Iran Nuclear Situation (Recent SCARY Developments NSR)

[Lone Star]

I hadn't realized that Summit and Blurred had set up a geopolitcal think tank in Summit County. Have to look for some of their policy papers in the future.

hahahahahhaahahahhaahhaha

[Free Range Lobster]

Tin: I'm not saying their weapons program is our fault, their attitude towards us is.

They want nukes they can have em, everyone else has em but when its someone that Israel or India or anyone else who's feeding off the fat (US) dosen't like them, its suddenly our place to go and tell them they can't do that.

Fuck Israel, they can deal with their own problems.

Please, PLEASE go ahead and "do something" about Iran.

And watch how fast China pulls the plug.

[PassTheDutchie]

OTOH, given that Katami and his ilk were routed in the recent elections, what makes you think there's going to be a swing back in the other direction? The liberal/moderate movement in Iran is effectively dead nowadays.

Let's not confuse the "routing" of moderates in recent elections with the "routing" of moderate sentiment in the Iranian populace. Reformers/moderates were mostly barred from running in the recent elections so a large part of the electorate (those favoring moderation/reform) stayed home. There is still sizable and (likely) growing segment of the Iranian population that despises the theocrats. The trouble for the U.S. is balancing its dealings Iranian government and its nationalist smokescreen while trying not to alienate this still vital segment of the Iranian populace which may, in time, serve as a moderating force.

I'll pose this: Iran, by most estimates, is still 10 years away from developing a nuclear device despite their recent sabre rattling. Is this "crisis" really a crisis given the time we have to resolve the issue?

[MassLiberal]

I'll pose this: Iran, by most estimates, is still 10 years away from developing a nuclear device despite their recent sabre rattling. Is this "crisis" really a crisis given the time we have to resolve the issue?

Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make. This is something that needs to be dealt with, but not overtly. Patience and diplomatic poise are what's called for. Unfortunately, this administration is so utterly lacking in these skills that I really do fear that they will do something exceedingly stupid.

[Tin Woodsman]

Let's not confuse the "routing" of moderates in recent elections with the "routing" of moderate sentiment in the Iranian populace. Reformers/moderates were mostly barred from running in the recent elections so a large part of the electorate (those favoring moderation/reform) stayed home. There is still sizable and (likely) growing segment of the Iranian population that despises the theocrats. The trouble for the U.S. is balancing its dealings Iranian government and its nationalist smokescreen while trying not to alienate this still vital segment of the Iranian populace which may, in time, serve as a moderating force.

I'll pose this: Iran, by most estimates, is still 10 years away from developing a nuclear device despite their recent sabre rattling. Is this "crisis" really a crisis given the time we have to resolve the issue?

Fair enough re: moderate sentiment among the populace. Still, there's a LONG LONG way from the existence of such a sentiment today, and the notion that the Iranian people will at some point in the future rise up and vote out (or throw out) those theocrats.

And as for your 10 year estimate, I'll take the under - as many units as you want to sell me. The critical piece in acquiring nukes is mastering the enrichment process, which they are in the process of doing. Once you've done that, you can build bombs with designs downloaded from the internet.

This is a scary, scary world we are living in, folks. To a great extent, the current US administration has made problems worse by its actions and the flawed execution of even its (few) sound policy decisions. But if anyone here thinks the answer is to just "be nicer" or to pull back from trying to influence events/regions that are in the US national interest, you are fooling yourselves. To put it in a WWMD context, if the apt downstairs is occupied by a whackjob with tourettes who is scaring your wife, do you:

A) Drop some meth on his doorstep b/c all the other wackos in town have it and it's better to know that he's using "our" meth

B) Ignore the problem and hope it goes away

C) Try to talk it out in an attempt to modify his behavior

D) Use any means necessary (calling the landlord or the police) to ensure that he is as good as gone

You probably want to start with C, but you damn well better be prepared to go with D if that doesn't work out. Many here seem to be advocating A and B. Quite simply, you're nuts.

