If you were POTUS, how far would you go to deny Iran nukes?

[Uraniun235]

Scenario: You're the President of the United States. You have broad authority in the realm of foreign policy and military action. From your perspective, Iran appears to be attempting to develop nuclear weapons.


How far are you willing to go to deny them the bomb?

More importantly, how would you respond if this proved inadequate?


---


I don't know what my policy would be in this regard. I don't think I'd go so far as invasion or direct airstrike, though.

[Kanastrous]

Try and get the Russians on board with leverage from their end (don't the Russians still supply Iran with a large proportion of their imported technology?); there's probably something we can offer the Russians that's less valuable to us than obstructing an Iranian nuke program, plus it seems unlikely to me that Russia particularly wants a nuclear-armed Iran in their neighborhood.

[Darth Hoth]

This might do better in Off Topic.

Me, I support whatever policy Shep finds the most reasonable . . .

[The Grim Squeaker]

http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_D ... ustMuseum/

Sometimes, the ads this forum generates just speak for themselves in terms of hilarity

As for me? Rogue states building up nuclear arms and kickstarting a regional nuclear arms race in an already unstable region is bad. That's all I'll say, without bringin up my personal opinion.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What's a "rogue state"? One that doesn't kowtow the US' line?

I would not deny Iran nuclear technology to develop for power, but nuclear weapons are tricky. If they want to get them, there are avenues, namely those named Russia. You'd have to really work on incentives to get them off helping Iran.

[TithonusSyndrome]

How much more or less conspicuous and suitable for the task of destroying Iranian nuclear capacity would a Thor or similar satellite-rod project be? I never understood these to be surgical strike weapons, and know nothing of the complications that reducing them in scale would invite.

[Solauren]

Offer to build for them, free of charge, several nuclear plants for electrical power generation.

This would be using a design that has a proven and globally recognized track record for safety, and that can't produce weapons grade material.

i.e Candu reactors. (Only reactor brand/type I'm aware of)

This includes training Iranian citizens on the opertion and maintenance of the plants. Iran would have to pay their salaries obviously. However, I would be paying for the salaries of the people doing the training.

The condition; No pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.


I have now backed Iran into a corner.

Iran is claiming to be pursuing nuclear tech for peaceful purposes. I have just offered them existing, and proven, peaceful nuclear technology, free of charge.

If they refuse, that's pretty much admitting they want nuclear weapons technology, not just power generation.

I can use that as leverage to get UN backing to deal with Iran.

[Admiral Valdemar]

How much more or less conspicuous and suitable for the task of destroying Iranian nuclear capacity would a Thor or similar satellite-rod project be? I never understood these to be surgical strike weapons, and know nothing of the complications that reducing them in scale would invite.

Aside from the costs not making it worth it, anything falling from orbit looks mighty like a nuke. Not a good idea with raising tensions.

[Guardsman Bass]

Use covert methods and diplomatic pressure on the states Iran trades with to try to sabotage their production of nuclear weapons, and put economic pressure on them.

Does Israel have the ability to strike all of Iran's nuclear-related facilities? I was under the impression that they had the bombs, but not the ranged aircraft or refueling craft to do it - and they do not have permission from either Iraq or the use to fly over Iraqi airspace to get there. In any case, if worst came to worst (and Israel has the stuff needed to do it), you could give a tacit go-ahead and let them take a shot at bombing the facilities. If not, you'd have to sell it to them, as quietly as possible.

Just make sure as many US troops as possible are out of Iraq by the time they do that, and do a gesture to show your anger - like a temporary cut-off of loans to Israel with a condemnation (you can always restore the loans later discretely).

The latter's not really a pleasant option, but I'd rather have that happen than bombing Iran directly by the US.

[Lord of the Abyss]

I'd do nothing. It's not my business, for one. For another, nothing short of conquest is likely to do anything but make them press harder for nukes; the fact is, it's perfectly rational for them to want nukes with a superpower as an enemy. The harder I try to stop them, the more I underline why they need them.

[Mr Bean]

Taking out the widely dispersed Iranian nuclear facilities are according to a report I read back in 2006 not possible without full strike as there are dozens of widely separated targets to be bombed plus know "backup" sites where the Iranians have stashed one or two backup copies of critical components. By all indications Iran has all the bomb enriching, producing materials duplicated or triplicated so that striking one building or one reactor will not cripple the program. And as Shep will be along to inform us they did build a large mega-complex where all the parts are needed but it's A.Very large, B.Totally underground and made of reinforced concrete plus possible additional armoring so that bunker busters are required in order to take it out and see point A about that issue because we don't have tons of those laying around and we quite a few while trying to prosecute the war on Terror.

