141 replies to this topic

[Justice for Elia]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on 06 March 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

Usotsuki,

So, the Saudis would use the Israelis as their proxies against Iran?

The U.S. government props up the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah and Prime Minister Netanyahu know on which side their biscuit is buttered. The Israeli government is not going to strike without assurances of U.S. support. Given the war drums that Obama and the Republicans have been beating, however, the Israeli government probably figures that it can continue to play the victim until the U.S. government strikes. The Israeli and Saudi governments have been angling for a U.S. strike against Iran for years.

As in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government will not only endeavor to destroy whatever WMD capacity it claims the Iranian government possesses, but will invade and occupy Iran in order to establish a U.S.-friendly regime in Tehran. "Fighting terror" is just a pretense for imperialism.

Edited by Justice for Elia, 06 March 2012 - 07:00 AM.

[Mr Merdle]

Ser Scot, anything that the Saudi Royal family fears might increase the likelihood of a Shia insurgency in the Eastern province, whether it be a Shia regime in Bahrain or waxing Iranian regional influence will be opposed. Anything that the Saudi Royal family believes secures their control of the Eastern province will be supported.

I do not know how an unopposed Israeli strike through Saudi territory plays in that context but I rather doubt anyone else on this board does either.

[Ser Robin Hill]

I'm put in the unfortunate position of using an Israeli source to point to Iran/North Korea collaboration, but here it is for what it's worth.

http://www.ynetnews....4198453,00.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

JfE,

Without significantly increasing the size of the US military I don't believe the US is capable of successfully invading and occupying Iran.

[Ser Robin Hill]

http://www.nytimes.c...on-of-iran.html

On again, off again negotiations.  Just the same as North Korea.

[mor2]

The Anti-Targ, on 05 March 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

1) The USA didn't bomb the hell out of Nth Korea when they got da Bomb. And they are a way more scary lot than Iran.
2) Funny I was just reading an article (sorry can;t find the link any more) where Netanyahu is quoted as saying Israel needs to be the master of it's own fate, and it needs to be able to defend itself by itself. Conveniently both statements forget that fact that US aid helped and continues to help Israel pursue its chosen fate, and its ability to defend itself. If nothing else I think that buys the USA the right to tell Israel whether it can push the big red button or not. If israel actually attempts to destry Iran's Nuclear infrastructure that will set off a fire storm, and the USA will have no choice but to commit men, machinery and money to help Israel defend itself.
3) If the USA said to Israel (which it never will): "You started it against our express wishes, so you're on your own on this one." Israel would soon find itself in a rather dire situation.

1. Your statement suggest that Iran and N.Korea situation are the same.
2. I think that you conveniently, missing the point of that speech. The name of the game is Propaganda, they try to convince the people in iran that shit can and will hit the fan. Because the carot usually looks far better when you got a stick in your other hand.
3. I think that we should separate the discussion of whether nuclear Iran is threat and who should deal with it.

[mor2]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on 06 March 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

So, the Saudis would use the Israelis as their proxies against Iran?

I doubt that, even though that IMO, behind the scenes the Saudis are the biggest supporter for USA attack in Iran. After all they have been Iran main opposition in the "shia/sunni war" for more than thirty years and probably the reason why they got that recent enormous weapons deal from the USA and even ask for nukes(which I find amusing considering that never so concerned about their so called "arch enemy the jews" having nukes as Iran having them).

Robin Hill, on 06 March 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

I'm put in the unfortunate position of using an Israeli source to point to Iran/North Korea collaboration, but here it is for what it's worth.
http://www.ynetnews....4198453,00.html

Interesting, but it's not an Israeli source, rather than Israeli translation/commentary on Austrian source.