[Tippster]

The only reason why countries try to get the Bomb is for legitimacy. Nobody took N.Korea seriously until they had a bomb. Same thing happened with Pakistan. The one truism we learned in the 20th Century is that there is no way to "win" a nuclear war. If a bomb goes off in Des Moines then Teheran will cease to exist. They know this. Don't group these people in with the Al Qaeda nutjobs. The Mullahs and secular leaders in Iran, and even Kim Jong Il and his cronies in NK, are anything BUT suicidal.

[PassTheDutchie]

Yeah, really are just bad and worse options—the problem with preemptism is:

1) You undermine the reform element in Iran and strengthen the mullahs ("you see, the U.S. really is out to get us")

2) In a more global/regional context, you dig a deeper PR strategic hole RE: the War on Terror (across the entire Muslim world this time: "you see, the U.S. is really out to get us")

3) Insuring the destruction of Iranian nuclear development facilities in a preemptive strike is by no means a sure thing (we were completely wrong about Iraq's WMD systems/development, etc. and our intelligence on Iran pales compared to what we had in Iraq)

No doubt, the prospect of Iran with a nuke is a bad, bad thing. I don't know pretend to know what the answer is… I tend towards multi-literalism/strong international regime building—really the best answer to non-proliferation in the long term; but building such norms is a long term project and has been severly undermined by the Bush administration.

[Cono Este]

Tin: I'm not saying their weapons program is our fault, their attitude towards us is.

They want nukes they can have em, everyone else has em but when its someone that Israel or India or anyone else who's feeding off the fat (US) dosen't like them, its suddenly our place to go and tell them they can't do that.

Fuck Israel, they can deal with their own problems.

Please, PLEASE go ahead and "do something" about Iran.

And watch how fast China pulls the plug.

sorry, but your wrong. We have had almost no contact with them since the iran Hostage crisis, and that was 25 yrs ago. There is a whole new generation of people in that country since then, and any anti american attitude has been spoon feed to them by their Mullahs since birth. We have not done shit to them in 25yrs, and in hindsight that has obviously been a mistake. Meanwhile they have risen to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

[evtic]

Iran has also employed one of its most respected professors to teach at a suicide bomber training academy in the heart of Tehran. There is a list floating around from the DOD of the top 20 things that Iran has done that Iraq would have been instanly invaded for doing.

[AstroPax]

Russia announced that their Tu-160 strategic bombers (nuclear) penetrated US airspace without detection.

Nothing new here. They bump the Arctic ADIZ on a regular basis...at least least 15 times in 2005.

Besides, they didn't penetrate "US Airspace" proper. Big differance.

-Astro

[Stu Gotz]

Let's not confuse the "routing" of moderates in recent elections with the "routing" of moderate sentiment in the Iranian populace.

Wasn't someone trying to sell a router recently on the forum?

[13]

The only reason why countries try to get the Bomb is for legitimacy. Nobody took N.Korea seriously until they had a bomb. Same thing happened with Pakistan. The one truism we learned in the 20th Century is that there is no way to "win" a nuclear war. If a bomb goes off in Des Moines then Teheran will cease to exist. They know this. Don't group these people in with the Al Qaeda nutjobs. The Mullahs and secular leaders in Iran, and even Kim Jong Il and his cronies in NK, are anything BUT suicidal.

Valid point re: using nuclear capability as political leverage, but what's to stop some rogue in the Iranian military or spy agency from lighting one off without the knowledge of his superiors?

Not to mention, there are plenty of terrorist groups that receive support from Iran.

Even so, I still think Ahmadinejad is full of shit and the U.S. should keep the 6 shooters holstered.

[Cono Este]

Thank you, that's the point I was trying to make. This is something that needs to be dealt with, but not overtly. Patience and diplomatic poise are what's called for. Unfortunately, this administration is so utterly lacking in these skills that I really do fear that they will do something exceedingly stupid.

i agree, i think this admin. could do something stupid. And the iraq war has only aided iran in its conquest for the bomb. I hate Bush for that right now, but we have all heard how much you and others hate the man, lets move on. He will be gone in a couple of years, and this problem will only be worse.

