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

[WW]

Your point seems to be that if the nuclear facilities themselves are targeted there will be a catastrophic release radiological fall-out. This may well be so.

So removing the radiological discharge argument of yours what is your next point?

JMA, before moving on from the titled ('bomb Iran enrichment...') topic of this forum, which is clearly not off the table for neo-likudniks, let me be clear why blasting high level radiation across Persia would be bad, trending catastrophic.

Firstly, the quantity of gassified uranium is quite large, and the environmental half-life of the primary über-toxin (and resulting disease) is measured in hundreds of years.

Secondly, the precedent of striking at nuclear repositories is a really really bad thing to have coming back around. Not least since most of those kinds of targets are in the West. (We are talking about tooling up a uranium-plutonium energy economy, here in the land of free movement, no?)

Thirdly, even if the strike is endorsed by the Wahabi king/GCC, and carried out by the Knesset/IDF, the USA will be seen as enabler and guarantor of this Saudi-Israeli hit on Iran.

OK, so let's accept your unsupported conjecture that Iran's nuclear material and active enrichment will be avoided, and the only radiological component will be depleted uranium DU penetrators, such as we used against Iraqi armor. The third point stands, the US reasonably being accountable; we are both Israel and Arabia/GCC's primary security partner. What will we be accountable for?

A. Both regional parties agitating for military threats are proliferators themselves. Israel is way nuclear and moving to thermo/neutron weapons. The Saudi's sponsored Islamic Pakistan's bomb/proliferation, and dual use tech for said proliferation seems to flow thru the Gulf ports. Kinda lowers the bar for moral superiority over Revolutionary Iran. Quds support for terrorism? Similar problem re the Wahabi Royals.

B. If Israeli occupation is the Jihad argument, the Saudi kingdom and Egypt is the AQSL target. Another attack by crusaders on moslems may be acceptable to our buddies in those governments, but our joint existential struggle to debunk the suicide cult may well move backwards, once again. Moslems from Pakistan to Algeria will identify with the victims, not the advanced US weapons used against them.

C. If you think we (USA) can limit a Likud led IDF to a symbolic strike on an unpopular and relatively bloodless Iranian target, then you must have missed IDF misuse of cluster munitions on mixed populations, Lebanon 06, and Gaza 09. The likudist viewpoint benefits from US ever-war with moslems, and they may well drag us as far into the briar patch as they can get away with.

D. Nationalistic populations and leadership react unpredictably to military attack. I'll let someone claiming expertise or cultural insight guess how hitting them hard or just symbolically might motivate Persians. Hard or soft, by your 'no fallout' condition, we leave their enriched uranium and feedstock to their discretion; the feedstock and design pieces of an HEU program will be intact. If they don't fold, we'll have made the hard line case for nuclear deterrent.

Remember, as in Iraq, a long war is a bad war for us, because:

E. Even rumors of war in the Gulf will spike spot prices, with long-term oil contracts going up each month the crisis continues.

I don't know how your economy is doing, but my ex lost her house, and my two girls can't parley a teaching masters into a job to pay their loans. I'm not pitching conspiracy, but there are a lot of regional powers (Russia, China, Germany, France, India, Brazil) that might give our war party enough rope to finally hog tie us.

Containment worked reasonably well against the Soviets, the Maoists, Castro and Saddam. N. Korea is a problem, but mostly for their neighbors, who are each strong enough individually to deal with the Kim's bankrupt regime.

Put this in perspective. We need to defang the salafist suicide cult, bring our two long and expensive combat occupations to some kind of a conclusion, before being stampeded into a third war, and left holding the bag by shifty ME allies.

Hezbollah's missile threat aside, there is no emergency, no imminent threat that can lay claim to 'preemption' of looming attack. Certainly not for the USA. Hez is no existential threat to Israel, nor Persia to Arabia.

Economic sanctions take time, and give time for solutions and new leadership to emerge. Where are the calls for 'strategic patience' that accompanied the 'surge' counteroffensive, when we were losing another thousand KIA's?

[jmm99]

from JMA
BTW wasn't it refreshing that young David from No. 10 told it like it is? The Pakistan is exporting terror. And he stood by his guns too. Seems he has more balls than most of the western government combined. Maybe the US should let him handle the Iran nuclear matter?

