What are the potential consequences of occupying Iran?

[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!

 

[SOS2008]

I am posting an op-ed seen in another forum, because I feel it is very relevant to any and all discussions on Iran at this time:

The Gulf Between Us
By FLYNT LEVERETT
Published: January 24, 2006
Washington

AS the United States and its European partners consider their next steps to contain the Iranian nuclear threat, let's recall how poorly the Bush administration has handled this issue. During its five years in office, the administration has turned away from every opportunity to put relations with Iran on a more positive trajectory. Three examples stand out.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Tehran offered to help Washington overthrow the Taliban and establish a new political order in Afghanistan. But in his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an "axis of evil," thereby scuttling any possibility of leveraging tactical cooperation over Afghanistan into a strategic opening.

In the spring of 2003 … the Iranian Foreign Ministry sent Washington a detailed proposal for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. The document acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its weapons programs and support for anti-Israeli terrorist organizations. …Unfortunately, the administration's response was to complain that the Swiss diplomats who passed the document from Tehran to Washington were out of line.

Finally, in October 2003, the Europeans got Iran to agree to suspend enrichment in order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. But the Bush administration refused to join the European initiative, ensuring that the talks failed.

Now Washington and its allies are faced with two unattractive options for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue. …restricting Iranian oil sales, or a strike [that] could prove counterproductive...

Last week, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, suggested a way out of this impasse - one that might also help address other pressing challenges in the Persian Gulf. The Saudi prince noted that if Iranian nuclear weapons were deployed against Israel, they would kill Palestinians, and if they missed Israel, they would hit Arab countries…

While Prince Saud blamed Israel for starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, his implication that a nuclear-weapons-free Gulf might precede a regionwide nuclear-weapons-free zone is a nuanced departure from longstanding Arab insistence that regional arms control cannot begin without Israel's denuclearization. The United States and its partners should build on this idea and support the creation of a Gulf Security Council that would include Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states in the Gulf, as well as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/opinion/24leverett.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

It would be a great idea to stop the nuclear arms race worldwide, not just in the ME. In any event, the first thing we need to do is rid ourselves of the Bush administration so we can proceed with this concept.

 

[Xenophon]

Personally, I believe the occupation of Iran presently would be a bad idea. While some memebers have pointed out that we (the US) have the capability to deploy for such an action, should we if not completely necessary? After all, you can drive a car in first gear on a highway, but it's not the wisest idea.

While Iran is dangerous, we should first concentrate on Iraq and Afghanistan before any invasion should proceed. The combat forces of Army/Marines are experienced, but that doesn't mean we should use them right away. Currently, the Army is reorganizing into more flexible unit structure (self managed brigades instead of divisions and more of them, etc.) and the current fronts are not helping. A peace, six months at least, would be optimal to allow the Army catch its breath, reorganize before another attack.

-Xenophon

 

[WarrenPlatts]

I had posted elsewhere that I suspected Iranian bloggers were being arrested based on the abruptness of their postings being terminated. Most bloggers, when they decide that they've had enough, post a final message saying the blog will be discontinued, and the reasons why. Here, apparently is confirmation of my suspicions.

So we need to invade Iran not merely to get their WMDs but also to spread freedom, and to rescue jailed bloggers.

 

[Cyrus]

That was a real stupid move on his part. He knew the risk he was taking.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

It's not stupid to stand up for your rights.