Iran Super Thread- Merged
- Thread starter JasonH
- Start date
Bert
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 230
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
Another interesting article from Stratfor.
Iran: Crossing the Redline?
www.stratfor.com
Summary
Iranian officials are trumpeting a major advance in their country's nuclear program. Here is what it means -- and does not mean.
Analysis
Former Iranian President and Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced April 11 that Iran has successfully completed an enrichment cascade using 164 gas centrifuges, Kuwaiti state news agency KUNA announced. Such a cascade would empower Iran to produce a richer fissile blend of uranium for use in nuclear power plant fuel or perhaps a nuclear weapon.
Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts. The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.
Politically, however, this step has immediate implications. In Europe, enrichment of any kind, much less on an industrial scale as the Iranians are clearly aiming for, is a redline. Once the Iranians move past enrichment, information on their nuclear weapons program can be garnered only through intensive intelligence efforts. Iran's announcement means that European states that see a limited reason to participate in such intelligence efforts no longer feel they have any leverage in negotiations. Europe will now simply put its relatively disinterested diplomatic efforts behind the United States and let Washington run the show. It is not carte blanche -- the Europeans still do not want military action -- but it is close.
For Israel, the issue is more complex. As noted above, enrichment does not automatically equate to weaponization. Israel, unlike Europe, has a deep and abiding interest in directing intelligence efforts against Tehran. Thus, Israel's picture of the Iranian nuclear program is more complete than Europe's. As one would expect, this deeper awareness and interest translates into a different redline, likely somewhere in the weaponization process. The world can be certain that Iran has not yet stepped over Israel's redline; after all, Tehran is still a city, not a crater.
But ultimately the Iranian announcement is about the United States. Iran and Washington are currently -- for the first time in a generation -- engaged in direct talks, officially about all topics Iraqi. This revelation, like the U.S. leaks over the weekend that nuclear strike options against Iran had been drawn up, are all part of the ebb and flow of those negotiations.
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
Another interesting article from Stratfor.
Iran: Crossing the Redline?
www.stratfor.com
Summary
Iranian officials are trumpeting a major advance in their country's nuclear program. Here is what it means -- and does not mean.
Analysis
Former Iranian President and Chairman of the Expediency Council Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani announced April 11 that Iran has successfully completed an enrichment cascade using 164 gas centrifuges, Kuwaiti state news agency KUNA announced. Such a cascade would empower Iran to produce a richer fissile blend of uranium for use in nuclear power plant fuel or perhaps a nuclear weapon.
Technically, the announcement means that Iran has established its ability to enrich uranium in something other than very small amounts. The Iranians are, however, not yet at the point that they can make weapons or fabricate nuclear fuel to run a reactor. A weapons program will require several of these cascades, and a power program requires dozens of them. Establishing enrichment cascades on that scale is still -- at bare minimum -- several months off. And even once that is achieved, enriched uranium would need to be fabricated into fuel for a reactor, or go through a weaponization process if it is to have military value. Neither process is simple, quick or cheap.
Politically, however, this step has immediate implications. In Europe, enrichment of any kind, much less on an industrial scale as the Iranians are clearly aiming for, is a redline. Once the Iranians move past enrichment, information on their nuclear weapons program can be garnered only through intensive intelligence efforts. Iran's announcement means that European states that see a limited reason to participate in such intelligence efforts no longer feel they have any leverage in negotiations. Europe will now simply put its relatively disinterested diplomatic efforts behind the United States and let Washington run the show. It is not carte blanche -- the Europeans still do not want military action -- but it is close.
For Israel, the issue is more complex. As noted above, enrichment does not automatically equate to weaponization. Israel, unlike Europe, has a deep and abiding interest in directing intelligence efforts against Tehran. Thus, Israel's picture of the Iranian nuclear program is more complete than Europe's. As one would expect, this deeper awareness and interest translates into a different redline, likely somewhere in the weaponization process. The world can be certain that Iran has not yet stepped over Israel's redline; after all, Tehran is still a city, not a crater.
