News What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[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"...

 

[BobG]

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.

A lot of what will happen the next few years comes down to Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I'm not sure whether the Bush administration invaded because of ulterior motives or just because of incompetence. Their botched efforts in the UN prior to the invasion suggests that incompetence had more to do with the way things played out, but the end result is the same. Incompetence destroys credibility just as effectively as lies.

Still, I'd be surprised to see Iran complete an operational nuclear weapon before Bush leaves office and I doubt the next administration will be as bad as Bush's. Iran's push towards nuclear weapons are motivated by its own goals rather than fear of the US - the Iraq invasion just makes it harder for anyone to do something about it.

 

[vanesch]

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..

projected total electricity requirements for 70,000 megawatts by 2021--about 7,000 MW.

Ok, so that's going to be ~ 14000 wind turbines at full power, constantly. So if you take it that the wind doesn't always blow, you'd need, say, ~ 30000 wind turbines of the above type to provide Iran with wind energy. If you put one every 33 meters, that 1000 km of wind turbines

It's also interesting to calculate the width of a band of solar cells around the equator that will provide enough power to satisfy the actual world consumption of electricity. A friend of mine calculated it to something like a 5 km wide band (including covering the oceans). Didn't check it, though...

 

[phcatlantis]

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?

It doesn't make sense to talk about moving force out of theater only to put them back in again. Phase I and II of an op against Iran should take on the order of the time it took to OIF's Phase I and II. III and IV will depend on what our objectives are after major combat operations conclude.

Compare the manpower of the US military today to the manpower it had at the time of the first Gulf War.

You'd want to compare combat power, not manpower.

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.

I can't say I've evaluated the capacity of the Army and Marines to occupy more than one country, and a large part of that is contingent upon post-major combat objectives and the environment. I'd say since both of us are short on numbers right now, we might take some time to clear up what US forces can and cannot do at first glance.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

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

Okay, so let’s come up with what the correct poll would be (a maximum of 10 options):

Nuclear energy IS a necessary and safe source of energy that all countries should have access to until other cleaner/safer sources can become viable.

Nuclear energy IS a necessary and safe source of energy, but countries including the U.S. should only have access to it in accordance with UN guidelines – no double standards.

Nuclear energy IS a necessary and safe source of energy, but countries with “rogue” status should not be allowed access to this technology under any circumstances.

Nuclear energy is NOT safe and NOT necessary. Countries should focus only on other cleaner/safer sources of energy.

More suggestions?

 

[phcatlantis]

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.

You're thinking about this rather politically--that is in terms of political maps. :D

Have you noticed that Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq form one continguous landmass all in the same AOR?

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.

Redeployment isn't a block affair, its rotational. OIF and OEF deployment schedules operate on twelve month schedules. The way it works out is that a quarter to a half of unit strength is actually deployed at a time, so the rotation speed is even faster. That's not to say that anyone's getting a break in the field--twelve months is the absolute minimum a solider or Marine stays in country, but during that period he can expect to see fresh bodies--who after 3 years are likely to have been in Iraq before--up to four times a year. The real concern, where there is any, is equipment and Guard and Reserve end strength.

And Secretary Rumsfeld has a point. Readiness may dull under combat conditions, but the fact is that the force cycling in and out of CENTCOM's AOR has seen war and is battle-hardened. There's no argument that the US Army at the end of WWII was in better shape, professionally speaking, than it was at the beginning. And right now we're returning many junior officers and young enlisted into training roles back home--consider that their bulk of antecedents for the most part had never been underfire at any point in their careers. As harsh as his experience is, the veteran of the CENTCOM AOR is the most capable warfighter in the US armed services today.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

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

I read the article you're talking about. A few months ago, he published an article on how to win in Iraq. Rumsfeld says the military has never been stronger. I agree. Retention is up, and the army is now battle-tested. As for Iraqian WMD's, they DID have them--just ask the Iranians--the question is what did they do with them? Coalition forces did destroy several tons of insecticides that could have been turned into chemical weapons, and there were reports on the radio last night that some chemical weapons were flown to Syria right before the recent invasion. And there were lots of reasons for invading. The one given by most rank and file American soldiers over there is that they are bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.

But last night, I was reading through some blogs by people who claim to be in Iran. The thing was that those that expressed critical views of the government and the stifling life and lousy economy and how they hated starving during Ramadan, their posts would just stop stop without explanation, and then nothing else for months now. It makes me wonder what the heck is going on over there. I'm thinking maybe we should invade Iran just to bring freedom to the people there. Support for the mullacracy is not uniform by any means. Lot's of people there are nostalgic for the old constitutional monarchy.

