So when do we invade Iran?

[Vince278]

KH has a well reasoned list of options above. The only thing I'd add to it is the diplomatic option. Increasingly add pressure, get allies involved, refer to the UN, enact and gradually tighten sanctions, then totally isolate them. Chance of success: low to moderate depending on allied involvement. This is the option in play at the moment and should be given a chance before any other options are used. I believe it can work if we can get China and Russia fully on board.

[Berzerker]

especially when that 3rd party will very likely get you nuked for helping them

[GePap]

Originally posted by 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...

No, its based on reason. BY your logic, ANYTHING is possible, because not having happened yet does not stop things form happening in the future.

But perhaps there is a simple reason why they have not yet happened- ie., becuase there are clear, simple, rational reasons why a state actor would not hand over nukes to a third party not fully under its control.

The US, the USSR, the Pakistanis, heck, the Israelis, all of them have at some point or another had close relations with some third party group involved in a conflict while they were nuclear powers. NOt once has a nuclear power just transfered the technology.

Heck, Syria and Iran both already have chemical weapons knowledge. Chem weapons are much simpler to make and cheaper too than nukes, and Hizbullah could probably alter its existing arsenal to use the,....has Hizbullah ever used chem weapons? Does anyone claim they have them?? If Iran and Syrian don't transfer that level of "WMD" knowledge to Hizbullah, why the **** would they transfer nuclear weaponry!?!?!

Scenrios should eb based on some amount of reason.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vince278
KH has a well reasoned list of options above. The only thing I'd add to it is the diplomatic option. Increasingly add pressure, get allies involved, refer to the UN, enact and gradually tighten sanctions, then totally isolate them. Chance of success: low to moderate depending on allied involvement. This is the option in play at the moment and should be given a chance before any other options are used. I believe it can work if we can get China and Russia fully on board.

WHY?

Besides the basic ideological issues involved on the nature of the NPT, neither China nor Russia have any serious incentive to move at this point.

China needs to secure cheap energy- sanctions against the Iranian energy sector are simply out, and China has vast contracts with Iran right now to develop energy, amongst other projects.

RUssia as we speaks continues to help Iran build a civlian nuclear reactor, and plans to sell modern weapons to them, including new anti-aircraft missiles.

Where is this serious diplomatic pressure coming from??

[KrazyHorse]

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).

a) No you don't

b) So what?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by 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.

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.

[Seeker]

"Scenarios should ebb based on some amount of reason."

Reason? Reason is for girls.

[Berzerker]

we will be invading as soon as the situation in Iraq allows it

[Vince278]

Originally posted by GePap
Where is this serious diplomatic pressure coming from??

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.

[lightblue]

Remember that the Irani president is thought to be at least a sympatizer, if not a member, of this cult which believes the 12th iman of the shia will rise in a time of turmoil and war, and are set on creating this turmoil themselves. This guy isn't exactly rational.

That said, you also have to remember that the true power in Iran are still the Mullahs, and I somehow doubt they're as keen to launch nukes as it would be the end of their regime.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by lightblue
Remember that the Irani president is thought to be at least a sympatizer, if not a member, of this cult which believes the 12th iman of the shia will rise in a time of turmoil and war, and are set on creating this turmoil themselves. This guy isn't exactly rational.

That said, you also have to remember that the true power in Iran are still the Mullahs, and I somehow doubt they're as keen to launch nukes as it would be the end of their regime.

If that is what he is trying to do then he will be disappointed by the outcome.

It's possible the Mullahs may see him as an embarrassment (similar to Khruschev in his time) and have him removed.

[Agathon]

The idea of invading Iran is completely unrealistic. The United States would lose.

Iraq is one thing. A divided nation with a leader that most Iraquis didn't particularly like, and for whom only a minority were prepared to fight. Add to that the complete wreckage that was Iraq's military post 1991 and the fact that Iraq (apart from the Kurdish zones, which were not hostile) had the geography of a billiard table, and invading Iraq was somewhat of a walkover. Even then the US has had terrible problems in dealing with an insurgency that draws from only one portion of the population.

Iran on the other hand is a mountainous and relatively monoethnic country. There are a lot more Iranians than there are Iraquis and most will definitely fight back. The current insurgency in Iraq is a Sunday picnic compared to a potential Iranian insurgency.

But in theory the US could overcome these obstacles. In theory. The reality is that the American public would not accept the casualty rate and the expense involved in such an invasion, nor would they accept the draft that would be required to provide the manpower to do it, given other American military commitments. So it's a non-starter.

The idea of a limited airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities is militarily feasible, but unlikely to do more than delay Iranian nuclear ambitions. But such a strike would be a diplomatic disaster because Iran isn't currently violating any laws. If the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons (and they have good strategic reasons to do so) it is up to the international community to prove it. As the Iranians have said again and again, they have an absolute right to pursue nuclear energy, and that requires doing things that could conceivably be used to develop nuclear weapons.

Israel is probably the only reasonable candidate to conduct such a strike since it couldn't possibly reduce its diplomatic standing in the world lower than it is currently. However, an Israeli strike would require American co-operation, at least to the extent of not notifying Iran that an illegal attack was inbound, so the US would simply be tarred with the same brush.

To be sure, there are those in the administration who would not care at all, but the US stands to lose any credibility that it has retained in the eyes of most people aftermath of the Iraq debacle. The US is deeply unpopular in the rest of the world with the exception of small minorities in culturally Anglo Saxon countries. Everyone else would simply regard the US as a rogue state to be contained at all costs.

But it doesn't matter anyway. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, then its government will find itself in the same position as everyone else who has them. They will work to deter attack (which is the only viable reason for having them) and they would just sit there doing that. The idea that Iran would launch an aggressive nuclear strike on Israel (which is the only worthwhile target they are capable of hitting) is simply ludicrous. The Iranians know, as does every sane person, that the Israelis would simply flatten Iran.

They certainly wouldn't give them to terrorists, as the Bush administration fondly imagines. Why on earth would they? No government would spend billions of dollars on nuclear weapons to give them to a bunch of unpredictable lunatics who would probably use them. Once the source of such weapons was identified, and it surely would be, Iran would be nuked out of existence. Saying that Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorists is like saying that the US government would give such weapons to the likes of Timothy McVeigh... it's simply incredible to imagine that they would.

Nuclear weapons have one great liability. If your enemies have them, you can't use them. Even if your enemies don't have them, chances are they will be allied with someone who does. This is the reality of nuclear deterrence.

But it doesn't matter. No one has sufficient evidence to prove that Iran is doing something wrong.

[Agathon]

Remember that the Irani president is thought to be at least a sympatizer, if not a member, of this cult which believes the 12th iman of the shia will rise in a time of turmoil and war, and are set on creating this turmoil themselves. This guy isn't exactly rational.

And if he isn't, it's no big problem. He doesn't run the country himself. In order to organize a nuclear attack on another state he would need the co-operation of thousands of other Iranians. If he seriously started agitating for a nuclear war, people in his own government would marginalize him.

Don't you think for a minute that the US Chiefs of Staff don't have some sort of informal plan for preventing nuclear war should the US administration become unreasonable.

[KrazyHorse]

Do you even know what's contained in the NPT, aggie?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Agathon
No one has sufficient evidence to prove that Iran is doing something wrong.

Despite that, their attitude and actions would imply otherwise.