Speculation mounting of an attack on Iran

[mheslep]

...It was a poker game. What was a possibility was that the US would have attacked the Cuban bases. The real danger at that point was that the Soviet military *in Cuba* had the possibility of launching an attack themselves, even without Russian consent. What was also a danger was that that crazy general Power was just itching to launch an all-out strike on the Soviet Union. But if the Americans would have attacked Cuba, and there wouldn't have been any local initiatives at launching the missiles by the local military under attack, then I'm 100% certain that the Soviets wouldn't have gone for a war.

"Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces." -http://www.hpol.org/jfk/cuban/
I've seen an interview with a Soviet commander on the ground at the time that said he would have used his tactical nukes had the US invaded in those 14 days. Then add Castro and pal Che Guevara who urged the use of Soviet nuclear weapons

If the nuclear missiles had remained, we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City, ... We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims. ... We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/4/175241.shtml

Now, you cite the Cuban missile crisis. It was part of the risk to pay. But I cited you the fact that nuclear weapons stopped the Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

The only fact is that the Soviets did not invade W.E. The 'why' is an opinion, but granted a reasonably based one.

 

[quadraphonics]

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

Yeah, this is a big issue when it comes to diplomacy/relations with Iran. The Islamic Republic is fairly schizophrenic, with some elements acting like a normal, rational nation-state, while others seem to still be wedded to a messianic idea of Iran as the vanguard of a global Islamic revolution. As far as anyone outside can tell, these different strains have yet to be reconciled, which leads to erratic, sudden shifts in Iran's approach to the world, and a lack of coherence between the rhetoric emerging from different factions. This poses a major problem for any outsider considering diplomacy with Iran, as it's hard to gauge exactly how much authority the delegate you're negotiating with has to make any deal stick. It also makes it extremely difficult for more pragmatic elements with Iran to engage in effective diplomacy with the outside world, as they risk being undermined by the hardline elements (either being portrayed as 'collaborators,' or simply discredited by having their deals undone after the fact).

One should bear in mind that America's diplomatic impasse with Iran predates the current Administration by decades; there are structural impediments to effective diplomacy that any President, no matter how committed, will be faced with. The big problem here is that while everyone is more-or-less happy to wait around for Iran to sort its identity out, as long as they don't pose a dire threat. But the risk of nuclear proliferation changes that calculus, which, considering the disfunctions of Iran as a polity, creates serious risks.

So, while there are presumbly factions in Iran bent on weaponization (and even nuclear attacks), and others that are opposed to weaponization, my best guess is that Iran will end up developing a robust fuel cycle that would position them to credibly be able to develop a bomb on a short time frame (the fuel cycle is, by far, the most difficult part of creating weapons. Building a rudimentary, but still devestating, weapon is easy work once you already have the fuel). This gives them much of the benefits of actually possessing a weapon (i.e., neighbors will be afraid of antagonizing them into weaponizing), while leaving the door open for a non-violent resolution to the current stand-off, where Iran would pledge not to build a weapon and abide by the NPT, etc. This is the same basic posture maintained by many countries such as Japan and Brazil. You might call it a "nuclear threshold state," if you like.

However, such a state of affairs is still unacceptable to the US, as well as every other country in the Middle East. While the threshold posture is probably sufficient to avoid actual military action, it is pretty much guaranteed to lead to further fuel-cycle proliferation in the region, which in turn could lead to an actual weapons race. Any of which, given the polities in question, greatly increases the odds of nuclear materials or even weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists. A nuclear Iran is simply not good for regional or global peace and stability. And it's troubling that people have gotten so used to complaining about Iraq that they don't seem to consider the possibility that attacking Iran to prevent such an outcome might be the lesser of two evils. MAD only barely worked at preventing nuclear war between two stable, rational powers, and even then it required quite a bit of luck and restraint. A Middle East where Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and Egypt all have nuclear arms is a recipe for Armageddon.

 

[Gokul43201]

Official according to who? He's a bureaucrat, even if highly placed. He's not Supreme Leader Khamenei, he's not President Ahmadinejad.

