Is the framework for a Major war in the ME being put in place?

I think if Iran gets a nuke Bush should be impeached. Allowing the Mullahs, who think killing is a normal part of the negotiating process, would be terribly dangerous. Much worse than having Saddam in power.

 

We both agree that it would be extremely dangerous for the Islamic Republic to possess nuclear weapons, worse than Saddam ruling Iraq. However, I'm concerned that the current path we're on will only make matters worse. We're almost certainly not going to bomb Iran, so why make threats? And if we do, what makes you think it will stop them from developing nuclear weapons at this very late date? I frankly must admit that I haven't a clue how to resolve this problem.

 

I disagree. I think we could set back their nuke programs years. In a few days we could have there anti aircraft systems down. After that, it’s only a matter of time for B52’s to reduce their program to rubble. Maybe a week, maybe a month, whatever and we could go back any time based upon new intelligence.

Threats in public don’t help. Threats communicated to our European allies might help. Our allies should get behind some sanctions that, if Iran is as democratic as some posters claim, might actually work. Our only hope to avoid a tragedy is the Iranian people decided it’s better to cooperate than confront.

Obviously I’m not privy to top secret intelligence but I doubt that the destruction of many elements of their nuclear program would fail to halt it. There are always several choke points in a manufacturing process. To me, it seems simply a matter of having the will to do it.

I wonder why you think it would be imposible to knock back their programs.

 

Leaving the myriad of other issues that are implicated, including the costs of such operations to US interests and Iran's likely reaction and retaliation and the cycle that would be unleashed, and focusing merely on the effect of air strikes on Iran's nuclear installations, let me say the following.


Air strikes can not prevent Iran from building a few nukes if it chose to do so, and indeed they would merely hasten (not the reverse) the actual timeframe when Iran would be able to publicly acknowledge having nuclear weapons. The critical components necessary for building a few nuclear bombs can be hidden, and might already be hidden, in a mobile complex no bigger than an average living room. Good luck finding them.

On the other hand, air strikes might (nor might not) succeed in sufficiently damaging Iran's infrastracture to have an independent nuclear fuel cycle, thereby delaying the time when Iran would be able to produce a lot enriched uranium to operate nuclear reactors or to build dozens of bombs. In other words, the US might be able to kill enough of Iran's key experts and scientists, destroy enough choke points in the installations where uranium is mined, processed into yellow cake and then into UF-6 gas at the UCF plant in Isfahan, and might (unlikely) be able to do some damage to the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. If the US succeeded in all that, it will have delayed (not permanently denied) the time frame for Iran to have a full scale nuclear operations capable at some point in the future of producing enough enriched uranium to operate nuclear reactors or to produce dozens of nuclear bombs each year.

But as I stated already, there is nothing the US could do to prevent Iran from having a few nuclear bombs, assuming Iran doesn't have them already.

 

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8509270426

On other issue. Regarding Iraq:

In terms of the effects of a UN resolution against Iran:

About US 'conditions' for talking to Iran

And about the elections:

 

The standard for starting a gigantic war isn't "is it possible to win?" Iran has had years to plan for an attack so I assume that by now there is a good chance they will be able to succeed. I have no confidence that we have the "top secret intelligence" that you assume. I also reject your and Laith's contention that Iran would be powerless to retaliate.

I simply do not know how to proceed except that we need to be very cautious.

 

This is a refreshing perspective, one which I share. I think too many people feel compelled to be certain - and Iran, to me, is one of the more complex issues in the world today.

 

I don't know why you're taking such a derisive tone. You know how the story of Iran having a nuke would end. Trying to prevent their annihalation is better than not trying.

My point about secret intelligence is that perhaps it indicates that the Iranian nuke program can't be significantly slowed. Neither you nor I know. If it can't be stopped then we role the dice and hope for a surprise plot twist that keeps millions of people alive.

 

I think at some point will have our own 21st century Gulf of Tonkin incident. I can't see us backing down. I can't see Iran backing down. More so if Iran has nukes.

