SmokingTarpan

While I'm sure that Iran has a hand in things, Iraq is really only a few steps away from civil war, in my opinion. Attacking Iran isn't going to help that.

I disagree that dealing with Iran would be a mostly or all air operation, that's just not how this administration works lately. Sure, take away the research facilities and their nuclear hopes get delayed. You still have a madman in power, though, and I'm sure he'll find another way to cause problems. If there's any action in Iran, I'm sure it will involve "liberating" the nation from its leader. This brings of the question of how far we can stretch our military and our budget. Honestly, we have our hands full with Iraq right now, and I don't believe that we could sustain simultaneous action both there and in Iran for long. Fighting two battles at once is never wise. I also find it very funny that we raised a big stink about N. Korea acquiring nukes and did nothing, but the administration seems really ramped up about hitting Iran.

Concerning the nuke situation. Personally, I think anyone that would actually use a nuclear weapon after fully understanding the effects is not right in the head- our leaders and citizens included. With nukes, it's not simply A vs B, but rather A vs B and lots of innocent C-Z's.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

AMosely

Old - but an even better study on the Iran nuclear threat - including a wargame - was published in the Atlantic Monthly in December 2004.

I don't think the U.S. can or will attack Iran - at least not under the Bush administration. Congress would not support it, and the public won't support it. I actually believe much of the recent media hype is designed by the Pentagon and intelligence community start the public engines on the issue, and so far it seems to be working.

Read these articles - the military Pentagon does not support this, and I doubt the public will either.

leejo

I think the recent media hype is the result of Iran enriching uranium. You make what is simple complicated. The pentagon, I'd wager, isn't not excited about having to deal with Iran.

leejo

All of your points are valid. Nonetheless, we cannot have Iran armed with nukes and must stop it. It's not like we're choosing between a week's vacation at club med and Iran sending bombers over to Baghdad. And, whether or not the pentagon or the public likes it, I feel confident that this President is not going to tolerate a nuclear Iran. I will lose all respect for him if he does.

CingularDuality

Well, North Korea has China to babysit it...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

xTYBALTx

It's likely that American air attacks against Iran will hasten their acquisition of nuclear weapons. It will also all but guarantee increased Iranian involvement in Iraq.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Switchcraft

I don't think it's going to come to that. I think in the next 10 days or so, Iran will suddenly announce that its going to comply with IAEA inspections, etc. The IAEA will be all smiles about Iran's "positive gestures" and the Security Council will take no action.

Iran's president knows he is much better off waiting for Bush to get out of office before making nukes, because another US president is more likely to do nothing about it.

xTYBALTx

Why would Iran be afraid of the same government that allowed North Korea to go nuclear?

Iran probably knows that the only way the USA can meaningfully affect them is with strategic nukes or a large scale invasion, and I doubt Iran finds either event likely.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

AMosely

I sure as hell hope that if the vast majority of the public, congress and military leadership is against attacking any foreign country, the President would not go ahead with it.

I also think you should prepare to lose some respect for him (you and the other ~36% of current Bush supporters), because this war with Iran isn't going to happen on his watch. He's fresh out of "political capital."

leejo

Well I sure as hell hope that an elected president will do his job and not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. You seem more happy that the President is unpopular than worried that Iran could zap us, Israel, London, or anyone else who displeases the mullahs.

With regard to the polls, an old hippy once said "any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."

Steeler

That ain't his job. And unless he believes that the standing 9/11 military authorization allows him to deploy against Iran (a distinct possibility), then he is going to have to make the case before Congress that hitting Iran is the right thing to do. If he cannot, then we will not.

As has been said previously, there is no military solution in Iran. Diplomacy MUST work. As the President is so fond of saying, failure is not an option.

__________________

leejo

That's your opinion. Just because "it's been said before" doesn't make it so.

And the President doesn't need congress's permission to conduct military operations. He risks funding problems if he attempts sustained military operations without checking with Congress first, though.

The President is the Commander In Chief, not Congress's step and fetch boy responsible for taking all blame for military problems.

xTYBALTx

leejo, do you think that the USA has a reasonable chance to significantly hinder Iranian nuclear weapons development without a large conventional invasion and/or strategic nuclear strike?

If so, please elaborate.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

leejo

I don't know. Probably: we'd need to destroy some of their key facilities, not take control of Tehran. I can't imagine a scenario that would require a nuclear weapon over Tehran or anything like that, but possibly a small tactical nukes would be required to destroy some hardened underground facilities.

I think more likely than the nuclear option, because of that option's enormous domestic and international political consequences, is an airborne operation launched from Iraq or Afghanistan, heavily supported by air power, in which 10-20k troops take over some of those facilities and destroy them methodically, then exfil. But I haven't seen the satellite photos and I don't know where the facilities are so of course I'm yanking this out of mostly thin air.

So probably a lot of damage could be done from the air, and some facilities would need more time and precision to destroy, requiring boots on the ground.

I do believe that the attitude in this thread that there's nothing to be done seems more about gloating over GWBs political body than actively dealing with the threat Iran poses. Whatever it takes, and even if we have only bad options to choose from, we cannot allow Iran to acquire nukes. That's my belief.

I absolutely believe that if the USA decides that it is a high priority to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, then we can ensure that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. Of course we could invade Iran and overthrow that government if we decided it was important enough. We have been fighting without rations or a draft and with a thriving economy. There's a ton more military and economic might that we have to spare.

xTYBALTx

I think you describe a plausible operation with a reasonable expectation of tactical success, but what would happen once the operation is over?

Well, if you were them, wouldn't you rebuild new facilities in areas where we either can't (hidden in the mountains a-la North Korea) or won't (hidden under their population) strike? Or both? And wouldn't you expect them to dedicate far more resources to the project? Is it unreasonable to believe that Iran's "allies" and covert contacts would redouble their efforts as well? It presents them with a fantastic oppurtunity to slap the USA right in the face.

This is why I believe that even if we were to conduct a very succesful tactical strike, that Iran would actually develop nuclear weapons sooner than if we were to take no action at all.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek