Iran and 9/11 Investigations

[The Kernel]

Give me a break. Knowing what we know now about Pakistan, would you not support active efforts to thwart their nuclear development, or is your problem-solving mentality consist of giving money to organizations to "stop proliferation."

I am all for stopping nuclear proliferation, but it can't be used as a sole justification for unilateral military action, especially given the United States history of playing favorites.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Give me a break. Knowing what we know now about Pakistan, would you not support active efforts to thwart their nuclear development, or is your problem-solving mentality consist of giving money to organizations to "stop proliferation."

I am all for stopping nuclear proliferation, but it can't be used as a sole justification for unilateral military action, especially given the United States history of playing favorites.

Sorry, this is bullshit. Why the fuck not? You're holding us to somesort of "play fair" or "self admonishing" standard, which, with all due respect, is delusional and unwise.

The failure to keep Israel/Pakistan/North Korea/etc nuke-free is a red herring as to the threat that Iranian nuclear weapons development poses.

Quite frankly you're arguing that somehow, because we fucked up over Iraq, the justification threshold has risen, like somehow Iraq means we deserve to allow more damage to be inflicted against us before taking action, which makes no sense.

What other justification is needed? You ignoring the Iranian regime's hostility toward the U.S.? The harboring of al Queda operatives? The historical and continued support of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations? The historical precedent of arms share by third world nuclear powers in the example of Pakistan?

[The Kernel]

Your logic sucks. You're saying that since several unstable nations already have nukes, the U.S. should allow OTHER unstable nations to have nukes and perpetuate the problem. That's like saying "well, I got one of my testicles bitten off by a rabid squirrel, so I might as well allow the other testicle to be bit off by a different rabid squirrel." Or better yet, "well, the Soviets are bad and they murder their people too, so we shouldn't go after Adolf Hitler."

No, what I'm saying is that if we really want to stop nuclear proliferation we have to have a firm policy on the subject (rather than selectively applying it to those that don't conform to our foreign policy agenda) AND it needs to be done on the international scene, not at the whim of a single nation with colonialist ambitions.

That only proves my point. Israel should not have been allowed to have nukes; they got them without our approval or knowledge, probably by spying on us, but once they had them, there wasn't a goddamn thing we could have done about it. The situation you have described is only an example of what happens when you allow high-risk nations to get ahold of nuclear weaponry. Israel's nukes are destabilizing and bad for the region, but the solution to that problem is NOT to allow a nation that is much higher risk to get ahold of the things.

Then why do we continue to offer tremendous military support to Israel? There are other ways to get nations to disarm besides airstrikes and invasions, especially with a nation like Israel whose very existance is dependent on US aid. If the US really wanted to, we could get them to disarm tomorrow by merely threatening to throw them to the wolves by way of cutting of all US aid.

I don't fucking care if you think they have "cause"; they're a state sponsor of terrorism, they've been hostile to us for years, and their security interests are not a factor in the equation when formulating American foreign policy. If we could have stopped the Soviets (and no, I am not saying Iran is a thread on the level of the USSR) from getting the bomb permanently in 1945, would the correct course of action have been to say "well, they do have a right to defend themselves, even if it completely contradicts our national interest to allow them to do so with nuclear arms"? Foreign policy isn't about being fair.

Hypocrite. You are trying to justify our foreign policy decisions by what is good for the US alone, yet you refuse to grant other nations the same thing. Iran is under constant threat from the United States and was the victim of ruthless attacks care of weapons that the United States supplied. We also militarily support one of Iran's greatest enemies (Israel) and are helping to rebuild one of their other greatest enemies that could quite easily launch another invasion against them in time.

If we really wanted to get rid of nukes in Iran, pehaps we should consider another course of action besides constant antagonization.

I was talking about the Israelis taking out the Iranian nuclear facility - which they may in fact do on their own - and I don't see how you could have gotten the impression that I was talking about glassing the entire fucking country.

Given Israel's track record, I don't know how you would think I would consider otherwise.

I don't know, maybe the idea of one entity controlling all the Middle East's oil? Christ, you were bitching about OPEC a couple weeks ago, you know what I'm talking about.

Wait, please show me examples of the current Iranian government making a move to conquer the rest of the Middle East. Development of nuclear weapons does not automatically equal an attitude of conquest since you know as well as I that nukes are primarily a deterrent and a defensive one at that.

