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

[JMA]

Yes, there is a reason: since the US is no longer the world's sole economic superpower, it cannot reasonably aspire to be the world's sole military superpower. It's no longer an affordable luxury.

The military options have been assessed and found wanting. Invasion is not realistically affordable, and would not be even in a world where we could simply go out and invade anyone who doesn't do what we want. Air attack is unlikely to achieve the desired objective and the range of potential - in fact probable - undesirable consequences is severe. No realistic option has been proposed.

It takes no courage whatsoever to propose impractical and pointless plans and accuse those who fail to adopt them of lacking courage. People who bluster about what others ought to do don't have to face the consequences of ill-advised action.

This conversation is a wonderful example of what I have been saying...

These plans? They are to achieve what?

What is the US position (the government position and not that what certain individuals would like it to be) on whether Iran can be allowed to develop nukes? It appears that they don't what Iran to have nukes but at the same time do not have the courage to make sure that does not happen. There is no doubt that if there was the required backbone amongst the politicians the military could prepare 20 possible military options and those "smart" guys in and around this administration could figure out at least one political strategy.

It would be better for the US to do like what the Brits did when they ran away from their Empire that they state clearly that they have no interest in Iran and its nuclear programme and will not get involved in the internal affairs of this sovereign state.

The message (at the moment) to the world is that the US is indeed too weak and therefore unable to do anything about the Iran nuclear programme. It is this perceived weakness that lets those like Al-Qaeda in the Yemen and Somalia believe that they have nothing to fear from the US... and they are probably correct.

Oh yes and it takes no courage to take the course of least resistance.

[Dayuhan]

What is the US position (the government position and not that what certain individuals would like it to be) on whether Iran can be allowed to develop nukes? It appears that they don't what Iran to have nukes but at the same time do not have the courage to make sure that does not happen. There is no doubt that if there was the required backbone amongst the politicians the military could prepare 20 possible military options and those "smart" guys in and around this administration could figure out at least one political strategy.

First of all, American politicians are accountable to the American populace, not to you. The American populace is not prepared to accept war with Iran in order to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

Part of the process by which a government decides what its position on an issue will be is an assessment of capacity to influence conditions. It's stupid to declare that you will not tolerate something you haven't the capacity to prevent. You just make yourself look a blustering idiot.

I'm sure the military has put together many options. Whether or not there are 20 I really don't know, but I'm sure there are several. When assessed, it's clear that these options either exceed the level of commitment acceptable to the populace - an absolute constraint in a democracy - or are unlikely to accomplish the objective, or are likely to produce a range of unintended consequences with negative effects that exceed the value of the goal, even in the unlikely event that the goal were to be achieved. Pursuing an option so assessed would not be brave, it would be dumb.

I can't see how courage enters into it at all, unless you think that American leaders ought to have the courage to put your demands ahead of those of their constituency... an odd thing to ask of the leaders of a democracy.

As far as the leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere are concerned, there is nothing that would please them more than to see American bombs raining down on Iran. That's what keeps them in business.

[JMA]

First of all, American politicians are accountable to the American populace, not to you.

Are they accountable to anybody? They don't seem to care in most cases in the recent past (from 1945) most presidents prove to be a disappointment to voters given their popularity records. Seems they say what they need to say to get elected and then do their own thing thereafter.

The American populace is not prepared to accept war with Iran in order to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

And you know this how? Seriously... is this what you would like to believe or can you support your statement with some facts?

Yes I know while you can't take the word of a US President to the bank perhaps the current incumbent is closer to prevention than you may think. Read here:

“Prevention” rather than “containment” was the watchword of the secret Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) on Iran, which President Barack Obama signed in the second week of April, ...

Who knows. Maybe seeing you talk on behalf of the US populace you can enlighten me on this?

Part of the process by which a government decides what its position on an issue will be is an assessment of capacity to influence conditions. It's stupid to declare that you will not tolerate something you haven't the capacity to prevent. You just make yourself look a blustering idiot.

It appears the US government needs no help in putting it beyond doubt in the eyes of the world that they are indeed totally and absolutely inept when it comes to foreign policy. Many in the world outside the US see the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as the last kicks of a dying horse. I would like to believe otherwise but unless the US voters can begin to elect competent presidents there is no hope of that.

