News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[WarrenPlatts]

People keep saying that Iran is not Iraq, and this is technically true in that one name ends in an 'n', whereas the other name ends in a 'q'. But militarily, Iran without nukes and a means to deliver them is a paper tiger. True, they aren't as battered as the Iraqis were before OIF--but they haven't suffered 40 days and 40 nights of bombing either--yet. If the Iranians are so powerful, why couldn't their army do in 8 years to the Iraqians that the Americans did in 3 days during the Gulf War. Also, note that the vast majority of the Iran-Iraq war took place on Iranian soil--not to mention they were reduced to using human wave attacks by children.

An interesting article that wargamed the Iran problem actually proposed a plan similar to the one I proposed where we skip the occupation. The plan was rejected by the other participants not for forgoing the occupation, but because they thought the attack plan wasn't thought through. In particular, they noted the plan didn't take into account possible counterattacks by Iranian forces. The "general" in the simulation, however, failed to point out that once the battle started, Iranian forces would be incapable of significant mobility because of the constant threat from the air. The plan did estimate that Tehran would be surrounded within two weeks, which I can believe since the trip to Tehran is shorter than the trip to Baghdad was.

As you can see from this CIA map there is a fairly broad river valley that leads from Khordestan province through Zanjan and then Qazin provinces straight through to Tehran, with no big population centers in between. So the advance would be less hard logistically at least compared to the advance on Baghdad.

On Sunday, Senator McCain said that a war with Iran is preferable to a nuclear Iran. He's got my vote. And given that merely bombing is a short term solution at best, the only thing to discuss at this point is whether we help clean up the mess with an occupation or not. The best case scenario on the hit-and-run model would be that democratic elements and the NCRI take over, sign a treaty with us, and the regular Iranian army takes over security after the Revolutionary Guards are disarmed. The worst case, scenario is, of course, that the country descends into anarchy and a Taliban-like regime takes over, and we're back in there 10 years down the road doing it all over again.

So, what about the occupation option? People typically assume that just because Iran is geographically larger and more populous than Iran, occupying Iran would be proportionately more difficult than the occupation in Iraq. However, this is not necessarily the case. In a recent must-read article "The Case For Invading Iran" http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php" argued that an occupation of Iran would probably take less time than the occupation of Iraq:

I also feel the occupation campaign in Iran will take much less time than the one in Iraq for the following reasons:

(1) Iran has a functioning civil society and democratic tradition while Iraq didn't. The mullahs veto candidates they don't like, more in the past few years than earlier, but the systems and mindset for a functioning democratic society are present.

(2) We can use many of the Iranian army's junior officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel as a cadre for the new democratic regime's security forces. We couldn't do that with Iraq's army as the officers and non-coms were almost exclusively Sunni Arabs aka Baathist regime loyalists, and the mostly Shiite conscripts had almost all gone home.

3) Iran has at least one order of magnitude, and probably several orders of magnitude, less loose explosives than were present in Iraq, for possible use in improvised explosive devices. The mullah regime die-hards will die much faster than the Baathist die-hards in Iraq, because the ones in Iran will be attacking our forces mostly with direct-fire weapons. That is suicidal against American forces.

4) Langauge and ethnicity differences mean that Al Qaeda's purely Sunni foreign terrorists won't be able to operate much in Iran. The latter operated only briefly in Shiite areas of Iraq - those that didn't leave quickly died horribly at Shiite hands. While there are a lot of Sunnis in Iran, few of those are Arabs - they're Kurds, Azeris, etc.

I would add that the oft-repeated point that the Iranian mullahs enjoy broad popular support is overstated. Arguably, the election was stolen. Many Iranian parliment members were banned from running for office and the election was boycotted by a large part of the electorate. Nepotism also runs rampant in the current administration, which is bound to exacerbate resentments. And estimates that the insurgents will field 100,000 to 1,000,000 men doesn't seem likely. For one thing, who is going to supply them? In Iraq, insurgents get supplies from both Syria and Iran. But once Iran is taken over, there are no friendly nations neighboring Iran, except maybe Turkmenistan, that would be a major source of supplies and funding for an Iranian insurgency. In addition, most Iranian military personnel will be content to go home as soon as they have a chance. Recent http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB179.pdf" on differences between motivational factors affecting American and Iraqi soldiers revealed stark differences. American soldiers are motivated to protect each other and are also motivated by the ideology of liberation and freedom. Iraqi troops, in constrast, reported poor social cohesion within their military units, and that they were motivated primarily by coercion, especially the fear that they would be shot if they attempted to desert. Given that the Iranian army consists mainly of young, poorly trained, unwilling conscripts, there is little reason to suppose that they will be more motivated to resist the Americans than their Iraqi counterparts were.

Bottom line: Holsinger has changed my mind. We must invade Iran, and we must be prepared to stay the course for as long as it takes to restore a true democracy to Iran that is not a threat to world peace.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Looks like President Bush agrees with Senator McCain that a nuclear Iran is "intolerable". Read more http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605900030&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull" .

 

[Treadstone 71]

A democracy is not a silver bullet to every possible problem. In fact, a democracy may be more troublesome than a dictatorship. You can't simply waltz into a country, change its entire political system, and walk out thinking you've done God a service. If the U.S. invades Iran, it will be the beginning of its downfall.

 

[EnumaElish]

The substance of all your posts so far is "occupying Iran is (or should be) a viable option."

The Pres. said as much and everyone knows that this is an Executive option that the Administration has carefully avoided taking off the table.

Its realism may be debated, but I personally think that it is a little more likely than the U.S. starting a scorched-earth war in the Middle East. However, the administration will have to weigh costs vs. benefits and then "sell" it to the public; and it will be a much tougher sell than Iraq.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The administration will have to weigh costs vs. benefits and then "sell" it to the public; and it will be a much tougher sell than Iraq.

Exactly. The problem is most people overestimate the risk of war and underestimate the risk of a nuclear Iran. I respectfully disagree, however, that the President has a responsibility to "sell" the military option to the public. It's his job to make these kinds of difficult decisions for us. That's why we elected him.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

If the U.S. invades Iran, it will be the beginning of its downfall.

I would say just the opposite: if the U.S.A. shirks its leadership responsibilities especially regarding nuclear proliferation amongst rogue nations, that will be the beginning of the end.

