Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

[Entropy]

Why do we have to tell Iran anything? It seems to me we've made it pretty clear, many times, that our umbrella of nuclear deterrences spreads far and wide, including to Israel with whom we don't even have a formal defense treaty. What, exactly, will more bellicose threats accomplish?

[davidbfpo]

Entropy,

I'm not sure if your post is directed at mine. So with that caveat aside.

I am not advocating the USA solely talks with Iran, but a far wider community and probably best from outside government. Pugwash for example.

Where are the 'hot lines' to call Teheran in a crisis or when something odd appears on the radar? In a weird way, additional caveat it is decades since I had to think about nuclear deterrence, both sides to know far more than we have nukes and we will hit you. Confidence building in destruction is indeed strange.

[Entropy]

Dave,

No, I was speaking to Pete in his original comment. Personally, I think we should reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran, but I understand that idea isn't very popular.

[IntelTrooper]

I agree with Entropy and those saying that continued threats are counterproductive. Iran has been thriving for 30 years under constant sanctions and threats from the Western world. They've done little to change the situation there. Threats of military force will simply serve to unite the people in anti-American sentiments, and the general population of Iran is not our enemy.

Recent indications are that a rift is emerging between the religious leadership and Ahmadinejad's taunting the West while pursuing the nuclear program. The change needed to peacefully resolve the situation must come from inside Iran, and that's not going to happen when we threaten the lives and cultural heritage of Iran by targeting Mashhad, Esfahan, or any other city, really.

[Fuchs]

Thats right....Strategy is Targeting.

There was a time when smart people understood that strategy was about resource allocation because war means scarcity.


I assume that got somehow lost after decades of beating up (and at times losing against) 4th class to 10th class opponents.

[Pete]

My original message in this thread is based on the assumption that Iran is going to become a nuclear power whether we like it or not, and that it will also continue to develop the missiles to deliver them. The sentiment expressed is not intended to be saber-rattling -- rather, it would be a matter-of-fact warning that actions have consequences, and they would be grave indeed should that nation fire a nuke at someone.

[Fuchs]

It's also unrealistic.

Russia is an autocratic state with nukes and some challenges to its status. Its CIS is bordering on Iran. They would be a 10:1 better candidate for a third party nuclear retaliation than any Western country.

[Entropy]

My original message in this thread is based on the assumption that Iran is going to become a nuclear power whether we like it or not, and that it will also continue to develop the missiles to deliver them. The sentiment expressed is not intended to be saber-rattling -- rather, it would be a matter-of-fact warning that actions have consequences, and they would be grave indeed should that nation fire a nuke at someone.

I understand, but Iran is already well aware of that and we've been saying essentially what you're suggesting for quite a while. In fact, we've gone further and suggested that a nuclear capability itself could invite "retaliation."

In short, Iran is not operating under the premise that it could use a nuke and not face retaliation.

[Pete]

Hi Intel Trooper, just want to say that Monterey was where I lived when I was at Fort Ord in the 7th Infantry Division before you were born in '82-'84, and before then the place was my Dad's U.S. Army reception station in '43.

I lived on Alice Street in New Monterey. The streets there with women's names are said to have been named after the town's favorite ladies of the night during the Steinbeck Cannery Row days. There's a Lottie Street as well.

My watering hole was Segovia's on Lighthouse Avenue. There were some interesting regulars there back then -- one, a former student jet fighter pilot in the World War II Luftwaffe, spent his career as a DIA spook before he retired as chief of the DLI Asian Languages Branch; another was a Marine Corps Iwo Jima veteran who became an Army armor officer who was briefly Elvis Presley's battalion commander in Germany in the '50s. Before I started going there Clint Eastwood and Jimmy Doolittle, the flyer and Medal of Honor guy, were also occasional visitors.

[IntelTrooper]

Hi Intel Trooper, just want to say that Monterey was where I lived when I was at Fort Ord in the 7th Infantry Division before you were born in '82-'84, and before then the place was my Dad's U.S. Army reception station in '43.