Re: Iranian wind power: it's an ideal location, with it's mix of mountains, plains and coastal areas. They are already a leader in the region, and are setting up wind farms in places like Armenia.

As for the US, wind power is finally competitive. The government now just needs to stay out of the way, and stop subsidizing coal and nuclear. If they're not going to charge a carbon tax on fossil fuels, then wind should at least get a carbon tax credit. And I don't see how $0.001 per kWh is enough to cover the waste disposal cost of nuclear, but I might be wrong on that.

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

Indeed!

 

[SOS2008]

There are so many threads on similar topics, I think I'll just start copying posts from one to the other...

What has been the result of countries like Pakistan or N. Korea having nukes, WWIII? No, but another military attack in the Middle East against Iran could. Here’s how it goes…

The neocons in the Bush administration and Pentagon gain power and begin their strategy of taking over first Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, and so forth.

The EU tries to negotiate with Iran to divert another attack by the U.S. and/or Israel in the Middle East to avoid further volatility.

World pressure is for the U.S. and the so-called coalition of the willing (Israel and Turkey--I guess Poland is out of this one-hah) to go through the UN this time. This includes pressure from China, which holds the majority of U.S. debt, and Russia.

But recent chain of events, the loss of Sharon who was a voice of reason, and election of Hamas, which is viewed as a terrorist organization throws a wrench in things.

Israel becomes very paranoid (I mean beyond the usual paranoia) and matters escalate.

The EU continues to push for diplomacy and peaceful resolution between Palestine (Hamas) and Israel.

The U.S. continues with it’s usual bias toward Israel and stance against the terrorist government of Hamas, and allows Israel to attack Palestine, which opens the door for the U.S. to attack Iran.

The world is soon embroiled in WWIII.

See how lovely it all is? All over Iran having nukes like Pakistan and N. Korea. Not hardly worth it if you stop and really think about it.

And I haven't even mentioned the changing of currency off the U.S. dollar (by countries like China and Iran) and the resulting devaluation of the dollar, inflation, run on the banks, etc.

 

[edward]

I can't say I've evaluated the capacity of the Army and Marines to occupy more than one country, and a large part of that is contingent upon post-major combat objectives and the environment. I'd say since both of us are short on numbers right now, we might take some time to clear up what US forces can and cannot do at first glance.

At some point you need to evaluate the taxpayers capacity to pay for all of this. We are selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq. We have to look at the overall picture here,we are already greatly overextended financially. Tunnel vision only works in tunnels.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Ok, so that's going to be ~ 14000 wind turbines at full power, constantly. So if you take it that the wind doesn't always blow, you'd need, say, ~ 30000 wind turbines of the above type to provide Iran with wind energy. If you put one every 33 meters, that 1000 km of wind turbines

Actually, that's much too dense. You wouldn't want to go more dense than 1 turbine for 5 acres, which is 150,000 acres, or 600 square kilometers--a 15 mile by 15 mile area. Thus, for a footprint of 0.04% of Iran's total area, wind power could completely take up the slack left by forgoing the nuclear option.
_____________________________________________________________

Secretary Rumsfeld has a point. Readiness may dull under combat conditions, but the fact is that the force cycling in and out of CENTCOM's AOR has seen war and is battle-hardened. There's no argument that the US Army at the end of WWII was in better shape, professionally speaking, than it was at the beginning. And right now we're returning many junior officers and young enlisted into training roles back home--consider that their bulk of antecedents for the most part had never been underfire at any point in their careers. As harsh as his experience is, the veteran of the CENTCOM AOR is the most capable warfighter in the US armed services today.

HOO-AH! LET'S ROLL!

And as for the Chinese, if they give us any trouble, we just default on the T-bills we sold 'em.

 

[SOS2008]

HOO-AH! LET'S ROLL!

And as for the Chinese, if they give us any trouble, we just default on the T-bills we sold 'em.

OMG!

 

[phcatlantis]

At some point you need to evaluate the taxpayers capacity to pay for all of this. We are selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq. We have to look at the overall picture here,we are already greatly overextended financially. Tunnel vision only works in tunnels.

Tell us, Edward. China holds how much in US securities? What's their take of the total foreign holding? What is the current trend in foreign holdings in US debt instruments?

