I have heard various talking heads claiming the U.S. is preparing for an invasion of Iran.
What is everyone's opinion on the subject?
If possible, can anyone bring up more evidence for or against this?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't doubt that Bush is considering it, somewhere behind his beady little eyes, but there's almost certainly nothing to it, for several reasons.
One, Iraq was a push over in the initial invasion, Iran isn't. Second, the political situation in Iran is absolutely nothing like Iraq was, and we didn't even understand that before we went in. Three, Congress would never go for it, and I know Bush seems to think he has Constitutional carte blanche to do basically whatever the hell he wants, it won't fly. He can take us in, but you can be damn sure that Congress will not only tell him they'll cut off the funds, but they'll probably also try to stop him under the War Powers resolution, and will end up probably taking him to court over it. Four, we don't need to, not when a bombing campaign would probably achieve many of our goals just as easily, and might even spark the sort of uprising we thought would happen in Iraq.
It's just a silly prospect at the moment. It would be literally impossible to do without pulling troops from Iraq and/or Afghanistan, and Bush is presently making the case that we need MORE troops there, not less. Without pulling troops from every other station we have on the planet, we'd never have sufficient troops for a ground invasion (without forces in Iraq/Afghanistan I mean).
I have no doubt we have such a plan on the books somewhere. I also have no doubt it ain't going to happen any time soon.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I'm quite sure the military has plans (in varied degrees of detail) for invading not only Iran but a whole host of potential enemies. Strategically speaking, it's implausible at the moment, as Lyr pointed out. They've got bases all over the world and air strike capability over the region, but can't muster enough footsoldiers to occupy the country. And something tells me that the occupation of Iran will make Iraq look like a walk in the park.
I also believe that public opinion against the current wars is enough to clip such a proposal at its stem. But I was also convinced Bush wouldn't be re-elected, and he proved me wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rumsfeld desired and had assuredly planned for it. Cheney has most likely but not assuredly planned for it. They have probably stopped gunning for the chance to do it, but they probably considered the plan feasable for a significant amount of time beyond when it was actually feasable.
The chances that they would go through with any of it now is slim.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Talking heads are stupid.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:I don't doubt that Bush is considering it, somewhere behind his beady little eyes [emphasis added]
Fascinating... I'm sure you had an interesting post with well thought out arguments, but I couldn't quite make it past that.
It makes sense that there would be plans for such an invasion (you'd want to have that contingency at least partially sketched out, just in case), but I agree that it is unlikely we will ever carry the plan out. Given that Saudia Arabia and Iran are the real gestators of terrorism, that may or may not be a good thing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
David, While I agree with you that it may theoretically be in our best interests to intervene militarily in Iran, I am easy in my mind with saying with great certainty that it is a good thing that the current people in charge aren't going to be carrying it out. Would you agree with that?
I think it is important to note that someone may be supportive of a course of action while be very afraid of the current people in charge taking that action.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. edit: With a nod to what David is saying.
[ January 29, 2007, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Squick, yes, I would agree. I voted for Bush both times, but he has demonstrated an inability to quickly adapt to shifting military situations. I wouldn't say I was afraid of the Bush administration's being in charge, but I'm certainly concerned that they would use the wrong strategies in carrying the operation out.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Iran would have to do something pretty bad to get the American people to support broadening the war beyond Iraq, not to mention procuring the allies we would HAVE to have to be effective.
Less we forget, this administration was also responsible for the invasion of Afghanistan, and it was brilliant in execution. The Iraq plan was equally as brilliant when we invaded, but unfortunately we are no invading anymore we are occupying and its a whole new ball game.
I would expect the same brilliancy if it came to invading Iran, hopefully we wouldn't try to occupy the country for any considerable length of time.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BB: Afghanistan was even more of a pushover than Iraq. While the military plan was very well-made, most of the success is due our opponent being a few members of a tenth-rate military that mostly were interested in surrendering or fleeing. When the world's best fighting force is going up against a tiny country with a horrible military, anything except complete and utter victory on the battlefield is abject failure.
Iran is at least an order of magnitude more formidable than Iraq when we invaded, and Iraq was a lot more formidable than Afghanistan.
And of course, our post-invasion record in Afghanistan is about as dismal as our post-invasion record in Iraq, though they're more circumspect about their infighting.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why we should invade Iran.
1) They promote, arm, and sponsor much of the sectarian violence in Iraq, resulting in many deaths, including some US soldiers and workers.
2) They promote and back terrorist groups in Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and around the world.
3) They are researching and building nuclear weapons, with the promise of wiping out Isreal.
4) They are arming the straights of Hormuz with the prospect of blackmailing the world by threatening the world's largest oil route.
5) They are a theocracy who's apparent plans are not only the forced entrenchment of their most conservative beliefs on all of their own citizens, but the bloody spreading of that belief system through out the world.
6) While the US is The Superpower, Iran sees itself as The Regional Superpower, and wants to prove themselves by taking us down.
So these are good arguments for taking out Iran as we did the dangerous governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. Besides, we now have them surrounded.
Why we should not invade Iran.
1) While the "They" listed above represents official governmental doctrine, the government is ruled by a minority of conservative religious leaders. There is enough internal debate, especially amongs the younger Iranians, that some form of peaceful change is a possibility.
2) The nuclear program is clearly a threat, but is years away from being an imminent danger.
3) The Straits of Hormuz can be shut down by an upset Iran, harming the world economy. Hence not many other countries want to jump on the bandwagon of invasion.
4) The Iraq/Iran war showed Iran was willing to spend millions of lives lost in a war. This does not bode well for a quick in and out victory.
5) There is no way to construe the post 9/11 authorization given President Bush to persue the War on Terror to authorize an invasion of Iran.
6) The US Military is stretched thin, and its budget is stretched thinner. While I have no doubts we could find the troops to go in and win, I do not know how long we could keep the winnings.
7) The majority of Afghans despised the Taliban, the majority of Iraqi's despised Hussein. The Majority of Iranian's do not despise their leaders. If anyone, they despise us. The odds of an insurgency are greatly increased.
8) In the last 6 years, the US has invaded 2 countries, both of them Islamic. If we invade a third it will look like a pattern, a dangerous pattern to every other Islamic country in the world.
We should next invade a nice, non-islamic country first. I suggest North Korea, though Lichtenstein may be easier.
