RambozoTheClown

it just seems like logical nonsense.

Bluesman

No, anthopomorphizing nations into behaviors, rights or any other characteristics inherent to individuals seems illogical to me.

__________________
"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

highsea

They have 3 modern Dolphin SSK's (modified German 212's) Supposedly the rotation goes: one is always in the Red Sea, one is in the Persian Gulf, and one is at home.

Each boat has 10 tubes and carries popeyes (possibly nuke-tipped) and harpoons, as well as standard 21 inch torps.

I expect they are quite capable of taking out an Iranian warship or two and getting away.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Parihaka

Assuming equal rights for all countries irrespective of those countries, for want of a better word, "quality", leads to Robert Mugabe chairing the UN council for Human Rights. All nations are not created equal, any more than all people are.

Bluesman

Then maybe THAT is how Israel could inflict some pain.

Anchors aweigh.

astralis

bluesman,

no, he's not. the main power of the islamic republic of iran has always been the ayatollah. if the ayatollah disagrees with what a-jad does, he gets shot down. i gave you the example of the ayatollah leashing a-jad earlier. i note your response that "they" thought it was premature, and it could very well be the case that they thought so. but doesn't your own answer tell you something? a-jad was restrained, and quite easily, by the ayatollahs. and if the ayatollahs were irrational, why would they bother restraining him- it should be dam' the torpedoes, let's have at the Great Satan!

but instead, they might be waiting for the nukes, right? that sounds rational enough. i mean, the USSR did the same thing back in the late 40s. the cold war only really heated up AFTER the USSR got nukes, too.

interestingly enough, we see its extremism...tempered with rationality. i'll give you two cases in point. right after the islamic revolution, the ayatollahs told the iranians to hurry up and make babies, and lowered the marriage age for girls to 9 (from 15). they did this because they wanted to raise an "islamic generation". however, they soon found out that doing so made living standards for everyone drop like a rock, and that made for a lot of unhappy iranians. within 10 years, iran was busy setting up family planning agencies and re-interpreting the koran to allow for this, whereas before any talk of family planning would be seen as positively forbidden and against islam.

here's another one. again, in the years following the revolution, women were banned from public life, and driven by the morality police into their own homes. however, within 15 years, women were actively getting elected as mayors, parliamentary members, and even judges- we do not see this in any middle eastern country. this is due to the immense pressure and anger that the heretofore sophisticated iranian populace- and not just women- exerted on the ayatollahs.

what to take out of all this? sure, the ayatollahs are extreme. but they do not act irrationally, and they move to protect their own skin. furthermore, it shows that when the iranian populace stands up, the people in power will listen.

hey, even a-jad has shown the same signs. usually, women cannot watch sport performances, because supposedly the sight of men wearing "skimpy" sports clothing is sinful and will cause the women to go astray. this is something that was enforced heavily by the religious police. however, when the religious police tried enforcing this during the world cup, they found that women were QUITE irate at being denied their world cup fix. enough so that there were protests. and guess what- voila, suddenly it was a-okay, by the president's order, for women to not only watch world cup games, but also go to stadiums and watch regular soccer performances, as well! now if he was truly, completely extremist nuts- he coulda sent the religious police in, full force...but he didn't. why?

i would point to the riots in the late 90s as proof otherwise. the ayatollahs and a-jad know quite well that they're not a popular bunch among the middle-class. furthermore, they also know that revolutions usually start among the middle-class (french revolution, american revolution). that's why they so heavily subsidize the price of oil in iran. such a move doesn't affect the lower-classes so much, but it's a great boon to the middle-class (cars). why give support to a class they know hates them? it smacks of fear.

alexis de tocqueville once said of the french revolution, "Never was any such event so inevitable, yet so completely unforeseen." that's probably what they're feeling right around now. look at the differences in iranian gov't response when the price of oil changes. back when it was low, in the 90s, even the government treaded carefully. now that they're making hand over fist, suddenly, the gov't has got the resources to bribe off the anger.

there is that old saying, one can vote by the ballot or by the bullet.

until i see a-jad start defying the ayatollahs and making it stick, i'm also convinced that he's just another puppet, albeit one with slightly longer strings. but i don't think that'll happen- how can a-jad defy the Mirror of God (the literal meaning of ayatollah), the very regent of the hidden Imam?

all the evidence of iranian actions up to this date shows that iran plays by the regular rules of power politics both domestically and on the world stage. its leaders respond rationally to internal upheaval through a combination of intimidation- and reform. on the world stage, they start talking whenever "sanctions" are mentioned. in both these conditions, aren't they rather different from say, the likes of north korea? if anything, wouldn't you say that kim jong-il is a good deal more unbalanced than a-jad is?

the worst thing about the specter of military force is that we threaten to push the iranian populace, most of which just barely tolerate the ayatollahs, into the ayatollahs' very welcoming arms. suddenly, instead of challenging the ayatollahs, as they have for the last 20 years, they would be allied with them. unless the US is willing to put massive forces in place for a war that would not only remove the ayatollahs and also suppress the expected nationalist backdraft, we will have taken away the best chance for no-american-needed removal/reform of the regime. i, for one, would like to see our enemies divided internally rather than united against us.

astralis

bluesman,

sorry for being the absolute windbag that i am, but i'd just like to mention here that i understand where you're coming from- ANYONE would be worried if a total nutcase had his hands on a nuke.

what i'm trying to say here is that all evidence to date shows that the nutcase is restricted by other factors, primarily that of the ayatollahs.

and all evidence to date shows that the ayatollahs, despite hating america, do not hate america enough to be willing to trade their lives/rule in a risky pre-emptive strike, terrorist means or otherwise.

and as long as the ayatollahs have their hands on the trigger, that's that. all bets are off if the nutcase overthrows the ayatollahs. but the chances of that, based off the said nutcase's religious beliefs and actions, seem to be nil.

looking at some of swift sword's suggestions of fomenting unrest and agitating students, indeed, those are all very good ideas in weakening the regime. but i also completely agree with you in that to knock out their nuclear program, force will need to be used. but if we use force (but not enough to occupy the country), then ironically we may end up strengthening the regime, instead.

removing the nuclear program is good. however, removing the ayatollahs, and having an accountable democratically-ruled secular state, is better.

master_fx

the onlyway is through air.... since iran has a fairly weak air force and air-defense systems.....