 

[Treadstone 71]

I would say just the opposite: if the U.S.A. shirks its leadership responsibilities especially regarding nuclear proliferation amongst rogue nations, that will be the beginning of the end.

History will be the judge of that.

It's his job to make these kinds of difficult decisions for us. That's why we elected him.

"Lisa, we elect offcials so we don't have to think!" -- Homer Simpson

 

[BobG]

So, what about the occupation option? People typically assume that just because Iran is geographically larger and more populous than Iran, occupying Iran would be proportionately more difficult than the occupation in Iraq. However, this is not necessarily the case. In a recent must-read article "The Case For Invading Iran" http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php" argued that an occupation of Iran would probably take less time than the occupation of Iraq:

How much easier and how much less time - not just to complete the invasion, but for the occupation until things stabilize? Would this be after our troops have left Iraq and Afghanistan or concurrently?

Compare the manpower of the US military today to the manpower it had at the time of the first Gulf War. We've been reaping the peace dividend by reducing military strength since the end of the cold war 15 years ago. The US can't occupy three countries simultaneously.

Traditionally, the Reserves and National Guard step into fill short term gaps in manning due to special circumstances. Neither were really prepared at the start of the Iraq invasion to fulfill what's become a nearly three year commitment with no end yet in sight. Troops, both active duty and Guard & Reserves, are already serving multiple tours in Iraq with less than a year break between tours. The Iraq invasion has already caused some long term problems for the Guard & Reserve (plus reduced their capability to respond to local disasters, such as Katrina).

To concurrently occupy Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan today, you're basically suggesting that troops permanently be stationed in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan with no break for however long it takes. I think that will stretch way beyond the limits of what a volunteer military will be willing to endure. I guess you could implement "stop loss" to prevent anyone in the military from getting out, as has been implemented in the past. But, in the past, "stop loss" has been a very short term measure. Implementing "stop loss" for several years sets a precedent that would devastate recruiting for years to come.

You're betting more than Iran being easy to occupy. You're betting that there will be no threats to US interests anywhere in the world not only while we're occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, but for at least a decade afterward as the military tries to rebuild its credibility in the promises it made to the people who volunteered to join.

 

[Gokul43201]

People keep saying that Iran is not Iraq, and this is technically true in that one name ends in an 'n', whereas the other name ends in a 'q'. But militarily, Iran without nukes and a means to deliver them is a paper tiger.

Hogwash !

If the Iranians are so powerful, why couldn't their army do in 8 years to the Iraqians that the Americans did in 3 days during the Gulf War.

This is the most childish argument I've read on this matter. Both Iran's and Iraq's military capabilities have changed vastly since the 70's and 80's.

Much of what I'd say in response, I've said about a year back. (post #26)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=448132&highlight=iran#post448132

 

[EnumaElish]

I respectfully disagree, however, that the President has a responsibility to "sell" the military option to the public. It's his job to make these kinds of difficult decisions for us. That's why we elected him.

It is a political reality because the body count is a reality. And he has to convince the military, who are currently challenged to find new recruits. (I am putting aside the argument that probably one-half of the voting public thinks he was not elected fairly. But arguments do add up.)

 

[Andy]

Am i right in thinking that Israel has nuclear weapons? If so do you think it would be better for the US and possibly the UK to go to war with Iran or for Israel and Iran to go to war?

 

[SOS2008]

Is there a reason why new threads continue to be created on the same topic of Iran? As for a draft, if Warren isn't already in the military, may he be the first to go to the front line.

Please, let’s stop with the fear mongering and talk about the deficit, debt held by China, U.S. dependency on foreign oil, etc. Stop ignoring these very real and urgent issues. At least address the criteria for non-proliferation and why Iran is any more of a threat than N. Korea, Pakistan, etc. The discussion is worthless otherwise.

If you want to blog, I believe there is an appropriate section for that. This section is not for repeatedly showcasing your own narrow views.

 

[russ_watters]

Would this be after our troops have left Iraq and Afghanistan or concurrently?

That really is a key dealbreaker issue for the time being - we simply cannot have a significant number of troops in 3 places at once. Now, by the end of this year, our troop levels in Iraq may fall significantly, but even if they fall by 90%, our military will really need a year to catch its breath before we even consider going into Iran.

That is, unless Iran does something really stupid, a la Iraq, 1990. In that case, it would be important enough to divert troops and we'd get more international assistance than we did for the current Iraq war.

Iran probably knows we are stretched thin and is just flexing it's muscles. The schoolyard bully analogy really is apt - eventually, the teacher will be back and Iran will have to go see the principal. But while the teacher's back is turned, Iran will act (but not actually be) tough.

Anyway, due to Iran's religous fanaticism, I don't think an occupation would be any easier than in Iraq, so if Iran does become a problem, the solution would be bombings, only - ie, Yugoslavia. Prior to Yugoslavia, the prevaling notion was air power alone couln't accomplish much. That notion was wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Am i right in thinking that Israel has nuclear weapons?

Yes.

If so do you think it would be better for the US and possibly the UK to go to war with Iran or for Israel and Iran to go to war?

Israel is a stable democracy, with a powerful conventional military. There is no reason to think Israel would be first to use nukes. If Israel really felt threatened, they'd send airstrikes.

 

[russ_watters]

Is there a reason why new threads continue to be created on the same topic of Iran?

New news...?

As for a draft, if Warren isn't already in the military, may he be the first to go to the front line.

Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned a draft. The draft is not something that is/will be seriously considered unless there is a major threat to the US's existence. The only reason it is ever brought up is as a democratic PR ploy.

Please, let’s stop with the fear mongering and talk about the deficit, debt held by China, U.S. dependency on foreign oil, etc.

Are you talking about the issue of nuclear proliferation in general? You don't think nuclear proliferation is a significant foreign policy issue?

Stop ignoring these very real and urgent issues.

I don't think bringing up some issues constitutes ignoring others.

At least address the criteria for non-proliferation and why Iran is any more of a threat than N. Korea, Pakistan, etc.

Pakistan already has the bomb and is a US ally. N. Korea and Iran are relatively similar proliferation problems, but as always, each has its unique issues. The new news on Iran is why Iran is on the front-burner at the moment - N. Korea hasn't done much lately to change their status. Also, Iran's geopolitical/economic position makes it much more significant of an issue than N. Korea.

 

[Anttech]

Israel is a stable democracy

Are you serious?

I wouldn't call a state where they have rocket propelled missiles launched at them from there neighbor as a stable situation.

