Iran Nuclear Standoff

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

In that nut case would come a cross our southern Borders.

[feederband]

In that nut case would come a cross our southern Borders.

Yeah he will probably have one of new maps so he will be able to cross with no problems...

[JTD]

NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell made two points tonight:
1. Iran years away from nuclear weapons capability.
2. No good military options. Groud invasion "unthinkable" and airstrikes of limited value.

So we aren't that close to war after all

[kevin]

Jason you would be correct if foreign policy were made by strategists and thinkers whose political experience isn't contained within an obscure essay by Kant. I'm afraid that strategic sense isn't an accurate predictor in this government.

We are very close to war. The drums are pounding too loud.

[feederband]

I'll go with limited air strikes on known nuc sites and maybe some military sites...Heavy sanctions...And hopefully the people their will do their own regime change....No way ground invasion.....Besides that if Isreal has the nucs they just might wipe them out and say it was pre self defense....

[kevin]

Its madness to expect that the people in Iran will overthrow their government when they see their nation attacked by a foreign power. Nationalism always trumps notions of reform. There's no precedent in history for anything of the sort. If we do limited airstrikes on Iran, we should have every expectation that their government will become more radical and controlled and that they will attempt to purchase and create by all means possible a nuclear detterrent.

Machiavelli says that a nation should never delay fighting a war. That's what limited airstrikes amounts to, and seeing our inability to obtain reliable intelligence on that entire continent I'd say we don't have a clue where all the sites are at.

There are no good options, but deluding ourselves into thinking there is a magic bullet cure isn't going to help.

[feederband]

Its madness to expect that the people in Iran will overthrow their government when they see their nation attacked by a foreign power. Nationalism always trumps notions of reform. There's no precedent in history for anything of the sort. If we do limited airstrikes on Iran, we should have every expectation that their government will become more radical and controlled and that they will attempt to purchase and create by all means possible a nuclear detterrent.

Machiavelli says that a nation should never delay fighting a war. That's what limited airstrikes amounts to, and seeing our inability to obtain reliable intelligence on that entire continent I'd say we don't have a clue where all the sites are at.

There are no good options, but deluding ourselves into thinking there is a magic bullet cure isn't going to help.

So what do you think will happen??

[kevin]

Economic sanctions will be passed. Russia and other countries won't be able to help them with nuclear technology. They will probably come back to the bargaining table.

To address a point made repeatedly earlier, Iran does have vast amounts of oil under its soil. However nuclear power would allow them to sell that oil. Now, this is not why the Iranians are developing a nuclear energy program, but saying that it doesn't make sense for them to since they have a lot of energy isn't a good argument at all.

Now back to what do I think will happen? I think we'll either take the diplomatic route or get engulfed in a ground war with Iran. This ground war will completely ruin any chance for stability in Iraq. It will probably lead to a draft. Personally I'd be willing to deal with a nuclear Iran, anathema as this sounds to you all, because I believe that groups do not act outside of their interests. MAD works whether its with Kruschev or the Mullahs. Crazy statements by the President to domestic parties does not count as true intentions. They will not kill themselves to destroy Israel. Not a very desireable situation I will grant that much, but nevertheless if the costs are too high for the United States to remove any chance of Iran gaining a nuke, I am willing to take a moderate and diplomatic approach.

[Derek Ortt]

No way is a nuclear Iran acceptable as they may be willing to accept MAD

If we do end up at war with iran. nothing short of a full UNCONDITONAL SURRENDER is acceptable as the stakes are too high

[kevin]

Derek Ortt, there is a reason that young and desparate men are employed in terrorist attacks. That is because the ruling elite do not wish their bodies to perish for the cause. Whatever rhetoric from them or whatnot that you have swallowed does not take this into consideration. People like the mullahs are not willing to risk suicide. They are working on a nuclear weapon because it is the only reasonable deterrent to the United States. Annihilating Israel would mean killing everyone in Iran, themselves included. Israel has at its fingertips a nuclear arsenal that could effectively kill everyone in Iran. Their intelligence agents throughout the world would see that not a single mullah from Iran would ever live. They would basically be shooting themselves in the head. Ruling class individuals do not risk their WEALTH for their faith, what makes you think they are willing to risk their lives for a cause?

Iranians were not fanatical enough to ignore help from Israel during the Iraq-Iran war, and they are not fanatical enough today to engage in state-suicide.

And your second statement would never be considered by anyone in the policy making policy, including the hawks, so I don't feel the need to address it. Those are your constitutionally protected opinions, but there is a whole spectrum of possibilities.

