News Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?

[zoobyshoe]

"We are ready to attack Iran..."

The United States has acknowledged the existence of a fully-fledged military plan to attack Iran, significantly increasing tensions with Tehran before crucial nuclear negotiations next week.

Daniel Shapiro, Washington's ambassador to Israel, warned the Iranian regime that only "a brief window" now existed to settle the impasse over its nuclear program through talks.

Issuing one of the most candid assessments yet made by a senior American official, he assured Israel that, if diplomacy failed, the United States was fully prepared to resort to military force to end the threat that the Jewish state says it faces from a nuclear-armed Iran. "At a certain stage we are going to have to decide whether diplomacy isn't going to work," he told the Israeli Bar Association.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/ready+attack+Iran+admits/6639863/story.html

 

[turbo]

[conspiracy theory deleted] Do we need another huge war in the ME? And do we need to pay for it and sacrifice the lives of service-members? I hate this gamesmanship and the potential that the end-game (war) could be be forced on us for the sake of politics, and not not necessity.

 

[Tosh5457]

Nice way to go to a WW3, Russia and China already said some weeks ago they'd support Iran. It's a consequence of the "alliance" (I don't like to call it alliance, because I don't see reciprocity) with Israel, which in turn is a consequence of the influence the rich zionist lobbies have in Washington.

 

[Hurkyl]

[response to conspiracy theory deleted]

Do we need another huge war in the ME?

An interesting topic. Since you obviously think not, would you care to share your reasons why you think it's not worth going to war over?

And do we need to pay for it and sacrifice the lives of service-members?

How else do you pay for war? Are you suggesting that we go back to fighting wars by proxy?

I hate this gamesmanship

What does this have to do with anything?

and the potential that the end-game (war) could be be forced on us for the sake of politics, and not not necessity.

Wars are never necessary. The other guy could always decide to give you want you want. You always have the option to abandon everything worth fighting for.

 

[Tosh5457]

[conspiracy theory deleted]

An interesting topic. Since you obviously think not, would you care to share your reasons why you think it's not worth going to war over?

It's the contrary: when you're preparing to go into a war, you're the one who has to give the reasons for it.

 

[turbo]

It's the contrary: when you're preparing to go into a war, you're the one who has to give the reasons for it.

Not in the US. The people hell-bent for war give lame excuses, not real reasons, which is why there are so many Iraqi refugees and so many Iraqi dead. War is big business and wars of choice kill so many of our young service members along with innocent foreigners. We don't need more of this. Stop the aggression, so fewer people will die. If the US is attacked (by whom, BTW?) there might be some justification for a war, but picking sides in some conflict half-way across the world (or starting one!) is hardly a justifiable reason for risking our troops. I have a nephew who is a lifer and might be retiring in the next few years, and I don't want to see his daughter's father killed off for the sake of a war of choice. I have a lot of beefs with Ron Paul and his ideas, but we're on the same page with this one.

 

[chiro]

The thing with war is that philosophically or idealistically, people will always choose whatever way that either suits them or that they can rationalize for war and unfortunately people with ideologies are very hard pressed to have their views change and this is whether they are right in some respects, wrong in others or some other kind of extreme.

I don't like to criticize people completely no matter how insane their outlook because a lot of people sincerely believe things that they have been told and some believe this with the conviction that it is really 'the right thing to do'. I don't know about right and wrong: the only thing I know is that everything is relative and that everything has consequences and from these causes and effects, we all decide individually and collectively the world that we individually and collectively want to live in. If we decide to choose war, then we will face the consequences of war but I'm pretty certain that if people knew what it was really like in war-like situations then most people would not support it.

However one thing that I think everyone can agree on that has no link to ideology is the effect that war has economically.

War drains resources in every possible way and it takes resources away from the public. It's the whole butter or guns idea but taken to a lot higher of a level.

People can justify anything the way they want (and they do and they will keep doing), but everyone can put aside their differences and agree that war is economically the stupidest thing to do and this translates to a situation where everything literally breaks down, and no-matter what kind of person you are, you can't deny this effect no matter what kind of views you hold.

 

[russ_watters]

How many times have we had this discussion?? The military plans for war. That's their job. These plans may have little connection with the political realities of if the wars will happen, but that doesn't matter very much: the military must be prepared in advance for a very wide variety of possibilities.

 

[Jack21222]

Don't we also have contingency plans to invade Canada?