9) Since WWII the goal of the US Military has been to be strong enough to conduct a war on two fronts unhindered. This would make a third.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BB: Afghanistan was even more of a pushover than Iraq. While the military plan was very well-made, most of the success is due our opponent being a few members of a tenth-rate military that mostly were interested in surrendering or fleeing. When the world's best fighting force is going up against a tiny country with a horrible military, anything except complete and utter victory on the battlefield is abject failure.
Iran is at least an order of magnitude more formidable than Iraq when we invaded, and Iraq was a lot more formidable than Afghanistan.
And of course, our post-invasion record in Afghanistan is about as dismal as our post-invasion record in Iraq, though they're more circumspect about their infighting.
Your forget that America sent VERY few soldiers into Afghanistan during the invastion. In fact most of the generals criticized central command for using a mere few hundred special forces, and instead favored funding and arming the northern alliance and letting them do most of the fighting.
The gamble paid off as very few American casulties were sustained, but on the flip side there is the possibility that a warlord bailed Bin Ladin out as he fled to Pakistan.
We can't just use airstrikes on Iran, as the air strikes are designed to followed up by a ground war. I seriously doubt countries will just allow us to bomb the hell out of strategic targets in Iran and then call it a day.
Were we to do that *I* think Iran would be quite likely to start a full scale attack on Iraq, declaring themselves as Iraq's Muslim liberators. Shiite militias will join up with Iran against the US and the Sunni's and it will go from bad to worse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't forget at all. It doesn't matter how many troops we sent, if we attacked such a militarily minor country and had anything but complete and utter victory, it would've been a huge failure. That we succeeded is certainly a good thing, but it is not, was not, and should never be surprising or particularly impressive.
Also, you exaggerate somewhat. We had nearly 20k US forces involved in the invasion of Afghanistan (plus a few thousand allies), and a good portion of those were landed troops. Plus, due to insufficient troops we messed up one of our biggest goals, Tora Bora, and after invasion ceded the country right back to the warlords, except the capital.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apologies for the "beady eye" comment. He squints too much.
If Iran is invaded, it will have to be a pan-Arabic/EU effort bolstered by American support. We can blanket the country with air power without much trouble, and we could probably detach an ACR or two to knock out whatever armor they have. But footsoldiers will have to be provided by some combination of Germany, France, Britain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, most likely. The problem being, all of them would still only come up with a quarter million troops, if we got ALL of them to help.
We used a half million men to beat the crap out of Iraq in Gulf War I, and half that was Allied help. I think we'd need at least that if we planned to invade and hold the country.
If we're going to do anything to Iran, it's going to be targeted airstrikes, with is something we could probably get Europe, Egypt and Saudi Arabia on board with. Neither of those two Arab powers likes the idea of an Iran on the rise any more than we do. We can take out hardened targets, secure the Strait of Hormuz, take out their enrichment sites for nuclear research, and maybe even incite and support an uprising by the moderates and progressives in the nation (unlikely, but not out of the question).
Invading Iran might have been something to consider BEFORE we invaded Iraq, but it's too late for that now. If we're going to hurt them, we can do it from the air. American air power can cover their country, destroy their SAM sites, eradicate their air force, and then act with impunity on hardened targets.
I don't know what rammifications that would have for our image, but I'm willing to bet it'd probably make us as many friends as it lost us.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
KoM has it right. Oh sure, lootin'&pillagin' is fun. But when ya get right down to where the metal meets the meat, the only reason to invade a foreign country is to steal their women. Since unmarried men are pretty much all barbarians, and China and India have an extreme surplus of males to females, the US should recruit those men into a mercenary army with the promise of "You can keep all the Iranian brides that you can carry off." If it was good enough for Genghis...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I don't forget at all. It doesn't matter how many troops we sent, if we attacked such a militarily minor country and had anything but complete and utter victory, it would've been a huge failure. That we succeeded is certainly a good thing, but it is not, was not, and should never be surprising or particularly impressive.
Also, you exaggerate somewhat. We had nearly 20k US forces involved in the invasion of Afghanistan (plus a few thousand allies), and a good portion of those were landed troops. Plus, due to insufficient troops we messed up one of our biggest goals, Tora Bora, and after invasion ceded the country right back to the warlords, except the capital.
By the time Kabul fell and Bin Ladin escaped we did NOT have 20k troops there. Those thousands of troops came after the heavy fighting was effectively over in order to secure what had already been taken.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Illustrating the clear success of that strategy .
However, you're still wrong. Tora Bora did not happen until well over a month into the war, and at that point we had several thousand US forces in Afghanistan. Heck, a couple weeks before we had deployed a thousand marines all at once: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/26/lad.06.html
Of course, at Tora Bora we only had a handful of special forces.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I guess we will have to quibble,
The US started bombing/invading Afghanistan on October 9th. You will find the US did almost nothing but use its airforce to bomb strategic targets thus paving the way for Northern Alliance forces. The only boots on the ground were almost 100 special forces agents sent to capture key al qaeda members, and procure the help of warlords. By Nov 2nd, the way to Kabul was for all practical purposes open for the Northern Alliance. On Nov 13th Northern Alliance forces entered Kabul and occupied it completely with little resistance. By Nov 16th Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were mostly massed in Tora Bora. The 1000 marines you speak of did not arrive until the 25th of Nov and a day later they aided the Northern Alliance in wiping out the last and final Taliban stronghold led by Hamid Karzai. From wikipedia,
"Nearly 1,000 Marines, ferried in by CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters, set up a Forward Operating Base in the desert south of Kandahar on November 25. The first significant combat involving U.S. ground forces occurred a day later when 15 armored vehicles approached the base and were attacked by helicopter gunships, destroying many of them."
You will find in the entry absolutely NO mention of troops until the 1000 marines on the 25th. The invasion was mostly a done deal and complete, with only a handful of tiny pockets of resistance left to mop up, most of the big fighting had already been taken care of by the Northern Alliance backed up by US fighters/bombers/special ops I mentioned previously.
I watched a national geographic documentary about all of this just a few days ago and they mentioned the fact that low troop numbers was a concern that many in the military had when we invaded afghanistan, but it was decided we needed to use forces already hostile to the taliban to topple them and thus minimize OUR casulties.