A place where they have to bull dozer over homes to remove illegal settlements, and shoot reporters for helping children in demilitarized zones.

A place where the neighbors don't recognize your state..

Stable I think not, powerful yes

 

[BobG]

Are you serious?

I wouldn't call a state where they have rocket propelled missiles launched at them from there neighbor as a stable situation.

A place where they have to bull dozer over homes to remove illegal settlements, and shoot reporters for helping children in demilitarized zones.

A place where the neighbors don't recognize your state..

Stable I think not, powerful yes

Being stable and living in an unstable environment are two different things. Israel is a stable country in that you can expect them to react in a relatively rational manner (relatively, because they do live in an unstable enough environment that it's hard to determine the 'best' action, let alone predict what action Israel will take - but it's easy to know their overall goals).

Stable is a relative term, anyway. The Soviet Union was more stable than Russia's current government. If you understood what shaped the Soviet psyche (it's history, WWII, it's rise to power post WWII) you could depend on the Soviet Union acting in accordance with that psyche and almost predict their future actions. Russia experiences enough internal stress that they are very hard to predict - they're as likely to react to something strictly internal as they are to external events.

In the same vein, I think it would be an exaggeration to say Iran has an unstable government. Their government may be repressive to opposing points of view, but it's not hard to figure out what's important to them. There's also no serious threat of their government being overthrown or swept out of power through elections. The only way you could consider them irrational is if you consider pursuit of nuclear technology and/or weapons irrational in itself. Their timing certainly isn't irrational since they picked a tough time for the US to do anything about it. (Of course, stable and safe are two different things as well - Iran may be stable, but Iran with nuclear weapons is somewhat dangerous).

 

[ComputerGeek]

We do not have the man power to do it this decade. Also, the pro democracy folks in Iran are not pro US help.

People who want to invade these countries need to think how they would feel if some other country invaded us in order to "help".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I respectfully disagree, however, that the President has a responsibility to "sell" the military option to the public. It's his job to make these kinds of difficult decisions for us. That's why we elected him.

Even with WWII when there was a very real, immediate, and serious threat the president was unable to get the US involved in the war without popular support.
The role of the President is to represent the people of his/her country, not to tell them how it's going to be.

 

[SOS2008]

New news...? Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned a draft. The draft is not something that is/will be seriously considered unless there is a major threat to the US's existence. The only reason it is ever brought up is as a democratic PR ploy. Are you talking about the issue of nuclear proliferation in general? You don't think nuclear proliferation is a significant foreign policy issue? I don't think bringing up some issues constitutes ignoring others. Pakistan already has the bomb and is a US ally. N. Korea and Iran are relatively similar proliferation problems, but as always, each has its unique issues. The new news on Iran is why Iran is on the front-burner at the moment - N. Korea hasn't done much lately to change their status. Also, Iran's geopolitical/economic position makes it much more significant of an issue than N. Korea.

The remark about the draft was in view of the post by BobG regarding U.S. inability to occupy an additional country without a draft.

The author of this thread has started at least three threads on the topic of Iran within a week’s time. Maybe you have not had time to read all of this thread or earlier threads, but I disagree. I feel new threads are being created to advertise a personal position of military invasion and antagonism rather than sincerely and intelligently debating the big picture in regard to Iran. Earlier discussions regarding proliferation/rights of sovereign countries, U.S. military over-extension, economic repercussions, etc. are thus being ignored.

Where is the troll patrol when we need it?

 

[edward]

Where is the troll patrol when we need it?

Invading Grenada with the last two American tanks that are still running??

Seriously a ground invasion of Iran is not even plausible. We have worn out a lot of equipment in Iraq and there have been no significant expenditures propsed to replace it. Add to that the significant lag time before equipment could be manufactured and we have a no go for the foreseeable future.

No pun intended but any action we take against Iran will have our oil supply over a barrel.

 

[russ_watters]

Being stable and living in an unstable environment are two different things. Israel is a stable country in that you can expect them to react in a relatively rational manner (relatively, because they do live in an unstable enough environment that it's hard to determine the 'best' action, let alone predict what action Israel will take - but it's easy to know their overall goals).

Yes, I meant that, but also the political situation in Israel is relatively stable. Ie, they aren't in any danger of a military coup, civil war, or falling to outside influence... like pretty much every surrounding country/government.

In the same vein, I think it would be an exaggeration to say Iran has an unstable government. Their government may be repressive to opposing points of view, but it's not hard to figure out what's important to them. There's also no serious threat of their government being overthrown or swept out of power through elections.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. A few years ago, anyway, it seemed there was a strong pro-democracy movement. And there is a constant push-pull between the "government" and the clerics who actually run things.

The only way you could consider them irrational is if you consider pursuit of nuclear technology and/or weapons irrational in itself. Their timing certainly isn't irrational since they picked a tough time for the US to do anything about it. (Of course, stable and safe are two different things as well - Iran may be stable, but Iran with nuclear weapons is somewhat dangerous).

Well, you're forgetting one thing: words. Iran's words and threats are irrational. The timing is rational, but the stated goals, motivations, the overt threats - all of that is irrational. The're starting an inquiry into whether the Holocaust happened, for god's sake! The irrationality of their rhetoric is something they have in common with our boy Kim.

And while timing it when the US is otherwise engaged is rational, poking a tiger with a pointy stick - much less two at once - is not a rational act.

 

[russ_watters]

The remark about the draft was in view of the post by BobG regarding U.S. inability to occupy an additional country without a draft.

Bob didn't say that. He didn't mention a draft.

Where is the troll patrol when we need it?

Posting topics a person is interested in and engaging in serious discussion is not trolling. Trolling involves the intent to start a fight or sling insults. That last thread got closed because people started insulting him, but he really didn't do anything to start it. So it is reasonable to start a new thread and attempt, again, to have a reasonable discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, or can't without being insulting - don't.

 

[Xenophon]

Alright, this thread seems about wrapped up. Here's an interesting link on the Army's abilities and stamina though, for those who might be interested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11009829

Looks like any potential invasion will have to wait.

-Xenophon

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Iraq's military comprised of virtually no air force or navy, and an army that surrendered at the first sign of US troops.
Iran, on the other hand has a serious air force comprising hundreds of fixed wing and rotary craft as well as a bunch of UAVs (yes Iran really has these). Their navy includes a couple each of subs and frigates, but several each of missile, amphibious, minelaying and support craft. Their army has about 300,000 tropps, but more importantly, they actually have serious tank batallions and amored cav and mobile artillery units. Invading Iran will not be the (military) walk-in-the-park that Iraq was.

