Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

[matt b]

How many times...there is no military option!

a US gvt official refused to rule anything out on Today (R4) this morning- so there is a military option (Hans Blix also mentioned this)- the issue is whether they use it.

[craner]

So what is it? Explain the military option.

[bassnation]

When in doubt, raise Israel. Tres bon.

its a fair point though oliver. i guess ultimately we all want the same thing - stopping nuclear proliferation and avoiding bloodshed. its just an issue of consistency - you can't condemn one country and then support your ally when it does exactly the same. what kind of message does that send out?

[matt b]

Maybe, in fact, this is more your kind of idea: let iran go nuclear?

well that article seems to be saying that there can be no threat in the middle east to american dominance- its simply unacceptable (goes against the concept of pax americana. what do the people who actually live in the middle east think about that mr craner- are they allowed any self determination (and just to be sure, i don't want Iran to get nuclear capabilities, but i can see why they might see such a move as important)?

[matt b]

So what is it? Explain the military option.

i'd guess ranging somewhere from providing support to armed militias to full scale invasion

i would hope that the nuclear option is not on the table

[craner]

I've never in my life supported Isreal's nuclear programme. If you knew me better you'd know that I'm a supporter, in fact, of Modechain Vanunu as well as the Isreali State. (Square that circle!)

Iran is currently uniquely awful. Iran with nukes will be a regional superpower run by fanatics. Iran is now strong enough to, to some extent, influence decisions made by China and Russia. Iran feels it's owed the Caucas States, at least. Iran has 6 submarines. Iran is now capable of building its own subs. When you look at it, they pretty much run global terrorism. All terror groups, except, like the Mek, at some point look to Tehran, or feel the febrile fondle of the Mullahs. But this is all cool, though.

The really important point is that Isreal has nukes and therefore I'm a hypocrite.

[craner]

What armed militias?

How would a full-scale invasion be mananged?

Are you just talking nonsense?

[craner]

Rather than dismissing the article, can you respond to the three senarios Robbins sketchs?

Or is this thread a complete waste of time?

[craner]

And people in the Middle East - who knows? They probably think many different things about many different things...being different people. Do you mean Arabs, Persian, Kurds, Christians, Sunnis, Shias, Liberals, Islamists, Democrats, Marxists, Students, Cab drivers,...whom?

[bassnation]

I've never in my life supported Isreal's nuclear programme. If you knew me better you'd know that I'm a supporter, in fact, of Modechain Vanunu as well as the Isreali State. (Square that circle!)

The really important point is that Isreal has nukes and therefore I'm a hypocrite.

ok, i stand corrected - good on you oliver (i don't mean this in a sarcastic way)

i guess its as wide of the mark as accussing us of wanting iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

[craner]

I didn't do that.

[matt b]

What armed militias?

How would a full-scale invasion be mananged?

Are you just talking nonsense?

why should i have to be an expert on military affairs?

you asked me a question, i offered some options why is that nonsense?

Rather than dismissing the article, can you respond to the three senarios Robbins sketchs?

well now you've asked people to, may be they will.

And people in the Middle East - who knows? They probably think many different things about many different things...being different people. Do you mean Arabs, Persian, Kurds, Christians, Sunnis, Shias, Liberals, Islamists, Democrats, Marxists, Students, Cab drivers,...whom?

that's exactly the point- all of those groups should decide, not simply america or the various dictaors in the region. what's your point?

[craner]

Look, all I'm saying is that the actual experts on military affairs know (even in America!) that there is no feasible military option. I'm not a military expert either, but I have been reading some. And that's the non-partisan conclusion. So, you know, stop worrying about it. Worry about Iran's nukes instead. That's my whole point.

[matt b]

Look, all I'm saying is that the actual experts on military affairs know (even in America!) that there is no feasible military option. I'm not a military expert either, but I have been reading some. And that's the non-partisan conclusion. So, you know, stop worrying about it. Worry about Iran's nukes instead. That's my whole point.

ok. thanks. on the whole i agree with you, except that on radio 4 this morning a US official (non-military) did not rule out any options, which i assume includes military ones. clearly, we both hope that he has been talking without official authorisation and is wrong.

surely the key issue, regardless of which 'side' you are on is the esculation of the dispute and the potential for anyone involved to get 'trigger happy'?

[craner]

Maybe. I think the key issues are that Iran is going to get nukes, it's too late to stop them now, how does the world deal with all the awful regional and global consequences of that, and the demographic timebomb within the Islamic Republic and the democratic revolutionary potentials of that too (which is not really to do with US dominance, but is in their long term interest, as it is in Iran's: this is surely sensible?)...

then, as my friend says, you can start to consider future Chinese Superpower. Ha.