IRAN

[Preechr]

Welcome to Team Anti-Semite.

You just wait till Abcdxxx gets here... You're in for it now, buddy.

[Abcdxxxx]

Why? All he said is he thinks Iran's bomb is inevitable, and that we should take diplomatic measures. That's not even close to saying Iran's bomb is a necessary great step towards world peace.

I read GA's post, and didn't have much to add. It's all just a guess. One thing though.... Iran's labs haven't been secret for a few years now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617398.stm
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac...cilities.shtml

[GAsux]

Again I don't claim to be a proliferation expert, nor do I claim to fully understand the science of bomb making to include materials, triggers, etc. I would agree that Iran's main labs have probably all been discovered, but I'm willing to bet that they've been at least moderately successful in maintaining secret nuclear related facilities as well.

In virtually every single case regarding intelligence estimates of countries nuclear capabilities, they were vastly underestimated. But even so, assuming we could or have located every single nuclear weapons related facility in Iran, it would be a near impossible task to destroy every single one. And even if you could, you're still talking about a temporary solution. As long as they still have the brain power, they'll always be able to rebuild, unless we're talking about some kind of annual strike package.

Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement to maintain stability in the region because I don't see air strikes being an effective long term solution.

[Abcdxxxx]

"Again, for me personally you're looking at either regime change or some kind of diplomacy/disincentive arrangement"

I would agree those are probably the most likely methods for the problem, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an attack just based on the task itself. The point would be to make a dent, and destroy the key elements with a goal of setting their program back to around 1995. That would only require 3-4 key strike points, and as they get further along, the target becomes even more central.

I also think people are a bit caught up in this idea of the US and Israel making this strike, as if they're the only ones with any contention for these developments. If Iran gets their bomb, you will see Afghanistan, and Iraq turn into a ball of insanity.

[GAsux]

What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it? Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility, not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?

A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move. In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.

Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.

[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by GAsux

What political impact do military strikes have though, and are they worth it?

Too generic. You could ask this of any military manuever.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Even if you can set the program back, even a decade, what does what would presumably be a unilateral strike from either the U.S. or Israel do to it's credibility

The Iranian nuclear program itself? Setting it back a decade would probably end the chances of a nuclear Iran for another 15 years, if at all. Strategically, that's a huge bonus when one considers that two of their neighboring nations are a bit up for grabs at the moment, with Syria/Lebanon on the verge as well. I'm not entirely sure we should rule out a strike from other neighboring nations though. This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.

Originally Posted by GAsux

not to mention the impact it would have on the Iranian regime? Doesn't pre-emptive air strikes afford Iran the opportunity to strengthen its position internally by rallying the people against what would then be an enemy no only in words but in deeds?

You think Iranians want to go to war over this bomb? Look, Iranians are incredibly proud and loyal to their country - but this Islamic revolution hasn't really paid off. The interests in Tehran aren't the same as the country-side. Take a look at the US and you can see how war itself can be polarizing when you're not entirely trusting of your leadership. I'm not suggesting it's a good reason to bomb, but I wouldn't rule it out out of fear it would strengthen a country already ruled by totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by GAsux

A pre-emptive air strike based on information from the intelligence community that is already facing serious credibility issues based on what transpired in Iraq seems like a ridiculously risky move.

Well how far do you want to take that logic? Disband the military? I think your assumption is, we strike their nukes, it results in a full scale war against Iran. I think that's hysteria built around military analysis and other intelligence type research which predicts the worst possible situation. My personal guess would have Iran using the opportunity to make a move for Saudi Arabia instead. This issue with Iran is more to do with a Sunni-Shia conflict then the great satan, and the little satan.

Originally Posted by GAsux

In my opinion, you would not only strengthen the Iranian regimes internal position, but allow for them to build a reasonable international case against the "unprovoked" aggressive U.S./Israeli tactics.

What use does that international case have? US/Israel are accused of everything under the sun already. If they want provocation, they can manipulate it on two different fronts which aren't even directly at their borders...and they have been doing that effectively. So what are you arguing? That public opinion will lean towards Iran? Probably, but remember, the Osirus attacks were condemned by everyone, including the US, and that opinion changed over time.

Originally Posted by GAsux

Seems like it might provide a stop gap and buy more time, but I can't see air strikes solving the problem unless we intend to carry them out every 5-10 years.

Ultimately, I see diplomacy and even sanctions being the better way to go... but I don't see any of this as being very persuasive arguments against a targeted strike.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

This whole assumption that the US/Israel are the only nations with a self interest in strikign Iran is incredibly naive.

Interest and means, however, are two different things. Maybe you can come up with one, but I can't think of another nation that right now has the means AND the political will (be it from the people or from the top) to attack Iran right now.

The UN writing a really nasty letter to Iran is one thing, but you won't see a green light o an attack, IMO. Who other than Israel ans America would do it? Would Pakistan, which doesn't even have control of its own internal borders, attack Iran..another muslim country?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

For Preechr, from The Hotline:

The New Hampshire Union Leader ed board writes, on 3/15 Edwards "presented his foreign policy vision, one that can be seen only through rose colored glasses." Edwards: "We know that terrorist thrive in failed states and in states torn apart by internal conflict and poverty."
"Perhaps, but poverty does not cause terrorism. Not one of the 9/11 hijackers was poor. Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are not poor. Terrorism is fueled by ideology. The 'internal conflict' in Middle Eastern countries is the result of the same ideological forces that send terrorists to America, not the cause." Edwards "is stuck in a quasi-Marxist mind set in which social and economic conditions explain human behavior. However, human motivations are not so simplistic. If Edwards were to remove his rose colored glasses, maybe he could see that" (3/19).

That's right, you quasi-Marxist!