But he represents them in the WEF.

 

[russ_watters]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

Though I love the vote of confidence in our military, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world in 1990, but in 2002, it was only a shadow of its former self.

 

[OmCheeto]

Know thine enemy; Sun Tsu? ;)

These factoids merely provide speculation as to motive. Nothing more.

So, what's your vote?

There was no third choice. So I didn't vote. Attacking another nation out of pure ignorance, of who and what they are is, well, purely ignorant, as in, beyond stupid.

I've not mastered the any of the debate styles. The first being subjectivism, the second being objectivism, and of course the newest, and most peculiar in my mind, projectionism, ie. let me tell you how or what you think.

Knowing nothing about a country that you think you hate can lead to some very odd opinions.

I would say that everyone should go back and read pages 2 through 5 at that other forum I hang out in. I did at least 20 hours of research trying to figure out why we would bomb another country.

If you're not into reading, then google:
1. Mohammed Mosaddeq

Mosaddeq was removed from power on August 19, 1953, in a coup d'état, supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments

Imagine if the US were in Iran's position right now.
How would we react to some upstart nation on the planet?

 

[Gokul43201]

I am not sure his views relative to the population/Parliament are that relevant. I think his nuttiness relative to the Assembly of 'Experts', the 'Guardian Council', or the Supreme Leader is what counts, and in that company its by no means clear that he has extreme views. Almadinejad's populartity can go to near zero, but nobody can oppose him without prior approval of the Guardian Council.

I agree, for the most part, but the Assembly of Experts is chaired by Rafsanjani, who is orders of magnitude more progressive than Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, even an oppressive regime needs some support of the people. A hugely unpopular government is ripe breeding ground for revolution. And stomping out revolution makes for lousy press.

How do you go about discounting Ahmadinajad as the official voice of the government and selecting some other? What other?

1. The intent of the speaker is at least clouded by the quality of translation. But more likely than not, it was just impolitic ranting by the President that had to be corrected in a hurry.

2. When making an unambiguous statement about official policy representatives of the Iranian government (the Foreign Minister, Minister of the Interior and National Security Chief) stated that no such policy exists, to wipe Israel off the map. Even Khamenei stated that Iran will never threaten another country. (Of course, Khamenei probably doesn't consider Israel a legitimate country!)

3. Not only may Ahmadinejad have actually meant the sentence in the context that it was most commonly reported, but Khamenei has also made similar remarks in the past (in much less ambiguous language), though in non-official circumstances. What they may wish for is far from what they can officially endorse or enact.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world...

In which century?

 

[Gokul43201]

Just for the record: Iraq had the 4th most powerful military in the world, and it tooks all of 100 hours to eliminate it.

This is a joke, right? Iraq never had the "4th most powerful military"...not in the last 4 centuries, at least!

 

[vociferous]

Though I love the vote of confidence in our military, Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world in 1990, but in 2002, it was only a shadow of its former self.

It was still one of the most powerful military forces on the planet.

With the exception of Russia, the United States, using conventional military weapons, could easily destroy the military forces of any other possible adversary. The United States' annual military budget is larger than all other potential enemies' military budgets combined.

The issue is not whether the United States is capable of utterly and quickly destroying Iranian military forces (it is, quite easily and that goes for other powers like China, though it may take longer and be more difficult). The issue is, defeating an enemy and capturing its capital may be a resounding military victory, but a tactical victory is not the same as achieving the political goals that were the impetus for the military action.

The United States won the war in Iraq in a matter of days. As we have seen, winning a war is very easy. Achieving political goals can be very difficult if not impossible.

 

[vociferous]

I don't expect a conventional bombing would change their minds, I expect it would seriously set back their ability to make a bomb as the Israeli's did with S. Hussein's Osirak nuclear facility.

I highly doubt it. If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.

Iraq was using a breeder reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium. A single strike eliminated the reactor and the threat.

Iran is pursuing the path of refining weapons-grade Uranium. Their have huge nuclear facilities, decentralized and hardened against air strikes. Israel simply does not have the military power to destroy them.