[Derek Ortt]

Unconditional surrender is always a consideration and nearly always the desired outcome. To say that it is not considered, IMO, is misinformed.

Now, while the mullahs may act with some ration, the more junior officers may not. It is a chance that we cannot take and why a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated

[kevin]

Unconditional surrender doesn't happen. Did you see the Iraqi government capitulate? No. What happens in an invasion is we declare the prior government illegitimate and make a new legitimate government. This is because we do not declare wars anymore, a product of the strong executive I believe you are in support of.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Heres a idea...We can not have our troops in Iraq/AG...To make sure Iran doe's not get one off. Which is move them out of range. Then we give them a warning that if they lunch nukes we take the nukes out...Fellowed by a full scale nuclear strike on there country. They will of brought it on them selfs if they lunch. Thats all I can say.

[cycloneye]

Iran to reevaluate Russian enrichment plan
Apparent reversal comes after IAEA referred Tehran to Security Council


Updated: 5:43 a.m. ET Feb. 5, 2006
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Sunday it will hold talks with Moscow on a proposal to enrich Iranian uranium in Russia, changing tracks a day after a senior Iranian official declared the plan dead because Tehran was referred to the U.N. Security Council.

“The situation has changed. Still, we will attend talks with Russia on February 16,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said at a press conference.

His comments came a day after Javad Vaeidi, deputy head of the powerful National Security Council, said there was there was “no adequate reason to pursue the Russian plan.”


Vaedi spoke after the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council over fears it wants to produce nuclear arms. Iran responded by saying it would restart full-scale work on uranium enrichment and order an end to intrusive IAEA inspections of its facilities.

Council referral ‘not the end of the world’
It was not clear if the change of course represented a major shift in Iran’s strategy in the crisis over its nuclear activities. Asefi said “the door for negotiations is still open” over Iran’s nuclear program.

“We don’t fear the Security Council. It’s not the end of the world,” he added.

Russia had proposed that Iran shift its plan for large-scale enrichment of uranium to Russian territory to allay world suspicions that Iran might use the process to develop a nuclear bomb.

Uranium enriched to a low degree is used as fuel for nuclear reactors. But highly enriched uranium is suitable for making atomic bombs.

“The proposal has to conform itself with the new circumstances,” Asefi said. “If the Russian proposal makes itself compatible with the new conditions, it can be negotiated.”

Iran has said the Russian proposal has ambiguities that need to be clarified in talks. Iranian officials have also said Tehran would reject the proposal if it sought to prevent Iran from enriching uranium inside the country. They insist it must only be a complementary measure to Iran’s nuclear program.


Is this aparent reversal a goodwill gesture by them or is a buying time thing?

[canegrl04]

Is this aparent reveral a good will gesture by them or is a buying of time thing?


Its a buying of time thing.Iran keeps backing off,then threatening.Same thing Saddam used to do.They are hoping they can stall an attck long enough to have some kind of nuke weapon ready,or to get their war plans ready

And despite what Andrea Mitchell said,please re-read what Richaed Perle had to say.He thinks we must act militarily before its too late.I don't think people in this admin. care whether anyone thinks we are ready for another war or not

[feederband]

Buying time...

They are probably telling their country in Arabic they aren't going to listen to the U.N. or anyone else while behind the scenes they are using stall tactics knowing dam well they are just going to do what they have been doing..

[Derek Ortt]

yes, I do favor the strong executive and favor transferring the declaration of war authority to that branch, since the executive essentially has that authority now. Also, the Iraq tactic was a bad one, but thats another debate

[kevin]

Buying time...

They are probably telling their country in Arabic they aren't going to listen to the U.N. or anyone else while behind the scenes they are using stall tactics knowing dam well they are just going to do what they have been doing..

If they are telling their country in Arabic, then we should not worry since they do not speak Arabic.

[feederband]

Buying time...

They are probably telling their country in Arabic they aren't going to listen to the U.N. or anyone else while behind the scenes they are using stall tactics knowing dam well they are just going to do what they have been doing..

If they are telling their country in Arabic, then we should not worry since they do not speak Arabic.

Ok ok whatever they speak.....

[kevin]

Its an honest mistake. Most people have no clue about the larger world and this is excuseable because it hardly ever causes them harm or interferes with their lives. But it brings up an interesting question. How can anyone hope to ascertain the motivations and true policies of the Iranians when they don't know what language they speak? How can they possibly know the intracacies of the Iranian government or the nature of our and the world's policies with them? I freely admit I don't know all the details, which is why I find Hawkish certainty disturbing.