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

[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!

[Merv Benson]

What Khatami and the rest of the reformers found was that they had about as much legislative power a student council does in effecting school policy. Even that was too much for the ayatollahs and almost all of them were excluding from running for reelection. Right now Iraq and possibly post Syrian Lebanon are the only function democracies in Muslim middle east. Saudia Arabia and Kuwait are taking baby steps in the direction of democracy but have a long way to go. But at least they are not threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

The current government cannot be described as representative of the will of the Iranians when people who disagree with the death cult supporting ayatollahs are excluded from the process.

There is strong evidence that Iran is not only supporting anti US terrorist but is harboring at least one of the terrorist responsible for killing Americans in Lebanon.

[Stu-6]

Iranian elections are more show than anything, real power is held by the religious authorities. That is why I never understand people getting all up set when the Iranian President makes crazy statements; so what, the guy is on par with the Queen of England.

I tend to doubt the Iranian political structure could survive a nuclear exchange with the Israelis. Not only do the Israelis have many more weapons and better delivery systems than Iran is likely to produce in the next 15 years but the Iranian government has too many internal problems to survive such an action. Frankly we could have made a lot of progress towards deteriorating the extremist in the Iranian government had we handled them a little smarter over the last few years.

In the end the Israelis have shown they can take care of themselves. Of course I am an American so I don’t feel the need to worry about Israeli security; I never understood why some Americans are so considered with the security of Israel, I hope their not so naive as to think Israel will return the favor.

[Stratiotes]

Excuse me while I rant a bit....

I have to agree with Stu-6, let Israel worry about Israel. I don't think anybody elected the US military to be the world's police force in any popular elections either. The fact that our culture and our history has led us to believe that democracy is best for us does not imply that it is best for the Iranian people - let the Iranian people determine what kind of government they have. If they don't like the current one, there are enough of them to do something aout it.

Ghandi, speaking to the colonial superpower that ruled his country, pointed out that a few British rulers could not continue to rule India if the millions of Indians did not want them to. The same is true of Iran - a small group of despots in Tehran cannot continue to rule Iran if 68 million Iranians really do not want them to do so. Patrick Henry said something much the same about British rule to our forefathers. In my opinion, it is not our job to impose democracy on people who have not seen fit in all this time to take it for themselves. I know there are some who wish for it but wishing for it without having the support of the majority is not enough. Either they have to convince their fellow citizens to do something or they have to leave - it’s the same for any people of any country. You either do something to change it, fight to inspire others to join you, learn to accept it and live with things as they are, or you get fed up and go somewhere else. But you don't ask your neighbor to come fight and die to give oyu something your own people have not seen fit to fight and die for themselves already.

As for nuclear weapons - I'm afraid it is impossible to keep them out of the hands of every despot that wants them. I am not especially fond of Pakistan or Nkorea having them either. I'm even less happy that China has them. So what do we do - occupy every country we don't like having them? Its an impractical plan at best and one likely to backfire at worse.

OK, I'm done

[Strickland]

I must concur with the assessment of Israel. In the end, just as the Chinese are asking themselves what they get out of the North Korea relationship, we must ask ourselves, what is it that the Israelis do for us in the Middle East. I agree that comments about wiping out Israel are disturbing; however, no more so than when the Ayatollah Khoemeni made them. Trust that I "get" the State sponsor of terror argument as well; however, when did this become a new revelation? Was it when Hizbollah bombed the Marine Barracks, bombed a military transport in Gander, Newfoundland, kidnapped and executed US citizens? When? To trumpet the State sponsor of terror card after allowing them to do it for the past 25 years is a WEAK argument. Is a nuclear Iran intolerable, but an unstable nuclear Pakistan is ok? I am of the impression the Iranians have long held the capability to close down the Straits of Hormuz with a significant anti ship missile arsenal. Has this been cause to got to war?

In the end, I try to remember that Iran was a democracy before the US and Brits decided to toss out Mossadegh, thus hold out hope. If we attempted a direct military action in Iran, every man, woman, and child would come to fight us. We should remember that they believe 13 year-old Iranian Hussein Fahmidah to be the first suicide bomber, and have buried his remains beside Khoemeni's to honor him. These are not the people we want to fight. No matter how much they may hate the mullahs, they would hate a US invasion more.

