So when do we invade Iran?

[Drake Tungsten]

Assuming they know exactly where all of them are.

Indeed...

Looking through the Power Point presentation given in that Atlantic Monthly article, I saw something interesting. There's apparently a theater missile defense system (THAAD) that supposedly can shoot down Iranian missiles in their midcourse phase. Once again though, you have to worry about its effectiveness when one mistake may mean the nuclear destruction of Tel Aviv. You could have the USAF blow up all the launchers they could and use THAAD to take out any missiles that managed to survive and be launched after the fact, but there's still an awfully big risk that something might get through.

All in all, we should all just hope that Iran doesn't have a deliverable nuke yet.

[GePap]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


It depends on how effective the airstrikes are.

If, somehow, they are surprisingly effective then the Iranians will be faced with the choice of "use it or lose it". I think that airstrikes against a nuclear-armed Iran would most likely not result in a nuclear retaliation, but it is a not insignificant possiblity.

And again, at that point we'd be creating an incitement to use with virtually 0 possibility of success.

So while air strikes are a bad option now, they are much worse when Iran already has a launchable weapon. They would be less effective and provide greater risk.

The "chose it or lose it" option is not a real one because the regime is not threatened- they can strike using other means, and re-develop new delivery systems.

And it is obvious that any military option would be far more risky if Iran had nukes already, thought no one seriously thinks they do, no one.

[DanS]

I guess I am a little more sanguine about Iran than some here, because I think we have better intelligence about what Iran is doing than what Iraq was doing (for instance). As I recall, the disloyal opposition recently successfully outed an Iranian nuclear capability. This indicates that Iran is not a monolithic society at the top, filled with true believers...

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
All in all, we should all just hope that Iran doesn't have a deliverable nuke yet.

My "Magic 8 Ball" says not yet. I'd give it about two years. But then North Korea probably does and we haven't done anything yet. Small wonder Iran is thumbing its nose.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I guess I am a little more sanguine about Iran than some here, because I think we have better intelligence about what Iran is doing than what Iraq was doing (for instance). As I recall, the disloyal opposition recently successfully outed an Iranian nuclear capability. This is not a monolithic society of true believers...

And neither was Iraq... and we know how sanguined and sure you where then......

[Drake Tungsten]

If Iran can't be convinced to willingly give up their nuclear ambitions then we face a stark choice: invasion or acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power, and the hope that we can convince them to be a responsible nuclear power.

If you do accept Iran as a nuclear power, you also have to accept all the potential changes that will cause in the region. An arms race between Israel and Iran and the potential for other nations in the region (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia?) to decide to join the nuclear club are just some of the developments we might have to look forward to. I'm not so worried about convincing Iran to be a responsible nuclear power as I am about this other stuff.

That's not to say I'm not concerned about convincing Iran to be a responsible nuclear power. I think the threat of a terrorist nuke going off in an American city will become much more real should Iran ever get the bomb...

The decision needs to be made in the next 3 years or so, assuming that the voluntary disarming or at least suspension of active arming doesn't take place.

I think we need to make a decision a lot sooner than that. Even El Baradei is saying that Iran is only a few months away from producing a bomb. All they really need to do is finish enriching the uranium.

[GePap]

At the end, unless we fully invade and take over, the US can't stop Iran from getting nukes anymore than the US has been able to stop any other nation from getting them.

[Berzerker]

sheesh, this aint complicated. just tell them not to attack anyone or we will invade. had we done that with Saddam the last 17 years could have been avoided

nukes reduce war, whats the warning in civ? we have nukes, what the **** do you want again?

[KrazyHorse]

So, the options as I see it are (and these all assume that we continue to try and fail to get Iran to pause or shut down their weapons production):

1) Conventional airstrikes soon (before Iranian acquisition of launchable weapons): low probability of success, at best temporary reduction in Iranian development, increases likelihood of an irresponsible nuclear-armed Iran (should it come to that), low immediate risk and cost

2) Invasion soon: high probability of success (at least as measured by large, long-term loss to the Iranian nuclear program), possibility of long-term gain of a friendly Iran, high cost, good possibility of a very public failure of the US military to secure Iran, large political repercussions for any leader who chooses this option

