Iran's Nuclear Plans

[Adak]

The Israeli PM challenged us (in his most recent UN address), to "draw a red line" where Iran must stop their effort to create more enriched Uranium, or face military attacks to force them to stop.

We've had several years of economic sanctions designed to stop this, but that clearly hasn't done the job. According to some, they'll have enough material for a nuclear bomb, by some time next year.

The Iranians say they will NOT be stopping their enrichment, and I believe them. Will they go on to make nuclear weapons? No one knows.

Despite smart bombs, there would be thousands killed if an attack was made. Mostly Iranians at or near the nuclear processing sites, but some civilians and military personnel on both sides, also.

Wouldn't that move both sides towards more war? Historically, it has had just that effect, on bombed countries.

Do you believe we should "draw a red line" as described in the UN speech by the Israeli PM, and if we do draw such a line, and it is crossed, what should we do then?

I realize "bomb them into the stone age", is one approach, but I'm looking for more sensible suggestions.

What do you think?

[Rhianne]

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Do you believe we should "draw a red line" as described in the UN speech by the Israeli PM, and if we do draw such a line, and it is crossed, what should we do then?

We should not publicly "draw a red line". That ties our hands if Iran calls our bluff and gives them time to prepare for an attack.

I realize "bomb them into the stone age", is one approach, but I'm looking for more sensible suggestions.

What do you think?

For right now, keep the status quo and be willing to make a deal with the Iranian regime. Our current sanctions are crippling the Iranian economy, especially the Revolutionary Guards, and many Iranians are VERY upset with the regime. We have people monitoring Iranian nuclear facilities so we will know if they make a run for the bomb. We are basically trying to break them before they get too close for comfort.

If Iran gets the bomb, there is a very small chance they will actually use it but may become much bolder in supporting their proxies throughout the world. As much as neoconservatives talk, the Iranian regime is a rational one. The CIA recognizes this and the Israeli equivalent recognizes this. If they get the bomb, they will likely act just as North Korea and Pakistan did, which BTW are much more unstable regimes, and protect it all costs. They will not give their special toy away. Remember, we don't trust politicians in this country. What makes us think that Iranian politicians are any more truthful?

However, Iran getting the bomb is against US national interests. I have confidence we will do something if they get too close but no one knows what we are planning. My top guesses are a bombing campaign against the nuclear facilities or a very nasty cyberwarfare campaign. BTW, we are at (cyber) war with Iran right now.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

[ZenGum]

Israel is believed to have a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Bombing nuclear facilities could lead to ... consequences.

Why the heck should the west care so much? Oh yeah, oil. So instead of spending another trillion dollars on another middle-east war, spend a trillion dollars on converting our industry to solar-hydrogen power. We could, like, leave them alone. Forever.

[tw]

George Jr announced the axis of evil: countries that America would unilaterally attack with no justification. Then George Jr attacks Iraq. What do the other 'axis of evil' do? They better damn well better have nuclear weapons. So both nations divert major efforts into getting those weapons.

Also as a result of George Jr's threat: Ahmadinejad, a hard liner, is overwhelmingly elected (by over 60%) as president of Iran. So America got the 'axis of evil' it wanted. Welcome to inevitable consequences a decade later.

Nothing new. Actually quite predictable. These consequences were discussed what - maybe nine years ago in the Cellar?

[regular.joe]

I say we take them at their word, they are not developing nuclear weapons.

Then in a couple of years, if they should end up with nuclear weapons we crush their nuts in a vice. I'd bet we would get lots of support for using the vice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

IThen in a couple of years, if they should end up with nuclear weapons we crush their nuts in a vice.

More relevant is what is required to justify a war. Because those basic rules were violated, then Vietnam was a massive defeat. Because the US stayed out of WWII until those conditions were met, then the victory was massive. Becauase those rules were violated, the US wasted thousands of American soldiers and $trillions on Mission Accomplished for no gain.

Netanyahu is justifying war by violating basic concepts. His niave and extremist rhetoric also explained an Israeli disaster in their last Lebanon invasion. And explains a resulting disaster for Israel if he unilaterally "Pearl Harbors" Iran.

First requirement to justify war: a smoking gun. An attack on Iran can only be justified by a smoking gun such as the WTC or Pearl Harbor. Unilaterally attacking justified only by fear is what backwater dictatorships, wacko extremists, and losers do.