At what point do countries not have the ability to defend themselves in any way they see fit so long as it is congruent to international law? The Iranians surely have the right to walk away from the NPT. This is their legal right as a sovereign nation. If we truly wanted to see a peaceful resolution to this situation, why dont we have Israel renounce its nuclear program as a first step.

[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

[Stratiotes]

On another BB I watch, someone linked a news report that indicated there were a good number of Russian advisors at the plant and there were concerns that an air strike could be problematic if any of them were killed/injured.

I don't think that's a good reason in itself to hold off - I would not do it for other reasons but if you are of the persuasion that it will save more lives in the long run and that advisors are there despite warnings.....

[Jedburgh]

A detailed (223 pages) backgrounder and assessment from CSIS: A Nuclear Iran? The Threat from Iran's WMD and Missile Programs

There is a long chain of indicators that Iran is proliferating. Iran’s missile development problems only make sense if they are equipped with CBRN warheads. There have been numerous confirmed disclosures of suspect Iranian activity. Iranian nuclear program has been under intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years, and the IAEA reports disclose a pattern of activity that makes little sense unless it is tied to a nuclear weapons program.

Yet, the data on Iranian nuclear weapons efforts remain uncertain. The summary reporting by the IAEA has not stated that there is decisive evidence that Iran is seeking such weapons, although the detailed disclosures made in IAEA reporting since 2002, do strongly indicate that it is likely that Iran is continuing to covertly seek nuclear technology. Neither the US nor its European allies have as yet released detailed white papers on their intelligence analysis of Iranian efforts, and there have been several press reports that US intelligence feels that its knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program is less than adequate to make the case for where, when, and how the Iranians will acquire a nuclear weapon.

Iran does have the right to acquire a full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty (NPT), and the Iranian government has been able to find ways to justify all of its activities to date as research, related to nuclear power, minor mistakes, or the result of importing contaminated equipment. It has claimed that its concealed and secret efforts are the result of its fears that the US or Israel might attack what it claims are legitimate activities.

In fact, Iran may have advanced to the point where it can covertly develop nuclear weapons even if it agrees to the terms proposed by the EU3 and Russia, and appears to comply with IAEA inspection. As the UN’s experience in Iraq has shown all too clearly, there are severe limits to even the most advanced inspection regime. Iran might well be able to carry out a covert research and development effort, make major advances in weapons development, and improve its ability to produce fissile material. Iran might well acquire a “break out” capability to suddenly make weapons or be able to produce small numbers of weapons without detection.

At the same time, it is hard to discuss the case against Iran without raising questions about the mistakes the US and the UK made in characterizing Iraq’s efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The US in particular, has problems in convincing the international community that Iran is a grave threat to global security. Credibility is a precious commodity, and one that can sometimes be worth more than gold.

The problems in addressing Iran’s capabilities go beyond the ability to determine the facts. Since 2002, the Bush Administration and EU3 have consistently argued that the Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weapons are real and that they must be stopped. The ability of the US, the IAEA, and the EU3 to halt the Iranian nuclear program is complicated, however, by the mistakes that the US and Britain made in dealing with Iraq

It is also impossible to deny the fact that Iran is being judged by a different standard because its regime is associated with terrorism, efforts to export its Shi’ite revolution, and reckless political rhetoric. There is nothing wrong with a “dual standard.” Nations that present exceptional risks require exceptional treatment. The fact remains, however, that Iran was under missile and chemical attack from Iraq, and seems to have revived its nuclear programs at a time that Iraq was already involved in a major effort to acquire biological and nuclear weapons. Iran has major neighbors -- India, Israel, and Pakistan -- that have already proliferated. It must deal with the presence of two outside nuclear powers: Russia near its northern border and the US in the Gulf.

The situation is further confused by the fact there is an increasingly thin line between the technology needed to create a comprehensive nuclear fuel cycle for nuclear power generation and dual use technology that can be used to covertly develop nuclear weapons. A nation can be both excused and accused for the same actions. This can make it almost as difficult, if not impossible, to conclusively prove Iran’s guilt as its innocence, particularly if its programs consist of a large number of small, dispersed efforts, and larger “dual-use” facilities.

Some efforts at proliferation have been called a “bomb in the basement” – programs to create a convincing picture that a nation has a weapon without any open testing or formal declaration. Iran seems to be trying to develop a “bomb in a fog;” to keep its efforts both covert and confusing enough so that there will be no conclusive evidence that will catalyze the UN into cohesive and meaningful action or justify a US response. Such a strategy must be made more overt in the long-run if it is to make Iran a credible nuclear power, but the long-run can easily stretch out for years; Iran can break up its efforts into smaller, research oriented programs or pause them; focus on dual-use nuclear efforts with a plausible rational; permit even intrusive inspection; and still move forward.

