News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[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.

 

[Art]

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.

Yes but his proposed solution isn't to rain missiles on them. He says

What is to be done? At the outset it must be appreciated that the notion of “regime change” is more of a slogan than a policy. The United States does have an important stake in Iran’s internal struggles. Iran will change, however, this will not be a change imposed or accelerated from abroad. The best manner of impacting Iran’s internal struggles is to reconnect the two societies. Cultural exchanges, academic scholarships, and more relaxed visa policy can once more yield an interaction between two peoples that have long been estranged. Beyond that the United States would be wise to temper its rhetoric and relax its economic sanctions. For too long, we have relied on the hard stick of coercion, it is time to overwhelm Iran with America’s more compelling soft power. By integrating Iran into the global economy, the US can generate internal pressures for transparency and decentralization that will press Iran toward a more responsible international conduct. Through a multifaceted approach, the Untied States can best deter Iran’s provocative policies in the short-run and cultivate a democratic transition in the long-run.

 

[vanesch]

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?

I personally think that nuclear energy is the only viable option, this century, to get out of the fossil-fuel trap. Alternatives should also be develloped, but they are not sufficient, and cheap fusion energy is still at least 40 years away (if not much longer).
BTW, once we are out of the fossil-fuel trap, many "rogue nations" would have less reasons to be "rogue" in the first place

 

[Lisa!]

I liked vanesch's proposal, but I'm not hopeful about it at all! Actually they(US, don't want to solve the problem. They're just looking for a pretext to invade Iran, and well what could be better than nukes? So they're not going to lose this opportunity so easily!

Anyway I think ants will read about vanesch's proposal in their history books!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

I vote for wind power--the fastest growing source of energy in the world. There's at least one wind turbine company in Iran:

Saba Niroo Co.
* Business type: Manufacturering of Medium and Large Wind Turbines.
* Product types: 300,550 and 660kW Wind Turbines..
* Service types: Manufacturing, Erection, Commisioning ,Technical and after Sales Services of Wind Turbines-Design, Manufacturing and Production of Composite Industrial Structures-Design and Manufacturing of Fiberglass Molds-Test of Composite Materials
* Address: Shohada-ye-Sadid St., 9th Km of Saveh Road, Tehran 3319973416, Tehran Iran. P O Box: 33315/187
* Telephone: +98 (21) 525 6136-7
* FAX: +98 (21) 525 5912

According to this article by http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1294/1/ (a professor of chemical engineering at USC) nuclear power plants in Iran are projected to produce 10% of projected total electricity requirements for 70,000 megawatts by 2021--about 7,000 mW. His projection of future sources of electricity does not mention wind power, however. In fact, the head of Iran Renewable Energies Organization, Yusef Armoodeli, projected that wind will supply 6,500 imW in the "first stage", implying that second and third phases will produce even more.

Note that only 60% to 70% of the components for Iranian built wind turbines can be manufactured domestically there. So, if we really want to overwhelm Iran with American soft power, as Art would like, then why don't we go in there and help Iran become self-sufficient in wind turbine technology instead. Wind can produce as much energy cheaper, with less pollution and no international embroglios.

 

[Xenophon]

I believe Iran has had it coming. Ever since the Tehran embassy occupation of 1979, Iran has been on the US's blacklist. If not this administration, another one will be sure to go in guns blazing. If it's needed or not won't be the issue most likely. So why don't we give Iran it's nuclear power, but put the reactor in Russia with UN protection. The Russians have the contract, Iran has the power it "wanted", the US can fund it to show some good will and the UN will be forced to act if anything goes wrong.
Am I being too idealistic?

-Xenophon

While wind energy and other renewables are a great way to use Earth's energy, they're not very reliant and can't be called upon to solve all of our enrgy problems overnight. We'll probably end up clinging to fossil fuels until they dry up and then hopefully have a brief period of nuclear power while renewables are tuned to their best potential and switch back to renewable. While it may look long term, this idea seems like one of the more viable options to me.