Hey, it's the truth, the IAEA has expressed concern over Iran's nuclear program and they've pretty much been ignored. I'm all for diplomacy if it will work and we don't have to give the Iranians everything they want, but I am not optimistic.

Don't be an idiot, we haven't even tried to offer them serious concessions for halting the development of nukes. Perhaps gurranteeing their soveriegnty and promising not to invade them if they agree would be a good start?

You fucking conservatives are always so quick to jump at military action without realizing that the best way to work this out may be diplomatically. Hell, if we offer Iran enough of an incentive, it would be worth their while to stop their funding of terrorism too. May it will work, maybe it won't, but as of right now we have never tried serious negotiations with Iran.

I don't know, chief, is there any chance of the U.S. handing over nuclear arms or experts who can build the things to terrorists?

Yeah, and I'm sure that would be in Iran's best interests.

And the U.S. is NOT a totalitarian theocracy, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

Maybe not, but some of our closest allies are.

I have a question for you; if we could have prevented Pakistan from getting nuclear technology years ago and therefore prevented Dr. Khan from disseminating said technology to countries like Iran, North Korea, and Libya, would you have refused on this same basis?

Depends. I wouldn't have immediately jumped at military action, and I also wouldn't be willing to resort to military action without first both trying the availible alternatives and getting international agreement on whatever action was appropriate. Like I said before, I also support such actions against Iran; I'm not against using military force as a last resort and with international support but I will not support the President using Iran's nuclear program the way he did with Iraq.

[The Kernel]

Sorry, this is bullshit. Why the fuck not? You're holding us to somesort of "play fair" or "self admonishing" standard, which, with all due respect, is delusional and unwise.

Because I don't trust the Bush administration that's why. I don't trust them not to simply be using the Iranian nuclear program as a justification for annexing Iran to become part of the global US hegemony.

I also don't think it is ever wise to rush into a military situation without trying the availible alternatives (which hasn't been done yet) AND getting international support for our actions.

The failure to keep Israel/Pakistan/North Korea/etc nuke-free is a red herring as to the threat that Iranian nuclear weapons development poses.

No it isn't, it's exactly like Bush claiming that it was right to occupy Iraq because Saddam was a dictator while we support far worse governments. Not only does it smack of hypocrisy, but it also casts doubt on the true reasons behind whatever action is taken.

Quite frankly you're arguing that somehow, because we fucked up over Iraq, the justification threshold has risen, like somehow Iraq means we deserve to allow more damage to be inflicted against us before taking action, which makes no sense.

In the sense that the trust for American foreign policy has gone down in the international community I would say you are correct. Like it or not, we cannot unilaterally commence military actions in the Middle East if we expect to do more good than harm.

As for the justification itself, I wouldn't have recommended military action against Iran if this was the situation four years ago either.

What other justification is needed? You ignoring the Iranian regime's hostility toward the U.S.? The harboring of al Queda operatives? The historical and continued support of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations? The historical precedent of arms share by third world nuclear powers in the example of Pakistan?

Are you so shortsighted to think that bombing/invading Iran is going to help in the long run? If Iraq has taught us anything its that in order for us to have a successful presence in the Middle East, we need the support of the locals. Iran may be a theocracy and foreign to the US politically, but so are plenty of other nations that we count as allies.

Hell, take a look at China for a second: heavily industrialized, nuclear armed, relatively sophisticated and possesing both a ruthless human rights record and a government which does not allow vocal opposition. Yet we have found a way to not only coexist, but even prosper together despite our differences by reliance on each other for trade and by basically letting the other side take care of its own internal problems.

Do I like the Iranian government? Hell no. But I don't think that is what's holding us back from having a successful working relationship with them. Despite what you might think, I have seen zero evidence that a diplomatic solution wouldn't be possible.

Even if such a solution fails, at least it would have been tried and in doing so we could garner international support for disarming Iran given that they will have refused a reasonable offer from the US and the world will have know that we tried to negotiate with them.

[Howedar]

Slighty correction here; I just remembered that Israel would have to have permission from the U.S. to do this for obvious reasons, so it would have to be a joint American-Israeli op if it was carried out.

No it wouldn't. In 1981 Begin bombed and drew condemenation from the entire world, including the US. Further Reagan halted arms shipments in response.

Israel might have consulted on some back channel to the highest levels, but claiming that it was a joint op is ludicrious.

