Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[TheStatutoryApe]

At this point I'm thinking that the US will not back Isreal militarily, at least not in any significant way. Even if the White House pushes for it I don't think Congress will go along. I wouldn't exactly bet money on it but I think that too many people here are tired of having our military interfering over there.

 

[Art]

At this point I'm thinking that the US will not back Isreal militarily, at least not in any significant way. Even if the White House pushes for it I don't think Congress will go along. I wouldn't exactly bet money on it but I think that too many people here are tired of having our military interfering over there.

Iran would have to pass through Iraqi airspace and land to retaliate against Israel which would immediately involve the US. I suspect the main reason why Israel is keen to do this before the end of March is because after that date the US are expected to start drawing down their forces in Iraq. The situation can be manipulated such that congress never get to decide to go to war it will just happen.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmmm... this is interesting then. Iraq is supposedly having decent relations with Iran, or were, and they don't like Isreal I don't believe. It's really THEIR airspace. Would the interim government tell the US to stand down to you think?

 

[Art]

Hmmm... this is interesting then. Iraq is supposedly having decent relations with Iran, or were, and they don't like Isreal I don't believe. It's really THEIR airspace. Would the interim government tell the US to stand down to you think?

If they did I strongly suspect they would be ignored which would lead to more attacks on US troops by even more Iraqis compounded by an assault by 500,000 Iranian troops which is the point where I believe the US gov't at the request of military commanders on the ground will authorise the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran and it's military forces, on the grounds that if they don't a sizable chunk of the US occupation force in Iraq will be wiped out before they can be reinforced.

The pieces are being put in place to allow this to happen which makes one wonder if the whole 'crisis' is being carefully choreographed.

BTW the Israeli air force would also need to violate Iraqi airspace to reach Iran. I wonder will the US intercede to stop them en route? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Art]

At this point I'm thinking that the US will not back Isreal militarily, at least not in any significant way. Even if the White House pushes for it I don't think Congress will go along. I wouldn't exactly bet money on it but I think that too many people here are tired of having our military interfering over there.

I think this settles the argument as to whether or not the US will defend Israel militarily

Bush: US would defend Israel against Iran

By Steve Holland
Reuters
Wednesday, February 1, 2006; 1:59 PM

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Reuters) - President George W. Bush vowed on Wednesday the United States would defend Israel militarily if needed against Iran and denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "menacing talk" against Israel.

In a Reuters interview aboard Air Force One en route to Nashville, Bush also said he saw a "very good chance" the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency would refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"I am concerned about a person that, one, tries to rewrite the history of the Holocaust, and two, has made it clear that his intentions are to destroy Israel," Bush said.

"Israel is a solid ally of the United States, we will rise to Israel's defense if need be. So this kind of menacing talk is disturbing. It's not only disturbing to the United States, it's disturbing for other countries in the world as well," he added.

Asked if he meant the United States would rise to Israel's defense militarily, Bush said: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

 

[russ_watters]

Key words "if needed": The US has never had to defend Israel with American troops and I don't think it ever will.

 

[Art]

Key words "if needed": The US has never had to defend Israel with American troops and I don't think it ever will.

If Iran doesn't back down then how will conflict be avoided given that Israel has said it will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran has vowed to retaliate if they do??

Iran is also unlikely to make the mistake Iraq made in allowing the US to stage it's forces and choose the time of attack. I imagine at the first sign of a US build up they will hit the US troops already in theatre and their ships transporting men and materials. Afterall once they decide on the path of confrontation they'll have nothing to lose.

 

[alexandra]

Also no one in the government want's kill 1,000's of innocent people like that.

Two words: Hiroshima; Nagasaki.

 

[alexandra]

For one, we don't have the capability to commit to a war in Iran. Iraq is enough of a problem set currently.

Too true - this is precisely why "the nuclear 'option'".

Secondly the president cannot launch nuclear weapons unless we are in a state of war.

