News Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[alexandra]

I was referring to the Iraq war in that, as to the current situation I don't believe for a mintue Iran is any threat to any country as regards nukes, if I see some evidence to the contrary then I'll make a judgement then. ATM I really have a hard time believeing the sort of rhetoric coming from America, and threads like this are not making it any easier to take what they are saying seriously. Sorry but I'm on the fence on this one, feel free to make your own judgements but after Iraq I'm not taking anything for granted until I see direct evidence that they are absolutely developing tac nukes or ICBM's or even the technology to make them? You maybe right but then again? Waiting for the proof is not a bad idea I think.

I totally agree with everything you say, Schrodinger's Dog! I feel exactly the same way. But I think the US administration's European allies are not saying 'wait for proof': they're ready to back up the US administration's decision without proof - perhaps even to go along with whatever propaganda is being spread in preparation for what's coming. Only China and Russia are holding back judgement (China more so than Russia).

 

[vanesch]

I totally agree with everything you say, Schrodinger's Dog! I feel exactly the same way. But I think the US administration's European allies are not saying 'wait for proof': they're ready to back up the US administration's decision without proof - perhaps even to go along with whatever propaganda is being spread in preparation for what's coming.

Oh, as long as it is paperwork and sanctions and stuff like that, why not, if that can please the US. But I don't think ONE SECOND that any European country is going to align one single soldier for any action in Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4662676.stm

Not even the UK is supporter for any military interaction. Of course, we all would like to persuade Iran to back off with the nuclear programme, because it is not in any European countries' advantage to have a nuclear Iran. So as far as rethoric is concerned, all have loud voices. But there will be not much more than some diplomatic action. And I think that the Iranians know that. But it pleases Washington. So the Europeans try to make both parties happy (knowing that nothing serious against Iran will be undertaken anyways, thanks to the Chinese and Russians).
Honestly, I don't think the Europeans are lying awake about a nuclear Iran.

 

[jhe1984]

I am curious as to why ya'll think nothing (militarily) will happen against Iran?

Do you mean that no multilateral (US, UK, France, Germany) military action will take place against Iran or that no military action at all (unilateral or otherwise [including by Israel or US]) will take place against Iran?

If it's the latter, then I think I disagree with you - depending on the time frame we're speaking of - but I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

 

[alexandra]

I am curious as to why ya'll think nothing (militarily) will happen against Iran?

Do you mean that no multilateral (US, UK, France, Germany) military action will take place against Iran or that no military action at all (unilateral or otherwise [including by Israel or US]) will take place against Iran?

If it's the latter, then I think I disagree with you - depending on the time frame we're speaking of - but I'm interested to hear your reasoning.

Good question, jhe1984. I think there's a very high probability that unilateral military action will be taken, unfortunately - as you say, either by Israel, or by the US. Sometimes I just lose sight of reality and *wish* something could be done to prevent foreseeable horrors: this was such a case. As you point out, though, although China and Russia have leverage in the Security Council, they can do nothing about preventing any state from taking unilateral military action against Iran. So I guess no matter what, it's going to happen.

Vanesch, I agree with the points you make too. I don't think there will be military support for this one (at least not initially); I don't see European countries sending in troops. However, once the ball gets rolling, everything will change in the ME and it is difficult to predict the result - there is a very real possibility that the entire ME will be destabilised to the point where there will be a quantitively different situation which may become impossible to control. Chain reaction...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm hoping people just aren't that stupid, but then this is people we're talking about, this isn't another Iraq the US is going to have a much harder task of trying to convince people than the last time after the Iraq debacle came to light.

I wouldn't expect military action any time soon, and I'm hoping not at all. But then with the idiots in the whitehouse, and I do most assuredly mean idiots, then anything could happen, we're not dealing with particularly diplomaticaly astute people here, they think war is the best way to keep peace in the middle East, then they are in for a rather rude awakening.

Sadly I don't think the blinkered attitude the US takes sometimes to outside criticism will change in the near future, and I think it's going to take a long time before the US realizes it can't solve all it's issues by making threats and going to war. As if it's previous cock ups aren't enough, it seems doomed to repeate it's cataclsmic blunders in the naive sense that somehow this time it's going to work?

Who's next in the middle East, how many hornets nests can we stir up to try and create stability and increase the flow of oil?

