Bunker Busters shipped to Diego Garcia

[ASparr]

Why should the US tie itself to another unaffordable expense when it does not have to? And then you go on to admit of a consequence of a nuclear exchange if Iran was allowed to obtain its bomb. So cut to the chase and stop them in their tracks and you will have neither nuclear exchange nor unaffordable defense expenditure in the ambrella you are proposing.

Again, a false comparison. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt their program. It actually may strengthen their resolve. We could end up dealing only a temporary setback to their program while destroying the only real chance we have for Iran to discontinue it's pariah status in their fledgling but growing disaffected population.

[Zinja]

China's demand for oil helps fuel world demand and heavily impacts the world market. As do India and Japan. They can't get their oil from Hormuz, they get it elsewhere. That pushes up prices. They also get really pissed at us for doing that to them.

Then they should be signing the sanctions 'with teeth', it is their interest as well after all. Otherwise, the same arguement is true for the US in that it will be acting on its interest as well if China won't co-operate.

[ASparr]

Then they should be signing the sanctions 'with teeth', it is their interest as well after all. Otherwise, the same arguement is true for the US in that it will be acting on its interest as well if China won't co-operate.

They are wary about such sanctions doing the same thing -- reducing the available supply of Iranian oil. Perhaps if we can convince them Iraq has the ability to take that place, they'd be more willing.

[citanon]

Again, a false comparison. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt their program. It actually may strengthen their resolve. .

What makes you think we'd strike only once? Or that we'd limit the strikes to a few sites? Or that we won't strike infrastructure and dual use? Or that the strikes won't continue for weeks and weeks? Or that they could not escalate to encompass leadership and regime targets?

We could end up dealing only a temporary setback to their program while destroying the only real chance we have for Iran to discontinue it's pariah status in their fledgling but growing disaffected population

Of course. Once the bombs start falling the population will forget all about their discontent. It worked well for Slobodan Milosevic, why not for the Mullahs?

[ASparr]

What makes you think we'd strike only once? Or that we'd limit the strikes to a few sites? Or that we won't strike infrastructure and dual use? Or that the strikes won't continue for weeks and weeks? Or that they could not escalate to encompass leadership and regime targets?

I don't discount that possibility. But again, such strikes would wreak havoc on the global oil supply (especially if you're talking about hitting major infrastructure --like pipelines), make all of the Iranian affiliated proxies go nuts, coalesce popular support behind Dinnerjacket and cause severe harm to US soft power and credibility in the world.

Of course. Once the bombs start falling the population will forget all about their discontent. It worked well for Slobodan Milosevic, why not for the Mullahs?

Har. Again, not the same. Iran is an established state with a fairly modern economy and infrastrucure with a large, disaffected youth population. Dinnerjacket and Slobo may both be nutters, but that doesn't mean what works for one, works for the other.

And if you really object to the idea, talk to Kilcullen.

[zraver]

And neither would we. Effectively cutting off Iran as an oil producer, which seems to be what you're advocating, would be disastrous for the global market. Prices would skyrocket, supply would shrink and investors would get a hemorrhage. And again, you're not looking at the whole picture.

Care to take a gander at oil prices during the Iraqi sanctions.... Iranian oil is important, but not critical. Right now global reserves are increasing and the US is shutting down refineries. The loss of Iranian oil is indegestion, not a heart attack.

Not only is this plan impossible, but it's also near suicidal. Iran would lash out at us through every possible avenue. Hizbullah and Hamas would go nuts, global shipping through the Hormuz would be severely disrupted, shiite militias in Iraq would go bonkers and you'd crush the undercurrent of dissatisfaction for the regime with the Iranian people. And Iraq and Iran are not in the same position with their programs, domestic standing and international asshole potential. Comparing them is folly.

And you avoid that you'd do what surrender and hope for the best? Far better to face it head on, in the manner and at the time of our choosing

Which is why military dictatorships never fall? They never get overthrown?

care to list any?

Sweet Moses. Yes, it is pure evil. Mind you something on the order of $1.2 trillion US was sunk in Iraq, AQ moved in with a vengeance, and 100-140 or so thousand people died and you're using it as an example of how to treat Iran?