 

[SOS2008]

It would be nice to see one of two things -- Members actually reading prior posts with the information they request, or doing the homework on their own. Very quickly, for example:

THE FINANCIAL PAGE
IN YUAN WE TRUST
Issue of 2005-04-18


…Nowadays, when you’re abroad, you’re lucky if $1.83 buys you a cup of coffee. In the past three years, the value of the dollar has fallen by more than fifty per cent against the euro and twenty-five per cent against the yen, and, a recent rally notwithstanding, most analysts say that the dollar is only going to get weaker in the months to come.

…since 2001 the American government has been running giant budget deficits, thanks to the magical combination of tax cuts and spending increases. We don’t have enough money at home to pay for all this spending, so we borrow from foreigners to make up the difference. Because we keep piling on this foreign debt—more than three trillion dollars so far—and have no clear strategy for paying it back, people are made anxious about the United States economy; this anxiety encourages them to sell dollars, and that drives down the value of our currency.

…Doomsayers have been predicting for a while that the profligacy will lead to serious trouble. So why hasn’t it?

One answer is that Asia won’t let it. Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion dollars in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is effectively taking most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United States. The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with savings, bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even though the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value. More than any other nation in history, the United States depends, economically, on the kindness of strangers. Right now, Asian investors appear very kind.

…Of course, the Chinese and the Japanese could decide that the costs of the falling dollar are too great, and suddenly stop (or, at least, cut back sharply) their lending to the United States. This would lead to a so-called “hard landing” for the U.S. economy: high inflation, punitive interest rates, collapsing stock prices and housing prices.

…What the Chinese and the Japanese do depends in large part on what they think everyone else is going to do. If the Chinese get the idea that Japan’s commitment to the dollar is wavering, or if they decide that the United States has no interest in altering its deadbeat ways, then they may try to make a run for it.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk_surowiecki

Not to mention waht they see the U.S. do in regard to Iran and their supply of oil...

China Set To Reduce Exposure To Dollar
Move Would Probably Push Currency Down
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page D01

SHANGHAI, Jan. 9 -- China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic policymakers said in an interview Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042.html

Or what Iran my do with their currency as well:

Iran's new bourse may threaten the dollar
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 24, 2006, 22:08

In March 2006, Iran is scheduled to open its own oil bourse that will trade in euros. But even before it can open its doors, Iran is being accused of harbouring a clandestine nuclear weapons programme and is being threatened with sanctions or worse.

Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_447.shtml

Stop being trolls by taking a minute of your time to ask for hours of work from other members.

 

[edward]

Tell us, Edward. China holds how much in US securities? What's their take of the total foreign holding? What is the current trend in foreign holdings in US debt instruments?

China now holds over 800 Billion in a combination of U.S. T Bills and dollars in their central bank. Their take in foreign holdings is slightly behind Saudia Arabia and about the equivalent of Japans. In 2004 they acquired 200 billion in trade surplus, in 05 it was closer to 300 Billion.

China's current trend is to exchange those dollars for other assets by buying properties ,primarily oil companies, in other countries. They are also buying other foreign currencies with their surplus of dollars.

Sure we could default on the dollars owed to China, but it would be difficult to do that without a good reason and without risking a backout of US treasury instruments by the other foreign holders.

One month without Chinese imports and our stores selling consumer goods would have empty shelves. And bear in mind the U.S. factories which once produced those goods are no longer in existence.

If China should dump its dollars on the market before we default on them it could mean the collapse of the dollar.

What is your point?? Or are you just being a troll? Now give me a list of general consumer goods that are not made in China?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/16/business/yuan.php
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/06/krugman_on_chin.html
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/winston/winston020905.html
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/110403.html

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army has approved the purchase of more than $29 million worth of weapons for the new Iraqi army from a Chinese state-owned company that's under indictment in California in connection with the smuggling of 2,000 AK-47 automatic rifles into the United States in 1996.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Warren, Mich.-based U.S. Army Tank-automotive and Armaments Command approved the contract for Poly Technologies after a check into the company's background. The company wasn't among those banned from doing business in the United States, he said.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11504378.htm

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Stop being trolls by taking a minute of your time to ask for hours of work from other members. . . . What is your point?? Or are you just being a troll? Now give me a list of general consumer goods that are not made in China?

Arguably, calling someone else a troll is itself a form of trolling. No one here is getting their arm twisted into responding to anyone else's posts. Let's try to keep it civil. This thread has been pretty good about that so far.

