Why Iran Will have a nuclear arsenal?

[ArmchairGeneral]

You know what I would do if I really wanted a nuke capability? Put it in a city. Thousands of buildings, anyone of which could contain uranium processing, bomb assembly, you name it. Just make sure that you put large numbers of civilians in very close proximity. Sure, the US has amazing pinpoint strike capability, but it seems like they could make it very hard to distinguish between legit targets and civilian stuff. Heck, the Russians put a rocket testing facility in some major city, was it Moscow? I think they put it right next to a power plant, and routed the exhaust fumes through the smokestack.

[Confed999]

You know what I would do if I really wanted a nuke capability? Put it in a city. Thousands of buildings, anyone of which could contain uranium processing, bomb assembly, you name it. Just make sure that you put large numbers of civilians in very close proximity. Sure, the US has amazing pinpoint strike capability, but it seems like they could make it very hard to distinguish between legit targets and civilian stuff. Heck, the Russians put a rocket testing facility in some major city, was it Moscow? I think they put it right next to a power plant, and routed the exhaust fumes through the smokestack.

Take out the power and water to the city.

[Blademaster]

I seriously believe that Iran is bluffing. This is the same set of mullahs who chickened out when Saddam started to use chems. The US must make clear of its intentions and demonstrate its resolve before the mullahs see the light ... hopefully, not a nuclear flash.

Just drop a MOAB off the coast of Iran. That'll shut them crazy foreign bastards.

[Serbianpsyco]

if you wont the answear its simple ask yourslef why does Untied states and russia and other nations have a nuclear aresnal.

[HistoricalDavid]

if you wont the answear its simple ask yourslef why does Untied states and russia and other nations have a nuclear aresnal.

It's simple only to morally equivocating retards.

[PubFather]

A radical suggestion - please tell me if someone has already mentioned it, thread way too long to read it all...

Let Iran develop nukes. Let them declare that they have nuke tipped missiles/bombs that will one-day turn Israel into a glittering carpark.

A couple of years later, empty an Ohio's worth of SLBMs in Iran... Queue President... "My fellow Americans, today we have been forced to act to destroy the Iranian missile program, after they launched several missiles at our friend and ally, Israel. Those missiles were shot down by our extremely expensive and now wholly justifiable ABM network"...

Ok, probably not going to happen.. but it would solve the problem, and make people think twice...

Pour encourager les autres, as Voltaire might have said...

[HistoricalDavid]

It would solve the problem - but in a rather Stalinist manner.

"Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."

Would be good if you're one of the billions of ABM engineers about with Democrat-related job insecurity, though.

[PubFather]

Well, it might be a bit harsh but if we time it right, with the wind blowing in the right direction, the fallout could end up in Afganistan and destroy the poppy crops and the remnants of the Taliban/Bin Ladens crew.

Sure, there would be some collateral damage.. but... thems the breaks...

[Garry]

Very interesting article. Somebody got a bit more realistic that usual.... the only thing that I don't agree with is that sanctions would not have effect on Iran..... It depends... If Russia closes leak from Caspian sea.... it would work. It is important to remember that Iran is far from having a sufficient capacity in uranium enrichment. So there is a plenty of time to put sanctions on and start negotiations.

However this would work only if Russia closes the norther route for Iran..... I am not sure they would do it....

The Iranian paradox: to gain victory the West must first concede defeat;Comment;Opinion
Anatole Kaletsky
1023 words
24 August 2006
The Times
21
English
(c) 2006 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved
DEFEAT IS NEVER pleasant, but often it is better to lose than to win. Defeat in the Second World War was the best thing that ever happened to Germany and Japan in their thousand years of recorded history. For America, losing in Vietnam was also a blessing in disguise. While defeat seemed to shatter the illusion of an "American century" of global dominance, it was followed by 30 years of almost uninterrupted prosperity, a political renaissance for conservative values and America's total victory over communism in the Cold War.

Such thoughts may not offer much consolation to George Bush, Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert as they contemplate their defeat at the hands of Iran and its Hezbollah allies. But the ordinary citizens of America, Britain and Israel should try to draw some constructive lessons from history, even while their leaders make ever greater fools of themselves with their idle threats against Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The "international community" is now totally powerless in its nuclear confrontation with Iran, even more so than with North Korea. Pyongyang needs food and fuel to survive and is therefore susceptible to pressure from China. Iran, at the moment flush with oil wealth, needs nothing and is not dependent on anyone.