While it is not 1981, the fact of the matter is Israel need not run it as a joint up. Conceivably they could act alone and let the peices fall where they may. Exactly what is the US needed for? Intelligence? Basing and strike capability are not major concerns. Aside from the diplomatic fallout what is the US needed for in such a strike?

Fucking Christ, I already tore this apart last week. Do I really have to do it again?

[Joe]

No, what I'm saying is that if we really want to stop nuclear proliferation we have to have a firm policy on the subject (rather than selectively applying it to those that don't conform to our foreign policy agenda) AND it needs to be done on the international scene, not at the whim of a single nation with colonialist ambitions.

Horseshit. There is no reason to treat every fucking country the same when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Some countries have proven that they deserve them and can be trusted with them; others, like Iran, have only proven that allowing them to have them would be a liability.

Then why do we continue to offer tremendous military support to Israel? There are other ways to get nations to disarm besides airstrikes and invasions, especially with a nation like Israel whose very existance is dependent on US aid.

No it isn't, goddammit! Israel gets around 2.2 billion a year from the U.S. and they have a GDP of over 100 billion! That is not an insignificant chunk of change, but it doesn't make the Israelis dependent on us, either.

If the US really wanted to, we could get them to disarm tomorrow by merely threatening to throw them to the wolves by way of cutting of all US aid.

Give me a fucking break. Israel would ignore us and proceed to completely fuck up the Palestinians' shit, once and for all.

Besides, Israel is a red herring here; they have the nukes, they aren't going to give them up, and there isn't anything we can do about it. Whatever mistakes the U.S. has made in the past with regards to Israeli nuclear proliferation has precisely dick to do with the issue of whether or not we should keep the Iranians from getting nukes.

Hypocrite. You are trying to justify our foreign policy decisions by what is good for the US alone, yet you refuse to grant other nations the same thing. Iran is under constant threat from the United States and was the victim of ruthless attacks care of weapons that the United States supplied. We also militarily support one of Iran's greatest enemies (Israel) and are helping to rebuild one of their other greatest enemies that could quite easily launch another invasion against them in time.

Of course I care about the security interests of the United States above Iran; it's my goddamn country! Foreign policy isn't about playing fair and it's fucking stupid to hold the U.S. to some ridiculously high standard of fairness in its dealings with other countries, especially when other countries have absolutely no obligation nor desire to operate under a similarly high standard. I wonder if you would ask the Iranians to abstain from developing nuclear weapons so that they would respect the self-defense interests of the United States.

If we really wanted to get rid of nukes in Iran, pehaps we should consider another course of action besides constant antagonization.

In other words, we need to prevent our enemies from becoming our enemies. Right.

Given Israel's track record, I don't know how you would think I would consider otherwise.

OK, criticism of Israel and is fine and usually justified but you've just crossed into raving lunatic territory. Israel has never committed anything even close to genocide against anyone and you damn well know it.

Wait, please show me examples of the current Iranian government making a move to conquer the rest of the Middle East. Development of nuclear weapons does not automatically equal an attitude of conquest since you know as well as I that nukes are primarily a deterrent and a defensive one at that.

I didn't say that Iran was on its way to becoming the lord of the Middle East; I merely said that an Iranian hegemony is one of the many potentially negative consequences of allowing Iranians to develop nukes and not one that is to be encouraged.

Don't be an idiot, we haven't even tried to offer them serious concessions for halting the development of nukes. Perhaps gurranteeing their soveriegnty and promising not to invade them if they agree would be a good start?

And giving them carte blanche to invade anyone they want to in the Middle East? Are you insane?

You fucking conservatives are always so quick to jump at military action without realizing that the best way to work this out may be diplomatically. Hell, if we offer Iran enough of an incentive, it would be worth their while to stop their funding of terrorism too. May it will work, maybe it won't, but as of right now we have never tried serious negotiations with Iran.

For the last time, MILITARY ACTION SHOULD NOT THE MOST DESIRABLE COURSE, and I never said that it should. Diplomacy obviously should be considered the preferred option, but we should not treat the Iranians as equals; they're the ones misbehaving, they are not good faith negotiators, and you do not reward a misbehaving child. Even if diplomacy fails direct military action is not the only option; intelligence gathering, espionage, and covert ops are all preferable.

Also, I like how you've gone from "we should let the Iranians develop the nukes!" to "we should prevent them from developing the nukes, but you fucking right wingers are going about it all the wrong way." Concession accepted.