As far as the Chinese declaring economic war against us if we invade Iran, I doubt it will happen, because it will hurt them worse than it will hurt us. There is absolutely no reason for them to devalue the U.S. dollar against the Chinese yuan. If anything, the biggest complaint that the U.S. has had against China is that the yuan is artificially devalued vis-a-vis the USD. If the USD were ever devalued, the American spending spree in China would come to an end, and they'd get their T-bills paid back in cheap dollars that wouldn't buy very much oil.

And why in the world would China ever want to ban all exports to the U.S.? If we can't buy our plastic toys from China, we'll just buy them from Mexico and Malaysia instead. But if we stop buying plastic toys from China, they won't have cash to keep modernizing or to buy oil and everything else they import. If things got really nasty, we could easily blockade the Strait of Mallaca, through which flows 80% of the oil China imports.

And if anything, China should prefer a democracy or constitutional monarchy in Iran rather than the current mullacracy because China has its own problems with radical Islam in Sinkiang province. It's not like a democratic Iran wouldn't be happy to sell as much oil to China as China ever wanted to buy. In any case, Western hegemony in the Gulf region will only increase the stability of oil supplies once the war is over. For China this is a good thing. We are not out to mess with the global free market in oil. We are merely trying to ensure that it remains free, and not subject to nuclear blackmail by nuclear-armed radical Islamist regimes.

Bottom line: China might ***** and moan about U.S. actions against Iran. China might even threaten to veto any security council resolutions against Iran (in which case the security council will be bypassed, having made itself irrelevant). But in the end, they'll just kick back and secretly smile as they loan us the money to do their dirty work for them as usual, so that they are ensured a stable oil supply.

 

[edward]

WarrenPlatts:

Do you have any links to support your suppositions on what China may or may not do??

I have given links to show what they are currently doing and are capable of doing in the future. Hmm Have you bought a Black and Decker drill or any other tool lately? A coffee maker, microwave oven , toaster, GE air conditioner ect ect.

I recognize that you have grandiose dreams about the U.S. dominating the world. We might have accomplished that if we had not allowed American companies to outsourse our industry.

China is very much a global financial and industrial player. We have more to worry about from their actions than they do from ours. They can shut us down financially while still doing business with other countries. Don't under estimate them. They are accustomed to hardships, we are spoiled.

SHIFT OF INFLUENCE. Let's start with the Saudi monarch. On Jan. 23, King Abdullah met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing to discuss the mainland's energy security and possibly sign a pact that would increase Chinese investment in Saudi oil, natural gas, and petrochemical assets.

If you're wondering what he's doing there, consider this: Not long ago, China was a net exporter of oil, but it now imports about 40% of its crude, thanks to falling output at its big northeastern oil fields. By 2025, China likely will import 75% of its oil, the U.S. Energy Dept. estimates, and the Saudis are a key Chinese supplier. So good relations with them are a huge priority for China, while the Saudis want to build ties to Asia to offset U.S. influence.

Precise details of the energy pact haven't been disclosed. But a report by Arab News on Jan. 23 suggested that three Saudi companies -- MIDROC, Sara Development, and House of Invention -- are teaming up with an undisclosed Chinese partner to build a $6 billion petrochemical complex in Jubail Industrial City on the Persian Gulf

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jan2006/nf20060123_8985_db039.htm

So what do we do now invade Saudi Arabia?

 

[Lisa!]

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.

Wow, that's cool! I don't know why other countries don't think of that?
And perhaps US would be able to get rid of hurricanes by exporting their extra winds to Iran!

 

[vanesch]

Actually, that's much too dense. You wouldn't want to go more dense than 1 turbine for 5 acres, which is 150,000 acres, or 600 square kilometers--a 15 mile by 15 mile area. Thus, for a footprint of 0.04% of Iran's total area, wind power could completely take up the slack left by forgoing the nuclear option.

Ok, for 10% of the Iranian energy requirements, that is, you'd have to build a "windmill city" the size of Mexico City... and hope you have wind.
Note that it would take 2 nuclear power plants to do the same.
I would by far prefer that the other 90% oil-driven energy sources be replaced too.

But I agree that alternative sources SHOULD be looked at. However, I don't see them *replacing* other sources any time soon. And the real option is of course not wind energy but solar energy. You can think of the Sahara for 10% covered with solar cells or something.

 

[Lisa!]