The US/NATO may be able to destroy most of Iran's nuclear facilities with aerial bombardment, but without sending in an invasion force to sweep the country and secure nuclear facilities, it would be uncertain exactly how big of a setback it would be.

Also, a massive air strike aimed against Iranian nuclear facilities would probably trigger an attempt by Iran to further destabilize Iraq, which is not in the best interests of the US or the EU.

 

[TR345]

What I have gathered from watching the news is that if Israel does bomb Iran, the U.S. will be helping with the equipment. If we have the air strike capability, then so does Israel because we will gladly give them whatever they need.

 

[vociferous]

What I have gathered from watching the news is that if Israel does bomb Iran, the U.S. will be helping with the equipment. If we have the air strike capability, then so does Israel because we will gladly give them whatever they need.

The issue is really size. Israel's military is designed for self-defense. It is smaller (although more potent) than the air forces and armies of most of its Arab neighbors. Israel has a very capable air force for self defense, but Israel does not have an Air Force capable of conducting a massive and prolonged aerial assault against Iran.

It is pretty difficult to imagine Israel being capable of striking a crippling blow against Iran's nuclear weapons program.

 

[TR345]

But is it really hard to imagine Israel obtaining the needed equipment from the U.S./EU. After all, we gave islamic extremists high tech weapons to fight the russians. If Israel is going to fight a war that helps us, don't you think we would give them whatever they need to do it?

 

[vociferous]

But is it really hard to imagine Israel obtaining the needed equipment from the U.S./EU. After all, we gave islamic extremists high tech weapons to fight the russians. If Israel is going to fight a war that helps us, don't you think we would give them whatever they need to do it?

What they would need would be a much larger Air Force and maybe a huge Army to make sure that the Air Force did its job. It simply is not going to happen. There are very few true global military powers left in the world, and Israel is not, nor will it ever be one.

Now, it is still possible that Israel could launch an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, but I doubt that they would end up being more than a modest setback.

Iran's nuclear program needs to be dealt with, but it is not in the United State's best interest to deal with it by using military force at the moment. The actual threat of Iran's nuclear program is probably unrealistic. From everything I have seen and read, Iran is pretty backwards technologically, scientifically, and militarily.

They are probably a lot farther from a working fission weapon than a lot of hawks claim, and even if they detonate a primitive weapon (like North Korea did), they have a decrepit air force and primitive ballistic missile technology. I doubt that they could create an effective nuclear weapon and delivery system within the next twenty years, much less the next few (as some claim).

The biggest threat coming from Iran right now is not its potential future nuclear weapons, but its threat to the stability of the region, which could eventually involve covert or open war between Iran, its proxies, and the Sunni Arab states, not to mention a new arms race as countries like Saudi Arabia may decide that they have no alternative but to develop their own nuclear weapons program.

Nuclear proliferation is very bad. Russia developed nuclear weapons because the United States had them. China developed nuclear weapons because the Russians had them. India developed nuclear weapons because the Chinese had them. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because the Indians had them. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear arms is very important. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, then it may be impossible to stop its neighbors from doing the same. Pretty soon, every two bit country that seems to have a revolution or civil war every couple of decades is going to have some of the most awesome and devastating weapons on Earth.

The IAEA has once again found Iran non compliant. The US and EU continue to pursue sanctions through the UN, which have been moderately successful. If attempts to press sanctions fail, NATO forces could always develop their own sanction programs and possibly even a blockade of Iranian land, air, and sea trade. Military force, especially on a massive scale, should be a last resort.

 

[TR345]

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

 

[wildman]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

 

[wildman]

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

Do you have any idea how much those bombs cost?

 

[TR345]

Do you have any idea how much those bombs cost?

Do you know how much money the military industrial complex makes off of us using them? War cost a lot, but for some people like CEO's of Haliburton, war is very profitable.

Also, I'm not giving my opinion on what should happen, just what I think might happen.

