Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

D

droid

Guest
oliver craner said:
You're dead right there Droid except that...ah...have you noticed how the Iranian's use Western diplomatic efforts as cover for carrying on doing exactly what they want to do?

Yep - Cos Western diplomatic efforts amount to pretty much nothing when Israel is overflying your border in (possibly nuclear armed) US supplied jets on a round the clock basis.

Token diplomatic efforts will get you nowhere, and the real thing will never happen, because the issue here is not the threat that Iran poses to the world (and I agree that the threat is real), its the threat that Iran poses to US geo-political aims - so real negotiation and diplomacy is impossible and has never/will not be attempted.

I would support the beginning of a wider regional disarmament process involving Egypt/Israel/Turkey/Syria and Iran. Israel could afford to give up a huge amount of arms and STILL maintain a credible deterrent against attack, and if such a process was seen to be fair, then surely world opinion would swing towards intervention in ANY country which rejected inspections, thus pulling the clock a few seconds back from midnight and unifying opinion in potential interventionist nations.

Stupidly idealist? Maybe. But as honest negotiation and diplomacy has NEVER been tried in the middle east, I guess we dont know if this kind of approach could work... the important thing is to try, and to be seen to try...

You're too trusting. I mean, don't get me wrong, it speaks well of you.

Whilst Im not 100% on this - didnt you say you that you actually trusted Tony Blair in another thread sometime last year?

Id trust Khomeni over that scumbag anyday! At least you know where you stand with the beardies! :D
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
oliver craner said:
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.

why not summarize the gist of these arguments for us

that is, i find it hard to believe that u.s. could not mount an effective military assault on the iranian *state* and its facilities -- destroy the machinary of the state
 
D

droid

Guest
dominic said:
why not summarize the gist of these arguments for us

that is, i find it hard to believe that u.s. could not mount an effective military assault on the iranian *state* and its facilities -- destroy the machinary of the state

He is basically right though Dominic.

Despite being a military minnow relative to the US and even Israel, Iran is still the goliath of Muslim nations, which is why the idea of an attack against them is so scary. Anything other than a short sharp strike against specific targets would suck the aggressor into a practically unwinnable ground war against an intensely patriotic and somewhat fanatical enemy. It would certainly be no Iraq. The repercussions could jeapordise the stability of other US clients in the region like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, possibly even leading to the US's worst nightmare - genuine self determination in the Middle East...

The ideal would be a repeat of 'the perfect coup', or some kind of covertly supported dissident movement. No doubt both of which are in the works already...
 

turtles

in the sea
Chiming in a bit late in the debate but oh well...

I think this whole "mutually ensured destruction" story maybe gets a little more credit than it deserves. For starters, on the american side, if you buy Chomsky's story that the invasion of Iraq was at least partially done as a proof-of-concept for the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attacks (just to show that they really mean it), then that whole nuclear posture review seems very scary. The whole slant of it seems aimed at creating a situation in which they can actually use nukes again without triggering quite the same level of mass hysteria and retribution that would be expected from a full scale nuclear attack. So since they've done something similar once already they might be willing to do it again, to prove another point.

The fact that no nukes have been used since WWII is very much a contingent thing. Just look at the Cuban missile crisis of an example of how extremely close we've come to nuclear war--and how stupid the people we have in charge of these nukes are.

Now given this, of course Iran getting nukes is a terrible thing, as terrible as Isreal, the US, Pakistan, India, Russia and everyone else getting nukes--these countries are all ruled by ideological idiots (and I mean idiot in terms of anyone to engage in the type of rhertoric and actions that they have done are idiots, not the "huh-huh bushie says dumb things" sense of idiot). I don't know about you people, but I have a very low opinion of the judgment of ALL these leaders. None of them are fit to have control over such destructive powers.

