Should the US first strike Iran?

[red-beard]

Discuss...

[red-beard]

What war with Iran would look like: (Time Magazine)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/17/coverstory.tm.iran.tm/index.html

Editor's note: The following is a summary of this week's Time magazine cover story.

(Time.com) -- The first message was routine enough: a "Prepare to Deploy Order" sent through Naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two minehunters.

The orders didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready to move by October 1.

A deployment of minesweepers to the east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran.

The Bush team, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has done more diplomatic spadework on Iran than on any other project in its 5 1/2 years in office.

For more than 18 months, Rice has kept the administration's hard-line faction at bay while leading a coalition, which includes four other members of the U.N. Security Council, that is trying to force Tehran to halt its nuclear ambitions.

But superpowers don't always get to choose their enemies or the timing of their confrontations. The fact that all sides would risk losing so much in armed conflict doesn't mean they won't stumble into one anyway.

So what would it look like? Interviews with dozens of experts and government officials in Washington, Tehran and elsewhere in the Middle East paint a sobering picture: Military action against Iran's nuclear facilities would have a decent chance of succeeding, but at a staggering cost.

And therein lies the excruciating calculus facing the U.S. and its allies: Is the cost of confronting Iran greater than the dangers of living with a nuclear Iran? And can anything short of war persuade Tehran's fundamentalist regime to give up its dangerous game?

No one is talking about a ground invasion of Iran. Too many U.S. troops are tied down elsewhere to make it possible, and besides, it isn't necessary. If the U.S. goal is simply to stunt Iran's nuclear program, it can be done better and more safely by air.

An attack limited to Iran's nuclear facilities would nonetheless require a massive campaign. Experts say that Iran has between 18 and 30 nuclear-related facilities. The sites are dispersed around the country -- some in the open, some cloaked in the guise of conventional factories, some buried deep underground.

A U.S. strike would have a lasting impression on Iran's rulers. U.S. officials believe that a campaign of several days could set back Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. Hit hard enough, some believe, Iranians might develop second thoughts about their government's designs as a regional nuclear power.

Some U.S. foes of Iran's regime believe that the crisis of legitimacy that the ruling clerics would face in the wake of a U.S. attack could trigger their downfall, though others are convinced it would unite the population with the government in anti-American rage.

Given the chaos that a war might unleash, what options does the world have to avoid it? One approach would be for the U.S. to accept Iran as a nuclear power and learn to live with an Iranian bomb, focusing its efforts on deterrence rather than pre-emption.

The risk is that a nuclear-armed Iran would use its regional primacy to become the dominant foreign power in Iraq, threaten Israel and make it harder for Washington to exert its will in the region. And it could provoke Sunni countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to start nuclear programs of their own to contain rising Shiite power.

Those equally unappetizing prospects -- war or a new arms race in the Middle East -- explain why the White House is kicking up its efforts to resolve the Iran problem before it gets that far. Washington is doing everything it can to make Iran think twice about its ongoing game of stonewall. Everyone has been careful -- for now -- to stick to Rice's diplomatic emphasis.

"Nobody is considering a military option at this point," says an administration official. "We're trying to prevent a situation in which the president finds himself having to decide between a nuclear-armed Iran or going to war. The best hope of avoiding that dilemma is hard-nosed diplomacy, one that has serious consequences."

[svandamme]

i'm pretty sure the official standpoint in Washinton DC is as follows

"leave it to the Isreali's, just make sure they get any hardware, software or training they ask for"

that is off course the first reason why most arabs are ticked off at the US in the first place.

[red-beard]

If this goes, I don't think Isreal will be leading the charge.

[nostatic]

we should first strike everyone. our nukes aren't getting any younger...shame to waste all that good plutonium.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by red-beard
If this goes, I don't think Isreal will be leading the charge.

well, we (Europeans) sure as hell can't be bothered
and you(Americans) can't pull off another (conventional)war front


it would definately cause more arabs and muslims around the world to become "ticked off"

so it's about as sensible as back when Hitler felt he could take on both the Western and the Eastern front... and then had to realize he didn't have enough resources to dominate both fronts...
it's would be like shooting yourself in the foot with a Howitzer...

and considering that they are definately more willing to die for their cause then you guys, and they in fact basically think it's the best way to get laid...while Gi's in the Middel East , probably don't get laid , at all (bit different then Vietnam as well)
so i'de say they have the upper hand , and they in fact basically think dying is the best way to get laid in a 72 virgins gang bang

the best way is to ignore the buggers and isolate them on all fronts... which is catch 22 , cause it means you won't get their oil...and that's the thing that ticks you guys off, innit?

[tabs]

To think the Iranians will sit idely by and let themselves be attacked is ludicrious.

The likely scenerio is tha ALL the *****e Militias in Iraq will rise up and attack Coalition forces stationed in the country. It is also possible that the Iranians will invade Iraq and act as Liberators of the Iraqie people. If U think U have see American blood run in the streets of Bagdad U havn't seen anything yet. It is possible the US will be faced with an Iraqie Dunkirque and/or the loss of an Army. American Airpower would be the salvation of US forces.

Hezzabolla will likely make an all out attack on Israel, trying to induce a much broader conflict involving all Muslim nations agains the West.

Most likely Saudi, Egypt and Jordan will give tacit approval of any strikes on Iran.

An attack on Iran while it may prove to be the only solution for stopping an Iranian bomb, may also prove to be just another miscalculation on the part of American thinking.