Maybe not, but some of our closest allies are.

Whatever.

Depends. I wouldn't have immediately jumped at military action, and I also wouldn't be willing to resort to military action without first both trying the availible alternatives and getting international agreement on whatever action was appropriate. Like I said before, I also support such actions against Iran; I'm not against using military force as a last resort and with international support but I will not support the President using Iran's nuclear program the way he did with Iraq.

Fine, let me elaborate; if you went back and knew that unilateral military action was the only way to prevent Pakistani nuclear proliferation - all other options have failed at this point - would you cling to your dogmatic devotion to multilateralism, or would be willing to do to do the sensible thing and stop Khan from letting the North Koreans and the Libyans from getting ahold of the damn things?

[The Kernel]

Horseshit. There is no reason to treat every fucking country the same when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Some countries have proven that they deserve them and can be trusted with them; others, like Iran, have only proven that allowing them to have them would be a liability.

If Iran did indeed posses nukes they would still not be at the top of my list for countries I would think are most likely to use them.

No it isn't, goddammit! Israel gets around 2.2 billion a year from the U.S. and they have a GDP of over 100 billion! That is not an insignificant chunk of change, but it doesn't make the Israelis dependent on us, either.

Don't be a fucking idiot, I'm not just referring to the military aid (which is considerable) but also our protection from their neighbors. If we suddenly stopped exporting weapons to Israel, pulled all our aid out (which incidentally would also devestate their economy by causing global corporations to want to pull their assets out) AND insituted economic sanctions against them, Israel would be up shit creek without a paddle.

Give me a fucking break. Israel would ignore us and proceed to completely fuck up the Palestinians' shit, once and for all.

Yeah, I'm sure their inevitable destruction and the devestation of their already shakey economy is worth solving the Palestinian problem.

Besides, Israel is a red herring here; they have the nukes, they aren't going to give them up, and there isn't anything we can do about it. Whatever mistakes the U.S. has made in the past with regards to Israeli nuclear proliferation has precisely dick to do with the issue of whether or not we should keep the Iranians from getting nukes.

They are proof that even an bunch of religious zealots running a nation like a dictatorship isn't stupid enough to use nukes.

Of course I care about the security interests of the United States above Iran; it's my goddamn country! Foreign policy isn't about playing fair and it's fucking stupid to hold the U.S. to some ridiculously high standard of fairness in its dealings with other countries, especially when other countries have absolutely no obligation nor desire to operate under a similarly high standard. I wonder if you would ask the Iranians to abstain from developing nuclear weapons so that they would respect the self-defense interests of the United States.

Get this straight, we are the global superpower here with the ability to crush just about any nation we choose. We have the leverage here to compromise, while a country like Iran does not (short of throwing itself at the mercy of the US).

Besides, Iran possessing nukes at the state level isn't nearly as dangerous as the sort of hatred that invading Iran unilaterally would cause.

In other words, we need to prevent our enemies from becoming our enemies. Right.

No, we need to stop these underhanded attempts at harassment that do nothing but torpedeo any possible relation with these people. Do you think the situation would be as bad as it is today if Bush hadn't given that ridiculous "Axis of Evil" speech?

OK, criticism of Israel and is fine and usually justified but you've just crossed into raving lunatic territory. Israel has never committed anything even close to genocide against anyone and you damn well know it.

Granted, but I wasn't really serious

I didn't say that Iran was on its way to becoming the lord of the Middle East; I merely said that an Iranian hegemony is one of the many potentially negative consequences of allowing Iranians to develop nukes and not one that is to be encouraged.

And one of many potential consequences of me buying a lottery ticket is actually winning. Do you have anything more substantial to show that Iran is interest in annexing a large part of the Middle East?

And giving them carte blanche to invade anyone they want to in the Middle East? Are you insane?

Oh please, can you think for yourself at all? Obviously such a promise would be contingent on them behaving themselves.

For the last time, MILITARY ACTION SHOULD NOT THE MOST DESIRABLE COURSE, and I never said that it should. Diplomacy obviously should be considered the preferred option, but we should not treat the Iranians as equals; they're the ones misbehaving, they are not good faith negotiators, and you do not reward a misbehaving child. Even if diplomacy fails direct military action is not the only option; intelligence gathering, espionage, and covert ops are all preferable.