Oliver, I would really like to see some of these military analysts who say there's no chance of a successful attack on Iran, because I'm sure they're right. Unfortunately I remember reading such opinions before the Iraq war too, but once the American propaganda machine kicked into full gear they were very neatly pushed into the margins. If Iraq has taught us anything, it's that good advice is nothing to the Bush administration if they've already made up their mind otherwise.

Droid I think your plan of mutual diplomacy is the sane and reasonable thing to do, but I really it's going to get done.

Ahhhh, alright, I am very depressed re: current world political climate. please carry on.
 

dominic

Beast of Burden
aren't destroying and conquering two different propositions?

that's probably the only clear-cut lesson i've derived from the iraq war

so my question is, why do the experts think that u.s. military cannot *destroy* iranian army, iranian command-and-control, iranian state?

granted, u.s. military will have a very hard time bringing *order* to this "intensely patriotic and fanatical" land, but that doesn't mean u.s. can't destroy what's there now
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
dominic said:
aren't destroying and conquering two different propositions?

that's probably the only clear-cut lesson i've derived from the iraq war

so my question is, why do the experts think that u.s. military cannot *destroy* iranian army, iranian command-and-control, iranian state?

granted, u.s. military will have a very hard time bringing *order* to this "intensely patriotic and fanatical" land, but that doesn't mean u.s. can't destroy what's there now

Well - of course they could just 'nuke the whole site from orbit', and wipe out the entire country, but that would hardly achieve anything would it? It would take years to bring oil production back online, and anyways, I dont think that irradiated oil would be of much use to anyone.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
I think you're all getting a bit carried a way. It's not really to do with relative military capabilities of Iran and the US. Military strikes are unfeasible because

- Iran can cause economic chaos through energy blackmail
- they could cuase regional chaos by stoking their numerous terror proxies
- China and Russia, Iran's allies, would forcefully oppose any US action
- they would be no possible mandate and not even the UK would back the option

And, as I said, there's no easy Osiraq-esque target: the Iranian's learned something from Saddam's disaster. That's why the nuclear programme is scattered thought Persia in semi-secret sites. Obvious.
Also, Pentagon war gamers keep losing in Persia. That's what I heard.

Nuclear weapons would kill dead the hope and work of dissidentts and democracy and human rights movements and activists within Persia, the very people, incidentally, the US should be supporting.
It was gratifying that Bush mentioned Akbar Ganji but that was too token. You mistaken in thinking that the CIA somehow run some sinister underground democracy-promotion civilian-sabotuer programme. (Fuck the CIA anyway, the always get everything wrong - "hey, all we need is more sensible mullahs in charge, that'll keep things sweet...") It's obvious what the US should do. Where's the Farsi Radio Free Europe? That's what's needed.

So, destroying, conquering...you're taking yourselves away from politics, reality.

Don't you understand that the regime's nuclear ambitions are spured by lots of other things apart from Israel. I'd go so far as to say, even, that Israel is a bit of a red herring. It's almost useful tp peddle it.There are many potential reasons why Ahmedinejad has been allowed to say what he has, and not been silenced, and even backed up by Khamenei. Having said that, I think Israel is right to be very worried. And I don't see, despite not supporting their nuclear capability, why Isreal should start to unilateraly disarm in a region dominated by States who do not even recognise it's right to exist. Why should Israel be called upon to do something so stupidly suicidal?
 
D

droid

Guest
You mistaken in thinking that the CIA somehow run some sinister underground democracy-promotion civilian-sabotuer programme.

Yeah - because that never happened before... :confused: Surely someone who knows so much about Iran also knows the root causes of the current political situation there.

oliver craner said:
I think Israel is right to be very worried. And I don't see, despite not supporting their nuclear capability, why Isreal should start to unilateraly disarm in a region dominated by States who do not even recognise it's right to exist. Why should Israel be called upon to do something so stupidly suicidal?

Translation: 'Why should Israel negotiate? Give an inch and the evil Arab hordes will drive them into the sea'...

