Sgt Joch Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 DT hits the nail on the head. No one wants Iran to have nukes. However, if Iran really wants nukes, the only way to stop them is by full scale invasion and occupation. Assassinations or air strikes may delay the program but it wont stop it. Everyone is looking at tea leaves trying to determine iran's intentions. If you look at Iran's actions since 79, it has acted as a rational nation state taking actions which are in its best interests. Of course, those interests often clash with those of israel and the USA, but that is the nature of power politics. There is no compelling smoking gun which leads the world to believe that like Stalin's USSR in 49 or Mao's China in 64, it will not use its nukes solely for self-defense and to enhance its prestige and position in the region. Obviously, if the world was convinced that Iran is an irrational regime like hitler's germany and that it would launch nuclear strikes against Israel or give nukes to terrorists as soon as it has them, the choice would be easy and coalition troops would already be massing on the frontier. But without that evidence, nothing concrete will be done to stop Iran and everyone will just cross their fingers and hope they have assessed the situation correctly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, I might point out that even in the case of Hitler's Germany, there were no 'easy' solutions, no consensus, and no coalition troops massing on the German border. The coalition only formed after the fact once the military situation had become a crisis. Perhaps that wasn't wise. Arguably preemption wasn't realistic. It is debatable. Preemption, like poker, is always going to be a game of partial information. It is never going to be obvious what the right choice is beforehand. Sometimes however it can be pretty clear after the fact that finger crossing and hoping for the best wasn't an effective strategy. In any case, the words 'war' and 'invasion' are getting thrown around. I'm not advocating either. If limited means like air strikes or assassinations are effective as delaying tactics, then I think they should be employed, given that Iran's strategic interests seem to be opposite those of the USA/Israel alliance. If these limited means would not be effective, then I wouldn't use them either, and preemption is off the table. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Oh, jeez, now Godwin's Law? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 In any case, the words 'war' and 'invasion' are getting thrown around. I'm not advocating either. If limited means like air strikes or assassinations are effective as delaying tactics, then I think they should be employed, given that Iran's strategic interests seem to be opposite those of the USA/Israel alliance. If these limited means would not be effective, then I wouldn't use them either, and preemption is off the table. Wait, you're all over the place here. "Delaying tactics" - you know what that means right? Well, actually, you probably don't, so I'll spell it out. Advocating delaying tactics means that you are ok with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, just not this year. Or maybe next. After the airstrikes, and assassinations. What on earth do you think "effective" means under those circumstances - that you'll be greeted as liberators for bombing the heck out of the place, and killing random people? I've got some bad news for you there. Or does effective mean "no nukes for Iran till after the next US election"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 JonS - You certainly present an eloquent perspective. I am challenged by your informed and nuanced analysis of the situation. That'd be a "no" to reading ability then, huh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Advocating delaying tactics means that you are ok with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons, just not this year. Or maybe next. After the airstrikes, and assassinations. I'm not okay with Iran having weapons, but I acknowledge in the long run it probably cannot be prevented short of full scale invasion. Regardless, if strikes can delay that date to 2012 or 2020, or whatever, I think that's worth doing. Delay means there cannot possibly be nuclear exchange in the interim. How do you see it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I see it as likely to improve the odds of an exchange in the medium term. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, the international community can certainly not interfere miltarily, and hope for the best. That feels good for now, but if this approach is wrong, if the Iranian regime isn't peaceful or moderate, then the consequences will be staggering. At the moment, we cannot possibly know the future. Preemtion and non-intervention are both gambles. Neither is clearly the right course. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 How do you see it? I see that Iranians have a long memory. If any power were to bomb the country, it would be seen as a serious insult. If lots of Iranians were killed in the process and the economic life of the country disrupted, it would be seen as an insult requiring a blood price. A major segment of Iranian leadership could take that ball and run with it, guaranteeing that once they did acquire nukes—which by your admission cannot be entirely prevented in this scenario—some of them would be delivered to the nation that had provided the insult. This is the problem that Israel already has. Going all the way back to the War of Independence, they went too far in pursuing what at first might have appeared to be legitimate goals. In so doing, they aroused implacable hatred against themselves. This is not offered as the only reason for Arab displeasure at the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East, nor am I saying that it is all Israel's fault. But it is probably the major reason why a rational and mostly non-violent mutual accommodation has not been arrived at between the parties, since it would be in the interests of all of them to do so. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, the international community can certainly not interfere miltarily, and hope for the best. That feels good for now, but if this approach is wrong, if the Iranian regime isn't peaceful or moderate, then the consequences will be staggering. At the moment, we cannot possibly know the future. Preemtion and non-intervention are both gambles. Neither is clearly the right course. The thing that seems most peculiar to me is why you are singling Iran out as the focus of all your angst. Surely the most dangerous nuclear-armed state at the present and for the immediately foreseeable future is North Korea. Why not worry about them? And then there is Pakistan... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 If the War of Independence is going to be an Arab/Persian causus belli for all time, then the Israeli course is clear. They must lauch the airstrikes. The discussion is explicitly about striking Iran and it's weapons develoment sites. As for North Korea and Pakistan. Pakistan's government is unstable, and the country is indeed a growing security concern. North Korea is already nuclear armed to some degree, so there can be no discussion about preventing them from gaining the technology. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Well, I might point out that even in the case of Hitler's Germany, there were no 'easy' solutions, no consensus, and no coalition troops massing on the German border. The coalition only formed after the fact once the military situation had become a crisis. Perhaps that wasn't wise. Arguably preemption wasn't realistic. It is debatable. Preemption, like poker, is always going to be a game of partial information. It is never going to be obvious what the right choice is beforehand. Sometimes however it can be pretty clear after the fact that finger crossing and hoping for the best wasn't an effective strategy. In any case, the words 'war' and 'invasion' are getting thrown around. I'm not advocating either. If limited means like air strikes or assassinations are effective as delaying tactics, then I think they should be employed, given that Iran's strategic interests seem to be opposite those of the USA/Israel alliance. If these limited means would not be effective, then I wouldn't use them either, and preemption is off the table. The "mistake" of letting Hitler start WW2 is often used as an argument to promote the advisability of starting a war on our own terms. It is a false argument in many ways, but at its fundament, if the idea is not to have a war, that idea cannot be served by starting a war. The next part of the argument is to state that war is an inevitability. This too is false: history has shown that periods of peace exist between wars. I can find no argument for the non-existence of a continual, or even perpetual peace. It might be argued that man is irrational and seeks his own destruction; I'd argue that I'd be better served if the proponent of that argument went and destroyed himself and left me in peace. In fact, that way we both win. Runyan99 - you don't advocate "war" or "invasion", but you do advocate "air strikes" and "assassination". If you cannot see the disconnect here you need to go back and study the meaning of the words until you can see what everyone else here sees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 to be fair, I can't say I totally disagree with Runyan99. If Canada or Australia decided they wanted to develop nuclear weapons, no one (except maybe Quebeckers and Kiwis ) would be worried they would be used. With Iran, as with north Korea, there is always a doubt as to their ultimate purpose. However, this is not the first time this debate has come up. If you dig through the archives, you can see the same debate about pre-emptive strikes in 1964 about China and 1985 about Pakistan. Stalin's USSR in 1949 and Mao's China in 1964 were arguably more radical and more of a threat than Iran in 2009, but I can't say the thought of Iran having nukes gives me a warm and cosy feeling... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Pre-emption always strike me (sorry) as being a poor excuse for a "peaceful" country to start a war. It might make good military sense, but it marks the country as the agressor, and here in "the west" we're supposedly not aggressive........and when "we" are agressive it alwsys comes back to bite us there are already a few thousand nukes out there in the hands of "hostile" nations and no effort has been made to physicially pre-empt them - why should it be different for Iran? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I'm not okay with Iran having weapons, but I acknowledge in the long run it probably cannot be prevented short of full scale invasion. Regardless, if strikes can delay that date to 2012 or 2020, or whatever, I think that's worth doing. Delay means there cannot possibly be nuclear exchange in the interim. How do you see it? Have you thought about other forms of delaying tactics? Ones that don't involve cruise missiles and wanton murder? Ones that don't burn all the bridges and ensure no peaceful solution will come out of it? And do you think that Iran would simply take it on the chin? Iran too, has resources, capabilities and willingness for violence. Somebody flew airplanes into buildings in your cities, and you invaded two countries for that. Imagine what Iran would do should somebody offered them a much more gratuitous insult? With their present and future capabilities? With airstrikes and assasinations, you may have peace until 2012 or 2020, but nor after that. Maybe not even until 2012 or 2020. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 If the War of Independence is going to be an Arab/Persian causus belli for all time, then the Israeli course is clear. They must lauch the airstrikes. Boy, you really have a knack for twisting words around from their intended meaning. Who are you working for, the Ministry of Truth? I never said that the events of the War of Independence gave the Arabs a casus belli for all time. What I said is that it was the first instance of a pattern of excessive violence coupled with land grabbing that fans the flames of hatred against them. This would seem to me to be a counter-productive policy from the Israeli perspective. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 This is the problem that Israel already has. Going all the way back to the War of Independence, they went too far in pursuing what at first might have appeared to be legitimate goals. In so doing, they aroused implacable hatred against themselves. Michael You used the word implacable, not me. How to deal with implacable foes? In any case, it's clear that many in the Middle East believe the Israelis 'went too far' as soon as the war started, and that the state should not exist. For these people no concession, and no redrawn border, will bring peace. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 How to deal with implacable foes? By changing your ways, or by rubbing the Palestinians and Peace supporters faces in it. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061358.html It seems to me that Israel goes between bad cop, good cop routine but the end result is always Israel grows bigger. In the West the public may not be fully aware of the ignoring of resolutions agreed but I am sure in the Middle East this continuing process is not missed. The fact that the US and EU does not take any serious action against Israel does rather spoil the hope that peace can be negotiated now. Unsurprisingly even in Israel there is a strong lobby for honouring agreements but with right wing /religious extremist parties being used to keep the current Government in power there is not much hope. The cause of peace might be well served if the EU and US flexed its combined muscle and said that there would be a trade embargo until these illegal settlements were flattened. It does not guarantee that a long lasting peace will occur but it is a far better hope than this creeping annexation has of reducing the sense of outrage, and violence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Well, the Iranian nuke plant is finished today, due to be loaded with fuel by the end of the year. Given past history, don't think the Israelis will be amused. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 lots of news today: 1. its coming... Iran to Begin Tests at Nuclear Station "Iran started tests at its first nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr on Wednesday, despite intense international pressure over its nuclear program. Officials said that simulated fuel rods made of lead were used instead of nuclear fuel to test the 1,000 megawatt, Russian-built plant, the ISNA student news agency reported. “Virtual fuel rods contain lead instead of uranium,” Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran’s Nuclear Energy Organization told reporters. “After these tests we can enter the launching process.” It is interesting that Russia, which has a front row seat, has no qualms about actively helping Iran. Of course, Russia saw a long time ago the opportunity to extend its influence into Iran...and make some fast bucks on the side. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/middleeast/26iran.html?ref=world 2. its coming, the sequel... Syria Discloses Missile Facility, Europeans Say more evidence that the facility bombed by Israel in 2007 may have been a possible nuclear reactor. "The agency has found traces of uranium at the site but has not been able to confirm or refute the claim that there had been a reactor there. Syria has insisted that the uranium came from Israeli bombs, but in a report made public last week, the agency said its analysis found that the shape and composition of the particles were “inconsistent with what would be expected from the use of uranium-based munitions.” Diplomats have said that the atomic agency also found at the site traces of graphite, a structural element used in North Korean reactors. But they added that it was too early to tell if the graphite was the highly specialized kind needed for atomic applications." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/world/middleeast/25syria.html?ref=world 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boeman Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Iran's desire for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes may simply be just that, as shocking a revelation as it may be. Producing nuclear weapons would actually run contrary to their interests as it would alarm not just the west, but most especially their neighbours. The result of would be a precipitous drop in Iranian influence within the Middle Eastern region while, at the same time, providing the perfect vehicle for America to further cement and expand whatever sway they currently hold with Iraq and Afghanistan. So why not just use their vast oil reserves for energy rather than pursue nuclear technology? Because it's far more profitable to export the oil; especially when the price will only rise in the future. The U.S. isn't fearful of a nuclear Iran - nor do they care whether it is a fundamentalist or democratic nation. Their area of concern is the possible scenario of a pan Arab-Persian-Asian alliance and the constriction of the flow of oil to within that sphere. I would imagine that Israel would probably not be too thrilled about that prospect either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.