What I don't like is the chest-thumping drum-beating I'm hearing. I think that's more likely to isolate Iran further from the international community than it is to bring them together for negotiations.

If we follow through with our threat to attack Iran based on their desire for nuclear power (and on mere suspicion of nuclear weapons), I might need to leave this country.

But I hope russ is right, and that this has nothing to do with the "political realities of if the wards will happen."

 

[SHISHKABOB]

How many times have we had this discussion?? The military plans for war. That's their job. These plans may have little connection with the political realities of if the wars will happen, but that doesn't matter very much: the military must be prepared in advance for a very wide variety of possibilities.

The Pentagon has contingencies for everything, but they don't say "oh hey China, we've got a contingency for nuking the hell out of you in case you go and try to do this" unless they've got a good reason to say it.

 

[Andre]

Russ is absolutely correct, military strategical/tactical plans are just toolboxes waiting on the shelf, nothing more.

But it's the group polarization (group=nation here) that's the worrying thing, remember we couldn't find those weapons of mass destruction before.

It was to be desired that more people recognized the mechanism discussed here.

Turbo is absolutely right too, only diplomacy can help, and take them to the bar and buy them a beer.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How many times have we had this discussion?? The military plans for war. That's their job. These plans may have little connection with the political realities of if the wars will happen, but that doesn't matter very much: the military must be prepared in advance for a very wide variety of possibilities.

Agreed. There's been a rather large series of exercises across the UK recently that have made the news, the various sectors of the armed forces have played a number of war games simulating all sorts of scenarios including if a cyber attack disrupted communications and infrastructure across the country. That's what they're there for.

The fault here lies with whoever started making these statements. It's one thing for your military to plan for multiple eventualities but it's quite another to brag about your plans against another country in a way that could be construded as aggressive. There's a significant difference between being prepared for an eventuality and preparing for an eventuality.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's one thing for your military to plan for multiple eventualities but it's quite another to brag about your plans against another country in a way that could be construded as aggressive.

I've reread the story a couple times and I think what prompted this aggressive tone is explained here:

Mr Shapiro's robust language was aimed at reinforcing President Barack Obama's pledge that he "has Israel's back" and comes amid U.S. fears that Benjamin Netanyahu, the country's prime minister, could authorize unilateral Israeli military action.

I think the remarks were aimed less at Iran and more at Israel. There's a clear indication that Israel is chomping at the bit, and wants to start something soon, completely on its own. Rattling our sabre at Iran was quite likely intended to assure Israel that action can be delayed quite a bit more without putting them in a worse position, that we "have their back".

 

[Jasongreat]

Turbo, there have been three wars neo-cons have gotten us into, the Iraq war, Afganistan and the civil war. Liberals have gotten us into world war 1, world war2, vietnam. If I went into it further the numbers wouldn equal out as well, conservatives have gotten us into 0.0! You can't compare apples and apples and make an argument.

 

[rootX]

Agreed. There's been a rather large series of exercises across the UK recently that have made the news, the various sectors of the armed forces have played a number of war games simulating all sorts of scenarios including if a cyber attack disrupted communications and infrastructure across the country. That's what they're there for.

The fault here lies with whoever started making these statements. It's one thing for your military to plan for multiple eventualities but it's quite another to brag about your plans against another country in a way that could be construded as aggressive. There's a significant difference between being prepared for an eventuality and preparing for an eventuality.

I believe bragging about simulations is a part of the psychological warfare (or propaganda). Perhaps, US wants to let Iran know that it's all prepared to carry out an attack.

Few other related examples could be when US released selected Laden documents or when North Korea released fake missile pictures

(But another motive, he suggests, might be quite explicitly "to change some details and drive the other side's analysts crazy, or to pretend that you have something that you actually don't have. There is a very long history of this last aspect.")

All I am trying to get at is releasing correct/wrong information about your activities to influence your enemies' actions is very common practice.

 

[Hurkyl]

The making of a plan to attack Iran doesn't directly have anything to do with the power the neo-cons have, but the things reaching to this critical point where the military have to make a plan of attack, shows they're in control. If it wasn't for them, I very much doubt US army would now be preparing for a war.

Even if true, is this really relevant to the thread, or just looking for an excuse to soapbox on one's favorite topics?

It's the contrary: when you're preparing to go into a war, you're the one who has to give the reasons for it.

