Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel

[KrazyHorse]

Stop getting a chubby, Siro. There is absolutely no chance they're going to go after Iran for you.

[Arrian]

@ me. True enough! I was a little worked up.

Also, Iran has attacked you and your interests. It wages proxy war against your forces in Iraq, and possibly in Afghanistan.

Sure (Iraq, anyway. Afganistan?), and they also fund anti-Israel organizations. I'm aware they aren't our best buds. We haven't been particularly nice to them either.

Nothing that they have done rises to the level of something that would justify a pre-emptive strike.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

This, to me, is the key to the whole thing:

Iranian proliferation would be so threatening to the U.S. because "the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent" -- in other words, they'd have the ability to deter a U.S. attack on their country, and we can't have that.

Bingo.

We must attack this country, so it cannot produce a weapon that would prevent us from attacking this country!

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

This would be an example of a preventive strike, not a preemptive strike. There is a large difference.

[Arrian]

Preventive = We must attack this country, so it cannot produce a weapon that would prevent us from attacking this country!

Preemptive = they're gonna attack us, so we must attack them first.

Yeah, preventive is worse. Iraq was preventive, then. Same rationale (Saddam might get nucular weapons!).

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Preemptive is generally assumed to mean that the attack from the other side is imminent.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian
Preventive = We must attack this country, so it cannot produce a weapon that would prevent us from attacking this country!

Preemptive = they're gonna attack us, so we must attack them first.

Yeah, preventive is worse. Iraq was preventive, then. Same rationale (Saddam might get nucular weapons!).

-Arrian

Are you saying

The USA can never attack preemptively or preventatively ie that you cannot envision any scenario where such an action would be justified?

or

You dont acknowledge the threat posed by a nuclear armed nation that exports its particular brand of fanatacism?

Just to avoid the obvious, I'm not saying I agree with attacking Iran at this juncture.

[Arrian]

The USA can never attack preemptively or preventatively ie that you cannot envision any scenario where such an action would be justified?

First, to be clear, I'm talking about nation-states. I'm not against "preemptively" taking out a terrorist training camp in a failed state.

Having got that out of the way... yes. The example of a possibly justifiable preemptive attack that comes to mind is Israel, 1967. In that situation, a small country surrounded by enemies who were making hostile moves decided to hit first. Of course it depends on just how sure you are that you're going to be attacked, but forget that for now. What (nation-state) enemies can do that to us? None. Canada and Mexico are friends.

You dont acknowledge the threat posed by a nuclear armed nation that exports its particular brand of fanatacism?

I've said this repeatedly. MAD applies. While I find the theocratic regime in Tehran repulsive, I do not think they are irrational.

-Arrian

[Theben]

The main problem isn't Iran having nuclear power or even a nuke weapon, it's the arms race it'll cause in a highly unstable & violent region of the world.

Diplomatic talks should begin using the carrot and stick method of convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions for better, alternate methods of power and not being sanctioned.

[Tattila the Hun]

I recommend we pre-prepre-pre-emptive them with Martti Ahtisaari. Should do the trick.

[Blaupanzer]

Iran is very unlikely to give nukes to terrorists if they ever get them. They have a very paranoid leadership set that fully understands the term, "blowback." We appear not to have considered this fully in assisting Bin-Laden create his original list of Mujahadeen, now AQ.

In most of the world, if one guy talks tough, then the other one throws the smack right back at him. That's all this noise is. Israel said they would pre-empt if Iran did not cooperate with the Europeans about future nukes. Now Iran is saying, "well, we'll just preempt your preemption." Like schoolboys. As long as they are talking, not much will happen. Neither country is foolish. If the time really does come, they won't have much to say. They will let the weapons talk. Don't underestimate either of them, even though neither has the logistics for any sort of drawn out struggle in the air.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Arrian


First, to be clear, I'm talking about nation-states. I'm not against "preemptively" taking out a terrorist training camp in a failed state.

Having got that out of the way... yes. The example of a possibly justifiable preemptive attack that comes to mind is Israel, 1967. In that situation, a small country surrounded by enemies who were making hostile moves decided to hit first. Of course it depends on just how sure you are that you're going to be attacked, but forget that for now. What (nation-state) enemies can do that to us? None. Canada and Mexico are friends.

So you would classify the US attacks on Libya that effectively stopped Khadafi's (up until that time) continuous support for terrorism a failure ie you would not have taken action?

I've said this repeatedly. MAD applies. While I find the theocratic regime in Tehran repulsive, I do not think they are irrational.

-Arrian

MAD does not apply. They cannot wipe us out. What small nuke states can (and may) do is use a nuke as an "ace in the hole" in order to prevent us from taking action against their regional aggression. Its pretty obvious from our inability to deal with North Korea provocations that we wont take any military action against a nuclear state.

I'm not a fan of JFK but I'm glad we dont have nukes in Cuba. You may argue that the nuclear threat from Iran/Iraq is not the same as it would be from Cuba but I'd argue that we should not renounce the use of preemptive strikes.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH

MAD does not apply. They cannot wipe us out. What small nuke states can (and may) do is use a nuke as an "ace in the hole" in order to prevent us from taking action against their regional aggression. Its pretty obvious from our inability to deal with North Korea provocations that we wont take any military action against a nuclear state.

So you admit that Iran can't taler any direct military actions against Israel? (given that Israel is a nuclear power).

I'm not a fan of JFK but I'm glad we dont have nukes in Cuba. You may argue that the nuclear threat from Iran/Iraq is not the same as it would be from Cuba but I'd argue that we should not renounce the use of preemptive strikes.

The nuclear threat wasn;t from Cuba, it was from the USSR.

The issue here is the mistaken belief that Iran's leadership is suicidal and thus thery are not bound by nuclear deterence. All the arguments I have read about why the Iranian leadership is inherently irrational and that if they get nuke they will use it (unlike anyone esle since 1945) rea based on blantant charicatures and are clo0se to worthless.

[Arrian]

MAD does not apply. They cannot wipe us out. What small nuke states can (and may) do is use a nuke as an "ace in the hole" in order to prevent us from taking action against their regional aggression

Correction: AD applies. For them.

You are quite right that them attaining a nuke will prevent us from "taking action against their regional agression" which, of course, translates into "if they get a nuke, we can't attack them and that's bad, so we must attack them." **** THAT.

-Arrian

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Stop getting a chubby, Siro. There is absolutely no chance they're going to go after Iran for you.

At least I'll prove Iran is not a nice peaceful country, so it'll be better accepted when we strike.