But ultimately the Iranian announcement is about the United States. Iran and Washington are currently -- for the first time in a generation -- engaged in direct talks, officially about all topics Iraqi. This revelation, like the U.S. leaks over the weekend that nuclear strike options against Iran had been drawn up, are all part of the ebb and flow of those negotiations.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Armymatters said:
Coupled with:
Bert said:
So it is not too hard to figure out that if you provide the illusion with cooperating with inspectors, you can develop your technology and fissile materials in plain view. If they need a large amount of enriched uranium for a plant, then in the process of acting like they were building a plant not end up with a considerable amount of enriched uranium for weapons? I'd be pretty uptight if I had to live in Israel.
The planet better get it's collective crap together and make a decision on these guys, or no good will come of this.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
We also have to be careful how we deal with Iran, otherwise, we could ignite a Islamic Holy War against the West, and that would be even uglier. Right now, provide some incentives for Iran to be more forthcomming about the program and encourage Iran to be more open is all we can do.
C
couchcommander
Guest
What effect would Iran cutting off oil supplies have on our economies? Can OPEC keep up with demand? Would they even be willing to keep up with demand, whether it be to keep the prices high for their own benefit, or because they feel that the US has done something inappropriate?
.... I don't think we can afford that senario. We need to tread lightly, and before doing anything with Iran make sure we don't kick our own balls in the process.
.... I don't think we can afford that senario. We need to tread lightly, and before doing anything with Iran make sure we don't kick our own balls in the process.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well, as for the Iran cutting off oil, the Price as of 0730 this morning in Windsor is $1.05 a litre. And that is just with the rumours of sabre rattling.
The rest of it, sounds very similiar to the N Korean issue that came up prior to Bush's exploration of Iraq for NBC Capability. I do have agree that eventually sometime on CNN, we're going to hear about either an American or Isreali airstrike on one or more reactor/research facility (and my money is on the Isrealis).
The rest of it, sounds very similiar to the N Korean issue that came up prior to Bush's exploration of Iraq for NBC Capability. I do have agree that eventually sometime on CNN, we're going to hear about either an American or Isreali airstrike on one or more reactor/research facility (and my money is on the Isrealis).
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
You folks know what any war with Iran would mean right? We'll be going along with them I bet. The American's that is...
They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars.
Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it.
You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?
-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!
???
They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars.
Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it.
You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?
-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!
???
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Interesting that the only 'country' of the three that lay claim to be the 'Home of Islam' and so far that is not in a 'state of war' is Iran. Others that would like to lay claim to that 'Right' are Afhanistan and Sudan and of course we have Iraq on the fringes.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
"You folks know what any war with Iran would mean right? We'll be going along with them I bet. The American's that is...
They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars.
Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it.
You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?
-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!"
I think you're right. If the Americans launched a ground offensive we would be with them. The political pressure would be so great that those europeans would probably be there too. However, I don't think that the US or NATO can realy afford to push an occupation of Iran considering that their militaries are tied up in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
I think that inorder to deal with the Irainian government we need to avoid any talk of "regime change." Don't get me wrong, there are bad people running that country, but as soon as the West says that they will essentialy "kill off" the old regime negotiations are impossible. Even after a (hopfuly) quick war, if the regime is given the option to shape up they will be less inclined to fight to the death and will cave easeier. The last thing the West needs is to be bogged down fighting gurrilla wars everywhere in the mid east. This also means that the decapitation strikes against Hussain early in the Iraq war couldnt be repeated. Hard to negotiate with someone after you have tried to kill him personaly.
As far as military options go, if there was only a convetional air strike against military targets al la "shock and awe" the west could try and make the case that we are punishing Iran, but dont want to own it. This is harder to do if the west lands an invasion force. At issue: how can you confirm that you have taken out all nuke development unless you land ground troops?
Also, how would a strike against Iran effect the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
They are stretched pretty thin and thier military I imagine is pretty stressed out. They will pressure us like C-R-A-Z-Y to make a large scale deployment and show of force along with them, and I believe if we turned our backs on them this time, it really wouldn't be good for our relations, like horrible really. Probably ramifications later on after thier done with that war. Financial levvies and burdens and all kinds of trade wars.
Think about it, they'll try to form another coalition of the willing so to speak but they'll do it themselves if they have to. But they'll be pissed about it.