[svandamme]

don't forget pakistan which is at best a very unstable ally
Musharaf won't be able to hold back his fanatics when Iran get's attacked and infact would probably get snuffed and overthrown ...

and when that happens, they have nukes as well as missile technology to deliver those

[tabs]

Originally posted by svandamme
well, we (Europeans) sure as hell can't be bothered
and you(Americans) can't pull off another (conventional)war front


it would definately cause more arabs and muslims around the world to become "ticked off"

so it's about as sensible as back when Hitler felt he could take on both the Western and the Eastern front... and then had to realize he didn't have enough resources to dominate both fronts...
it's would be like shooting yourself in the foot with a Howitzer...

and considering that they are definately more willing to die for their cause then you guys, and they in fact basically think it's the best way to get laid...while Gi's in the Middel East , probably don't get laid , at all (bit different then Vietnam as well)
so i'de say they have the upper hand , and they in fact basically think dying is the best way to get laid in a 72 virgins gang bang

the best way is to ignore the buggers and isolate them on all fronts... which is catch 22 , cause it means you won't get their oil...and that's the thing that ticks you guys off, innit?

Problem is that NO ONE WILL STICK TO SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN>>> the French will most certainily want to make a profit.

And two it won't stop them from continuing on with developement of a bomb.


Of course there is another choich for America...TO GO HOME AND LET THE REST OF THE WORLD SORT OUT THEIR PROBLEMS. Then we will see how much Europe can't be bothered with a radical Muslim State on their doorstep with a Bomb.

[tabs]

Originally posted by svandamme
don't forget pakistan which is at best a very unstable ally
Musharaf won't be able to hold back his fanatics when Iran get's attacked and infact would probably get snuffed and overthrown ...

and when that happens, they have nukes as well as missile technology to deliver those

Except Pakistan is Sunni ....

[svandamme]

Europe has been bothered with radical commies at our doorstep with many nukes and even more tanks and whatnot...

Iran is not more radical then Jordan is, or Saudi Arabia
as a nation they would be more concerned about evolving then with warring , if only the US hadn't invaded Iraq and given the fanatics a reason to bigmouth...

i'm pretty sure that if the US would take a hike, things would turn to normal once more. they'de sell oil, we'de buy it , and the fanatics would loose the votes just like they did before...

so yes ,do us all a favour , go home ,and let us worry bout the Iranians with their bomb..

[svandamme]

Originally posted by tabs
Except Pakistan is Sunni ....

wouldn't matter in all out war
it's a reason for them to set aside differences

reason more to leave, so they dont' have the reason and piss on eachother instead

[fastpat]

No, under no rational, likely circumstances should the US government attack Iran, nor should the US government supply any country that might launch such an attack.

it is my fervent hope that Iran develops or buys a first class air defense system capable of defending themselves against any such attack.

[tabs]

Originally posted by fastpat


it is my fervent hope that Iran develops or buys a first class air defense system capable of defending themselves against any such attack.

If U would wish that the ENEMY would prevail against our own Boys in uniform then U sir are a TRAITOR to your country. One that has provided you with the means and oportunity to earn a exemplary lifestyle. Further ithis nation provides you with the oportunity to spout your blaspemous ranting and ravings. I would wish that U would try expressing your opinion in a country such as Iran. You wouldn't live very long.

[tabs]

Originally posted by svandamme
wouldn't matter in all out war
it's a reason for them to set aside differences

reason more to leave, so they dont' have the reason and piss on eachother instead

Your a simpleton, *****e and Sunni are going to forget a 1000 years of animoisity. Dream a little dream for me.....

[svandamme]

Originally posted by tabs
Your a simpleton, *****e and Sunni are going to forget a 1000 years of animoisity. Dream a little dream for me.....

put 10 fanatical sunni , 10 fanatical ****e together in an arena with 10 Americans

then tell them 30 that there's only 10 coming out

i can guarantee you that the first thing that will happen , is that the 20 Muslims will snuff the 10 Infidel Imperialistic Americans

THEN they will go at eachothers throat

do you really think they will hate an infidel less then another muslim , even if he is from a different gang?

[ruf-porsche]

Originally posted by nostatic
we should first strike everyone. our nukes aren't getting any younger...shame to waste all that good plutonium.

Oh I don't think we need to worry about the expiration date on plutonium. If I remember my physic, the radiological half life of plutonium is about 24000 year.

[ruf-porsche]

Originally posted by svandamme
Europe has been bothered with radical commies at our doorstep with many nukes and even more tanks and whatnot...

Iran is not more radical then Jordan is, or Saudi Arabia
as a nation they would be more concerned about evolving then with warring , if only the US hadn't invaded Iraq and given the fanatics a reason to bigmouth...

i'm pretty sure that if the US would take a hike, things would turn to normal once more. they'de sell oil, we'de buy it , and the fanatics would loose the votes just like they did before...

so yes ,do us all a favour , go home ,and let us worry bout the Iranians with their bomb..

Can't argue with that logic. Instead of listening to our CIA (lot of good that did us before the start of the war) we should listen to how other people view our involvement in the war and the outcome of the war if we left, instead of listening to GWB.

[74-911]

If we first strike Iran, they will immediately stop all oil exports to the US and Europe and close the Straight of Hormuz effectively cutting off virtually all middle east Oil. It will be virtually impossible to stop them from doing this. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela will probably halt all oil exports to the US. The price of oil will go into triple digits to who knows where overnight along with the distinct possibility of a world wide recession / depression. This in addition to all hell breaking loose in the middle east.

The alternative is very probably a nuclear armed Iran within a few years.

One scenario that looks all to plausible:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/deterrance_is_a_mere_wish_in_i.html

"Ain't nobody getting out this alive Doc....." - Al Swearingen

[svandamme]

Originally posted by ruf-porsche
Oh I don't think we need to worry about the expiration date on plutonium. If I remember my physic, the radiological half life of plutonium is about 24000 year.

the parts around the plutonium aren't as reliable or stable...