xTYBALTx

Dude, Steeler.

Surrender? Liberation? What?

The purpose of bombing Iran would be to disable nuclear facilities, and that's it. Yeah, Iran can still react in hostile and damaging ways. But you're talking about stuff which simply doesn't apply. The questions we should really be asking are:

"Will Iran try to shut down the strait of Hormuz? Can it?"
"Will Iran try to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf? Can it?"
"Will Iran step up aggression in Iraq? To what extent? With what consequences?"
"Would Iran actually invade Iraq, or even Afghanistan, in response?"
"What other consequences might there be?"

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

Steeler

My "suggestions" of consequences were intentionally absurd, Tybalt. Your questions are more applicable to the real world, but I'd like to add two critical ones:

"Does the mere existence of Iran's nuclear program present a credible threat to the US or its interests?"
"Are the consequences of a bombing campaign a greater or a lesser threat than not starting a bombing campaign?"

__________________

xTYBALTx

Excellent questions. It's definitely a difficult subject, and between both of your questions you've pretty much got it covered.

I think that a nuclear Iran could pose a threat to everyone's interests, for two main reasons. One, it's run by a bunch of freaking mullahs. Two, if Iran goes nuclear, so the popular reasoning goes, you'd expect Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and maybe one day Iraq to try to go nuclear as well. Just doesn't sounds like a great state of affairs. Mexican stand off in the Middle East.

As to your second question, no, I don't think that Iran has much it can really do. A conventional invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would result in a blanket worldwide embargo, most likely, and would probably not be very successful anyways. I don't know about Iran's ability to shut down Hormuz, but the US has quite a bit of naval power in the area right now, so I really doubt that Iran could pull off much there either.

As for a more low key but intensified Iranian influence in Iraq, well, whatever. Iraq already sucks anyways.

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

AMosely

This is a pretty lowball comment coming from someone who supported (and still supports?) the U.S. invasion (and complete destabilization) of Iraq.

xTYBALTx

I did and do?

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

Morganan

1) possibly, without a high level source it would be impossible to predict this for certain, and to be honest, I doubt the Iranian leadership could answer this question honestly. As for "can they" well, a small fishing boat filled with explosives can cripple a ship, but would that close the straight?
2) See the answer to question #1, as I firmly believe the answer is the same.
3) Almost certainly, the leader of the shi'iat is the leader of Iran and they certainly have some long-standing business to clear up with Iraq and if that makes our military's life more difficult, all the better from their point of view.
4) Again, I am not positive the leader's in Iran would be able to honestly answer this question at the moment. Currently though seeing our armies perceived weaknesses would quite possibly encourage them to do this. The impact any offensive Iran would undergo and our ability to deal with it is more of a political question then a military one. How would the American people react to Iranian offensive op's is probably a better question.
5) Oil prices would go up yet again, chances would increase for a major regional conflict in an area where roughly 35% of the worlds known (at this time) oil reserves are located. That's enough to perk up any countries interest my friend, and it is almost impossible to predict each countries reactions and on which side of the conflict they would line up on.


6) This one should really be seperated into 2 questions, as it wouldn't pose a "credible threat" to the US per se unless they had outside engineering assistance or went with the "nuke in a backpack" approach,(which I am not certain they have the engineering prowess to pull off) but certainly to our interests in that area. Especially if you start to consider what we might do short of war to counter-act their nuclear threat. Would we arm another Arab country say Kuwait or Saudi Arabia with nukes to counter Iran's arsenal? How would that sit with Israel or with the world for that matter?

7) Best question of the bunch here, would bombing the religious leader's of the majority of people in Iraq have negative connotations for us there? Would it possibly turn what has been decades of poor relations between those 2 countries around and make them more friendly? That would certainly scare the hell out of the Arab world and also Isreal since most of the population in that region is centered in those 2 countries. *note, Iran is not an Arab country and that would be the only thing working to our advantage* Worst case would be countries started "choosing sides" after a bombing campaign. Who would choose Iran's side? China possibly? Russia possibly? India possibly? (to help neutralize their pakistan problems,) The French? (political support or military hardware sales/technicial expertise only mind you). Actually it would probably be a shorter list to state who wouldn't possibly side with Iran. With the exception of India any one of those countries I listed could block the security council from taking any type of action, which could in turn turn international public opinion against us for taking any action.