Whether "young David" is "refreshing" is a UK political question (as "pro-likudniks" and "anti-likudniks" should properly be an Israeli political question), as to which I neither confirm nor deny.

That said, if "young David" wants to handle Pakistan, India, Iran, Astan, Iraq - and, for that matter, every other piece of real estate that once made up or was under the "protection of" the British Empire (except, of course, the Western Hemisphere) - more power to him; but please do not expect the US to be there.

However, that is my personal "Never Again, but"[*] viewpoint, which regards engagement in an Asian land war to be as sane as a march on Moscow. But, in the reality that exists outside my viewpoint, it seems less likely that the US will stop responding to what are primarily threats against other nations (allies or not), than "young David" will accept the challenge of managing Pakistan, India, Iran, Astan and Iraq.

My position is obviously not anti-nuclear since I recognize that nuclear weapons are weapons that the US has used and can use (IMO morally and ethically) in limited circumstances. However, both their use and threat of use are patently illegal in all but very, very limited circumstances - ICJ, 1996, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (link and link).

That case seems to have been the high point of the anti-nuclear (and nuclear disarmament) movements. Since then a lot of toothpaste has flowed from a number of tubes (both of nation-states and of violent non-state actors).

I still subscribe to limitations and constraints on nuclear weapons, which go back to the Geneva Partial Test Ban Treaty in the early 1960s - and I tend in a number of areas to follow the philosophy of this guy (link, link, link and link).

However, the nuclear picture has gotten a lot more complicated than the scenario that faced our negotiators at Geneva in the early 60s. To be perfectly honest, diplomatic solutions today will be tougher than then; but military solutions seem even less likely to solve the nuclear proliferation problem. Unless, of course, one believes that "limited war" can be effective.

-------------
[*] The "Never Again, but" set of "schoolmates" developed out of the Korean War and included in the military such folks as Matt Ridgway, Jim Gavin, Dave Shoup, Sam Griffith and Lauris Norstad. Their position on when to use and when not to use military muscle is set forth in Dave Petraeus' 1987 thesis (snip):

Never Again Schoolmates.jpg

A later offshoot was Weinberger-Powell.

Regards

Mike

[huskerguy7]

Military preemptive strikes will reinforce the Iranian leadership’s perception of a need for nuclear weapons, as well as consolidate their domestic political support.

Your "shock and awe", “demonstrations of intent”, and “message sending” will do nothing. It is little more than typical neoconservative woofing, and playing with war. It does not work, and will not coerce anybody. Only killing the enemy and breaking his tribe’s capability and will to fight does that.

I support this assertion all the way. If Iran is challenged, they will want to compete with their opponents. Iran is a fairly decent sized country (72 million people); they aren't going to be pushed around. In fact, a strike on Iran will not only force them to mobilize their assets and react against US troops, but it will also cause Iran to put forth more resources into its nuclear program. Lastly, let's not throw away the idea that Iran may take "radical" steps to survive. What happens when the Taliban start shooting down our choppers with 3rd generation Iranian MANPADS? The point is that Iran will put forth a substantial amount of effort into developing its nuclear program and obstructing US interests.

Economic sanctions take time, and give time for solutions and new leadership to emerge. Where are the calls for 'strategic patience' that accompanied the 'surge' counteroffensive, when we were losing another thousand KIA's?

This is also completely correct. Economic sanctions require two things.

1. Determination by participating countries
2. Time

Currently, the US is beginning to get a grasp around the first requirement. The recent sanctions are a bit tougher and other countries have a limited amount of time to deal with Iran. Some people are misunderstanding "success" with the use of sanctions. For example, people expect that regime change will occur, and a government friendly to the US will rise. Don't get me wrong, this is possible, but the chances aren't to favorable. Only 23% of US economic sanctions since 1973 have caused actions this extreme. In my opinion, sanctions are considered successful if they force a country to rethink its actions. How do we force Iran to rethink its actions without dropping a JDAM on their ICA? How about we mess with their economy. US sanctions since 1973 have caused the "victim" country to suffer a 2.4% loss in the GDP-equivalent to a depression. Not only will their economy be harmed, but development will be substantially hindered (in Iran, this is important, as they are trying to develop commerce centers by the Caspian).