Bush and China Endorse Russia's Nuclear Plan for Iran
Sounds like there's no need to think of other alternative sources for Iran right now!

 

[phcatlantis]

It would be nice to see one of two things -- Members actually reading prior posts with the information they request, or doing the homework on their own.

I think Physicsforums has some strict rules about soliciting solutions in inappropriate forums, and this was Edwards homework assignment. That aside, it might help if you'd actually provide the correct answers. [1,http://www.treas.gov/tic/shl2004r.pdf ]

Stop being trolls by taking a minute of your time to ask for hours of work from other members.

Hours? It took less than five minutes to produce two relevant documents that answer all three questions. And...

China now holds over 800 Billion in a combination of U.S. T Bills and dollars in their central bank

...your boy still got it wrong.

 

[phcatlantis]

China now holds over 800 Billion in a combination of U.S. T Bills and dollars in their central bank.

Of which only the Treasury debt, which stands at just under $250 billion total and increases at a rate of under 3 percent annually matters. In other words, if we were to pretend that Chinese held debt instruments financed OIF accounts, China is responsible for just about $2 billion or 2 percent of the present annual expenditure (which, of course, would go up percentage-wise as OIF expenditures diminish).

If you want to talk about non-Treasury contributions to the PRC's foreign exchange reserves, that's another issue entirely.

One month without Chinese imports and our stores selling consumer goods would have empty shelves. And bear in mind the U.S. factories which once produced those goods are no longer in existence.

Yes, if the Chinese choose to screw the US, and themselves in the process, they have the ability to do so. Japan even more so, although I fail to see what this has to do with your original point about China's financial leverage over OIF.

What is your point??

I was about to ask you the same thing.

Or are you just being a troll?

Are you SOS's resident parrot?

Now give me a list of general consumer goods that are not made in China?

Why?

 

[phcatlantis]

They can shut us down financially while still doing business with other countries.

Really? And who would absorb even the $300 billion in US long term securities? Seems to me in order for China to avoid screwing themselves royally would be to rally most of the industrialized world in a nefarious plot to dispense with their holdings at a lower exchange than they bought into the system. And what about the $500 billion of hard currency?

 

[jhe1984]

Barring a massive change in military reality, the US simply cannot occupy Iran. We'd need at least 180,000 to 250,000 troops - those are on the low end - and we simply don't have that. Even if the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were to end tomorrow, there is not that kind of manpower in the US military. Granted, we could surge deploy about every last one of our troops - Guard and Reserve included - and have that manpower - but that'd only last at best 6 months. Even if we had the troops, Iran possesses a very different set of challenges than Iraq. They've got vast deserts like Iraq as well as craggy mountains like Afghanistan. In addition they've got extensive shores in several areas that would require a large number of littoral naval vessels to secure. But in simplest terms, they've got obligations to other nations that we just can't meet if we went in there. Their oil exports are vital to several nations including US ally India. In short, it'd make Iraq look like Operation Just Cause.

Not to mention that, aside from nuclear weapons, Iran's danger lies in areas outside of Iran. If we bombed Tehran, count on the Syrians to move west back into Lebanon; Hezbollah to move south toward Israel; and Palestine to simply explode. Add that to the fact that they are holding multiple high value al Qaeda targets like Bin laden's nephew(?) Saad Bin Laden who'd be happy to run around causing problems. They've also got plenty of pull in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan among others. It'd be an insurgent festival, with cakes - I mean bombs - aplenty.

Best of all, ha, choose your staging ground: Iraq or Afghanistan . We had a hard enough time simply getting into both of those countries to stay, much less using them as a launching pad for the largest war since World War II.

On top of that, the UN would occupy Iran over their dead body, as it would be akin to the Russians shooting themselves in the foot, and the Chinese purposely dying of thirst.

 

[EnumaElish]

On top of that, the UN would occupy Iran over their dead body, as it would be akin to the Russians shooting themselves in the foot, and the Chinese purposely dying of thirst.

IMHO that's why the only viable last-resort military option against Iran will have to be a bombing of the alleged nuclear production sites by the U.S. (NATO?)

At worst it may have to be a completely unilateral action by the U.S.

At best it will be a "multilateral" action with at least some NATO countries' agreement, however grudgingly.

Under such circumstances the legitimacy of military action will be very thin, unless the U.S. can somehow demonstrate the EU and the U.N. having had used every possible action in their diplomatic arsenal to no avail against a potential nuclear threat from Iran.

