Iran

[Jim]

What do you think of the Seymour Hersch report?

 

My guess is that the administration "leaked" the nuclear contingency plans to pressure the international community and Iran. I do not see us stepping up to the plate by ourselves to become an international pariah.

 

Suppose the administration had ironclad intelligence - to the extent ironclad intelligence ever exists these days - that Iran will acquire the bomb and a delivery mechanism within the next six months? What is the appropriate response if any conventional attack would be ineffective?

[Pangloss]

I'll believe that Seymour Hersch is shilling for the White House when I can pull flying monkeys out of my derrier with a 20-foot-pole (which is the pole I use for things I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole) while watching Heck freeze over.

 

Maybe if you put a black wig on him and call him "Judith", but otherwise no, I think not.

 

What's happened here is that Hersch has dug up some war game scenarios and called them "news". This is about making the administration look bad.

[bascule]

I still don't see why we can't just take out their facilities with special forces. Isn't that what they're for?

 

The Shahab-6 scares the f*ck out of me though...

[budullewraagh]

npr says iran won't have the bomb for many years at this rate.

 

i hate media sensationalism.

[Jim]

I'll believe that Seymour Hersch is shilling for the White House when I can pull flying monkeys out of my derrier with a 20-foot-pole (which is the pole I use for things I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole) while watching Heck freeze over.

 

Maybe if you put a black wig on him and call him "Judith"' date=' but otherwise no, I think not.

 

What's happened here is that Hersch has dug up some war game scenarios and called them "news". This is about making the administration look bad.[/quote']

 

Lol. Probably so.

[Jim]

npr says iran won't have the bomb for many years at this rate.

 

i hate media sensationalism.

 

Why would I trust NPR on this issue?

[bascule]

Why would I trust NPR on this issue?

 

Well, in this case, because they're rereporting the opinion of Hans Blix, former head of the IAEA:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_re_eu/iran_blix

 

Still, Iran bought the designs and parts for their uranium ultracentrifuges from the former head of the international nuclear black market, and they're collaborating with North Korea to develop ICBM technology. I don't trust them for a second, and I still think they should be stopped ASAP... just because they're X amount of time from a bomb does not mean we should sit on our hands instead of trying to stop them now.

[Jim]

Well' date=' in this case, because they're rereporting the opinion of Hans Blix, former head of the IAEA:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_re_eu/iran_blix

 

Still, Iran bought the designs and parts for their uranium ultracentrifuges from the former head of the international nuclear black market, and they're collaborating with North Korea to develop ICBM technology. I don't trust them for a second, and I still think they should be stopped ASAP... just because they're X amount of time from a bomb does not mean we should sit on our hands instead of trying to stop them now.[/quote']

 

But does Blix know? Libya’s nuclear program was much further advanced that the United States and Britain intelligence had believed. It's possible to be wrong in either direction.

 

The question is what kind of margin of error we are going to allow.

 

Edit: Note that in 12/03, the IAEA chief "indicated that his "gut feeling" was Libya was about three to seven years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon." Two points:

 

1. We can thank American policy in Iraq for bringing Libya to heel. Without this sacrifice, the IAEA's "gut feel" with the benefit of viewing the entire dismantled Libya program was that Libya might have had nuclear capability as early as this year.

 

2. Public assurances and intel assessments aside, no one really knows how far along a program is until it is fully and honestly disclosed as did Libya. Even with such disclosure, an IAEA official had to hedge his bets with talk of a "gut feel" over a four year range.

[Jim]

What do you think of the Seymour Hersch report?

 

My guess is that the administration "leaked" the nuclear contingency plans to pressure the international community and Iran. I do not see us stepping up to the plate by ourselves to become an international pariah.

 

Suppose the administration had ironclad intelligence - to the extent ironclad intelligence ever exists these days - that Iran will acquire the bomb and a delivery mechanism within the next six months? What is the appropriate response if any conventional attack would be ineffective?