Look at it from the Iranian's point of view. In their perspective, the nuclear program is an investment. With economic sanctions in the way, their investment will tank.

[davidbfpo]

Another FP Blog article:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._war_with_iran

[JMA]

Another FP Blog article:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._war_with_iran

David, remember in the old days of the anti-nuke movement when they used to say "better red than dead". Well that mind-set seems to have expanded to any aggressive activity by the US and the West.

In this piece a preemptive strike becomes a war. How so?

In another post we hear if the US is part of any action against Iran the Taliban will be given ground to air missiles by Iran to shoot down helicopters in Afghanistan.

Maybe we should list all these wild scare mongering exaggerations?

[JMA]

I support this assertion all the way. If Iran is challenged, they will want to compete with their opponents. Iran is a fairly decent sized country (72 million people); they aren't going to be pushed around. In fact, a strike on Iran will not only force them to mobilize their assets and react against US troops, but it will also cause Iran to put forth more resources into its nuclear program. Lastly, let's not throw away the idea that Iran may take "radical" steps to survive. What happens when the Taliban start shooting down our choppers with 3rd generation Iranian MANPADS? The point is that Iran will put forth a substantial amount of effort into developing its nuclear program and obstructing US interests.

Perhaps you are correct. Immediate surrender is safest option for the US and Israel.

[JMA]

That said, if "young David" wants to handle Pakistan, India, Iran, Astan, Iraq - and, for that matter, every other piece of real estate that once made up or was under the "protection of" the British Empire (except, of course, the Western Hemisphere) - more power to him; but please do not expect the US to be there.

Mike, young David has shown remarkable courage in taking and standing by his position on Pakistan.

Wouldn't it be nice if we saw something similar from the US and other NATO countries?

Lets not be sour about this. Let him take point if he has the balls for it and let the lesser mortals follow at a safe distance, yes?

[jmm99]

in Pakistan as you see them ? Those should determine US policies re: Pakistan.

I was not being snarky about letting the UK handle Pakistan and other areas if it wished. In my limited worldview for the US, I'd be happy to see the UK, Germany, France (and whatever of the EU willing) take on Eurasian and African continental land mass situations.

Obviously, my worldview is very much a minority US view. So, someone else will have to explain why the US should take the lead in solving the problems of the countries of the Indian Ocean littorals, or in following the lead of the UK if it wanted to jump back into solving those problems.

To provide frameworks for discussion, here is Weinberger:

1.The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

2.U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

3.U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

4.The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

5.U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

6.The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

and here is Powell:

1.Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2.Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3.Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4.Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?

5.Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6.Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7.Is the action supported by the American people?

8.Do we have genuine broad international support?

Regards

Mike

[WW]

Perhaps you are correct. Immediate surrender is safest option for the US and Israel.

JMA, you've used that throwaway line twice, to pose a false choice:
1. Threaten, plan and execute some sort of military attack
or
2. Surrender.
Aside from using undefined terms and false logic, it also seems to imply that a containment strategy is cowardly; more faulty, inflammatory rhetoric.

Our current policy, a graduated, aggressive and so far effective economic sanction program is NOT capitulation, nor can you blindly assume that military threats strengthen its counterproliferation effects and coalition.

We have a VP that once assured his Connecticut constituents 'I am a zionist'. We have a WH chief of Staff who volunteered to serve in Israel, when the US was going to war in 1991, and is the son of an Irgun fighter. Throw in SecState Clinton, and it's a pretty pro-Israel administration, with a lot of commitment to supporting the sanctions, domestically, and diplomatically.

A mainforce air strike on sovereign territory is an act of war. A longer war may or may not follow. But lacking a convincing casus beli, the attacked party is being dared to defend themselves, hopefully in a proportional and discriminate manner. If the Israelis or US fleet sends scores of strike bombers and cruise missiles to destroy Iranian oil, air defense, or enrichment assets, what would a proportional defensive response be, after the initial dust has cleared?

