The Iran Crisis




 
--
The Iran Crisis
 
August 11th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 

Topic: The Iran Crisis


The Iran Crisis
Well in addition to getting the Iraqi WMD threat wrong, it looks like the Bush Administration (and Europeaners to be fair) slipped up by allowing the Iranians get dangerously close to getting the bomb.

The problem is what to do. I thought the Deal given by UK, France, Germany and Italy to more than fair, and the Iranians rejected it outright and broke the seals off the uranium refining plant. To me this signifies that this that the new Iranian government has the sole intension of becoming a nuclear power. Iran has also threatened to drive up oil costs and unleash new terrorism in places like Irqa, Lebabon, Isreal and Syria.

The West seems to favor dialogue but I dont think that will work.

Iraq was never really a threat to us, but Iran has been since 1979. Iran sponsors terrorism throughout the world, it already has medium range ICBMs capable of hitting Europe and is working on a long range version that could hit us.

The problem is the only military capable of dealing with the problem is bogged down in a fishing expedition. Unless someone can jolt the Europeaners into action. The problem is the Europeans are so angry at Bush they dont want the slightest thing to help him.

A real mess..


Any thoughts anyone???
August 11th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Well that's the problem. Iran is playing this one very smart. They know that the invasion of Iraq puts US troops right on their boarder which can easily threaten to invade thus giving the US huge leverage over Iran. So Iran has initiated a strategy of helping the insurgentcy in Iraq to keep the US tied down while simultaniously running at full speed to get the bomb. If Iran can build a bomb it has all the power because the US cann't invade a country that will use a nuke on its troops, the situation is just millitarily and politically impossible for the leader of a democratic country to surmount. If you thought the mear political preassure from 1840 dead americans was bad multiply that by x10 in one flash and you see the issue.

So Iran is being smart. The European nations arn't going to do any millitarily, so keep them talking. The US would attack, but keep them tied down. It's just a marathon race now to see who wins. Will Iran get the bomb first or will the US stabalize Iraq first, that's really the game that is being played.
August 11th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
I just dont see why we just dont bloackade them. Cut off there oil revnue and theyll come back to the table pretty quickly. Europe is will just sit and talk and threaten to sanction Irans least important exporte.
--
The Iran Crisis
August 11th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Just a note, a blockade is an act of war. Were we to do so we would have to be prepared and willing for the whole shooting match. It may come to that. I sure hope not and that Iran can be brought to a safe and reasonable alternative. Judging from the state of affairs there now though, I won't hold my breath.
August 11th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Just a note, a blockade is an act of war. Were we to do so we would have to be prepared and willing for the whole shooting match. It may come to that. I sure hope not and that Iran can be brought to a safe and reasonable alternative. Judging from the state of affairs there now though, I won't hold my breath.
Not only would it be an act of War it would interfer with the economies of the people who buy the oil, like China. Image what would happen here if someone blockaded Saudi Arabia. Still, such action might be inevitable. Espically if Iran refuses its willingness to get nuclear weapons.

Of course, there is always the Isrealis, I dont think they would be pleased to have a nuclear armed Iran either...

In terms of military action I see two possibilities

1. A quick cruise missile strike against the nuclear facilities...

2. A full scale invasion that would drive out the mullahs. Pray we are not required to use this one, because unlike Iraq, Iran is fully armed and equipped and its troops are loyal. They are professionals, not the peasant conscripts in Iraq. You can expect to need a very large force to occupy the country (Europe would have to be involved) and be certain of heavy US casaulties.
August 11th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
I think the US has thrown this one into the UN's court. I'm not sure how long we will let them sweat before threatening Iran but we also learned who we can trust to carry their weight if it escalates to a war. I wouldn't be surprised if President Bush lets some folks twist in the wind for a while. He has a vindictive streak in him and balls of steel so I hope he doesn't let the situation in Iran be an "I told you so" point to Europe.
By the way the two most dangerous countries in the Middle East for Iran is the USA and Israel. As battle proven allies and supreme military forces, whatever Iran has up it's sleeve, you can bet that neither of those will be a first strike target.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/in...er=MSN_NYTHOME

"Iran will not bend," Mr. Nasseri said. "Iran will be a nuclear fuel producer and supplier within a decade."