I'm sure the military has put together many options. Whether or not there are 20 I really don't know, but I'm sure there are several. When assessed, it's clear that these options either exceed the level of commitment acceptable to the populace - an absolute constraint in a democracy - or are unlikely to accomplish the objective, or are likely to produce a range of unintended consequences with negative effects that exceed the value of the goal, even in the unlikely event that the goal were to be achieved. Pursuing an option so assessed would not be brave, it would be dumb.

I'm sure the military have any number of options on the table. The problem is and always will be the limitations the politicians place upon them.

You talk about something being acceptable to the populace. Again is this really what you think or do you have some data to share on this?

Being dumb about what options to pursue is not something unknown to recent US administrations. They don't seem to care.

I can't see how courage enters into it at all, unless you think that American leaders ought to have the courage to put your demands ahead of those of their constituency... an odd thing to ask of the leaders of a democracy.

Having seen how the presence of nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent has made matters more complicated. One would have thought the lesson would have been learned. Now to allow North Korea and Iran to produce nukes is plain criminally insane and totally incompetent.

It is of course somewhat disingenious to continue the pretense that it is only I that would suggest that Iran should be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. Please don't do that.

To see just Iran is giving the P5+1 the run around read this:
Nuclear Prevention and Red Lines: The Case of Iran

The actions of the P5+1 is a joke.

As far as the leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere are concerned, there is nothing that would please them more than to see American bombs raining down on Iran. That's what keeps them in business.

American bombs raining down on Iran? You mean to stop nuclear weapon development in Iran one needs to carpet bomb the whole country? LOL...

... immediate surrender seems to be the best option for the US... if you can get Israel to go along with that.

[slapout9]

Did I do more than merely use a Billy Graham quote?

It didn't seem to be just a quote. It was an implication about moral character, which you seem to imply as very important(I agree with that by the way if you meant it), so that is why I asked the question. Before we talk about how to do it (attack Iran)should we spend more time on discussing whether it is even the morally right thing to do in the first place and if it is then why or why not?

[JMA]

It didn't seem to be just a quote. It was an implication about moral character, which you seem to imply as very important(I agree with that by the way if you meant it), so that is why I asked the question. Before we talk about how to do it (attack Iran)should we spend more time on discussing whether it is even the morally right thing to do in the first place and if it is then why or why not?

Lets look at that Billy Graham quote again:

Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are often stiffened.

The converse of this quote is also true. Fear is a cancer.

Taking this all a little bit further I suggest we look at Kipling's poem "If":

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
...

So only people of proven courage both physical and moral should be allowed to make such decisions for a nation. (In a democracy you get the leadership you deserve)

Ok so what to do about Iran?

My opinion which is by no means unique is that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

I would support any action taken to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon or if it does happen through the incompetence of the P5+1 then I would support an Israeli or other unilateral attack aimed at either destroying the nuclear arsenal of Iran or forcing to the Iran regime to agree to dismantle these weapons under IAEA supervision. One would certainly hope and wish that all this could be achieved without the emission of radiation.

As to whether this is the morally correct thing to do in the first place I don't think there is any doubt. I would like to see both the US and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to the bear minimum as with the other current nuclear powers but that no additional nuclear powers be allowed to become established at any cost.

If WMD had been found in Iraq then we would not be hearing about the wasted $1 trillion and the 4,418 deaths of US servicemen. The problem was that they sold the war on the basis of there supposedly being WMD there.

For Iran I suggest that action be threatened on the basis that Iran must not be allowed to develop any WMDs.

Now once there is agreement to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons or there is the resolve from say Israel with or without US support to go ahead with a military strike should all other avenues prove fruitless then and only then does the "plan" become an issue.

I would say that one should consider the Kosovo option and the early action against the Taliban was the basis for this. Strategic bombing with little or no troops on the ground. I know and Iraqis know that this precision bombing is not as precise as everyone would like to believe but I suggest that careful target selection would reduce civilian casualties to the minimum.

I would expect a PR campaign to begin now to prepare the fainthearted western countries for this likelihood and allow them to start growing some backbone.