 

[jhe1984]

Well, it does seem likely that we'll know in a few days (possibly weeks) time. Tomorrow (or actually in a few hours, depending on your time zone), an Iranian delegation will arrive in Moscow to try and hash out a version of the Moscow nuclear solution (whereby Russia enriches the uranium and sends it back to Tehran) that is suitable to the Iranians.

IMO, this is the last real opportunity for either side to hash out a workable solution. Beyond this, any solution Iran chooses to proceed with will ultimately be unacceptable to the West and the Western solutions will have been all but rejected by Tehran. Not that there couldn't be any temporary stopgap measures (like resuming snap inspections), but the Russian proposal is the only currently available solution whereby Iran produces nuclear energy in a way suitable to the west.

Since I don't think it behooves Tehran to go to war (although if it is just a matter of getting their nuclear facilities bombed, that could actually bolster their credibility) if war means regime change, I am thinking that something will come out of Monday's meeting. They've got a lot to gain if they setttle - 100+ Billion dollar Chinese gas deal, Indo-Paki pipeline, no sanctions, Russian collaboration and possibly JVs - while playing hardball could turn out poorly for them. Settling on monday is the safest smart play, but who knows - it's the middle east.

If not, March 6 (I think) is the IAEA report to the UNSC and March is also the date mentioned by the head of Israeli Military Intelligence as their estimate as to when Iran could have nuclear weapons potential. So from there on, things are rather touch-and-go. That's kind of why I think something will get settled soon.

 

[jhe1984]

All of that said, if this week comes and goes with no Iranian solution, we should all pool our money and invest in crude oil. That way, when the sh*t hits the fan, PF will own a new plasma screen tv or two.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Good idea let's artificially send the price of crude through the roof now, so the oil companies can't do it later and blame it on the Iranian war; I like your thinking

Preemptive strike.

Why does Iran need a regime change, the entire country is based around a theocracy that they are all happy with? And if not then they'll overthrow it? Democracy isn't going to work in Iran? It may work in Iraq due to the diversity of religion, and a large secular population. But Irans rulers are all Sunnis? The idea of not being subject directly to God rule is an anathema to them? If it's not broken why are you thinking it needs fixing? They are ruled by the direct descendants of Muhammed and they are perfectly happy with that, what makes you think any other regime will hold any alure to the people?

The population has the same rights to overthrow its government as any country, the fact they have not done so means they are at least content with the current situation, why meddle in their affairs?

 

[vanesch]

I am curious as to why ya'll think nothing (militarily) will happen against Iran?

Do you mean that no multilateral (US, UK, France, Germany) military action will take place against Iran or that no military action at all (unilateral or otherwise [including by Israel or US]) will take place against Iran?

The first, for sure. I think that what divided Europe concerning the Iraq intervention is not going to work anymore. The European nations being part of the anti-Irak coalition (except maybe for Poland - who regretted its decision) did so essentially to *please* Washington (it is always - or it used to be - politically and economically interesting for a European country to please Washington. Especially with Germany and France OUT of the game, smaller players saw the opportunity to take a bigger piece of Washington's cake). I don't even think that ONE single European nation - except for Poland - thought that it WAS A GOOD IDEA to go to Irak. The Polish got seduced by the idea of "liberating" a country - given their recent history, that was understandable. Afterwards, they said they regretted their decision - which was based on misleading information. I think that about every European nation that got involved in Iraq dearly regretted it - so they're not going to repeat the error.

Concerning the latter, I don't know how silly Mr. Bush is, but I really don't think he has any desire to go through the SAME adventure again. I do NOT exclude a few targetted strikes on facilities, but that's about it - and it would even be a very dangerous game. Of course, we won't know if he's just pumping up the rethoric or whether he'll push the button for real until he pushes it. But he's in a far worse shape to do so than before the Iraq invasion. I don't think that the US opinion is ready for a second war ride ; he already cried wolf before.
I seriously exclude any grand scale invasion, and I also exclude a nuclear attack on Iran. He might say so, he might spin his rethoric in all possible directions, but I don't think, if there is an ounce of reason left in the man, that he'll push the button. Because it wouldn't even help anything. It would make things much worse for the US - as did the Iraq invasion.

Israel is less clear. Again, a few strikes are possible. But Israel doesn't have the conventional means to go at full scale war to Iran, has problems enough at home, and I don't think that Israel will nuke Iran.

