Iran: We ain't stopping...

[weemadando]

I'm just getting deja vu:

"Trying to get WMDs"

"State sponsor of terrorism"

"Big nasty evil regime TM"

Seem familiar to anyone else? Maybe because the same fucking shit was said 2 years ago about Iraq?

[Crown]

Yeah, but this time it's truuuuuue!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Boohoo. So if push comes to shove, we bomb the Bekaa Valley and their ballistic missiles along with their nuke facilities. Just keep adding targets, Khamenei.

[Superman]

I love this part:

"If such an attack takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our fuel cycle and make nuclear fuel," he said.

They're going to accelerate the rubble that we blew up?

[CJvR]

They're going to accelerate the rubble that we blew up?

Perhaps Allah have provided them with massdrivers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I just can't work up the effort to actually care about this. Proliferation is bad, mmkay, but the whole "Islamic country getting nukes, run for the hills!" smacks of overblown paranoia to me (those crazy Ayatollahs are going to nuke us! etc etc). Want to stop them, fine, but you won't find me giving two shits about it either way.

I realize the whole "prevent prolifteration" angle got a bad rep with the neocon's wankdream in Iraq, but why bother opposing it if you won't actually do anything to prevent it?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm not really interested in debating the wisdom of allowing Iran to have nukes, but we've only created this problem for ourselves with the invasion of Iraq and the very public critiques of the Iran's regime (calling leaders a despot on CNN is not the best way to start a negotiation) so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the impossible situation we are in right now.

I find this absurd and without basis in fact.

The Iranian nuclear infrastructural program began in the Shah's reign, with the construction of two nuclear reactors. The Shah also ran R&D on fissile material production. It has been developing ballistic missiles for decades. Iran supplied Libya with chemical agents in 1997.

I find it highly curious that you'd develop the theory that they've moved to develop nuclear weapons because we said mean things about their regime.

Looking forward, about the only thing we can do right now is accept the fact that another nuclear power is likely to emerge in the Middle East. Short of a full scale attack on Iran and the tension that this is likely to create (think destabalizing the entire region) there is little else we can do.

The comprehensive bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998 is believed to have been responsible for neutering what was left of their WMD efforts after 1991 and thus leading us to find nothing in 2002.

We do not need to invade Iran to destroy their ballistic missiles and nuclear facilities (incidentally trouble like Iran provides a convincing argument for TMD).

If we do, then they lose the strategic importance of a few nuclear facilities, but they gain a massive propaganda weapon that will stabalize the Iranian regime for decades. They win no matter what action we take.

I think the incidence of an American attack being a potential ace-in-the-hole solely helping to contain the masses is dubious. Perhaps you'd like to justify it? On the contrary, I have seen nothing to indicate that the much vaunted moderates have great numbers or power or are on the edge of taking control. The theocracy seems already quite assuredly in power.

[Joe]

I also don't see how letting the Iranian regime get a hold of nukes is going to do the moderates in that country any favors. If they get nukes, it becomes much more difficult to Western countries to apply external pressure on them to reform.

Besides, between having the Iranians mad at us and having an Iranian Khan, I'll take the former, thank you very much.

[The Kernel]

I find this absurd and without basis in fact.

The Iranian nuclear infrastructural program began in the Shah's reign, with the construction of two nuclear reactors. The Shah also ran R&D on fissile material production. It has been developing ballistic missiles for decades. Iran supplied Libya with chemical agents in 1997.

I find it highly curious that you'd develop the theory that they've moved to develop nuclear weapons because we said mean things about their regime.

I didn't say they started their nuclear program because of Iraq, I said that it's going to be hard to negotiate with a government we have been publically criticizing for years.

The comprehensive bombing campaign of Iraq in 1998 is believed to have been responsible for neutering what was left of their WMD efforts after 1991 and thus leading us to find nothing in 2002.

And your point is?

We do not need to invade Iran to destroy their ballistic missiles and nuclear facilities (incidentally trouble like Iran provides a convincing argument for TMD).

I didn't say we couldn't take out their nuclear facilities, but it would be a huge political hit for us to do so.

I think the incidence of an American attack being a potential ace-in-the-hole solely helping to contain the masses is dubious. Perhaps you'd like to justify it? On the contrary, I have seen nothing to indicate that the much vaunted moderates have great numbers or power or are on the edge of taking control. The theocracy seems already quite assuredly in power.

The educated secular population in Iran is well documented and was gaining strength in sheer numbers prior to our invasion of Iraq. A direct attack on Iran will only give the regime even more propeganda in order to strengthen its control over the population.