Yup because it works- if the US had done the work roght in 2003 and sent in enough troops to occupy back by enough dollars to employ the population 90% OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE DIED. In the case of Iran however you don't have two hostile religions living with one another.

You have the option to take a course that won't leave thousands and thousands dead and you're pushing for the "bomb them to the stone age followed by occupation" option?

When has appeasement worked?

You have any idea what would happen to the rest of the Arab world and al-Qaeda if we attacked and occupied yet another Muslim country?

The Arab's prefer us to them, in case you missed it the US is a distant overlord who keeps the historic regional hegemon at bay. Even inside Shia Iraq calling someone a Persian is an insult. There might be some demonstrations, but for the most part Arab's are Sunni and they hate the shia, and really HATE Iran.

If there is one thing the Arab regimes fear, its the US leaving the region and them to Iran's ambitions.

They can't but they have to. The other options are so unpalatable and the actual risks of a nuclear exchange are so small that to go with the 100% certainty of the havoc caused by your course and the 5% chance of an actual nuclear exchange is blind, reactionary folly.

They will, when it comes to protecting Jews from another Holocuast no-one and nothing is off limits to Israel. Israel will burn a billion lives to protect 6 million, and nobody better forget that.

Iranian government struggles with unruly population. Iranian government waves big stick to get people to bomb it. People rally behind government and Dinnerjacket. Dinnerjacket is seen not as an irresponsible leader who got Iran bombed, but as the courageous hero who stood up to the Jew-Crusader aggression. Sound far fetched?

People only rally until they get hungry, there is no such thing as a starving nationalist.

I guess you don;t get just how effective force is. Raw naked force is the decider, it has settled more intra-group conflicts in human history than other method. Ask the native Americans, the Celts or the Germans how effective unrestricted force is at ending conflicts.

[ASparr]

Care to take a gander at oil prices during the Iraqi sanctions.... Iranian oil is important, but not critical. Right now global reserves are increasing and the US is shutting down refineries. The loss of Iranian oil is indegestion, not a heart attack.

A sanction is not the same as a sudden market jolt from an unknown strike. Sanctions were discussed, gave people time to consider and plan for them. A strike nobody sees coming is not the same thing.

And you avoid that you'd do what surrender and hope for the best? Far better to face it head on, in the manner and at the time of our choosing

No, do not ascribe opinions to me. You face it head on and you're gonna lose your eyebrows when it blows up in your face. Again, what are the prospects for your plan in the long term? What would happen?

care to list any?

Uh, 1979 Iran?

Yup because it works- if the US had done the work roght in 2003 and sent in enough troops to occupy back by enough dollars to employ the population 90% OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE DIED. In the case of Iran however you don't have two hostile religions living with one another.

Not sure what the shouting is supposed to do. But in any case, please stop.
Anyway, yes I know that. And great, they wouldn't fight each other. They'd just fight us. A much better proposition.

When has appeasement worked?

I'll let ya know when I start advocating that. Until then, stop ascribing positions to me.

The Arab's prefer us to them, in case you missed it the US is a distant overlord who keeps the historic regional hegemon at bay. Even inside Shia Iraq calling someone a Persian is an insult. There might be some demonstrations, but for the most part Arab's are Sunni and they hate the shia, and really HATE Iran.

If there is one thing the Arab regimes fear, its the US leaving the region and them to Iran's ambitions.

Yes, I know. But you can bet there would be a significant proportion that would object to the US invading another Muslim country. Shia v. Sunni disappears pretty quick when it becomes Muslim v. Kufr. they may hate them, but this is the same "we will be heralded as heroes" folly that got us snakebit in Iraq.

Arab regimes do not equal their people, if that wasn't already crushingly obvious.

They will, when it comes to protecting Jews from another Holocuast no-one and nothing is off limits to Israel. Israel will burn a billion lives to protect 6 million, and nobody better forget that.

Yes they will. And it's a terrifying thought.

People only rally until they get hungry, there is no such thing as a starving nationalist.

I guess that's why ol' Johnny Reb turned tail and surrendered when the going got tough.

I guess you don;t get just how effective force is. Raw naked force is the decider, it has settled more intra-group conflicts in human history than other method. Ask the native Americans, the Celts or the Germans how effective unrestricted force is at ending conflicts.

