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

[Jedburgh]

.....I know the above is not likely to be popular given this forums political equilibrium but I am here not as agent provocateur but to try and understand the position of those who do not think like me.

JJ, I feel your statement about your post being "unpopular" is an unnecessary caveat here. Understanding the perspective of the other is critical to all aspects of Small Wars, and I believe you will find much discussion on this board that is contrary to what you may believe is the "popular" tenor. Following your line about Iran, I've copied an earlier post from the other Iran thread with another look from that perspective:

Military Review, Jul-Aug 07: Surrounded: Seeing the World From Iran's Point of View

...An initial sense of the Iranian leadership’s current worldview may be best perceived simply by looking at a map of the Middle East as seen through their eyes. As a Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard) officer once expressed to me while discussing Iran’s security situation depicted on a map on his office wall, most Iranian leaders now share, with increasing anxiety, the common view that the U.S. is following a policy of gradually encircling Iran with hostile American forces based in neighboring countries. They note that 30 years ago the U.S had only a couple of military bases in the region—ironically, located in Iran itself. Now, U.S. bases are in all the Persian Gulf states except Iran, and in one form or another, U.S. forces are in all of Iran’s neighboring states—Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey—except for Turkmenistan. Moreover, the U.S. has special ties with Pakistan (a supposed ally against Al-Qaeda), Turkey (a NATO ally that has a special defense treaty with Israel), and Azerbaijan (where hundreds of American military advisors with equipment are pouring into a country whose oil industry is already closely tied to U.S. interests). Along with this gradual buildup of forces, U.S. leaders from both political parties have kept up a steady stream of threatening rhetoric, publicly calling for regime change in Iran. This is a cause for special alarm, given U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001....

[georgev]

A possible U.S. attack against Iran has been a hot topic in the news for many months now. In some quarters it has become an article of faith that the Bush administration intends to order such an attack before it leaves office. It remains a mystery whether the administration plans an actual attack or whether it is using the threat of attack to try to intimidate Iran -- and thus shape its behavior in Iraq and elsewhere.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/pre...m_campaign=GIR

[goesh]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

"Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni wrapped up her visit to China Tuesday without any sign of having broken down Beijing's opposition to new United Nations sanctions against Iran. "

[tequila]

Livni behind closed doors: Iranian nuclear arms pose little threat to Israel - Haaretz.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published tomorrow.

Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran ...

[Brian Hanley]

Earlier in this thread there is some discussion that seems to indicate that there is fuzziness about the matter of Sunni and Shiite. While there are quite a few sects of Islam (I have an outline map of some of them I made) most are Sunni or Shia. Koran specifies that heretics are to be executed. (Which explains why Taliban were conducting ethnic cleansing operations in Western Afghanistan on Shias there.)

This explains a great deal if you understand it. While Sunni and Shia can be forced into a corner and use certain verses to call for unity against infidels, there is always this fundamental problem. That is why the Sunni world was and is so reluctant to support the USA in Iraq. They know that if anything like fairness ensues that territory will be lost to Sunni rule, probably for centuries if not forever. In Iraq, for centuries, it's mostly been a pretty good deal to be a Sunni. The Shia are convenient to oppress, abuse and squeeze for money. Most cultures are reluctant to give that up, especially when lacking any moral imperative to do so.

They are mutual heretics and both sides have their fanatics who are quite active. The sheep on both sides passively agree to what the fanatics say because it is so obviously true according to scripture. For this reason, they are formally sworn to destroy each other. (This is also why Sunni and Shia from overseas when they see that there are rare mosques in the USA where Sunni and Shia worship together they are shocked if not outraged.)

[Rex Brynen]

Earlier in this thread there is some discussion that seems to indicate that there is fuzziness about the matter of Sunni and Shiite.

I'm not sure there is much fuzziness about the religious contours of the Muslim world among most SWC posters, nor much doubt as to how significant they can be.

On the other hand, its important not to fall into a simplistic Sunni vs Shiite analytical trap, since there a range of factors that motivate individual, collective, and state behavioiur. After all, polls show that two of the most popular political figures in the (largely Sunni) Arab world are Shiites (not to mention one of the most popular pop singers!); despite sectarian atrocity there are large numbers of mixed Sunni-Shiite marriages in Baghdad (and also mixed tribes); largely Shi'ite Iran has (for reasons of realpolitik) supported (Sunni) Hamas in Palestine, and may have begun to throw some support even to the Taliban, and so forth.

