News Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?

[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!

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

You'll probably never hear me say this again: I hope your take on it is much more accurate than mine.

Iraq War #1 and Afghanistan were precipitated by sudden big events and the spear shaking that preceded the attacks came straight from the president. Iraq war #2 simmered over a very long time before coming to a boil and I recall the rhetoric starting at lower levels, then working up to the president.

 

[mheslep]

... I do not think there is any circumstance short of Iran using a nuclear weapon under which Obama would attack Iran.

That's a dangerous situation if Iran believes the same thing.

 

[russ_watters]

Iraq war #2 simmered over a very long time before coming to a boil and I recall the rhetoric starting at lower levels, then working up to the president.

Not sure - I thought it was all Bush, but even still I see no reason to believe that mid-level rhetoric will necessarily be part of such a progression.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a dangerous situation if Iran believes the same thing.

Just for clarification, the scope of my remark was limited to the context of this thread. I don't mean to imply that if Iran mines the Gulf, for example, that we wouldn't attack its navy.

 

[Bobbywhy]

It’s no wonder that Israel’s leaders are threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. It’s also no surprise Israel is clamoring for Western nations to attack or assist them with preemptive strikes against Iran.

Israel claims Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and must be attacked because this is exactly in keeping with its policy called “Project Daniel”. Project Daniel is “a 2003 Israeli project, commissioned to assess the threat to the nation of Israel from other states in the Middle East, drawing particular attention to Iran, with Iran's nuclear program in mind.”

One of the recommendations of the project is “that Israel should do anything possible to prevent an anti-Israeli coalition from being formed, and from that coalition gaining control of WMDs. It suggested Israel should retain the option of carrying out preemptive strikes, describing them as 'anticipatory self-defense'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daniel

 

[chiro]

It’s no wonder that Israel’s leaders are threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. It’s also no surprise Israel is clamoring for Western nations to attack or assist them with preemptive strikes against Iran.

Israel claims Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and must be attacked because this is exactly in keeping with its policy called “Project Daniel”. Project Daniel is “a 2003 Israeli project, commissioned to assess the threat to the nation of Israel from other states in the Middle East, drawing particular attention to Iran, with Iran's nuclear program in mind.”

One of the recommendations of the project is “that Israel should do anything possible to prevent an anti-Israeli coalition from being formed, and from that coalition gaining control of WMDs. It suggested Israel should retain the option of carrying out preemptive strikes, describing them as 'anticipatory self-defense'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daniel

Those guys are absolutely nuts. This whole pre-emptive idea is completely based on potentiality and not actuality and when this becomes a precedent for war activities of any kind, then it is really really dangerous.

The reason ultimately it is dangerous is because potentiality is almost unlimited and there is no real justification for these kinds of circumstances because again it's completely 'pre-emptive'.

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow: we arrest people after they have done the crime. Could you imagine walking down the street and then be chucked into a van and thrown into jail all because someone else 'thought' or 'was convinced' that you were going to kill? Now think about this in conjunction with what a whole country would think if another country used that on them.

Using this whole potential thing should be a top concern for everyone, and everyone should speak out against it for the very reason that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

 

[mheslep]

Those guys are absolutely nuts. This whole pre-emptive idea is completely based on potentiality and not actuality and when this becomes a precedent for war activities of any kind, then it is really really dangerous.

The reason ultimately it is dangerous is because potentiality is almost unlimited and there is no real justification for these kinds of circumstances because again it's completely 'pre-emptive'.

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow: we arrest people after they have done the crime. Could you imagine walking down the street and then be chucked into a van and thrown into jail all because someone else 'thought' or 'was convinced' that you were going to kill? Now think about this in conjunction with what a whole country would think if another country used that on them.

Using this whole potential thing should be a top concern for everyone, and everyone should speak out against it for the very reason that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

Is a nuclear attack on a city in anyway the same thing as your arrest on the street scenario?

 

[chiro]

Is a nuclear attack on a city in anyway the same thing as your arrest on the street scenario?

It is: in the nuclear attack scenario, the cop is Israel and the guy on the street are the people getting nuked and who are affected by this nuke.

Trying to control and pre-empt everything is absolutely ridiculous and it's an extremely dangerous precedent to set for the sole reason that human beings are in control.

If we had people that were sane, responsible, of high integrity, were not easy to fold over to any kind of extortion, bribery, and treated every situation the same way in this manner, then pre-emptive behaviour combined with other kinds of considerations would make sense.

But we don't. People are not like this: they look only after their self-interests and not that of the entire interests of entire groups. The self-interest might be only themselves, their corporations, their countries, their social group, and so on. This ultimately translates into things not working uniformly for all circumstances and it results in rules that otherwise may be good to be only followed 'when it suits'.

Like I said, the important thing about this is the precedent it sets. Precedent is extremely important because precedent sets the stage for not only future precedents, but also for new norms.

You may think that the cop arresting some guy and the nuclear attack are different simply by the scope, emotion, and nature of the two scenarios but the precedent for the cop scenario 'sets the scene' for larger things to happen including large enough things like 'a pre-emptive nuclear strike'. That's all it takes.

Again you seem to have a bigger emotional attachment to the idea of a nuclear holocaust to 'prevent other people from doing what we thought they were going to do' in comparison to some unknown guy that got thrown in jail because the cop or state tried to prevent the guy from 'doing something they thought the guy was going to do'.

This whole idea of 'sacrificing for the greater good' is propaganda. The greater good does not reflect everyone but rather a subset much, much more selective. The minute you decide that even one person is inferior and needs to go 'for the greater good', is the minute that you will have a situation where people rationalize nuclear strikes, stalinist and hitlerian dictatorships, and any kind of completely un-necessary authoritarian madness that will strip the rights of every human being away.

Is this what you really want?

 

[Bobbywhy]

Nuclear attack on a city? What nuclear attack? There is no credible evidence that Iran even HAS a nuclear weapon development program, much less a deliverable weapon.

Threats against Israel have been against the Zionist regime, and not the Israeli country or its people. Amidinejad has clearly said: The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, doesn't mean all Russians are dead. And the hated Apartheid regime of South Africa doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't mean all South Africans are dead. The Iranian complaint is about the policies of the current regime in Israel towards the Palestinians.

It is Israel that has the nucear Weapons of Mass Destruction now, and has threatened any other nation in the Middle East against having even an enrichment process. Israel is insisting on being the only nuclear power in the region.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow...

Here in the U.S. we do, though. I think the exact charge is "conspiracy to commit murder". This comes up when people are caught trying to hire someone to kill a spouse, etc.

Many years ago I lived in an apartment building downtown here, and one day two special agents of the FBI knocked on my door asking if I knew where a certain other tenant was at that moment. I said I hadn't seen him and asked what the problem might be. Surprisingly, they told me: he had sent a letter to the White House criticizing the President and had threatened to kill either the President or himself if the thing he was upset about wasn't corrected.

If anyone makes a statement (that can be construed as serious) to the effect they intend to kill anyone they are, in fact, hauled in by law enforcement.