 

My tone isn't "derisive." It's more worried and uncertain. I share all of your concerns and then some about the Iranian nuclear threat.

 

One reason that USAF is earger for a war, they always can drop some bombs, then go home.

But Army and Marine will be asked to clean the mess if Air Force CANNOT archive what they CLAIM they can. If the object of the attack is to destroy or delay Iran's nuclear program, but Air Force fails to finish it, guess what? Special Force units, Marines, eventually Army wil be asked to do it.

Look on Lebanon War, you get the idea.

 

Interesting comments from Tony Blair:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061220/wl_nm/britain_blair_dc_2

 

James Smith reports on Friday prayers in Tehran, presided over by Ahmad Khatami, not to be confused with former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. The two are not related.

The speech responded to Cheney's visit, aimed at creating a rift between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Blair's speech, which is also part of that larger game, where the objective is to rally the Arab sunnis against shia Iran. Basically, back to the future ala in the 1980s ...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/blog/2006/12/praying_and_vot.html
...

 

It is somewhat ironic that one of Iran's major foes, the USA, has been instrumental in removing two of Iran's greatest enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. By doing so Iranian power and influence in the region has increased whilst that of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia has been reduced.

It seems ever more likely that a sectarian war will break out in Iraq when the US leaves. Death squads are operating constantly and killing people with the wrong name. If the country has a civil war then Iraq will be split up after a bloody conflict like Yugoslavia.

It is also possible that a Shia theocracy will then arise in what is now southern Iraq. Political union with Iran will also become an option. Iran will certainly wield political influence amongst the Shia rulers in southern Iraq.

This would not be a good situation for Saudi Arabia. They will take steps to prevent the above situation from occurring if possible.

Israel will only become involved if Iran goes Nuclear and poses an actual threat to them. It also looks like a civil war is brewing in Palestine between Fatah and Hamas. Lebanon is also showing signs of conflict between Hezbollah and anti-Syrian factions.

All in all - it's a big mess. I expect oil supplies from the region to be interrupted as people realise oil helps fund their enemies.

 

The US is reportedly sending another air craft carrier to the Persian Gulf. I don't want to repeat Bush's infamous line: "Bring it on". But I do believe it is worth considering what kind of responses the Iranian navy can mount in case those added warships are going to Iran for more than a show?

On the latter issue, this article from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is informative and intelligent.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2548

What are those tactics?

And how would such tactics be employed in a war against the US?

And how would this all work out?

 

If the US does strike preemptively what do you think will be the first strike? Tehran? Nuclear facilities?

Also, do you think the US will attempt a Tonkin type incident?

 

First target, of course, is the air defense system.

Then probably all Nuclear facilities and command and communication structures, and strategic missile systems.

 

First, I highly doubt the US will want to start a war with Iran. Not unless the US gets to first have Iran's hands fully tied up. The US is far from having tied up Iran's hands. As such, I don't see the US being the side looking to create a Gulf of Tonkin type incident.

As for the kind of targets the US would wish to see destroyed, they include the following:

First, the US would wish to pave the way for its aircraft operating against Iran. Hence, Iranian air defenses will certainly be among the first targets.

Second, the US would prefer to disrupt Iranian command and control, since it certainly does not have the power to destroy (or even significantly diminish) Iran's retaliatory strike options directly. Hence, there will be an emphasis on going after such command and control targets, although in Iran's case, its military structure is one that vests a lot of discretion to local commanders in case of a war. In other words, unlike some other military organizations such as Iraq, you cannot disrupt Iran's responses by merely taking out (or driving underground, or bribing) the top commanders and leaders.

These initial considerations aside, the US would probably try to hit a few of the more significant nuclear facilities in Iran, and certainly any of Iran's major missile batteries, but otherwise direct most of its capabilities against those targets that help maintain political control of the country. The list of such targets would probably include law enforcement, media, economic and infrastructure as well as political leadership and related assets.