What to think of Iran?

[Irish Caesar]

A crude nuclear device in a suitcase

I assumed as much. Radiological dispersion device? Sub-critical amount of fissile material? Critical amount of fissile material? Hiroshima-style bomb?

You have a LOT of resources tied up in Iraq. It's called being overstretched.

I'm aware of that. However, does anyone think that the way to deal wth Iran ideally is an Iraq-style invasion?

 

[Tenochtitlan]

From a purely Machiavellian view, it
is strategic for the US to invade Iran
and install an agent leader, a Shah.
I predict it will happen and it could
get nasty. Iraq was a strategic
move. Now the US has 14 permanent
bases in Iraq and could strike effectively
from there, as it is relatively very close.

 

[warpus]

I assumed as much. Radiological dispersion device? Sub-critical amount of fissile material? Critical amount of fissile material? Hiroshima-style bomb?

Something crude yet effective. I'm guessing that a crude radiological dispersion device would be far easier to construct than say.. an ICBM?.. or even a CBM, whatever the proper terminology for those is.

I'm aware of that. However, does anyone think that the way to deal wth Iran ideally is an Iraq-style invasion?

Well.. You could bomb the hell out of the various sites where nuclear weapons are being developed.. but some of these would require a special-ops team of some kind - as some of these facilities are deep underground.

So say that you're successful and all the labs have been destroyed. What would stop the Iranians from starting from scratch? You'd only delay the inevitable. It might buy you some time - but bombing the hell out of the Iranians is not going to make them happy - it's going to tick them off and make them extremely paranoid. Next thing you know they're working on biological and chemical weapons as well - and they're selling them to Al-Qaeda.

The only solution, as I see it, is regime change, and you can't really do that without a large ground-force. You've also got to consider the fallout from regime collapse. Civil war is brewing in Iraq.. Afghanistan isn't much better off.. The middle east is unstable enough as it is - you don't really want to make it any worse.

 

[Verbose]

From a purely Machiavellian view, it
is strategic for the US to invade Iran
and install an agent leader, a Shah.
I predict it will happen and it could
get nasty. Iraq was a strategic
move. Now the US has 14 permanent
bases in Iraq and could strike effectively
from there, as it is relatively very close.

You'd need to drum up support for instituting the draft, find a way of paying for it all (Iraq is already looking way too expensive), and only then could you get down to the business of fighting.

And you do know a US puppet would only stay in place as long as US guns protected him from the Iranians, so expect to stay permanently. Congrats! A first US colony.

Oh, and the oil-price hike that could trigger global recession needs to be dealt with.

And expect to repeat the performance on the next regime that tries to gain a measure of untouchability by going for nukes.

This is something we all get for not taking non-proliferation seriously. (And mostly the nuclear "haves" who for too long placidly assumed they could controll membership to their club.)

 

[Winner]

The propoganda machines are in full swing again, which has me rather worried that the Bush administration will take some violent, punitive action against Iran before it loses the power to do so, which could well come in a few months. I honestly can't decide if this would be an effective strategy.

On one hand, if there is even an ounce of truth behind the Iranian rhetoric, they cannot, under their current government, have nuclear weapons.

The situation is very much the same as back in 40's. Russians were developing nuclear weapons, but there was simply no way how to stop them without going to a full-scale war.

On the other hand, the glaring example of Iraq is hard to miss, and we cannot afford another large scale military action at present. If we withdrew a significant number of soldiers from Iraq it would cause chaos, so we would have to field enough new infantry and armor to send to Iran.

Iran would undoubtedly spark a Shia uprising in Iraq, which means you would have to keep more troops there to quell it. I wonder with what you plan to invade Iran - and I hope you're aware of the fact, that without land invasion, you won't be able to stop Iranian regime from developing WMD.

Airstrikes against their nuclear facilities would be foolish, since, without using nuclear weapons (can you say hypocrisy?) to destroy these sites, we would likely not get all of even the ones we know about. Our lack of intelligence would further increase the risk that we simply give them the incentive to nuke someone without removing their ability to do so.

Right.

So, we are left with diplomacy. Unfortunately, since the US is unwilling to trust the Iranians and vice versa, the possibilities for an agreement are very limited, and usually amount to one side backing down. The Russians offered a compromise, but we don't trust them either, and they don't trust us. It is ironic that the Russian offer to manage Iranian reactors is similar to the deal the US just signed with India. China might be 'bribed' into supporting punitive actions against Iran, especially since they trade quite a bit, but I don't know that we are willing to pay the price. So the security council resolution cannot have much substance because the Russians and Chinese will not support it. US credibility in much of the world has been severely damaged in recent years, the Iranians know it, and it makes a diplomatic solution led by the US even more unlikely.