You are mistaken on at least two points: (1) Iran's equipment is mostly older stuff that Americans would be embarrased to use, and the Iranian pilots that try to fly the few F-4's they have left will be merely committing suicide--they'd be better off with a dynamite belt--they'd do more damage; and (2) it is incorrect to suggest that OIF was a cake-walk--we kicked ***, but it wasn't easy--and Iran won't be easy, but it is as doable as Iraq ever was.

The role of the President is to represent the people of his/her country, not to tell them how it's going to be.

I think that's what I said. We elect a president, and he or she represents us. He's not a dictator.


:!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!):!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!)

I feel new threads . . . Where is the troll patrol when we need it?

:!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!):!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!) :!)

We have worn out a lot of equipment in Iraq and there have been no significant expenditures propsed to replace it. Add to that the significant lag time before equipment could be manufactured and we have a no go for the foreseeable future.

I agree that we need to spend more money on the military. However, we have enough armored humvees and Strykers to handle Iran.

Well, you're forgetting one thing: words. Iran's words and threats are irrational. The timing is rational, but the stated goals, motivations, the overt threats - all of that is irrational. The're starting an inquiry into whether the Holocaust happened, for god's sake! The irrationality of their rhetoric is something they have in common with our boy Kim.

Yes! Except that Kim doesn't suggest that Israel be wiped off the map and that the holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews need to go back to Europe.

We do not have the man power to do it this decade.

Would it be too much to ask for an argument that would justify your proposition?

And regarding the argument that we shouldn't invade Iran because China will take advantage and invade Taiwan: that's what the US Navy is for.

Alright, this thread seems about wrapped up. Here's an interesting link on the Army's abilities and stamina though, for those who might be interested. Rapid troop rotations threaten institution, Pentagon-sponsored study says

Looks like any potential invasion will have to wait.

-Xenophon

1-year+ deployments are not overly rapid. When I was in the Navy, I used to think that 6 month deployments were a long time. Really, if we doubled the pay of the rank and file--which would still be less than the starting salary for a new cop--there wouldn't be recruiting shortfalls.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes! Except that Kim doesn't suggest that Israel be wiped off the map and that the holocaust didn't happen and that the Jews need to go back to Europe.

No, but he does suggest we be wiped off the map, so the parallel is still there.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think that's what I said. We elect a president, and he or she represents us. He's not a dictator.

I believe you said that the president does not/should not have to worry about support from his constituents if he decides to go to war. I was pointing out that this would contradict the idea that the president is a representative of said people.
So are you saying then that the president should make sure to have popular support? You know since he's a representative and not a dictator and all.

 

[SOS2008]

Bob didn't say that. He didn't mention a draft. Posting topics a person is interested in and engaging in serious discussion is not trolling. Trolling involves the intent to start a fight or sling insults. That last thread got closed because people started insulting him, but he really didn't do anything to start it. So it is reasonable to start a new thread and attempt, again, to have a reasonable discussion. If you don't want to discuss it, or can't without being insulting - don't.

Here we go, as usual. BobG posted:

To concurrently occupy Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan today, you're basically suggesting that troops permanently be stationed in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan with no break for however long it takes. I think that will stretch way beyond the limits of what a volunteer military will be willing to endure.

What’s the opposite of a “volunteer military?” To which I posted:

The remark about the draft was in view of the post by BobG regarding U.S. inability to occupy an additional country without a draft.

I stated “in view” of BobG’s post.

The first thread by this member was locked because of disruption by starting a thread that consisted of:

1) Opinionated statements: Posting messages expressing their own opinions as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis.
2) Inflammatory messages, including racist comments [Insensitive to the Iranian/Arab peoples, which was offensive to more than one member.]
3) Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll#Disruptive_trolls

There already was another thread on the topic of Iran that is still active when this third thread was started. Mentors should be knowledgeable of such matters, and moderate regardless of personal opinion or political bent.

Alright, this thread seems about wrapped up.

Agreed!

 

[ComputerGeek]

Would it be too much to ask for an argument that would justify your proposition?

Hmm... I think a wee little thing called IRAQ. Also, we were not capable of deploying an army capable of securing the country after we defeated it... What makes you think we will be able to deploy an even larger number for Iran?

 

[russ_watters]

Here we go, as usual.

I object when people put words in other people's mouths - even when it isn't my mouth.

BobG posted: "..."

What’s the opposite of a “volunteer military?”

A non-volunteer, or conscript one, sure. But it isn't BobG who makes the following logical leap:

To which I posted: "The remark about the draft was in view of the post by BobG regarding U.S. inability to occupy an additional country without a draft."

I stated “in view” of BobG’s post.

Perhaps, then, it is just an error in grammar. The words "in view of the post by BobG regarding..." implies that everything after that phrase is words (paraphrased) that BobG spoke. In fact, it is you that is making that connection, not BobG. Ie, saying that an all-volunteer military could not support 3 wars simultaneously does not automatically mean that a draft is required. There are other ways outv -- such as not fighting 3 wars simultaneously. I'm reasonably certain BobG doesn't consider the idea of a draft to be viable, which is why he didn't mention it as a way around that conundrum. All BobG said is that scenario isn't possible - he didn't suggest that a draft was an option for making that scenario possible - you did.

The first thread by this member was locked because of disruption by starting a thread that consisted of:
1) Opinionated statements: Posting messages expressing their own opinions as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis.

Dear lord, you have been here a while, haven't you? That's what people do here!

2) Inflammatory messages, including racist comments [Insensitive to the Iranian/Arab peoples, which was offensive to more than one member.

There was nothing racist there - people read something into his post that wasn't there. He said something that was unpopular, but it was a reality (war means killing soldiers until the army surrenders - it was someone eles who wrongly equated that with genocide).

3) Pretending to be innocent, after a flamewar ensues.

He responded to overt flames with sarcasm. To me, that shows remarkable restraint.

There already was another thread on the topic of Iran that is still active when this third thread was started. Mentors should be knowledgeable of such matters, and moderate regardless of personal opinion or political bent.

This thread was started at 1:59 am ET on 1/24/06. The previous thread was closed at 8:15pm on 1/21/06. The third thread you are probably referring to, it's last post was at 2:26 pm on 1/21/06 and had a somewhat different topic: why Iran would have a nuclear program whereas this one (and the last one) is about what could be done about it.

