Commando

-Russia is delaying the process of UN sanctions and later actions
- With no Sharon, Israel's leader will take longer to launch pre emptive strikes, in which they will most likely fail due to underground facilities
-Iran has been hiding a nuclear programme for 25 years, it is hard to believe they are only enriching now. What have they done in the previous 25 years?
-China has large business plans and would rather this insane county gain nuclear weapons
-The US is to hesitant to launch military action due to lack of public support after the Iraq war


What will happen if Iran obtains nukes:
- The entire middle east and other states supporting terrorism will be blanketed by Iran's constant threats of using its nuclear weapons against opposing regimes.
-This also allows other terrorist nations to develop nuclear weapons as Iran will aslo be able to blanket them into the development.
-Even if Iran does have a sain leader in the future it is highly likely some radical ayatollah worse then adahjihmedad will come to power and could launch nuclear strikes against other states at seemingly peaceful times
-The Destruction of the State of Israel, and if the world reacts it could highly likely lead to WW3. Depending on how large Iran and his allies nuclear arsenal is it could lead to the end of our days.


This is why this nuclear crisis can not just be played down and solved with time. We need either quick and harsh action by the UN, or pre emptive strikes by Israel.
Even if oil prices reach $400 a barrel we need to take action.

Swift Sword

[SWIFT SWORD'S GO AMERICA RANT MODE ON]

(And Bluesman thought I did not have a nationalist bone in my ideological body )

This is way to important to leave to the Israelis or the UN. Regardless of the course of action (acceptance, military or diplomatic), the Bush Administration needs to develop a comprehensive Iran policy and demonstrate robust leadership on the matter, something it should have done at least two years ago.

I was a firm believer in the idea of some sort of European brokered solution, but I suspect the time for such action is passing.

I am skeptical that Israel has the intelligence and strike assets to effectively preempt the Iranian program.

While the US easily has the strike assets, I am wondering just how good our intelligence on the matter is as well given the gaps in US intelligence used for WMD preemption in both ODS and OIF. If the US chooses to preempt, it is going to get only one shot to do it right or it has to choose between a nuclear armed Iran or a full on invasion (IMO, of course, but I am open to suggestions).

Any outcome at this point is going to have significant fallout (the situation is not funny...might as well be punny...) so the US depending on the UN or Russian and Chinese goodwill or the idea that there will not be some sort of nasty backlash to any Israeli action would be the acme of asshattedness.

The Bush Administration has a few options for unilateral action:

1. do nothing AND/OR plan on containing and deterring a nuclear armed Iran;

2. forget the other parties and send a special envoy directly to Tehran to see if there us any definable compromise;

3. robust economic sanctions against ANY countries or ANY companies or ANY individuals doing ANY businees with Iran weapons related or otherwise...f*** 'em if they won't play ball. Breakout an Alien Property Commission and start start seizing assets and freezing accounts.

Sure this would have a short term negative impact on the US economy but we go into the fight healthier than those trying to pimp us and are more likely to recover faster, IMO. Besides, this is about the security of the Citizens of the United States and that of their Allies and Interests overseas, not, as Khomeni might say "...the price of melons";

4. take military action on one or more of three levels: punitive strike, WMD preemption strike or outright invasion and regime change.

These are naturally not mutually exclusive and it may take a combination or all of them to see that US interests are met. Even though I am advocating unilateral action if neccessary, I suspect that US interests and the interests of many other actors are overlapping here so there should be no lack of silent partners and hot tips.

Some other comments and miscellany:

1. With regards to Option #1 above, the international system does have a history of being able to absorb and balance out nuclear proliferators and in some instances roll them back (there is your cold comfort contingency, at any rate);

2. Might be time to take out some leases from the newly minted Afghan and Iraqi governments for TABM/ABM facilities in their countries. These should at least be early warning radars and sensors to monitor Iranian missle testing but there maybe more options.

GBI sites in either country might be close enough to provide the desirable boost phase interception against launches towards Israel and Europe as well as mid course interception against launches against Israel. Too, there would be terminal phase interception options for strikes launched against targets inside of Iraq and Afghnistan;

3. The US is in a position that Kissinger has articulated in the past: it is seeking hegemony and the thing about hegemony is that you have to be strong enough to assert it or the only other option is balanced power. My concern is that based on US action over the last several years the strength to assert hegemony might be at the threshold level which means that any action must be timely, accurate and decisive.

4. What happens next is going to determine what the security and economic climate of Central Asia and the Gulf Region is going to look like for at least the next twenty five to fifty years, IMO, so there is little margin for error.