The sort of economic and diplomatic sanctions being ominously debated by the UN Security Council -curbing investment in Iran's oil industry or banning exports of machinery and luxury goods -would be worse than ineffective. They would actually strengthen the regime of Iran's fanatically anti-American and anti-Israeli President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Economic sanctions would help Ahmadinejad by adding to the xenophobic paranoia that always tends to reinforce nationalist extremists, at least in the short term.

In the case of Iran, however, there is another, more important, reason why sanctions would be counter-productive. Far from defeating Iran through economic exhaustion, sanctions would make the country, or at least its Government, even richer and more powerful than it is today. This paradox, which has never before arisen in the use of economic sanctions for diplomatic purposes, arises because of the state of the global oil market today.

Oil prices have more than doubled in the past three years because steadily rising demand, especially from China, has run up against the limits of global production capacity. If Iran, which is the world's third-largest oil producer after Russia and Saudi Arabia, had even a small part of its exports removed by sanctions from world markets, the oil price would shoot up to $100 or more. As long as the percentage increase in oil prices was higher than Iran's percentage loss of export volumes, sanctions would result in the Government's total revenues going up, instead of down.

Iran also controls the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow strip that separates the country from the Arabian peninsula and which provides a passage for roughly 40 per cent of the world's internationally traded oil. If Iran were to close the Strait of Hormuz or otherwise threaten foreign shipping in response to an attempt to impose economic sanctions, the oil price would jump not just to $100 a barrel but probably to $150 or beyond. As a result, the Iranian Government could quite conceivably double its present revenues after the imposition of sanctions. Thus sanctions would provide President Ahmadinejad with even more money to buy popularity among his domestic voters, and unleash an even greater torrent of oil money to finance Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon and anti- American Shia in Iraq.

But if sanctions are doomed to failure, what about military options? As a last resort, couldn't America or Israel stop the nuclear programme by threatening to bomb Iran? Sadly or happily (depending on your worldview), the answer is a very clear "no". Militarily, America and Israel have now shot their bolts in Iraq and Lebanon respectively. They have neither the firepower nor the willpower to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear programme -and even if they did have the capacity to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, they could not afford the risk of destabilising their other Middle Eastern interests even further by taking military action. Moreover, both America and Israel now understand that a bombing campaign that could not be backed by an infantry invasion would only reinforce the existing regime's grip on power.

The last argument against a military strike, but by no means the least one, brings us back to the oil issue. If the US or Israel were to bomb Iran's nuclear installations, Iran would have the strongest possible pretext to ramp up the oil price to $150 a barrel or higher by closing or restricting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Thus a military attack on Iran, just like economic sanctions, would increase the Government's capacity to finance global terrorism and curry favour with the Iranian public. It would also cause potentially catastrophic disruption to the world economy when the American public is already turning against the Iraq adventure and Republicans face a potentially disastrous electoral defeat.

What then should America and its allies do in the face of Iran's nuclear defiance? The answer is clear: concede defeat. Iran has won this tussle and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Instead of trying to stop Iran's nuclear programme, the international community must bring Iran back into the civilised world. The only way to do that is to stop issuing empty threats and to start offering Iran real incentives for co-operative behaviour -non-aggression guarantees from America and Israel, removal of the residual US economic sanctions dating back to the 1980s and the prospect of steadily improving treatment in investment and trade. Of course, such a U-turn seems inconceivable while President Bush remains in office. But remember President Nixon's historic opening to China as he was losing the war in Vietnam. To paraphrase Johnson, a politician's mind can be concentrated wonderfully by the knowledge that he is faces defeat.

[Bill]

Sometimes I wish I had an opportunity to run ahead to see how this interesting saga willl finish! My bet - USA will not invade Iran. USA will bomb Iran symbolically. In less than 10 years Iran will get its bomb. Russia will be very disappointed... China will not care much.

Well then why doesnt russia step up to the plate and invade Iran?

Or at least bomb them?

Oh...right, cause Russia prefers to sell them advanced weapons.

I say it's high time the US gave some Patriots, HUMRAAM/CLAWs and M-1A2SEP Abrams to the Chechens. See how much you like it.

[Dreadnought]

The Russian Defence Minister, Sergei Ivanov, has denied Israeli claims that Hezbollah has modern Russian weapons.
Israel says that Russian anti-tank weapons delivered to the Syrian army have been passed on to Hezbollah.

Mr Ivanov said this was complete nonsense, adding that the weapons being used by Hezbollah were not up to date.