 

[vanesch]

In the same vein, I think it would be an exaggeration to say Iran has an unstable government. Their government may be repressive to opposing points of view, but it's not hard to figure out what's important to them. There's also no serious threat of their government being overthrown or swept out of power through elections. The only way you could consider them irrational is if you consider pursuit of nuclear technology and/or weapons irrational in itself.

In fact, I think Iran is acting with a very high degree of rationality. As you point out, they do not face an "internal" danger, but they DO face a serious danger: an invasion by the US. They know that in the long term, there's only ONE way to protect them from such an invasion, and that is by having nuclear weapons. In all other cases, they are at danger. But they also know that the very act of develloping nuclear weapons would trigger a US or Israeli attack... Except for right now. So they CANNOT MISS this single opportunity of the US having a bad image and being tied up in Iraq for a few years, to make the step and devellop it. It would be foolish of their part NOT to do so. As, however, develloping a nuclear weapon could make their Arab neighbours a bit nervous too, they have a clear anti-Israel discourse, which is always a uniting discourse from an Arab pov.

 

[motai]

And regarding the argument that we shouldn't invade Iran because China will take advantage and invade Taiwan: that's what the US Navy is for.

That was a rather large logic jump, care to explain how that works? China is very much financially entrenched with the United States to provoke an war (that may garner international attention), even if the US happens to be a little weaker right now.

And I seriously doubt any single military branch can handle the entire military force of China. I'm sure that even you know that joint cooperation between the different branches of the US military is one of its strong points.

Anyways, isn't the Iraq war enough? Why should we have to drag Iran into it? It will only cause more needless casualties and strife that would otherwise be avoided. A 18th century imperialist mentality will only cause more trouble to the US.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Who said anything about China? Even if they invade Taiwan, military action is out of the question - they have nukes, remember?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Regarding the recent flame wars, there are at least 10 threads on this forum that have something to do with the war on terror, Iran, Islam, etc. of which I have started three. So, therefore, the idea that I should be censored for posting more than my fair share is a red herring.

My ideas about what to do about Iran are unpopular for a good reason: war--which is what I am advocating--is, how shall I say, unpleasant. Passions are bound to run high, and I therefore have not taken personally any of the insults directed at me, and I hereby apologize to anyone to whom I have directed insults of my own. Nevertheless, the U.S. and the rest of the free world need to start debating the necessity or lack thereof of war in the immediate future. Knee-jerk passivism can be as dangerous as knee-jerk militarism. Think of 1930's Germany. We are at a similar crossroads now, and we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed. As Pericles said, our strength lies not in deliberation and discussion, but that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action.

Let me state for the record that I have nothing against Muslims or Islam per se. The issue is with certain interpretations of Islam that arguably ignore many of the teachings of Mohamed himself. Yet I find it sad that the best publication that I have found so far that makes this point was published by the U.S. Army War College (Zuhar and Aboul-Enein, 2004). In any case, as the authors note, passionate adherants of the radical Islamist interpretation will not be persuaded to change their ways. Therefore, the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere will be a multi-generational project. In the meantime, we have a clear and present danger that must be dealt with. As the Koran states, war is ordained for us, even though we are not believers.

 

[alexandra]

The substance of all your posts so far is "occupying Iran is (or should be) a viable option."

The Pres. said as much and everyone knows that this is an Executive option that the Administration has carefully avoided taking off the table.

Its realism may be debated, but I personally think that it is a little more likely than the U.S. starting a scorched-earth war in the Middle East. However, the administration will have to weigh costs vs. benefits and then "sell" it to the public; and it will be a much tougher sell than Iraq.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I just read a very worrying analysis by Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky, that confirms your view of a scorched-earth war in the Middle East - using nuclear weapons! Here is an extract from the beginning of the article and a link to the rest for those who are interested in reading it:

Nuclear War against Iran


by Michel Chossudovsky

January 3, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March...

More (very worrying): http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714

 

[vanesch]

In the meantime, we have a clear and present danger that must be dealt with.

What, exactly, is that danger ? That a country, of which you are openly discussing the option of waging war on it, tries to devellop technology that might defend it against such an agression ?

How about giving them a reasonable option out ? Like allowing the deployment of nuclear arms by the Russians and the Chinese on their soil, but under Russian and Chinese control, with the contractual option that, in the case of a US or other invasion, the control of the nuclear weapons is transferred to the Iranians so that they can use it to defend themselves. As a counter measure, they accept control over their nuclear technology ?

As such, they have their "nuclear insurance against US agression", and nevertheless they don't have control over the nuclear weapons to serve terrorism or an attack on Israel.

 

[SOS2008]

…there are at least 10 threads on this forum that have something to do with the war on terror, Iran, Islam, etc. of which I have started three.

The other threads were all started by different members at different times. I believe you create new threads to keep your message at the forefront, and to avoid addressing important and relevant reasons why a military action would be a tremendous mistake.

My ideas about what to do about Iran are unpopular for a good reason: war--which is what I am advocating--is, how shall I say, unpleasant.

Going into Afghanistan was unpleasant, but the majority of Americans and the world supported that action (not the ensuing occupation, but the initial search for bin Laden). Talk about red herrings. You completely ignore all the incredible reasons for seeking alternatives to invasion of Iran, particularly a nuclear invasion.

One very important reason for not invading Iran, for example, was one of my posts about the U.S. deficit and dependency on foreign oil, and the impact of China or Iran changing their currency to the Euro (as Saddam had done just before the invasion of Iraq), and how this would have serious repercussions. You’ve provided little to nothing but your own personal opinions, and occasional Wikipedia overview or basic map that does nothing to support your position.

Nevertheless, the U.S. and the rest of the free world need to start debating the necessity or lack thereof of war in the immediate future.

Yes we do, and once again you refuse to discuss issues such as nuclear proliferation and how this may be addressed. You even refuse to talk about where money will come from for military spending, and how we can increase the number of troops without a draft.

Think of 1930's Germany. We are at a similar crossroads now, and we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed.

I disagree, and smell Zionist propaganda.

In any case, as the authors note, passionate adherants of the radical Islamist interpretation will not be persuaded to change their ways. Therefore, the battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere will be a multi-generational project. In the meantime, we have a clear and present danger that must be dealt with. As the Koran states, war is ordained for us, even though we are not believers.