The reasons to prepare for war are obvious -- if a war is to happen, it's better to be prepared for it than to be caught flat-footed.

But I assume you mean something closer to "gearing up for war".


The one advocating a position has a burden to defend their position. While Turbo phrases himself as a question, it's clear that they were meant rhetorically and he's pushing an anti-war stance.

And, as far as I can tell, the sentiment he's pushing is completely oblivious to the situation at hand. If all he is doing is spouting the generic "war is bad" ideology then he is detracting from the discussion.

Why is this detracting from the discussion? First off, it adds nothing -- everybody already knows the generic "war is bad". Simply stating the fact won't influence someone who already decided that it's worth going to war anyways, and has the potential to turn off the minds of those who believe it's not worth going to war as they rally around the empty comment.

 

[chiro]

While I agree that nation states have a right to defend their own territory and sovereignty, the thing about attacks like the Iranian one is that this kind of action does not constitute any kind of defensive action whatsoever, but is more or less offensive in nature.

Iran hasn't done anything and they have not created an offensive action against the United States.

This whole 'pre-emptive' crap is just that: crap. This dangerous thing sets a precedent that every kind of excuse for something that 'may happen' used as a pretext for some kind of war is really really sad.

If nation states want to protect themselves, their citizens, their land and resources and their sovereignty then fine, let them do that: I don't blame them. But when you get someone doing an offensive action and claiming the reason as a 'pre-textual' or 'pre-emptive' one, then all that is being done is to use linguistic tricks to hide an otherwise offensive behaviour.

 

[Tosh5457]

Even if true, is this really relevant to the thread, or just looking for an excuse to soapbox on one's favorite topics?

The neo-conservatives, the Middle East wars (which are connected to the neo-conservatives) and this news don't have anything to do with each other? This would be another Middle East war... I only assumed that if something is obviously connected to this news, it should be posted, and that's what I did.

But I assume you mean something closer to "gearing up for war".

I meant: When you want to go to a war, you're the one who has to give reasons for it.

he one advocating a position has a burden to defend their position. While Turbo phrases himself as a question, it's clear that they were meant rhetorically and he's pushing an anti-war stance.

And, as far as I can tell, the sentiment he's pushing is completely oblivious to the situation at hand. If all he is doing is spouting the generic "war is bad" ideology then he is detracting from the discussion.

Why is this detracting from the discussion? First off, it adds nothing -- everybody already knows the generic "war is bad". Simply stating the fact won't influence someone who already decided that it's worth going to war anyways, and has the potential to turn off the minds of those who believe it's not worth going to war as they rally around the empty comment.

I know turbo was pushing an anti-war stance, and what I said was that he doesn't have to defend his position at this point (war's negative consequences are too well known, is it even worth it posting them here?), when nobody even gave any reason for going to war - the people who are pro-war are the ones who have to defend their position right now. And since there wasn't any discussion before, he wasn't detracting from the discussion. If it was on a middle of a discussion, with people presenting arguments in favor of war, then I agree he'd be detracting from the discussion.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Nobel winner Günter Grass faults Israel for claiming a “first-strike” justification
To attack Iran, as it destroyed both Iraq’s reactor and Syria’s nuclear installation
His poem “What Must Be Said” was derided with “anti-Semitic!” condemnation
And his unwanted permission to visit Israel with visa was subjected to revocation
Israel’s clamoring to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities is a propaganda manipulation
An adversary’s development of nuclear capability equals a “casus belli” violation
Such that it requires immediate diplomatic, clandestine, and military mobilization

Israeli poet Itamar Yaoz-Kest counter-attacked Grass with great moral indignation
Using a fantastic interpretation of news reports to design a fabricated motivation
Claiming in stentorian tones the “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” allegation
And using his status as a Holocaust survivor to bolster his own pronunciation
While ignoring Charlie Rose’s public interview with Ahmadinejad’s explanation:

“The Soviet Union doesn't exist on the map anymore, now it’s Russia.
Doesn't mean all Russians are dead.
In South Africa the apartheid regime doesn't exist anymore.
Doesn't mean that all South Africans are dead.”

Yaoz-Kest’s false propaganda argument is obviously a fallacy by equivocation
And he continued with arrogant authority to spew out the following vulgarization:

“Nevertheless, there is a right belonging only to the Jews. This is the right to take with us as we are being annihilated this satiated world, grand libraries and spiritually uplifting music and all – into the nothingness, to share our ruin and our descent into the grave. Then radioactive rays will poison the four directions of the sky for all the inhabitants of earth.

