• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Would the USA attack a sovereign country without even a shred of legitimacy? This type of action would be very difficult to rationalize particularly without general support from friendly and aligned country. I would hope that all diplomatic efforts are used and exhausted prior to any other USA action.
 
Would the USA attack a sovereign country without even a shred of legitimacy?

It's mostly just speculation at this point.

I suspect that there are those who are trying to whip up opposition
peremptorily.

I also seriously doubt that there are any invasion plans.
I would conjecture that any action would be short, sharp and directed at
nuclear facilities only.

Infanteer - That article is an interesting read. food for thought indeed.
Thanx!

P.S. - I disagree with the author's optimism toward a diplomatic solution.
Irans' support for Hezbollah pushes things out of the "Iran's just misunderstood"
range of possibilty.

 
Iran's leader feels that his country is safe from attack. ;D

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22355256-401,00.html

PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sought to justify his confidence the US will not attack Iran, saying the proof comes from his mathematical skills as an engineer and faith in God, the press reported today.

Mr Ahmadinejad told academics in a speech that elements inside Iran were pressing for compromise in the nuclear standoff with the West over fears the US could launch a military strike.

"In some discussions I told them 'I am an engineer and I am examining the issue. They do not dare wage war against us and I base this on a double proof'," he said in the speech yesterday, reported by the reformist Etemad Melli and Kargozaran newspapers.

"I tell them: 'I am an engineer and I am a master in calculation and tabulation.

"I draw up tables. For hours, I write out different hypotheses. I reject, I reason. I reason with planning and I make a conclusion. They cannot make problems for Iran."'

Mr Ahmadinejad has long expressed pride in his academic prowess. He holds a PhD on transport engineering and planning from Tehran's Science and Technology University and is the author several of scientific papers.

The deeply religious President said his second reason was: "I believe in what God says."

"God says that those who walk in the path of righteousness will be victorious. What reason can you have for believing God will not keep this promise."
 
Well there you have it. we can all sleep soundly in our beds tonight knowing that this guy is on the job eh? ::)
 
Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6975934.stm) states that british blame Iran for supplying Taleban with newest chinese arms.
 
Hmmm, Sounds like there is evidence but no proof.

So who do the Chinese need more ? The wests' export markets
or Iran's oil?

 
Three days?  They said the same thing about Kosovo and look how that turned out.  This is not a pushover country, and the brass doing the planning shouldnt expect them to fold like paper warriors...
 
GreyMatter said:
Three days?  They said the same thing about Kosovo and look how that turned out.  This is not a pushover country, and the brass doing the planning shouldnt expect them to fold like paper warriors...

I don't expect the Americans do. The three day air campaign plan sounds somewhat like a decapitation plan (something I referred to as a "head shot" in previous threads), which takes the tools of power out of the hands of the Theocracy and allows the opposition the ability to take to the streets and overthrow the current rulers. The downside of the strategy is the reaction of the Iranian people to the air campaign, especially without some overt casus belli. (We can take it as a given that the MSM and "left wing" opposition will oppose action against Iran until a mushroom cloud appears over Manhattan island.

The other risk the Americans will have to accept with this plan is having only minimum influence over which faction wins the resulting civil war (although it will take a lot of pressure off other theaters with the cutoff of money, supplies and training by the Iranians to Hammas, Hezbollah and assorted other groups). The reaction of the nations which depend on Iranian oil will also have to be taken into account.

There is a very involved calculus going on here; short term gain in other theaters, long term uncertainty over the future direction of Iran and fear of the present course Iran is taking. We live in interesting times.
 
a_majoor said:
I don't expect the Americans do. The three day air campaign plan sounds somewhat like a decapitation plan (something I referred to as a "head shot" in previous threads), which takes the tools of power out of the hands of the Theocracy and allows the opposition the ability to take to the streets and overthrow the current rulers. The downside of the strategy is the reaction of the Iranian people to the air campaign, especially without some overt casus belli

The problem with the three day 'head-shot' you describe is how do you follow it up?  I hope the intelligence and coordination depicting an Iranian opposition takeover is better than the supposed opposition support prior to Iraq. 