First, you are confusing Iran and terrorism the same way Bush created false connections between Iraq and terrorism. Second, you fail to make your case how invading Iran will win the hearts and minds of Muslims. Third, Iran may be a clear and present danger, but once again you fail to make your case why.

I suspect you are a young man with a new gun you’d like to try out, with glorified visions of war in your head. If you want any credibility with me, please stay in this thread, and reply to questions with quotes/links to credible sources to make your case.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The other threads were all started by different members at different times. I believe you create new threads to keep your message at the forefront, and to avoid addressing important and relevant reasons why a military action would be a tremendous mistake.

Actually, I only started two threads on Iran and I've only contributed a handfull of posts on this one out of nearly 40. I did, I must confess, try to make the OPs both timely and thought provoking. And I have done my best to address the reasons the have been offered as to why military action against Iran is ill-advised--and yet still live my life that I have outside of this forum. See below.

Talk about red herrings. You completely ignore all the incredible reasons for seeking alternatives to invasion of Iran, particularly a nuclear invasion.

One very important reason for not invading Iran, for example, was one of my posts about the U.S. deficit and dependency on foreign oil, and the impact of China or Iran changing their currency to the Euro (as Saddam had done just before the invasion of Iraq), and how this would have serious repercussions. You’ve provided little to nothing but your own personal opinions, and occasional Wikipedia overview or basic map that does nothing to support your position.

For one thing, I have not once advocated a nuclear first strike against Iran or any other country. As for switching to eurodollars, I have argued that at worst it's no big deal, and at best, devaluing the dollar might be a good thing. The weird thing is that you offer the petroeuro as an argument AGAINST invading Iran. If you really are as worried about China and Iran buying and selling oil in euros as you claim to be, then you should be all for invading Iran! I am not that cynical, however--I would never advocate war over something so banal. And where are all the Wikipedia articles I'm accused of citing? In the OP I cite the James Fallows in the Atlantic Monthly, the Holsinger article that is currently the rage on the net, and a research article produced by the faculty of the Army War College, in addition to the CIA map.

Yes we do, and once again you refuse to discuss issues such as nuclear proliferation and how this may be addressed. You even refuse to talk about where money will come from for military spending, and how we can increase the number of troops without a draft.

Actually, the whole point of this thread is that nuclear proliferation is so potentially dangerous that it is worth going to war over. As for money, with worldwide interest rates so low, now is a good time to borrow it. Alternatively, there is a lot of pork in the federal government. And I think I wrote somewhere that if soldiers were paid as much as cops are, that would go a long way toward solving any recruitment shortfalls. In any case, as I have argued at length, the army is big enough to handle Iran now.

I disagree, and smell Zionist propaganda.

Yes-s-s-s-s . . . .

First, you are confusing Iran and terrorism the same way Bush created false connections between Iraq and terrorism. Second, you fail to make your case how invading Iran will win the hearts and minds of Muslims. Third, Iran may be a clear and present danger, but once again you fail to make your case why.

I'm repeating myself, but anyway: (1) Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979 when the took over the U.S. embassy; (2) invading Iran will itself not win over the hearts and minds of Muslims--sorry, but it's too late for that now--but if a new democratic government were set up where mosque and state were separated, that might help in the long run; (3) a nuclear Iran is a clear and present danger because they could directly attack Isreal and other states including southern Europe, they could give nuclear bombs to Al Queada that might then be exploded in the U.S.A., and they could hold other Gulf nations and half the world's oil supply hostage with impunity.

I suspect you are a young man with a new gun you’d like to try out, with glorified visions of war in your head. If you want any credibility with me, please stay in this thread, and reply to questions with quotes/links to credible sources to make your case.

If you consider 43 years old to be young, I am guilty as charged. And to the extent that our men and women in uniform can justifiably be proud of their accomplishments, then yes, I do believe there is a certain glory that may be found in bravery demonstrated in war. But that is not why I advocate invading Iran. As for the allegation that my sources are not credible, the ball is in your court to explain why is the Army War College, the CIA, James Fallows, and Thomas Holsinger are not credible sources, and how they do not support my case. And for that matter, you have not directly criticized my own analysis--the best you have come up with is to call it an opinion--which is trivially true--and you have trotted out your petroeuro argument that is actually an argument for invading Iran.

How about giving them a reasonable option out ? Like allowing the deployment of nuclear arms by the Russians and the Chinese on their soil, but under Russian and Chinese control, with the contractual option that, in the case of a US or other invasion, the control of the nuclear weapons is transferred to the Iranians so that they can use it to defend themselves. As a counter measure, they accept control over their nuclear technology ?

As such, they have their "nuclear insurance against US agression", and nevertheless they don't have control over the nuclear weapons to serve terrorism or an attack on Israel.

Bon jour, Vanesch. An interesting proposal, but what do you propose to do if the mullahs simply steal the nukes from the Russians and Chinese once the nukes are deep within Iranian territory?

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I just read a very worrying analysis by Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, Michel Chossudovsky, that confirms your view of a scorched-earth war in the Middle East - using nuclear weapons!

Indeed. I would not want the U.S. to launch a nuclear first strike. They would be most useful taking out the Natanz facility, but repeated conventional strikes could probably accomplish the same objective. In any case, using mini-nukes to take WMD sites would not necessarily result in regime change, nor would it flush out any bombs the Iranians might already have. Only a land invasion would ensure total success.

Who said anything about China? Even if they invade Taiwan, military action is out of the question - they have nukes, remember?

That was a rather large logic jump, care to explain how that works? China is very much financially entrenched with the United States to provoke an war (that may garner international attention), even if the US happens to be a little weaker right now.

I agree that China will not invade Taiwan for the reasons you have stated, but you could not tell this based on the rhetoric that has come from certain Chinese generals lately.

In fact, I think Iran is acting with a very high degree of rationality. As you point out, they do not face an "internal" danger, but they DO face a serious danger: an invasion by the US. They know that in the long term, there's only ONE way to protect them from such an invasion, and that is by having nuclear weapons. In all other cases, they are at danger. But they also know that the very act of develloping nuclear weapons would trigger a US or Israeli attack... Except for right now. So they CANNOT MISS this single opportunity of the US having a bad image and being tied up in Iraq for a few years, to make the step and devellop it. It would be foolish of their part NOT to do so. As, however, develloping a nuclear weapon could make their Arab neighbours a bit nervous too, they have a clear anti-Israel discourse, which is always a uniting discourse from an Arab pov.

