So when do we invade Iran?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


You run a scan of the elemements and isotopes present in the samples. Every reactor gives a unique signature

This is why the Israelis will never let us or anybody else near there nukes...they would have South Carolina all over them.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Lybia chose not to seek nukes on their own, ebcause Qadaffi didn;t think they would do anything for him.

He is in a very different position than the Iranians anyways.

So no, the US didn;t stop Libya. Thanks for the supporting evidence

I really think that what finally got Qadaffi is the fact that the west presented a long term united front. A consensus of the nuclear powers is a critical issue in proliferation. Let us all hope that such a consensus can be reached wrt the Iranian situation.

[GePap]

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.

Iran's government has done NOTHING that shows it to be more irrational than any other state. They have supported terrorism to the same extent as Pakistan. Hell, Pakistan has done more to aid salafist extremist than Iran ever has. Why is the military regime of Pakistan more credible??

Oh, and the second assumption in this statement is false on its face. A fundi regime that puts anything above its survival would not be celebrating 25 plus years in power, especially after a shock such as the war with Iraq, which happened just 2 years into the revolution. This is the same crap people sais about the USSR in the 1930's , oh my god the radical revolutionaries and their fundy internationalist nutiness!!! And in the end, the Soviets acted as rationally as any other state actor.

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.

The West said the same things about NK-the very same. Please tell me, where are we on that? At the end of the day western states are DEMOCRACIES, meaning that politicains have consituencies to appease and report back too. No western body politic will bear the costs of a war against Iran based on this type of strategic agenda. The US populace afgter 9/11 was the only one really willing to buy this sort of arguement, but Iraq sucked the wind out of that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


I really think that what finally got Qadaffi is the fact that the west presented a long term united front. A consensus of the nuclear powers is a critical issue in proliferation. Let us all hope that such a consensus can be reached wrt the Iranian situation.

Qadaffi'as nuclear program was in its infancy compared to the Iranian program. Libya can;t relly on oil as a source of revenue or as a weapon the the extent that Iran can. Libya also has no nuclear neighbors, and Libya and Qaddafi was trying to be "respectable", and for example play a much bigger role in the AU.

His gains from going on, keeping the sanctions on, and seeking nukes, would have been far less than from just giving the program up, simply because nukes would not help his general aism any. Qaddafi is nowhere in the same strategic condition as Iran. It made all the sense of the world for him not to try.

It makes a hell of a lot of sense for Iran to go for it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO



Yes, everyone must think exactly alike. How stupid of me to believe that everyone in the world's governments wouldn't share your conclusions.

Please forgive me for assuming that a leadership that has had no education in any international relations, never left their own boarders, spent a lifetime studying fundamentalist religious precepts, and promotes the election of leaders that want to "wipe them off the map" could ever have a different thought than yours.

Can you show any action by Iran since 1979 that show it to be less rational than any of the 8 current nuclear powers, or their past regimes?

Please. This will be interesting.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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

Because I seem to be the only one who gets WHY it is falling apart, the only one who sees the basic hypocrasy of it, and the only one who seems to accept that no states have any higher moral reasons for having nuclear weapons than any other.

The rest of you are stuck in some insane la la land in whihc, within the system of soverign independent states, a self serving hypocratical treaty than at its outset also ignored the technical realities of what it takes to be a nuclear power, works. And I am also the only one to point how those who have ignored the NPT have sufferend no consequences, many times in direct violation to the very laws of the states who have signed the NPT (just look how the US had basically ignored the mandatory sanctions it should place on nuclear states not one of the five nuclear powers, like Pakistan and India).

So why should people who have shown willful ingorance of the realities of the treaty and its actual causes be trusted any more????

[PLATO]

I agree that Iran has not shown a tendancy toward irrationality at all. I believe that I even agreed with that above. My problem is that your argument does not allow for the possibility of irrational behavior. Given the isolation and fundamental nature of the governing mullahs, it should at the least be discussed.

Further, the fat that Iraq attacked two years into the revolution was a contributing factor to regime stability...not a destabilizing one as you imply. The sense of nationalism that was awakened and the wartime effort did much to entrench the regime ad help the populace accept the controls placed upon them. Much the same as is happening in the US with the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc...in the name of the war on terror.