This president seems to do precisely as he pleases (check out the thread about the NSA spying on civilians - I believe this is against your laws?).

Thirdly, the man's not stupid, contrary to what you would like to believe. Underestimating your enemy is what lost you the election.

Agreed: he and the people behind him are not stupid: there's a definite agenda they're out to achieve. They will do anything they see fit to achieve it.

Jesus christ, am I the only person in this subforum still connected to Earth enough to see past blind hatred for Bush?

It's not hatred of Bush: it's called 'analysis'. This is what current news reports seem to be pointing towards. It's not a 'conspiracy theory' either - it's happening. The media is priming 'us' (the sheople of the world) for the event... And, damn it, how I really, really hope I'm wrong! WW3 will be the last one...

 

[alexandra]

Also as you state above and as the article suggests the US and China seem to be on a collision course at the moment and so it is possible the US may decide a gamble such as this may actually strengthen their hand in negotiations with China in arms limitation talks thus forestalling a much bigger conflict in the future.

'Gamble' - a good word, Art. This is precisely the word that seems to be the best descriptor of the current US administration, and this is why I believe it may actually use the nuclear 'option'. It has proved itself to be a 'gambling' administration so far (evidence: Iraq).

 

[alexandra]

Glad to see you found it. And that you see it is considered highly controversial and so perhaps worthy of discussion on a POLITICAL forum. Now may I ask that as a mentor you do your research BEFORE posting comments such as this

That's twice in 2 days you have ridiculed posts of mine only to then find (shocking as they are) they are well substantiated. That I think in anybodys terminology amounts to ad-hominem attacks.

Now an apology would be nice!

I agree that this topic is well worth analysis and discussion in a political forum, Art. It is, perhaps, the most important topic requiring political analysis today. The commencement and inevitable escalation of nuclear war is unquestionably a real danger at the moment (all signs seem to point that way) and if we turn a blind eye to it, it won't just 'go away'. The thing is to be aware of the potential dangers and somehow try to prevent it happening. I don't know about everyone else, but I have kids - I don't care about myself, to say the truth (really!), but I do care about them and their future...

 

[alexandra]

Being realistic, the US probably won't use 'nukes' on Iran the way they used 'nukes' in WW2.

And this makes it ok, does it?

Do depleted uranium weapons count as 'nukes'? If so, the US deploy 'nukes' all the time!

(http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/DU_Zimet-13Nov05.htm )

I must say, as a human being I find this totally deplorable. There must be something wrong with me, but I just don't think using depleted uranium weapons is something to be proud of or support. In my very humble opinion, using depleted uranium weapons is criminal.

 

[alexandra]

I think the OP question is a bit premature, since at the moment there does not seem to be an escalation in a conflict with Iran, and Iran does not seem to be moving toward threatening anyone with WMD.

It seems the stakes have just been raised since you posted this, Astronuc:

Iran faces UN nuclear crisis

Tehran defiant over uranium plans as watchdog's referral to Security Council raises the prospect of international sanctions

Ian Traynor in Vienna
Sunday February 5, 2006
The Observer

Iran ignored world condemnation of its controversial nuclear programme last night by ordering the resumption of uranium enrichment.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called a halt from today to inspections of his country's nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran's defiance came in response to a decision by the United Nations nuclear watchdog, which overwhelmingly voted to report Tehran to the Security Council over its nuclear programme. The top UN body has the power to censure Iran over its nuclear plans, which some fear could be part of a secret weapons programme, or order sanctions and ultimately the use of force to resolve the dispute.

After more than two days' wrangling over wording, an emergency session of the board of the IAEA meeting in Vienna decided by 27 to three to risk Iranian retaliation and haul Tehran before the supreme world authority. Although the resolution asked the security council to defer any action for a month, giving Iran an opportunity to climb back from a showdown, Tehran immediately signalled an escalation of the crisis.