 

[edward]

Of which only the Treasury debt, which stands at just under $250 billion total and increases at a rate of under 3 percent annually matters. In other words, if we were to pretend that Chinese held debt instruments financed OIF accounts, China is responsible for just about $2 billion or 2 percent of the present annual expenditure (which, of course, would go up percentage-wise as OIF expenditures diminish). ect ect ect

Exactly as I thought, no links to support anything you rant on about.

DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK

 

[edward]

Really? And who would absorb even the $300 billion in US long term securities? Seems to me in order for China to avoid screwing themselves royally would be to rally most of the industrialized world in a nefarious plot to dispense with their holdings at a lower exchange than they bought into the system. And what about the $500 billion of hard currency?

As I mentioned, and if you woud bother to read any of the links, China is busily diversifying their U.S. dollars. And they can afford to take a loss on their dollars if necessary by converting the major portion to another currency or other assets. We on the other hand can not afford to lose anything.

 

[edward]

Of which only the Treasury debt, which stands at just under $250 billion total and increases at a rate of under 3 percent annually matters. In other words, if we were to pretend that Chinese held debt instruments financed OIF accounts, China is responsible for just about $2 billion or 2 percent of the present annual expenditure (which, of course, would go up percentage-wise as OIF expenditures diminish).

If you want to talk about non-Treasury contributions to the PRC's foreign exchange reserves, that's another issue entirely.

That was exactly what I was talking about when I used the term combination of T Bills and dollars held in China's central bank. You just changed the terminology to "foreign exchange reserve". Do the math it equals 800 billion.

 

[phcatlantis]

As I mentioned, and if you woud bother to read any of the links, China is busily diversifying their U.S. dollars.

Do you even know what that means? Let's put it another way, how do you diversity dollars? I mean, if you can't explain this the rest of your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, right?

 

[phcatlantis]

That was exactly what I was talking about when I used the term combination of T Bills and dollars held in China's central bank. You just changed the terminology to "foreign exchange reserve". Do the math it equals 800 billion.

Tell us edwards. What does China's hard currency holdings have to do with funding OIF? And tell us, are you suggesting that China entire foreign exchange reserve consists of US currency, equity and debt?

 

[edward]

Do you even know what that means? Let's put it another way, how do you diversity dollars? I mean, if you can't explain this the rest of your post doesn't make a whole lot of sense, right?

Chinese companies are using dollars to buy outright or buy into joint ventures in foreign companies. 14 billion in 2005 and growing. But of course you know this .

 

[edward]

Tell us edwards. What does China's hard currency holdings have to do with funding OIF? And tell us, are you suggesting that China entire foreign exchange reserve consists of US currency, equity and debt?

No. You tell us.

 

[phcatlantis]

Chinese companies are using dollars to buy outright or buy into joint ventures in foreign companies.

In a word, so?

Troll on little man.

Lonely nights getting to you? Relax, buddy. We're all friends here.

 

[phcatlantis]

No. You tell us.

It's your argument, buddy. You know that remark you made about "selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq." That is, after all, what we're talking about. So how about we cut the tantrum and get down to business like grown folk. M'kay?

 

[SOS2008]

It's your argument, buddy. You know that remarkably ignorant remark you made about "selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq." That is, after all, what we're talking about. So how about we cut the tantrum and get down to business like grown folk. M'kay?

How about we do that? Since you are an expert economist and all...

To paraphrase a knowledgeable person currently living in China, as long as the U.S. does not default, China owns us, and if we do default, everyone owns us. If the U.S. defaults on T-bills, do you think a single country in the world would trade with us? And if there were no “petro dollars” who would sell oil to us? Considering U.S. consumption, the U.S. would become a third world nation.

Moving on…

For a while we have been told by the Greenspan Fed that M1 and M2 are more volatile and less useful indicators of what is happening with money supply, and that the M3 is the only other useful indicator. Under Ben Bernake, President Bush’s appointee to replace the retiring Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve announced it would discontinue reporting data on the broadest measure of the money supply, M3, effective March 23, 2006. (http://www.ny.frb.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html)

Depositary institutions will no longer be required to report Eurodollar deposits and repurchase agreements. This is at the very least a downgrading of all of the money supply data. All this mystery does nothing but push people to the conclusion that something is being hidden.

Is Bernake set to devalue the currency even though it would mean dire consequences for the American standard of living? Gold has risen from US$400 to US$550 within a year.