The CIA DID request 1000 army rangers to be deployed in the region of Tora Bora to prevent Bin Ladin from getting to Pakistan but the army ignored them, and there were only 3 special ops forces at tora bora, the responsibility of getting Bin Ladin was placed primarily on the Northern Alliance war lords, hence Bin Ladin getting away.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
The thing is that I have heard we are postitiong troops and other military supplies on the border, in preparation for an attack, and as such, it is not matter of if, but when.
I am not stating this as fact, but once again, the talking heads.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Perhaps not, but Iran is making the US operations in Iraq, *IT'S* business.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
The U.S. can't invade Iran. It simply does not have that ability. Nor would this Congress or even Mr. Bush wish to invade Iran, if only becouse it would be a public relations fiasco.
It could, however, with help from other Nato powers, blockade Iran. The Persian Gulf makes Iran an easy target for Naval Blockade. However, to be effective, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan. That in itself would be difficult (getting the Turks and the Armenians, much less the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis to cooperate on anything is difficult, and don't forget that much), but the borders with Iraq and Afganistan would need to be better patroled. And don't forget that much of the Iran-Iraq border is Kurdish-controled. And the Kurds also have problems working with the Turks.
Still, blockade is clearly what the Western powers are aiming for, as evidenced by the bolstering of the U.S. Fifth Fleet.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Perhaps not, but Iran is making the US operations in Iraq, *IT'S* business.
Iraq was never America's business either. There's a domino analogy somewhere in there.
If "We are already involved" is sufficient justification for considering military action, the US would have an excuse to invade a whole host of countries.
And what of North Korea? IMHO they are a bigger threat to the security of the US and its key economic allies.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Perhaps not, but Iran is making the US operations in Iraq, *IT'S* business.
Iraq was never America's business either. There's a domino analogy somewhere in there.
If "We are already involved" is sufficient justification for considering military action, the US would have an excuse to invade a whole host of countries.
And what of North Korea? IMHO they are a bigger threat to the security of the US and its key economic allies.
Granted, assuming Iran is attempting to act in Iraq's best interests, or even if they BELIEVE they are acting in Iraq's best interests. They are supporting Sunni AND Shiite militia's, and their "Iraq Report" stipulates that a chaotic Iraq keeps the US too occupied to stop them in their nuclear ambitions.
Iran is prodding America in Iraq, I think we all agree they should not be doing it.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
They should not be doing it = We should invade them?
[ January 29, 2007, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: They should not be doing it = We should invade them?
When did I ever say that?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Sorry to put words in your mouth. It appeared to me that you were arguing for a justification of the invasion. In retrospect you weren't, and the quip was uncalled for.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Talking in terms of practical details is great, but we would do well not to loose sight of the number one moral reason for not invading Iran: At this point in time, Iran, as a sovereign nation (regardless of whether its democratic like America), is none of the US' business.
Disagree.
Iranian aggression and threats void whatever moral shield they have that protects them from us violating their soverignty. It has nothing to do with their chosen form of government, it has to do with how they behave on the world stage. They've chosen to be threatening and provocative, and that might cost them, it's a calculation they should have made beforehand.
Invasion isn't necessary though. Airstrikes and naval blockade will be enough to punish them and make them think twice about taking such action again. Not EVERY action we take has to result in regime change. It never should have to begin with.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I believe that a country should never initiate an act of violence except in self-defence. Iran poses a threat to the US is in the form of A) support to insurgents in Iraq and B) nuclear armament.
B is still a distance down the track. If there are solid indications that they will follow through with their threat against Israel, I would consider it sufficient justification to remove Iran's nuclear strike capability by force.
In terms of A, it's debatable who initiated the violence. The US is intruding in the Middle East, and is posing a greater threat to Iran's security than Iran ever did to America's. Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence. Expanding the war to Iran -by invading- would be extending the effects of the mistake; like smearing a stained tablecloth instead of dabbing the spot with bleach, if you'll forgive the analogy. And why should the US "punish" Iran for provocative behaviour? Bush has repeatedly made threats to Iran, and has about 147,000 Coalition troops across the border. If we go to the source of the Bush Administration's justification for these campaigns in the Middle East, it's the sponsorship of terrorism; the evidence for which is still sketchy. Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
And no, I don't know what the equivalent action of 'dabbing the spot with bleach' would be.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
This just out on Yahoo News, as of 20 minutes ago.
I haven't seen any evidence that Iran is supporting either side of the insurgency, let alone both. I don't think it should be just taken for granted.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Does anyone know what evidence is available to indicate that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with weapons? It's been a foregone conclusion in the media for quite a while.
Edit: Beat me to it!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Iran poses a threat to the US is in the form of A) support to insurgents in Iraq
In terms of A, it's debatable who initiated the violence. The US is intruding in the Middle East, and is posing a greater threat to Iran's security than Iran ever did to America's. Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence. Expanding the war to Iran -by invading- would be extending the effects of the mistake; like smearing a stained tablecloth instead of dabbing the spot with bleach, if you'll forgive the analogy. And why should the US "punish" Iran for provocative behaviour? Bush has repeatedly made threats to Iran, and has about 147,000 Coalition troops across the border. If we go to the source of the Bush Administration's justification for these campaigns in the Middle East, it's the sponsorship of terrorism; the evidence for which is still sketchy. Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
Intruding on the Middle East means nothing. The "Middle East" has no governmental body. If the US were to attack Venezuela should Brazil feel threatened? If we attacked Cuba, should Jamaica feel threatened? There's no such thing as regional soverignty like that.
quote:Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence.
Surely you recognize the weakness of that sort of argument. You're trying to take the responsibilty off of Iran and to put it on America. It doesn't work like that. Say my cousin was killed by a police officer due to a misunderstanding, and I was put in the room with the murderer and a loaded gun. Given your line of thinking, if I were to kill the cop, it would be the police department's fault for putting us in a room together. They are still responsible for their own actions.
quote:And why should the US "punish" Iran for provocative behaviour? Bush has repeatedly made threats to Iran, and has about 147,000 Coalition troops across the border. If we go to the source of the Bush Administration's justification for these campaigns in the Middle East, it's the sponsorship of terrorism; the evidence for which is still sketchy.