 

[TR345]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

Yes, but that does not rule out bombing them. Attacking does not equate to invading.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Can the U.S. realistically mount an attack on Iran today? No. We can barely fight two wars at the same time. Also, President Bush does not command the same kind of political power he had back in the early 2000s. It would spell disaster for Republicans in November and Congress would not approve of it anyways.

Can Israel mount an attack on Iran today? I'm sure they can sustain a short-term conflict. Would they be willing to risk all-out regional war to get their point across? I don't want to know the answer.



Jordan Joab.

 

[TR345]

Can Israel mount an attack on Iran today? I'm sure they can sustain a short-term conflict. Would they be willing to risk all-out regional war to get their point across? I don't want to know the answer.

Jordan Joab.

It would not be the first time, besides Iran already wants Israel obliterated, so what do they have to lose?

 

[AhmedEzz]

Hi guys, I want to say a lot about the subject but first I want to quote a hypocrite

I think that rather than just bombing the nuclear facilities and hoping that they cause a set back, they would probably bomb more than just the facilities, and would threaten to keep bombing until they agree to end the program. If they start back up again, they get bombed again.

I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman?? Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, do you have a solid proof other than the Western propaganda? ok let's assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ? why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation? that's hypocrisy

 

[vanesch]

Who are they trying to impress, and to what effect? Like it or not, one of the best ways we have to gauge intent is their words.

Like GWB's words concerning Iraq ? Come on. Iran's leaders are out to become a dominant regional power, and they will do and say anything which helps them - or which they think will help them in that respect. Bully talking about Israel is usually well-received in the Arab world, so that's what they do. In fact, I believe that *if* they found a way to "wipe Israel off the map" without hurting too much themselves, they might even consider it. But they are not going to risk their own existence for that. It would lead them away of their main goal. They don't hate Israel for its own sake, they hate Israel because it is the right thing to do from an Arab point of view. If they want to impose them as a regional leader, then hating Israel is part of the job.

Words can indicate intent. Due to the high stakes, words cannot just be dismissed.

If I'm going to write that I'm going to blow up planet earth, then you're just listening to a lunatic talking. There is in that case absolutely no relationship between what I'm saying and what I could or would possibly do.

I think you too casually dismiss the high level of tension. It was genuine! The situation was resolved because both players negotiated as if the other side wasn't bluffing.

The *tension* was of course genuine. However, we will never know what were the *real* intentions.

The Soviet Union would not have been able to threaten Western Europe if it did not have nuclear weapons.

This is manifestly and utterly wrong. In fact, even at the end of WWII, the Soviets could *easily* have continued all the way to Spain. After the withdrawal of the bulk of American soldiers, the conventional force of the Western European countries was an order of magnitude below what the Soviets had ready on the other side of the iron curtain. They would have ran over Germany and France in a blink of an eye. It was the fear of a nuclear conflict which refrained them. At no point, Western Europe was threatened just by Soviet nuclear arms. It was their huge conventional force that was the real menace. And that was countered by a nuclear threat on the western side. As I said, my dad did studies on that in NATO context, and they found that there was no way they could avoid, using purely conventional arms, from initial hostility onward, the Soviets to advance entirely up to the Rhine within *48 hours*.
This is documented in a book a certain General Close wrote back then, based upon these studies:

http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/10404844/General-Close-R-L-europe-Sans-Defense-48-Heures-Qui-Pourraient-Changer-La-Face-Du-Monde-Livre.html

I sense a disparity here in the fact that you seem to assign a smaller likelihood that the Israel's are *just bluffing*.

Because they might not fear yet total extermination - although it surely would be bad publicity! If Israel launched a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear country, they might have some hope to get away with it without being completely fried. Once their enemy would have nukes, then they would rather be sure to get fried too. Which is the main deterrent.

I call any menace of attack of one nuclear power against another, bluff. However, I don't necessarily call any menace of attack of a nuclear power against a non-nuclear power bluff. Look what we are discussing here in this thread: whether the US will invade Iran.