The worst part of this whole situation is I have a lack of confidence that any of the current candidates would be capable of "smarting" their way out of a crisis of this type, and for sure the moron we have in office now can't.

Grunt 70

I occaisionally like to turn questions around to help me see all sides of the issue and I've done the same with the Iranian nuclear capability question.

Imagine yourself an Iranian living your daily normal life. Wouldn't you wonder why it's okay for all the countries around you to have a nuclear weapons pointed at you but not okay to do likewise. India, Pakistan, China, S. Korea, N. Korea (?) and Isreal all have at least regional nuclear weapon capability. Why is it okay for them but not for Iran.

I know I'll get slammed for this but the question needs to be asked. I'm sure someone will respond with a reply that speaks of the dreadful anti semitic rehtoric issued by the Iranian president in the recent past. Look--other governments are just as effective at issuing anti ________ rhetoric but as long as it's not anti western rhetoric it's somehow acceptable to us Westerners

Don't get me wrong...I'm not advocating development and implementation of nuclear weapons in Iran...but there are clearly two qualified sides to this coin. If I had my druthers I'd say destroy all the nukes in the world and then nobody would have them...Geeeshz...why can't we all just get along. Quite naive I agree but I'd never deny I'm an idealist.

__________________
|TG-22nd|Grunt



"When force is necessary, it must be applied boldly, decisively, and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must know when to blend force with maneuver" - Leon Trotsky

TheSkudDestroyer

It's never been about anything but power.

Once countries like Iran get nukes, they're on a much higher playing field than they already are. It's like white supremacists. They didn't want African Americans to vote because it would take away from their own power. Their votes would be "diluted" by black votes.

If Iran obtains nuclear technology, they will have as much power in the region as we and our allies do.

"Iraq must disarm" was a sham. America, and every country in the world must disarm. You will never see global disarmament, not in this lifetime at least.

EDIT: And then there is Jaque Cherac or however you spell it in france, who decided that if ever attacked by terrorists France would respond with nuclear threats.

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud
BMT Graduate - 320th Training Squadron, Flight 024 - MSgt Romero - "Kids no more!"
30 weeks Keesler AFB, 1W031 - Weather

deathknight

To me, the three most important issues are:
1) Iran is years and years away from weapons grade materials. It is very difficult to create weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. Not only to create the fissile material but to design the bomb. You need roughly 90% enriched uranium to sustain a supercritical nuclear reaction. Of course, they could make a dirty bomb and that would be hell for the people exposed but would be difficult to get into the US.
2) Playing the bully and strong arming Iran is definitely the wrong way to go about it. We need, as much as I hate to say it, the support of the other countries in the UN. Not the UN itself, but the other countries, especially those on the security council minus Russia and China who will defend Iran's right to develop nuclear power so they can sell them more weapons and defense systems or parts for nuclear power stations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or however you spell his name, wants a confrontation as do the mullahs of Iran. Iran is over 90% pro-west from all the stuff I read and hear in interviews with people who know Iranian culture and politics. The best way to beat Iran is to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan and thus Iran won't have anywhere to send their guerrillas and state-sponsored terrorists.
3) This is sort of a continuation of 2 but, IMO, the best way to marginalize Iran and their crazy leader is to make the region safer by building up pro-usa sentiment in the region. To do that, we should:
A) Get the whole Israel-Palestinian conflict settled to the point that Palestine has its own country.
B) Get Syrian influence out of Lebanon
C) Stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.
D) Improve relations with Egypt and Saudi Arabia


In regards to the information posted by Switchcraft:
I am not doubting the intelligence you have seen, nor the service you provided. However, my feelings are somewhat jaded on the veracity of the intelligence you have seen that may have been gathered second- or third-hand. What I mean, is intelligence you yourself were unable to verify first-hand. My limited reading of military books includes WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq, and in my reading I've seen that it seems once you get to the upper echelons of the officer ranks O-5 and up, it seems to be there is an alarming void of ability to process intelligence and make sound decisions. Not saying all are that way, but just seems that the intelligence community is wrong time and time again. But, while I won't argue with you over the 700 shells which each one could probably be called a WMD, I still think that was a bad reason to go into Iraq. Had Saddam E. been used them against us, been capable of using them against anyone which would have been a threat to us, or been making more, I would have said yes attack. But that is just my opinion and I respect yours that we should have attacked.

TheFatKidDeath

__________________
|TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
"Born to Party, Forced to Work."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!