So when do we invade Iran?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Great post, Gepap.

Yes. Looks like this will be going to the UN soon.

[KrazyHorse]

Former head of Israel's intelligence services claims that Iran is ~12 months out from going to industrial production of HEU, and that with a reasonable scale of production they could have enough fissile material for a weapon by 2010 or 2011. This is near to my estimate for most reasonable scenario. About twice as slow as my worst-case scenario. There's still the possibility of an unknown parallel research and development program, but that's still completely hypothetical.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

(click on "Concern grows over Iran nukes" at top right)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
To return this sad thread to the point.

What gets me is the myopic view some people have of this whole situation, as if the ONLY reason the Iranians wouald have to get nukes is Israel. That of course is utter ****, specially since the Iranians started fiddling with nukes under the pro-US Israel friendly Shah.

So lets count down the other reasons Iran would want nukes:

1. Prestige. Iran wants to be the pre-eminent power in the Gulf region. Nukes ould enhance their status.
2. The US. The great Satan has nukes- deterrence.
3. Pakistan. A next door neighbor with a history of supporting crazy Sunni Islamist who don;t like Shiites- like the Taliban. Shiites are commonly attacked within Pakistan. And this neighbor happens to have nukes itself.
4. KSA/Egypt. The big Sunni Arab states resent Iran and fear it-they funded Saddam's little war against them. Nukes would gain Iran leverage against these Sunni Arab states.

Heck, in the long run, Pak and the Arabs are probably the bigger, longer lasting geo-strategic issue. Israel's relative power in the region can only fall as its population lags behind, the relative power of its patron the US is supperseded by others, and maybe neighboring regimes begin to modernize their economies.

1 and 4 both mean that this may trigger KSA and Egypt to get nukes. Now THATS something to look forward to.

2. The odds of the US using nuclear weapons against Iran are vanishingly small.


Israels power

Well Israels power isnt a threat to Iran in any case, so theres no rational strategic reason to focus on Israel. The focus is either A. Irrational or B. Ideological, a way of gaining prestige in the whole muslim world. Which BTW, has since 1979 been at least as important to Iranian policy as gaining prestige in the gulf.

But its always nice to watch certain folks look with a certain glee to the anticipated decline of American and Israeli power.

I would suggest that those states in the Mideast that are most likely to grow and lessen relative Israeli power, are precisely those states that take a more rational line, and are likely to be less hostile to Israel.

[Drake Tungsten]

Former head of Israel's intelligence services claims that Iran is ~12 months out from going to industrial production of HEU, and that with a reasonable scale of production they could have enough fissile material for a weapon by 2010 or 2011. This is near to my estimate for most reasonable scenario. About twice as slow as my worst-case scenario. There's still the possibility of an unknown parallel research and development program, but that's still completely hypothetical.

Let's hope he's right about that.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by lord of the mark 2. The odds of the US using nuclear weapons against Iran are vanishingly small.

I think the deterrance Iran is seeking is invasion deterrance rather than the MAD we usually think of when using the term deterrance. Any nation with a nuclear arsenal becomes practically invasion-proof. Does anyone think that we would have invaded Iraq if they actually had operational W.M.D.?

The U.S. certainly would use nuclear weapons against Iran if Iran used them against the U.S. I'm sure the same logic applies to Israel. Iran nukes Israel, Israel nukes Iran.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Former head of Israel's intelligence services claims that Iran is ~12 months out from going to industrial production of HEU, and that with a reasonable scale of production they could have enough fissile material for a weapon by 2010 or 2011. This is near to my estimate for most reasonable scenario. About twice as slow as my worst-case scenario. There's still the possibility of an unknown parallel research and development program, but that's still completely hypothetical.

Lets's hope he's right about that.

It seems like a reasonable guess (unlike, say, the previous hysteria about the obviously nonexistent Iraqi nuke capability)

[Drake Tungsten]

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

It's becoming increasingly likely that there's going to be some kind of showdown between Iran and the US in the future. ****...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.

They are a very nasty piece of business, capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.

What the United States says links them to Iran are tell-tale manufacturing signatures — certain types of machine-shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.

"The signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production," says explosives expert Kevin Barry. "So it's the same make and model."

U.S. officials say roadside bomb attacks against American forces in Iraq have become much more deadly as more and more of the Iran-designed and Iran-produced bombs have been smuggled in from the country since last October.

"I think the evidence is strong that the Iranian government is making these IEDs, and the Iranian government is sending them across the border and they are killing U.S. troops once they get there," says Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism chief and an ABC News consultant. "I think it's very hard to escape the conclusion that, in all probability, the Iranian government is knowingly killing U.S. troops."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1692347&page=1

It's becoming increasingly likely that there's going to be some kind of showdown between Iran and the US in the future. ****...

I think a few days after the election. Nov 7th is the election this year.

[Vince278]

We will still need to make a show of letting the UNSC handle the problem before doing anything ourselves. In cases like this the UN Security Council needs to stand up and take charge or risk becoming irrelevent.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Joseph
I think a few days after the election. Nov 7th is the election this year.

Um, you declare wars a few days BEFORE elections, not after. Otherwise you don't have the wartime Republican swing

[Thedrin]

We will still need to make a show of letting the UNSC handle the problem before doing anything ourselves. In cases like this the UN Security Council needs to stand up and take charge or risk becoming irrelevent.

It's not the UN's job to protect US troops in this situation.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Vince278
We will still need to make a show of letting the UNSC handle the problem before doing anything ourselves. In cases like this the UN Security Council needs to stand up and take charge or risk becoming irrelevent.

Unfortunately, the US went to Iraq without sufficient backing of the UN (to put it mildly).
Bush won't give a rat's ass about the UN in the case of an invasion of Iran either.

Secondly, the US is the one in charge of Iraq, and the US has the obligation to provide security and stability in Iraq. This includes securing Iraq's borders. If the US claims that the bombs going off inside Iraq are coming from Iran, then it's doing a poor job.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Vince278
We will still need to make a show of letting the UNSC handle the problem before doing anything ourselves. In cases like this the UN Security Council needs to stand up and take charge or risk becoming irrelevent.

Russia today said hands off of Iran.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Thedrin
It's not the UN's job to protect US troops in this situation.

Certainly, but shouldn't we at least give diplomacy a chance.