Additionally, the acceptance of DPRK as a nuclear power is a completely different situation. China makes a tremendous difference in that case. There is no coresponding entity wrt Iran. Even moreso, DPRK isn't in a position to dictate much of the world's energy supply eithier. Two completely different situations united only by the same rehtoric.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
I agree that Iran has not shown a tendancy toward irrationality at all. I believe that I even agreed with that above. My problem is that your argument does not allow for the possibility of irrational behavior. Given the isolation and fundamental nature of the governing mullahs, it should at the least be discussed.

This invalidates the sanity of ANY state having nukes. No one is discussing total nuclear disarmament, which was supposed to be the grand dream of the NPT (stop more states from getting nukes, get the nuke states to destroy theirs). As long as ANY state keeps nukes, there is a rational incentive for others to get them.

Further, the fat that Iraq attacked two years into the revolution was a contributing factor to regime stability...not a destabilizing one as you imply. The sense of nationalism that was awakened and the wartime effort did much to entrench the regime ad help the populace accept the controls placed upon them. Much the same as is happening in the US with the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc...in the name of the war on terror.

And the Bolshevik regime was attacked immidiately when it came to power. In fighting the war and being forced to organize the state for this, the true radicals were eseentially consumed by both the revolution and the war.

The fact is that Iran's regime at the start was radical, it tried to spread the revolution outwards- why Saddam was rational in his attack of Iran. But after Khomeini died, who gets picked to lead? A true theologian of his character? No, a lower level cleric who made his way up politically. Khameini, the true leader of Iran, is no real radical. And I would not suspect those after him to be any more radical. And if people want to keep talking about the President, well, doesn't the assumption that an elected leader (as opposed to the appointed Khameini) actually mean he is more bound by what is good for the voters than the clerics??

Additionally, the acceptance of DPRK as a nuclear power is a completely different situation. China makes a tremendous difference in that case. There is no coresponding entity wrt Iran. Even moreso, DPRK isn't in a position to dictate much of the world's energy supply eithier. Two completely different situations united only by the same rehtoric.

Actually, not so different at all.

Both Iran and NK are revisionist states. Both used the NPT to get closer to nuclear weapons. China and Russia both will not support any attempt to attack these states, because their leadership does not buy the underlying moralisitc arguement made by the West about "good vs Evil" and are more inclined to the "national soverignty" and self defense positions of the former.

Finally, for mayor economic reasons China and in this case Russia as well both have huge incentives not to do anything radical. UNlike with NK< Russia has huge contracts with Iran (Russia does not sell large weapons packages in the billions to NK, nor do they help NK build nuclear power plants), and China needs the Iranian energy markets and has its own multi-billion dollar contracts in the country.

And also, one final bit, China has nothing to gain from a nuclear NK, but the cost to China of a war outweights the cost of a nuclear NK.

[PLATO]

Your point is well taken wrt to Khameni. I didn't realize that his rise was more political than theological. That makes a difference. However, wrt the democratic nature of the Iranian Presidency, I have to disagree. When the mullahs edit and approve the list of candidates, then it is not democracy by any stretch. Imagine how democratic you would say the US was if the archbishop of East BF picked the candidates....and they were Bush and Cheney.

I still believe, however, that DPRK and Iran are very different cases. Chinese proximity and the fact that China is the DPRKs only nominal friend do much to cause an influence over that regime that is not present with Iran. For example, if China cut off energy supplies to DPRK then the country would fold. Iran has no such influence acting upon them.

I do think that the "cost-benefit" relationship that you allude to in your final sentence is a key element though. With the DPRK it is cheaper to be reactionary that pre-emptive. Both in human life and economically.

In the case of Iran, that may not be so.

Another point is that you keep coming to the argument of the rights od soverign states. Your argument has great merit, but ignores the fact that has existed in the world since the beginning...The equities of power. Soverign states have nearly always reacted in ways that will protect or enhance their power. Iran is doing so now, but so are the current nuclear nations. The true determinor has always been which state has used the power they have the most effectively. Today, the "united front" approach of the west seems to carry the greatest weight. This is changing. I also believe that this is part of the reason why we see such turmoil over these things. The emergence of China as a major geopolitical power trying to enhance her own power has again polarized the world...but in a far different way then it has been polarized before.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Your point is well taken wrt to Khameni. I didn't realize that his rise was more political than theological. That makes a difference. However, wrt the democratic nature of the Iranian Presidency, I have to disagree. When the mullahs edit and approve the list of candidates, then it is not democracy by any stretch. Imagine how democratic you would say the US was if the archbishop of East BF picked the candidates....and they were Bush and Cheney.

