So when do we invade Iran?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vince278
Despite that, their attitude and actions would imply otherwise.

So was Iraq.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

You know you have a terrible set of options when #2 and #7 are the best of the lot...

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.

I misspoke on the El Baradei thing, btw. My apologies. He did say that Iran could be only months away from a nuclear bomb, but only if they have the weapons-grade material they need.

And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far—a few months—from a weapon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10858243/site/newsweek/

Given that, I think you may be correct on the time frame.

[Drake Tungsten]

Personally, I think that only options 2 and 7 are even realistic. 1 is probably wishful thinking. The rest are irresponsible at best, insane at worst.

Glad to see we're on the same page on this...

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So was Iraq.

Yet the Israelis still felt Osirak was necessary.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
[nd if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far—a few months—from a weapon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10858243/site/newsweek/

If we assume that then we're already sunk. Option 7 becomes the only option.

[Vince278]

Considering the NPT dead opens a Pandora's Box. Everyone thinking about nukes will have little to stop them.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by 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.

Like Libya for instance.

[:) Smiley]

#7 is already the current situation, North Korea got nukes and no one did anything. And nothing's really changed. We've been panicking that "when such and such nation gets nukes, the world is gonna end" ever since the 1950's.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 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...

Why? If we knew that the terrorists somehow received nuclear aid from Iran, then Iran would face nuclear retalliation. What makes Iran more likely to give terrorists nuclear weaponry than Pakistan or North Korea? Not only would the country giving that aid to terrorists be held accountable (like the Taliban after 9/11), but they'd also be facing the possibility that they'd be giving weaponry to a group that might decide to use it against its nuclear benefactor if the benefactor changes its philosphy or ideology.

I'm not happy that Iran is trying to create nuclear armaments, but I don't think that it will be the end of the worl.

[PLATO]

GePap,

Your argument is based on two assumptions that I would not call "definites":

1.) You assume that the Iranian Government will act rationally with the goal of self preservation as its end. While this may be the case at the end of the day, it is by no means a given. When Governments put fundamentalist ideology ahead of survival, then many bad things could occur. Additionally, it is quite common for Governments in that part of the world to misread international resolve. That in itself could cause serious problems.

2.) You additionally assume that the acceptance of Iran as a nuculear power would be the only viable solution should they continue with their development. No western nation has even offered this as an option. If The West maintains the "nuclearization" of Iran is "unacceptable" and diplomatic efforts fail, then what is the recourse of the west? You assume that they will pragmatically back down...this is by no means a given.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by PLATO
1.) You assume that the Iranian Government will act rationally with the goal of self preservation as its end. While this may be the case at the end of the day, it is by no means a given. When Governments put fundamentalist ideology ahead of survival, then many bad things could occur.

Is there any sign that Iran's government will act this way? What have they done that suggests that they would put ideology ahead of survival?

You assume that they will pragmatically back down...this is by no means a given.

The problem is that there is no other realistic option.

[PLATO]

No Wycoff, None that I can see. Still, when a Theocracy is in power, this idea needs to be discussed.

Secondly, "realistic" is a term of pragmatisim. The question is weather or not "realism" will enter into the decision making process. "Fear" is not a term of pragmatisim...and it could just as well be part of the debate. In the end, a "scared" west could choose to act in very unpredictable ways.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO
GePap,

Your argument is based on two assumptions that I would not call "definites":

1.) You assume that the Iranian Government will act rationally with the goal of self preservation as its end. While this may be the case at the end of the day, it is by no means a given. When Governments put fundamentalist ideology ahead of survival, then many bad things could occur. Additionally, it is quite common for Governments in that part of the world to misread international resolve. That in itself could cause serious problems.

That's a reasonable assumption. Governments that don't do this tend not to last very long and also tend to be dictatorial in a way that the Iranian government isn't.

It simply isn't possible in practical terms for any government to misread international intentions in the case of a nuclear first strike. If you explained this to a Kalahari Bushman, they would understand.

2.) You additionally assume that the acceptance of Iran as a nuculear power would be the only viable solution should they continue with their development. No western nation has even offered this as an option. If The West maintains the "nuclearization" of Iran is "unacceptable" and diplomatic efforts fail, then what is the recourse of the west? You assume that they will pragmatically back down...this is by no means a given.

They have no option. There is not the political will in the west to act in such a way as to permanently prevent the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons if they really want them. The cost is simply too high. In any case, if they get them, they like everyone else who has them will not be able to use them.

Jesus... look at India and Pakistan. They've hated each other for years, but since both went nuclear, things have cooled down a lot.... because they aren't insane.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Why? If we knew that the terrorists somehow received nuclear aid from Iran, then Iran would face nuclear retalliation.

Why is it a foregone conclusion that we'd "know" they received it from Iran? It's entirely likely that an Israeli city would be vaporized out of the blue, with no hints to any country's intelligence agency as to who carried out the attack, let alone where the bomb came from. It could have been Iranian, could have been North Korean, could have been from the black market of a former Soviet republic, could have been independently constructed using stolen nuclear fuel, etc. etc. etc.

Why couldn't the mullahs reach the rational, "reasonable" conclusion that Iran would most likely have plausible deniability after the fact? Why couldn't they come to the rational conclusion that even if - and that's a BIG IF - the Mossad or CIA find reason to conclude that Iran was the perpetrator, they still likely wouldn't have sufficient evidence to justify nuclear retaliation before the international community? Remember that this is an international community that wouldn't trust the Israelis as far as it can throw them, and the lack of WMD in Iraq has destroyed whatever little credibility the American intelligence commmunity once had.

From the mullahs' perspective, attacking Israel by proxy could be viewed as an entirely rational calculated risk. Given the right precautions, they could get off scot-free at best, or just barely escape retaliation at worst. Combine that line of reasoning with their sincere belief in divine providence, and you have a possibility at least worth considering.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

Why should we listen to someone who despises the NPT on the best way to maintain the NPT?