Yes, we have the right!/ and this is also my right!/ the right of the people of Israel to close shut the creaking gates of the world/ upon its final descent from the stage of history/with the power of the final weapon/ and we have the right to declare/ at the price of the great fear born of three thousand years/ “If you force us again to descend from the face of the Earth to its depths/,the entire globe will be turned back into nothingness.”

 

[zoobyshoe]

Nobel winner Günter Grass faults Israel for claiming a “first-strike” justification...[etc]

Which lends much credence to what i said in post #13. The US is probably not rattling its saber here to intimidate Iran so much as to mollify Israel.

 

[ThomasT]

Which lends much credence to what i said in post #13. The US is probably not rattling its saber here to intimidate Iran so much as to mollify Israel.

The title of the thread says that the US is ready to attack Iran, and, from what I've read, that seems to be the case. In my opinion, in line with the stated positions of the Israeli and US governments, Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

It does, however, seem that Iran is stalling in order to have time to develop nuclear weapons. So, I have to conclude that some sort of attack by Israel and the US is imminent.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The title of the thread says that the US is ready to attack Iran, and, from what I've read, that seems to be the case. In my opinion, in line with the stated positions of the Israeli and US governments, Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

It does, however, seem that Iran is stalling in order to have time to develop nuclear weapons. So, I have to conclude that some sort of attack by Israel and the US is imminent.

Heading Into Talks With Iran, U.S. Sees Hopeful Signs

By MARK LANDLER
Published: May 18, 2012


WASHINGTON — American negotiators, heading into a crucial round of talks with Iran over its nuclear program next week in Baghdad, are allowing themselves a rare emotion after more than a decade of fruitless haggling with Tehran: hope.

With signs that Iran is under more pressure than it has been in years to make a deal, senior Obama administration officials said the United States and five other major powers were prepared to offer a package of inducements to obtain a verifiable agreement to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium closer to weapons grade.

These gestures, the officials said, could include easing restrictions on things like airplane parts and technical assistance to Iran’s energy industry, but not the sweeping sanctions on oil exports, which officials said would go into effect on schedule in July.

The oil sanctions, which the Iranians are seeking desperately to avoid, are one of several factors that American officials believe may make Tehran more amenable to exploring a diplomatic solution...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/w...e-promising-signs-for-iran-nuclear-talks.html

 

[QuarkCharmer]

This might sound ignorant (especially considering I know nothing of politics) but why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology? Was the United States appointed governor of the known world? Who decides that country A can do something and that country B cannot? The UN? What if said country did not want to be a part of the UN?

 

[tiny-tim]

… why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology?

john donne, 1572-1631, dean of st paul's cathedral …

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
…
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.​

(http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/)

 

[SHISHKABOB]

This might sound ignorant (especially considering I know nothing of politics) but why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology? Was the United States appointed governor of the known world? Who decides that country A can do something and that country B cannot? The UN? What if said country did not want to be a part of the UN?

Powerful country wants something. Powerful country has the ability to do that, so it goes and does that.

Weak country wants something. Probably won't get it.

That's how I see it. Power rules.

 

[Bobbywhy]

This might sound ignorant (especially considering I know nothing of politics) but why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology? Was the United States appointed governor of the known world? Who decides that country A can do something and that country B cannot? The UN? What if said country did not want to be a part of the UN?

QuarkCharmer, good questions! On the one hand, it seems like a smart thing to try to limit more nations from getting nuclear weapon capability in the interest of everyone’s safety and security. Here’s who has them now: United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

But on the other hand, are these Nuclear Powers the only “privileged” ones? Do they have the authority to deny Iran the capability to make “the bomb? Why is it we “allow” Pakistan and Israel, for example, to keep atomic bombs and not Iran?

Moral questions aside, I agree with ThomasT and SHISHKABOB, that considering the recent troop and ship buildup in the Persian Gulf, it sure looks like the U.S. and its allies (including Israel) are not going to allow Iran to gain that capability.