We punish them to try and deter them from taking further aggressive action against us. The threats Bush has made to Iran are the equivilant of "Leave us alone, or else." If they don't leave us alone, they should consider themselves threatened, and I call it self-defense, don't you? And Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Iraqi sponsorship of terror is not sketchy, it's proven. Hell, Saddam openly and proudly admitted it, and we know that Saudi Arabia funds wahhabbist schools of Islam, which is nothing more than a front for radical islamic teachings. Iranian connections to Hezbollah are proven as well.
quote:Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
Complicated situation. I don't approve at all of the kind of support that we've given Saudi Arabia in the past. But they've given us quite a bit. They usually allow us to stage military operations out of there, they helped us in Gulf War I, they've made some democratic reforms. They have a long way to go, and I don't think disengagement is the best policy. The difference between interdicting SA and going after Iran, is that Prince Abdullah doesn't spend his days vowing death to Israel publicly, and he doesn't say that pursuing uranium enrichment and a weapons program is necessary to achieve that, and whatever other aim they may see fit to pursue.
I don't like what they do, but talking to them is better than aggressive action, especially with the hardware we've sold them over the years. Talking to Iran hasn't done much of anything. They want what they want, and they aren't willing to listen to demands.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Intruding on the Middle East means nothing. The "Middle East" has no governmental body. If the US were to attack Venezuela should Brazil feel threatened? If we attacked Cuba, should Jamaica feel threatened? There's no such thing as regional soverignty like that.
Sure, there's no regional sovereignty. But if Iran invaded Canada, say, wouldn't the US feel threatened? My point is that the US is in Iran's backyard for all the wrong reasons. The animosity between the two powers is clear, so American presence in the Middle East does contribute to the antagonism. I'm not whitewashing Iran here:
quote:
quote:Also, Iran would not be in a situation to support militias fighting Americans if the US hadn't invaded Iraq based on erroneous judgement and flawed and/or fabricated intelligence.
Surely you recognize the weakness of that sort of argument. You're trying to take the responsibilty off of Iran and to put it on America.
That's really not what I'm trying to do, and I apologise if I gave that impression. I am saying that both parties, as is usually the case with war, share responsibility. Yes, if the Iranian government is in fact tacitly or actively condoning the activities of anti-US Iraqi militia by supplying them (or allowing them to be supplied) with weapons, responding with force would be an act of self-defence in that particular instance. But there is a bigger picture, in which America isn't completely clear of blame. The Iraq War was a mistake which is yet to be rectified, and the tributary effects of this mistake are partially the responsibility the instigators of the war. Iranian support for Iraqi militias is wrong, but the US presence is too.
quote:If they don't leave us alone, they should consider themselves threatened, and I call it self-defense, don't you?
I would, if indeed the intelligence is correct this time 'round, and American soldiers are being killed using Iranian weapons.
quote:And Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Iraqi sponsorship of terror is not sketchy, it's proven. Hell, Saddam openly and proudly admitted it, and we know that Saudi Arabia funds wahhabbist schools of Islam, which is nothing more than a front for radical islamic teachings. Iranian connections to Hezbollah are proven as well.
You can find links to anti-American terrorist organisations in almost every third world country. To what extent is the government of Iran actually contributing to terrorism? Would a military strike dampen the level of terrorism, or inflame it? When does it become a sufficient justification for war? Because the evidence for Saudi Arabian involvement in terrorism (not limited to the wahhabist schools) seems stronger to me than the evidence against some of the other countries.
quote:
quote:Why isn't there a blockade on Saudi Arabia?
[...]
I don't like what they do, but talking to them is better than aggressive action, especially with the hardware we've sold them over the years. Talking to Iran hasn't done much of anything. They want what they want, and they aren't willing to listen to demands.
That was a rhetorical question; I'm advocating one.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
quote: they've made some democratic reforms.
[[Edited to add on a more mature note]]: Saudi Arabia is one of only ten states in the world that does not even claim to be a democracy (the others are the Vatican, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Baharian, UAE, Qatar Bhutan, Burma, and Brunei, by the way.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Sure, there's no regional sovereignty. But if Iran invaded Canada, say, wouldn't the US feel threatened? My point is that the US is in Iran's backyard for all the wrong reasons. The animosity between the two powers is clear, so American presence in the Middle East does contribute to the antagonism.
I guess threatened was the wrong word. I guess they SHOULD feel threatened, but the question is whether or not it's justified, sort of like the sign of a guilty conscience. Are they threatened because they know they've done us wrong, and therefore they know that we have a reason to threaten them? We generally don't attack without some provocation, they are being provocative. One wonders at what point they begin to understand that actions have consequences. We're certainly learning that one the hard way.
Eh, I was going to respond to the rest but I don't really disagree with you enough to warrant the effort. And I'm tired, so I'll get back to you later.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
quote: they've made some democratic reforms.
Never said how large or small, but then Iran has made some democratic reforms too. It SOUNDS funny when weighted against the overwhelmingly dictatorial nature of their governmental system, but that doesn't erase the fact that it's still there.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound:
quote: they've made some democratic reforms.
Never said how large or small, but then Iran has made some democratic reforms too. It SOUNDS funny when weighted against the overwhelmingly dictatorial nature of their governmental system, but that doesn't erase the fact that it's still there.
That's kind of why it's funny, Lyr.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Their "Constitution" is the Quran. Their state is the King. The only government body other than the King is apointed by him, and it can be overruled by him. The motto of the House of Saud and thus Saudi Arabia is "L? il?h? ill?-ll?hu; muhammadun ras?lu-ll?hi" ("There is no GOD but Allah; Muhamed is the Prophet of GOD) and but it might as well be "L'état, c'est moi."
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I guess threatened was the wrong word. I guess they SHOULD feel threatened, but the question is whether or not it's justified, sort of like the sign of a guilty conscience. Are they threatened because they know they've done us wrong, and therefore they know that we have a reason to threaten them? We generally don't attack without some provocation, they are being provocative. One wonders at what point they begin to understand that actions have consequences. We're certainly learning that one the hard way.
Eh, I was going to respond to the rest but I don't really disagree with you enough to warrant the effort. And I'm tired, so I'll get back to you later.
That's cool.
I also think it would be smarter for Iran to keep a lower profile. Perhaps it's a matter of appeasing extreme fundamentalist factions in government?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Their "Constitution" is the Quran. Their state is the King. The only government body other than the King is apointed by him, and it can be overruled by him. The motto of the House of Saud and thus Saudi Arabia is "L? il?h? ill?-ll?hu; muhammadun ras?lu-ll?hi" ("There is no GOD but Allah; Muhamed is the Prophet of GOD) and but it might as well be "L'état, c'est moi."