You said:

That would be nice, but it won't work. The Iranians aren't afraid of words.

I gathered that you seemed to think that the Iranians weren't going to listen to diplomacy. If you indeed do believe that serious diplomatic efforts should be expended prior to military action, then we are at least in partial agreement on the issue.

Also, I like how you've gone from "we should let the Iranians develop the nukes!" to "we should prevent them from developing the nukes, but you fucking right wingers are going about it all the wrong way." Concession accepted.

Liar, show me where I said that I think Iran should be allowed to freely develop nukes. Here's a hint: saying that we shouldn't invade them because they are developing nukes is not the same as saying they should be free to develop them. There are other pressures in global diplomacy besides military action.

Whatever.

I'd like to see you point out the significant differences between the Israeli and Iranian regimes if you think I'm wrong.

Fine, let me elaborate; if you went back and knew that unilateral military action was the only way to prevent Pakistani nuclear proliferation - all other options have failed at this point - would you cling to your dogmatic devotion to multilateralism, or would be willing to do to do the sensible thing and stop Khan from letting the North Koreans and the Libyans from getting ahold of the damn things?

What the fuck are you asking me here? How I would respond to a fixed scenario in which multilateralism is suddenly not an option for no other reason then you saying so? If you want to create a scenario and ask me how I would respond to it fine, but don't expect me to answer if you simply throw my intial steps out the window without giving a reason for it.

If I wasn't able to get the support of the international community however (they can be fickle and useless about such things), the first thing I'd do is a series of economic pressures to get Pakistan to comply. The United States' chief power in Diplomacy is our economic might and offering the Pakistanies economic favoritism for disarmament (and conversely trade sanctions for non-compliance) is a perfectly viable and justifiable tactic.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Consequences of letting Iran have nukes:

1. U.S. and other countries must less aggressive with regards to Iran for the next 5-40 years or so.

2. Within said 5-40 years, the theocratic government may be overthrown, or may just be passed on peacefully when the imams die out and the secularists in the new government have the most numbers. At this point, it doesn't really matter than Iran developed nukes, and they become a potentially valuable trading partner.

3. Iran may get a little more brazen, but them actually threatening the U.S. or the region is highly unlikely. Iran's population would be highly not in favor of starting shit, and the monarchs know that. The ruling class is completely focused on internal affairs right now, and the chance of them starting wars or making waves internationally is about 0%. It also must be noted that Iran's population may be Islamic, but they are not Arab.

Consequences of aggressive military action:
1. Bush buys another couple of years of the public not really realizing that he's deliberately lying to them in order to paint someone other than his Saudi friends as the bad guy. That's good, right?

2. Another country ruined, tens or hundreds of thousands killed, millions fucked over economically. But they're not Americans, so who gives a shit, right?

3. The secuarlist movement turns into a blood curdling warcry, and the promise of a progessive, secular Iran paving the way for other theocratic Middle Eastern countries turns to dogshit.

4. If you thought international opinion of the U.S. couldn't get any worse, just watch. It has lots and lots of room to plummet further.

5. Our collective brains go back to sleep, and I have to hear a bunch of shit from certain people on this board for the second time about how I'm not "supporting the troops" when I oppose the war that's getting them fucking killed.

I could list more, but those are the ones that were on the top of my mind. In what fucked up parallel universe does this make sense, again?

[The Kernel]

Thanks Arthur, I think you've just summed my feelings on this issue up nicely.

[Wired_Grenadier]

Leave the Iranis alone, they are on a good way to get their shit sorted out. Stepping on their toes at this moment would'nt exactly be the brightest thing to do.

And their prime reason for developing nuclear weapons is Israel. A new balance of power is what they seek, I'd say, because both the Iranis and the Israelis have enough common sense not to trigger a hot war with each other.

[Ma Deuce]

already tore this apart last week. Do I really have to do it again?

That was this thread, yes?

Since Iran's nuke facilitieas are effectively out of reach of the IAF, my question is: What about using Jericho II IRBMs armed with conventional warheads (or are the Jerichos strictly nuclear missiles)?

[Joe]

If Iran did indeed posses nukes they would still not be at the top of my list for countries I would think are most likely to use them.