Gunboats, Super-Torpedoes, Sea-Bots: U.S. Navy Launches Huge Iran Surge
By Spencer Ackerman
March 16, 2012
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-persian-gulf/
Navy says it will add ships to Persian Gulf amid Iran threats
March 17, 2012
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...-will-add-ships-aircraft-to-persian-gulf.html

Navy deploys 2nd aircraft carrier to Persian Gulf; USS Enterprise joins Abraham Lincoln strike group
April 9, 2012 7:15 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57411165/navy-deploys-2nd-aircraft-carrier-to-persian-gulf-uss-enterprise-joins-abraham-lincoln-strike-group/

United States Nuclear Sub Heads Towards Persian Gulf
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/01/us-nuclear-sub-heads-towards-persian-gulf/

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/w...e-promising-signs-for-iran-nuclear-talks.html

The Obama administration wants to delay any military action until after the election. The Netanyah administration wants to strike before the enrichment and other facilities become impregnable. Delays (arguably) increase Obama's chances of reelection, but diminish the prospects of preventing Iran from eventually developing nuclear weapons. Just my current opinion.

It comes down, imo, to how real one thinks Iran's threats to destroy Israel are. Would a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran effectively destroy itself in order to destroy Israel?

No way to know. But it seems to me that Israel can't afford to take the chance. So, I expect airstrikes (by Israel on certain Iranian targets) in the forseeable future.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It comes down, imo, to how real one thinks Iran's threats to destroy Israel are. Would a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran effectively destroy itself in order to destroy Israel?

Where's the evidence that Iran has a political mandate that it wants to do this and that it is working towards pulling it off? Aggressive statements from political figures is a very different thing from active policy.

Also has anyone given serious thought to the long term ramifications of any action? IMO it's beyond the scope of the US military (and economy) to occupy Iran, especially for any length of time. Therefore there's a restriction to precision air strikes; OK so let's say that this happens and their nuclear infrastructure is completely destroyed. How will the ~80 million Iranians react to that? How is that going to affect the political landscape of the future?

 

[ThomasT]

Where's the evidence that Iran has a political mandate that it wants to do this and that it is working towards pulling it off? Aggressive statements from political figures is a very different thing from active policy.

Point taken. The problem is that key Iranian political figures have made such statements. Should the government of Israel ignore them, or take them seriously? If Israel can possibly deter or prevent Iran, via airstrikes, from developing nuclear weapons, then there seems to me to be good reason to believe that Israel will do that.

Also has anyone given serious thought to the long term ramifications of any action? IMO it's beyond the scope of the US military (and economy) to occupy Iran, especially for any length of time. Therefore there's a restriction to precision air strikes; OK so let's say that this happens and their nuclear infrastructure is completely destroyed. How will the ~80 million Iranians react to that? How is that going to affect the political landscape of the future?

These are important questions, but are beyond the scope of the OP, imo.

Generally speaking, if one perceives an immediate threat to one's survival, than one deals with that regardless of possible entailments.

 

[KiwiKid]

Point taken. The problem is that key Iranian political figures have made such statements. Should the government of Israel ignore them, or take them seriously? If Israel can possibly deter or prevent Iran, via airstrikes, from developing nuclear weapons, then there seems to me to be good reason to believe that Israel will do that.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there have also been plenty of US senators and political figures in Israel who have made similar statements towards Iran. If people claim to want to destroy my country and have nukes, I'd want nukes, too - if only to avoid the aforementioned thing from happening.

 

[russ_watters]

This might sound ignorant (especially considering I know nothing of politics) but why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology? Was the United States appointed governor of the known world? Who decides that country A can do something and that country B cannot? The UN? What if said country did not want to be a part of the UN?

It isn't very complicated:

1. Yes, indeed, Iran (and most countries) is forbidden from having nuclear weapons by international law (treaty): They signed the Non-Proliferation treaty.

2. As a more practical political matter, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, who says or hints on a regular basis that they have violent intentions toward us and our allies. Even without the NPT, a nuclear armed Iran is not seen as a peaceful influence.

3. Being the biggest kid on the block, we have the responsibility - if we choose to accept it - of being the primary enforcer of international law in the world.

4. Yes, Iran could drop out of the UN and the NPT, but doing so would be a very hostile act and one that would risk full isolation from the world community (see: North Korea). Since Iran's wealth comes from selling oil, that would be very bad for them.

 

[russ_watters]

Where's the evidence that Iran has a political mandate that it wants to do this and that it is working towards pulling it off? Aggressive statements from political figures is a very different thing from active policy.

How so?