I see your point, and it probably reflects the thinking of the mullahs. However, they have badly miscalculated on at least two points. First, it is not U.S. or Nato or U.N. policy to invade other countries without good reason. Even after the embassy takeover, the Marine barracks, and Khobar Towers, the U.S. has consistently turned the other cheek. But nukes cross the line. Thus, secondly, they have miscalculated badly if they think that the U.S. lacks the means and the will to prevent them from obtaining nukes. But who can blame them for this miscalculation given all the anti-war hysteria that is blaring everywhere thanks to the freedom of speech in the West. In addition, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the U.A.E., Turkey, Saudi Arabia remain nervous about the prospect of a nuclear Iran despite the vile, antisemitic rhetoric spewing from Tehran. You can bet that they will support the U.S. in the upcoming endeavor.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

In fact, I think Iran is acting with a very high degree of rationality. As you point out, they do not face an "internal" danger, but they DO face a serious danger: an invasion by the US. They know that in the long term, there's only ONE way to protect them from such an invasion, and that is by having nuclear weapons. In all other cases, they are at danger. But they also know that the very act of develloping nuclear weapons would trigger a US or Israeli attack... Except for right now. So they CANNOT MISS this single opportunity of the US having a bad image and being tied up in Iraq for a few years, to make the step and devellop it. It would be foolish of their part NOT to do so. As, however, develloping a nuclear weapon could make their Arab neighbours a bit nervous too, they have a clear anti-Israel discourse, which is always a uniting discourse from an Arab pov.

Sorry Vanesch but this doesn't seem to make much sense.
They wish to protect themselves from the US so they build nuclear weapons knowing that the only politically viable option the US can find for invasion of their country is that they are developing nuclear weapons.
That's like spreading honey on your skin to keep bees from stinging you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Think of 1930's Germany. We are at a similar crossroads now, and we cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed.

Sorry but I hardly think the two can be equated. Germany was out to take over all of Europe. At most Iran is trying to look like a big bad junk yard dog in a region where the apearance of strength is politically paramount. There is no way that Iran will ever be powerful enough to be a real threat compared to the other countries in that region. If Iran dared to actually use a nuke for anything they would be gone shortly after. Iran's possession of nukes would probably be more dangerous to Iran than anyone else.

 

[edward]

Nearly three years have passed and we have not yet won the occupation of Iraq. Elections in Iraq have meant little in the overall picture. I don't even see the Iraqi elections as a measure of accomplishment. Nothing has changed except that they have elected a radical shiite islamic government. The same radical shiites control Iran!

But yet we should now move on into Iran?? We simply do not have the military forces to support it. Sure we can bomb sites in Iran. But if we don't send in a ground force much larger than the one in Iraq, the Iranian army could and would invade Iraq. What would we have we gained??

Iran is posturing for global power and influence. They are no where close to having a nuke. Did someone above say "Grave and gathering danger"?? Haven't we heard that before?? Does Condoleeza see another imaginary smoking gun?? Give me a break.

The US Army is alread stretched thin. Just maintaining the troop and equipment levels to get ourselves out of Iraq is questionable.

WASHINGTON — Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded the Army cannot sustain the pace of deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002760207_army25.html


No one has mentioned the fact that China has prurchased over 700 billion dollars worth of U.S. treasury bills. At the same time we are talking about invading or bombing one of China's largest oil suppliers, and yes there are Chinese workers in Iran producing that oil and developing new oil fields.

China could simply shut down exports to the USA for just one month and our store shelves would be empty.

Couldn't we just try diplomacy for once??

 

[Art]

Sorry Vanesch but this doesn't seem to make much sense.
They wish to protect themselves from the US so they build nuclear weapons knowing that the only politically viable option the US can find for invasion of their country is that they are developing nuclear weapons.
That's like spreading honey on your skin to keep bees from stinging you.

I actually agree with Vanesch. He makes a very valid point. The US were calling Iran part of the axis of evil long before anybody even knew about their nuclear program (a program which incidentally was started secretly by the US's ally the Shah )

Having seen two of their neighbours attacked and occupied by the US and whilst themselves laboring under US trade sanctions for years it is not improbable that Iran came to the conclusion that they were next in line for a dose of 'democratisation' american style. If it wasn't their nuclear program it would simply be some other pretext.

No doubt they have duly noted that the US is far more respectful in it's dealings with it's fellow 'axis of evil' member North Korea since NK announced it had nuclear weapons and as Vanesch points out it is likely that Iran recognises it has a once in a lifetime chance to take advantage of America's current military over reach to develop a similar deterrent themselves.

If the US genuinely wants Iran to stop being 'paranoid' then perhaps the US should stop threatening them.

 

[Art]

No one has mentioned the fact that China has prurchased over 700 billion dollars worth of U.S. treasury bills. At the same time we are talking about invading or bombing one of China's largest oil suppliers, and yes there are Chinese workers in Iran producing that oil and developing new oil fields.

The Russians would probably be more than a little upset as well seeing as how it is their people building the reactors which Israel and the US would like to bomb.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Having seen two of their neighbours attacked and occupied by the US and whilst themselves laboring under US trade sanctions for years it is not improbable that Iran came to the conclusion that they were next in line for a dose of 'democratisation' american style. If it wasn't their nuclear program it would simply be some other pretext.

I agree that there is a logic there but I feel that it's not well thought out.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are just bad news. The less they have in the way of conventional weapons to back themselves up the more dangerous possessing nukes becomes to themselves.
The US is the least of their worries. No one wants the US to attack Iran for any reason and the political situation currently will not allow for the US to try it's hand without serious reprecussions. The Nuke situation is the only pretext the US currently has with any viability and that isn't even likely enough for them to get off the hook with another military incursion into someone elses business.
I'm pretty positive though that Isreal could care less what anyone thinks about them bombing the hell out of Iran to prevent them from having Nukes. The only ones with much sway there would be the US and the US will back Isreal up politically at the very least.
The US has run out of viable pretexts for any such meddling. The only pretext for Iraq that they could pull off was WMD. Do you seriously think even that would work again? The US would need another 9/11 incident to fall into their laps for a pretext that would work.

What my real issue is I guess is just the nukes in general. I was seriously disappointed when I heard that my government had decided to break with the nuclear arms treaty. If I were in Iran and found out that my government was making nukes I would get the hell out as soon as possible.