Moreover, the Sunni-Shiite split is really only important in the domestic politics of Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain.

Finally, I just listened to the very Sunni Pakistani senior general argue yesterday what a bad idea it would be to bomb Shiite Iran, while highlighting the threat posed by Sunni radicals.

Again: yes, sectarianism is important. The war in Iraq has sharpened it, not only in Iraq, but in many ways more broadly. But no, its not the only driver of politics.

[Brian Hanley]

I'm not sure there is much fuzziness about the religious contours of the Muslim world among most SWC posters, nor much doubt as to how significant they can be.

there a range of factors that motivate individual, collective, and state behavioiur.

Moreover, the Sunni-Shiite split is really only important in the domestic politics of Iraq, Lebanon, and Bahrain.

yes, sectarianism is important. The war in Iraq has sharpened it, not only in Iraq, but in many ways more broadly. But no, its not the only driver of politics.

Agreed. You are quite correct that there are a number of leaders who are primarily secular, and that many Muslims would like to be nominal if possible. I would also say though, without any personal knowledge of this general or his situation, that what people say publicly in that part of the world is not always to be taken at face value. They are steeped in ages of saying what audiences want to hear. They also know that the Western media (and to a significant degree intelligence services) are restricted to english and they can say what they like publicly in their own language.

I would also note that Tehran's support of proxy war against Israel is a type of realpolitik. It's a cheap form of warfare that has no domestic cost. Pretty much all upside domestically, no domestic downside.

[Ken White]

posit that the Sunni - Shia divide in Iraq was in part provoked by western 'expert' and media beating that schism drum a little too heavily.

I realize it's far more complex than that and many other factors, not lest fear of loss versus payback intrude; I'm merely suggesting that all that was to an extent exacerbated by a simplistic western assumption.

That and the IO factor that made that schism into a 'cause' grabbed by both sides that could reinforce the stereotype and used to justify actions. It is possibly noteworthy that Iraqis in exile gather, socialize and marry without regard to that divide...

[MattC86]

Additionally, given the title of the thread, I'd be interested to know what the fine folks of SWC think about the likelihood of military action against Iran. . .

Matt

[Norfolk]

We live in interesting times...

Isn't there some old Near Eastern curse (uttered in a typically polite fashion such that its real meaning completely escapes the common Westerner) that goes, quote, "May you live in interesting times", unquote?

Personally, I prefer boring. Boring is good, or at least safe. Interesting can be exciting, but not sometimes not particularly safe. Besides, I'm having too much fun in my boredom sitting at my boring computer typing boring posts to return to my old Regiment and seek excitement in interesting places meeting interesting people engaging in interesting interactions with them. When I think about that, I'm not so sure I really miss my younger days quite the same. As long as some interesting people don't come knocking at my door, and just leave me in my boredom. Safe.

Well, things are rather interesting at the moment, and there's all sorts of hope for more to come: Turkey perhaps attacking Northern Iraq, some future unpleasantness between the US and Iran, Ethiopia and Eritrea gearing up as if they were to go at it again, and funny noises coming out of Israel about things that have occurred, or may occurr. And that's just off the top of my head.

Until a few weeks, maybe even a few days, before the invasion of Iraq, I honestly didn't believe that the US was going to do it, especially since I didn't see either the US or Britain send anything that really compared to Desert Storm. Now, as far as a possible war with Iran goes, there are a number of very senior flag officers who are not so kindly inclined. But there were a few very senior flag officers who were not exactly brimming with enthusiasm about invading Iraq, either.

Iran is more dangerous than Iraq was, but the Ayatollahs, even with nukes, I suspect will not be inclined to restage the Cuban Missile Crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. They know perfectly well that the US (let alone Israel) would not react with sympathy and understanding to such Iranian indiscretions. But it's not so much the rational factors as the irrational factors at play, on both sides, that I fear may force the matter one way or the other. If it wasn't for the latter factors, I might have said with some confidence that a nuclear Iran and the US might have learned to avoid getting too serious.

Russia and China are playing their cards here too, most conspiciously with invisible hands.