I lived on Alice Street in New Monterey. The streets there with women's names are said to have been named after the town's favorite ladies of the night during the Steinbeck Cannery Row days. There's a Lottie Street as well.

My watering hole was Segovia's on Lighthouse Avenue. There were some interesting regulars there back then -- one, a former student jet fighter pilot in the World War II Luftwaffe, spent his career as a DIA spook before he retired as chief of the DLI Asian Languages Branch; another was a Marine Corps Iwo Jima veteran who became an Army armor officer who was briefly Elvis Presley's battalion commander in Germany in the '50s. Before I started going there Clint Eastwood and Jimmy Doolittle, the flyer and Medal of Honor guy, were also occasional visitors.

Hi Pete,

I'm always amazed by how much history and celebrity exists around this area. If you've been back in the last 10 years or so you've probably noticed how little of the old Lightfighters stomping ground in use anymore, and aside from the part that was converted into CSU-Monterey Bay, they've made no effort to cover up the delapidation. Sad.

I'm not a drinker but I hear Segovia's is still around, along with a few of the other iconic places. Clint Eastwood owns a restaurant over in Carmel that he frequents. Jimmy Doolittle would have been fascinating to see.

I keep telling myself to slow down and enjoy the area more so I have some memories other than the inside of the classroom. It really is a special place here.

[Pete]

When Dad was at the Presidio of Monterey on his second or third day in the Army in 1943 one of the recruits asked an elderly master sergeant there what his ribbons stood for. The sergeant named what they were, and when he got to his World War ribbon, the one he was proudest of, he raised his voice and said, " .. and this, gentlemen, is for the Siberian Expeditionary Force!" The guy had been in the Vladivostok area of Russia during 1918-19.

[SJPONeill]

U.S. policy toward Iran is so bi-polar. On one hand we leave them little choice but to pursue nuclear weapons with our heavy bias toward their traditional ideological foes of Saudi Arabia and Israel; and our occupation of historic Persian territory/areas of influence on their current left and right flanks of modern Iraq and Afghanistan. This coupled with our overthrow of their government in 1953, followed by the past 30 years of the US seeing them as a threat ever since they tossed our guy out.

On the other hand we tell them to trust us; while the entire world can see that the U.S. clearly treats nations that possess nuclear weapons with far more respect than those that do not; and that we have a clear bias against Iran.

Its probably time for a new approach. While I will be the first to admit that the government of Iran is a pain in the ass; Iran itself is a great nation with a tremendous history and a great future. Sure, they are are in a bit of a slump currently, but the US cannot ignore our contributions to that current slump (nor those of our British friends).

This is not a problem to be defeated, contained, or deterred, but rather one to be addressed rationally as to how we all move forward together. For those who say "the government of Iran is irrational," true that. But there are plenty who have reasonably leveled that same claim at the U.S. over the years.

The U.S. needs to not let our little buddies push us into a fight that is against our interest, and need to seek ways to resolve our differences and move forward. The people of both nations deserve no less.

Absolutely plus start waving the big stick around as Pete proposes and the littler kids on the block might decide to get their hits in first...the genie is and has been out of the bag for decades so acceptance is probably more useful than rhetoric...no one seems that worried about French nuclear weapons and they've probably sponsored as much terrorism as Iran...

[JMA]

If the Iranians continue to jack us around regarding their nukes perhaps the time may come that the President should announce that he has directed the U.S. Air Force to target intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads on Tehran, Tarriz, Mashbad and Eshafan. The understanding would be that if they shoot nukes at anyone in the world those cities will be black holes in the ground within one hour.

Well I agree they should be put on notice that no new nuclear weapons holding countries will be allowed.

Not sure taking cities out is the best way to get that message home but the current cowardly acceptance of an Iran nuke is quite sickening.

[Dayuhan]

Well I agree they should be put on notice that no new nuclear weapons holding countries will be allowed.