You guys ready to put on desert CADPAT?
-OR- I'd like to be proven completely wrong (I really would), but it is MY opinion that we'll have to go over there with them this time, no out of it!"
I think you're right. If the Americans launched a ground offensive we would be with them. The political pressure would be so great that those europeans would probably be there too. However, I don't think that the US or NATO can realy afford to push an occupation of Iran considering that their militaries are tied up in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
I think that inorder to deal with the Irainian government we need to avoid any talk of "regime change." Don't get me wrong, there are bad people running that country, but as soon as the West says that they will essentialy "kill off" the old regime negotiations are impossible. Even after a (hopfuly) quick war, if the regime is given the option to shape up they will be less inclined to fight to the death and will cave easeier. The last thing the West needs is to be bogged down fighting gurrilla wars everywhere in the mid east. This also means that the decapitation strikes against Hussain early in the Iraq war couldnt be repeated. Hard to negotiate with someone after you have tried to kill him personaly.
As far as military options go, if there was only a convetional air strike against military targets al la "shock and awe" the west could try and make the case that we are punishing Iran, but dont want to own it. This is harder to do if the west lands an invasion force. At issue: how can you confirm that you have taken out all nuke development unless you land ground troops?
Also, how would a strike against Iran effect the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It is Iran that has drawn the line and is daring anyone to cross it. It's itching to start a fight, whether diplomatic or otherwise, to support it's place in Middle East politics. It's about prospective, and Iran wants to be high on the visibility list.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
We do realize that unlike previous opponents of our friends to the south, Iran is much better equipped and trained than other foes. Maybe not as advanced but they would be the most capable fighting force the US would face since Korea, maybe even WWII. Iraq was a push over and Afghanistan was nothing. Iran has a few toys and even a few nasty tactical options. We would see huge casualties in the first 24 hours ships, plains and men.
The US likes to bomb people first but the second one missile hits a target all shipping will stop because they will sink anything trying to get through the straights....completely ignore the ones with guns and hit tankers....World begins the worst energy crisis since the 70's. The leaders of the world know this, its really a tight spot and Iran just may have us by the balls.
Also if/when they get Nukes does it not come down to M.A.D. again. I know they are crazy but are they crazy enough to think if they use a nuke they wont get 10 fold in return???
The US likes to bomb people first but the second one missile hits a target all shipping will stop because they will sink anything trying to get through the straights....completely ignore the ones with guns and hit tankers....World begins the worst energy crisis since the 70's. The leaders of the world know this, its really a tight spot and Iran just may have us by the balls.
Also if/when they get Nukes does it not come down to M.A.D. again. I know they are crazy but are they crazy enough to think if they use a nuke they wont get 10 fold in return???
C
couchcommander
Guest
Navy_Blue said:
Well it all comes down to how they view nuclear weapons. If they think that they can be used as an instrument of policy, ie to acheive objectives and eventually victory, then they just might. As I mentioned, US doctrine does support the concept of a limited exchange, and there is nothing stopping Iran from having a similar doctrine. If they feel that they can acheive a high enough return with their capability that outweighs the potential effects of a similar US strike, they could be tempted.
However, if they view the use of nuclear weapons simply in terms if deterrance, ie if they believe that the use of a nuclear device would trigger a series of events leading in an all out exchange, then they would be very unlikely to use them. We cannot assume that their view is the second, but nor should we automatically assume it is the first. I am no position to even speculate which one it is, but I can say that both doctrines have been explored by most nuclear capable nations, though with different conclusions.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Nuclear option....that is so absurd sounds like a little reporter over exaggeration, I never heard the US ever say this.
Those who have any minor knowledge of targeting would understand that you don't need to use a nuc even one as small as a tactical one on a nuc plant or enrichment facility, just a hard target deep penetrating of the 10,000 lb range. Dropped from high alt by stealth they would not even know what hit them just that a massive explosion happened, it could even look like an accident!
As for Iran as a foe that would be able to stand up to a fight...Sadam hammered them with 10 times less forces. They would roll over easily i my opinion....the aftermath and insurgent activity would be tough though.