Are you trying to suggest that this wouldn't happen? Whatever you may think about the strength of the secular members of the population, an attack by the US on Iran would do nothing but neuter their position to the rest of the people in Iran.

[Vympel]

Boohoo. So if push comes to shove, we bomb the Bekaa Valley and their ballistic missiles along with their nuke facilities. Just keep adding targets, Khamenei.

Erm ... the Bekaa Valley is in Lebanon, IP

I realize the whole "prevent prolifteration" angle got a bad rep with the neocon's wankdream in Iraq, but why bother opposing it if you won't actually do anything to prevent it?

How do you mean?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I didn't say they started their nuclear program because of Iraq, I said that it's going to be hard to negotiate with a government we have been publically criticizing for years.

The context of "the problem" suggested it refered to the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction itself.

I do not see how or why the Iranians would have simply given it up otherwise either; they have nothing to lose with us.

And your point is?

Your curious black-white dichotomy that our only option is to deal with it or a "full-scale attack."

I didn't say we couldn't take out their nuclear facilities, but it would be a huge political hit for us to do so.

With who? Like I said, this "the moderates will soon be in control" seems to be taken as an article of faith without evidence, and I do not really see any principled sane arguments by other nations against such action besides "we don't like it."

The educated secular population in Iran is well documented and was gaining strength in sheer numbers prior to our invasion of Iraq.

I was looking for something more than "it is well documented." What political power did they exercise? Any attempted strikes, riots, or revolts? Any word on possible change from recent expatriates?

A direct attack on Iran will only give the regime even more propeganda in order to strengthen its control over the population.

Even if the Islamic Republic is maintained as a result of a strike, we have dealt just fine with Iran since '79. I'd rather deal with the status quo indefinitely than risk attempting to deal with a nuclear-and-ballistic-missile-armed Islamic Republic.

Are you trying to suggest that this wouldn't happen? Whatever you may think about the strength of the secular members of the population, an attack by the US on Iran would do nothing but neuter their position to the rest of the people in Iran.

And if they have no real chance of achieving power and being likely to be America-friendly, than its irrelevent. Your scenario could quite possibly leave us with a resilent Islamic Republic anyway except also armed with nuclear weapons. I sincerely doubt that aside from cynicism about our intentions, the Iraqis behavior upon our invasion was much changed by either Desert Shield/Fox/Storm or the '98 campaign. I don't see that as having politically helped Saddam against dissidents.

In fact, the Islamic Republic is obviously more politically and militarily stable and vigorous than Baathist Iraq was, and Baathist Iraq had homegrown insurgent movements (the abortive Marsh Arab uprising, and the recurring Kurdish seperatists), and the "opponents" and "dissidents" couldn't overthrow Saddam or otherwise moderate his rule either. You don't think if things turned ugly for the theocracy they could clamp down, and being stronger than Iraq, clamp down that much more successfully than Saddam, who even being weaker was able to butcher the opposition? And worse yet, at least with Saddam at the time we could have assisted the opposition. A Nuke Club member Islamic Republic would preclude even that possibility.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Erm ... the Bekaa Valley is in Lebanon, IP

I know. Hezbollah is there. Richard Clarke and others have suggested it as a possible instrument of the Islamic Republic in retaliation against the U.S. for any actions.

How do you mean?

You said proliferation is bad but it makes no difference to you one way or another the outcome.

[Vympel]

I know. Hezbollah is there. Richard Clarke and others have suggested it as a possible instrument of the Islamic Republic in retaliation against the U.S. for any actions.

As in attacking Israel?

You said proliferation is bad but it makes no difference to you one way or another the outcome.

Yup. I'd prefer that one more country not have nukes, but I see it ending "badly" either way- bomb Iran, solidify Ayatollahs power and unite population, staving off any possible revolution for who knows how long, or don't bomb Iran, voila, they have nukes. So I'm just left shrugging my shoulders.

[Chmee]

There was a good NPR piece over the weekend about the political support for pursuing nukes in Iran ... the general conclusion was that even the opposition liberals want a "strong" Iran, they'd pursue nukes too if they were in power. Bombing them is only going to do what attacking a country usually does -- rally the populace around the leader, no matter how unpopular he was before you bombed (sound familiar, Blue states?), in a wave of nationalism.

[Illuminatus Primus]

As in attacking Israel?

Richard Clarke is hardly an Israel-worshipping neocon. No, he meant us.