Believe me, if Iran had nukes, this discussion would be moot. (I think it is moot too right now, but for other reasons)

It is my contention that we are in our present pickle because of the belief that Iran doesn't really mean it.

I think they mean it to get nuclear weapons. I am sure they don't mean it to use them against Israel.

I for one, do not have to watch my grandchildren read their history books and ask me, "Granpa, If Iran kept saying they were going to destroy Israel, why did we let them do it? Were the Jews bad men?"

The answer to that one is simple: "we are not responsible for all evil that happens throughout the world, and after all, that wasn't such a bad thing, because now we got rid of Evil Iran too, which got blown up by Israelian bombs! Things calmed down a lot in the region since then."

Like the Japanese say: after long enough a time, even a disaster becomes useful. If ever (which I don't think would happen, but if ever it does) Iran and Israel blow each other up (no matter who started: one could even link the buttons together) this would then be a very good lesson for any other nuclear nation wanting to attack another one: that you can't get away with it.

 

[vociferous]

Hi guys, I want to say a lot about the subject but first I want to quote a hypocrite



I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman?? Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, do you have a solid proof other than the Western propaganda? ok let's assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ? why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation? that's hypocrisy

I would just like to point out that the IAEA has found Iran in noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which has resulted in them being sanctioned by the UN Security Council, so it is not simply a matter of the United States believing it not to be in their best interests to allow Iran to pursue weapons of mass destruction, but the majority of the world.

It should also be pointed out that Israel is a Democratic state that has a single, stable government since its inception. It is pretty difficult to imagine a Democracy launching an unprovoked attack with nuclear weapons unless it felt that a nuclear attack was imminent.

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship with an unstable government that has gone through several revolutions and attempted coups. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, it is a lot harder to believe that they would not fall into the wrong hands and possibly be used in an unprovoked strike.

 

[AhmedEzz]

so your argument is that its harmless to give Israel nuclear weapons but its harmful for the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons given that they are nuts?? am i correct so far?

 

[quadraphonics]

I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman??

It's not "who" so much as "what." And the answer, of course, is that power confers upon the powerful the duty and obligation to employ it in the service of peace and justice.

ok let's assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ?

Do you have any proof that Israel has nuclear weapons? But, anyway, the reason that Iran should be punished for pursuing nuclear weapons while Israel should not (necessarily) be is that Iran signed the NPT, explicitly giving up any claim to the right to pursue nuclear weapons. Israel did not. So, Israel is not violating a binding committment to anyone by pursuing nuclear weapons, while Iran is openly undermining the international nonproliferation regime by doing so.

why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation? that's hypocrisy

The right to self defence is not equivalent to the right to possesses nuclear weapons. In this particular case, you could argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for Israel to protect its existence, but this is not the case for Iran, which does not face any existential threats. The survival of the Iranian *regime*, however, might certainly be prolonged by nuclear capability.

Also, the whole hypocrisy charge is kind of weak anyway. If it's a choice between nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states and being called a hypocrite, I'll opt for the latter every time.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Do you have any proof that Israel has nuclear weapons?

proper word would be "duh"

the reason that Iran should be punished for pursuing nuclear weapons while Israel should not (necessarily) be is that Iran signed the NPT, explicitly giving up any claim to the right to pursue nuclear weapons. Israel did not. So, Israel is not violating a binding committment to anyone by pursuing nuclear weapons, while Iran is openly undermining the international nonproliferation regime by doing so.

I think we agreed before that the international law does not "enforce" itself upon nations, it rather encourages nations to comply. Moreover, although I am not sure but I don't think that the NPT states that a nation will be bombed to its knees if it does not comply with the treaty's requirements.

In this particular case, you could argue that nuclear weapons are necessary for Israel to protect its existence, but this is not the case for Iran, which does not face any existential threats.

Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries. Moreover, doesn't the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons threaten Iran's or any country in the region existence?

the whole hypocrisy charge is kind of weak anyway. If it's a choice between nuclear proliferation amongst rogue states and being called a hypocrite, I'll opt for the latter every time.

rogue states? why?
so you admit that you are a hypocrite...interesting.