 

The question no one took on was whether we should use a tactical nuke IF (i) we believe Iran is close to getting the bomb and (i) only a tactical nuke can take out their hardened facilities. Of course, no policy maker will have perfect intel but I wonder what people would say about the decision assuming there was the kind of smoking gun Kennedy had in the Cuban missile crisis.

[Pangloss]

The question won't even come up. Nobody will be the first country to use nuclear weapons since WW2. Even if not one single human being is injured, the backlash would be monumental and historic.

 

Not that that stands to reason, mind you. From a strategic perspective it may make perfect sense. But that's just not how nukes are viewed.

 

Blame it on the popular media, backed by politically-correct scientists around the world.

[john5746]

The question no one took on was whether we should use a tactical nuke IF (i) we believe Iran is close to getting the bomb and (i) only a tactical nuke can take out their hardened facilities. Of course, no policy maker will have perfect intel but I wonder what people would say about the decision assuming there was the kind of smoking gun Kennedy had in the Cuban missile crisis.

 

I see no problem with it IF it is a military target and they do indeed have nuclear weapons. Also, we should say in advance that if they do not allow us to inspect and they build nuclear weapons, we will destroy them by all means possible, including a nuclear attack. Even more importantly, if the weapons are used, we will respond using nuclear weapons if we want to.

 

There was an interesting show on the history channel last night concerning the A-bomb. They talked about the US race to make the bomb and that the Germans were not nearly as close as we thought. History seems to repeat itself over and over again.

[Jim]

The question won't even come up. Nobody will be the first country to use nuclear weapons since WW2. Even if not one single human being is injured' date=' the backlash would be monumental and historic.

[/quote']

 

I tend to agree that it is a moot point. I continue to wonder if the the Bush admin is just giving Iran something to think about.

[Jim]

1. We can thank American policy in Iraq for bringing Libya to heel. Without this sacrifice' date=' the IAEA's "gut feel" with the benefit of viewing the entire dismantled Libya program was that Libya might have had nuclear capability as early as this year.

[/quote']

 

Darn, won't anyone take a bite of the juicy red meat I threw out in support of the Iraq war?

[Jim]

Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a major development in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani said Tuesday.

 

Current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad added that the country "will soon join the club of countries with nuclear technology."...

 

Aghazadeh made the announcement during a nationally televised speech in the northeastern city of Mashhad, attended by top military commanders and lawmakers.

 

A nationally televised speech. Aghazadeh is not leaving himself much room to save face if he has to back down.

[pcs]

What is the appropriate response if any conventional attack would be ineffective?

 

A conventional attack would be effective, it simply couldn't be a mere airstrike and would take a lot longer.

[apollo2011]

I would not be in the least bit surprised if Bush and his administration were making plans for some sort of military action in Iran, because they were planning to invade Iraq even before they had publicly laid the idea of an invasion on the table.

[pcs]

I would not be in the least bit surprised if Bush and his administration were making plans for some sort of military action in Iran, because they were planning to invade Iraq even before they had publicly laid the idea of an invasion on the table.

 

The OPLAN 10 series for Major Theater War in the Near East has been around for two decades, with Soviets, Iraqis and Iranians envisioned as the opposition. These plans are updated at least every two years and feature attached CONPLANS with greater operational and logistical granularity.

[Jim]

I would not be in the least bit surprised if Bush and his administration were making plans for some sort of military action in Iran, because they were planning to invade Iraq even before they had publicly laid the idea of an invasion on the table.

 

If you were President, would you allow Iran to get nukes?

[budullewraagh]

allow me to respond, jim. it all depends on the potential costs vs potential gains

[Bettina]

If you were President, would you allow Iran to get nukes?

 

Never.... This is a country that hates the jews so much they broadcast that hate on a daily basis. They also call for its removal from the face of the earth at all costs. That alone would be reason enough.