I’m sure all this means nothing, so don’t worry your pretty little heads about it…

 

[SOS2008]

Okay, so where were we in the Hamas thread...oh yes...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurkyl

Why? I've never argued I'm sure Iran will fire on Israel.In order for it to be worth considering, it merely has to be a possibility -- even if the odds were as low as 5%, I would feel that it would be something that demands serious attention.

Perhaps not, but you also fail to consider which comes first, the chicken or the egg, and the percent chance that Israel will fire on Iran, or now on Hamas.

The Role of Israel

Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.

The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ).

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714

After an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and this kind of preparation, I can't imagine why Iran and the rest of the sane world might have fear of Israel and the U.S.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Okay, so where were we in the Hamas thread...oh yes...

Actually, this is the "Occupation of Iran" thread.

 

[SOS2008]

Actually, this is the "Occupation of Iran" thread.

Right - I was copying a section over from the Hamas thread (as I stated I would in that thread) because it belongs here. Sorry if it caused confusion.

 

[edward]

It's your argument, buddy. You know that remarkably ignorant remark you made about "selling Treasury Bills to China just to pay for Iraq." That is, after all, what we're talking about. So how about we cut the tantrum and get down to business like grown folk. M'kay?

No actually that is not what we were talking about. It is unfortunate that I did use the word just in that one sentence, but it is fact that we started selling T Bills to China concurrently with the planned invasion of Iraq. The: T bills to China to pay for Iraq scenario was played out widely in the news media. Perhaps you missed it. I picked it up while watching an interview with Warren Buffett, but then what the hell does he know? Right.

But again, T bills to China, was only a small part of my overall point.

One of my points was that China only needs to hold off on shipping consumer goods for several months and the American public will be in a total rage. Unless of course you believe that the American public is willing and able to do without the hundreds of products coming in tens of thousands of containers that arrive from China every week.

Do your realize that even the baby bottles used in this country are now made in China. How do you plan on explaining your rocket science economic theories to all of those angry mommies. Or go to Home Depot to buy a box of nails, oops you can't do that the nails are now made in China also.

You are greatly underestimating just how ingrained Chinese products have become in our everday lives.

Do you really think that we could get away with shortchanging them on what we owe? It is not going to happen without grave consequences on the home front.

And no more homework assignments please, I not at all impressed with your apparent need to be the intellectual superior being.

 

[jhe1984]

"IMHO that's why the only viable last-resort military option against Iran will have to be a bombing of the alleged nuclear production sites by the U.S. (NATO?)"

You are correct, however even this is extremely complex and not at all appealing for several reasons.

First of all, the Iranians are smart. They watched (in 1981, I think it was) as the Israeli Air Force took out Saddam's Osirak nuclear plant in Tuwaitah. The attack worked splendidly - the plant was more or less above ground and was not really hardened (I think it was still under construction), so the Israeli attack completely neutralized the plant - and Iraq's hopes of constructing nuclear apparati.

Watching this, the Iranians have gone to extreme steps to prevent this from happening. They have built multiple facilities, all of which are hardened, and the majority of which are below ground. In short, cruise missiles and bunker busters are not sufficient enough to make sure the plants and all the nuclear material has been destroyed.

This means that any airstrike would have to be a massive one and a sustained large-scale airstrike requires 1) complete air superiority - no defensive fighters in the sky, no SAMs or radar posts 2) air-to-air refueling and 3) enormous pay load packages. Number 1 alone is enough to significantly halt any plans - it took several thousand special forces, several hundred assault helicopters and jets, and several weeks to take out Iraq's air defense network in the first Gulf War - which is the closest approximation to what we'd be up against in Iran.

And so clearly everything is dependent on the US. No other country has the military hardware and variety of arsenal to accomplish this mission. Plus, the United States has one hugely significant tool that can, in part, negate a lot of these difficulties: the B2 stealth bomber. If we trust their stealthiness, and we are prepared to lose several - no small if's - it is conceivable that a concerted surprise campaign of B2's could signifcantly damage the targets. But again nothing is guaranteed. And also, if we lose a couple of those B2's, in addition to the lives of their crewmen, we've also lost a lot of secrecy to reverse engineering processes of foreign nations. I'm not sure how much of a concern this is, but I'd imagine it's notable.