[Armchairguy]

I think it would be lots cheaper in the long run to take a few hundred billion dollars and promise it to Israel and Palestine if they can put together a peace deal in the next 6 months. Or possibly offer the bulk to one or the other to give up their sticking points for a peace deal. If we could get a Palestinian state at peace with Israel then at least the stated reason for destroying Israel would be gone, a large part of the AQ recruiting drive would be useless, the average arab in the streets would have a hard time hating America, the Europeans might start to like America again and it wouldn't be chic to hate someone who pulled off that trick.

The cost of attacking Iran could/would be immense and not just in the cost of bombs. Without lots of international support (not just eastern europe and france?) America would become a pariah. We're already pretty low in the polls. If we attacked Iran it would knock the remaining nay sayers off the fence solidly against us. Next we've got the damage Iran could do in return and the uncertainty in actually taking out all of their facilities and materials. Who knows maybe AQ Khan already gave them a bomb?

As far as nuclear proliferation is concerned I'd say the genie's been out of the bottle for some time and we'll be lucky even without Iran developing a nuke to keep them out of AQ hands.

We need to win the international hearts and minds and eliminate the reasons for wanting nuclear weapons.

[goesh]

We can better predict the path and aftermath of war than the uncertainty of a nuclear Iran, be it done by think tanks and computers, bones or yarrow, we just don't know. It is a gnawing uncertainty that Europe is hiding from and China is so desperately hoping goes quitely away. It's best to let Israel do the dirty deed and be the scapegoats - the Islamic world couldn't possibly hate them any more than they already do. Given the preemption of Iraqi nuclear capability and whatever non-conventional mischief Syria was developing, it is ludicrous to imagine Israel will stand down while those obnoxious Persians attain tactical nuclear capability.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

"Israel can destroy Iran's growing nuclear program, a senior IDF officer was quoted as saying by 'The Canadian Jewish News' Web site on Wednesday"

[Brian Hanley]

That and the IO factor that made that schism into a 'cause' grabbed by both sides that could reinforce the stereotype and used to justify actions. It is possibly noteworthy that Iraqis in exile gather, socialize and marry without regard to that divide...

The fanatics on both sides the core of Iran (viz. Ayatollah Khomeni's quote, "Those who say Islam is not about war know nothing of Islam.") and the "Shade of the Koran" boyz made that one. They pulled it straight out of doctrine. The provocation of the West by Al Qaeda was intended to bring boots on the ground to their region to force the "bad muslims" to take sides. (It appears they had bought their own propaganda that it was Al Qaeda/Taliban heroes who defeated the USSR.) The achilles heel of the fanatic is that they tend to believe that others will be as outraged as they are.

The core population of Iraq, as with most (one can see the same thing in Nazi Germany history), just wants to live a decent life. They'll go along when things are improving for them and ignore problems. That Iraqis in exile gather together with little regard for schism way is not surprising. They are a self-selected sample consisting of: A. the better educated and wealthier classes B. the secular.

[Ken White]

Amatuers r us...

[Ken White]

1936. Maybe it was '37. Only excuse I have for that softness is that I was young...

I did just happen to broadly agree with what you said. Could always quibble about the edges but I generally try to avoid that (not always successfully ). I do think our foreign policy since about 1976 has been below amatuerish. Seems to be getting worse, too...

I'd have to think about your proposal for a bit; see some pluses and minuses. In any event, I suspect the probability of the Congress laying down for that is, for a variety of good and bad reasons, virtually non-existent.

[goesh]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307516,00.html

"WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama said Friday that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran, offering economic incentives and a chance for peaceful relations if Iranian leaders would forego pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorists."

~send some cheap Mexican labor their way, Obama - call it the Peons for Progress and Partnership Program (PPPP) for those here who hanker for acronyms

[JeffC]

The impending showdown over Iran's uranium enrichment program, and its failure to abide by the IAEA's requirements for full transparency will now be moving toward a third round of U.N. sanctions with the impending threat of military action by the U.S. if diplomatic efforts fail.

Unfortunately, a military strike may make matters much worse. China will certainly act to protect her strategic interests in Iran, not to mention her 100 or so companies doing business there, but even worse may be the world-wide economic fallout if Iran closes the Straits of Hormuz.

I've explored the history of this problem, as well as some possible scenarios for the outcome in a paper that's now available at IntelFusion - "China, Iran, and the Nuclear Imperative". As usual, your feedback is much appreciated.