[Werthead]

I get the impression that, despite the rhetoric, Israel is giving up on the unilateral option. They can't be guaranteed of successfully destroying all of the facilities and they would have to strain their resources to the maximum. With the United States the mission is doable, without it it's far riskier and much more likely to fail. Not to mention that a mission, successful or not, would certainly trigger a conventional missile strike by Iran against Israel that could be incredibly destructive. Israel needs the USA to come on board and suppress Iran's AA systems and destroy as many of its conventional long-range missile launch facilities as possible. Also, since Iran would likely move to close the straits, the US carrier group in the Gulf would have to knock out most or all of the Iranian navy as well.

In short, there is no option for 'just bombing the nuclear facilities'. To reduce the chances of a massive counterstrike against Israeli civilian targets, Iran would have to be subjected to probably the biggest aerial bombardment since WWII. I don't really see that happening just yet. The nuclear threat would have to become far more tangible before that becomes likely.

Ser Scot A Ellison, on 06 March 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

So, the Saudis would use the Israelis as their proxies against Iran?

Last time round the Iranian issue came up, there were some links posted that showed that Saudi Arabia has unofficially, behind-the-scenes given the nod to Israel using their airspace to attack Iran (or not intervening etc). Whether that's still the case now is unclear.

Quote

Without significantly increasing the size of the US military I don't believe the US is capable of successfully invading and occupying Iran.

Quoted for truth. Iran is absolutely massive. It's four times the size of Iraq (itself not a small country) and has almost three times the population. The USA would require an absolutely massive invasion army far huger than the one used to invade Iraq.

When it comes to the prospects of a conventional war, the USA frankly does not have the resources or anything approaching the money needed to invade Iran. The inability to invade Iran means that the viability of bombing Iran is also in doubt: destroying some of the nuclear facilities may be possible, but without boots on the ground to fully dismantle the programme, there is no way to neutralise it fully.

ETA: The article is mostly solid, but it completely fails to mention the risk of Iran arming terrorist groups with dirty bombs or other weapons, a huge part of Israel and the USA's argument that Iran should not have the bomb. A counter-argument is viable - that a nuke being detonated in Israel would trigger an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran regardless of whether a missile or a terrorist did it, so Iran has no motivation to do that either - but it's odd the article doesn't discuss it at all.

Edited by Werthead, 06 March 2012 - 11:30 AM.

[Triskele]

Werthead, on 06 March 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

When it comes to the prospects of a conventional war, the USA frankly does not have the resources or anything approaching the money needed to invade Iran. The inability to invade Iran means that the viability of bombing Iran is also in doubt: destroying some of the nuclear facilities may be possible, but without boots on the ground to fully dismantle the programme, there is no way to neutralise it fully.

Yeah, especially considering that most people now (or always) believe (or believed) that the Rumsfeld doctrine was wrong and the Powell doctrine was better.  That is to say the invasion of Iraq required something like twice as many troops as it actually had, and so the invasion of Iran would arguably require over one million troops.

Wert - I thought the article did mention the arming of terrorists...let me double check.

[Werthead]

I did speed-read (omw out the door), so I may have missed it.

[snake]

Iran is now saying it will allow access to a previously off limits military installation.  Story.

A possible positive step?  Perhaps the sanctions and threat of an attack are starting to work.

[mor2]

Werthead, on 06 March 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I get the impression that, despite the rhetoric, Israel is giving up on the unilateral option. They can't be guaranteed of successfully destroying all of the facilities and they would have to strain their resources to the maximum. With the United States the mission is doable, without it it's far riskier and much more likely to fail. Not to mention that a mission, successful or not, would certainly trigger a conventional missile strike by Iran against Israel that could be incredibly destructive. Israel needs the USA to come on board and suppress Iran's AA systems and destroy as many of its conventional long-range missile launch facilities as possible. Also, since Iran would likely move to close the straits, the US carrier group in the Gulf would have to knock out most or all of the Iranian navy as well.

In short, there is no option for 'just bombing the nuclear facilities'. To reduce the chances of a massive counterstrike against Israeli civilian targets, Iran would have to be subjected to probably the biggest aerial bombardment since WWII. I don't really see that happening just yet. The nuclear threat would have to become far more tangible before that becomes likely.