3) Nuclear attack against Iranian nuclear sites soon: better possibility of success than option 1, gains still more temporary than permanent. Oh yes, also insane if you consider the broader world situation. Irreperable harm caused to US reputation, complete diplomatic isolation of the US for the foreseeable future, inability of the US to operate in friendly third countries for the foreseeable future

4) Airstrkes after the Iranian acquisition of a launchable weapon: Virtually zero probability of success, some possibility of a nuclear retaliation, increased likelihood of Iranian nuclear aid to even less responsible actors

5) Invasion after the Iranian acquisition of a launchable weapon coupled with conventional airstrikes against launch sites etc.: Virtually certain probability of an attempted nuclear retaliation. Some possibility that this attempt will completely fail. Quite possibly will not. A million dead Israelis at worst (quite bad enough, thank you).

6) Limited nuclear engagement of Iranian nuclear capabilities combined with nuclear and conventional engagement of the Iranian government, command & control etc.: again, quite insane (unless for other reasons relations with Iran get to the point where they're likely to begin an unprovoked nuclear attack anyway). Better chance of failure of the certain Iranian attempt to retaliate in kind. Maybe still half a million dead Israelis coupled with certainly hundreds of thousands/millions of Iranian dead.

7) Zero military engagement: NPT becomes a dead letter. Possibility that the Iranians behave irresponsibly. Accelerated spread of nuclear weapons technology.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If Iran can't be convinced to willingly give up their nuclear ambitions then we face a stark choice: invasion or acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power, and the hope that we can convince them to be a responsible nuclear power.

If you do accept Iran as a nuclear power, you also have to accept all the potential changes that will cause in the region. An arms race between Israel and Iran and the potential for other nations in the region (Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia?) to decide to join the nuclear club are just some of the developments we might have to look forward to. I'm not so worried about convincing Iran to be a responsible nuclear power as I am about this other stuff.

That's not to say I'm not concerned about convincing Iran to be a responsible nuclear power. I think the threat of a terrorist nuke going off in an American city will become much more real should Iran ever get the bomb...

The decision needs to be made in the next 3 years or so, assuming that the voluntary disarming or at least suspension of active arming doesn't take place.

I think we need to make a decision a lot sooner than that. Even El Baradei is saying that Iran is only a few months away from producing a bomb. All they really need to do is finish enriching the uranium.

I'd say at least 8-12 months from producing any sort of bomb. Probably more like 18 months. 3 years to get it into a form they can launch.

[KrazyHorse]

Enriching uranium is slow, labour intensive and quite expensive.

It's by far the hardest part of the whole deal (assuming you're going for a uranium warhead)

[GePap]

The NPT is close to being a dead letter, for many reasons. The most obvious one is that it is a crap system, inherently flawed within the state sovereignty system. Its is hypocratical, and since those who opted out have been allowed to get nukes free of consequence, it makes little sense for revesionist states to stay in.

Besides, at any point Iran can simply pull out of the NPT as it is its right as a state, the cost being losing all nuclear assistance from members within the NPT, mainly Russia.

[Seeker]

Well if there is no action we have contemplate this question:

Does Iran with nukes = Hezbollah with a nuke in a truck (or in tunnel...or a tractor...or whatever) ??

And can the US/Israel alliance negotiate 'rationally' as Gepap likes to put it with a nuclear Hezbollah on a Iranian leash of unknown length and strength??

[GePap]

Originally posted by Seeker
Well if there is no action we have contemplate this question:

Does Iran with nukes = Hezbollah with a nuke in a truck (or in tunnel...or a tractor...or whatever) ??

NO, anymore than a nuclear USSR mean a nuclear Red December, or a nuclear Pakistan means that Kashmiri militants all of a sudden drive a nuke into Dehli.

Another pet theory no one has yet to rationally explain (why any state actoir would surrended control of possibly their most important assets to a third party not fully in their control)

And can the US/Israel alliance negotiate 'rationally' as Gepap likes to put it with a nuclear Hezbollah on a Iranian leash of unknown length and strength??

Who said **** about "negotiating"? If Iran becomes nuclear, the world will have to live with it just as the world lives with 8 current nuclear states.

And again, nuclear HIzbullah? not going to happen. No state spends tens of billions and then hands nukes to third parties.

[Seeker]

"No state spends tens of billions and then hands nukes to third parties."

That seems like a very absolute and categorical answer when it seems to be based on "Well it hasn't happened yet" and "I sure hope so" as a foundation...