Open thread...

Nuclear Reactor - Bushehr, Iran

Credit: Space Imaging

[Jedburgh]

CSIS, 25 Nov 07: Iran's Nuclear and Missile Programs: A Status Report

This presenation covers what is and is not known about Iran’s nuclear weapons and missile developments. It is important to note that it does not speculate where hard data are lacking. It does not make worst-case judgments, or attempt to go beyond the evidence provided by the IAEA and unclassified judgments of the US intelligence community.

No official source has yet claimed to have a “smoking gun” that shows conclusively Iran is developing a nuclear weapons production program. At the same time, the available evidence provides strong indications that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and is seeking to deploy a long-range missile force that can be armed with nuclear weapons.

Specifically, Iran is known to have made significant efforts in all of the following areas, most of which have been tracked by the IAEA for some time:

- Beryllium (neutron reflector)
- Polonium (neutron initiator)
- Plutonium separation
- Uranium enrichment
- Machining of Uranium hemispheres
- Re-entry vehicle design
- Acquisition of North Korean (Chinese) weapons design? AQ Khan network transfers
- High explosive lenses

At the same time, the briefing points out that there are many key uncertainties that affect Iran’s nuclear program:

- When centrifuge plants will be able to produce fissile material and at what rate.
- State of “passive” testing of key components and weapons assemblies using non-fissile material.
- Efforts in boosted and fusion weapons design.
- Criteria for reliability and safety.
- Intentions with heavy water reactor project.
- Remote and unknown site activity, including P-2 centrifuge design, and weapons and warhead design.
- Plans for testing; progression from device to weapons.
- Force deployment plans once weapons are available.
- Dates for ability to test first device; first weapon, and deployable bombs and warheads: 2010-2015?

The data gathered for this report also shows that major uncertainties and differences exist from source to source in describing Iran’s long-range ballistic missile programs, including key factors like the number and nature of Iran’s programs and the range-payload, set-up and reaction time, accuracy, and reliability of the systems that are known to exist.

These uncertainties might be resolved in if key intelligence judgments were declassified. Three critical areas need to be addressed in fully characterizing Iranian efforts to design nuclear weapons and create missile warheads:

- There are no reliable unclassified surveys of the nuclear weapons and dual-use technology, components, and literature Iran is known to have imported.

- Iran has denied it has made efforts to design nuclear weapons and create missile warheads, but the national intelligence that led the IAEA to seek clarification about Iranian efforts like the “Green Salt Project” indicate that there may be more evidence about such Iranian activity than have been declassified to date.

- Britain and the US have not fully declassified the level of Chinese and North Korean nuclear weapons and warhead design data made available to Iran through the AQ Khan network and related sources.

Complete 85 slide presentation in pdf at the link.

[JeffC]

CSIS, 25 Nov 07: Iran's Nuclear and Missile Programs: A Status Report

Complete 85 slide presentation in pdf at the link.

Regardless of Iran's poor showing before the IAEA, not to mention its history of telling outright lies, no one believes that they have 25,000 centrifuges operating at one time (which is the estimated number needed to fuel one nuclear reactor). Iran claims to have 3,000 centrifuges, but even that figure hasn't been confirmed, and while they may have them, that doesn't mean that they're operational. Even if Iran's claim of 3000 is true, and assuming that they're all working together, it would take one year to make enough fuel for one nuclear warhead.

With that in mind, I think its important to weigh the very slight threat that Iran offers from a nuclear perspective against the major repercussions of a military attack against Iran. I'm convinced that this must be resolved diplomatically and with great firmness by the nation members of the Security Council. It's too bad that the U.S. initiated this program back in the 50's and supported the Shah in his nuclear ambitions up until the '78 Iranian Revolution. Now we once again have to deal with the repercussions of our past mistakes.

[bourbon]

It's too bad that the U.S. initiated this program back in the 50's and supported the Shah in his nuclear ambitions up until the '78 Iranian Revolution. Now we once again have to deal with the repercussions of our past mistakes.

While it's overly facetious to point out who in the Ford Administration pushed for the Westinghouse/GE – Iran nuke deal, the irony is too caustic not to note. I doubt it's lost on the Iranian people. The patterns that ripple in this universe never cease to amaze me.