Iran

[Jim]

Well' date=' 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 [i']more[/i] 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 missiles, 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...

 

I agree with a lot of this post. Use of nuclear weapons would be insane based on what I know, yet, if the President had smoking gun, Cuban missile style iron clad proof that Iran was a few months away from acquiring nukes, I'd have to reassess. Unfortunately, I doubt anyone on the outside knows how close Iran is to acquiring nukes. I also have no way of assessing whether a focused strike would be effective.

 

For the time being, we have to go along with the international community but I'm extremely pessimistic about their prospects. I don't think we can afford to get ahead of the community absent iron clad proof. I just hope someday we don't get to use the I Robot line, "somehow, 'I told you so,' just doesn't cut it."

[abskebabs]

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?

I don't think they'll care excessively about fossil fuels as long as their economy depends on it, and I think they're developing far more silos and resources than is required for a civilian program. For this reason I think the US is probably correct in their suspiscions of iranian intensions.

[Pangloss]

This seems like a good moment to remind my fellow readers that Iran exports something like four million barrels of oil per day. That is not a country that is in dire need of energy resources.

[Saryctos]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm

 

 

Is it at all possible that Iran already has the nuclear capabilities to deliver a multiple warhead missle through the ocean?

 

It would seem strategicly viable to make a big stink about not being able to get nukes when a nuclear explotion goes off somewhere. It's not as though you actually require a test explotion first to have a working bomb. The technology is pretty available, especially to those with money that you could get it right the first try.

 

 

The idea of delivering a nuclear attack through the water sounds so ludicrous and conspiricy theoretic, that to propose that Iran did so would make any nation seem frantic to point fingures towards the middle east and lower their credibility on a global scale.

[gcol]

If they are going nuclear for peaceful purposes only, then praise Allah.

 

If trying to build the bomb, better pray to Allah, and dont go to Israel for your holidays, and re-excavate that old nuclear shelter or donate a few million dollars to the government and book a ticket in a VIP bunker.

[FreeThinker]

I don't think they'll care excessively about fossil fuels as long as their economy depends on it, and I think they're developing far more silos and resources than is required for a civilian program. For this reason I think the US is probably correct in their suspiscions of iranian intensions.

 

I was being sarcastic.

[abskebabs]

I was being sarcastic.

ahh...... sorry about that!

[Skye]

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.

Well don't be too casual in equating Israel and Jews. Iran has a Jewish minority and a seat reserved in its legislature for a Jew (admittedly one seat of 290), and generally there's some respect for 'people of the book', Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. I think railing against Israel is mostly hot air.

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

Francis Fukuyama was on TV here last night and said something along the lines that the US gov could be boxing itself in to taking action against Iran by using that sort of language (allow Iran to get nukes).

This seems like a good moment to remind my fellow readers that Iran exports something like four million barrels of oil per day. That is not a country that is in dire need of energy resources.

One of the things about the nuke situation is that it is part of Iran's long term economic strategy to diversify and modernise its economy, at least to buffer the economy from the the volatility of oil prices. This has been policy for years, but has stagnated for a variety of reasons. So there's domestic pressure to push ahead with the nuke program because it's become a big part of that policy.

[Jim]

Francis Fukuyama was on TV here last night and said something along the lines that the US gov could be boxing itself in to taking action against Iran by using that sort of language (allow[/i'] Iran to get nukes).

 

Assuming we have the ability to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, what is wrong with the language? Of course the answer to my question depends on the relative risks of action vrs. inaction.

 

One of the things about the nuke situation is that it is part of Iran's long term economic strategy to diversify and modernise its economy, at least to buffer the economy from the the volatility of oil prices. This has been policy for years, but has stagnated for a variety of reasons. So there's domestic pressure to push ahead with the nuke program because it's become a big part of that policy.

 

Can we afford not to take Ahmadinejad at his word?

 

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

 

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government

rallies. . . .

 

But Ahmadinejad instead spoke of a "historic war".

 

"It dates backs hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he lamented.

 

"One hundred years ago the last trench of Islam fell, when the oppressors went towards the creation the Zionist regime. It is using it as a fort to spread its aims in the heart of the Islamic world."

 

While I understand that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the entire Iranian government, I would not underestimate the appeal of a demagogue referring to a past ethic or national humiliation.