 

[vanesch]

Sorry Vanesch but this doesn't seem to make much sense.
They wish to protect themselves from the US so they build nuclear weapons knowing that the only politically viable option the US can find for invasion of their country is that they are developing nuclear weapons.

Well, they've seen with their neighbour's invasion that the US can find ANY politically viable option for invasion of a country, if they set their mind to it. In the sense of: "if you want to beat a dog, you easily find a stick". They have been declared "being part of the axis of evil". So they know they are on the list, no matter what they do. Sooner or later, the US will find a (true or bogus) reason which counts as a "viable option for invasion". Whether or not they REALLY devellop nuclear weapons or not.
So their only insurance NOT to get them over the floor, is REALLY HAVING nukes. As is uncle Kim, their peer on the list.

(added)
So knowing that they are IN ANY CASE going to be invaded, UNLESS they can devellop a nuclear weapon, they have to take their stakes at it. I'm of the opinion that the Iraq invasion is indirectly the cause for the Iranians develloping a nuclear weapon, because it gave them 1) the motivation (namely, the proof that they WILL be invaded, no matter what) and 2) the opportunity time window (because the US is tied down for a moment)
The only risk they take is that they may not do it fast enough. So they need to go to maximum speed, before their time window opportunity closes.

 

[vanesch]

First, it is not U.S. or Nato or U.N. policy to invade other countries without good reason.

That was true until a few years ago, no
Now we know that "good reason" is a very relative concept...

Thus, secondly, they have miscalculated badly if they think that the U.S. lacks the means and the will to prevent them from obtaining nukes.

I think when they look at their neighbours "under treatment" that they found it a reasonable chance to take.

 

[vanesch]

I agree that there is a logic there but I feel that it's not well thought out.
Nuclear weapons in and of themselves are just bad news. The less they have in the way of conventional weapons to back themselves up the more dangerous possessing nukes becomes to themselves.

I don't think so. Nukes ARE a serious deterrent, especially if you KNOW that the party having them has limited _other_ options (and are a bit fanatic, that helps, too).

The US is the least of their worries. No one wants the US to attack Iran for any reason and the political situation currently will not allow for the US to try it's hand without serious reprecussions.

Right now, yes. But in 10 years from now ? Especially because oil will be increasingly strategic, and the Iranians float on an ocean of it.

The Nuke situation is the only pretext the US currently has with any viability and that isn't even likely enough for them to get off the hook with another military incursion into someone elses business.
I'm pretty positive though that Isreal could care less what anyone thinks about them bombing the hell out of Iran to prevent them from having Nukes.

Maybe that's part B of the plan: provoke Israel to a major military effort, to ruin once and for all their reputation in the world. They do not have to fear so much from Israel: it will not overthrow their regime, at most bomb a few sites. Israel will not INVADE Iran. Israel using nukes in a pre-emptive attack against Iran ? Don't think they dare. The Chinese and Russians might take the opportunity to retalliate, solve the ME problem for good by wiping Israel from the map, and reap all the oil with their all-to-happy new buddies. If you consider that far-stretched, how about, say, Seoul (eq. Israel) nuking South Korea (eq. Iran) ? Wouldn't the US feel an opportunity to strike back with nukes, solving in the mean time a pain over there ?
So I think that the ONLY thing that the Iranians have to fear, in the few years to come, are a few conventional air strikes from Israel. I think they made their calculation, and came to the conclusion that it was worth it, if it buys them their nuclear insurance.

Do you seriously think even that would work again? The US would need another 9/11 incident to fall into their laps for a pretext that would work.

As I said, not now, but in 10 years, who knows ? Who knows what crazy bearded fool gets into his head to do on US soil, and which can serve as an excuse, especially when oil gets much more important than it already is?

As you point yourself out, the US put itself out of the game for a few years. A never-dreamed of opportunity. The only one who can do limited damage, is Israel, and it will hurt Israel more than anything else. For Iran, it is "now or never".

 

[Art]

Here is an excellent summation of the Iranian situation by Middle Eastern Studies expert Ray Takeyh. It is a transcript of his presentation to the Council On Foreign Relations. It addresses many of the points raised in this thread.

Iran: Tehran’s Nuclear Recklessness and the U.S. Response

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9263/iran.html?breadcrumb=default

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Vanesch and TSA are both right: this is Iran's one window of opportunity (which is why the West needs to quite fooling around and take action), and it will get them in nothing but trouble (if the West gets its act together). The safest strategy for Iran would be for them to follow Khadafi's lead and give up their quest for nuclear fire as well as get out of the terrorism business, and focus on creating better lives for Iranian citizens. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

One argument that has not been mentioned once is why Iran--and indeed any country including the U.S.--needs nuclear power? Especially when there are renewable alternatives? In addition to risk of future Three Mile Islands and Chernobyls, the problem of nuclear weapons proliferation must be figured into the cost accounting nuclear energy. Pakistan, North Korea, and now Iran have all used "peaceful" nuclear energy as cover stories to protect nuclear weapons development.

Indeed, the only way nuclear can produce energy cheaper than the $0.03 per kWh that wind energy now costs to produce in the U.S. is if the externalities associated with nuclear energy are not priced in. These include at least: (1) costs associated with storing spent fuel for thousands of years; (2) costs of decommisioning old reactors; (3) the risk and security costs of breeder reactors that produce plutonium that could fall into the wrong hands; (4) nuclear energy provides a cover for clandestine weapons programs in rogue nations like North Korea and Iran; (5) even if new fail-safe designs can reliably prevent Chernobyl-like disasters in the future, there will always be the risk of catastrophic failure since nuclear reactors present tempting targets for terrorists and rogue nations at war. These problems have not been solved in the most technologically advanced nations after more than 40 years of nuclear energy probably because these problems are not solvable. In addition, it is not the case that nuclear energy produces zero carbon emissions because the hard-rock mining required to obtain uranium is very energy intensive.

So here's a poll question: How many of you who believe that Iran has a right to produce nuclear energy also believe that nuclear energy should be banned within North America and Europe?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Art, interesting link. Takeyh is correct when he writes, "As Washington seeks to grapple with Iran’s nuclear challenge, it must accept that its doctrine of preemption with its threats and its hostile rhetoric has limited utility in altering Iran’s path." Rhetoric and threats are not going to get the job done.