Javad Vaeedi, deputy head of its national security council, denounced the decision, saying Iran would instantly embark on industrial-scale enrichment of uranium - the main path to a nuclear bomb. And Tehran said later it would end snap UN inspections of its nuclear plants from today. If the Iranians carry out their threats it will be far harder to monitor what is going on in their nuclear projects.

They are also expected to reject a compromise offer from the Russians...

More: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1702565,00.html

 

[alexandra]

...So, if Israel follows through, the general outline of the future =:

1. Israel attacks uranium enrichment sites
2. Iran responds, using manned forces
3. Israel drags the U.S. into the fight
4. ?

I'm lost at #4.

We are all lost at #4, Blahness

 

[Art]

And this makes it ok, does it?


I must say, as a human being I find this totally deplorable. There must be something wrong with me, but I just don't think using depleted uranium weapons is something to be proud of or support. In my very humble opinion, using depleted uranium weapons is criminal.

The former US attorney general also believes their use is illegal

An International Appeal to Ban the Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons

Drafted by Ramsey Clark

Depleted-uranium weapons are an unacceptable threat to life, a violation of international law and an assault on human dignity. To safeguard the future of humanity, we call for an unconditional international ban forbidding research, manufacture, testing, transportation, possession and use of DU for military purposes. In addition, we call for the immediate isolation and containment of all DU weapons and waste, the reclassification of DU as a radioactive and hazardous substance, the cleanup of existing DU-contaminated areas, comprehensive efforts to prevent human exposure and medical care for those who have been exposed.

During the Gulf War, munitions and armor made with depleted uranium were used for the first time in a military action. Iraq and northern Kuwait were a virtual testing range for depleted-uranium weapons. Over 940,000 30-millimeter uranium tipped bullets and "more than 14,000 large caliber DU rounds were consumed during Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield." (U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute)

These weapons were used throughout Iraq with no concern for the health and environmental consequences of their use. Between 300 and 800 tons of DU particles and dust have been scattered over the ground and the water in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people, both civilians and soldiers, have suffered the effects of exposure to these radioactive weapons.

Of the 697,000 U.S. troops who served in the Gulf, over 90,000 have reported medical problems. Symptoms include respiratory, liver and kidney dysfunction, memory loss, headaches, fever, low blood pressure. There are birth defects among their newborn children. DU is a leading suspect for a portion of these ailments. The effects on the population living in Iraq are far greater. Under pressure, the Pentagon has been forced to acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, but they are still stonewalling any connection to DU.

Communities near DU weapons plants, testing facilities, bases and arsenals have also been exposed to this radioactive material which has a half-life of 4.4 billion years. DU-weapons are deployed with U.S. troops in Bosnia. The spreading toxicity of depleted uranium threatens life everywhere.

DU weapons are not conventional weapons. They are highly toxic, radioactive weapons. All international law on warfare has attempted to limit violence to combatants and to prevent the use of cruel and unfocused weapons. International agreements and conventions have tried to protect civilians and non-combatants from the scourge of war and to outlaw the destruction of the environment and the food supply in order to safeguard life on earth.

Consequently, DU weapons violate international law because of their inherent cruelty and unconfined death-dealing effect. They threaten civilian populations now and for generations to come. These are precisely the weapons and uses prohibited by international law for more than a century including the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols Additional of 1977.

And US gov't research documents directly contradict what the US gov't tells the public

What Government Documents Admit

"If DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical consequences. The risks associated with DU in the body are both chemical and radiological."

"Personnel inside or near vehicles struck by DU penetrators could receive significant internal exposures."

From the Army Environmental Policy Institute (AEPI), Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the U.S. Army, June 1995

"Short-term effects of high doses can result in death, while long-term effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer."

"Aerosol DU exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects."

From the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) report, included as Appendix D of AMMCOM's Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, Danesi, July 1990.

This report was completed six months before Desert Storm.

"Inhaled insoluble oxides stay in the lungs longer and pose a potential cancer risk due to radiation. Ingested DU dust can also pose both a radioactive and a toxicity risk."