[mr d]

hello

 

i would say i wouldn't be concerned so much with iran having a nuclear weapon and launching it, as much as officals there might sale-give a nuclear weapon to extremist factions based outside their nation. if iran was to lauch a weapon at the us or isreal within minutes a retalitory strike would be sent in responce. if you may recall the first gulf war america's placement of large numbers of patriot antimissle systems inside isreal for its protection. but the main reason was not to protect isreal so much as to gain a pledge them from them not to launching chemical and nuclear retaliation if america used its troops and technology to defend isreal, and isreali losses were kept within exceptable limits.

isreal is not a small helpless nation that needs protection, but can take care of themselves very well millitarily.

but you give that nuclear weapon to a terrorist group based in say london, who subsiquently detonate it in paris. well the french are not going to launch a strike against england.

we in the west view iran as an islamic state exporting terrorism, to them with america's invasions of afganistan and iraq they are now an isolated nation surround on all sides by nation friendly to or occupied by western forces. add to this the fact were once they had the added protection from china and the soviet union, they no longer have a big brother to back them up. such as what recently occurred with north korea. the politcal leaders rattled the nuclear enrichment threat, china basically warned the u.s. of consequences of and invasion as to how they are not about to let the u.s. occupy north korea. however the chinese also need the markets and investments from western nation so they helped broker a deal whereby the west infused money into north korea for their pledge to stop.

iran has no such big brother, if western forces, mainly the u.s., decided to invade they could expect little more than half hearted protests from some former eastern block allies. some of these countries now facing religious seperatist movements of their own would secretly even support a such a move. the leaders or iran know this, a reason for no iranian troops pouring across the border to expell the occupying infidels. they also know without western money their regime stands a chance of falling due to economic unrest. sanctions on trade from the west are causing more and more discontent amoung the populous, and a disintigrating of the countries economic infrastructure.

So now the leaders are afraid. but they figure if they have nuclear weapons and state that they will use them, western countries then will reconsider any plans to invade and they get to keep power.

what will happen

cool heads in iran prevail: lots of yelling, sabre rattling on both side, third party steps in as in north korea to broker a deal involving investment- trade- sanction lifting- promises not to try a regime change by supporting internal disident factions with a blind eye to regime disposal- cleansing of such disidents.

 

hot heads prevail continued developement:

1) if time allows: first very heavy world sanctions. hoping for collaspe iof iranian economy to insite domestic regime change to more favorable one. followed if that fails by selective targeting of enrichment facilities most likely sanctioned by united nations. still fails, coalition formed to remove regime before developement complete.

 

2) less time available: us-allie countries covertly supply materials and information if needed to allow isreal to launch a preemptive conventional air-strike against facilities. if you'll recall the 80's and a little incident in iraq. isreal will claim it was nessisary for its own protection, u.s.- allies decry attack, level minor trade restriction that will be gotten around. u.s.- allies offer aid, and secretly funnel money to iran's former eastern block allies who scream even more about such an action and the west's involvement, who then offer their own aid which is secretly funded by the west.

iran still going ahead - coalition.

 

mr d

 

ps. since i wrote nuclear, islamic, attack, plus other fun words several times. hello to the crew over at the cia, nsa, homeland security, mi-6......

[Sisyphus]

ps. since i wrote nuclear' date=' islamic, attack, plus other fun words several times. hello to the crew over at the cia, nsa, homeland security, mi-6......[/quote']

 

I doubt they'd be able to decipher the total lack of capitalization.

[aguy2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4871078.stm

 

 

Is it at all possible that Iran already has the nuclear capabilities to deliver a multiple warhead missle through the ocean?

Any bets on how they achieved the high speeds? My guess is they eject air out its nose and the missle/torpedo 'flies' through the water.

aguy2

[Skye]

Assuming we have the ability to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, what is wrong with the language? Of course the answer to my question depends on the relative risks of action vrs. inaction.

Well if you are are resolute in going to war to prevent Iran getting nukes then the language is fine. I don't think the US people or government have reached that position yet, so I think that the language isn't the best possible.

Can we afford not to take Ahmadinejad at his word?

No. But my point in there was that there's some domestic political importance to what he's saying about nuclear energy, so it's not just a front to get the nukes.

While I understand that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the entire Iranian government, I would not underestimate the appeal of a demagogue referring to a past ethic or national humiliation.

Well yeah, Ahmadinejad is difficult. But there are plenty of Zionists who use similar language. And the Axis of Evil talk isn't helpful. So sure it's not a good sign, but it's still just talk at this stage. People just need to stop talking each other into a war that nobody really wants.

[Jim]

Well if you are are resolute in going to war to prevent Iran getting nukes then the language is fine. I don't think the US people or government have reached that position yet, so I think that the language isn't the best possible.

 

I'm not resolute in going to war. I have no idea whether a war would be effective in eliminating the threat or how long Iran will take to get nukes. I still do not know what, in particular, you find problematic with the question.

 

No. But my point in there was that there's some domestic political importance to what he's saying about nuclear energy, so it's not just a front to get the nukes.

 

When you say "it's not just a front to get nukes," you seem to concede that it is at least partially a front to get nukes. I frankly do not care if they have dual motivations since the relevant question is whether, in fact, Iran intends to end up with nukes. Of course they do.

 

Well yeah, Ahmadinejad is difficult. But there are plenty of Zionists who use similar language. And the Axis of Evil talk isn't helpful. So sure it's not a good sign, but it's still just talk at this stage. People just need to stop talking each other into a war that nobody really wants.