The Bush Administration needs to pipe up and Congress needs to take its collective faces out of the trough or we will all with certainty feel the thunderbolt.

[SWIFT SWORD'S GO AMERICA RANT MODE OFF]

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Bluesman

Full court press, starting immediately. There is no other single foreign policy issue that deserves the attention of this matter, and it cannot wait anymore.

DIPLOMATIC offensive
MILITARY strikes, with defensive measures to keep the Straits open
POLITICAL destabilization of the regime
ECONOMIC weapons of all sorts
and finally, a robust and well-planned INFORMATION OPERATIONS campaign.

We are so close to a complete and total disaster, of the world-altering type, that we simply MUST go all the way with it, and we do not have until this time next year to reach that conclusion and ACT on it. No compromise seems likely or even possible at this point, due to 1) the impossibility of matching Iran's nuclear ambitions with something they value as much, and 2) the nature of the regime, which is the 'crazy as a rat in a coffee can' variety. We simply cannot strike a deal with these madmen and their unalterable desire to be a nuclear power and regional hegemon.

If 'regime change' has been discredited as a viable US policy, then we're screwed, because really, nothing else can be considered a success after the smoke has cleared and the dust has settled from the strikes.

I just KNEW this is where we were going to end up. The EU-3 plan was destined for failure, mostly because the Europeans feared American power in the region more than Iranian ambitions, and only reluctantly enageged Iran because they thought that another American adventure would be WORSE than whatever the Iranians were up to. So, they stirred themselves enough to beg for the lead, but not enough to actually back their diplomatic play with any REAL power. THIS is what 'soft power' doctrine gets you: NO RESPECT. And THIS is what flinching in the face of evil gets you: abetting rogue regimes by playing to their strengths, in this case an Iran that WANTS to talk about the crisis until they actually have a weapon ready. Iran never was negotiating in good faith, but they saw that they could keep the EU-3 on the hook forever, just by playing the game. And the Euros went for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Once again, it will all turn on American will, leadership, and capabilities, because that's the only entity on the planet that possesses each iin the right combination and amount to get done what needs to be done.

Does anybody here yet see WHY we're just about sick of the rest of the planet? Either they're evil, feckless, or weak, and after all of their hectoring, lecturing, and ankle-biting, it all comes down to letting us do what they can't or won't, and then listening to them carp about the way we went about it.

But if the rest of the world impedes us THIS time, they'll be forever sorry. Because THIS time, they could actually bring us up short and make us pull our punch. That would be a calamity for all of us.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Garry

Invasion to Iran is not possible in near 3 years.... and they know about it. Bombing will not stop them but will be having same cost as invasion. So the only last option is to have China and Russia (Russian has already decided to join) to join a possible embargo on Iran. US and EU embargo will not impress Iran. It is up to China to decide now. I think that Russia has already made their mind - they will let embargo on Iran.... and gain from that.

Swift Sword

Garry,

There is some truth in what you say and I agree that military acition by the US against Iran would be the least desirable outcome because of the uncertainty in knowing if we are bombing the right targets to satisfy the requirement for military action in the first place. However, it may become necessary in lieu of any other satisfactory resolution.

I am in favor of sanctions and embargoes as an intermediate step but the US ought to get started unilaterally right now IMO. If the UN wants to follow they are more than welcome.

Bluesman has pointed out and I in my intolerance for the proliferation of nuclear weapons have come to agree that the red line has been crossed.

The time is now and the command is forward. The hour is late enough already and the UN can debate all night until the supply of oil for the lamps is cut off at Hormuz but the US has to act in defense of its Supreme Interests.

Mr. Bush can and should pick up his pen tommorrow and start scripting EOs targetting ANY individual, ANY corporation and ANY actor state or otherwise that is getting cozy with Tehran.

If they have money in the US: freeze it. If they have property in the US: seize it. If they have any intellectual property rights e.g. the U.S. Patent Office: suspend, appropriate and deploy in support of the current war effort.

For instance, the Japanese have just started or are just about to start a 300,000 bbd project in Iran. The US should pinch them to send a message. The threat posed by the Iranians is accelerated and enhanced by foreign money and industrial expertise.

If China wants to dance with the Iranians, then Wal-Mart can have empty shelves and I will gladly pay more for my next truck to be made out of American steel. The United States has endured economic hardship before and we can do it again.

I think I can speak for my fellow Citizens when I say that it is better to be broke, hungry and free than dead or subservient to foreign interests.

