Bluesman

They'll trade away their nukes for 'a little chit chat'. Of course.

Because to treat with an illegitimate regime grants them that legitimacy, and puts them on an equal footing, at least in the moral sense. When one enters negotiations, one assumes the other party will abide by their agreements, and is there in good faith. To assume that of the Iranians is folly.

FURTHERMORE, the reason we don't 'try it', is because we can't very well use force WHILE we're engaged in negotiations, and buying time is what this little game is all about for the Iranians. THAT is what we have to lose: TIME.

Actually, maybe we CANNOT bomb them later, if we wait too long, and that's what they are hoping for. And that's what I'm afraid of.

I agree absolutely with everything in that para, but we're coming at it from completely opposite viewpoints. Your approach wouldn't change ANY of the above. Mine WOULD.

That qualifier clause is the only thing that keeps this sentence from being straight agitprop on behalf of the Iranians.

That position could also be argued by an apologist for the Iranian regime, as well. No need for an expert to rponounce on THAT.

__________________
"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

Dreadnought

Question for you guys?
Whats to stop Russia from selling them the means to deliver a nuclear attack?
Since they are building Iran the reactors that produce the plutonium for the nuclear warheads is there anything already in place to prevent this from happening?

Swift Sword

Estoteric and irrelevant? Your entitled to that opinion if you like. However, it is a point of fact that the World was not created on September 11'th, 2001.

You were offered a chance to do just that and chose not to.

Swift Sword

I never said they would. However, saying or doing nothing or making hollow threats is not going to make the problem go away. "The journey of a thousand li begins with the first step", or so I have heard said.

Just out of curiosity, what makes one regime any more or less legitimate than another regime? Iranian sovereignty does not look any less real than US sovereignty. The only assumption I am making is that continued insistence on doing nothing is folly.

One can still say "nice doggy" while reaching for the stick.

We will probably be in a better position to bomb them if the time was spent getting accurate intelligence and procuring the right types of weapons. As it sits, if we cannot get a satisfactory outcome in Iraq, there is not much reason to believe that hauling off and slugging Iran is going to be any better.



I do not share your optimism that continued pursuit of failed strategy will bring about a new and different conclusion.



Until they actually start acting irrational and not just spouting the same propaganda nonsense that I have heard for twenty five years, I am going to run with the assumption that Tehran has rational actors.

It could be argued by someone intent on exploiting internal political friction within Iran to help bring about a suitable outcome. Reason dictates that realistic options should be on the table.

Regime popularity is decreasing in many quarters of Iranian society which creates opportunity which could be exploited; giving the regime some reason to start a nationalist crusade to rally swayable masses around the flag only helps the radical elements.

Swift Sword

If I recall correctly, the Russians recently conluded a deal to handle fuel cycle services for the Iranians. This gives them the ability to control the Iranian program, monitor and possibly deny them the ability to produce plutonium in quantitiy. This was another window that closed upon the US. Now we have to depend on Moscow instead of ourselves or a European government that we migh be able to deal with more easily.

EDIT: Googled to offset rusty memory: http://www.christiansciencemonitor.c...6s01-woeu.html END EDIT

The Iranians already have a fairly complex and advanced missle program as well as a lot of aircraft in inventory, many of which might be nuclear strike capable but we would have to know what part of their fleet is particularly airworthy before we can truly speculate.

They might consider delivery by small boat or dieseil electric submarine but why bother.

Dreadnought

If your ideas are correct that they may deliver by small boat or sub then I think they would have alot more troubles then they bargain for.

Swift Sword

Iran's submarine force of several ex-Russian KILO boats is certainly not that scary in the grand scheme of things. However, it does give them experience in submarine operations and the fact that numerous and sundry schemes for the submarine delivery of nuclear and other kinds of ordnance have been proposed for many decades means that the possibility should not be ruled out.

I would not think that a KILO class submarine could threaten CONUS but it might be used to threaten other interests. Clandestine use of mini submarines might enter into the calculations of people wanting to attack US interests but there are some technical hurdles here as well.

In retrospect, I think I might change my mind on the use of boats as a poor man's WMD delivery system. Small boats and cargo ships have been used by various parties in the past to successfully attack US assets and interests.

As a historical footnote to this line of reasoning, the British were so worried about clandestine delivery of nuclear weapons by ship that their first test, the Hurricane shot, consisted of a plutonium implosion assembly sitting three meters below sea level in the hull of an old destroyer.

Confed999

Libya got hit long before then...
You mean, after it was bombed?

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Swift Sword

And long before that.

Sure.

Still, you would have to make the case that extrinsic factors overrode the multitude of other motivations that have been historically proven to govern Libyan policy.

Furthermore, you would have to explain why, if military strikes were effective at causing bell weather shifts in Libyan policy, they were abandoned in favor of other courses of action.

Confed999

Not to defend my statement: "Libya was pretty quiet after the bombings..."
Simple, they quieted down...

Swift Sword

You might find that the idea of Libya quieting down after the 1986 US airstrikes is a hard sell to the passengers and air crews of PanAm 103 and UTA 772.

Also a hard sell to John Bolton and George Tenet

Confed999

I didn't say they were silent, or sweeties...

BenRoethig

Yep, Clinton's diplomacy worked in Libya just like it did for North Korea.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

Swift Sword

Slight problem with your statement: Clinton Administration backed European diplomacy was part of the process by which Libya renounced WMD and was put on track towards normalized relations, a process which has been sensibly continued by the Bush Administration.

If you would like to learn more about the facts, you can study open source material.

With regards to North Korea, Clinton Administration diplomacy bought (literally) a few years of quiet but did not seem to be able to keep them from going ahead with the production of fissile material so in this regard we do not see any substantial progress unlike the Libyan situation which has come a long way towards ultimate resolution in a similar time frame (10 years).

In all fairness, it might be pointed out that Bush Administration diplomacy and sabre rattling has thus far not disuaded the North Koreans from pursuit of nuclear weapons. North Korea is going to be a tough nut to crack whether sticks or carrots are employed.

Ultimately, the North Korean situation might only find resolution along the lines of the the old maxim of one of Napoleon's staff officers that "the passage time is the ultimate cure for all bad passions and anarchical doctrines".