War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[Stratiotes]

Since history shows us that no nuclear powers have gone to general war against each other, unless you count the Siachen Glacier conflict; maybe Iran seeks weapons to ensure its survival and national defense.

It is interesting too that 3 nations that declined to sign the non-proliferation treaty (Israel, Pakistan, and India) are hardly mentioned. If Iran had wanted to pursue such weapons, they probably should not have signed the treaty.

[Jones_RE]

But when did Iran become a signatory to the treat? As administrations (or even regimes) change, governmental priorities can change. But it's a lot harder and more aggravating to withdraw from a treaty than it is to not sign it in the first place. This is one reason why the US doesn't sign treaties willy nilly - no guarantee we'll want the landmine ban affecting us fifty years from now, for example.

Ultimately, we need a strategy for living with a nuclear armed Iran and not just containing it. Of course, that takes us well beyond the realm of "small" wars - except to the extent that Tehran chooses to use its influence to liven up neighboring conflicts. Are we seeing the beginning of a South West Asian Cold War?

[Stratiotes]

It is a tough spot for Iran indeed.... Perhaps they thought that not signing would be considered tantamount to reveling a secret weapons program and so they chose to sign in order to mislead - deception being a good move of political strategy perhaps. After all, is it ever wise to reveal to potential enemies what you are NOT going to do?

I think that expecting anyone to remain without such weapons indefinitely is silly. Every nation is going to want them - some will sign treaties to imply they don't but its only a matter of time. Eventually, they're going to get them. So, as you say, we have to figure out how to live with that.

[DDilegge]

Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…

[Stratiotes]

I have to agree that a nuclear Iran is a scarey thought but I'm not sure what we can do about it.

Even if we stop them with force now, it will only drive them to want them more and probably convince other nations to do the same before the US has a chance to try and stop them with force.

If we resort to force with the attitude that we can ignore international law when we're sufficiently scared, then isn't that playing into the very thinking we would accuse them of?

We cannot stop others from gaining such weapons indefinitely. Anything we do to stop it now will only delay the inevitable. In light of that, I think it would be better to figure out how we are going to deal with the inevitable sooner than later.

[Strickland]

Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…

While I concur that a nuclear Iran is scary, it is not any scarier than loose nukes in the former Soviet Union that no one wants to account for, or a nuclear Pakistan in the absence of Musharraf. We should not forget that no matter how crazy Ahmadinejad may appear, he won a popular election that was relatively free.

[Merv Benson]

When a small group of ayatollahs decides who may not run in an election there is nothing free about it. The current president was permitted to run because the Ayatollahs agreed with his positions. They have excluded all "reformers" from the last two elections.

I tend to doubt the report of missing suitcase nukes simply because if some one like al Qaeda had them they would have used them by now.

Iran has stated its intentions and it would be a mistake not to believe them. Even the guy who lost to the current president has said that Iran could survive a nuclear exchange with Israel, but Israel could not. We are dealing with people with a death cult mentality in Iran and permitting them to have nuclear weapons is not acceptable. If Pakistan ever gets leadership as irresponsible as that in Iran we will have to deal with them accordingly.

[Strickland]

I must have been mistaken in my assumption that due to the fact that women can vote and hold office, and that the former president, Mohammad Khatami, was touted as a reformer that Iran was relatively free. In relation to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen (all US friends in the GWOT), the Iranians are down right progressive!

[SWJED]

13 Feb Reuters - Study: Thousands would die if U.S. attacked Iran

Thousands of military personnel and hundreds of civilians would be killed if the United States launched an air strike on Iran to prevent it developing nuclear arms, a British think tank said in a report released on Monday.

The report by the independent Oxford Research Group said any bombing of Iran by U.S. forces, or by their Israeli allies, would have to be part of a surprise attack on a range of facilities including urban areas that would catch many Iranians unprotected.

The report by Oxford Research Group - Iran: Consequences of a War

This briefing paper, written by our Global Security Consultant, Professor Paul Rogers, provides a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive.

An attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would signal the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably grow to involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, as well as the USA and Iran. The report concludes that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further.

Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

Contents:

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. The US Context
4. The Israeli Factor
5. The Iranian Context
6. Current Circumstances in Iran
7. The Nature of US Military Action
8. Pre-empting Iranian Responses
9. Casualties
10. Iranian Responses
11. Wider Responses
12. Israeli Military Action
13. Conclusion

[Strickland]

Maybe international law, but it seems we have a new variable concerning international relations here. That would be a sovereign of a nation perusing nuclear weapons, delivery means and air-defense assets who leads a crazed Islamist regime eager for the paradise of the next world. Give me a break here, while we debate legalities of international law the tick-tock to nuclear Armageddon marches on…

I see Ahmadinejad as an Iranian populist, and thus, someone who says what he thinks his people want to hear.

Question - I wonder what the average Iranian's perception was of President Bush after his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech? I wonder how closely these perceptions match up to Americans perceptions of Ahmadinejad after he made disparaging remarks about the US and Bush.

[SWJED]

25 September Reuters - Israel Seen Lifting Nuclear Veil in Iran Stand-off by Dan Williams.

In October 1973, with its forces battling to repel invasions by Egypt and Syria, Israel did what had previously been unthinkable: It briefly wheeled its nuclear-capable Jericho-1 missiles out of their secret silos.

That, historians believe, was picked up by U.S. spy satellites and stirred up fears in Washington of a catastrophic flare-up between the Jewish state and the Soviet-backed Arabs. Message received, an urgent American shipment of conventional arms to Israel was quick to follow, and helped turn the war.

With Israel's current arch-foe Iran seen gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons within a few years, and preventive military options limited, some experts now anticipate another "lifting of the veil" on the assumed Israeli atomic arsenal.

Were that to happen, experts say, the objective would be to establish a more open military deterrence vis-a-vis Iran and perhaps win Israel's nuclear option formal legitimacy abroad...

[SWJED]

27 September Miami Herald - U.S. Broadcasts Into Iran Called Too Soft by Warren Strobel and William Douglas.

In another indication that some in the Bush administration are pushing for a more confrontational policy toward Iran, a Pentagon unit has drafted a report charging that U.S. international broadcasts into Iran aren't tough enough on the Islamic regime.

The report, a draft of which McClatchy News Service obtained this week, appears to be a gambit by some officials in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere to gain sway over television and radio broadcasts into Iran, one of the few direct tools the United States has to reach the Iranian people.

McClatchy obtained a copy of the report this week, and it also has circulated on Capitol Hill. It accuses the Voice of America's Persian TV service and Radio Farda, a U.S. government Farsi-language broadcast, of taking a soft line toward Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime and not giving adequate time to government critics.

U.S. broadcasting officials and others who have read the report said it's riddled with errors.

They also see it as a thinly veiled attack on the independence of U.S. international broadcasting, which by law is supposed to represent a balanced view of the United States and provide objective news. ''The author of this report is as qualified to write a report on programming to Iran as I would be to write a report covering the operations of the 101st Airborne Division,'' Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, said in a statement on Tuesday.

Larry Hart, a spokesman for the board, which oversees U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting, said that the radio and TV operations have covered Iran's human rights abuses extensively and have featured appearances by dissidents -- who sometimes telephoned from Iranian jails.

Surveys have shown that Radio Farda is the most-listened-to international radio broadcast into Iran, Hart said...