The fact is that there were six candidates, and while they did not represent all possible views they were still a very wide choice, including Rasafanjani, who at this point has been given a position in the government to reign in this guy because of this inexperience.

I still believe, however, that DPRK and Iran are very different cases. Chinese proximity and the fact that China is the DPRKs only nominal friend do much to cause an influence over that regime that is not present with Iran. For example, if China cut off energy supplies to DPRK then the country would fold. Iran has no such influence acting upon them.

I do think that the "cost-benefit" relationship that you allude to in your final sentence is a key element though. With the DPRK it is cheaper to be reactionary that pre-emptive. Both in human life and economically.

In the case of Iran, that may not be so.

And invasion of Iran would not be cheap in human life, and it would hurt the world economy greatly as it would do great damage to the world energy markets, and iran could seek out to cut of oil coming from the gulf, incluidng form SA. In short, the global eocnomic consequences of a war in Iran are rpobably greater than the high but localized damage from a war in the Korean Peninsula.

Another point is that you keep coming to the argument of the rights od soverign states. Your argument has great merit, but ignores the fact that has existed in the world since the beginning...The equities of power. Soverign states have nearly always reacted in ways that will protect or enhance their power. Iran is doing so now, but so are the current nuclear nations. The true determinor has always been which state has used the power they have the most effectively. Today, the "united front" approach of the west seems to carry the greatest weight. This is changing. I also believe that this is part of the reason why we see such turmoil over these things. The emergence of China as a major geopolitical power trying to enhance her own power has again polarized the world...but in a far different way then it has been polarized before.

The very notion that underpins the West, the rule of law, undermines western arguements currently. That is a basic problem the west can;t overcome. And power is shifting from the west, not only to China, but India and the third world, and will only continue to do so in the next 50 years. A "united west" can only in far go so far, and the fact is while European governments would back sanctions, they would not back a war- and since China and Russia are critical to getting true comprehensive sanctions in place, the United West at most can serve only to put pressure on Russia and China, but the west's power ther eon this issue if very limitied.

History shows that status quo powers (the west in this case) do not inherently trupm revisionist powers. Otherwise the international system would be static, and it is not. Revionosts powers will and can play status quo powers against each other.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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.

Unless someone give them a missile, maybe 10 years. It took us from 1945 to 56 to deploy an ICBM. They now have IRBM Missile that can hit Israel. They got it from North Korea. But it is NK first generation missile.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Vince278


Currently, the EU, US, and a few others with perhaps the UN soon to follow. That's serious enough for the time being. If reason gets tossed out the window I'd favor a limited form of KH's option #2. Invade, get the job done, change regimes, then leave. No Iraqi-style occupation. Personally though, I don't think we have the men and material this would take at this time.

This would not work. I supect that 1/3 of the pop is over 55 years and would love to see the Cleric gone with some decent gov in place. The next 1/3 is the educated and under 55, they to would like the cleric gone and a decent gov, but without the US in any form being there or helping. The next 1/3 are the Hot Heads and they would be beating the Koren and making the other 2/3 take note or be killed for not loving the Koren first and your family second. They would just install another hot headed gov., and we would not be any better off, then we are today.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Joseph
Unless someone give them a missile, maybe 10 years. It took us from 1945 to 56 to deploy an ICBM. They now have IRBM Missile that can hit Israel. They got it from North Korea. But it is NK first generation missile.

The Shahab-3 has been mass produced by Iran since 2003. It can reach Israel. The Shahab-4 is probably in inventory by now, or soon, and can reach Europe. The Shahab-6, in development, is expected to reach eastern North America. All are domestic DPRK Taepo Dong variants.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Joseph
This would not work. I supect that 1/3 of the pop is over 55 years and would love to see the Cleric gone with some decent gov in place. The next 1/3 is the educated and under 55, they to would like the cleric gone and a decent gov, but without the US in any form being there or helping. The next 1/3 are the Hot Heads and they would be beating the Koren and making the other 2/3 take note or be killed for not loving the Koren first and your family second. They would just install another hot headed gov., and we would not be any better off, then we are today.

Its true that a government we impose won't work. That is why I advocate a quick in and out. Let them sort out their own mess. I don't mind seeing a democratically elected anti-American government as long as it respects its international obligations and is (hopefully) free from clerical influence.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Darius871


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.

Every Nuclear bomb leave a signature. They can sample the air and read the Radioactive content and then they will know who made the bomb.
Then in about 12 hours or less a US SSBN would be in range with 20 C 5, each with 10 warhead and Iran would just be gone.