Doesn't matter. As I've pointed out many times, the fact that the Iranians won't use them is not relevant; the fact is, they could potentially disseminate the technology to other unreliable countries or even worse, terrorists, like what happened in Pakistan, or one of the weapons could potentially end up in the hands of one of the many religious crazies running around the country, which could be disastrous. There is a fairly significant possibility of the government going down violently because of its own people within a number of years, dammit, that's not a government you want to have nukes!

snip gratuitous Israel bashing

This Israel tangent is pointless and not relevant at all so it should end here.

They are proof that even an bunch of religious zealots running a nation like a dictatorship isn't stupid enough to use nukes.

Stop spouting your inane bullshit about Israel being a dictatorship as fact. They are proof that allowing an unreliable nation to get ahold of nukes is a bad fucking idea.

Get this straight, we are the global superpower here with the ability to crush just about any nation we choose. We have the leverage here to compromise, while a country like Iran does not (short of throwing itself at the mercy of the US).

Bullshit. They are the enemy, they are the world's leading state sponsor of terror. The end; any compromises made will be on OUR terms, not theirs. Do you think we should have compromised with the Taliban when they told us to go fuck ourselves after we demanded they hand over bin Laden?

Besides, Iran possessing nukes at the state level isn't nearly as dangerous as the sort of hatred that invading Iran unilaterally would cause.

Strawman. I thought I made it very clear that an invasion of Iran would not be necessary to destroy their nuclear program; airstrikes would suffice.

No, we need to stop these underhanded attempts at harassment that do nothing but torpedeo any possible relation with these people. Do you think the situation would be as bad as it is today if Bush hadn't given that ridiculous "Axis of Evil" speech?

They were the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism in 2000, they're the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism now. Believe it or not, we don't live in a world where everybody would play fair if only the big bad United States and Israel would just be nice to them.

And one of many potential consequences of me buying a lottery ticket is actually winning. Do you have anything more substantial to show that Iran is interest in annexing a large part of the Middle East?

It's a potential consequence that's worth avoiding; Iran's military is no slouch and with that and nuclear weapons they could become very powerful in the region. You don't have to be willing to annex territory to become the hegemon. The United States has not yet annexed any significant amount of territory anywhere in the world, but do you deny that the United States is the current world hegemon?

Oh please, can you think for yourself at all? Obviously such a promise would be contingent on them behaving themselves.

And they are not good faith negotiators nor to be trusted, so such an agreement is ultimately worthless.

I gathered that you seemed to think that the Iranians weren't going to listen to diplomacy. If you indeed do believe that serious diplomatic efforts should be expended prior to military action, then we are at least in partial agreement on the issue.

They're not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't save face by trying. Of course you're just creating a false dilemma between military action and diplomacy and ignoring the other options I suggested, such as intelligence gathering and espionage, but whatever. Where we disagree is on the necessity of unilateral action by the U.S. in the event that it becomes necessary, which you seem to have rejected entirely.

Liar, show me where I said that I think Iran should be allowed to freely develop nukes. Here's a hint: saying that we shouldn't invade them because they are developing nukes is not the same as saying they should be free to develop them. There are other pressures in global diplomacy besides military action.

Oh, please, it seems you have forgotten how you went on about how India and Pakistan have nukes and they're just as bad, so we should let the Iranians have nukes as well. And what about all that mopey bullshit about how "The Iranians NEED them to check the aggression of the United States!" and whatnot?

I'd like to see you point out the significant differences between the Israeli and Iranian regimes if you think I'm wrong.

I could write a paper on that if I wanted to, but Israel is not relevant to this discussion, again.

What the fuck are you asking me here? How I would respond to a fixed scenario in which multilateralism is suddenly not an option for no other reason then you saying so? If you want to create a scenario and ask me how I would respond to it fine, but don't expect me to answer if you simply throw my intial steps out the window without giving a reason for it.

If I wasn't able to get the support of the international community however (they can be fickle and useless about such things), the first thing I'd do is a series of economic pressures to get Pakistan to comply. The United States' chief power in Diplomacy is our economic might and offering the Pakistanies economic favoritism for disarmament (and conversely trade sanctions for non-compliance) is a perfectly viable and justifiable tactic.

OK, then. We try all that, the Pakistanis tell us to fuck off, and the international community still doesn't give a shit. Answer the question as asked; if unilateral military action became the only acceptable option to preventing Pakistani nuclear proliferation, would it be the right course of action in your mind? No dodges this time.

[Joe]

Thanks Arthur, I think you've just summed my feelings on this issue up nicely.