Any country that will, as "pre-emptive strike", use a nuclear weapon on a country *that didn't even commit any explicit act of war* will be considered, by the rest of the world, as a paria and a terrorist state. The consequences for that country will be very negative in any case. For instance, I don't think that any Arab regime would be able to justify any further economic contact with such a country, meaning essentially that the said country will be oil-dry. But even the EU might decide on economic boycot of the said country, and India, China, Russia, Japan might follow. That's why I don't think that any regime where the leader has one ounce of reason left, will do so. It would be economical suicide at least. How can you possibly argue that you need to *nuke a country* for it not to try to have what you are planning to USE ?

There is even another strategic reason NOT to go to war with Iran, and that is the stability of the regime in Pakistan. Mucharraff's position becomes very difficult - if it were a democracy, it would have turned already for a long time into a more theocratic regime. Now, Pakistan HAS nukes, and it is sufficient for a regime change there to be in the situation that the US wants to avoid: a Muslim theocracy with nukes. Now, if the neighbour Iran becomes unstable, or if it is attacked, this might make the Pakistani population so nervous that they get rid of their (US-friendly) dictator and apply the theocratic domino effect. And they HAVE nukes already. In that case, an Iran invasion to avoid *the potential development of nukes* would lead to a theocratic regime change in a country that HAS nukes, thus being at the opposite of the original reason for invasion.

That's why I think that if the US gouvernment is not totally nuts, it's NOT going to do much (except maybe the bombings of a few facilities).

 

[vanesch]

Why does Iran need a regime change, the entire country is based around a theocracy that they are all happy with? And if not then they'll overthrow it? Democracy isn't going to work in Iran?

Technically, Iran IS a democracy. Let's not forget that they recently ELECTED their president:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005

The political system of Iran is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Government_and_Politics

There's not much to be said about the non-democratic character of these elections. Say what you want, but this guy REALLY GOT ELECTED - even though there were some claims for irregularities, but irregularities to curb people's opinions, not voting fraud. Some liberal candidates were not allowed to run, but that doesn't mean that the current president was not people's desire. There was room to elect a less radical president (like Rafsanjani), but the hardliner did get elected.

 

[alexandra]

vanesch, I wish *you* were ruling the world - I'd feel a lot safer, and I'd be able to get some sleep too!

 

[vanesch]

vanesch, I wish *you* were ruling the world

I'm working on it

 

[alexandra]

I'm working on it

I think we should all help you become Grand Ruler of the World! A worthy PF community project - just say what needs doing

 

[vanesch]

I think we should all help you become Grand Ruler of the World! A worthy PF community project - just say what needs doing

Ok, let's start by nuking out all those that do not agree with me

 

[alexandra]

Ok, let's start by nuking out all those that do not agree with me

 

[jhe1984]

Not to give into your nuclear blackmail, but I think you're essentially right. I too doubt any sort of large scale invasion: I simply don't think we've got the troop capacity, equipment readiness, etc to do it - unless it became absolutely urgent. We might differ on the likelihood of a major strategic air campaign (I think it is almost guaranteed if the Moscow deal doesn't work), but yeah for the most part any sort of grand coalition isn't likely.

PS - I'm coming to your country in July, so save some bird flu for me!

 

[vanesch]

We might differ on the likelihood of a major strategic air campaign (I think it is almost guaranteed if the Moscow deal doesn't work), but yeah for the most part any sort of grand coalition isn't likely.

A *major* air campaign, I don't see where that can lead the US. It is in any case an act of war, with lots of civil casualties. It would even be considered as an act of state terrorism: bombing the s**t out of a population in order to obtain political change induced by terrorising a population. And it won't work: the Iranian population supports their regime, and any aggression will only reinforce the support for the regime. So the net result would simply be some more hatred towards the West and a stronger regime in Teheran. And it is not even said that all facilities are taken out.
However, tactically taking out some facilities, that's something else. The number of casualties would be low, and it would slow down the technical advancement of the programme (although it would probably re-inforce the political will to do so). For instance, I'm pretty sure some cruise missiles will hit that enrichment factory, if nothing else. But then, the Iranians are not stupid, and have probably other such facilities elsewhere, so the hit would be largely symbolic. It could then go both ways: the Iranian leadership might harden its position (probably), or it might realize that they are not so invulnerable as they thought, and back off a bit.