 

Well, yeah, but the US and Israel have nukes and haven't blown up the world yet, have they? The US and Israel are not theocracies. We need to keep talking so long as the talk is a result of careful thought about what is in the national interest.

[YT2095]

ignoring all the sabre rattling and belicose language, this is the guy that wants Israel "wiped off the map".

I recon we give the workers in these plants a 20 minute warning then drop a MOAB on each facility.

 

IF diplomacy and negotiations fail that is

[Dave]

I don't think there's any question about what they plan to do with the nuclear material. There's already been an offer from Russia to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel plants on behalf of Iran, which was rejected extremely quickly.

 

My own personal opinion is that we should only consider military action if it has the full support of the international community, and moreover if there is clear evidence of an imminent threat. There's a big difference between Ahmadinejad talking up the destruction of Israel and then actually going nuclear on them; I just don't see this as entirely plausible myself.

[Sayonara]

I don't think there's any question about what they plan to do with the nuclear material. There's already been an offer from Russia to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel plants on behalf of Iran, which was rejected extremely quickly.

If you were Iran, would you want your heavily-invested atomic energy industry to be effectively controlled by Russia through fuel supply?

[Dave]

Personally, I believe that it would have been the smart thing to do. If they truly wanted uranium enriched for the sole purposes of nuclear power, then they could have perhaps considered it as a possibility. If not from Russia, then another supplier, or multiple suppliers.

 

The point I was trying to convey, albeit poorly, is that there have been a lot of options thrown on the table which have all been rejected. They are clearly determined to perform the enrichment by themselves, and moreover they know that this isn't going to be looked kindly upon by the international community. So one has to wonder whether their intentions are honest at all.

[Pangloss]

My own personal opinion is that we should only consider military action if it has the full support of the international community' date=' and moreover if there is clear evidence of an imminent threat. There's a big difference between Ahmadinejad talking up the destruction of Israel and then actually going nuclear on them; I just don't see this as entirely plausible myself.[/quote']

 

While I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but wonder what WOULD constitute "clear evidence of an imminent threat". Mind you I'm not asking what *you* would consider such, but what would everyone agree was such.

 

Maybe the international community should be debating *that*.

[Jim]

If you were Iran, would you want your heavily-invested atomic energy industry to be effectively controlled by Russia through fuel supply?

 

If I were Iran, I'd want nukes.

[Dave]

While I agree with the sentiment' date=' I can't help but wonder what WOULD constitute "clear evidence of an imminent threat". Mind you I'm not asking what *you* would consider such, but what would everyone agree was such.

 

Maybe the international community should be debating *that*.[/quote']

 

Yes, I had thought that after I'd posted it

 

The trouble is, by the time you have the evidence and have a consensus from the international community, the rockets are long gone and the damage is already done. Plus, after Iraq, everybody is going to be sure to triple-check their sources and intelligence before going to the UN about it anyway.

[Sayonara]

If I were Iran, I'd want nukes.

That's not really adding anything to the discussion, is it?

 

The point I was trying to convey, albeit poorly, is that there have been a lot of options thrown on the table which have all been rejected. They are clearly determined to perform the enrichment by themselves, and moreover they know that this isn't going to be looked kindly upon by the international community. So one has to wonder whether their intentions are honest at all.

"Economics" and "pride" are both far more likely than "want to make themselves the West's next big target."

[Jim]

That's not really adding anything to the discussion' date=' is it?

[/quote']

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. You said:

 

If you were Iran, would you want your heavily-invested atomic energy industry to be effectively controlled by Russia through fuel supply?

 

I thought you were making the point that it was less likely that Iran wanted nuclear weapons given that they genuinely might want to acquire peaceful nuclear technologies albeit at considerable cost but did not want that peaceful investment held hostage by Russia? However, if we put ourselves in Iran's position, it is a no-brainer that they would want nuclear weapons. Israel has them and it would give Iran the muscle to match the rhetoric. I've now used more words to make the same point which seems kind of unnecessary but I do not want to be accused of not adding to the discussion.

[Sayonara]

"Using more words" was the goal.

Simply stating "if... then..." doesn't let us know what's going on in your head

 

 

It may seem like a no-brainer that Iran might want nuclear weapons, but that doesn't mean they will risk building them.

[pcs]

While I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but wonder what WOULD constitute "clear evidence of an imminent threat".

 

Enrichment, period. Once that cat's out of the bag it's not a hard leap to go from 25 to better than 50 percent U235, and even uranium enriched to a plurality of U235 content is dangerous enough as a terrorist threat.

 

Maybe the international community should be debating *that*.

 

That debate is over; Israel and the US have pinpointed enrichment as the tipping point. For all intents and purposes, their strategic estimate holds that Iran is a nuclear threat now.