I'm not defending Saudi Arabia, but I do think there is something to being truthful. They, like Iran, have made strides in local elections. They can elect local judges and magistrates, which they couldn't before. Going from NO democracy to ANY democracy is an improvement. They have a long way to go.
quote:That's cool.
I also think it would be smarter for Iran to keep a lower profile. Perhaps it's a matter of appeasing extreme fundamentalist factions in government?
They're posturing, and I can't say I'm sure why. It's somewhat useful to keep in mind two things: 1. That Mahmoud Ahmenidijad doesn't make policy decision in Iran, regardless of being the president, he's really more of a mouthpiece. The power decisions are made by a combination of the council of clerics and Ayatollah Khamenei, and while I'm not any more comfortable with THEM being in charge, I think it's important to separate the extreme words of their president with the people who actually set policy. 2. Ahmenidijad's party lost a LOT of local elections in their last round (of elections). His over the top rhetoric isn't supported by everyone over there, and he replaced a much more mild talking president. I think it's a sign that the people aren't happy with the image he is portraying, and they are supporting their political alternatives.
I think the message that opponents of America have gotten from North Korea is that if you have the bomb, you get a lot different treatment from America than if you don't have it. They think that once they get it, they'll not only have a much better bargaining position, they'll be able to extract concessions from us, rather than the other way around. And from the looks of it, they probably aren't wrong. We've set a terrible precedent with North Korea.
From what I've seen of opinion polling of ordinary citizens in Iran, half of them think they should just give up the bomb and work with the West, the other half think they should redouble their efforts. There's no clear consensus there.
[ January 29, 2007, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Hmmm, I don't think it is possible to appease said fundamentalist powers.
Their single objective is to establish the global caliphate, through any means necessary, and that is a threat to every nation that is not a Muslim theocracy. We can work with nations that are willing to make terms, such as Saudi Arabia, but when a country is openly stating that it's purpose is overthrowing the democratic world and all non-muslim peoples then I think that could be interpreted as a threat.
The Iranian government needs to control its violent factions, and stop supporting extra-territorial factions if it wishes to work with the west.
P.S. My opinion is that if a unit tries to gain concessions by bluster or threat the best solution is to utterly blast said unit's weapon's with a sufficient punishment that they no longer are willing to take that risk again.
For instance, if a mugger is threatening a pedestrian at a standoff in order to extract some concession the best option is to put them out of the game right then and there.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I think the message that opponents of America have gotten from North Korea is that if you have the bomb, you get a lot different treatment from America than if you don't have it. They think that once they get it, they'll not only have a much better bargaining position, they'll be able to extract concessions from us, rather than the other way around. And from the looks of it, they probably aren't wrong. We've set a terrible precedent with North Korea.
I agree. Though of course this brings us to the 'well, why does America get to keep its nukes?' argument.
In any case I would be much happier if North Korea didn't have nuclear strike capability over my home.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I disagree. NorthKorea was doing much better concession-wise before Dubya decided that they should go nuclear.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I don't think they gained concessions from that action, and as such I do not have such a fierce suspicion, such as I do have with Iran.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think that in invading Iraq we made an excellent case to Iran and North Korea that they should have nuclear weapons.
I hope, that, rhetoric aside, neither country would be stupid enough to actually launch a nuclear strike. Once you use a nuclear weapon, you pretty take all the rules off the table an authorize anyone and everyone to wipe you off the map.
Which is not to say that, in the presence of verifiable proof of Iran building a nuclear weapons capability, that military action should be ruled out.
But for sending agent provocateurs across the border? No. I would think you can easily justify the capture or killing of such agents, just under the laws of Iraq. They're saboteurs outside of their homelands, not some kind of recognized powers with diplomatic immunity.
Right now, if we were to attack Iran, it would increase the instability in the region, not decrease it. It would most likely increase regional support for groups attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, and possibly incite more attacks on forces outside of Iraq as well. It would stretch our already strained military capability. And it is unlikely that we would actually accomplish a decrease in aid to insurgent groups in Iraq.
Many of the countries of the Middle East are linked in ways that, say, countries of South America are not. Senses of racial identity, language, religious commonality, and common interest in petroleum, among them. If we for some bizzare reason were to attack Venezuela, it wouldn't be seen as an attack on Catholicism. If we attack Iran, having attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, it could very easily be seen as an attack on Islam. Or to control a segment of OPEC.
I feel we are very much at a point in Middle East policy where recognition of what we can do must trump notions of what we should do. Recognition of the most egregious crimes does not equate to the ability to halt or punish those crimes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I disagree. NorthKorea was doing much better concession-wise before Dubya decided that they should go nuclear.
This is quite disingenuous, Kim is the one who caused North Korea to go nuclear. Lets keep the blame where it lies, we can't condemn Bush for having nuclear weapons and chastising others for wanting them, and then chastise him again for failing to keep them out of the hands of others.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For those (Eurip) asking for proof of Iranian involvement in Iraq:
quote:The speed and level of chaos in Iraq is picking up fast. An apocalyptic cult came uncomfortably close to taking Najaf, one of Shi'a Islam's most holy cities, and murdering Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Sistani is the neo-cons' favorite quietist Shi'a cleric, the man who was supposed to keep Iraq's Shi'a in line while we went about nation building. And then, on Sunday, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad told the New York Times that Iran is in Iraq to stay, whether the Bush Administration likes it or not.
Nevertheless, we should count on the IRGC gearing up for a fight. And we shouldn't underestimate its capacities. Aside from arming the opposition, the IRGC is capable of doing serious damage to our logistics lines. I called up an American contractor in Baghdad who runs convoys from Kuwait every day and asked him just how much damage."Let me put it this way,"he said."In Basra today the currency is the Iranian toman, not the Iraqi dinar."He said his convoys now are forced to pay a 40% surcharge to Shi'a militias and Iraqi police in the south, many of whom are affiliated with IRGC.
They don't seem very shy about it either.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"Going from NO democracy to ANY democracy is an improvement."
But Saudi Arabia doesn't have ANY democracy. Allowing property-owning Muslim males to vote would be having some Democracy. Even allowing male members of the Royal Family to vote would be some Democracy. But they don't. The only "progress" they have made is that the King now has advisors, who are not elected, and whose advice he is not obligated to keep.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Apparently you didn't listen to what I wrote earlier.
