How Likely Do You Rate the Chances of a US military Confrontation with Iran?

Go complain to a mod, then, because if you're not willing to admit even the possibility that Iran sees nuclear deterrence as an issue, you're contributing less than nothing here.

 

That's the problem. There's no way for the South to prevent massive casualties on its side in the first week of battle. A surprise attack by the DPRK would level Seoul before anyone had a chance to evacuate the city. It's an ugly situation. The best we can hope for is for Dear Leader to fall off Mt.Paetku while frolicking and waiting for a rainbow to come out, and for whomever his replacement is to be a reasonable person who will make steps towards unification. And that's about as likely as W. giving a joint interview with David Gregory and Helen Thomas to list all the mistakes he's made.


Dave-My wisdom is only surpassed by my ignorance. Who would be the grasshopper?

 

I'm reluctant to throw this thread completely off course, but just because Israel hasn't reacted, doesn't mean it can't or won't. Israel would pay a heavy diplomatic and possibly military price for attacking Iran. It makes sense to wait until it's absolutely necessary. In the meantime, Mossad is active in Iran.

 

Really? "Nuclear deterrence?

You know, if they want to deter us, all they have to do is institute democratic reforms and stop funding terrorist organizations.

But again, that's a lot harder than implying, or even explicitly making, excuses for them, an enterrpise that some around here seem to merrily engage in.

You think the ability to talk yourself into a course of action based on faulty premises is limited to the United States? Of course, because after all, we're the bad boy in all this.

Meanwhile, just think Dr. Strangelove (gee, did that ever ACTUALLY happen in the USA?) with the characters speaking Farsi and dressed in Mullah robes.

 

here we go - welcome to superdave's world of democratic nuclear weapons.

 

okay - I will tell you what .....

there is about a zero chance this will happen for purely military reasons - it is too friggin hard to invade Iran and we are not going to conduct pinprick military missile attacks - so it just will not happen.

It has about as much chance of happening as Muslim immigrants overpopulating European nations does.

 

Wonder how many poor Iranians could be fed if the hardliners shut down the nuclear facilities and concentrated on taking care of the indigent? Look at the satellite nighttime imagery of North Korea and ask yourself about the pitiful state of that country and its focus on weaponry.

Give me a friggin break.

 

never happen - China does not want mega death in their region - not in their interests and it simply will not happen.

 

I don't think Global Security is advocating an attack. I think they are just laying out options.

My understanding is that the Pentagon has already war-gamed a number of scenarios where we, or the Iraelis, or the two of together take out key facilities. The consequences these wargames lead to are supposedly very very ugly.

Meanwhile, an agreement has been reached -- if you could really call it an agreement -- for Iran to suspend all of its uranium enrichment activities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/29/international/middleeast/29cnd-iran.html

where it's "agreement" is a "a voluntary, non-legally-binding confidence-building measure."

Uh, ok.

And then this.

The United States, which allowed the resolution to be passed, made no effort to hide its disappointment and anger. In a nine-page statement read after the resolution passed, Jackie Wolcott Sanders, the head of the American delegation, accused Iran of deceit and the agency board of irresponsibility...

Britain, France and Germany were eager to salvage a hard-fought agreement with Iran earlier this month that requires Tehran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities in exchange for possible rewards.

The European trio negotiated hard with the Iranians over the past week and finally persuaded them on Sunday evening to back off a demand to operate 20 sophisticated centrifuge machines for research purposes.

In exchange, the Europeans, who led the negotiations on the resolution, succumbed to Iranian demands that it be substantially watered down to reflect Iran's insistence that it was freezing its programs as a voluntary, confidence-building measure and not because of outside pressure or coercion.

The face-saving solution for both sides was celebrated with Champagne Sunday night at the residence of French ambassador to the agency, one participant said. The Iranians drank water.

Bottoms up everybody!!!

 

Karl - the problem is that a significant number of the posters refuse to see the reality of the situation and would prefer to bury their heads in the sand and prefer to explain it all away as somebody else's fault. As things stand presently - hard line Islam sees the destruction of Israel as the ONLY solution. And we stand four square in their corner.

Situation is that we are not going to invade Iran and any confrontation will not be pinprick aerial assaults. For the foreseeable future we are going to work with the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan as it stands and approach Iran just like the Soviets in the Cold War - containment - and let it rot from the inside out - there is no other reasonable current approach. And we will rely on China to control North Korea.

 

Whether you or I think we're the bad guys is not the point. The point is getting Iran to believe your second paragraph. I'm willing to grant the Dr. Strangelove-in-Farsi premise - all the more reason it will be difficult for them to take our word for it, however you feel about our actions next door.

In fact, our actions next door probably have delighted Ayatollah Turgidson more than anyone on the planet. I also doubt anyone in Tehran is under the impression that the US is capable of invading Iran at this point - is there a government on earth, including Washington and Allawi's Baghdad, that knows better how the war in Iraq is actually going?

 

This seems accurate, but why those scenarios are good for the United States is baffling to me.

What I would do - and no one in the world is asking me, I realize that - is try to do a Nixon-in-China deal with Iran, and welcome them back into the world of nations. Offer a lift of sanctions. In other words, cave like Carlsbad. If Libya can be rehabilitated, so can Iran. If we're going to be optimistic about a democratizing Iran, let's get in on the ground floor. And I'd honestly rather have Iran have a bigger voice in the region than the House of Saud - Iran isn't totally co-opted by AQ, and Iran doesn't have the historical hatred of Israel that every other country in the region does. It probably won't hurt to try, because malignant neglect will see them become a regional nuclear power in any case.

North Korea to me seems more likely to rot from within, and we can hope for the happy ending we got in East Germany. I'd much, much, much, much rather have a united nuclear Korea than giving China any ideas about a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

 

Iranian Monitor, even though I have my theories about Bushcorp's true nature, I'd like to know if you think the classic struggle between Arabian and Iranian Islam is fueling Bush's rhetoric given his ties to the House of Saud?

 

monkey gong

 

The irony is, this is pretty much the same demands that AQ makes on us.

But we're sticking with shock'n'awe.

 

The ant is in awe of even the anteater's intellect.

 

Exactly.

The success of this containment is predicated on a positive outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan - ie. the emergence of stable, democratic governments.

Should a religious theocracy with close ties to Iran become the ruling junta in Iraq, than our options really become limited - large scale regional war or total capitulation with the possibility of nuclear blackmail by the mullahs.

 

Well, they'd have to do it on their own if they did. There is absolutely no way that Blair would go along with this one and there's nobody else likely to help. In the case of Iraq many on the British left felt it something worth doing to help the Iraqi people in the long run. There is absolutely no way that claim can be made about Iran.

My guess? Ain't gonna happen.

 

First Dave - I don't believe any of this scenario is "good" for the US - it is just reality. We have to deal with Iran as it is - and North Korea also (as we have for some time). National security is always about the best available option.

In terms of Carlsbadding Iran - I would never do that - the Soviets caved not because we did but because their system rotted from the inside out - and no capitulation by the US changed that. I might also argue that Libya did not change because the US came with our hand of friendship outstretched offering them tea and honey. No I think old Mohammar wants to hand down something of value when he croaks and realizes his failures to date.

I do however agree with you about Iran's importance in the region - the fundamentalists certainly know that if Iran and Iraq ever become democratic and heaven forbid slightly secular - they are screwed. Don't think they will let that happen without a major fight - as Iraq should show all of us.

Yep - Iran is all about containment and diplomatic dancing and economic pressures.