I dont think that Israel need to fear of Iran long range missiles, its the much shorter ones that Iran have placed in the hands of their proxies in lebanon and gaza that Israel should fear. Attack on Iran would mean a very unpleasant aftermath to Israel with or without USA support.

So the only reason for the USA to bombard Iran, would be if Iran move in the gulf and then it would be to take out their AA and establish air dominance as they always do.

EDIT:

Werthead, on 06 March 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

A counter-argument is viable - that a nuke being detonated in Israel would trigger an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran regardless of whether a missile or a terrorist did it, so Iran has no motivation to do that either - but it's odd the article doesn't discuss it at all.

I find the motives of Messianic radicals dubious at times.

Edited by mor2, 06 March 2012 - 11:58 AM.

[Mr Merdle]

Kroenig includes among his “coulds” a scary possibility that also served as a selling point of the Iraq War: the thought of a regime giving nuclear weapons or materials to a terrorist group. Nothing is said about why Iran or any other regime ever would have an incentive to do this. In fact, Tehran would have strong reasons not to do it. Why would it want to lose control over a commodity that is scarce as well as dangerous? And how would it achieve deniability regarding its role in what the group subsequently did with the stuff? No regime in the history of the nuclear age has ever been known to transfer nuclear material to a nonstate group. That history includes the Cold War, when the USSR had both a huge nuclear arsenal and patronage relationships with a long list of radical and revolutionary clients. As for deniability, Iranian leaders have only to listen to rhetoric coming out of the United States to know that their regime would immediately be a suspect in any terrorist incidents involving a nuclear weapon.

[Triskele]

Usotsuki, on 06 March 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Kroenig includes among his “coulds” a scary possibility that also served as a selling point of the Iraq War: the thought of a regime giving nuclear weapons or materials to a terrorist group. Nothing is said about why Iran or any other regime ever would have an incentive to do this. In fact, Tehran would have strong reasons not to do it. Why would it want to lose control over a commodity that is scarce as well as dangerous? And how would it achieve deniability regarding its role in what the group subsequently did with the stuff? No regime in the history of the nuclear age has ever been known to transfer nuclear material to a nonstate group. That history includes the Cold War, when the USSR had both a huge nuclear arsenal and patronage relationships with a long list of radical and revolutionary clients. As for deniability, Iranian leaders have only to listen to rhetoric coming out of the United States to know that their regime would immediately be a suspect in any terrorist incidents involving a nuclear weapon.

I was just about to quote this very passage.  Merci.

[mor2]

Usotsuki, on 06 March 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

That history includes the Cold War, when the USSR had both a huge nuclear arsenal and patronage relationships with a long list of radical and revolutionary clients. As for deniability, Iranian leaders have only to listen to rhetoric coming out of the United States to know that their regime would immediately be a suspect in any terrorist incidents involving a nuclear weapon.

USSR was never religious and suspicion is not an evidence(especially when the suspect has nuclear weapons). Besides they dont need to give anyone anything, since the mid 90's technology, technicians and materials were leaking from Russia (how do you think that Iran and few other made such a nice leaps in few key areas as missile and nuclear development?), also making a dirty bomb is far easier than making ICMB, so Iran dont need to do much.

Also a thing to consider that nuclear Iran throws the region into nuclear arm race, we already know the Saudi asked for it and I have no doubt that Turkey(Iran current competitor for regional dominance) would not agree to only NATO bombers.

Edited by mor2, 06 March 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[Shryke]

Samalander, on 06 March 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Iran is not Tehran. Somebody might decide that one city is a fair price to pay to be rid of the "Zionist Entity".

Iran is not crazy. This is the stupidest talking point that goes around in these discussions.

IRAN IS A RATIONAL ACTOR.

If you don't believe me, ask the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They are not gonna start a nuclear war.

Edited by Shryke, 06 March 2012 - 01:41 PM.