[Undertoad]

By war do you mean war, or war-war?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

By war do you mean war, or war-war?

War and Peace. Maybe I should recommend the book? Then Netanyahu would be too busy reading. Too busy to make more enemies for Israel.

[Undertoad]

No I mean there are certainly various degrees of "war" today. So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

No one is threatening Iran, beyond their nuclear program. Iraq won't be going to war with them anytime soon, for sure. Iran has huge influence there. Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia, will not attack Iran either, EXCEPT over the nuclear enrichment program.

If the Iranians weren't so bellicose and threatening to wipe out <some nation>, then I don't believe Iran would have any problems going nuclear - including weaponry.

Lots of other countries have gone nuclear, and while we don't like the spread of nuclear weapons, we haven't gone to war over it.

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

I'd have to say that Netanyahu is *responding* to the playground instigator - which is Iran. Being repeatedly told that you will be "wiped off the face of the earth, and oh by the way - we're enriching uranium", by Muslims, is bound to have that effect on anyone. Especially Israeli's, who have borne the brunt of years of Iranian sponsored terrorism.

The ONLY thing that REALLY irritates me about the Israeli's, is their insistence upon using spy's on us. I know it's common as a cloudy day for nations to spy on each other, but I'd dock them a million dollars of foreign aid for every spying incident against us - permanently. That is such a "biting the hand that feeds you" kind of thing, and a damn insult.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

Although there are improved Minuteman anit-missile missiles in Israel, I believe there is no proven defense currently, against a nuclear attack. Could be aerial bombs or missiles, or even trucks, used for delivery of the nuclear bomb.

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So, Bosnian war: was NATO's introduction justified, in your view?

Did we really go to war? First, what is the purpose of any war? To force the entire conflict back to a negotiation table. From earliest recorded history, that has always been the only purpose of war.

Example: how did Clinton finally step in and solve it? Dayton Accords. Milosevik was *invited* to a negotiation table in Dayton Ohio. He refused. And was *invited* again.

Clinton and Holbrook understood the strategic objective - get to the peace table. Milosevik was told he could not leave Dayton until a settlement was negotiated. Yes, the US kidnapped Milosevik. Who then negotiated himself out of a job so to leave Dayton.

Second, Bosnia was Europe's responsiblity. Europe failed. Once the massacres had been too often, too massive, and too extreme (Srebrenica, et al) then Clinton stepped in. The smoking gun was obvious. Only then was the British/French Rapid Reaction Force (and others) allowed to do their job. Clinton, et al focused only on the purpose - a peace table. He achieved a major victory using near zero military.

In WWII, mankind massacred millions to get to the peace table. People were massacred for only one purpose. To take the conflict back to a peace table. Notice how many had so little respect for human life. Welcome to reality. Only getting to the negotiation matters. If tens of millions must be masscred, then so be it.

Clinton (and smarter advisers) routinely solved wars without paying that price. Haiti. A near nuclear war between India and Pakistan. He even empowered the almost solved standoff on the Korean pennisula. And many lesser disagreements solved by negotiating long before any military action was even discussed. By solving problems using near zero military deployments. Go directly to the peace table by spending so little and never forgetting what really matters.

Why is that peace table impossible in the Middle East? Every time a negotiation approaches a conclusion, Likud (the enemy of peace) changes conditions or fails to meet commitments. Likud clearly does not want peace. As demonstrated by even their calling for the assassination of Rabin - and getting it. Likud was quite clear. The peace settlement between Israel and Egypt is considered, by Likud, a major defeat. Never again: their attitude.

Third - back to the point. This same Likud would attack Iran without any hope of a negotiated settlement? Any war that does not seek a settlement at the peace table quickly identifies fools. But then Likud is a perfect example of wacko extremists.

Only viable solution to Iran's nuclear weapons is a negotiated settlement. If military is used as Israel wants, then the only possible solution is an complete invasion of Iran. Boots must be on the ground. If Israel does not want that, then any Israeli attack is only a classic fool's errand. War fought for no purpose. Same Israeli extremists made the same mistake in Lebanon. Will they ever learn?

Only solution with Iran means a negotiated settlement. No other solution exists. So how does the world get Iran to that table? No other question is relevant.

Curiously, the powers that be in Iran are even detaining many of Ahmadinejad's people. Smarter negotiators might find a solution in that inconsistency.