Yup. I'd prefer that one more country not have nukes, but I see it ending "badly" either way- bomb Iran, solidify Ayatollahs power and unite population, staving off any possible revolution for who knows how long, or don't bomb Iran, voila, they have nukes. So I'm just left shrugging my shoulders.

Yeah, except a lot of the bad things on the "bomb them" end are based on the articles of faith without any hard evidence that things would even be remotely likely to go the opposite way otherwise.

And did the '98 campaign and 1991 rally the Iraqi people around Saddam? More taking of political theories as articles of faith. You have to justify why it would happen here, not just assert that it should.

[Vympel]

Richard Clarke is hardly an Israel-worshipping neocon. No, he meant us.

What has the US got to do with Lebanon? Is he saying Iran will sic terrorists in Lebanon against the US? I'd be more worried about Iran interfering in Iraq (even more so than it allegedly is doing so now). The US is committing an act of war by bombing Iran, remember.

Yeah, except a lot of the bad things on the "bomb them" end are based on the articles of faith without any hard evidence that things would even be remotely likely to go the opposite way otherwise.

And did the '98 campaign and 1991 rally the Iraqi people around Saddam? More taking of political theories as articles of faith. You have to justify why it would happen here, not just assert that it should.

Iraq and Iran are hardly the same (the Shi'ite rebellion in Iraq had no effect on the Sunnis and was promptly crushed in any case') though it's important to note that neither the 98 or 91 bombing campaign did anything good within Iraq (the 98 campaign was actually the equivalent of a superpower tantrum, and had no effect on Iraq's then-nonexistent WMD program- the inspectors had been coming up with nothing for a while before then). This is hardly an article of faith- despite constant bombing and sanctions Iraq remained firmly pacified by Saddam until the actual invasion.

In Iran there is a significant moderate movement supported by the middle and "student" class- we saw what happened when they demonstrated their dissatisfaction last year (or the year before)- demonstrations and riots in the streets. An attack from the US will merely give the clerics more "great Satan" rhetoric to increase their influence and strengthen their position vs the moderates- i.e. the further cultivation of an us vs them mentality that is already obviously pervasive: "those Satans are trying to keep us primitive and destroy our power generators" and similar propaganda. If Iran is to have nukes- and I don't see how we can stop them indefinitely (what, just bomb their facilities over and over? There'll come a point where the Iranian defence precludes that)- I'd rather have liberals with the finger on the button.

[SirNitram]

Just... As an attempt to assuage my probably-unfounded fears.

How much of OPEC's exports come from Iran? And how much of an economic gutting would that nation take if it stopped sending to the US?

Because I'm wondering if the government which chants 'Death to the US' might be willing to committ economic hari-kiri to wound the US, if they get bombed...

[Joe]

How much of OPEC's exports come from Iran? And how much of an economic gutting would that nation take if it stopped sending to the US?

None. The U.S. does not get oil from Iran, nor is it a big trading partner. Some of our allies do, though.

[Illuminatus Primus]

What has the US got to do with Lebanon? Is he saying Iran will sic terrorists in Lebanon against the US?

That remark was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

I'd be more worried about Iran interfering in Iraq (even more so than it allegedly is doing so now). The US is committing an act of war by bombing Iran, remember.

I'm not stupid. Obviously this would be weighed against the benefits of keeping Iran non-nuclear.

In Iran there is a significant moderate movement supported by the middle and "student" class- we saw what happened when they demonstrated their dissatisfaction last year (or the year before)- demonstrations and riots in the streets. An attack from the US will merely give the clerics more "great Satan" rhetoric to increase their influence and strengthen their position vs the moderates- i.e. the further cultivation of an us vs them mentality that is already obviously pervasive: "those Satans are trying to keep us primitive and destroy our power generators" and similar propaganda. If Iran is to have nukes- and I don't see how we can stop them indefinitely (what, just bomb their facilities over and over? There'll come a point where the Iranian defence precludes that)- I'd rather have liberals with the finger on the button.

And you expect the U.S. to just trust in fate that this will happen relatively promptly and that the new government would be U.S.-friendly? This is awful chancy, and the "liberals overthrow the evil dictator" model is something I am rather cynical about. The evil dictator has a habit of just fucking killing them all when the going gets tough. Plus, a revolution might not be very clean. More situations I wouldn't want a nuclear power sufferring.

[kheegster]

No one seems to have taken notice of the fact that the Iraqi government looks like it's going to be Islamist Shi'ite. Guess what happens if a single JDAM falls on Iran?