 

[quadraphonics]

proper word would be "duh"

So why the double-standard on Iran's nuclear intentions? The estimates in question are coming from the exact same (Western) intelligence sources. When they say Israel probably has nukes, it's apparently obviously fact, but when they make claims about Iran, it's mere propaganda?

I think we agreed before that the international law does not "enforce" itself upon nations, it rather encourages nations to comply.

I have no recollection of such an agreement, nor any idea what the distinction between "enforcement" and "encouragement to comply" would be in the first place.

Moreover, although I am not sure but I don't think that the NPT states that a nation will be bombed to its knees if it does not comply with the treaty's requirements.

To be specific, it lays out a path for referring said nation up to the Security Council, who can for their part authorize bombing a country to its knees. Not that I think that would be a productive or wise strategy, but my point about the NPT was only meant to answer your question as to why Iran and Israel have different international obligations with respect to nuclear technology.

Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries.

Only if you count a nuclear arsenal as part of their military power, which is putting the cart before the horse in this case...

Moreover, doesn't the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons threaten Iran's or any country in the region existence?

I don't recall aknowledging that as a fact, but supposing it is, isn't the fact that Israel hasn't destroyed any countries in the region since (purportedly) becoming a nuclear power evidence that this is not the case? Moreover, there is a qualititative difference between Israel's susceptibility to nuclear annihilation and that of most countries in the region. I.e., Israel is a tiny country with a small population. A few nuclear bombs could literally destroy it. This is not true of most states in the region, excepting Lebanon and some of the smaller Guld States. A limited nuclear attack might well cause one of their governments to topple, but that doesn't amount to an existential national threat. Israel does not have the manpower to actually take over a significant country, even one crippled by nuclear attack.

rogue states? why?

Should be obvious from the definition of rogue state.

so you admit that you are a hypocrite...interesting.

No, I admit that being called a hypocrit by you doesn't keep me up at night.

 

[mjolnir80]

The biggest problem the US faces in attacking Iran is our present lack of reserve forces. An attack on Iran would use up all that we have and then what if something else happens like North Korea attacking the south? The first rule in military is to keep forces in reserve. If we get too overextended, bad guys will be tempted to take advantage of the situation. That is why Bush is not going to attack Iran.

there are no "bad guys" in the world

 

[TR345]

Hi guys, I want to say a lot about the subject but first I want to quote a hypocrite
I want to ask, who gave you the right to be the world policeman?? Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, do you have a solid proof other than the Western propaganda? ok let's assume you have, why do you think Iran should be punished for trying to acquire nuclear weapons knowing that its neighbour Israel - who has 150 or more nuclear weapons - ? why do you give the right of "Self-Defense" to your beloved Israel - which I really don't know why you love it so much anyway- but you deny that right to any other nation? that's hypocrisy

I am not advocating this, I am just giving my opinion on what might happen. I don;t think they should do it, but I think that can and might. You have to realize that this thread is not about whether the U.S. should attack Iran, but if they will.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I respect your opinion yet I disagree with it because I think you have double standards. I think that the West looks at Israel as "peaceful" "sane" and "friendly" while unfortunately, the West looks at other ME countries as "war-mongering" "barbaric" and "inferior"...sad but most of it is true, atleast I think so.

So why the double-standard on Iran's nuclear intentions? The estimates in question are coming from the exact same (Western) intelligence sources. When they say Israel probably has nukes, it's apparently obviously fact, but when they make claims about Iran, it's mere propaganda?

ok, you got me there but that's a good thing, admitting being wrong, because then we might reach a compromise and correct our views. I hope you would do the same.

I have no recollection of such an agreement, nor any idea what the distinction between "enforcement" and "encouragement to comply" would be in the first place.

I started a thread on the "international law" and most of you agreed that its a rather a promising idea than a real law that all nations must abide with.

Should be obvious from the definition of rogue state.

My point is that I don't think Iran did any worse than Israel to be called a "rogue" state.