In a provocative and colloquial speech, Mr. Nasseri asked whether American suspicions that Iran was diverting its nuclear resources were a "déjà vu."

"Iran is not Iraq," he said. "And the United States is not that self-appointed policeman of the world anymore."

But the leaders of Europe and the United States say they are particularly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program because Iran kept its facilities hidden for 18 years before they were revealed by an Iranian dissident group in 2002. Western officials also say Iran sponsors terrorism.
August 11th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Quote:
In terms of military action I see two possibilities

1. A quick cruise missile strike against the nuclear facilities...
The only way that will get there most important facilties is if we use the small bunker busting nuke tipped bad boys. That in all likelyhood would be looked down upon.

Quote:
Just a note, a blockade is an act of war.
I realize that. i highly doubt the Iranian navy could break it. And if they do start a shooting match. The US army and marnies have no place better to use there air power and superior armor to there advantage than in the Iraqi desert. If we can draw there convential forces out with out haveing to "invade" them all the better. I still think this problem can be sovled peacefully though
August 11th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Missileer

I wouldnt bet on that.

This country has a tendency to underestimate the ME. We saw this in the Iranian revolution of 1979, the Beruit bombing, WTC bombing, the USS Cole, 9/11 and elsewhere. In each episode it was because we left our guard down.

I doubt Iran would use the bomb themselves, as that would be suicide. But what they could do is give the bomb or bomb materials to somebody else and claim Plausible denialibility. Exactly what Pakistan did when the Press discovered they gave bomb parts to North Korea.

Thats my real worry. Iran is already a large sponsor of terrorism. I could list a list of Nutball groups that would gladly use a Nuclear Device on us or someone else, but you can be sure we are on the top of the list.
Iran already gives sancutuary to al Qaeda members.
August 11th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Missileer


I doubt Iran would use the bomb themselves, as that would be suicide. But what they could do is give the bomb or bomb materials to somebody else and claim Plausible denialibility. Exactly what Pakistan did when the Press discovered they gave bomb parts to North Korea.

Thats my real worry. Iran is already a large sponsor of terrorism. I could list a list of Nutball groups that would gladly use a Nuclear Device on us or someone else, but you can be sure we are on the top of the list.
Iran already gives sancutuary to al Qaeda members.
Actually, Iran has supported Iraq as far back as the first Gulf War when they let the Iraqi air force land their planes there. I think that intelligence has also linked the more powerful explosives for IEDs in Iraq to Iran. Anywhere in the Middle East is "hands off" to any Western country but that's nothing new. I think that Iran would hesitate to supply any other group with Nuclear material unless it was carved in stone that they could not be connected in any way.

I think the Cole was a splinter group, probably a small cell of radicals who were given the explosives by a larger group who can afford to buy such a destructive material. Iran or Saudi come to mind.
August 12th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Again I think thats a dangerous assumption. I wouldnt take the risk.

Iran didnt really support Iraq, it just allowed their planes to land there. It never gave them back either. Chrismas came early.

In Iran , The difference is only is only the hardliners hate America, most of the Iranian people (most of which are very young) tend to be more accomatating to the US. All Iranians hate Saddam. This is why we need to trend lightly now we dont want make future Iranian allies into future Iranian enemies. But allowing them to get the bomb would be even worse.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The thing is most governments even if they were 100% sure they would get away with it would never stoop to as low as giving Nuclear weapons to terrorists. But with Iran and North Korea I really wonder. The Hard-liners because they are vindictive and the N.Koreas because they are desperate.

The problem is that all criminals think there plan is foolproof until the second after they get caught. All it takes is one official to think he wont get caught to do something monsterous.