Also has anyone given serious thought to the long term ramifications of any action? IMO it's beyond the scope of the US military (and economy) to occupy Iran, especially for any length of time. Therefore there's a restriction to precision air strikes; OK so let's say that this happens and their nuclear infrastructure is completely destroyed. How will the ~80 million Iranians react to that? How is that going to affect the political landscape of the future?

Well that's what has to be weighed. On the one hand you have to speculate about how an anti-nuclear strike would affect the political landscape of Iran in the future and on the other hand you have to speculate about how a nuclear strike would affect the physical landscape of Tel Aviv and New York. Both action and non-action carry risks.

 

[ThomasT]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there have also been plenty of US senators and political figures in Israel who have made similar statements towards Iran. If people claim to want to destroy my country and have nukes, I'd want nukes, too - if only to avoid the aforementioned thing from happening.

Point taken. I'm not expressing any opinions about the justifiability of Iran's nuclear program. Just that I think that Iran having nuclear weapons is seen as being contrary to US and Israel interests by US and Israel administrations, and that I agree that both the US and Israel are ready to attack Iran.

 

[russ_watters]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there have also been plenty of US senators and political figures in Israel who have made similar statements towards Iran. If people claim to want to destroy my country and have nukes, I'd want nukes, too - if only to avoid the aforementioned thing from happening.

Have there? I'd like to see those statements to see just how similar they are.

I'd also note that a senator is not the President.

 

[KiwiKid]

Have there? I'd like to see those statements to see just how similar they are.

Yes, there have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham#Foreign_policy

I'd also note that a senator is not the President.

I agree. I don't particularly like the idea of Iran having nuclear weapon capability, either. My point is that from a certain point of view, their reactions makes sense.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The Obama administration wants to delay any military action until after the election. The Netanyah administration wants to strike before the enrichment and other facilities become impregnable. Delays (arguably) increase Obama's chances of reelection, but diminish the prospects of preventing Iran from eventually developing nuclear weapons. Just my current opinion.

It comes down, imo, to how real one thinks Iran's threats to destroy Israel are. Would a nuclear-weapons-capable Iran effectively destroy itself in order to destroy Israel?

No way to know. But it seems to me that Israel can't afford to take the chance. So, I expect airstrikes (by Israel on certain Iranian targets) in the forseeable future.

Israel wants to attack them yesterday, yes. And, there's no doubt the US will attack if Iran refuses to concede to demands. We did it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The article, though, indicates the US now sees Iran's as engaging in face-saving obfuscation before caving:

...and Americans believe that recent blustery statements from Iranian officials are laying the groundwork for concessions by Tehran.

But American officials said that at a minimum, the Baghdad meeting should be a genuine test of Iran’s willingness to do more than talk. “They’re nervous enough to talk,” said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the negotiations. “Whether they’re nervous enough to act, we don’t know yet.” Another senior official said, “We have a tail wind going into this.”

Moreover, Mr. Ross said, Iran’s recent statements signal that its leaders are preparing their domestic audience for concessions. Iranian officials have declared that the West has effectively endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a step they portrayed as a major strategic coup. American officials insist the United States has not done that and has been deliberately ambiguous about whether it would ever grant Iran the right to enrichment.

Still, as Mr. Ross said, “if you’re looking for a way to present a compromise, you want to present it as a victory.”

The US appears to be willing to intimidate them into slowly crumbling, while they spin that to the Iranian public as some sort of achievement.

 

[Tosh5457]

This might sound ignorant (especially considering I know nothing of politics) but why exactly are we so concerned with Iran developing nuclear technology? Was the United States appointed governor of the known world? Who decides that country A can do something and that country B cannot? The UN? What if said country did not want to be a part of the UN?

Impressive that none of the answers told you that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons goes against the interests of Israel, and that the lobbies CUI, AIPAC and CPMJO (pro-Israel lobbies) have a huge influence in US congress, senate and on the president (by donating to their fundraisings).

Knowing that, you have to see the conflicts of US with the Middle East in the perspective of Israel (in US perspective, they don't make any sense). So there's your answer, Israel is worried about Iran developing nuclear technology for obvious reasons, so USA foreign policy goes that way.

Also has anyone given serious thought to the long term ramifications of any action? IMO it's beyond the scope of the US military (and economy) to occupy Iran, especially for any length of time. Therefore there's a restriction to precision air strikes; OK so let's say that this happens and their nuclear infrastructure is completely destroyed. How will the ~80 million Iranians react to that? How is that going to affect the political landscape of the future?