Operation Desert Storm: Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal With Depleted Uranium Contamination, United States General Accounting Office (GAO/NSIAD-93-90), January 1993, pp. 17-18.

What the Government Tells The Public

"The Committee concludes that it is unlikely that health effects reports by Gulf War Veterans today are the result of exposure to depleted uranium during the Gulf war."

From the Final Report: Presidential Advisory Committee of Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, December 1996.

Perhaps thousands of troops dropping dead accompanied by a 5 fold increase in birth defects (as has happened in Iraq) is what it will take to wake the american public up to the evils of their gov't.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Wow Art, I actually agree with you. War is politics by other means. It doesn't make sense to poisen the ground you're trying to take over. Are the trees in the field enemies such that you must punish them as well? More Gulf War veterans have died from Gulf War Syndrome than were killed in action. Astronuc says there's no fission involved--they're still dirty bombs.

 

[jhe1984]

I sincerely believe, if it were purely a DoD matter, nuclear first-strike weapons would be right there on the table.

My reasoning is basically what I imagine theirs to be:

If we used nuclear weapons, any idea of a surgical strike becomes a moot point. The strategy at that point becomes to demonstrate the incredible lethality and willingness of the US to simply kill and destroy anyone who would consider a nuclear threat an option. Basically, it'd be the real version of shock and awe: shockwaves and awe-****, what's going on in the world.

And it is also my genuine belief that we've got both nuclear first-strike plans for Iran at least partially drawn up and have had them for at least a decade. If there is one thing the DoD does (or at least did in previous decades) it was plan for nuclear attack situations. I'd also imagine we've got them for every country that has nuclear weapons, from the UK, to China, to Israel. Although I'd also be the first to admit that our plans for a strike on European countries are for the most part hardly kept in a super-secret serious box. In fact, I'd imagine they are joked about over coffee between MI6 guys and central intel folks. Nevertheless they're real. In fact, I thought I recalled something like Battle Plan Red or something that was just this, an absurd yet entirely real gaming for a theoretical attack on Britain, but frankly I'm too lazy to research it. Maybe I'm crazy. The Israeli ones most likely 'do not exist' the main reason being that the IDF finds such things rather less amusing than other US allies. Not to mention that, if it did, it'd have probably been well in the hands of (if not partially drawn up by) friendly folks at Mossad by now.

I recall a funny exchange from "the constant gardener":

(to a UK foreign intel service station chief in Africa) "What's the matter, I thought you spies were supposed to know everything that's going on in your neck of the woods?"

(UK spy's response) "Only God knows everything - and he works for Mossad."

Hehe.

But in all seriousness, things are hardly run by the DoD nuclear handbook somewhere in the basement of the Pentagon. If they were, fellows over at Foggy Bottom would most likely simultaneously implode and explode in a rare chemical reaction caused by a fusion of supercharged incredulity with incalculable ire.

Then you've got the problem of a radioactive world fourth largest oil exporter. It wouldn't be a huge direct problem for the US, except that our main suppliers like Venezuela, Bolivia, Russia, etc would probably never speak to us again. Not to mention India, Pakistan and China who would most likely consider this an act of war. And our friends in Iraq and Saudi Arabia would most likely be more than a little hesitant to truck through a radioactive strait of hormuz to sell the perpetrators oil.

All that said, despite our incredulity at the notion, Space Command, NORAD, NATO tactical nuclear deployments in Europe and a fleet of nuclear powered submarines themselves capable of a several overkill capacity don't exist because we thought it'd be a funny joke. They're a m.a.d-borne reality and function as a "deterrent", sure, but then again, what good's a deterrent if it's incapable of being used. Firing nuclear missiles is more than anything else at the heart of the US military preeminence strategy, even if we'd never conceivably use them. Yikes.

But again, my vote on the question is a resounding no - until we do.

PS -My read is that Ramsey Clark is probably considered the biggest joke by every succesive Attorney General since. I'd imagine his military opinions are taken about as seriously at the DoD as Howard Dean's notebook on strategies and tactics in 21st century land-warfare.