If the Iranians are going to work to enrich Uranium, then the US should work to de-enrich the value of the trade of actors who are giving the Iranians the vital cash they need to advance the threat.

Ditto for actors providing hardware and techinical expertise for weapons both conventional and unconventional.

And double damn ditto that for North Korea and people who are assisting them.

For a couple of years I have been very patient and supportive of efforts to get Iran engaged.

I even supported an Iranian nuclear reactor with fuel cycle services handled by a third party because I am cognizant of the fact that the economic and intellectual liberalization that it would provide would ultimately translate into some amount of political liberalizaton in the long run.

I considered the merits of the EU3 and various Russian proposals to resolve the crisis.

I have articulated many cases and scenarios whereby the Iranians might be dissuaded or engaged and or co-opted to very, very productive ends. There were so many ways out of this debacle up until now (and there may be one or two left, hopefully) that is almost criminal the way in which, to be fair, all the parties involved could not get to a resolution.

Now I may be beating my Go America Drumb but I am an honest man: US diplomacy is at it lowest point in a hundred years. However, we were not the only dancer on the floor and others have failed to stay in step as well.

Iran is the center of the World. This is not just because of its weapons ambitions. Counterproliferation, counterterror, energy security for Europe and others, regional stability, Islamic Reformantion: all roads lead to Tehran.

What happens next may very well determine the fate of two billion people living in Asia, Africa and the Middle East and that is not cheap hyperbole.

Regards,

William

Osiris

I don't want to downplay the threat of the Iranian nuclear program, but I think you're blowing it out of proportion. Keep in mind that Israel, Pakistan, and India already have nuclear weapons. Nuclear capabilities would give Iran more bargaining leverage, and would act as a deterrent against American and Israeli power. We might look at it as destablizing the region, but the Iranians see their nuclear program as a way to "balance out" the "excessive" Israeli influence in the region. There's no reason to believe that Iran would do something suicidal like launch random nuclear strikes against neighboring countries. There's no doubt that Iranian nuclear capability would be detrimental to American interests, but there's nothing we can do to stop the Iranians from getting nukes if they want them that badly. Airstrikes by Israel won't work like they did at Osirak, sanctions will only go so far, and America doesn't have the capability or the will to mount an invasion.

Bulgaroctonus

I have many questions regarding the Iran issue. However, I would like to discuss one specific point. Many people have said that bombing will not work.

However, could not the U.S. use nuclear weapons? We could use long-range, but low-yield weapons to hit their suspected facility sites. For example, a 120 Kiloton bomb (10 times Hiroshima) could definitely take out an underground bunker. If more power is needed, we can go up to standard issue, at least 1 megaton and above.

Officer of Engineers

I rather not see the day when nukes are just another toy to be used at whim.

__________________
Chimo

Commando

Tactical nuclear weapons is an option but i don't think even the USA is prepared to use them because of the global effects it could cause. I mean tactical nukes against Iran would lead to rioting all over the middle east and Africa and posibly a military coup in Pakistan. People are saying im over reacting to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons but if we look at Pakistan now we will see what can happen when fragile nations achieve such status. With the anti Us demonstrations there this week Musharaff's leadership is already lacking support and more US air strikes in the region could lead to a military coup where one of the fascist generals gains power. Should we trust him with nuclear weapons? Anything can happen if nations in political turmoil and instability obtain nukes. We have to stop this before it is to late. The North Korean problem will take care of itself when Kim Jong passes away but Iran won't.

Parihaka

Since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the only way I can see of this being resolved is the full invasion of Iran. Period.

Bluesman

There's EVERY reason to believe that they'd launch nuclear strikes against one specific country, and their current leader has declared as much.

Oh, yes, there sure as hell is something we can do about it. And we'll have to, sooner or later, so we're all going to see I'm right eventually.

Bluesman

I think that regime destabilization is the way to go. This has a much higher probability of success, in my opinion. But no half-measures, like when Bush 41 encouraged the uprising against Saddam, and then wouldn't back it. We're still paying for that piece of boneheaded double-dealing.

If we encourage it, we better be there for 'em until they settle into the seat of power, and then some. We can do that without an army on the ground.

Parihaka

But is there sufficient will on the part of the Iranian people?

Bluesman

There are a great big ole bunch of diverse dissident and resistance groups both inside the country and abroad. Why we don't snuggle up to 'em and get 'em into the game, I am at a loss to explain. Mark Steyn has a good column on this topic:

Parihaka

Thanks Bluesman. I went looking for Abbasi after reading that and found this
Nothing of this has been reported here, I'm going to post it on some local sites



oops: Source