Parihaka

Crazy like a fox. I do however see the snatching of the RN marines as a bit of a watershed: that one action seemed to convince most of Europe they were nuts.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

JAD_333

Get clear on this question and bust out into the light of ahah.

I mean, you make a given seem like a personal opinion. There is not the slightest doubt that nukes have deterrence value, and ergo if Iran wants them it is undoubtedly for their deterrence value. You could also say that there is deterrence value in having the CAPABILITY to produce them.

But let's get straight on what deterrence is, because it seems you are thinking of it more in terms of military value. Of course, military capability has always acted as a deterrence in international relations long before nukes existed which is why some nations go all out to build-up their military.

If a country takes a quantum leap over the capabilities of other states in its region, the latter are not only more deterred than ever from threatening that country with military action, but become more likely than ever to moderate their foreign policies to suit that country.

Supposing Iran makes that quatum leap by adding nukes to its capability, and then begins to promote a regional relationship with its neighbors aimed at controlling oil production and exports to consumers outside the region, such as the US, the EU and China, what will their neigbors do? Well, we can't predict exactly what will they'll do, but we can be pretty sure their resistence to Iran's objectives will be deterred relative to what it would have been before Iran obtained nukes.

So, in short, superior military power is not only a deterrence against attack, but a deterrence against non-military resistance.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Kansas Bear

Not that I believe I can discuss this geo-political 'stuff' with you "heavy weights"...but, wouldn't Iran NOT want Europe to think they're 'nuts'? Keep Europe 'divided' so to speak on their perception of Iran's government?

astralis

okay, looks like i've got my work cut out for me here. one at a time.

S-2,

i question how much of that was because the USSR had nukes, and how much of that was because of its already dominant state on the european continent. yes, no doubt having nukes gives a lot of power, but soviet adventurism went up or down because of the perceived american response. the soviets were not eager to test truman or eisenhower because of the american/NATO response in greece and the korean war (not that they minded THAT war, where they could have fought the US down to the last chinese/korean). they were eager to test kennedy because he was perceived as weak from the bay of pigs incident. also, after the vietnam war, we saw a massive expansion in soviet power...which declined when confronted with reagan. so operational freedom, perhaps more, but not significant levels more.

i do believe that with increased covert assistance, along with greater ties to the global economy, the iranian people will constrain the iranian gov't more and more- nuclear weapons or no. the chinese people were not going to overthrow mao's government in 1955, before china had nukes. however, by 1989, that was a very significant worry in deng xiaoping's gov't- and china had more than a few nukes by then.

as for number of nukes, i say the level of threat depends. we felt more threat from the soviet government of 1961 than the soviet government of 1990, for instance, despite the huge differential in number of nukes.

with an opening to the iranian economy, we will see major constraints within 15 years. as for comparing iranian capabilities to USSR capabilities- that's no comparison at all.

sure, considerable leverage. but as iran integrates into the global economy, that leverage will cut both ways.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

astralis

zraver,

and they were doing plenty of adventurism before 1949. in any case, we certainly paid them back in the same coin.

but i see the main point of disagreement: i think that a blockade/airstrike will hobble the US in the long-range vis-a-vis iran. you do not.

i agree. we can leverage this pressure.

astralis

S-2,

i disagree with this premise. even the europeans are freaked out about the dangers posed by iran: very well, if iran does turn out to have a nuclear program, and is an irrational threat, then the US and her populace WILL have the national will to take out such a threat. how many troops garrisoned japan and germany following WWII?

of course, i doubt it will happen- if it comes to that, we will use airstrikes, simply because it is the easiest, cheapest way to solve the (short-term) problem.

Parihaka

Firstly the only heavyweight status I have is my waist line though I will admit the others heads are rather pointy.
What I was trying to imply was the Pasdaran have played the Europeans off against each other and the Americans since the revolution, but the RN marines incident went a step too far.
I know that Sarkozy is a new ball game etc etc, but even Merkel is making 'must be dealt with' noises.
While Putin was there to privately give A'Jad a kick, his public defence of Iran to the west was aimed squarely at trying to re-sow confusion and dissension in the Europeans ranks

JAD_333

Easy and cheap are fine if it acheives the tactic purpose, but easy and cheap is not the reason for using airstrikes.

The objective is to end Iran's quest for the means to process its own uranium in fuel rods, since that gives them the capability to also make nuke weapons.

Airstrikes may knock out their reactors, which would be the best outcome. But they also can be used to severely weaken their military capability and even go so far as to damage their power grid, thereby reducing the citizenry's tolerance for its government's nuclear policies.

If we were to send in troops later it would be likely be for the purpose of finishing off the nuclear infrastructure and not to occupy the country a la Iraq.

It seems to me that there are no modern analogies for this situation except perhaps for the recent example of North Korea and Lybia. So, why all this talk about Soviet wars of liberation and such. If we look to that era for clues on how to handle Iran, we'll find few if any.

JAD_333

I am of a mind with Parihaka concerning heavyweight, except I am kind of thin around the waist. But you get the idea.