 

[Mk]

...So, if Israel follows through, the general outline of the future =:

1. Israel attacks uranium enrichment sites
2. Iran responds, using manned forces
3. Israel drags the U.S. into the fight
4. ?

I'm lost at #4.

You're wrong at #3. Israel doesn't drag the U.S. into the fight. Israel takes care of problems like these all the time. They always do, because unlike the United States, they don't need to worry about political relations. Everybody around them hates them. Reminds me of Operation Entebbe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I sincerely doubt the Iranians have the rocketry technology available to build either strategic nukes or ICBM's atm if they did you can be damn sure the various mid east intelligence agencies and the CIA would be aware of it, dirty nukes or suitcase bombs(maybe who knows).

To me this looks like the same sort of disinformation that was spread around to kick off the gulf war. I have talked to Iranians some of who worked in the nuclear program of Iran, they assure me that when they worked there there was never any sort of a move towards enrichment of uranium to make weapons, being fairly high level physisists maybe they were in the know? Of course they are no doubt lying to cover up there governments secret stockpiling of Bombs sold to them by Korea?

Really people are you sure you are not just being misled by politicians with ulterior motives, at the very least you owe it to Iran to reserve judgement 'til any eveiodence comes to light: after Iraq do you really want to stir up another hornets nest? Is your government really that stupid? Right we've done the secular and sheites now let's get the sunnys to hate us to and we have a full house? Honestly American foreign policy over the last 100 years has often been nothing short of disasterous?

Do not believe everything you read or see in the news? I'd question everything you see about Iran, after all Bush has had Iran on the drawing board as possible invasion material for years, don't listen to anything this government says without questioning it's veracity? They misled on Iraq whether intentionaly or not is a moot point, but they will no doubt do so again.

As for the story in question , is this serious or a scam or some joke. Best way to prevent nuclear war is to launch nukes at a country whether it owns them or not, genius, I suspect Bush drafted this one himself?

 

[BobG]

I sincerely doubt the Iranians have the rocketry technology available to build either strategic nukes or ICBM's atm if they did you can be damn sure the various mid east intelligence agencies and the CIA would be aware of it, dirty nukes or suitcase bombs(maybe who knows).

To me this looks like the same sort of disinformation that was spread around to kick off the gulf war. I have talked to Iranians some of who worked in the nuclear program of Iran, they assure me that when they worked there there was never any sort of a move towards enrichment of uranium to make weapons, being fairly high level physisists maybe they were in the know? Of course they are no doubt lying to cover up there governments secret stockpiling of Bombs sold to them by Korea?

Really people are you sure you are not just being misled by politicians with ulterior motives, at the very least you owe it to Iran to reserve judgement 'til any eveiodence comes to light: after Iraq do you really want to stir up another hornets nest? Is your government really that stupid? Right we've done the secular and sheites now let's get the sunnys to hate us to and we have a full house? Honestly American foreign policy over the last 100 years has often been nothing short of disasterous?

Do not believe everything you read or see in the news? I'd question everything you see about Iran, after all Bush has had Iran on the drawing board as possible invasion material for years, don't listen to anything this government says without questioning it's veracity? They misled on Iraq whether intentionaly or not is a moot point, but they will no doubt do so again.

As for the story in question , is this serious or a scam or some joke. Best way to prevent nuclear war is to launch nukes at a country whether it owns them or not, genius, I suspect Bush drafted this one himself?

Here's a link to Iran's current and projected missile capabilities: FAS - WMD around the world. A map putting the stats in perspective is at the bottom of the web page.

Current systems that will work are only a limited threat. Operational No-dong missiles (Shahab-3 being the Iranian version) from North Korea or Pakistan (the Gauri-II) and figuring out how to put nuclear warheads on them (harder than it sounds) would make them a significant threat in the Middle East.

No, they are not even close to being able to develop ICBMs that could reach Europe or the US.