Both China and Russia have their interest in Iran. They'll never support any military action and I very much doubt they'll be supportive even of some kind of economic sanctions.

My solution is for the US to ask for neutral arbitration from a third party as if this was a dispute between two nations. It would go a long way towards fostering the idea that the US is not out to conquer the world, as well as removing the US as an easy opponent to distrust in negotiations.

Brazil has a good record on non-proliferation and wants to gain a permanent seat on the security council. I think they also trade a great deal with countries the US does not get along with.

I think it wouldn't work. Iran will not back down, especially when it sees that it's strategy is working well - divide and... make nuclear weapons. Iranians have nothing to lose. They are willing to risk a war, because they're sure the US doesn't have the guts for an invasion. And if it happens, they'll fight. One way or another, they'll win a political victory.


In my opinion, West should ignore them and focus on anti-missile defences. We have vast economic and technological resources, so we should be able to stay in the lead. Iran may have nuclear weapons, but they won't be of any use to it. Of course, we also need to reduce our dependance on oil. Once we're accomplish that, Iran or any other Middle Eastern regime won't be able to threaten us.

 

[CurtSibling]

The guy (Mahmoud) who runs Iran is nuts, but he is a cunning animal.
He knows the West is unable to act, and struts around like he has won.

If the USA tries to invade Iran, it will have disasterous results for their
superpower status. A strange situation to see the American powerless.

Not sure how this one will pan out, I think Russia and China are the key.

.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

First, HawkeyGS is indeed right on the 10 year estimate. Many sources, but here is one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453_pf.html

Of course, we all know how good the intelligence was about the USSR getting nukes and most recently about the WMD in Iraq. I believe the estimates are correct if Iran was working without outside help, but there are quite a few nations that could trade them info for oil that would greatly speed up the process.

Not sure how this one will pan out, I think Russia and China are the key.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Till]

If the USA tries to invade Iran, it will have disasterous results for their
superpower status. A strange situation to see the American powerless.

Strange and very worrying. I hope we don't have to get used to it.
I wish the European nations would start to back the US more vocal in this matter.
Bush or not, Iran is not America's problem alone.
A joint effort of the NATO to put Iran's government under pressure would make a diplomatic solution more realistic.

 

[cgannon64]

So you propose that the U.S. forces abandon Iraq much like they abandoned Afghanistan?

No. I propose no action unless the American people will it, since any action contrary to the people's will would fail.

The U.S. could probably fight a war on 5 fronts and win.. that's not the question. The questions is whether you're willing to invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, create a big mess, and just take off.

No, my point is that we wouldn't take off, were we to invade, since we'd have the willpower to stay - but we don't.

Where would you find the troops to invade Iran with?

There are, according to wikipedia, 2.26 million soldiers in the US military. And there are, what, 130,000 fighting in Iraq?

 

[newfangle]

I believe the threat of tactical nuclear strikes, no matter how hypocritical and backwards, is the only foreseeable end to this that doesn't result in Iran having nukes.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Something crude yet effective. I'm guessing that a crude radiological dispersion device would be far easier to construct than say.. an ICBM?.. or even a CBM, whatever the proper terminology for those is.

Okay, that's what I figured. For the record, radiological dispersion devices are useless as weapons.

The only solution, as I see it, is regime change, and you can't really do that without a large ground-force. You've also got to consider the fallout from regime collapse. Civil war is brewing in Iraq.. Afghanistan isn't much better off.. The middle east is unstable enough as it is - you don't really want to make it any worse.

That's pretty much what I figured...the problem is, if we weren't in Iraq, we might consider this sort of strategy. Thankfully, we realized that it didn't work in Iraq before trying it in a much larger country such as Iran.

First, HawkeyGS is indeed right on the 10 year estimate. Many sources, but here is one:

I've seen that one before, in a different thread, over the same 10-year issue. It's not that I don't think the source is credible; I just don't think it will take Iran 10 years if they really want to build nuclear weapons. Gut feeling.

I believe the threat of tactical nuclear strikes, no matter how hypocritical and backwards, is the only foreseeable end to this that doesn't result in Iran having nukes.

Would have been nice to have a few bunker-buster nukes in our arsenal as a bargaining chip. But the government in its wisdom decided to cancel that project...

 

[Sidhe]

You spend 20 minutes writing and then it takes you back to where you log in,ffs.