[Jedburgh]

From ICG, 23 Feb 06: Iran: Is There a Way Out of the Nuclear Impasse?

Here's the ExecSum:

There is no easy way out of the Iranian nuclear dilemma. Iran, emboldened by the situation in Iraq and soaring oil prices, and animated by a combination of insecurity and assertive nationalism, insists on its right to develop full nuclear fuel cycle capability, including the ability to enrich uranium. Most other countries, while acknowledging to varying extents Iran’s right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to acquire that capability for peaceful energy purposes, have a concern – reinforced by Iran’s lack of transparency in the past, continuing support for militant Middle East groups and incendiary presidential rhetoric – that once able to highly enrich uranium, it will be both able and tempted to build nuclear weapons.

But EU-led diplomacy so far has failed to persuade Iran to forego its fuel cycle ambitions; the UN Security Council seems unlikely to agree on sanctions strong enough to force it to do so; and preventive military force is both a dangerous and unproductive option.

Two possible scenarios remain, however, for a negotiated compromise. The first, and unquestionably more attractive for the international community, is a “zero enrichment” option: for Iran to agree to indefinitely relinquish its right to enrich uranium in return for guaranteed supply from an offshore source, along the lines proposed by Russia. Tehran, while not wholly rejecting offshore supply, has made clear its reluctance to embrace such a limitation as a long-term solution: for it to have any chance of acceptance, more incentives from the U.S. need to be on the table than at present.

If this option proves unachievable – as seems, regrettably, more likely than not – the only realistic remaining diplomatic option appears to be the “delayed limited enrichment” plan spelt out in this report. The wider international community, and the West in particular, would explicitly accept that Iran can not only produce peaceful nuclear energy but has the “right to enrich” domestically; in return, Iran would agree to a several-year delay in the commencement of its enrichment program, major limitations on its initial size and scope, and a highly intrusive inspections regime.

Both sides inevitably will protest that this plan goes too far – the West because it permits Tehran to eventually achieve full nuclear fuel cycle capability, with the risk in turn of breakout from the NPT and weapons acquisition, and Iran because it significantly delays and limits the development of that fuel cycle capability. But with significant carrots (particularly from the U.S.) and sticks (particularly from the EU) on the table – involving the appropriate application of sequenced incentives, backed by the prospect of strong and intelligently targeted sanctions – it is not impossible to envisage such a negotiation succeeding.

This proposed compromise should be compared neither to the fragile and unsustainable status quo, nor to some idealised end-state with which all sides might be totally comfortable. The more likely scenarios, if diplomacy fails, are for a rapid descent into an extremely unhealthy North Korea-like situation, with a wholly unsupervised nuclear program leading to the production of nuclear weapons and all the dangerously unpredictable regional consequences that might flow from that; or a perilous move to an Iraq-like preventive military strike, with even more far-reaching and alarming consequences both regionally and world-wide.

[Strickland]

As I have stated earlier, the Iranian issue should not be a US led issue. Any course of action pursued against the Iranians needs to be led by China, Japan, Germany, France, and South Korea. These nations remain the largest trading partners with the Iranians, thus have the most to gain/lose if instability and military action take over. If the Japanese, Chinese, and French want to demonstrate their place as great nations within the international community, this is the time. We (the US) need to take a back-seat on this one.

Why are we so concerned if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon? Like the North Koreans, they have no means to deliver it to the US, so what is the major concern? Terrorism? Is Iran having the bomb and terrorizing the US the true concern, or is it that the Iranians or potentially Hizbollah would use it against Israel? Are we prepared to go to war with the whole Muslim Middle East over a State that most now agree was a mistake, a destabilizing factor in the region, and done only out of pity? (and came about as the result of a terrorist campaign against the British?)

For all the Reagan fanatics, maybe if we had addressed the issues with Hizbollah in 1983, things would be different now.

Are we truly concerned about a nuclear terrorist attack against the US b/c we continue to remain woefully unprepared for any attack against our nation? Is it because our borders remain undefended and provide virtually unfettered access? Instead of starting a conflagration in Iran, how about we fix our border and port security first. I am sure this will cost less both in money and lives?