Those who have any minor knowledge of targeting would understand that you don't need to use a nuc even one as small as a tactical one on a nuc plant or enrichment facility, just a hard target deep penetrating of the 10,000 lb range. Dropped from high alt by stealth they would not even know what hit them just that a massive explosion happened, it could even look like an accident!
As for Iran as a foe that would be able to stand up to a fight...Sadam hammered them with 10 times less forces. They would roll over easily i my opinion....the aftermath and insurgent activity would be tough though.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Much of what is being reported is nonsense. Destroying the nuclear capabilities of Iran through kinetic action would be the very last step, since it would not resolve the underlying problem, which is the regime and their quest for regional hegemony.
US policy is now underpinned by the "Purple Finger" plan (i.e. exporting the growth of consensual democratic regimes in the region), with the application of hard power to uproot the autocrats and shield the new democracies. Should military action be deemed necessary against Iran, I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard) which uphold it, with only a very limited role for ground forces. The various factions inside Iran would suddenly find the Theocracy crippled, but, the communications and transportation infrastructure will probably be knocked out as well. The turmoil in Iran would be somewhat self contained as various groups struggled for power and took revenge on the Theocratic regime and the Revolutionary guardsmen, rather than being turned outwards against Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a BTW, the centrifuge "cascade" used to enrich uranium could be crippled by something as simple as messing with the power supplies in the actual plant. the centrifuge is spinning at several thousand RPM, so anything which would unbalance the thing will seriously damage the bearings etc.
US policy is now underpinned by the "Purple Finger" plan (i.e. exporting the growth of consensual democratic regimes in the region), with the application of hard power to uproot the autocrats and shield the new democracies. Should military action be deemed necessary against Iran, I would expect some form of a "head shot" directed at the centers of Iranian political power and the institutions (like the Revolutionary Guard) which uphold it, with only a very limited role for ground forces. The various factions inside Iran would suddenly find the Theocracy crippled, but, the communications and transportation infrastructure will probably be knocked out as well. The turmoil in Iran would be somewhat self contained as various groups struggled for power and took revenge on the Theocratic regime and the Revolutionary guardsmen, rather than being turned outwards against Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a BTW, the centrifuge "cascade" used to enrich uranium could be crippled by something as simple as messing with the power supplies in the actual plant. the centrifuge is spinning at several thousand RPM, so anything which would unbalance the thing will seriously damage the bearings etc.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
a_majoor said:
Something like a cruise missile maybe?
At this point in time I don't think we should do anything in a military way about them. Only diplomatic, let them start beating thier chests and screaming in monkey to show off the fact they are "strong and dangerous". So did North Korea. Thank god we didn't go to war with them yet either...
I think the media prods people on by shooting thier big mouth's off and just posting things on TV like, "US considers military strikes against Iran" and makes the public automatically think another war not only is being thought of, but that it's imminent. If George Bush started another war now, the USA population I think would lynch-mob the White House and kick his ass... There are some very, VERY unhappy people in the USA with him to say the least!
Hopefully we don't get sucked into the "suck" until about 2010 when we have a stronger military.... So long as we don't get torn apart again by politics and leadership switching hands too many times by then!
That's a scenario I can't visualize at all..As much noise as is being made, this country is a Theocracy, and I can't see you taking out the mullahs or changing their mind. The formal government is simply a tool of the Shite mullahs and we should not forget it. They have been so successful, simply because for the most part the general populace has 'been made' to believe what the Mullahs spout, irregardless of whether it makes sense or not to us.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
GAP said:
I wouldn't 100% agree with you there. There still is a lot of dissent in Iran, but it is very subdued by the faction in power. If they did gain more popular support amongst the people, I could see them defeating the Mullahs in an election. That being if there was ever a fair election to be held.
Already has been a religious coup...The different factions of the government are representing different factions of the Theocracy. The generation that experienced life under the Shaw and all it's freedoms, has for the most part been sidelined and is pretty ineffectual. Not that there's not dissent, but life is pretty brutal to those that do not tow the line, at least publicly.
Can they export it...see "Southern Iraq"
Can they export it...see "Southern Iraq"
Similar threads