*Edit and by full Strike I mean at least two dozen strike craft plus associate defending escorts, anti defenses. Sending in B-2's won't get everything in one Strike(To many locations not enough B-2's) and it will face the issue that the Iranians can put lots of planes in the sky (Upwards of 200 if you count the old F-4's and the like) or at least eight "modern" planes plus a possible purchase from China and Russia. I don't have a current OB for Iran at the moment but if you send in a B-2 strike it might hit the target but they likly won't make it back out again not to mention Iran would not let any such strike go and likely declare war in some way. The easy way to @#$@$ over the US would be to send it's planes into the Persian Gulf and wipe out all Gulf old production or at least bomb/shoot up enough off it to cause a massive spike in the market, such a spike right now would I think be enough to collapse the US market even on a war-footing.

If you take out Iranian's Nuclear ability and in return Iran causes Gas Rationing in America the public will not thank you to say the least.

[Siege]

Soft power seems the more reasonable option to me, at least initially. As I understand it, the current Iranian government relies on its antagonistic relationship with the West to divert the attention of its citizenry away from the depressingly shitty position their country is in economically; take away the antagonism (or at least our part in it), and let's see what happens. At the very least it can't hurt to talk to them, and maybe we get lucky and another Khatami is elected when the Iranians see we're not such huge dicks after all.

Of course we'd still have to contend with the Supreme Leader or whatever their uber-ayatollah styles himself, and he's bound to be an ass and complicate things. So in the meantime I'd try and work with Russia to see if we can stymie the progress of their nuclear program, but I think at this stage the best we can do is slow it down, not stop it entirely. But as Mr. Bean clarified air strikes are hardly an option in this case, so I'm left with a bottom line of wiedergutmachung with a stick-and-carrot approach, and try to see if we can help Iranian reformist elements to come to the fore again.

[Guardsman Bass]

To correct my earlier post (since the edit window is passed): If Israel doesn't have the aircraft, then presumably it's just not an option (the Israeli strike). It takes a lot of time to train on new aircraft, and there is no way that that would go either barely or totally unnoticed.

[Bilbo]

Soft power seems the more reasonable option to me, at least initially. As I understand it, the current Iranian government relies on its antagonistic relationship with the West to divert the attention of its citizenry away from the depressingly shitty position their country is in economically; take away the antagonism (or at least our part in it), and let's see what happens. At the very least it can't hurt to talk to them, and maybe we get lucky and another Khatami is elected when the Iranians see we're not such huge dicks after all.

Of course we'd still have to contend with the Supreme Leader or whatever their uber-ayatollah styles himself, and he's bound to be an ass and complicate things. So in the meantime I'd try and work with Russia to see if we can stymie the progress of their nuclear program, but I think at this stage the best we can do is slow it down, not stop it entirely. But as Mr. Bean clarified air strikes are hardly an option in this case, so I'm left with a bottom line of wiedergutmachung with a stick-and-carrot approach, and try to see if we can help Iranian reformist elements to come to the fore again.

As you said the leaders need adversity with the West to keep the people of Iran focused on international "problems" instead of internal problems. So how do you change this? If it is so needed to keep the clerics in power then nothing the USA or any other western power does will change it. Nothing will ever be enough becuase they cannot let up. To let up even a little is to let the common people see how the clerics are the true problem in the country.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Offer to build for them, free of charge, several nuclear plants for electrical power generation.

This would be using a design that has a proven and globally recognized track record for safety, and that can't produce weapons grade material.

i.e Candu reactors. (Only reactor brand/type I'm aware of)

This includes training Iranian citizens on the opertion and maintenance of the plants. Iran would have to pay their salaries obviously. However, I would be paying for the salaries of the people doing the training.

The condition; No pursuit of nuclear weapons technology.


I have now backed Iran into a corner.

Iran is claiming to be pursuing nuclear tech for peaceful purposes. I have just offered them existing, and proven, peaceful nuclear technology, free of charge.

If they refuse, that's pretty much admitting they want nuclear weapons technology, not just power generation.