Gotta love that doctrinal myth peddling, especially when its pursued so singlemindedly... :confused:

First of all - I said MULTI-lateral disarmament, so your argument is the usual straw man, and secondly, why should Iran be called upon to do something as stupidly suicidal as NOT arming itself?

As I mentioned earlier, the only credible deterrent to attack by the US and its client states is a nuclear one. Its the most obvious lesson of the entire Iraq debacle for 'failed states' to learn, and undoubtably Tehran has learned it well...
 

craner

Beast of Burden
You think the CIA is the same now as the CIA 60 years ago or the CIA 30 years ago...? The CIA have been in total crisis for over a decade. Rather than patronise me, you could read up on its history. CIA's current incompetence vis a vis Iran is making some people rather wild with frustration.

Translation: 'Why should Israel negotiate? Give an inch and the evil Arab hordes will drive them into the sea'...

That was a wrong translation. I was merely saying that the world community, and the UN in particular, ask things of the Israeli State they wouldn't ask of any other. (And don't.)

If you think all my arguments are based on a straw man, then I don't think you've been paying attention to them. I'm sorry, but I don't have some devious anti-Muslim agenda.

I think we probably agree, but are cynical about different things, and invest hope elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

dominic

Beast of Burden
oliver craner said:
So, destroying, conquering...you're taking yourselves away from politics, reality.

i mean only that surely the u.s. armed forces could take tehran and other major iranian cities by force, w/o having to resort to nukes -- simply use the same "blitzkrieg" tactics that worked against iraq -- such that the current iranian regime would be brought to a quick end

chaos would then be result, as in iraq == but the objective of destroying the iranian state would be accomplished

oliver craner said:
I think you're all getting a bit carried a way. It's not really to do with relative military capabilities of Iran and the US. Military strikes are unfeasible because

- Iran can cause economic chaos through energy blackmail

that's an argument for invasion and forcefully taking their oil fields and gas fields (if you're a naked imperialist)

oliver craner said:
they could cuase regional chaos by stoking their numerous terror proxies

that doesn't strike me as too great a deterrent to u.s. invasion

oliver craner said:
China and Russia, Iran's allies, would forcefully oppose any US action

if they were determined to make a stand now -- is china ready for a military conflict w/ u.s. or would it prefer to wait a couple more decades?

and wouldn't russia be more likely to acquiesce in u.s. desires, should things get to that point

oliver craner said:
they would be no possible mandate and not even the UK would back the option

even if iran were on brink of going nuclear? isn't it just as much in the (so-called) interests of uk and western europe to keep iran down as it is in the interests of the u.s.?

oliver craner said:
And, as I said, there's no easy Osiraq-esque target: the Iranian's learned something from Saddam's disaster. That's why the nuclear programme is scattered thought Persia in semi-secret sites. Obvious.

yes, but unless iranian state actually has a nuclear device ready to use, why should this matter? wouldn't the objective of a u.s. attack be to destroy the state first, and then they'd worry about what happens to any weapons or materials later?

oliver craner said:
Also, Pentagon war gamers keep losing in Persia. That's what I heard.

this is rather delphic

oliver craner said:
Nuclear weapons would kill dead the hope and work of dissidentts and democracy and human rights movements and activists within Persia, the very people, incidentally, the US should be supporting.

yes, but i'm assuming that u.s. military could destroy iranian state w/o using nuclear weapons -- simply do the same massive aerial bombardment song-and-dance coupled w/ lightening fast armored thrusts toward major iranian cities and total control of the sky and all electronic communication

oliver craner said:
Don't you understand that the regime's nuclear ambitions are spured by lots of other things apart from Israel.

yes, i think to have true independence in this world, a state has to possess nuclear weapons -- and this is especially the case for a country like iran, which, thanks to its rich oil and gas reserves, is the object of u.s. designs, i.e., either the u.s. dictates to iran, or iran will dictate to the u.s.
 