I would further point out two other key problems with this concept:
(1) Iran is very low tech in a lot of areas, and it is difficult to envision how a supposed opposition party is going to coordinate a national takeover if there is no means to communicate a simultaneous attack on all key positions across the country.  Especially after three days during which hundreds of attacks have wiped out phone lines, transmission towers and other communications neccesities. 
(2) The three-day attack, if used as a precursor, would only disperse the leaders and send many of them into hiding, into isolated areas, or into fortified structures that would only make it more difficult to capture or kill the current leadership.  This tends to go against the element of surprise required for a successful 'coup-d'etat'. 
 
GreyMatter said:
The problem with the three day 'head-shot' you describe is how do you follow it up?  I hope the intelligence and coordination depicting an Iranian opposition takeover is better than the supposed opposition support prior to Iraq. 

I would further point out two other key problems with this concept:
(1) Iran is very low tech in a lot of areas, and it is difficult to envision how a supposed opposition party is going to coordinate a national takeover if there is no means to communicate a simultaneous attack on all key positions across the country.  Especially after three days during which hundreds of attacks have wiped out phone lines, transmission towers and other communications neccesities.   
(2) The three-day attack, if used as a precursor, would only disperse the leaders and send many of them into hiding, into isolated areas, or into fortified structures that would only make it more difficult to capture or kill the current leadership.  This tends to go against the element of surprise required for a successful 'coup-d'etat'.   

Agreed!
Just a thought, Their President should be the main target here!  Why not just assassinate him?  The entire nation would then see how serious the looming Nuclear programme is and how close it could come to an all out ****storm if it is not ceased.

 
great_white said:
Just a thought, Their President should be the main target here!   Why not just assassinate him?  The entire nation would then see how serious the looming Nuclear programme is and how close it could come to an all out ****storm if it is not ceased. 

Thats pretty much a taboo act between modern nations.  It is so easy to accomplish that there seems to be an unwritten agreement between countries that "we will not assasinate each other's senior leadership".  It is equal to a declaration of war...except during time of war of course...  and it doesnt seem to apply to disagreements between governments and insurgent/terrorist groups, or between opposing terrorist/insurgent groups, or between opposing criminal organizations.  Or between opposing spy agencies.  Or if you're the Pope.       
 
Well Gaddafi by a stroke of luck wasnt killed in the raid on Tripoli, although he wasnt intentionally targeted. The event seems to have scared him straight.
 
The Big G lost a son in that raid - and all of a sudden felt very mortal.  He however is not a religious lunatic, and after 9/11 he sensed the way the wind was blowing and he gave up the NK/Iran/Pak Nuc info (and his stuff as he had been part of it).

To this day I believe Bush made a mistake not invading Iran prior to Iraq -- IF the war is coming is not doubt - the longer we leave it the higher the body count will be.
 
Perhaps a short sharp punch in the nose is a worthwhile investment?

Deterrance exist only when the other side really believes you will hurt them.
Qaddafi got it. Ahmedinejad is expendable.
Expend him!

I once heard of a theory that WW2 could have been avoided if the British
had landed an expeditionary force in '36 or so and enforced the treaty of Versailles.
I suspect that it's correct.

My 2 shekels anyway - and what do I know? ;D
 
tomahawk6 said:
Well Gaddafi by a stroke of luck wasnt killed in the raid on Tripoli, although he wasnt intentionally targeted. The event seems to have scared him straight.

Good point, I forgot about that one. 
 
It's often occurred to me that bumping off the occasional 'leader' would be a low-bloodshed way of curtailing a lot of problems.  I'm not sure it would get at the heart of the problems we have with Iran however -- many of which pre-date Ahmedinejad. In fact in might even make things worse. Ahmedinejad has limited power -- much of the power in Iran seems to be held by religious leaders.  Ahmedinejad's domestic policies (in contrast to his inflammatory rhetoric) have, in several cases, shown him to have moderate rather than fanatical tendencies. The degree to which Islamic institutions in Iran are fueling the push for atomic weapons is an unknown I personally have no information about. However, the distrust of _their_ agenda is probably pretty high up on the list reasons the West is so nervous about Iran having nuclear capabilities.  As soon as religion gets involved, rationality and even motivated self-interest (concepts on which the whole deterant-thing depends), are in danger of going right out the window.
 