Assume the proposed attack is wildly successful, Iran's regime is humiliated, shown to be defenseless; no pilots are captured, and no civilians killed or poisoned with uranium fallout. How does that prove to third world gov'ts that a defenseless Iran didn't need a nuclear deterrent? Dozens of gov'ts around the world will be asking themselves, 'would we rather be Pakistan, or Iran today?' (Hint: Where are the two arch-terrorists most Americans would really like to get at?)

The Iranians may have violated the NPT, may still practice the same deception that Pakistan and Israel used years ago. Proliferation justifies NPT sanctions by all NPT signatories. Iran proliferation is a bad thing, and could lead to further weakening of counterproliferation efforts, if/when a nuclear Arabian IRBM system is declared. Sanctions agin Arabia? Hah. Count our blessings for now, that we're getting cooperation from Russia, Europe and China.

China (An NPT holdout, and a proliferator of bomb designs and missile tech) especially would like to keep Japan, Viet Nam, S. Korea and Taiwan from going nuclear too. How will we feel if China applies Likud's 'preemption logic' against Taiwan? Tacit support from China or Russia for a strike on Iran should be looked at VERY closely for hidden agendas. Russia's 2008 war-occupation of Georgian territory was justified as 'symmetry' vis the wars against Serbia. The 9/11 Hamburg cell originally volunteered for jihad in Chechnya, where the Russian invasion was a recruiting cry for AQSL.

The hope of 'preempting' further Iranian nuclear development DOES NOT make an attack on Iran 'preemptive war'. It's a radically different use of the term, when used re the law of war. Since there is no imminent Iranian threat (Iran has no N-weapons, no credible delivery system, no rational motivation for attacking us, Israel or Arabia), then an attack on Iran constitutes an aggressive war of choice, based on an assumption that they are defenseless against a conventional attack sanctioned by a nuclear power(s).

An attack on Iran seems attractive to some because, in the candid 2002 words of VP Cheney, 'it's doable'. How did Team Cheney's two month war work out, after we won the first round? Wasn't that also justified by false claims of 'imminent threat' ?

Yes, Iran's arming of Hez in S. Lebanon is a problem; a big one for Israel, bigger for Beruit. But it's not a reason for throwing matches into the Gulf oil patch, and it doesn't give Israel carte blanche to blackmail the US into backing a war of choice against Iran- one that they wouldn't even consider without a US checkbook and arms resupply.

Blind faith in quick, painless wars is a poor way to demonstrate courage.

[JMA]

JMA, you've used that throwaway line twice, to pose a false choice:
1. Threaten, plan and execute some sort of military attack
or
2. Surrender.
Aside from using undefined terms and false logic, it also seems to imply that a containment strategy is cowardly; more faulty, inflammatory rhetoric.

Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.

Containment is the course of action requiring the least amount of courage.

We have had scares in the past over the possible use of nuclear weapons and surely we need no more? The situation we have at the moment with Pakistan is bad enough without adding two countries with certifiably insane leadership to the nuclear club (who will be quite likely to share there knowledge and possibly the bombs themselves with other equally insane organsiations and national leaderships.)

No more nukes should be the unwavering position. And as far as the deterrent against attempting to develop nuclear weapons it should be the clearly understood threat that if all else fails a military preemptive strike will be used. The US and Israel should make it very clear that they hope that negotiations and sanctions would prove successful and thus avert the need for a preemptive strike.

What negotiating position does the US administration think it has when the policy is "oh well if we can't stop them then the next administration will have to make sure they can contain the threat". Some legacy huh? Stupid strategy.

[WW]

Cowardice or better the lack of courage is sadly becoming more and more evident in todays western world.

Well, at least you've come out with it. A failure to attack is cowardice, or at least a lack of courage? The courageous attack you propose would not be an act of war, because Iran lacks capacity to defend or strike back at nuclear Israel and America? Hmm.

A coupla days back, it appears that you'd never paused to consider (or were happy to ignore) the significant radiological fallout risk inherent in an air attack on uranium enrichment sites. Is it possible that there are other aspects of your 'if we haven't threatened to blow things up, we're not really trying hard enough' policy proposal that you''ve failed to realistically evaluate?