Anyway, I'd say jump in. As to your question, it doesn't seem to me that Iran is intentionally projecting an image of being nuts. On the contrary, they are trying pretty hard to make a reasonable case to justify their nuclear ambitions, which, remember, they publicly argue are not to make nukes, but to be self-sufficient in supplying fuel rods to the nuclear power plant which Russia is building for them (work suspended for now).

In his soothing way, A-Jad calmly argues that Iran is a sovereign country and has a right to make it's own nuke fuel and that it doesn't want to rely on, say, Russian for fuel because it would then be open to blackmail should Russia stop shipping them fuel. He explains away the need for an oil-rich country to have nuclear power by saying that they will not always have so much oil.

It is on the surface a perfectly reasonable, non-nutty argument. Where the nuttiness comes in is that Iran is proceding with its amibitions despite a solid wall of overt opposition from the US and its allies. It has been warned repeatedly to stop its nuclear program; the foregone conclusion by experts both military and diplomatic is that Iran will be attacked at some point if it continues.

It hasn't yet, because the big players in the world including the US want to convince their publics that they are pursuing every peaceful means to force Iran's cooperation. This is the purpose of economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts by world leaders, such as Putin.

Some believe Iran is in a race; they believe it is using the period of non-military efforts to hurry completion of its program, although I don't see how that buys them security from attack. It's more likely that Iran hopes to convince the world that it's program is peaceful and be allowed to go ahead.

But Iran is convincing no one. One reason is because it's governmental structure is too reliant on religious leaders. Another, more telling reason,
is because it has been a major spoiler in the ME through its support for Hezbolla and Shia dissidents in Iraq.

So, convincing Europe they are nutty is a lose-lose situation for them.

And then there is Isael... cheers and jump in...

zraver

We will never strike a reactor, not only does it provide no military benefit, it would be a crime against humanity. If the US and its allies decide that war is the only remaining option we will go after Iran's ability to impose an oil blockade and keep blasting thier conventional forces and SRBM/IRBM's along with every bridge, telephone exchange, radio station, water treatment plant etc we can find, but we will not hit a single above ground hot site. Once Iran capitulates then the IAEA goes in and shits them down safely and dismantles them.


Parihaka,

No it didn't, it went just as far as it needed to. Sanctions were starting to bite, protests were getting heated, and the entire regime was going to be in question when gasoline subsidies ended.

1- Iran announces plans to end gasoline subsidies- July 06
Iran Focus-Iran plans to cut gas imports, subsidies - Iran (General) - News

major unrest and discontent, IIRG begins planning to create a Red Herring event to lessen the bite.

2- Jan 10th 2007, The Government announces rationing to begin in March

Riots break out, and rationing eventually pushed back till June, but in the middle of an event that could have seriously weakened the government...

3- Iran captured the Royal Navy sailors on 23 March of 2007

The move was for domestic consumption, not foreign posturing.

Putin is trying to lock Iran into a cleint state status

1- Putin wants Iran to give up its IRBM's with his call to make the INF universal.

2- Putin won't deliver the nuclear fuel

3- Putin recently got all the countries on the Caspian Sea to agree to no western involvement, Iran doe snot have a robust exploration/field development program and neither do the other nations in the region with one exception- Russia: who now has monopoly access to those gas and oil feilds.

astralis,

The only credible military plan means the USMC has to take Abu Musa and 3 other islands in the Persian Gulf while Navy SEALs take down 3 critical off shore platforms. However outside of that, there is no need for ground combat, every other strategic and tactical goal can be achieved via sea and air.

Feanor

Guys consider if Iran does get a nuke, a ground invasion would be out of the question. Just the danger of a nuclear land mine going off is too great. Secondly look at North Korea, they went nuclear and despite all the fears of de-stabilizing the region, it doesn't seem to have any major impact.

JAD_333

ok...if the reactor is operational, of course, you don't strike it... I assume it is not, but thrust of my comment was to strike it's nuclear facilities and this is what is discussed by tactical pros in many papers. The rest is an elaboration of what I said, and I couldn't agree more with it.

Parihaka

Yep, agreed, but nevertheless it impacted on how they were viewed within Europe. Up until that time is was 'ha ha those crazy mullahs' to 'oh, those mullahs are crazy'

I know, and he's scared that Europe is going to unite against Iran, because then control over the entire region is once more up in the air.
All his careful maneuvering comes to nothing if NATO or some variant strikes Iran and it is destabilised as a result. I mean what's he going to do, drive down through Azerbaijan or Armenia?

Parihaka

There is no valid comparison between NK and Iran. North Korea is a small player between two enormous foes, for that matter so is South Korea. They in reality are nothing more than the battleground.

Iran however, while being weaker militarily is in a much more volatile region and one far more critical to the world economy. The lines are also far less certain and so Iran can therefore have far greater effect.

JAD_333

That's like dropping a nuke on your own territory. Do you believe they would do that? I guess if the whole populace was in a Jihadist frame of mind, they might, but that's improbable.

N.Korea did, it's true, but now that they have abandonned their program, it's a moot point. No doubt if they had gotten to the point where they possessed a stock of deliverable nukes it would have distabalized, or at least reordered the balance, in the region.