However, given their current attitude, I think they have been "war gaming" a lot in Teheran, and they came to the conclusion that nothing really bad is going to happen to them, because the other side worked itself each time into more troubles. And I think they are right. I also think that their negotiation with Moscou is seen in a wrong light. The US seems to think that the Iranians got a bit scared and might be, finally, backing off. However, I think the Iranians and the Russians are simply trying to find out how they can get most out of a common deal. The Russians couldn't care less about a nuclear Iran (they probably even like it that it pisses off the west). But they might like to play a more important role as "buddy" of the Iranians, and hence get a major partner in the ME back. And the Iranians might like the fact that they have the opportunity to improve their relationships with the Russians - always good to have. So as long as it doesn't stop them from achieving their goals (which is, I think, to become nuclear, so that they do not have to be affraid for a US invasion anymore, or any other invasion, and have regional power status), they might adapt their plans to be buddy-buddy with the Russians. And if they both could laugh in the face of the West, that's always some fun to take.
Also, a nuclear agreement with the russians, with russian experts coming and so on, do you really think that that will *slow down* their weapon development ? No matter what is stated officially... who knows, the deal could even include some exchange of a few nukes of russian fabric.

 

[jhe1984]

I meant major in the sense of a lot of ordnance dropped on the nuclear facilities (and perhaps relevant air defense systems). I do not believe at all that the US'd bomb Tehran (even gov't buildings) or any major metropolitian area - they'd lose what little support they had, even in the USG.

"Major" in the sense that it's B-2s and not just cruise missiles.

 

[vanesch]

I meant major in the sense of a lot of ordnance dropped on the nuclear facilities (and perhaps relevant air defense systems). I do not believe at all that the US'd bomb Tehran (even gov't buildings) or any major metropolitian area - they'd lose what little support they had, even in the USG.

"Major" in the sense that it's B-2s and not just cruise missiles.

Yes, that's a possibility. I haven't gotten any idea what material the US would use, but I meant, just tactical take-outs of facilities.
Nevertheless, I doubt about their "productivity". It would probably NOT harm seriously the capacity of the Iranians to proceed, it would increase their determination, and it would tarnish even more the US image in the ME (and elsewhere). In other words, it wouldn't achieve much except making people nervous, and probably introduce an ecological disaster locally. It would just satisfy those who think that "something" ought to be done - which might be a sufficient reason.

 

[Art]

Yes, that's a possibility. I haven't gotten any idea what material the US would use, but I meant, just tactical take-outs of facilities.
Nevertheless, I doubt about their "productivity". It would probably NOT harm seriously the capacity of the Iranians to proceed, it would increase their determination, and it would tarnish even more the US image in the ME (and elsewhere). In other words, it wouldn't achieve much except making people nervous, and probably introduce an ecological disaster locally. It would just satisfy those who think that "something" ought to be done - which might be a sufficient reason.

If the US were to bomb strategic sites in Iran it is very likely the Iranians will retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq and possibly against Israel too. If America hits back then in no time you have a fully fledged war if they don't they look weak. So although the US may want a short sharp air campaign the Iranians may not be accommodating especially as they would probably have the support of the shi'ites in Iraq which would mean the insurgency there would treble.

The problem with taking aggressive action is unfortunately you can't rely on the other side to behave as you would wish.

 

[crazycalhoun]

"Major" in the sense that it's B-2s and not just cruise missiles.

Since we employ both as a package, what's minor? In fact, if we break that package apart, we'd still have to deploy a surface action group to the Gulf of Oman at least to get within extreme range of Iran's northeastern interior.

 

[crazycalhoun]

If the US were to bomb strategic sites in Iran it is very likely the Iranians will retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq and possibly against Israel too. If America hits back then in no time you have a fully fledged war if they don't they look weak.

The target list would presumably include Iran's missile cache, if only to keep the Gulf open.

So although the US may want a short sharp air campaign the Iranians may not be accommodating especially as they would probably have the support of the shi'ites in Iraq which would mean the insurgency there would treble.

I've seen no evidence that SCIRI, Da'wa or even the Sadrists have any intentions of fighting a war on the Persians behalf. What've you seen?

The problem with taking aggressive action is unfortunately you can't rely on the other side to behave as you would wish.

Which is why you hit them hard enough so that they do behave as you wish.

 

[Art]

The target list would presumably include Iran's missile cache, if only to keep the Gulf open.

