[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I really don't know; and I mean, I've read both sides of the argument. There are those who say that when Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map", that was actually a faulty interpretation of the language; ...

Unfortunately the question is really self defeating. To answer it requires numerous assumptions - so many that use of nuclear weapons in time becomes a forgone conclusion. However if you think you understand what this paragraph says, then you have not a clue. This summary becomes far more complex in its details.

For example, let's take Ahmadinegad's statements that are mostly just pompous declarations for political profit. It is doubtful that he is anywhere near as crazy as he would make himself appear. However, those public proclamations leave him exposed for manipulated by hawks within his government. Should he be forced into an 'attack or defray' situation, he may only have the attack option (knowing full well that option only means disaster) because of his boisterous proclamations.

Of the two TheMercenary articles, the longer one from Cordesman, et al is 'must read'. The effect and ability of all options (from sanctions to military attack) must be grasped. Their most important statement is:

The general Iranian population seem to support Iran's bid for nuclear power, civilian and militarily. Despite conventional wisdom in the US, the Iranian public may not be as "anti-American" as others in the Middle East, but they are not "pro-American" either.

Iran's effort to achieve nuclear capabilities has become a matter of national pride. The idea that Iran has a special place on the world stage is supported by the majority of Iranians. ... Iranians see the Islamic Republic, despite their disagreement with some current domestic policies, as the legacy of the Persian civilization that must become a regional superpower.

There is where the ultimate decision occurs for deployment or use.

The 'Axis of Evil' speech has made this new Iranian identity even more problematic. If that central problem is not addressed, then all options are losing options. The worst thing any nation can do to that problem is overt threats. And yet that is exactly what America's Richard Perle's, et al advocate and unfortunately want to make unavoidable.

What results is a second potentially worse situation:

America and any other power cannot win in the unbalanced war against us.

Only thing that can avoid war is that extremists understand the consequences of their actions. For example, if Iranian hawks believe they can deploy a hidden bomb to NYC without having the source of that weapon detected, well, extremists are dumb enough to do so. If that extremist believes he can deploy it without having it traced back to his nation, he has zero reasons to not do so. Therein lays the need for America to not box Ahmadinegad into a corner using his rhetoric against him and using ultimatums. Leaving the other guy with 'options out' is why we all are still here; why Khrushchev could rein in his 'big dic' generals.

But that means an American political position based in negotiation; not based in threats and ultimatums. The longer America uses threats and ultimatums means the less time we have to accomplish a solution that could be successful. Why. So many reasons including the above first quote "The general Iranian population seem ...". The longer Iran boasts about a nuclear program, then the more unsolvable this becomes. And this is ultimately where the conflict must be defused:

The general Iranian population seem to support Iran's bid for nuclear power ...

Cordesman, et al paper discusses military options - again must read - to appreciate how futile that military option really is. Obviously a tactical victory is possible. But it does not address a strategic objective - again that first quote.

Even more obvious are impossible military options for Israel.

This nuclear proliferation problem cannot be solved with military action. American actions were even making it easier for Iran to obtain international support - that is until the Europeans stepped in using the only viable option for a solution. Sure, Nantz could be occupied militarily. That would be a tactical solution to the same military minds who also declared "Mission Accomplished". Just another example of win the battle and lose the war. The military action without a viable strategic objective cannot succeed long term. If it not yet obvious, the strategic objective is in that above first quote.

Any useful answer to whether Iran would use nuclear weapons is and must be irrelevant. 1) A solution was needed years ago by undoing "Axis of Evil" propaganda, so that underlying reasons for weapons were eliminated. And if no longer possible, 2) Iranian leaders must not be threatened with ultimatums leaving their leadership with time to truly grasp the responsibilities and consequences of using those weapons. Push them too fast or with ultimatums and the above second quote ("America ... cannot win") becomes reality.

If neither happens, then use of those weapons becomes a forgone conclusion - in time. How do we answer piercehawkeye45’s question? Massive and therefore irrelevant assumptions. The useful question is whether things to avoid the problem can be implemented. With wacko extremist rhetoric, those solutions cannot happen.

BTW, above is the power of containment and the obvious foolhardiness of testosterone laced pre-emption.