 

[vociferous]

Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries. Moreover, doesn't the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons threaten Iran's or any country in the region existence?

That is untrue. Israel's military is smaller than most of its Arab neighbors. The few times that the IDF has pushed into its neighboring countries is in response to direct provocation. Israel does not have the military power to invade and occupy a country like Syria or Iran, so claiming that "Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries" is simply untruthful.

You can count on one hand the number of States that have any real military power. Israel is not one of them.

Israel does have nuclear weapons, which were developed primarily as a last resort to protect Israel against its Arab neighbors (who have a history of launching unprovoked attacks on Israel).

There are probably two countries that could win a decisive military victory against Iran, Russia and the United States. Russia is their semi-ally and the United States would be completely outside the range of any Iranian attack, so there really is no external threat that justifies Iran violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

 

[vociferous]

I respect your opinion yet I disagree with it because I think you have double standards. I think that the West looks at Israel as "peaceful" "sane" and "friendly" while unfortunately, the West looks at other ME countries as "war-mongering" "barbaric" and "inferior"...sad but most of it is true, atleast I think so.

I think if you look at the evidence objectively, you will see why. Israel is a secular democracy that provides for western-style civil and human rights guarantees for its citizens, similar to American and European nations.

With the exception of Turkey, the current Iraqi government, and perhaps Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, none of that can be said of the other Muslim states in the Middle East.

Iran, for instance, is a theocratic dictatorship with virtually no guarantees of civil rights for its citizens and an extremely poor human rights record. Iran is an Islamic state which treats non-Muslims as second class citizens. Iran's legal system is based upon Islamic law, and employs barbaric punishments such as stoning for "crimes" such as homosexuality and adultery. Women are treated as second class citizens and do not have equal rights.

Granted, there are many Iranians who want their country to become a Western Style democracy, but it should come as little surprise that most people who were raised in a western democracy find Iran's system of governance and jurisprudence offensive to their sensibilities.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Israel does have nuclear weapons, which were developed primarily as a last resort to protect Israel against its Arab neighbors (who have a history of launching unprovoked attacks on Israel).

you need to revise your history lessons...Israel as a state emerged on Arab lands, this of course meant that Arabs had to defend themselves, they went to several wars some lost some won and finally we offered peace last year but Israel declined. Unfair accusation.

. Israel does not have the military power to invade and occupy a country like Syria or Iran, so claiming that "Israel has the military power to squash all of its neighboring countries" is simply untruthful.

Oh but Israel can send all those countries to rubble with all kinds of missiles, air force, artillery, you name it...Israel doesn't need to "invade" a country to bring it to its knees.

There are probably two countries that could win a decisive military victory against Iran, Russia and the United States.

You are way over-estimating Iranian military.

there really is no external threat that justifies Iran violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

I DONT support the Iranian nuclear programme but I'm saying if you will judge them then judge by the same standards...you judge by DOUBLE standards.

 

[mheslep]

I highly doubt it. If Israel had the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities with a single air strike, they probably would have taken it already.

Who said single? I don't expect it would be that easy, and even if it was I expect Israel would have to wait until Iran is further down the road.

Iraq was using a breeder reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium. A single strike eliminated the reactor and the threat.

Iran is pursuing the path of refining weapons-grade Uranium. Their have huge nuclear facilities, decentralized and hardened against air strikes. Israel simply does not have the military power to destroy them.

Well there you are, that's my point. I don't know how hardended Iran's fuel-cycle has been made, and I doubt anyone posting here knows either, other than its fair to assume it would not be a soft target.

The US/NATO may be able to destroy most of Iran's nuclear facilities with aerial bombardment, but without sending in an invasion force to sweep the country and secure nuclear facilities, it would be uncertain exactly how big of a setback it would be.

Also, a massive air strike aimed against Iranian nuclear facilities would probably trigger an attempt by Iran to further destabilize Iraq, which is not in the best interests of the US or the EU.

Good reasons to avoid doing anything militarily, let's include another, the fact that innocent people will get hurt. The decision still should include weighing the consequences of doing nothing.