Yes, too bad the whole thing is a strawman. Neither myself nor IP have advocated a full-blown invasion of Iran at ANY point, and you know it.

[HemlockGrey]

What's ultimately at stake is not the nuclear capability of Iran but Iran's future as a secular nation. If a limited military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would not seriously put that future in jeopardy, then I think that would be the wisest course of action. After all, why should we negotiate with a regime that will not last very long anyway, and why should we attempt to offer concessions which would only bolster said dictatorial theocratic regime?

On the other hand, the acquisition of nuclear weapons would immeasurably strengthen the current Iranian government by making them virtually immume to foreign pressure and drastically increase the risks inherent in the transition to a secular government.

[Joe]

What's ultimately at stake is not the nuclear capability of Iran but Iran's future as a secular nation. If a limited military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities would not seriously put that future in jeopardy, then I think that would be the wisest course of action. After all, why should we negotiate with a regime that will not last very long anyway, and why should we attempt to offer concessions which would only bolster said dictatorial theocratic regime?

The problem is, even a limited military strike could potentially turn the Iranians against us and make them more supportive of the current government. That's why a military strike is so risky. But on the other hand, like you said, letting them get ahold of the weapons will strengthen them considerably, making reform even less likely. It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation.

[HemlockGrey]

Which is why I imagine the ideal situation would be to get the Israelis to do it for us and then loudly condemn them in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way.

[Ma Deuce]

Which is why I imagine the ideal situation would be to get the Israelis to do it for us and then loudly condemn them in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way.

THe only way Israel is going to hit Iran's nuke facilities is with Jericho II missiles: The IAF's range is simply too limited to strike them effectively. Since I don't know whether any of the Jericho IIs have conventional warheads, this option may not be acceptable either.

I have taken a middle-east map and added information detailing Iran's WMD-related facilities (the locations are pulled off Globalsecurity.org), and Israel's striking ranges. The innermost circle represents the maximum range of the Jericho I missile, the second circle represents the avearge maximum unrefueled combat radius of the F-15E Strike Eagle (Israel's longest-ranged strike aircraft), from the various airbases in Israel. Finally, the third circle represents the range of the Jericho II missile:

Map

See the problem? The F-15E can be ruled out: The closest of Iran's nuke facilities are at the ragged edge of it's range, and since the Iranian Air Force would no doubt respond it would be suicide: Since the Israeli aircraft would have practically zero loiter time, they could not engage them without using up too much fuel to get home, and they would be outnumbered anyway, not to mention laden down with ordninance. Also, they would have to overfly the airspace of several other countries, including Syria and Iraq. Syria would certainly try to stop them (even if they could fight their way through the Syrian Air Force, they would use up too much fuel to reach their targets), and it's doubtful the US would allow them to overfly Iraq either, not without becomming complicit in the raid. Of course, the IAF F-15Es could hit most of the Iranian facilities if the US refueled them over Iraq, but for obvious reasons the US would never agree to that...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Thanks Arthur, I think you've just summed my feelings on this issue up nicely.

Yes, too bad the whole thing is a strawman. Neither myself nor IP have advocated a full-blown invasion of Iran at ANY point, and you know it.

How else are you going to violently stop them from developing the bomb? Do you seriously think that it can be accomplished via airstrikes?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Since it seems that you do, let me explain why I think that won't work: After the first wave, most of the facilities will be camouflaged and hard to see from the air, since our intelligence has been shown to be a joke, we'll have no real way of knowing where their stuff is.

[Joe]

Which is why I imagine the ideal situation would be to get the Israelis to do it for us and then loudly condemn them in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way.

That would indeed be ideal; problem with that is, like I said earlier, the missiles/planes are going to have to fly over the airspace of a country the U.S. has occupied, which means we'd have to OK it in advance. I suppose have the air traffic controllers look the other way while the Israelis do the deed, but I don't think that explanation would fly.

[Joe]

How else are you going to violently stop them from developing the bomb? Do you seriously think that it can be accomplished via airstrikes?

Yes, it can; we may not wipe out every last piece of their nuclear infrastructure, but we could damage it enough to set them back years and prevent the program from ever getting off its feet.

Since it seems that you do, let me explain why I think that won't work: After the first wave, most of the facilities will be camouflaged and hard to see from the air, since our intelligence has been shown to be a joke, we'll have no real way of knowing where their stuff is.

