Nuclear strike against Iran due end of March

matt b

Indexing all opinion
oliver craner said:
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?


oliver craner said:
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.


oliver craner said:
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

Beast of Burden
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

Indexing all opinion
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. 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

Beast of Burden
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.
 
D

droid

Guest
oliver craner said:
When in doubt, raise Israel. Tres bon.


Yeah right. Cos Israel has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the ongoing war and strife in the Middle East.

Fact is Oliver, one nuclear armed nation surrounded by non-nuclear armed 'enemies' is a recipe for proliferation and escalation, whether or not they are facing the 'existential threat' of being destroyed by their miltarily weaker neighbours or not...

Again i kind of agree with you that the military options are few - after all the US only attacks WEAK enemies who cant possibly defend themselves. Y'know, the Panama's, Nicuragua's and Iraq's of the world... but if there are no plans to attack Iran, then why, pray tell has the drumbeat for war started beating again so loudly?

Personally, given the constant Israeli, Turkish and US military presence in Irans airspace and borders, the continuing use of covert operations and subversion inside Iran, years of diplomatic threats, and the fact that Israel has had a vested interest in eliminating its only credible rival in the region for - oh 25 years or so, i think the chances of some kind of attack is far more likely than say, Iran annihiliating Israel in a Nuclear holocaust...

So, you know, stop worrying about it. Worry about Iran's nukes instead. That's my whole point.

Thats your ONLY point. Dont worry what the good guys are doing - their crimes are irrelevant... these lads are REALLY evil!

Way to stick to doctrine... have you been reading 1984 again? :)
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
American foreign policy is always terrible and belligerent but it really would be a disaster or a different order if Iran had nuclear power.

“I think the chances of some kind of attack is far more likely than say, Iran annihilating Israel in a nuclear holocaust”

Probably true, but only because if they don’t prevent Iran getting the bomb the latter part of that statement becomes a very real possibility.
 
D

droid

Guest
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.

Might I add, The Iranian hordes are only 2 days march from Jerusalem. They hate our freedom and drink the blood of our children. They pull newborn babies from incubators. They are responsible for all the evil in the world, and they will stop at nothing less than the total destruction of Western civilisation.

Textbook stuff Oliver! Im surprised youre not working for a major newspaper with those kind of insights. Combine your internalised doctrine with your actual belief in the words of Tony Blair (something I still cant quite believe), and youll have a bright future in the world of politics... :D

Probably true, but only because if they don’t prevent Iran getting the bomb the latter part of that statement becomes a very real possibility.

Yes - because the second that Iran becomes Nuclear capable, it will fire warheads at Israel, triggering a nuclear response from Israel and the US, and the utter annhilation of Iran (including its Mullahs), Israel and Palestine. :confused:

As far as Im aware facist dictators and regimes do not tend to committ mass suicide just when they have gained the means to stay in power indefinitely...
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Yes - because the second that Iran becomes Nuclear capable, it will fire warheads at Israel, triggering a nuclear response from Israel and the US, and the utter annhilation of Iran (including its Mullahs), Israel and Palestine."

You've only go to listen to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I admit I had to look that up) has said about Israel to see why they are afraid. Could be just talk and a nuclear attack seems completely irrational I agree but would you risk it if you were sitting where they were sitting, fundamentalist religious leaders are hardly noted for their rational actions?
I'm not saying that I would condone a US or Israeli attack on Iran. I would prefer it if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons and I would prefer it if that could be achieved by diplomatic means, that's all.
 

jasonh

Newbie
droid said:
As far as Im aware facist dictators and regimes do not tend to committ mass suicide just when they have gained the means to stay in power indefinitely...

Let's hope that they are that sensible - when you have a theocratically based political system, you can expect logical assumptions to be thrown out of the window sometimes.

A diplomatic solution to this would be preferable, but I wouldn't be surprised if the sabre-rattling starts soon, especially if Israel starts to feel threatened. Iran have already promised to "wipe Israel off the map" - do they need any encouragement to do so?
 

jasonh

Newbie
The above applies just as much to the US - as close as you will ever get to a theocracy without it being enshrined in any constitution. If Dubya is as daft as he often appears, dropping a nuke or two "in the name of the lord" wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility.

Again, hopefully nothing will come of this, as is often the norm.
 

matt b

Indexing all opinion
oliver craner said:
Rather than dismissing the article, can you respond to the three senarios Robbins sketchs?

scenario one:
the concern of the author seems to be that iranian nuclear capability stops the US doing what it wants eg: "Currently the Coalition would respond by sending a flotilla to force an entry, probably accompanied by a punitive air campaign against every available worthwhile target in Iran".

not necessarily a bad thing.


scenario two:
iran doesn't need to do this- it is a shi'ite country, like much of iraq and saudi arabia. they can just wait for the US to finish 'delivering freedom and democracy' to iraq and then discuss unification with the democratic gvt of iraq, which will be shia dominated.

scenario three:
yes, the repression of the iranian population by its leaders is a huge issue. does the US give a shit about democracy in such countries? given recent attempted subversion of democracy in venezuala* and the make up of the populations of iran, iraq and saudi arabia and that democratic gvts in those countries would rethink the issue of (whisper it) oil, i would guess the last thing the US wants is democracy.


*oops, that should read "recent support for democracy in venezuala"
 
D

droid

Guest
jasonh said:
A diplomatic solution to this would be preferable, but I wouldn't be surprised if the sabre-rattling starts soon, especially if Israel starts to feel threatened. Iran have already promised to "wipe Israel off the map" - do they need any encouragement to do so?

I totally agree. I dont think the world will be a safer place in the future if Iran gets the bomb, but on the other hand, trying to prevent Iran from getting the bomb would be a good way to make the world a far less safer place now, as well as hastening a global economic meltdown...

Heres a good place to start the diplomacy. A scaledown of of military action aound Irans borders, followed by a return to diplomatic normality under the aegis of multi-lateral weapons inspections for all involved 'actors' including Turkey, Israel and the US, to ensure that they are all honouring their treaty obligations regarding WMD.

If anybody (the EU/NGO's/Tony Blair etc..) attempting to prevent escaltion and proliferation in the Middle East is to succeed, it must be seen to be fair, and that means treating all involved equally, and not simply focussing on the crimes (or possible future crimes in this case) of one party.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
Of course, the global ambitions of the Revolutionary Republic's leaders and footsoldiers is all the fault of Israel. That is convenient.

And of course there's no point in trying to stop them getting nukes and we can't complain about it anyway because we all have them. If we gave up our nukes en masse, I reckon that the Iranian leaders wouldn't bother trying to get their own. I mean, they just want to be left alone reallty, don't they. Don't they?

As for Robbins, I reckon senario 1 is wrong: I don't think the Coaltion would bomb Tehran or doing anything much is Iran did engage in energy blackmail. They'd just about stretch to public bluster, backdoor "please don't" diplomacy, useless sanctions.

Matt b's almalgamation of Iranian and Iraqi Shi'ites is an elemental mistake: the idea that the political Shia are pro-Iranian is fallacy; the idea that they would abdicate national sovereignity if Iran asked is a ludicrous fantasy.

There are a few people in and close to the Bush Administration who care about Iranian democracy, a few more who think supporting its emergence would be good for US interests, and, unfortuately, quite a lot more who think that the better option would be to engage the mullahrocy in proto-detente. The Bush Administration doesn't have any policy on Iran. It's in total dissaray.

Iran's vast oil and gas reserves are important because of the leverage it gives them, in the Caspian, over Russia, China, and well the world.

Nuclear bombs will kill off any hope of democratic change in Iran.
 

craner

Beast of Burden
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?
 
Top