Again, it's not much at all, but it's not NOTHING.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Now the senators are publicly worried we are going after Iran...
Not sure what that means.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Iraq basically told the US and Iran to not make Iraq a battleground.
I see Iran's actions the same way I see China's involvement with the Korean conflict AND Vietnam. The rationale is different, but the effect is the same.
I really do not like this development.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's actually not that big of a deal in realistic terms.
al-Maliki doesn't have near the power to make that kind of demand stick. Bush will say that if they don't want to make it a battleground, the onus is entirely on Iran for attacking US troops in Iraq when they are there at the request of the Iraqi government. And quite frankly I think he'll be right to say so, even if just from a PR standpoint.
The scary part of all of this is that the Iran/Iraq border doesn't matter anymore. It never mattered to Iran, they have and will continue to cross it as they see fit, but we've held it as something out of bounds for any large scale operation. I don't think that will be the case anymore.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
So? Municipal elections != democracy on a national scale. The national government of Saudi Arabia has absolute power and is unelected. As I mentioned, the Saudis do not even claim to be Democratic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Municipal elections != democracy on a national scale.
Who made that claim? I certainly didn't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the United States lacks the will (most important), the military supplies, and the military (and civilian) personnel necessary to make a sustained invasion of Iran have even the remotest chance of anything better than a substantial failure.
I think that a military attack, on the other hand, on targets within Iran, possibly with ground troops, is quite likely within the next five years.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I think it would be possible if instead of withdrawing American troops from Iraq the DoD decided to have them sent to Iran.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're wrong. The military is having difficulties, shall we put it politely, accomplishing its mission in Iraq today-a lot of that is due, I believe, to inept upper management on the civilian side of things.
Iran is a much, much, much thornier problem on all levels. Terrain, politics, populations, everything in Iran is tougher than it would be in Iraq.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we could crush them if we invaded. We'd never be able to hold it though, which is why we'll never invade, and which is why we'll probably have targeted strikes on them some time in the near future if things continue as they are.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
Iran actually does have a reasonable amount of democracy. They have an elected parliament (majles) and an elected president. They have universal suffrage. They don't elected the Council of Guardians or the Supreme Leader(Khameini, currently). Ahmadinejad was elected, like it or not, on an inflammatory populist platform after the failure of the reformist platform of Khatami (and to a lesser extent Rafsanjani before him). Partially, the failure of reforming movements can be attributed to poor economic management, etc. but also partially to the refusal of many Western states, particularly the US, to deal with Iran.
The US continues to accuse Iran of support for terrorism - with good reason considering ongoing Iranian support for Hizbollah and Hamas. This is one of the three key foreign policy dilemmas. The second is Iran's push for regional hegemony, including its meddling in Iraq. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Iran remains fundamentally hostile to Israel. No consideration of the Iran-US dynamic can have any meaning without the question of Israel occupying a central position. Ahmadenijad's desire to "wipe Israel off the map" escalated that aspect of the confrontation significantly. It also cast the nuclear program in a very, very different light than if Iran had taken the opposite approach and recognised Israel and opened up negotiations, even through a third party, at the same time as it accelerated its nuclear development. Of course, that was never going to happen but it's a worthwhile hypothetical to consider.
I am by no means apologising for the Iranian regime. It is brutal and oppressive in many ways. But it has NOT been a static, homogenesis and uncontested government since 1979. My feeling is that the West needs to engage Iran more rather than less. Tactical strikes with bunker busting bombs are unlikely to improve the situation in anything other than the very short term.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Ahmenidijad won't make it past the next election, and we'll have a new president by then as well.
I think there's a change coming in Iran/US relations, from the West at least. We still won't hesitate to threaten them with force, but that doesn't mean we can't offer them an olive branch here and there as well. We'll see where it gets us.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
I agree. Ahmadenijad is in trouble domestically. His popularity is slipping as a result of failure to address domestic concerns - rising unemployment, a stagnant economy, etc.
Although I doubt he'll be re-elected, his current predicament actually makes him more dangerous precisely because he needs something big. Since 1979 foreign policy has been a domestically useful tool of state to quell dissatisfaction. I'd be concerned that he will seek to escalate any international confrontation in a gamble to galvanise domestic support. If that happens, the stick waved in response will need to be big, held firmly and very, very carefully waved or else we'll have a rather nasty conflict on our hands. *drops two cents in the jar*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really see what he could do that would be big, that WOULDN'T be negatively spun.
Their economy is going downhill, and in a couple decades, if left unchecked, will collapse entirely. Their oil production is below the OPEC limits, which means they are losing billions of dollars a month because they can't get capacity up. And investment in their oil infrastructure is non existant. To make it worse, they aren't investing enough money to make sure they have an economic base when their oil does dry up, or in case prices plummet or demand drops.
As far as his political status, his party was slammed across the country in municipal and parliamentary eletions a few months ago, and opinion polls show they were votes AGAINST Ahemenidijad. In areas where his party was voted out, it was because they don't like his rhetoric and the way he is antagoizing the rest of the world, and they also believe they should deal with the West and drop the bomb, whereas his supporters think a bomb is the only safety they have.
It's complex, but I think Iran is in trouble domestically, and enough people realize it to get rid of him when the next elections come around. I think we'll see a reform, somewhat pro-West candidate win. Keeping in mind that pro-West is a relative term.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
Agreed. But there is also the odd galvanisation of support that comes with military conflict. Ahmadinejad may decide that gambling on popular support re-coalescing behind him in the face of an immediate threat is worth it. That's what I meant by him being dangerous - he's getting close to a position where he has little left to lose. I'm not sure that I like that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you the old EG? If so, good to e-see you:) Been awhile, man.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
Old or new and improved? You be the judge.
Yep. I'm procrastinating from writing a paper so I figured I'd pop back on here. Speaking of Pop, he emailed me earlier and I should be getting my old account back (thanks, Pop!). How's stuff?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
LoL, you got me there. Are you the original EG?
Anyway, groovy to see you:) For our sake, I'm glad you're procrastinating I'm kinda watching the Super Bowl right now (love DVRing it so I can mute it for a few minutes and skip through some commercials:)), so I'm engrossed. I love rainy (American) football.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
Yep. The real EG is standing up.
I'm kinda trying not to launch another browser window in order to watch the score of a game I don't care about (the Superbowl) except to the extent that in school tomorrow at least 10 Americans will care. And it would be good to feel cool like them for a few minutes. Heh.
