Time's up on Iran

[Silent Hunter]

Israel has to act, the only question is how harsh the west will be toward them when they do.

The better questions are:
1. Will the Israelis get all the reactor facilities?
2. Will this strengthen the Iranian regime?
3. Will this result in a wider Middle East war?

[Swift Sword]

Well, too bad. It was absolutely clear from jump street that there was simply nothing we could offer the Iranians that was as good (from their point-of-view) as being nuclear. And it was equally plain that this mania and fetishization of a diplomatic solution made it inevitable that there wasn't going to BE a diplomatic solution.

Perhaps you would care to illuminate us as to the winning numbers in tomorrows lottery.

See, the thing that you and the Swift Swords and the Obamas of this world do not get is that if you're able to convince the Other Guy that you're ready to drop the hammer on 'em with any provocation, IF that's credible tyo them, and IF they buy into the proposition that you will eff them up SO BAD that whatever they're doing to piss you off is going to be a Bad Deal, even IF they get to achieve it...then you're likely to get THEM following YOU around the world, begging for a chance to talk it out. But instead, we had Obama supplicating to a wild-eyed nutter for the chance to talk to them. And we got played, just as I've been saying for the past three years.

What did Ronald Reagan do to stop this nonsense?

Oh, and I got told, well, we could just bomb 'em later. WHEN? After the S-300 battalions are deployed?

Tell me great hero and please make it brief: do the Iranians manufacture the S-300 system? If you can answer this question than you already know the answer.

This is where this Chamberlain-esque kiss-up act that puts primacy on diplomacy that's backed by no credible threat of using muscle gets you, and yeah, I called it a LONG time ago.

Of what kind of muscle do you speak? Nixon muscle? Ford muscle? Carter muscle? Reagan muscle? Bush muscle? Clinton muscle? More Bush muscle?...

You worked for a few of these gents so you tell me.

No, actually, we can see RIGHT NOW. We missed the chance; the window has closed, and Iranian nukes are a fait accompli.

Pro-American Iranians committed their country to a nuclear program and fission weapons. When the U.S. lost control of that tyranny, successive Democratic and Republican Presidents including Mr. Reagan did not put too much of a crimp in Iranian ambitions.

Your "window" as you choose to call it was closed before the "Summer of Love".

UNLESS somebody else has the sack to do what the West simply could not bring itself to do, when it had the chance and the means. It had no WILL, and that's what's counted in the end. The Iranians DID have the will.

We failed to learn the lessons of history, and Santayana will instruct us AGAIN.

A contemporary of Mr. Santayana opined that if "you look backwards long enough you will think backwards".

Regards my Friend,

William

[Silent Hunter]

Guys, can I suggest we drop the personal invective? It really isn't helping.

[Parihaka]

1. Will the Israelis get all the reactor facilities?
The rest of the world has left them no choice but to try, so the question is irrelevant.

2. Will this strengthen the Iranian regime?
It has every possibility of escalating to third world war status. The Iranians will be lucky to survive as a people let alone as a regime.

3. Will this result in a wider Middle East war?
Between Israel and the Persians, yes. The Arabs will happily sit this one out. Of course the oil routes will be attacked so the US will have no choice but to get involved. The key is what will Russia and China do?

[Silent Hunter]

1. Will the Israelis get all the reactor facilities?
The rest of the world has left them no choice but to try, so the question is irrelevant.

2. Will this strengthen the Iranian regime?
It has every possibility of escalating to third world war status. The Iranians will be lucky to survive as a people let alone as a regime.

3. Will this result in a wider Middle East war?
Between Israel and the Persians, yes. The Arabs will happily sit this one out. Of course the oil routes will be attacked so the US will have no choice but to get involved. The key is what will Russia and China do?

2 and 3 are reasons to wait until we have to- namely Iran in possession or near-possession of a nuclear device. Which is still at least a year away and probably closer to four.

[Parihaka]

Perhaps you would care to illuminate us as to the winning numbers in tomorrows lottery.



What did Ronald Reagan do to stop this nonsense?



Tell me great hero and please make it brief: do the Iranians manufacture the S-300 system? If you can answer this question than you already know the answer.



Of what kind of muscle do you speak? Nixon muscle? Ford muscle? Carter muscle? Reagan muscle? Bush muscle? Clinton muscle? More Bush muscle?...

You worked for a few of these gents so you tell me.



Pro-American Iranians committed their country to a nuclear program and fission weapons. When the U.S. lost control of that tyranny, successive Democratic and Republican Presidents including Mr. Reagan did not put too much of a crimp in Iranian ambitions.

Your "window" as you choose to call it was closed before the "Summer of Love".



x dWhat a bunch of blind, timid little men have led us to this. What a massive cost will eventually be paid for it.



A contemporary of Mr. Santayana opined that if "you look backwards long enough you will think backwards".

Regards my Friend,

William

William, fully half this post is nothing but personal attack. Bluesman is making great effort to not personally insult, I strongly suggest you do likewise.

[Parihaka]

2 and 3 are reasons to wait until we have to- namely Iran in possession or near-possession of a nuclear device. Which is still at least a year away and probably closer to four.

So when they can actually deploy a nuclear weapon is your time of choice? Why? Do you want to guarantee armageddon?

As regards the timeline you lay out, how would you know?

[Swift Sword]

William, fully half this post is nothing but personal attack. Bluesman is making great effort to not personally insult, I strongly suggest you do likewise.