__________________
Global Defense Forum

Bluesman

No, I think AIR is the HARD way. Defeating Iranian air and air defense forces is the least of it. Overcoming the distance, getting around all the denied territory overflight restrictions...how do you deal with THAT? It was literally all the Israelies could do to get to the Osirik reactor in Iraq. Getting to Iran and back home? Can't see it.

But submarine warfare against all those Iranian vital holdings in the Gulf? THAT seems doable to me.

Kill the Iranian subs and ASW platforms first (possibly while they're still tied up; do the Dolphins carry any kind of ASW missile system?), then start working over everything that floats in the Gulf with an Iranian flag on it. ALMOST risk-free (easy for ME to say, right? ).

master_fx

just go through saudi... and gether up in iraq with american's help....

as far as i can c iran only has a few mig-29 and f-14 which may pose a threat and btw their newly imported Tor-m1 missile system gotda watch out for tat.... other than that i think israel are set for an air raid upon iran.... anyway that just IMHO...

TopHatter

Agreed.

A few other fun facts:

Bluesman

With rendezvous at sea with re-supply...it can be done.

It SHOULD be done.

Swift Sword

Hi Bluesman,

All I see in the efforts of Washington and the EU3 up to this point is a failure to deliver the goods which does not neccessarily mean that the goods are undeliverable in general.

There are really only a half a dozen definable outcomes to this whole mess and two of them such as Iran being nuclear armed and Iran having control of the nuclear fuel process are, I am sure you will agree, unacceptable (I will return to this thought below). This leaves four outcomes that might be workable.

The U.S., the EU3 and Tehran have paralell interests with regards to some fairly substantial issues. Under these conditions, one would think that progress might be made if one or more of the negotiators were competent.

There are sticks and there are carrots and they are not being arranged and offered in the right combinations. Also, some of the sticks double quite nicely as levers which is pretty handy. The U.S. is not in a bad position to negoiate all things considered.

The Iranians have been sponsoring terrorists, running guns, etc. so let them make the rules. We can sponsor dissidents, give aid and supplies, etc. just as well as they can.

I believe the Iranians are rational enough to realize that we have the weapons with which to destroy them and the means to deliver them and would not be to keen to ratchet up too far (though I could be wrong in which case we end up bombing them anyway).

Here is where we are in a bit of disagreement on general principles:

1. I am not convinced that the cost v. benefit analysis favors the theoretical risks entailed by military action against Iran (but am willing to entertain more speculation);

2. I was raised to beleive that self determination was a good thing and given the track record of installing political systems at gunpoint I am going to have to remain firm pending evidence to the contrary.

Let the Iranians oust their own regime and remake their political landscape in the manner they see fit (yes, we might be able to help them and as long as the current regime is blowing up things in South America and meddling in the Levant and Iraq I think it would be "fair"...like I said, they are making the rules and I doubt they can articulate a single one that is beyond our ability to play by).

Getting back to the "unacceptable" outcome of having the Iranians get the bomb. "Unacceptable" does not mean "impossible" or "untennable".

Like it or not, it is quite possible that the Iranians may build a bomb sometime at the end of the decade or a little beyond so we are going to have to have a plan to deter, contain, ENGAGE and see to their disarmament anyway so why not try to engage them now and see if we can make something happen?

Sure, it might not work but this is a paralell track and we reserve the right to continue efforts by other means to find a suitable outcome.

An engaged Iran would easily be worth the effort of trying. In a policy relevant time frame, it is quite possible the Iranians are going to be among the best partners we could have which sounds outright crazy at this point I know but look at the stakes and the players involved and it does make sense.

Brinksmanship may be the order of the day and it can be a ***** true.

However, the whole thing might be avoided or moderated with a little effort and ingenuity.

If they want to go all the way than it will be a very bad day for Iran and not a particularly good one for the United States.

Hope you have a pleasant evening,

William

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

Bluesman

William, you of all people need to read this, and really internalize it. It is by the greatest 'orientalist' (as they used to be known) of all time: Bernard Lewis. He knows more than anybody else about this subject. his credentials are unimpeachable, and there simply exists no greater voice anywhere in the world.

So, please read and understand what he has to say on this subject, the rationality of Iran's leader (and leader he is, however much we would all wish him to be checked and controlled by all thos oh-so-reasonable ayatollahs).

HistoricalDavid

Are you talking about the people or the regime?

Because when talking about any theocracy, betting on their rationality is... irrational?

The Soviet Union was a communist regime, yes, but dare I say a cynical, 'mature' one, which wasn't so committed to ideology not to look out for its own survival.

I personally wouldn't like to apply Cold War deterrence logic to Iran, or North Korea for that matter, because MAD requires cynical instincts for survival. (NK isn't religious... but its leader is certainly outthere.)

I don't know about the people, but these are far more nihilistic regimes than the USSR and we should recognise them as such. Just read Bluesman's posting from the unswervingly expert Bernard Lewis.