I disagree with you about patience though. that is all we have shown thus far, for 15 yrs. Their intentions should be clear to all of us by now.

I am hoping for sanctions, i will pay 5 bucks a gallon to get rid of them.

[MassLiberal]

Sanctions require patience to work. That's what I am talking about, there is no military solution to the problem, to do so plays directly into the hands of our competitors.

[mr_gyptian]

The problem with defeating Iran isn't in whether we can effect a devastating strike against their nuclear capability. we can. can we defeat them on the ground. if you look at the map Summit has on page one. we have them effectively surrounded. this is an army that fought to a stand off after eight years with an army(Iraq) we routed in a matter of days, twice. we are spread thin, but if the true shock and awe doctrine were utilized Iran, or what we used to think of as Iran Iran would be an afterthought. the problem, which I would hope we're congnizant of this time around, is the vacuum that would be created by defeating Iran in such a way.

If the french and russians don't want to help this time around. then fuck them. let it be their problem. North Korea can't even accurately say where their own ballistic missiles will end up. I'm not worried about Iran hitting us. If I was a country in that region, I'd be really worried. The only countries I'm particularly concerned about are Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan. the rest of those ungrateful shit bags can suck on a warhead. period. not only that, but it would play nicely into the hands of Mr_G's Parking Lot Doctrine.

[summit]

I'm enjoying the exchange right now.

-----------------------------------

Anyone who knows anything about deterence theory is afraid of Iran having nukes because Mutually Assured Destruction only works against those afraid of being destroyed.

I'll pose this: Iran, by most estimates, is still 10 years away from developing a nuclear device despite their recent sabre rattling. Is this "crisis" really a crisis given the time we have to resolve the issue?

That's pretty optomistic there, Bob. I'll see if I can regoogle the articles. The Iranians enrichment capability if they were to put all of their centrifuges online is enough to manufacture fissile material for >10 weapons in a year. (I would add that depends on their on their weapon design).

Trust me when I say basic nuclear fission weapon design is not all that complex to begin with, especialyl when compared to the processes required to enrich the uranium. It isn't until one gets into the thermonuclear weapons and warhead minaturization that complexity goes up.

Iran now has the the BM-25s IRBMs from NK (Soviet design R-27/SS-N-6 IRBMs), which were originally produced in the 1960s as an SLBM capable of carrying 1 1.2Megaton hydrogen bomb 2400-3200km (also MIRV capable up to 3 thermonuclear warheads). This means they no longer need a fancy schmancy minaturized weapon due to delivery system limitations. They'll probably be able to put their first or second production weapon on top of one of these (after they remove the biological or chemical warhead that sits on ti in the meantime). With the range to hit Rome, Paris, and if their weapon is light enough, London, this is a scary prospect.

There are other ways of delivering a weapon even to CONUS:
open southern boarder + truck
cargo container + ship sails into harbor
SRBM mounted on a ship off the Eastern Seaboard
etc

--------------------------------------------

Maybe the bird flu will get us before the SHFT in Iran.

Speaking of which, while our government isn't an extremely oppressive theocracy like Iran, our president does seem to be one of those "End-of-Times-in-our-lifetime" believers... bird flu, immigrant invasion, Iran with nukes... "Maybe I can trigger armageddeon... Hey Rummy! Let's nuke Iran! Jesus is a'comin'!" </semi-sarcasm>

[ski_adk]

If we start pre-emptive military operations in Iran, then we will truly be in WW3. Conventional or nuclear regardless, do you really think that China and Russia will sit idly by while we bomb their largest suppliers of cheap energy back to the stone age? True, nobody wants war with the United States, but when those countries feel the economic pinch from one of their allies being attacked, they'll have no choice but to respond in full.

The United States is a stranger in a strange land. We do not have the power nor population to fight in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Hell, we can't even maintain peace in Iraq...which was a fairly westernized, secular culture before we released all the radical nutjobs out from under Saddam's control.