Attacking Iran because we ignored and mishandled Pakistani proliferation so badly is not a strategy, or a policy, and maybe not even a tactic. It has the feel of a bait and switch misdirect, the appearance of being internally illogical.

Before threatening a war-like attack, I want my Congress to do their duty, hold a fact-based debate, to get real about who else in the ME is nuclear or nearly nuclear, how their story plays against our options and interests. Arabia has said that if Israel admits they arm nuclear bears, then the kingdom must have parity. Well guys, everyone already knows Israel has A-weapons and delivery capability. So?

The proliferation genie won't go back in the bottle just because Israel or America does a drive-by shooting at Iran.

[JMA]

JMA, before moving on from the titled ('bomb Iran enrichment...') topic of this forum, which is clearly not off the table for neo-likudniks, let me be clear why blasting high level radiation across Persia would be bad, trending catastrophic.

[big snip]

Economic sanctions take time, and give time for solutions and new leadership to emerge. Where are the calls for 'strategic patience' that accompanied the 'surge' counteroffensive, when we were losing another thousand KIA's?

Containment? Is that the best option as you see it? So you say let them develop a bomb and then we can all keep our fingers crossed that they are never going to use it? Not an intelligent strategy IMHO.

But I agree care should be taken to ensure that there will be no radiological fallout as a result of any preemptive strike in Iran ... noting that a strike against other suitable targets would also serve to force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

Now this war you speak of? What war?

The strike takes place and then what? The Iranians or whats left of their naval capability lifts their army to attack the US homeland or Israel itself? Which US troops and where would br involved in this war?

[Dayuhan]

But I agree care should be taken to ensure that there will be no radiological fallout as a result of any preemptive strike in Iran ... noting that a strike against other suitable targets would also serve to force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

What makes you think that "a strike against other suitable targets" would force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program? Such a strike might convince them to accelerate the program, as well as rallying support behind the regime and totally undercutting the Iranian political opposition.

The strike takes place and then what? The Iranians or whats left of their naval capability lifts their army to attack the US homeland or Israel itself? Which US troops and where would br involved in this war?

No, the Iranians use anti-ship missiles on a few tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, and oil runs to $150/bbl or more overnight. That might not involve US troops, but it would involve US citizens; it would certainly be war, and the political/economic impact, inside the US and out of it, would be considerable, to say the least.

It's easy to say "we will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons". Do we have the capacity to prevent it? That's anything but certain at this point.

[JMA]

Iran on brink of nuclear weapon, warns watchdog

Iran has passed a crucial nuclear threshold, weapons inspectors have warned, and could now go on to arm an atomic missile with relative ease.

I guess the US and Israel should just surrender and be done with this whole matter. Who was the clown (head od state) who suggested that sanctions would work?

[Dayuhan]

I guess the US and Israel should just surrender and be done with this whole matter. Who was the clown (head od state) who suggested that sanctions would work?

So South Korea should surrender to the north, because they have a nuke?

Sanctions were never likely to work, but nobody had a better idea... so we're stuck with deterrence, which has worked rather well in the past. Not like it's game over or anything.

[JMA]

So South Korea should surrender to the north, because they have a nuke?

Sanctions were never likely to work, but nobody had a better idea... so we're stuck with deterrence, which has worked rather well in the past. Not like it's game over or anything.

Sanctions were the best plan all these "smart" guys could come up with? LOL

Maybe one should realise that you can't play Russian Roulette with nukes (a la Cuba back then) unless both sides have nukes. (One wonders why that simple fact is so difficult for all these "smart" guys to figure out?)

Maybe its more a case of "we haven't got the courage to handle this problem so we will pass the ball to the next generation to deal with."

[Dayuhan]

Sanctions were the best plan all these "smart" guys could come up with? LOL

I haven't seen anyone here come up with anything better. There's not a great deal of courage in following a course of action with a very low probability of success and a very high probability of adverse unintended consequences... that rather marks the point where courage crosses over into stupidity.

Maybe some of us need the courage to admit there are things we haven't the capacity to do. It's easy to bluster about what we should or shouldn't permit or allow, but declaring that we will not allow what we haven't the capacity to stop doesn't get us anywhere.