Our intelligence has not been shown to be a joke; only the failures are made public, remember? And besides, one air strike would be enough for the foreseeable future, it would give us enough leeway for the next several years to plan on how to deal with any future developments.

[Joe]

snip

Good post, but the picture isn't working. Anyway, I am hardly an expert on military technology, but I was under the impression the F15-E had a much larger range than that.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

*snip*

Even forgetting about all that, the political ramifications would still outweigh the benefits. We can't afford to run the risk of crushing a rising secular democracy in the Middle East based on unfounded paranoia.

And even forgetting about that, any amount of harm we save ourselves with an airstrike would be returned tenfold in bad will and a need for revenge, even if it didn't cause a pro-fundie shift within Iran. We don't need another D.C. sniper or similar, and shouldn't take steps in that direction.

[Joe]

Even forgetting about all that, the political ramifications would still outweigh the benefits. We can't afford to run the risk of crushing a rising secular democracy in the Middle East based on unfounded paranoia.

It is completely well-founded paranoia based on what happened in Pakistan and it isn't worth the risk. As for crushing a rising secular democracy, as I said earlier, letting the mullahs get ahold of nuclear weapons isn't going to make them more likely to voluntarily reform the theocratic Iranian government and may actually extend the life of it. As for turning the Iranians against us? The Iranians are generally much less sympathetic to the aims of the various Islamic terrorist groups than any other populace in the Middle East save Israel, and it is difficult to imagine an airstrike on a program that the majority of Iranians don't even really appear to approve of causing them to step solidly into the fundie camp that stands for everything they despise. Even so, it would be better for the Israelis to somehow do it to minimize the risk of increased anti-American sentiment among the Iranians.

And even forgetting about that, any amount of harm we save ourselves with an airstrike would be returned tenfold in bad will and a need for revenge, even if it didn't cause a pro-fundie shift within Iran. We don't need another D.C. sniper or similar, and shouldn't take steps in that direction.

Well, practically any military action taken against an Islamic country can potentially lead to that; does that mean we should have abstained from military action in Afghanistan on this basis? And your reasoning is questionable; we dropped a LOT of bombs on Afghanistan, more than we would drop on Iran in an airstrike, yet I don't recall thousands of Afghanis lining up to join al-Qaeda or other terrrorist groups, and the Afghanis are far more fundie than the Iranians.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Even forgetting about all that, the political ramifications would still outweigh the benefits. We can't afford to run the risk of crushing a rising secular democracy in the Middle East based on unfounded paranoia.

It is completely well-founded paranoia based on what happened in Pakistan and it isn't worth the risk. As for crushing a rising secular democracy, as I said earlier, letting the mullahs get ahold of nuclear weapons isn't going to make them more likely to voluntarily reform the theocratic Iranian government and may actually extend the life of it.

Nuclear weapons are for keeping external forces at bay. You don't nuke your own country.

As for turning the Iranians against us? The Iranians are generally much less sympathetic to the aims of the various Islamic terrorist groups than any other populace in the Middle East save Israel, and it is difficult to imagine an airstrike on a program that the majority of Iranians don't even really appear to approve of causing them to step solidly into the fundie camp that stands for everything they despise.

What about patriotism? Imagine if someone bombed silos on American soil. Only the most hardcore leftwingers wouldn't want revenge.

Even so, it would be better for the Israelis to somehow do it to minimize the risk of increased anti-American sentiment among the Iranians.

Right, like no one would know what was really going on, what with so many people talking openly about it beforehand.

And even forgetting about that, any amount of harm we save ourselves with an airstrike would be returned tenfold in bad will and a need for revenge, even if it didn't cause a pro-fundie shift within Iran. We don't need another D.C. sniper or similar, and shouldn't take steps in that direction.

Well, practically any military action taken against an Islamic country can potentially lead to that; does that mean we should have abstained from military action in Afghanistan on this basis? And your reasoning is questionable; we dropped a LOT of bombs on Afghanistan, more than we would drop on Iran in an airstrike, yet I don't recall thousands of Afghanis lining up to join al-Qaeda or other terrrorist groups, and the Afghanis are far more fundie than the Iranians.

The situations can't be equated. Afghanistan was harboring Osama, and the Taliban was a dangerous foe. And the world, including much of the Islamic world, was not angered by the Afghan invasion because it was seen as justified. That's nothing at all like the Iranian sitaution.