We're not the Mongol Horde, we can actually resolve our differences without having the streets run red with blood. I guess that's why we just should a nuked Cuba during the Crisis then, huh? After all, nothing like a few Minutemen making the skyline glow to really drive our point home.

EDIT- And you're referencing the Nazis and genocide to support your point. Not the example I want our Republic following.

[Zinja]

Yes, I agree. War is bad, but it is sometimes needed. I don't disagree with anything you really say here. I merely contend that a military strike against their nuke sites would be a wretched option for our long term (10+ years) security outlook.

I don't know what long term security you are talking about here. Afghan have no love for the Persians. The Afghan population is not keen on anybody except themselves, they certainly will not do the bidding for Iran. Heck they wouldn't rally behind their own clansman (Taliban).

And I wouldn't because you're not correctly presenting the question. You assume we can feasibly stop Iran dead in it's tracks with a strike.

Maybe here we genuinely see things differently. I say a concerted US strikes can stop them in their tracks, but obviously you think otherwise.

Also, do you believe that the US could invade and occupy Iran as our current financial and military posture goes?

No invasion and occupation required.

And to less indirectly answer your question: A nuclear Iran is a wretched outcome that should be avoided. But it is not the end of the world.

Actually it can mean the end of the world. Once nuclear exchange starts between between any two countries, there no way to tell where it would all end. You should read around how the Israel conflicts in the 70s and 80s almost dragged the superpowers right into the thick of it.

I think this regime has shown it's more than willing to shoulder that cost.

Not if people are queing day in day out for the slightest drop of petrol and diesel, the is no food in the shops, unemployment is in the 50-80%, inflation is going through the roof.

Secondly, the aftermath of such strikes will curtail the cash inflows tha Iran currently enjoys - learn from Iraq.

No, it does not automatically mean that Dinnerjacket can be ousted by the people. But it is worth a shot because, well, it has worked in the past.

Well, it hasn't worked in the past 8 years, if anything Iran has advanced closer to a bomb.

No, they can't close it for any real length of time. But if it's a warzone, companies can refuse to ship across until the violence subsides.

Not if they have military escort and the straight is tightly under US military control. Heck, there are pirates marauding in the Gulf of Aden and investors have lost millions but its still business as usual.

True, but it may be the only palatable option.

It doesn't have to be the only palatable option.

Well, Iran does carry very severe implications for international security both militarily and economically -- that's why it's such a big issue. Also, nukes are invoked so that ratchets up the stakes even more.

A DANGEROUS nuclear armed Iran carries sever implications, i say take out the 'dangerous nuclear' and you have a happier and safer world. Also don't over estimate Iran, it is not as as significant as you make it out to be in the grand scale of things.

[Zinja]

The same way we'd provide, enforce and pay for the occupation some here advocate.

i don't know anyone here who is advocating for occupation.

False comparison. The size, knowledge, material and will of Iran to continue such a path regardless of temporary setbacks.

Its a fair comparison. Osirak was for an equally determined regime that would gas its own people and invade its neighbours for its selfish end. But when their site was flattened and screws turned really tight on them, they broke. Everyone has an endurance limit.

[ASparr]

I don't know what long term security you are talking about here. Afghan have no love for the Persians. The Afghan population is not keen on anybody except themselves, they certainly will not do the bidding for Iran. Heck they wouldn't rally behind their own clansman (Taliban).

Afghanistan is not the only way in which our security prospects would be harmed.

Maybe here we genuinely see things differently. I say a concerted US strikes can stop them in their tracks, but obviously you think otherwise.

In the scope being talked about in the mainstream political theater, I do not believe it could. In theory, it could force the to restart but A) I don't believe it'd be worth it for us and B) They'd probably just restart the program.

But if we disagree, that's perfectly fine. I don't think your idea is "stupid" I just think it is folly and not in our best interests.

No invasion and occupation required.

Blech, I get your ideas and the ideas of others confused. Apologies for misrepresenting your position.

Actually it can mean the end of the world. Once nuclear exchange starts between between any two countries, there no way to tell where it would all end. You should read around how the Israel conflicts in the 70s and 80s almost dragged the superpowers right into the thick of it.

An exchange might be; but just because they have them, doesn't mean they'll use them. Is it a risk? Is it a huge risk? Yes, of course. But I don't see any alternative.