 

These people would use a nuke because their Allah says its ok to kill innocent people for the preservation of the Islamic way of life. IMO this country is pure evil and should be dealt with soon. You cannot allow Mullahs to be in control of nuclear weapons.

 

What I find surprising is that civilized countries will not band together to fight a common foe, and Iran is a common foe. Places like Russia and China are often, if not always, found helping terrorist countries rather than fight them. I find the leaders of these countrys cowardly and disgusting.

 

Bettina

[Sisyphus]

Well, I don't really think a nuclear Iran is as big of a threat as it sounds, but still, responsibly, we ought to do something. So what are the options?

 

Economic, negative - Utterly isolate Iran economically if they don't demonstrate that they've stopped. As far as I know, this hasn't been considered. An oil thing? In any case, its effectiveness could go either way. Cuban trade embargo, anyone?

 

Economic, positive - incentives and whatnot. Doesn't seem to work so far. Perhaps developing more economic ties would make any conflict with the West unthinkable. This is exactly what happened in China, but perhaps the rules work differently with crazy religious fundamentalists.

 

Military, full-scale Iraq-style invasion and regime change - Not an option, really. We just don't have the resources, because they're all tied up in Iraq. And if Iraq is any indication, we'd need far MORE resources to take care of Iran.

 

Military, nuclear strike - An incredibly stupid idea. We lose ALL credibility in non-proliferation diplomacy (so much for "responsible nations"). We introduce the precedent of using nuclear weapons at our convenience, setting nuclear control back 60 years and opening up the worst possible can of worms. We pretty much guarantee heavy collatoral damage. We take a population that is getting very tired of its own government and incite their hatred against ours.

 

Military, focused strike - Stuff like cruise missles, special forces, etc. Certainly better than the other military options. However, would justifiably be called an act of war; we'd be the clear aggressor. Possibly would destabilize the region and undermine our efforts in Iraq. On the "plus" side, with the exception of nuclear weapons, Iran is pretty much only a regional threat, and we can strike more or less with impugnity. Also, even if not all targets were known or vulnerable, developing a nuclear weapon is a complex operation that could be delayed indefinitely with only a few strikes.

 

Military/political, covert - Undermining Iranian regime with whatever covert methods we have. We're probably already doing this, so I guess it's irrelevant. It should be noted, however, that this kind of manipulation didn't work so well last time...

 

Political, diplomacy - Build better relations with Iran. They're not a threat if they're our friend. This is like India or Pakistan. Downside: they don't seem to want to be our friend. Of course, we do seem to do everything in our power to try and make relations worse, starting with the "Axis of Evil." How are they supposed to respond but with their own posturing?

 

Political, public relations - Do what we can to promote pro-Western sentiment and secular values and culture among the Iranian people. There already is a strong counterculture along these lines (as opposed to say, N. Korea), so it does seem hopeful. The leadership will have to adapt along with the people, or the people will replace the leadership. This is a best-case scenario, and probably will happen eventually. The downside: it probably won't happen soon enough.

 

So that's my take, for the time being. You'll notice I didn't really answer the question...

[FreeThinker]

What if Iran is building a nuclear power plant and not a nuclear bomb? Maybe they just care about the damage fossil fuel is doing to our planet and want to find a more efficient/enviromental friendly way of producing energy?

 

[Bettina]

What if Iran is building a nuclear power plant and not a nuclear bomb? Maybe they just care about the damage fossil fuel is doing to our planet and want to find a more efficient/enviromental friendly way of producing energy?

 

 

What if your wrong....

 

Bee

[gcol]

What if your wrong....

 

Bee

 

And the Pope is a closet Presbyterian.....

[Jim]

And the Pope is a closet Presbyterian.....

 

Risk is a function not only of the probability that an adverse event might occur but also of the severity of the consequences if the event does occur. A 10% risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon may be unacceptable assuming we can do anything about it without making matters considerably worse...