Remember:

It takes a brave man to stand up to his enemies but an even braver man to stand up to his friends.

[jmm99]

Please answer me just a question one.

Why should a citizen of the US want the US to have "sole superpower status" ?

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Why should a citizen of the US want the US to have "sole superpower status" ?

An excellent question. It’s certainly not a status that I would want, or a status that's compatible with our current financial situation.

And you know this how? Seriously... is this what you would like to believe or can you support your statement with some facts?

We hold these truths to be self-evident… seriously, if you’re following the American mood at all you will see quite clearly that the prospect of another war in the Middle East is going to make a lead balloon look like a peregrine falcon. The 9/11 impetus only carries so far, and it is gone.

It appears the US government needs no help in putting it beyond doubt in the eyes of the world that they are indeed totally and absolutely inept when it comes to foreign policy. Many in the world outside the US see the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as the last kicks of a dying horse. I would like to believe otherwise but unless the US voters can begin to elect competent presidents there is no hope of that.

You are welcome to your opinion. I am presumably welcome to my opinion of your opinion, which I shall tactfully decline to state.

I personally hope (not sure I dare believe it) that the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are the last time this living nation needs to be reminded that kicking ourselves in the balls is painful and counterproductive. Maybe this time the lesson will sink in.

Having seen how the presence of nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent has made matters more complicated. One would have thought the lesson would have been learned. Now to allow North Korea and Iran to produce nukes is plain criminally insane and totally incompetent.

You seem oddly fixated on this notion of “allowing”. Who is supposed to be doing all this allowing and not allowing? The US? What are we supposed to be, parents to the world, sending nations for time-outs - or bombing them - whenever they do what we have unilaterally decided that we won’t allow? This seems, in all honesty, a rather bizarre way of looking at the world. We are not a global legislature or a global police force. It’s not a responsibility any sane nation would want, or that any sane world would allow one nation to claim. The farthest I'm willing to take that is a clear statement that those who attack us or our allies will have the $#!T kicked out of them. Beyond that, we have no business trying to run the world. All moral considerations aside, we can't afford it.

B]American bombs raining down on Iran[/B]? You mean to stop nuclear weapon development in Iran one needs to carpet bomb the whole country? LOL...

Actually one might have to… none of the proposed plans for air strikes seem at all likely to accomplish the objective, and you've been notably reluctant to suggest anything that you think would work. The point, though, is that an attack on Iran is not going to intimidate Al Qaeda, it’s going to play directly into their hands. There are few things we could do that would make them happier, or that would help them more.

... immediate surrender seems to be the best option for the US... if you can get Israel to go along with that.

Why should anyone surrender to anyone? Should South Korea surrender to the north? By that “logic” (to use the term very loosely indeed) we should already have surrendered to the Soviet Union, and to China…

[JMA]

Please answer me just a question one.

Why should a citizen of the US want the US to have "sole superpower status" ?

Regards

Mike

Well I can believe that there are a lot of US citizens who are happy that the US is the King-of-the-Castle.

It is not a question of sole superpower status as that is quite temporary if not passed already... it is a question of whether the US losses its superpower status and slips down the order to the status of "major power". I can think that many US citizens would not like to see that happening.

Sadly history will record that when the Soviet Union imploded the US squandered the opportunity it had as the sole superpower to do good in the world. Instead it alienated itself from many nations who were genuinely non-aligned and wanted to be friends of the US.

When the US was the sole superpower it believed it could still pick and choose what it wanted to get involved in and what not. As the sole superpower you need to be involved everywhere otherwise you create a void for others to fill.

[Entropy]

JMA,

There is only one way to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and that is regime change. Pretty much everything else will only result in a delay or leave them on the cusp. Stupid actions will ensure they DO get the bomb. At best, airstrikes will delay Iran, at worst they will prompt Iran to nuclearize as quickly as possible.

So does the US have the capability to do the only sure thing - regime change - and if not, then what's the alternative?

In my opinion we don't have the capability.

[Rex Brynen]

There is only one way to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and that is regime change.

Even that might not work. The Iranian nuclear program was started under the Shah, after all--when Iran was a US ally. It was stopped by Khomeini after the revolution. It was restarted after Iran was invaded by Iraq (with the tacit acceptance, and later support, of the West). I certainly agree that regime change is effectively beyond US capabilities.