Not if people are queing day in day out for the slightest drop of petrol and diesel, the is no food in the shops, unemployment is in the 50-80%, inflation is going through the roof.

Secondly, the aftermath of such strikes will curtail the cash inflows tha Iran currently enjoys - learn from Iraq.

You suppose that a strike would do that? That sounds more like the result of sanctions to me.

Well, it hasn't worked in the past 8 years, if anything Iran has advanced closer to a bomb.

And the regime has gotten shakier and the people louder. When I say long game, I mean long game. Til 2020-2030.

Not if they have military escort and the straight is tightly under US military control. Heck, there are pirates marauding in the Gulf of Aden and investors have lost millions but its still business as usual.

Iran has much more capacity to raise hell. And if they send a few freighters to the bottom, I'd bet the companies would refuse to ship for at least a while until they could be sure of the safety of the area. But also, there would be nothing leaving the Iranian ports, in addition to the disruption they cause.

It doesn't have to be the only palatable option.

Having reviewed the others -- it is to me.

A DANGEROUS nuclear armed Iran carries sever implications, i say take out the 'dangerous nuclear' and you have a happier and safer world. Also don't over estimate Iran, it is not as as significant as you make it out to be in the grand scale of things.

Of course. Believe me, I'd love it if Iran would peaceably give up the nuclear program tomorrow. Huge load off my chest. But I don't see that happening. And no, Iran is not the Soviet Union and does not carry the same long term dangers. But it still is a substantial issue for our regional security in a very fragile time.

EDIT --

Its a fair comparison. Osirak was for an equally determined regime that would gas its own people and invade its neighbours for its selfish end. But when their site was flattened and screws turned really tight on them, they broke. Everyone has an endurance limit.

Osirak is one reactor we knew the location of, built by the French. Iran has many facilities across the country built locally with the local know how. Much easier for them to recover. And it never really became the same headline grabbing story for Iraq as it did Iran.

[Zinja]

JAD did, I believe.

Quote him

And there is the ever present possibility that that failure means a nuclear exchange.

A possibility which some of us are not willing to even contemplate hence action needs to be taken.

But I am willing to accept these risks

Not if you are the one to be directly on the receiving end of these risks - Israel.

because of the highy unpalateble nature of the alternatives and the benefits of success.

What could be more unpalateble than being nuked?

Of course he says that, it's his job. What are the chances? Good enough, but to draw a comparison between hateful rhetoric and the use of a nuclear weapon is highly suspect.

You can trust A'jacket if you want, but im sorry i don't, certainly not a holocaust denier who believes in a mahdi who will can be brought forth by amagedon, thinks 9/11 was the US idea of fun and thinks other nations have no right to exist - sorry, not me.

[Zinja]

Again, a false comparison. There is no guarantee that such a strike would halt their program.

It will halt the program. If gloves come off and the US is determined to eliminate the program, it can. Every military installation, every senior figure, every nuclear installation becomes fair play.

[ASparr]

Quote him

It wasn't JAD, sorry.

Force a breakdown society and revision to tribal/community government. Tribes don't build a-bombs. Then once the regime is toppled, move in with massive aid. People with full bellies and steady employment don't hold grudges.

Top of page 4.

A possibility which some of us are not willing to even contemplate hence action needs to be taken.

Would you have invaded Cuba?

Not if you are the one to be directly on the receiving end of these risks - Israel.

Since when does Israel get to decide American policy?

What could be more unpalateble than being nuked?

not much, but that's not what I'm saying.

You can trust A'jacket if you want, but im sorry i don't, certainly not a holocaust denier who believes in a mahdi who will can be brought forth by amagedon, thinks 9/11 was the US idea of fun and thinks other nations have no right to exist - sorry, not me.

I don't. But I do trust I can reasonably predict him to act in a fairly rational way. I, for one, am not going to let my emotions cloud my judgment over security policy.

[ASparr]

It will halt the program. If gloves come off and the US is determined to eliminate the program, it can. Every military installation, every senior figure, every nuclear installation becomes fair play.

And then?

[Zinja]

They are wary about such sanctions doing the same thing -- reducing the available supply of Iranian oil.

Iran is not the available SOLE supplier of oil, and the Chinese know that. China's position has little to do with oil supply than it is about business oppotunities it has with Iran.