Padraig

Banned
For many years I've had the greatest respect for Michel Chossudovsky's reportage, commentaries, and analyses. His incisive and startling reports on such as The Destabilization of Haiti , America's Agenda for Global Military Domination, or America's War for Global Domination, are superb case studies on the ongoing ominous implications of US foreign policy.

His latest article, faithfully continuing that agenda, unfortunately sees him over-intensifying [not a bad/unhealthy thing] his understandably warranted paranoia, viz:

The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Sure, but it ain't gonna happen, just as similar manoeuvres vis-a-vis China some months ago ( see The Largest Covert Operation in CIA History by the always brilliant US forpol analyst, Chalmers Johnson*****article below) withered away into nothing more than ritualistic macho displays of assertive territorial re-positionings/re-entrenchments ...

Besides, "civilian-safe" US nukes have been operationally-ready for a least a decade.

What makes us, or anyone else, eager to assert that the US Administration is itching to use Iran as a now-convenient nuke testbed? Simple knee-jerk displacement of the unprecedented Iraqi failure?

Mmmm

*****Sailing Toward a Storm in China

U.S. maneuvers could spark a war.

By Chalmers Johnson

July 15, 2004 "Los Angeles Times" -- Quietly and with minimal coverage in the U.S. press, the Navy announced that from mid-July through August it would hold exercises dubbed Operation Summer Pulse '04 in waters off the China coast near Taiwan.

This will be the first time in U.S. naval history that seven of our 12 carrier strike groups deploy in one place at the same time. It will look like the peacetime equivalent of the Normandy landings and may well end in a disaster.

At a minimum, a single carrier strike group includes the aircraft carrier itself (usually with nine or 10 squadrons and a total of about 85 aircraft), a guided missile cruiser, two guided missile destroyers, an attack submarine and a combination ammunition, oiler and supply ship.

Normally, the United States uses only one or at the most two carrier strike groups to show the flag in a trouble spot. In a combat situation it might deploy three or four, as it did for both wars with Iraq. Seven in one place is unheard of.

Operation Summer Pulse '04 was almost surely dreamed up at the Pearl Harbor headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command and its commander, Adm. Thomas B. Fargo, and endorsed by neocons in the Pentagon. It is doubtful that Congress was consulted. This only goes to show that our foreign policy is increasingly made by the Pentagon.

According to Chinese reports, Taiwanese ships will join the seven carriers being assembled in this modern rerun of 19th century gunboat diplomacy. The ostensible reason given by the Navy for this exercise is to demonstrate the ability to concentrate massive forces in an emergency, but the focus on China in a U.S. election year sounds like a last hurrah of the neocons.

Needless to say, the Chinese are not amused. They say that their naval and air forces, plus their land-based rockets, are capable of taking on one or two carrier strike groups but that combat with seven would overwhelm them. So even before a carrier reaches the Taiwan Strait, Beijing has announced it will embark on a crash project that will enable it to meet and defeat seven U.S. carrier strike groups within a decade. There's every chance the Chinese will succeed if they are not overtaken by war first.

China is easily the fastest-growing big economy in the world, with a growth rate of 9.1% last year. On June 28, the BBC reported that China had passed the U.S. as the world's biggest recipient of foreign direct investment. China attracted $53 billion worth of new factories in 2003, whereas the U.S. took in only $40 billion; India, $4 billion; and Russia, a measly $1 billion.

If left alone by U.S. militarists, China will almost surely, over time, become a democracy on the same pattern as that of South Korea and Taiwan (both of which had U.S.-sponsored military dictatorships until the late 1980s). But a strong mainland makes the anti-China lobby in the United States very nervous. It won't give up its decades-old animosity toward Beijing and jumps at any opportunity to stir up trouble — "defending Taiwan" is just a convenient cover story.

These ideologues appear to be trying to precipitate a confrontation with China while they still have the chance. Today, they happen to have rabidly anti-Chinese governments in Taipei and Tokyo as allies, but these governments don't have the popular support of their own citizens.