[Shryke]

Werthead, on 06 March 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I get the impression that, despite the rhetoric, Israel is giving up on the unilateral option. They can't be guaranteed of successfully destroying all of the facilities and they would have to strain their resources to the maximum. With the United States the mission is doable, without it it's far riskier and much more likely to fail. Not to mention that a mission, successful or not, would certainly trigger a conventional missile strike by Iran against Israel that could be incredibly destructive. Israel needs the USA to come on board and suppress Iran's AA systems and destroy as many of its conventional long-range missile launch facilities as possible. Also, since Iran would likely move to close the straits, the US carrier group in the Gulf would have to knock out most or all of the Iranian navy as well.

In short, there is no option for 'just bombing the nuclear facilities'. To reduce the chances of a massive counterstrike against Israeli civilian targets, Iran would have to be subjected to probably the biggest aerial bombardment since WWII. I don't really see that happening just yet. The nuclear threat would have to become far more tangible before that becomes likely.

Even an air strike by the US isn't guaranteed to do it. The Iranians aren't stupid, their bunkers are VERY well protected and the big old bombs that everyone is counting on to do the job don't work as well in the field as they did in the lab.

You'd need a serious commitment of resources from the US which, at least Obama, is doing everything he can to avoid.

Quote

ETA: The article is mostly solid, but it completely fails to mention the risk of Iran arming terrorist groups with dirty bombs or other weapons, a huge part of Israel and the USA's argument that Iran should not have the bomb. A counter-argument is viable - that a nuke being detonated in Israel would trigger an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran regardless of whether a missile or a terrorist did it, so Iran has no motivation to do that either - but it's odd the article doesn't discuss it at all.

Arming terrorists is another one of those silly fear mongering boogeymen. A dirty bomb or the like would be taken as equivalent to a nuclear strike and nuclear material is not that difficult to trace to it's source.

While it's certainly something that should be brought up, it's not a credible threat. If Pakistan has kept a lid on it's nukes and nuclear material, why would you think Iran wouldn't?

Edited by Shryke, 06 March 2012 - 01:53 PM.

[S John]

I don't even feel like the United States is a truly rational actor.  Some of the things we do seem to be downright counter-productive, unnecessary at best.  So, I wouldn't be so sure that a nuclear Iran, likely a less-rational player than even the US, wouldn't instigate some shit.  

I'm not really commenting on whether or not they should be 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons, but nobody can claim to know what may result if they do attain them.  I can't really blame Isreal for wanting to prevent that.  Nor can I really blame Iran for wanting them in the first place.

One thing I do know is that I did a lot of work in Afghanistan within 50k of the Iranian border (unclassified work not involving Iran in any way, for the record) and I really did not appreciate all the saber-rattling from various douchebags in Washington when viewing the situation from that perspective.  That perspective being in missile, and maybe even artillery range.  Its a pretty weird experience to see your countrymen on the news antagonizing Iran from their cushy offices in DC while I'm like, ummmmmm, how about lets not do that?

Edited by S John, 06 March 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[Memory Lane]

mor2 said:

I find the motives of Messianic radicals dubious at times.

Don't be ridiculous. This is the same regime that sold the Embassy Hostages back to the US in exchange for under-the-table weapons sales to use in the Iran-Iraq war. If they're willing to trade and make deals with the "Great Satan", then they're not suicidal lunatics who will throw their lives away to destroy Israel.

Of course, if we're talking about "messianic radicals", I could point out a certain American president who thought God wanted him to spread democracy to Iraq and the Middle East through military force . .

In any case, I can see why the Israelis aren't happy about the proliferation possibility. For one thing, it won't allow them to bomb and blast their way into Lebanon every couple of years before inevitably getting burned and pulling back.

Edited by Aspect Bass, 06 March 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[kalbear]

Really nice article. Thanks for posting it.

I think the notion that the us is not a rational actor is quite reasonable; when we switch policies massively every 4 to 8 years, it's very easy to get irrational. Similarly, when we use the possibility of a massive offensive war as a talking point for elections it's easy to see irrationality.