I have noticed this it's very odd, do what I do now, copy everything over three paragraphs long before you submit it, that way the wierd forum pixies can't toast your post and feed it to the moderators Iluminati built fusion reactor powering CFC.

I only hope the OP is indicative of US thinking in general. I.e they actually are thinking.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

There are, according to wikipedia, 2.26 million soldiers in the US military. And there are, what, 130,000 fighting in Iraq?

Less than that. But that's exactly my point. They do have enough soldiers.
And there is also a viscious cycle in recruiting soldiers.
The more instabilty their is in the middleeast the higher price of oil;
the higher price of oil the more people are under the line of poverty;
the more people under the line of poverty the more will join the military.

And the pentagon spends over a billion dollars yearly on ad campaigns.

The question will be wether the Admin will get the green light from other parts of the body.

 

[Jawz II]

They could probably build a suitcase nuclear device within a couple months.. But a nuclear weapon w/ a chemical rocket delivery system? They are years away from that for sure.

there is no such thing, ok? they dont work.

the soviets made some before they realized they dont work (they explode, but they have very short shelf life and radiate everything around them, so they are extremly easy to detect with a geiger counter)

if you look into it, you will find that most small nuclear weapons were scrapped back in the 50s and 60s when they discovered that radiation is not good for people.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I believe the threat of tactical nuclear strikes, no matter how hypocritical and backwards, is the only foreseeable end to this that doesn't result in Iran having nukes.

Yeah but the world would become super duper pissed off at us. We really can't risk antagonizing the world community anymore. If anything is to be done concerning Iran, a lot of other nations will need to join the bandwagon. To me, Iranian nuclear weapons are more a problem for Europe and Israel.

I think the most feasible way of preventing terrorism and a war would be to simply not get involved with the Middle East and place tight controls aimed to restrict Middle Eastern immigration. Is it prejudice? Yes but it beats having tens of thousands of people dead.

Had our nation not been in need of so much oil, we wouldn't have even been involved in the first place.

 

[newfangle]

Well, I doubt any action taken against Iran would be unilateral.

 

[Che Guava]

I think that Iran just wants to be taken seriously, just like the rest of the nations of the world. I'm sure Iran sees itself as an equal to other nuclear club members like Pakistan or Israel (aledgedly ), so why not them too? Seeing as I sleep safely under a M.A.D. blanket in a part of the world that is infinitely safer than thiers, I can't say that a blame them...

I do with that something would come along to finally topple the fundementalists and put some moderates in place. I hear than a good part of Iran is quite liberal, but only in whispers in the comfort of thier homes.

 

[cgannon64]

Less than that. But that's exactly my point. They do have enough soldiers.
And there is also a viscious cycle in recruiting soldiers.
The more instabilty their is in the middleeast the higher price of oil;
the higher price of oil the more people are under the line of poverty;
the more people under the line of poverty the more will join the military.

And the pentagon spends over a billion dollars yearly on ad campaigns.

Far more important than any of that is people's belief in the rightness of the conflict at hand.

Very few Americans right now think the US should do anything regarding the Middle East.

 

[shahreevar]

I think that Iran just wants to be taken seriously, just like the rest of the nations of the world. I'm sure Iran sees itself as an equal to other nuclear club members like Pakistan or Israel (aledgedly ), so why not them too? Seeing as I sleep safely under a M.A.D. blanket in a part of the world that is infinitely safer than thiers, I can't say that a blame them...

I do with that something would come along to finally topple the fundementalists and put some moderates in place. I hear than a good part of Iran is quite liberal, but only in whispers in the comfort of thier homes.

i have to agree with che on this one. Iran (the Government) and the Iranian people see themselves as the inheritors of the persian empire, thus they consider themselves the regional superpower, if not a world power. but this is all based on a very important "if", that is if iran is seeking to make nukes. for all we know, it's not clear for sure that they are indeed seeking nukes. the IAEA has not yet found any evidence that the iraninas are making wmds. so I say let's not jump into any conclusions we might regret later (remember iraq and the case of wmds?) and if iran does finally reach the level that enables the production of nukes, i seriously doubt they will use it on anyone. for all their rhetorics, the iranian gov is not that stupid to risk total anihilation. they do want to stay in power, and all this is just a game. a propaganda game on both sides actually.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Far more important than any of that is people's belief in the rightness of the conflict at hand.

Very few Americans right now think the US should do anything regarding the Middle East.

It shouldn't be hard. The majority of Americans watch television, and that can be easily utilized to create a general war scare. They did it once and they will do it again. Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is being a nut and he is getting good media coverage.