Assuming they know where they all are and that Iran are stupid enough not to conceal them.

I've seen no evidence that SCIRI, Da'wa or even the Sadrists have any intentions of fighting a war on the Persians behalf. What've you seen?

BAGHDAD, Jan. 23 -- An Iraqi Muslim cleric who leads a major Shiite militia pledged to come to the defense of neighboring Iran if it were attacked, aides to the cleric, Moqtada Sadr, said Monday.

The commitment, made Sunday in Tehran during a visit by Sadr, came in response to a senior Iranian official's query about what the cleric would do in the event of an attack on Iran. It marked the first open indication that Iraq's Shiite neighbor is preparing for a military response if attacked in a showdown with the West over its nuclear program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html

Which is why you hit them hard enough so that they do behave as you wish.

It hasn't worked too well in Iraq.

 

[crazycalhoun]

Assuming they know where they all are and that Iran are stupid enough not to conceal them.

Which is why you reconnoiter. Worked well enough in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html

I didn't say Sadr. I said Sadrists.

It hasn't worked too well in Iraq.

Sure it did. That's why we were in the capital within three weeks.

 

[vanesch]

If the US were to bomb strategic sites in Iran it is very likely the Iranians will retaliate with missile strikes against US forces in Iraq and possibly against Israel too.

That's why I said that even that is a dangerous game, and that I think that the Iranians have been wargaming enough over the issue to be rather confident that nothing much beyond rethoric is going to happen. A full scale war with Iran is the last thing the US needs (even if it is only not to get Muscharaf in too deep doodoo).

That said, it is not sure that the Iranians are going to retalliate openly after a minor strike, but they might become a bit more subversive in Iraq, something the US could not really afford. Again, if the US government has an ounce of reason left, they are going to stick with rethoric, and maybe a few sanctions (of which the Russians will make some good use to get more influence in the region).

 

[crazycalhoun]

That's why I said that even that is a dangerous game, and that I think that the Iranians have been wargaming enough over the issue to be rather confident that nothing much beyond rethoric is going to happen.

By that reasoning, Hussein should've been scared witless by his wargames.

A full scale war with Iran is the last thing the US needs (even if it is only not to get Muscharaf in too deep doodoo).

Why not? You've got four divisions of battle hardened force sitting in Iraq, and another division in Afghanistan.

 

[vanesch]

Sure it did. That's why we were in the capital within three weeks.

The situation was totally different. Iraq was weakened and surveyed for about 10 years. You were in the capital in 3 weeks (heh, you're still there :-) mainly because the military on the other side QUIT. You were in the country of a secular dictator which wasn't liked much by its population.

This time you face an *elected* government, with religious leaders which have popular support. They are not going to quit so easily. You'd need a massive occupation force to work against the web of resistance made up by religious leaders, mosquees, and just the people there. It's not "taking out a few bad guys". It's overthrowing a popular political system... to put what in place ? Elections ? What are you going to do, once you're in, with your 500000 soldiers ?

 

[vanesch]

Why not? You've got four divisions of battle hardened force sitting in Iraq, and another division in Afghanistan.

Ok, and while they are fighting in Iran, what's then going to happen in Iraq ?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Not to give into your nuclear blackmail, but I think you're essentially right. I too doubt any sort of large scale invasion: I simply don't think we've got the troop capacity, equipment readiness, etc to do it - unless it became absolutely urgent. We might differ on the likelihood of a major strategic air campaign (I think it is almost guaranteed if the Moscow deal doesn't work), but yeah for the most part any sort of grand coalition isn't likely.

PS - I'm coming to your country in July, so save some bird flu for me!

Sorry we haven't got any bird flu yet. Just the mundane type.

I think personally America should just invade the whole middle east and be done with it. Seems like that's what they're are going to do sooner or later. Then they can claim that terror has been beaten and have a nice source of oil for the next 50-100 years till it runs out

 

[Art]

Which is why you reconnoiter. Worked well enough in Iraq.

Actually it didn't. Most of Iraq's missile technology was destroyed under the weapons inspection program, not through military attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012301701.html

I didn't say Sadr. I said Sadrists.

Are you suggesting Sadr doesn't speak for his followers? Or do you just have a problem in acknowledging when you are wrong?

Sure it did. That's why we were in the capital within three weeks.

Dream on...