 

[Art]

For large scale energy production one very promising candidate is 'Clean Coal'. Given the massive coal reserves most countries possesses this process has the ability to meet the world's energy requirements for many years to come. You can read a little about it here. http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/content/default.asp?PageId=62

 

[EnumaElish]

So, if we really want to overwhelm Iran with American soft power, as Art would like, then why don't we go in there and help Iran become self-sufficient in wind turbine technology instead. Wind can produce as much energy cheaper, with less pollution and no international embroglios.

Warren, this may be your calling. I believe you have your work cut out.

 

[alexandra]

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.

But the US military is mightily over-stretched, according to two reports mentioned in a bbc article I read today:

US military 'at breaking point'The US military has become dangerously overstretched because of the scale of its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, two reports have warned.

One, by former officials in the Clinton administration, said the pressure of repeated deployments was very corrosive and could have long-term effects.

The second, ordered by the Pentagon and yet to be released, reportedly calls the army "stretched to breaking point".

The US defence secretary dismissed the claims as out of date or misdirected.

About 138,000 US troops remain in Iraq, on top of deployments to Afghanistan and Kosovo.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4649066.stm

If the reports are true, then the decision-makers may opt for the nuclear strike 'option' (and if that happens, if we think the situation in the ME is volatile now, we ain't seen nothing yet...

 

[alexandra]

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...

They'd be mad to do this, Warren - the current US administration has demonstrated that it will do whatever it takes to secure a strategic advantage in the oil-rich ME region. Iraq did not have a nuclear arsenal and did not have WMD, and everyone (including the Bush administration) knew that - Iraq was invaded for other reasons. Iran knows it's the next target, and it doesn't matter what weapons it has/does not have.

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?

I disagree with most of the positions you have taken in various discussions so far, but the above extract makes a lot of sense to me and is an argument I can totally agree with.

To answer your poll question: I believe that once nuclear energy is banned in North America and Europe, then 'the international community' (ie. the US administration and its allies) can rightfully put pressure on other countries to not use nuclear energy and to develop sustainable energy facilities instead.

 

[alexandra]

I vote for wind power--the fastest growing source of energy in the world. There's at least one wind turbine company in Iran:

Saba Niroo Co.
* Business type: Manufacturering of Medium and Large Wind Turbines.
* Product types: 300,550 and 660kW Wind Turbines..
* Service types: Manufacturing, Erection, Commisioning ,Technical and after Sales Services of Wind Turbines-Design, Manufacturing and Production of Composite Industrial Structures-Design and Manufacturing of Fiberglass Molds-Test of Composite Materials
* Address: Shohada-ye-Sadid St., 9th Km of Saveh Road, Tehran 3319973416, Tehran Iran. P O Box: 33315/187
* Telephone: +98 (21) 525 6136-7
* FAX: +98 (21) 525 5912

According to this article by http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1294/1/ (a professor of chemical engineering at USC) nuclear power plants in Iran are projected to produce 10% of projected total electricity requirements for 70,000 megawatts by 2021--about 7,000 mW. His projection of future sources of electricity does not mention wind power, however. In fact, the head of Iran Renewable Energies Organization, Yusef Armoodeli, projected that wind will supply 6,500 imW in the "first stage", implying that second and third phases will produce even more.

Note that only 60% to 70% of the components for Iranian built wind turbines can be manufactured domestically there. So, if we really want to overwhelm Iran with American soft power, as Art would like, then why don't we go in there and help Iran become self-sufficient in wind turbine technology instead. Wind can produce as much energy cheaper, with less pollution and no international embroglios.

Yes, Warren - interesting stuff.

By the way, what is the status of wind-power development in the USA? Does the US administration plan to further develop alternative energy resources like this in the new future? And, is the US administration giving up plans to extend the nucleary energy sector? I have done some research on this issue - I think you should do some too. Check out what your government's plans are in this area... specifically, you may find it interesting to compare how much funding goes into subsidising nuclear versus alternative forms of energy production in the US.

There's an old saying: "What is good for the goose is good for the gander"...