Now for the bad news. Iran is a HUGE country. That means we'd probably have to refuel in flight, which complicates things even if its over friendly airspace - Iraq or Afg. KC-10s are hardly stealthy and almost any Iranian fighter pilot could conceivably trail one to a B2 - since the airdefense networks of Iraq and Afg are non-existent mostly: actually I take that back, I bet we'd love for an Iranian fighter to stray over Iraq.

More bad news. 135,000 of the US' best soldiers live right across the road in camps the size of small cities. It is not hard for the Iranians to launch several hundred medium range ballistic missiles back at us and kill up to 30,000 of our guys, not to mention Brits and the other nations still over there. Once that's over, then the weakened force would have to go out to on fire Shi'a neighborhoods where we've been drawing DOWN troops or adding Iraqis (same difference) and that have heretofor, exception an Najaf, stayed quiet. Moqtada al-Sadr has already said he will rise up in defense of Iran were it to be attacked. Al-Zarqawi who himself ran an AQ training camp in Herat, Afg near Iran in the 80s would be beside himself. He could attack the Iraqi Shi'a who would at this point attack back (their towns are in chaos anyway), thus drawing the country into a civil war - one which the US would perversely need to help the Sunni guerilla fighters to prevent Iran from dominating more real-estate. Yikes.

And you'll like this: our arsenal of weapons to attack hardened underground targets is limited. We've got a few different types of massive bunker busters - only a few of which could be dropped from the finite number of B2s - and that wouldn't guarantee beyond 70 or 80 percent at most complete destruction. All that adds up to is nuclear missiles being the most comprehensive option. I'd imagine that this is in no way currently ruled out. Yikes again. But then you've got an eighth or so of the world's oil not only offline, but radioactive. As well as a radioactive US NAVY and possibly a radioactive southern Iraq - depending on a couple factors.

And none of this is considering Iranian asymmetrical counterattacks, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, which are equally unsettling.

Yet staring us in the face is the option of Israel launching dozens of nuclear missiles over our 135,000 soldiers and equipment towards Iran, still with the above setbacks.

All in all, the options are quite unappealing. Good luck, DoD, you've got your hands full with this one. As Senator McCain said a few weeks ago, that, barring diplomatic efforts, war with Iran is the best of a list of terrible options.

IMHO, the best solution would've been to snatch Senor Ahmadenijad when he visited the UN here in New York half a year ago. Of course, the UN would've officially disintegrated at the point so - wait, maybe two birds for the price of one with that one.
...Except for WFP, UNDP, and one or two others - I like them.

 

[alexandra]

"IMHO that's why the only viable last-resort military option against Iran will have to be a bombing of the alleged nuclear production sites by the U.S. (NATO?)"

You are correct, however even this is extremely complex and not at all appealing for several reasons...

Interesting points you make in your analysis, jhe1984. Also, I've just read this:

Iran warns of missile strike

Revolutionary Guard general puts West on notice not to interfere as Tehran presses ahead with nuclear power programme

Jason Burke, chief Europe correspondent
Sunday January 29, 2006
The Observer

Senior Iranian officials further raised tensions with the West yesterday, implicitly warning that Tehran would use missiles to strike Israel or Western forces stationed in the Gulf if attacked...

'The world knows Iran has a ballistic missile power with a range of 2,000km (1,300 miles),' General Yahya Rahim Safavi said on state-run television. 'We have no intention to invade any country [but] we will take effective defence measures if attacked.'...

For the moment, Iran's most powerful weapon is the Shahab-3 missile, which can strike more than 2,000km from their launch site, putting Israel and American forces in the Middle East in easy range. The Revolutionary Guard was equipped with the missiles in July 2003.

'We are producing these missiles and don't need foreign technology for that,' Safavi said pointedly in his speech to the nation. Iran announced last year that it had developed solid-fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1697505,00.html

It seems the Iranian leadership has, indeed, learned its lesson well: the US government, leading by example, has shown that 'might is right', and that the new game is 'survival of the fittest'. Where this will lead is anyone's guess - it's created a bit of a timebomb, it seems.

 

[vanesch]

It seems the Iranian leadership has, indeed, learned its lesson well: the US government, leading by example, has shown that 'might is right', and that the new game is 'survival of the fittest'. Where this will lead is anyone's guess - it's created a bit of a timebomb, it seems.

Yes, it is in fact quite ironic that, on the grounds of an invasion to avoid "someone to have (non-existent) WMD", all conditions (motivation, opportunity) have been created to establish exactly that, but this time, with real WMD!