With regard to bombing, there are three sets of issues to be considered. The first is how much damage it can do the program--an issue of force capability, intelligence, the configuration of the Iranian program, and the success of Iranian CCD efforts. The second is how bombing affects Iranian cost-benefit analysis. While in a material sense it would hurt, in the political sense it would probably strengthen the regime and undercut the opposition. Finally, there is the issue of what to do if the Iranians simply keep reconstituting the program week after week, start putting key infrastructure in or under densely populated areas, etc. Is anyone prepared to bomb Iran monthly for years on end, with all the costs (increased terrorism, high oil prices/global recession) that entails?

[Entropy]

Rex,

Sure, nothing is completely certain, but regime change is about as certain and one can get while realizing that things can change dramatically over long time-scales.

Not that I'm advocating for regime change - far from it. Your other points are well made. Destroying the Iranian program is not an Osirak or al Kibar redux - enrichment is a much more difficult target set. Iran has certainly prepared for such strikes. Unfortunately, Iran's centrifuge production facilities are not under IAEA purview, so it's entirely conceivable they are cranking out spares which could be hidden anywhere. Airstrikes can only delay the program and would probably drive it underground.

Not many good options for our side, unfortunately.

[JMA]

JMA,

There is only one way to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, and that is regime change. Pretty much everything else will only result in a delay or leave them on the cusp. Stupid actions will ensure they DO get the bomb. At best, airstrikes will delay Iran, at worst they will prompt Iran to nuclearize as quickly as possible.

So does the US have the capability to do the only sure thing - regime change - and if not, then what's the alternative?

In my opinion we don't have the capability.

If you believe that the regime in Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons then all the options are on the table... surely.

The US military will do a full appreciation (which they most certainly have done) to establish what the best course of action would be to prevent Iran developing nukes - i.e. the military solution or a series of military options.

The State Department would be looking at diplomatic options for the same purpose. Whether regime change would be an option I don't know.

The problem is that the military is the same crowd which failed miserably to plan for a post invasion Iraq with catastrophic results... and the State department is sadly little better.

The US most certainly has the capability to prevent Iran developing nukes but it does not appear to have the smarts in the right places to choose the best course of action.

Its a real problem.

[JMA]

Rex,

Sure, nothing is completely certain, but regime change is about as certain and one can get while realizing that things can change dramatically over long time-scales.

Not that I'm advocating for regime change - far from it. Your other points are well made. Destroying the Iranian program is not an Osirak or al Kibar redux - enrichment is a much more difficult target set. Iran has certainly prepared for such strikes. Unfortunately, Iran's centrifuge production facilities are not under IAEA purview, so it's entirely conceivable they are cranking out spares which could be hidden anywhere. Airstrikes can only delay the program and would probably drive it underground.

Not many good options for our side, unfortunately.

Question. If you want to kill a snake is it better to strike it on the body or tail or a sharp blow to the head?

[Rex Brynen]

Question. If you want to kill a snake is it better to strike it on the body or tail or a sharp blow to the head?

I really never was a big fan of the Crocodile Dundee school of international relations.

[JMA]

Even that might not work. The Iranian nuclear program was started under the Shah, after all--when Iran was a US ally. It was stopped by Khomeini after the revolution. It was restarted after Iran was invaded by Iraq (with the tacit acceptance, and later support, of the West). I certainly agree that regime change is effectively beyond US capabilities.

With regard to bombing, there are three sets of issues to be considered. The first is how much damage it can do the program--an issue of force capability, intelligence, the configuration of the Iranian program, and the success of Iranian CCD efforts. The second is how bombing affects Iranian cost-benefit analysis. While in a material sense it would hurt, in the political sense it would probably strengthen the regime and undercut the opposition. Finally, there is the issue of what to do if the Iranians simply keep reconstituting the program week after week, start putting key infrastructure in or under densely populated areas, etc. Is anyone prepared to bomb Iran monthly for years on end, with all the costs (increased terrorism, high oil prices/global recession) that entails?