Parihaka,

Fair enough.

But he did mention me by name so I figured I ought to puff a bit. If it is beyond the scope of civility and ROE than all who read this please accept my apology.

Willliam

[Silent Hunter]

So when they can actually deploy a nuclear weapon is your time of choice? Why? Do you want to guarantee armageddon?

As regards the timeline you lay out, how would you know?

I didn't say that- I said about to reach nuclear status. Nearing completion of a nuclear device. I'd know by intelligence sources and if I got something like it, err on the side of caution- i.e. go in if we weren't sure.

[Parihaka]

Parihaka,

Fair enough.

But he did mention me by name so I figured I ought to puff a bit.

Like a moth to the flame;) We're enforcing an indecent amount of decency at the moment, what can I say

[Parihaka]

I didn't say that- I said about to reach nuclear status. Nearing completion of a nuclear device. I'd know by intelligence sources and if I got something like it, err on the side of caution- i.e. go in if we weren't sure.

Given very little is actually known about how far they are to weaponisation, and given that we do know they have the capability to have produced material for at least one weapon already, that definition is loose enough that it could be used to justify action now.

[Swift Sword]

[QUOTE=Silent Hunter;676409]The better questions are:

1. Will the Israelis get all the reactor facilities?

Frankly, this would not displease me but I am not sure of their ability to get all of the targets and that will exacerbate the general problem.

2. Will this strengthen the Iranian regime?

I figure it will give them a reason to clamp down. However, there are more than a few disgruntled Iranians and anything that makes these folks agitate is not a bad thing.

3. Will this result in a wider Middle East war?

The issue looks like this from where I am standing: Israel does not have a proven capability for military WMD preemption in general and the Iranians have a proven capability to asymetrically offset certain strategies. Does that make for a wider war? I dunno. But it does leave open the possibility for more shooting.

William

[Bluesman]

We don't have a credible means of removing the Iranian regime and the Iranians know that.

Oh, yes, we DID. And Obama gave the ayatollahs a pass, and in the most craven and revolting display of sheer cowardice combined with cluelessness, we let an absolutely priceless opportunity pass us by to shatter this regime from within, and no US troops would have been needed or even desired.

It will never be thus again.

Tragic.

A full-scale war with Iran has been a non-starter for years. The sheer amount of casualties that would result on both sides in a conventional war, not to mention the economic impact, mean we have to try and remove the threat without resorting to that. This is not Afghanistan- or Iraq for that matter.

Nobody here has ever advocated that; it simply is not necessary. But what WILL be necessary, now that we so foolishly let the opportunity pass to make a decisive move, is that it will have to go to military action on a limited scale. And that means, time, treasure, uncertain outcomes and allowing the enemy to react and possibly frustrate us from achieving the objective. In other words, it's now harder than it was three, two, or even a year ago.

The situation has deteriorated, not improved. And it was foreseen.

At some point we may well have to go in and take out their reactor sites, which could be done with B-2s and TLAMs.

I think it should be pointed out that the B-2 program was VERY unpopular with Democrats. And it wouldn't be available if the decision had been left to them. Just sayin'.

Also, it's now harder to do that: hardened and redundant facilities, possibly even defended by the most modern of weapons, complicate the attempt, and make the results uncertain.

Let's try everything else before getting there first though.

Already did; it was a failure, as it was pre-ordained, just by simple logic.

If the Iranians look like they've got a nuclear weapon ready, time will have run out. As yet, they haven't.

As far as YOU know. That's the thing about predicting the future: if a thing is concealed from view, you have to GUESS at it. If you try to finely calibrate the exact moment to act, you leave VERY little margin for error and chance, and you cede to the enemy the element of surprise. Not a grand way to achieve military objectives.

I would prefer not to unleash the genies of the airstrike lamp until we have to.

And the Iranians know that, and have capitalized on that reluctance for the past five years. Time's up: we HAVE to, and not too far into the future, because some of it we can see clearly (if we look, I mean), and some that we cannot.

[Bluesman]

Meanwhile we should all twiddle our thumbs until October 1 when yet another talk-fest will effectively conceal Irans development, just as the previous ones have.
Israel has to act, the only question is how harsh the west will be toward them when they do.

And what a shame: they're going to save the rest of the freakin' ignorant world from itself AGAIN, and get the hide ripped off 'em for their trouble.

I read some of that dumbass Bigfella's posts that got quoted, and he's just the sort to lay into Israel. He really is a total flake if he believes what he wrote.

[Bluesman]

The better questions are:
1. Will the Israelis get all the reactor facilities?

Probably not. It may only delay the program, meanwhile igniting a powder keg against themselves. And i bet the rest of the world utterly ignores what it cost them to do the rest of the ingrateful clods such a service. (Oh, it'll be in their interests, no doubt. But the Bigfellas simply won't acknowledge that they just took one for the team, as well.

2. Will this strengthen the Iranian regime?

At this point, it's irrelevant. We could've had that as a consideration some years ago ('How to do what must be done without the regime getting a benefit, too?'), but not now. The only consideration left is, how to get this weapon out of their hands with certainty that it cannot be used?

3. Will this result in a wider Middle East war?

Again, rendered moot. There WILL BE a wider ME war the moment Iranian adventurism is not deterrable. That is the exact day that a nuclear Iran stands up and goes online with a deliverable and unstoppable nuclear weapon. (Sure makes a lot of sense the kill off missile defense NOW, doesn't it?)