If American militarists are successful in sparking a war, the results are all too predictable: We will halt China's march away from communism and militarize its leadership, bankrupt ourselves, split Japan over whether to renew aggression against China and lose the war. We also will earn the lasting enmity of the most populous nation on Earth.

Chalmers Johnson's latest book is "The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic" (Metropolitan, 2004).


Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
 
Last edited:

Wrong

Well-known member
oliver craner said:
So what is it? Explain the military option.

Here's one possibility. In particular:

Mike McNair said:
It may also seem insane for the US to rattle sabres at Iran when 140,000 US troops are 'bogged down' in Iraq. But the nature of the threat seems to be radically different to the threats and ultimate invasion of Iraq. The US is not threatening to invade Iran. Through indirect means (and perhaps also in private diplomatic communications), the US administration is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran.

It was leaked in July to a US conservative website that "The Pentagon, acting under instructions from vice-president Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" (The American Conservative, August 1). The claim has not been denied. More recently, there was a leak of a draft Pentagon document containing a more general account of plans for first use of nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike - not merely in response to a terrorist attack, but to 'threats' like the Iranian nuclear fuel enrichment programme (see New York Times September 11). The document has been confirmed as genuine.
 

Buick6

too punk to drunk
..oh well I guess it's time to pull out the 'World destruction' 12" by TimeZone, might come true 20 years later!
 

D84

Well-known member
Here's a great comment on this topic which was linked on this blog as
The Best Comment In The History Of The World.

It's pretty good.

Here's a couple of choice quotes out of many:

It opens with:

Speaking as a Canadian who is fond of judicious language, I feel that this situation deserves careful and measured thought. So let me just open with:

Is your entire f*cking country on crack??? Are all you Americans out of your cotton picking minds??? Are you completely freaking delusional? Homicidal? Psychotic? Have you lost any shred of a moral compass? WHAT IN THE NAME OF JESUS H. CHRIST ON A CRUTCH IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!!

some meat:

Stop and think back five years. What did we have five years ago? A moderate reformist Iranian government making overtures to the United States, rebuilding its relationship with Europe, liberalizing its society, and modernizing its economy.

9/11 comes along, the Iranians are overflowing with sympathy. Mass candlelit vigils are held in Tehran. Iran offers aid and cooperation. Iran hates the Taliban who have executed Iranian diplomats and massacred Afghan Shiites. Iran hates Saddam Hussein. Iran hates Al Quaeda which is a Sunni Fundamentalist organization which declares Shiites infidels and subhuman. Iran shares its intelligence with America, it even arrests Taliban hands them over. So we've got the Iranian spring right, things are finally going to sort out?

And what happens? The Bush administration rebuffs every Iranian overture and does its best to instigate a cold war. Afghanistan is invaded, and suddenly, the Iranians are looking at American troops and allies on their eastern border. Then Iraq is invaded, and its American troops and allies on their western border. Then bases and treaties in Uzbekistan and whoops, there's more American troops and allies on the northern border. The Persian Gulf is filled with American warships and carrier fleets.

read on
 

geto.blast

snap on rims
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
geto.blast said:
Is anyone going to call Israel on the double-standard seeing as they have a huge undeclared Nukes arsenal... or would that be anti-semetic?

I think thats already been mentioned once or twice - and yes - according to some people here, it is anti-semetic to do so.
 

Grievous Angel

Beast of Burden
SEMITIC!

"Semetic" means the tendency of living systems to make signs based on any persistent regularity. Apparently.

To be anti-semetic would be to be against living systems making signs, which is surely unconsionable on an Internet discussion forum.
 

geto.blast

snap on rims
2stepfan said:
SEMITIC!

"Semetic" means the tendency of living systems to make signs based on any persistent regularity. Apparently.

To be anti-semetic would be to be against living systems making signs, which is surely unconsionable on an Internet discussion forum.

toutes mes excuses , je vais faire plus attention a l avenir m'sieur!
 
Top