Not sure taking cities out is the best way to get that message home but the current cowardly acceptance of an Iran nuke is quite sickening.

A bit silly to declare that you will not allow what you haven't the capacity to prevent. Canute and the tide...

It's odd that so many simply assume that an Iranian nuke would be promptly shot toward Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the US (via sneaky terrorists), despite the certain and devastating consequences any such action would have for Iran. Have we not considered the possibility (or probability) that the Iranians want a deterrent, just as the Israelis do? As Bob's World points out, they have their share of threats and enemies, and not a lot of friends.

Remembering the old Tom Lehrer song, and the reference to Israel's nuclear program...

The Lord's our shepherd, says the psalm, but just in case...
We'd better get a bomb.

I suspect that it translates well to Persian, and a few other languages as well.

[JMA]

A bit silly to declare that you will not allow what you haven't the capacity to prevent. Canute and the tide...

So you don't believe it possible to prevent Iran developing nukes? And you call me silly?

[Dayuhan]

So you don't believe it possible to prevent Iran developing nukes? And you call me silly?

Like so many things, it's certainly possible on an internet forum. Realistically the theoretical "options" are... well, not realistic at all. This comment was made earlier on the thread:

As Sec Gates pointed out, there are not a lot of really good options for stopping Iran's nuclear program with military force. Short of completely taking the country over it would be pretty tough to stop the Iranians from getting nukes.

The conversation always comes back to air strikes, and the conclusion is always that they would probably not accomplish the desired goal, and that the probable negative consequences would be outweigh the very questionable gains.

If you've a strategy in mind, perhaps you should reveal it. I'm sure many here would like to know.

[Dayuhan]

Reference for the quote above:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...674a9676aa.191

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday that military action would not stop Iran's nuclear program and instead would only make it "deeper and more covert."

Gates told a conference that military action would offer only a "short-term solution" to the thorny issue of Iran's nuclear program...

Military action against the Iranian government, which has refused global calls to rein in its suspect nuclear enrichment program, would "bring together a divided nation, it will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons," the US defense chief said.

[Bob's World]

Gates is spot on with this. Smartest thing I've heard regarding Iran coming out of the Pentagon.

We've had way too much focus on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and very little rational thought regarding WHY they seek them.

The knee-jerk Intel driven position is that it is to threaten/attack Israel or Saudi Arabia or even the U.S.; but it is is highly unlikely a country with 1 or 2 weapons is going to attack someone in such a manner, only to receive 20-30 even larger devices back at them (The US is not famous for our moderate responses to such things).

I suspect the primary driver is to deter others from attacking them and to free themselves from having to kowtow to the demands of nuclear powers. With the US military currently on both their flanks, the heavy anti-Iranian rhetoric coming out of both official and unofficial US sources on a regular basis, and the persistent prodding of both the Saudis and the Israelis, the most logical COA is to develop a nuclear capability. Even their populace, that is no fan of their current government, rallies around the cause of their right to develop such weapons and the lack of right of those who already possess such weapons to deny them the same. Gates is on target on this one.

We need more of this. Only a military with the moral courage to tell the boss "yes we can, but no we should not and here is why," can truly serve the nation to its fullest capacity.

[Rex Brynen]

The knee-jerk Intel driven position is that it is to threaten/attack Israel or Saudi Arabia or even the U.S...

I doubt this is the IC view. I suspect it is more accurate to say that 1) the intel community is split on what exactly the Iranian program is (in part, perhaps, because the Iranians themselves are split on the issue), 2) the notion that they are there for first strike purposes is only held by a minority, and 3) most analysts (in and outside government) would probably offer a more nuanced view that would point to Iranian desire for a deterrent, a desire to strengthen Iranian power/prestige, and internal regime dynamics.

[Fuchs]

I'd like to add that I'm under the impression that the Iranian nuke project is a "no nukes, but we could build some in two years" project, comparable to the situation of South Africa, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Ukraine.