As soon as religion gets involved, rationality and even motivated self-interest (concepts on which the whole deterant-thing depends), are in danger of going right out the window.

I believe you are sustantially correct.

However, there is a pressing need to do something sooner rather than later on this
new WMD threat, the President has limited power - if he's gone no biggy.

I'm not actually a fan of the "head shot" concept.
But there is a serious need to make a statement.

The nuclear facilities themselves are a more appropriate target, but they are dispersed
and some deep underground. There is likely to be some environmental cost to a strike here.  The mess may be large enough to form a deterrant from rebuilding.
I wouldn't want to sweep up and rebuild a facility that is conspicuously radioactive.  ;)


As usual just spit balling - Getting told I'm wrong is how I learn............ ;D

 
As long as American (and allied) troops are protected in Iraq, I say blow that reactor (and any facilities you can find) straight to hell ASAP =)  If you accidentally hit Ahmedinejad in the process, I wouldn't cry about it ... I'm just pointing out the next guy could be worse.

Anyway, just my opinion ... if I seem too wishy-washy you'll have to forgive me, I'm a left-winger.  ;D
 
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/international_iran_france_war_dc

12 minutes ago

By Francois Murphy
ADVERTISEMENT

PARIS (Reuters) - French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Sunday his country must prepare for the possibility of war against Iran over its nuclear program, but he did not believe any such action was imminent.

Seeking to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, Kouchner also told RTL radio and LCI television that the world's major powers should use further sanctions to show they were serious about stopping Tehran getting atom bombs.

He also said France had asked French firms not to bid for tenders in the Islamic Republic.

"We must prepare for the worst," Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."

Asked about the preparations, he said it was normal to prepare for various eventualities.

"We are preparing ourselves by trying to put together plans that are the chiefs of staff's prerogative (but) that is not about to happen tomorrow," he added.

Tehran insists it only wants to master nuclear technology to produce electricity, but it has yet to comply with repeated U.N. demands that it suspend uranium enrichment and other sensitive work that could potentially be used in producing weapons.

Kouchner's comments follow a similarly hawkish statement by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who said last month in his first major foreign policy speech since taking office that a diplomatic push by the world's powers was the only alternative to "an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran."

Asked if France was involved in any planning towards war, he said: "The French army is not at the moment associated with anything at all, nor with any maneuver at all."

"PEACE IS IN YOUR INTEREST"

France has said repeatedly it wants the U.N. Security Council to pass tougher sanctions against Iran over its failure to dispel fears that it is secretly pursuing nuclear weapons.

"We do not want to signal anything other than 'peace is in your interest, and in ours too,"' Kouchner said, adding that the door should be left open to negotiations with Tehran, but Paris has made a suspension of nuclear work a condition for talks.

He also said that France had asked its biggest companies, including oil giant Total and gas firm Gaz de France, not to bid for projects in Iran.

The United States, Germany, France and Britain have led a diplomatic drive to punish Iran for refusing to halt its uranium enrichment program. They succeeded in persuading reluctant Russia and China to back two U.N. sanctions resolutions.

Washington says the time has to expand the penalties and has called a September 21 meeting of the six powers to discuss a third sanctions resolution to submit to the U.N. Security Council.

"We have already asked a certain number of our large companies to not respond to tenders, and it is a way of signaling that we are serious," Kouchner said.

"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies. But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."

In addition, Paris and Berlin were preparing possible European Union economic sanctions against Tehran, Kouchner said.

"We have decided to ... prepare ourselves for possible sanctions outside the U.N. sanctions and which would be European sanctions. Our German friends proposed it. We discussed it a few days ago," Kouchner said.
 
Back
Top