He also repeated Russia's position on Iran, saying that any talks of imposing sanctions over its nuclear programme were premature and unhelpful.

'Laughable'

The minister's comments during a visit to Russia's far east were in response to Israeli allegations that Hezbollah had used Russian state-of-the-art Kornet anti-tank system in the recent fighting in Lebanon.

Last week Israeli officials said they had provided Moscow with proof that Hezbollah had been supplied with Russian weapons delivered to the Syrian Army.

Mr Ivanov said that it was "laughable" to call the anti-tank weapons he understood to have been used by Hezbollah modern.

He added that Moscow had not decided yet whether to send troops to Lebanon as part of the international peacekeeping force.

'Premature talk'

The defence minister also reiterated Russia's view on Iran's uranium enrichment programme. He said that any talk of sanctions was premature and not worthwhile.

He said Russia would continue to press for a negotiated solution to the dispute.

The United States has said Iran's response to a package of incentives aimed at persuading it to curb its nuclear programme fell short of what was required by the United Nation Security Council.

IMO This isint rocket science...Russia sells to Iran, Syria. They provide them for Hezbollah and fire at Israeli tanks. Perhaps maybe if their shipments were intercepted and "freely" given to Chechnyain rebels and fired at Russian tanks maybe then it wouldnt be so laughable to this gentlemen. What will it take to prove to these people once and for all that they provide arms to terrorists and then hold up the sanctions on Iran. IMO the council should say screw Russia and China we know why they wont back sanctions because the money from the arms will stop flowing into their pockets. And go ahead with whatever sanctions will stop these people before something irreversable happens.

[Ray]

The US has interest in Chechnya since the Caspian oil pipeline travels through this area. This is of immense strategic value.

The Chechen are already well armed and these Russian rockets wont make any difference and who knows, they may already have them.

Russia has to keep the Moslem nations happy or else Chechnya will explode in their face!

[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.

Hey, y'all 'member when I wrote this, waaaay back on Page NUMBER ONE of this thread?

Well, Krauthammer backs me up. I just KNEW this is where we were headed, and so it is proving out. Some of the posters here believe that there is some magic word we can whisper in the oh-s-rational A-jad's ear that will make him cease being the fanatical believer that he is, or that the much more reasonable ayatollahs will throw a net over him, or some other dam' thing. But NO, it's going to come down to HARD POWER to untangle this Gordian Knot that the Euros have managed to entangle all of us in.

We have but two choices now. See my sig block for the options.

September 15, 2006
The Tehran Calculus
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- In his televised 9/11 address, President Bush said that we must not "leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.'' There's only one such current candidate: Iran.

The next day, he responded thus (as reported by Rich Lowry and Kate O'Beirne of National Review) to a question on Iran: "It's very important for the American people to see the president try to solve problems diplomatically before resorting to military force.''

"Before'' implies that the one follows the other. The signal is unmistakable. An aerial attack on Iran's nuclear facilities lies just beyond the horizon of diplomacy. With the crisis advancing and the moment of truth approaching, it is important to begin looking now with unflinching honesty at the military option.

The costs will be terrible:

Economic. An attack on Iran will likely send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports, and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.

Iran could do this by attacking ships in the Strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.

The U.S. Navy will be forced to break the blockade. We will succeed but at considerable cost. And it will take time -- during which time the world economy will be in a deep spiral.

Military. Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.

Among the lesser military dangers, Iran might activate terrorist cells around the world, although without nuclear capability that threat is hardly strategic. It will also be very difficult to unleash its proxy Hezbollah, now chastened by the destruction it brought upon Lebanon in the latest round with Israel and deterred by the presence of Europeans in the south Lebanon buffer zone.

Diplomatic. There will be massive criticism of America from around the world. Much of it is to be discounted. The Muslim street will come out again for a few days, having replenished its supply of flammable American flags most recently exhausted during the cartoon riots. Their governments will express solidarity with a fellow Muslim state, but this will be entirely hypocritical. The Arabs are terrified about the rise of a nuclear Iran and would privately rejoice in its defanging.

The Europeans will be less hypocritical because their visceral anti-Americanism trumps rational calculation. We will have done them an enormous favor by sparing them the threat of Iranian nukes, but they will vilify us nonetheless.

These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing.

In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, non-nuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe.

Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?

These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.

[email protected]
(c) 2006, The Washington Post Writers Group

[gunnut]

if you wont the answear its simple ask yourslef why does Untied states and russia and other nations have a nuclear aresnal.

Because we can.

Any other questions?