I can use that as leverage to get UN backing to deal with Iran.

You'd have to also build them or help them to build all the infrastructure they need to manufacture those plants, or at least any and all spare parts they might ever need, themselves for that to work, assuming they state that they don't want their ability to generate electricity to be at the mercy of a potentially hostile power. Which, lets face it, is not an unreasonable position to take if you're on the US's shit list.

[Ender]

Keep in mind that doing nothing is essentially doing something. Israel has made it clear they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. Sitting on our hands means they take care of it in their style with all the aftereffects that go along with that.

[Siege]

As you said the leaders need adversity with the West to keep the people of Iran focused on international "problems" instead of internal problems. So how do you change this? If it is so needed to keep the clerics in power then nothing the USA or any other western power does will change it. Nothing will ever be enough becuase they cannot let up. To let up even a little is to let the common people see how the clerics are the true problem in the country.

Whilst this is certainly true to an extent - I don't think the clerics are going to make engagement any easier - it's also easier for the Iranian hardliners to paint the USA as the Great Satan when the 'States act like a pissed rhino in a porcelain store. When troops begin leaving Iraq, when the President doesn't paint Iran in the corner of the 'Axis of Evil' every other day, e.g. when the USA doesn't appear to be after Iran's hide, then it will certainly be much harder for the clerics to effectively convince their populace of just how nasty the USA supposedly is.

Iranians aren't nuts, nor are they cut off from the outside world North Korea-style. If the USA consistently attempts to engage in honest dialog, then sooner or later it's bound to get through to the Iranian populace that their clerics are full of shit when they say the big bad USA is having it in for them. The Iranians elected Khatami in the past, there's definitely progressive elements there, so unless I've missed something I don't see why they couldn't elect a liberal leader again. It's just that in the recent past we've made it so damn easy on Ahmedinejad.

Furthermore it's preciously little use pointing fingers and saying "they're at fault, they should offer the peace pipe first". Even supposing it's true, they benefit from an antagonistic relationship. So they're not going to, because our current behavior suits the current Iranian leadership just fine. Logic, then, would seem to dictate that it's in our best interest to start the policy of engagement. Even if the clerics try to thwart our efforts at every turn (which they very well might), what's the worst that could happen-- and is it as bad as maintaining the status quo or, god forbid, the air strike scenario Mr. Bean outlined?

[Axis Kast]

Before we make a decision, let's review what we know.

The Government of Iran is not cooperating fully with the IAEA to assure that it does not possess a clandestine nuclear weapons program. U.S. allies are disturbed by consistent failure to reduce opacity surrounding Iranian intentions and behaviors. Although the United States assessed in 2007 that Iran was no longer in possession of an active nuclear weapons program, there may be because it has already achieved "proof-of-concept" with respect to warhead construction. As of late autumn, the European community moved out ahead of Washington, alleging that Iran does have an ongoing weaponization effort.

Iran has a history of subterfuge and non-compliance with the NPT. As of 22 September 2008, the IAEA stated that it would be unable to certify that Iranian nuclear activities were entirely peaceful without additional cooperation. Various Iranian leaders have insisted that the country will not repudiate its right to host a full nuclear infrastructure.

Western knowledge of Iranian programs is diminishing. The U.S. is no longer aware of the locations and extent of Iranian centrifuge manufacturing, while for two years the IAEA has endured restrictions on its freedom of access. Indications are of a well-dispersed, well-hardened series of redundant sites, some of them in populated areas. Analysts have correctly pointed out that the store of human knowledge has now become as important as the infrastructure, and would constitute a logical target in the event of hostilities.

Iran’s traumatic past, isolated position, and adversarial relationship with the U.S. offer compelling rationales for nuclear proliferation. As a state sponsor of terrorism sitting astride the Persian Gulf, Iran could do significant harm to U.S. national security interests over the short term. A window of unknown duration has now appeared because of the collapse in gas prices. Iran may be amenable to making a greater number of concessions in this uncertain environment.

There are three possible options.

Option A – Preventative Military Strike: Order the United States armed forces to launch an air campaign against Iran’s known nuclear infrastructure, hoping to impede, or destroy, infrastructure relevant to bomb-making. This may also involve holding hostage additional targets (natural gas infrastructure) for Iranian acquiescence to a more intrusive IAEA inspections regime. It would require heavy suppression and bombardment of general defense infrastructure, including force concentrations that might be in position to retaliate after the fact.

