maister]

And, of course, a prescription for eternal, unlimited war.

You're quite right about the neverending war, but that's really only half of the Unstated Ugly Equation. The other half is - assuming the Iranian leadership bears significant ill will towards us (and why would they not?) why wouldn't they provide a 3rd party (i.e. a terrorist organization) nuclear weapons that they could conveniently disown? Is the only alternative for the US to allow Iran to develop nukes and stoically withstand a nuclear blow delivered via terrorists while afterwards investigating the origins of any such bomb?
Again I return to the question at hand - how do we prevent proliferation? I don't know but I think an important step is to quit treating Iran like a Pariah state. Invite them grow beyond their national adolescent stage. Only then can the world count on any meaningful cooperation or understanding on their part with regard to nuclear technologies. Elsewise I think we can expect some 'acting out'.

[Dan]

(by David Faris)

And who could blame the Iranians for wanting nuclear weapons? Every developing country must look at nonnuclear Iraq, which was invaded and occupied by the U.S., and nuclear-armed North Korea, which was left alone, and draw the same conclusion: If you don't want your country crawling with American GIs, build some nukes.

North Korea hasn't been crawling with US GIs since 1953. North Korea supposedly didn't go nuclear until recently.

The US hasn't considered invading North Korea mainly because Seoul is within shelling distance -- conventional artillery -- of the DMZ. The US could roll through North Korea with just a bit more difficulty than Desert Storm, but it would come at the cost of Korea's largest city, capital, and financial center - and millions of its residents. Nukes are moot.

[jresta]

North Korea hasn't been crawling with US GIs since 1953. North Korea supposedly didn't go nuclear until recently.

And Bush's doctrine of "preemptive war" and "tactical nukes" has only been around since 2002 or later. Policies evolve everywhere and usually in relation to each other.

The US could roll through North Korea with just a bit more difficulty than Desert Storm, but it would come at the cost of Korea's largest city, capital, and financial center - and millions of its residents. Nukes are moot.

It's entirely possible that a north korean army would just melt away in the face of a strong advancing force but no one really knows what morale is like in that army. It's also quite possible that they would stand and fight and that would be ugly for the US Army. Throw the enormous north korean stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in the mix and there's nothing "easy" about it.

[Maister]

The US could roll through North Korea with just a bit more difficulty than Desert Storm.

Were you being facetious? If not, I beg to differ about the whole notion of 'rolling through' North Korea. The DMZ is the most heavily fortified place on the planet. The North Koreans have spent the last 50 years preparing defensive (and offensive) contingency plans. There are more landmines within 20 miles of the DMZ than there are in the rest of the world! The North Korean military is good and not 'Republican Guard' good, but A-list good, well trained, and armed to the teeth with modern equipment and sophisticated air forces and air defenses (that they KNOW how to operate unlike certain Middle Eastern nations). Fighting the fourth largest army on earth while defending in mountainous terrain with prepostioned defenses every 200 meters would be no cakewalk if we had the balance of our military forces there.

[jresta]

even if the north koreans were strictly on the defensive and the US used its superior air power to take out the big guns you still have a huge land force (without the arab shame of being associated with the losing side - and thus switching sides or abandoning the fight) and given that the US can't control Iraq or Afghanistan 3 and 4 years later forgive me if i don't hold out much hope for North Korea.

[zman]

even if the north koreans were strictly on the defensive and the US used its superior air power to take out the big guns you still have a huge land force (without the arab shame of being associated with the losing side - and thus switching sides or abandoning the fight) and given that the US can't control Iraq or Afghanistan 3 and 4 years later forgive me if i don't hold out much hope for North Korea.

As a young male, registered with selective service since his 18th birthday, I have to say:

I hear Tehran and Pyongyang are lovely this time of year....