Long term? You don't need to go that far. You have to worry about the short term consequences first:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warns USA on attacking Iran - RussiaToday

Chinese Major General Zhang Zhaozhong says China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War - EUTimes

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, there have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham#Foreign_policy

All he's suggesting is a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. That's a far cry from saying he wants to invade/annihilate Iran, as [President] A-Jad says about Israel. I don't see that to be a very level comparison.

http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_4

 

[russ_watters]

Israel wants to attack them yesterday, yes. And, there's no doubt the US will attack if Iran refuses to concede to demands. We did it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's pretty poor logic, easily shown to be flawed, considering that we're not even talking about the same things! Afghanistan wasn't about nuclear weapons and the idea of invading Iran is not on the table. Not to mention, other countries (N. Korea) have gotten nukes on our watch.

So yes, what comes of this is very much up in the air.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's pretty poor logic, easily shown to be flawed, considering that we're not even talking about the same things! Afghanistan wasn't about nuclear weapons and the idea of invading Iran is not on the table. Not to mention, other countries (N. Korea) have gotten nukes on our watch.

What's the same in all three cases, (Iraq war #1 & #2, Afghanistan) is that we made it clear we would attack if certain things weren't reversed. When they weren't reversed, we attacked. The US is not more or less likely to back up its warnings based on the specific issue. When the issue is important enough to issue warnings of attack, it follows through.

We never drew a definite line in the sand like this in the case of North Korea. There's still talk about getting them to negotiate.

So yes, what comes of this is very much up in the air.

Only in so far as Iran's eventual compliance is up in the air.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not seeing a specific line in the sand for Iran. Can you tell me where it is?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not seeing a specific line in the sand for Iran. Can you tell me where it is?

Shifting back to "definite" line, which is the word I used, not "specific":

Daniel Shapiro, Washington's ambassador to Israel, warned the Iranian regime that only "a brief window" now existed to settle the impasse over its nuclear program through talks.

Issuing one of the most candid assessments yet made by a senior American official, he assured Israel that, if diplomacy failed, the United States was fully prepared to resort to military force to end the threat that the Jewish state says it faces from a nuclear-armed Iran. "At a certain stage we are going to have to decide whether diplomacy isn't going to work," he told the Israeli Bar Association.

This is a definite line: if diplomacy fails. The part about there being "only 'a brief window'" makes it clear we have set ourselves some kind of short time limit on how long we'll put up with lack of progress.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's an extremely interesting article written by two Iranian analysts explaining a complex rivalry in the Iranian government that has a direct bearing on the talks. These two journalists fault the Obama administration for not being aware of the factional division and how it applies. That being the case, they predict the talks will fail.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NE16Ak02.html

 

[daveb]

Iran can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

I keep hearing this line but I have yet to see a legitimate (i.e., legal) reason this is true. While it might (and I stress might) be moral to disallow a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran, what is the legal precedent? What is it tht makes it OK for the US, Russia, etc. to possesses nuclear weapons, but disallows other countries? While it's true Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, there are no consistent enforcement provisions that have been applied across the spectrum of countries that have signed, nor even to specific countries over the years. So, if these countries can flout the NNPT, why can't Iran?

In the case of Iran, Sokolski said, the United States years ago effectively "conceded the right [of Iran]" to a nuclear program -- even though this was the opposite of what should have happened under the NPT. He called the policy of tolerating an Iranian nuclear program as "unacceptable." "Talking is no substitute for action," Sokolski stressed, stating that the current sanctions, although "moving in the right direction," are still twenty years too late and "hardly action enough."

http://www.rferl.org/content/pressrelease/1105915.html
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2005/03/24/enforcing-compliance-with-non-proliferation-treaty/4oy

 

[ThomasT]

I keep hearing this line but I have yet to see a legitimate (i.e., legal) reason this is true. While it might (and I stress might) be moral to disallow a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran, what is the legal precedent? What is it tht makes it OK for the US, Russia, etc. to possesses nuclear weapons, but disallows other countries? While it's true Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, there are no consistent enforcement provisions that have been applied across the spectrum of countries that have signed, nor even to specific countries over the years. So, if these countries can flout the NNPT, why can't Iran?