By the way, why the grousing about US foreign policy for the last 100 years? Most of the US foreign policy problems in the last 50 years has been because of the mistaken belief that we could fix the mistakes European countries made in the first 50 years of the 20th century.

 

[jhe1984]

Even if they did mount a nuclear warhead on a Shahab-3, I would not want to be the corporal that has to stand near that thing during launch. Their success rate is far from 100%.

 

[alexandra]

Update

An article from the BBC:

Rice: Iran is terrorism 'banker'
By Pam O'Toole
BBC News
The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has continued her diplomatic offensive against Iran.

She has accused Tehran of being the central banker for terrorism around the world and working with Syria to destabilise the Middle East.

Ms Rice was testifying before the Senate Budget Committee in Washington.

On Wednesday, she announced that the US administration would request an extra $75m from Congress to promote democratic change inside Iran.

Condoleezza Rice said Washington had worked very hard to build an international coalition to confront what she described as Iran's aggressive policies, particularly its nuclear programme.

However, she stressed it was not just Tehran's nuclear policies which were concerning, but also what she described as its support for terrorism.

Iran, she alleged, was the central banker for terrorism around the world and was working with Syria to destabilise the Middle East.

Washington has long accused Tehran of trying to undermine the Middle East peace process and of interfering in countries like Iraq, charges Iran denies.

Ms Rice also again criticised Tehran's record on human rights and democracy.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4722498.stm

Umm, does any of this sound familiar? Do you think we are being prepared to accept the next 'war for liberty and democratic rights' on the grounds that Iran's is a 'terrorist' government that is also guilty of 'serious human rights abuses' against its nationals? And it's not (shock, horror!) 'democratric'! (Sorry, but I really have to laugh cynically about this one - because, of course, the Bush administration's version of 'democracy' is so, so warped).

So for all these 'reasons', Iran must be destroyed (err, sorry, I meant 'liberated').

Well, what do you all think? Is the wool being pulled over our eyes again - in exactly the same way (no WMDs in Iraq, remember!)?

Oh boy, I hate this. I can just see what's coming. I feel so, so sorry for the tens of thousands of innocent people in Iran who are going to die and suffer as a result of this. Are these criminals against humanity not at all stoppable? I guess not. We have to play this out right to the end, and the end could be much more devastating and widespread than anyone would care to imagine.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Thanks for the link, very interesting. The US's foreign policy should be questioned, it is somewhat undiplomatic to say the least and has been for quite a while. Now it resorts to propoganda to start wars mislead and generally force through hidden agendas. I'm not saying Europe doesn't make mistakes, I'm just saying that using that to absolve the US of mistakes is a two wrongs make a right argument that is without merit. It's a good job your more level headed ally is making some decisions, because America has a hard time being told not to do anything. I think it looks at UN as a sort of Father figure, yeah what do you know old man, I'll do what I damn well please I don't need your blessing?

The US does to some extent need to start listening to people outside of the US, going nah nah nah and putting your fingers in your ears and doing whatever you like regardless is not going to make you many firends. Diplomacy believe it or not is a two way process. You want to change a situation: going in guns blazing is not always the best solution in fact it seldom is; I think your government would do well to remember that.

Ok Patronising monologue over, back to the topic

 

[alexandra]

The US does to some extent need to start listening to people outside of the US, going nah nah nah and putting your fingers in your ears and doing whatever you like regardless is not going to make you many firends. Diplomacy believe it or not is a two way process. You want to change a situation: going in guns blazing is not always the best solution in fact it seldom is; I think your government would do well to remember that.

Ok Patronising monologue over, back to the topic

Schrodinger's Dog, there's a problem with this theory, though - all the US administration's allies are now on the bandwagon: Germany, France, the UK, etc... My only hope is that China will step in and say, "No, no, naughty boys - don't do that, or you'll pay". The Russian Federation's government is also being a bit hesitant. And then there's Venezuela, but its government is powerless in the Security Council. China isn't powerless, though. Check out this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4662676.stm

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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.

 

[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.