Iran

[Arnfinn Madsen]

It is really a tough issue, after this election. The Iranian politics seems to have shifted from pragmatic (meaning tough rhetoric but will to negotiate) to ideologic (anti-Israel etc.). I think a real threat of use of force is necessary. Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to mess with a rattlesnake, you don't just hit it with a stick and just stir it up, you need to inflict serious damage to its ability to strike.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not necessary to invade the country though, bombing a few oil facilities will send the message necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are going to mess with a rattlesnake, you don't just hit it with a stick and just stir it up, you need to inflict serious damage to its ability to strike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it have any ability to strike that can not easily be countered?

[BluffTHIS!]

If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt that Iran would ever launch a nuclear strike on anyone. For that matter i dont think nuclear weapons would ever be used by a government unless they had already lost. With this in mind Israel's real threat is a conventional war in which they could easily kick the crap out of Iran.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are happy countering post hoc, then no. But Israel cannot allow itself to be subject to even one nuclear attack because it is such a small country. Nor should we allow Iran to sit on a nuclear arsenal as a semi-deterrent which would allow it to get away with more conventional military actions and support of terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we were speaking across eachother. I meant pre-nuclear.

[sam h]

This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, M. I just wonder about the current viability of the air strike option.

I really have no idea how effective it could be. But I've read in a couple places that the Iranian facilities are in very deep underground bunkers and that we don't even have that great intelligence about where all the facilities are. That could be faulty, but it seems to at least be an unresolved issue.

I also think that the administration has really put itself in a bad spot vis-a-vis Iran through its Iraq policy. Not only will a more actively hostile Iran be much more capable of destabilizing the situation in Iraq, but more open antagonism between the US and Iran is really going to jeopardize whatever chance we have of nurturing the future development of a reasonably pro-US Shiite government.

So I don't really have an answer. But I think the Bush administration has put us up the creek without a paddle.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what you're saying, M. I just wonder about the current viability of the air strike option.

I really have no idea how effective it could be. But I've read in a couple places that the Iranian facilities are in very deep underground bunkers and that we don't even have that great intelligence about where all the facilities are. That could be faulty, but it seems to at least be an unresolved issue.

I also think that the administration has really put itself in a bad spot vis-a-vis Iran through its Iraq policy. Not only will a more actively hostile Iran be much more capable of destabilizing the situation in Iraq, but more open antagonism between the US and Iran is really going to jeopardize whatever chance we have of nurturing the future development of a reasonably pro-US Shiite government.

So I don't really have an answer. But I think the Bush administration has put us up the creek without a paddle.

[/ QUOTE ]

All valid concerns, and I suspect we should be moving much faster in Iraq (faster Saddam trial; more anti-insurgent strikes; faster Iraqi security training; elections, at least, will be soon) so that in a few months it might be more stable, and we might strike Iran if needed. Issuing Iran an absolute ultimatum during a window of time (after substantial Iraqi progress is seen, yet before Iran reaches the full enrichment cycle) may be the best bet.