Option B – Attempt Multilateral Coercion: Attempt to mobilize a coalition of like-minded nations for politico-economic coercion designed to impose unacceptable costs on Iran if it does not agree to a satisfactory monitoring arrangement.

Option C – Offer a “Grand Bargain:” Agree to satisfy perceived Iranian political, economic, and security interests in return for a range of concessions on verification of the peaceful intention of Iranian nuclear progress.

I'd say the "solution" comes down to pursuit of a “Grand Bargain,” with the overt threat of multilateral sanctions in the event that Iran proves unwilling to accept a Western incentives package. (The chances for international agreement would spike precipitously in the event that the ball were passed into Iran's court and then held there. Already, there have been three rounds of punitive action, and Europe's tolerance has begun to diminish.) Options range from engagement to punishment -- liberalization of trade restrictions and formal abandonment of opposition to Iranian uranium enrichment, assuming close safeguards, to heavy pressure on neighbors to abandon energy deals, and targeted sanctions against banks that do business with Iran (already showing some promise). I'd be inclined strongly against preventative military action at this point in time, recognizing the limitations of intelligence and the tremendous commitment of resources that would be necessary, to potentially null effect due to lack of confidence in outcomes and the probable ease of reconstruction in the future.

[Elfdart]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

[Plekhanov]

As for me? Rogue states building up nuclear arms and kickstarting a regional nuclear arms race in an already unstable region is bad. That's all I'll say, without bringin up my personal opinion.

The 'rogue state' nonsense aside, how the fuck can you blame Iran for 'kickstarting a regional nuclear arms race' when Pakistan and of course Israel already have nukes? If anyone in that neighbourhood started an 'arms race' wouldn't it be Israel seeing as how it developed them 1st?

[Rogue 9]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

I... see.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

DEATH TO AMERICA!

You may wish to reconsider, Mr. Hypothetical President.

[Kanastrous]

I would assist them in any way possible to build not only several working atomic bombs, but the means to deliver them. The sooner Iran has nuclear weapons, the sooner they are no longer subject to nuclear blackmail or other large-scale belligerence from outside the region.

And of course, the sooner they will be able to subject other nations within the region to nuclear blackmail.

[Count Chocula]

Uhmmm...Israel faces neighbors who have not only sworn its destruction, but have attacked it militarily numerous times. Oh yeah, and something happened in Gaza with the IDF responding to 6,000 missiles and mortar shells fired into Israel, or some such. I don't like that they likely stole US nuke plans via espionage, but I understand their motivation.

Iran IIRC is the only ME nation that has actually held Americans hostage, and has a long history of open verbal opposition to Western nations and values. It is currently ruled by president Ahmadinijad and "Supreme Leader" Ali Khameni, both of whom could be called "religious fanatics" - much more of a threat than the US' fundamentalist Christians, since Iran provides arms, training areas, and other support for Muslim terrorists. Geographically, they're already in a position to cut off oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. It appears, to me at least, that a fanatical, nuclear-armed Iran is more likely to use their nukes offensively than Israel is. Combine antipathy towards Israel, support for terrorist groups, past terrorist activity condoned by Iran, and their postion vis-a-vis Gulf oil shipping, then mix in nuclear capability; with that mix, I can easily see Iran as a strategic threat to Western interests. Having Iran remain a half-backwards, blowhard regional threat is, in my American eyes, preferable to Iran having nuclear capability.

Having said that, back to the OT: I'd agree with the "velvet glove" non-violent coercive approach, backed up with a carrier group or two.

[Elfdart]

I... see.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

DEATH TO AMERICA!

You may wish to reconsider, Mr. Hypothetical President.

Oh blow it out your ass. The United States is not at war with Iran. If it makes you happy, I'd normalize relations with Tehran and then help them build nukes. Pakistan, India, Israel and Russia all have nukes in the region and Iran could use some, too.

[Kane Starkiller]

Oh blow it out your ass. The United States is not at war with Iran. If it makes you happy, I'd normalize relations with Tehran and then help them build nukes. Pakistan, India, Israel and Russia all have nukes in the region and Iran could use some, too.

Why should you as US president care what Iran could and could not use? It seems to me that you didn't consider the consequences of giving Iran nuclear weapons other than being able to pat yourself on the back for being such a just and stand up guy.