Well I guess the people involved such a planning cycle would not include the likes of the naysayers we see around here. There are most certainly ways of achieving the aim if that is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, both military and political. The question is only whether the President and Congress have got the courage to follow that through.

Interesting that comment around here is centered upon how efforts to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons are bound to fail while very few people state their position on whether Iran should be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. What do you believe Rex?

[Entropy]

If there are military and political ways of achieving that aim, then what are they? The military option most discussed is some kind of air campaign which will achieve the aim only temporarily.

Personally, I don't want Iran to develop nukes, but I'm not so naive as to believe the only thing necessary to prevent that is "courage" by our political leaders. As I recall, Saddam Hussein believed courage and the Arab warrior spirit would defeat the infidel American invasion and we all know how well that strategy worked. The point being is that political courage doesn't mean much without a valid means to achieve an end.

So you might consider that part of the reason our political leaders are reluctant is because the military and political means are limited and any success is likely to be transitory. At the same time a these options, particularly the military options, will create all sorts of negative consequences. Suggesting that the consequences might not be worth transitory success does not demonstrate, in my mind, a lack of courage, but something quite different.

You might also consider the attitudes of the American people (this is a democracy after all) and the fact that politicians fear them more than an Iranian bomb. While the American people probably do not want to see Iran get a bomb, they are unwilling to spend the many hundreds-of-millions of borrowed dollars and possibly thousands of American lives to for what would be an uncertain gamble on success. And I can tell you for certain there is no way the American people would support the sure method for ending Iran's program - invasion and regime change - even if it were militarily possible to do.

Finally, can we retire the "all options are on the table" nonsense? Everyone understands that all options are not on the table. We're not going to invade Iran and we're not going to nuke them. There's a whole list of things, political and military, that we're not going to do. Talking tough is a lot different than being tough....

[Rex Brynen]

What do you believe Rex?

I would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I would also prefer that we don't do something stupid that damages Western interests and increases the chances that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

[jmm99]

The December 2009 Pew-CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Poll examined the attitude of USAians to various foreign affairs issues.

Here is a general article on the poll, Op-Ed: Turning Away, Author: James M. Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair:

December 17, 2009
Baltimore Sun

As President Barack Obama moves ahead with his plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, his overall approach to foreign policy looks to be losing favor with the American public. ...

Pew's Overview of its poll is here, U.S. Seen as Less Important, China as More Powerful - Isolationist Sentiment Surges to Four-Decade High (3 Dec 2009):

Overview

The general public and members of the Council on Foreign Relations are apprehensive and uncertain about America’s place in the world. Growing numbers in both groups see the United States playing a less important role globally, while acknowledging the increasing stature of China. And the general public, which is in a decidedly inward-looking frame of mind when it comes to global affairs, is less supportive of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan than are CFR members. ....

The entire 122 page poll report is here, AMERICA’S PLACE IN THE WORLD 2009.

Answers to the specific questions relevant to this thread are found at p. 18 pdf, "U.S. Leadership Role":

Pew Poll 01.jpg

and "Fewer See U.S. as Important Leader":

Pew Poll 02.jpg

but "Most Favor Keeping U.S. as Only [Military] Superpower":

Pew Poll 03.jpg

Now as to Iran (which was regarded as the greatest danger to the US by 21% of the public - the highest figure for any potential enemy p. 26 pdf), at p.2 pdf:

Using Force in “What if” Scenarios

A majority of the public approves of using U.S. military forces in several international situations. More than six-in-ten (63%) approve of using U.S. forces if it were certain Iran had produced a nuclear weapon while less than a third (30%) disapprove. Opinion among CFR members is nearly the opposite; only 33% approve of using force in this situation while 61%disapprove.

The answers to this poll (as with any poll) depends on the questions asked; and the answeree's perception of the questions asked.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I would also prefer that we don't do something stupid that damages Western interests and increases the chances that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

Thank you; that's about what I was going to say, though I'd have taken a lot more words doing it. The distinction between doing something brave and doing something stupid is, I think, blurred in some quarters.

[JMA]

I would prefer that Iran not have nuclear weapons. I would also prefer that we don't do something stupid that damages Western interests and increases the chances that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

How do I summarize that response?

Not going to take a stand and be content to chirp from the bleachers?