Procrastination is all well and good but it's now 1am over here (London) and my class is getting closer, not further away (for some strange reason).
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by EthicsReGradient: Iran actually does have a reasonable amount of democracy. They have an elected parliament (majles) and an elected president. They have universal suffrage. They don't elected the Council of Guardians or the Supreme Leader(Khameini, currently). Ahmadinejad was elected, like it or not, on an inflammatory populist platform after the failure of the reformist platform of Khatami (and to a lesser extent Rafsanjani before him). Partially, the failure of reforming movements can be attributed to poor economic management, etc. but also partially to the refusal of many Western states, particularly the US, to deal with Iran.
I am by no means apologising for the Iranian regime. It is brutal and oppressive in many ways. But it has NOT been a static, homogenesis and uncontested government since 1979. My feeling is that the West needs to engage Iran more rather than less. Tactical strikes with bunker busting bombs are unlikely to improve the situation in anything other than the very short term.
Two unelected SUPREME leaders since 1979. That's impressively democratic. And NOT static, homogeneous, or uncontested.
Posted by EthicsReGradient (Member # 10165) on :
The Supreme Leader's role was actually changed in the post-Khomeini modifications to the constitution to grant the President significant autonomy. The Supreme Leader provides the religious direction but does not run day-to-day policy (although he does have significant veto capacity). This is why you hear very little about Khameini and a hell of a lot about Ahmadenijad. The "Supreme" part refers to the religious authority in interpretation of Islamic law. In practical terms, Khameini's role in foreign and domestic policy has substantially reduced over the years and is certainly greatly less than Khomeini's before him.
Static, homogenous and uncontested are NOT word that fit well with the Iranian regime.
Besides, the point is not that Iran is entirely democratic but that does have substantive democracticc institutions and high political turn out. Compared to the West's Arab allies, Iran's record is actually impressive. Egypt is a dictatorship with a parliament that has almost no effective power. Saudi Arabia is a very oppressive monarchy with almost no democracy at all. Jordan is a monarchy with two rulers and a 'moderate' record in the region (they only dispossessed a few hundred thousand Palestinian refugees in the early 1970s). Saddam Hussein's Iraq - our best buddy in the 1980s - had no democracy worth speaking of.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
I suggest you read up on the Council of Guardians, the Assembly of Experts, and The Expediency Council. And also the fact that the Supreme Leader has total veto authority, direct control over the majority of high-level appointments, and influence over ALL appointments at every level.
Interesting tidbit: Ahmadinejhad is the first Iranian president not to be a cleric. I guess they (the Guardian Council) assumed that being a longtime member of the IRGC is just as good.
You're absolutely right about the high voting turnout, but when the legislature is subordinate to bodies of clergy, and the "chief executive" is subordinate to an individual clergyman, I don't see what good it does. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic democracy at best, and an Islamofascist government at worst.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I have to say I disagree with you over the amount of control that the bodies you mention have over foreign policy and, indeed, over specific domestic policies. Yes, the authority that you mention exists but post-revolutionary Iran has been characterised by fragmentation and factionalism more than it has by centralised control - appearances to the contrary.
By the way, I never said that it was not theocratic OR that it was an open and liberal democracy just that it is more democratic than people generally assume.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The Weekly World News has reported that Bush intends to invade Atlantis. I think they have a little more credibility than Vanity Fair.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Unger's not exactly known for being completely impartial but it at least looks like an extensively researched article...
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's telling that that extensive research couldn't help him support his thesis. (Admittedly I only read a third into it. But I could only take so much venom.)
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
There's always that, heh. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
We are waiting for the inevitable provocation from Iran, of course they will deny it but we will have the case iron clad. Iran will do what it does, The nuke will kill Jews or Americans, and we will begin our air campaign.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
They also refused to stop their enrichment process.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Counter Bean: We are waiting for the inevitable provocation from Iran, of course they will deny it but we will have the case iron clad.
One hopes they don't attack one of our ships in the Gulf of Persia.
--j_k, who has deja vu
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
They make fat targets, we have adequate missile defenses but so did the British in the Falkland's, a hundred grand for a missile crippling a billion dollar ship is no bargain.
It is my belief that the enriched uranium is there already. Common sense tells us that the Russian reaction to the North Koreans faulty test was too fast, too certain and too wrong. Iran has Russian made missile systems, and we know 'sample packs' of Russian refined Uranium made its way to the free markets in the south. Iran can use the centrifuge system to give the Russians 'Plausible Denial' when they use it to strike one of the three juicy targets, (Tel Aviv, Baghdad or our carrier group) though my bet is still Tel Aviv, using their friends in Lebanon to do the dirty work. I just hope that the sensor net is better then is commonly known.
But will we have the will to go to war if it is captured instead detonated? I think Lisa can tell us if we would be able to hold Israel back, I suspect the only way we could do so and fight the fight on our best terms is to guarantee Isreal a Coalition attack against Iran's possible nuclear caches. I would love to see the Israeli Air Force against the Iranian, tough anti aircraft, good planes, awesome pilots. Plus it would be nice if they bore the brunt of the first attack, (operation Jewish Shield)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have at least some confidence that US point defense systems could take down any major attack. We have a lot of systems in place, and they get better every year.
Also, you really think a bomb smuggled into Israel via Lebanon is the most likely scenario? Possible I guess. I think the attack will come from the air. They can't take the risk of getting caught like that. The only benefit they get is being able to deny it, but even that doesn't work. We can trace the origin of the Uranium, and we'll know where it came from. SOMEONE will pay.
Either a ballistic missile or from a bomber with fighter escorts. Keep in mind Iran does have a respectable air force. It's nothing like what Israel or Saudi Arabia have, but it's nothing to shake a stick at either. They could bloody the nose of most attackers, except the US.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
If there is one thing that you can count on in Iranian diplomacy it is that they aheemmm.. Bluff (don't want to call an entire group liars after all) to launch a missile or escort a bomber would be out of character, deny deny deny. That is why I expect a smuggled device or one launched with a short range missile, one like our old Nike's I do not know what Iran is calling them...
[Removed unnecessary offensive comment. --PJ]
[ February 10, 2007, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
That's exactly the type of inappropriate (and entirely pointless as it regards the discussion) comment that will have you removed again, Scott. Just stop.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Who?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're making a fatal, tactical assumption I think.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Not Fatal to me, and there will be death any way this goes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's another assumption, but either way, I hope those in charge of our defense, and Israel's defense, aren't as narrowminded as you.