Personally, I fear the current White House Administration is ballsy, gutsy, and ignorantly arrogant enough to believe that we can get away with an attack on Iran. And that's an attack which most likely would be pre-emptively launched on what basically amounts to what Washington sees in its crystal ball. That is what's downright terrifying to me.

[subtle plague]

^^
what he said. he's from the think tank.

[Free Range Lobster]

sorry, but your wrong. We have had almost no contact with them since the iran Hostage crisis, and that was 25 yrs ago. There is a whole new generation of people in that country since then, and any anti american attitude has been spoon feed to them by their Mullahs since birth. We have not done shit to them in 25yrs, and in hindsight that has obviously been a mistake. Meanwhile they have risen to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.

No, infact I'm right, they've been watching us pretty keenly the past 25 years how we handle our relations in the Middle East, esp. pumping money into the wrong people constantly. And they don't like us for it.

They DON'T hate Americans.
They hate American Foreign Policy.

But so does everyone else.

[MassLiberal]

MAD won't work?

You can say what you want about the regime in Iran, But they are not going to use a nuclear weapon unless provoked to do so. They have no desire to be completely annihilated in a nuclear holocaust. They know that if they supplied nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization (and it wouldn't be OBL based on the tumultuous history between the two) they would be wiped off the face of the earth.

Their goal is to solidify their power in the face of souring sentiment among the populace. Control oil supplies in both Iraq and Iran and therefore be a major player on the world stage, guaranteeing the revolutions power. By recklessly useing nukes, they lose everything.

[Arty50]

Additional links:
Link 1

^ Error 404

Link 2

^ Russian news site.

Link 3

^ Russian news site.

How am I supposed to trust any of those? I mean, I can find you 100 sites that say we never landed on the moon.

[summit]

If we start pre-emptive military operations in Iran, then we will truly be in WW3. Conventional or nuclear regardless, do you really think that China and Russia will sit idly by while we bomb their largest suppliers of cheap energy back to the stone age? True, nobody wants war with the United States, but when those countries feel the economic pinch from one of their allies being attacked, they'll have no choice but to respond in full.

1. Russia is an oil exporter. They don't need Iran.
2. Neither Russia nor China can or would engage the US in conventional or nuclear warfare. They would lose or everyone would lose. (It's the same as the lack of Soviet intervention in the Yom Kippur War when it's allies' capitol were poised to be captured by the Israelis).
3. China and Russia stand to benefit in terms of US involvment in Iran in that it would further weaken the US and entangle the West in the perceived/real West-Islam conflict. This gives them a free hand to expand/reexpand their spheres of influence while their competitors kill each other off.

In world conflicts, those that come out ahead are those that keep the fighting off their turf while still selling weapons to everyone else and building their own power.

Sanctions require patience to work. That's what I am talking about, there is no military solution to the problem, to do so plays directly into the hands of our competitors.

This is not a case of:
USA: "You have WMDs!"
Iraq: "No we don't! Leave us alone!"
France/Germany/China/Russia: "Leave them alone!" *worry about debts owed*

It is a case of:
US/UK/France/Germany/UN/IAEA/etc: "Stop building nuclear weapons!"
Iran: "Hell no! Fuck off! Allah Akbar!"
China/Russia/NK: *snicker* *counts their profit*

Our competitors have outsmarted us. We waited. Waiting at this point means a nuclear Iran most likely SOON (less than 2 years). We can't have that which is what our competitors were banking on (literally and figuratively).

The Russians read Macheavelli. The Chinese read Sun Tzu. W says "Say Who???"

[mr_gyptian]

a direct strike on paris would be particularly delicous. Imagine, one of their client states razing their capitol city. heh. maybe then they'd take responsibility for a century of bankrupt foreign policy.

[Affix Snow]

The Russians read Macheavelli. The Chinese read Sun Tzu. W says "Say Who???"

Thats awesome!

[MassLiberal]

Because China and Russia are making huge profits off of Iran??

Their share in the profits comes if we invade, or perform a military strike of any kind. W is trying to save his legacy, and what worries me is that he is going to focus his attention on solving this "problem"