I don't think it's a matter of legality or morality, but rather of military, economic and political power. It should be readily understandable why Israel doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Israel and US are allies. Also, the US might have reasons other than Israel's safety for not wanting Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Iran’s Uranium enrichment program is suspected of having military applications. Some claim Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA) “tries to ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.” Excerpts from its most recent report here:

IAEA Report, Derestricted 8 March 2012
“This report addresses developments since the last report (GOV/2011/65, 8 November 2011), as well as issues of longer standing. It focuses on those areas where Iran has not fully implemented its binding obligations, as the full implementation of these obligations is needed to establish international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Iran’s declaration dismissed the Agency’s concerns in relation to the aforementioned issues, largely on the grounds that Iran considered them to be based on unfounded allegations. As a result of Iran’s lack of cooperation on those issues, the Agency is unable to verify and report fully on these matters.”
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml

Israeli premier says Iran wants to destroy Israel, May 21, 2012
By IAN DEITCH | Associated Press
JERUSALEM (AP) — Iran is seeking atomic weapons to destroy Israel and world
powers should not make any concessions over its nuclear program, Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday.
http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-premier-says-iran-wants-destroy-israel-180427552.html

Among all the claims and counterclaims, declarations and denials, and confusing signals from both sides of the issue, there is so far, no credible evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons. In my opinion this doubt is not sufficient to justify military attacks on Iranian nuclear installations.

Imagine if Iran really was trying to develop a nuclear weapon. And imagine it succeeded and could deliver it across great distances with ballistic missiles, for example. Would Iran attack Israel?

That the Jewish state keeps nuclear weapons in its arsenal is a common accusation
But Israel always refuses to admit to their possession through complete obfuscation
Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Jewish state’s official non-declaration
If Israel is ever attacked by an overwhelming military force and faces annihilation
That threat to Israel’s survival would be met immediately and without hesitation
Driven by the siege mentality and the continual existential threat of extermination
This strategy called “The Samson Option” guarantees a total regional conflagration
This “second-strike” capability verifies such an aggressor faces total decimation
Exploding a nuclear bomb over the enemy would guarantee its total obliteration
The bomb’s devastating shock wave, its searing heat, and its gamma radiation
Ensure the target’s infrastructure and all living things would suffer disintegration
Delivery of Israeli nuclear weapons by land, sea, and air form a triad constellation
Jerico I, II, and III surface-to-surface ballistic missiles give a standoff application
Dolphin II-class submarines with the Popeye Turbo cruise missile configuration
F-15I Ra'am and F-16I Sufa Fighter-bombers carry the instruments of vaporization

The Iranian leadership may seem disorganized and in chaos to outsiders, but they are not crazy or stupid.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a definite line: if diplomacy fails. The part about there being "only 'a brief window'" makes it clear we have set ourselves some kind of short time limit on how long we'll put up with lack of progress.

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, did not the official line in the sand come directly from Bush? I think the ambassidor is just being used as a stick for Obama to wave; to ratchet up the rhetoric without ratcheting up the rhetoric. I do not think there is any circumstance short of Iran using a nuclear weapon under which Obama would attack Iran.

 

[russ_watters]

I keep hearing this line but I have yet to see a legitimate (i.e., legal) reason this is true. While it might (and I stress might) be moral to disallow a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran, what is the legal precedent? What is it tht makes it OK for the US, Russia, etc. to possesses nuclear weapons, but disallows other countries? While it's true Iran is a signatory to the NNPT, there are no consistent enforcement provisions that have been applied across the spectrum of countries that have signed, nor even to specific countries over the years. So, if these countries can flout the NNPT, why can't Iran?

Try that on the cop the next time you get pulled over for speeding and see how it works. Like it or not and evenly applied or not, the law is still the law.

 

[chiro]

Try that on the cop the next time you get pulled over for speeding and see how it works. Like it or not and evenly applied or not, the law is still the law.

People write laws, introduce legislation, and people can and will introduce updates, amendments and nullifications of anything that currently exists.

You act like it is something that has been handed down in a couple of stone tablets that is immortal and eternal in its truth, content, and ability to do what law does which is to regulate actions in a fair manner.

It isn't: new things are introduced because things change and this will always happen since they are written by people, for people for a variety of reasons some good, others not so good.

If people didn't have the capacity to think outside existing rules to create new ones then we would be absolutely useless as a race and thankfully this is not the case.

 

[russ_watters]

Daveb asked for a "legal reason." There are no better legal reasons than the law!