You're making vast, overreaching assumptions on Iranian practices with not much, well, NO evidence to back up your guesses.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
There is already death, so that is not an assumption, (over 100 US deaths caused by Iranian supplied bombs, thousands of missiles in Lebanon from Iran) as for my assumptions being tactical, well one of us does not know what the word means. (and I am pretty sure I do) My prognostication is based on three trends.
First ongoing and growing nuclear refinement in Iran, fueled and supported by Russia's long standing tradition of having leaders become insanely paranoid for some reason, and Iran's delusional view of their significance in the world.
Second both American and Israeli failure of Will to do what it will take to stop the threat short of a massive provocation, since we already have significant provocation in both Iraq and Lebanon.
Third the continuing failure of Moderate elements in Iran to stop their radicals simply because moderates by definition are not crazy enough to die for their truth.
Given these trends it seems inevitable that Iran will get the Nuke it wants. Either a touchy uranium bomb or a tricky plutonium bomb, in which case they face a use it, test it, or wave it like a flag option (tucking it up there sleave is not in character). If we are lucky they will build a dud and try to use it, giving us the evidence we need without the mass casualty event. If they are cautious they will test it and again we will have the information we need (if it works)
As for the delivery system, it is simply less risky and sneakier (more in character) to truck it close, we have missile defense systems all over the region and Iran is not likely to waste a precious nuke on an unreliable (missile systems) and uncertain (subject to military countermeasures) delivery.
So my predictions (not assumptions) are not vast narrow minded or even guesses, nor is there a lack of evidence, they are most probable outcomes given the current situation. Many others looking at the big picture see the same thing and I am far from the only one pointing out the direction we are headed, however the beanbag chair of world opinion cannot be moved by even a moderate sized kick. Will a big one do the job? I do not know, I am curious to find out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:(tucking it up there sleave is not in character).
One wonders just how much you actually know about Iranian national character. To truly claim to know such things enough to say what is and isn't in character implies a substantial knowledge of Iranian cultures, peoples, history, politics, etc., since they aren't ruled by an autocrat such as Saddam Hussein.
I doubt very much whether you have a signifigant understanding of even one of the things on that list.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Doubt away, we shall see, however since we have daily progress reports coming out of Iran and 'scientists' jumping up and down with the flask of 5% material and cheering the acievement (strong demonstration of character) one wonders how far you are willing to blind yourself to the obvious to find a flaw in what you disagree with.
Reguardless I am training my guys for worst case, that is our job. Your prejudices will result in events taking you by surprise, I guess that is your job...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You don't know what I agree and disagree with on this issue, Counter Bean-but it's amusing to read you say you do Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
For those who will no doubt point out that Iran is filled with wonderful people who just want to live in peace and be westernized etc, I am with you, I know they are a decent beautiful people. However for the purposes of National Character they are null bobs, they are not driving the runaway truck and I do not think they will steal the wheel in time.
We could unite with an internal force in Iran, but how would that be different from preemptive war to our liberals? They would see it as just another mask for imperialism. So what can you do?
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
quote: You don't know what I agree and disagree with on this issue, Counter Bean-but it's amusing to read you say you do
It is strange on list where your only presence is your opinion, to have pride in not articulating it well enough that it is known.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It is strange on list where your only presence is your opinion, to have pride in not articulating it well enough that it is known.
That would indeed be strange, if I had pride in not articulating it well enough. It's not as though I've tried and failed to state my position well, Counter Bean-I haven't stated it at all.
Which, you know, might have something to do with my stating that you don't know what I think and agree with on this issue. Just maybe.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
of course you have wasted two posts not stating your opinion while, pointing out that you have not done so. Great tactics, creates a real 'Fog of Opinion' to rattle around in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, a clever tactic since I'm concerned about having lots of wiggle room on this issue to rattle around in.
The funny part about your claim is that it would never even have become an issue had you not claimed you knew my intentions and opinions, when clearly you did not.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Neat, I made Waffles for breakfast too...
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
I find the notion that Iran's first act with nuclear capabilities would be to smuggle a bomb into Israel (presumably through Hizbollah or similar clients?), across a heavily guarded, short border and then detonate a single bomb in Tel Aviv to be very, very unlikely.
I'm reasonably sure that Ahmadenijad is serious about wanting to wipe Israel off the map. However, I'm far more certain that what Iran wants most is to establish itself as the dominant regional power in the Middle East. Doing so certainly doesn't involve a convoluted plot. If things progress far enough, Iran will develop weapons grade uranium (it's a long way from that now - probably a few years before it can produce enough), develop the required technology to detonate a bomb and carry out test(s). It may conduct tests at the last possible minute and will do so in an underground facility. I would expect that delivery systems will have been developed / obtained and that Iran will arm surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missiles with nuclear warheads before carrying out tests. If the test is a success, Iran will immediately be placed as a nuclear power with delivery capabilities of some description.
This isn't about Iran blowing up a bomb - its about Iran becoming a nuclear power and asserting its hegemony over the Middle East.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm glad you're back, EG. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Iran already has intermediate range ballistic missiles. Hitting anywhere in the Middle East is already an option. The are tested, we know they work.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
And....
Iran is officially believed to be importing IEDs and IED components to Iraq.
Their is little doubt that Iran desires to make an ICBM, however even with Russian's building them for them and offering the ICBM scholarship program to every Iranian who wants to be a rocket scientist they are years from that capability. The Shahab 3's are a bit payload light for a heavy bomb, they need a next generation missile and a good bomb.
But my posture is based on what could be in place today, not three years from now or ten. A Russian warhead is not likely to be much more difficult to import then thirty tons of high carbon steel. The truth is we do not know how compact a device the Russian's inherited from the Soviet's but one would buy a lot of oil and good will.
I consider the smuggled bomb through Hezbolla to be the "It could happen today" possibility, probabilities will change as time passes.
Russia has all but declared itself as our enemy again, while China is cracking down on its aid. I think we need to watch the Russian/Iranian trade very close and estimate the threat based on what we see.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm kinda watching the Super Bowl right now (love DVRing it so I can mute it for a few minutes and skip through some commercials:)), so I'm engrossed. I love rainy (American) football.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)