Iran Nuclear Standoff

[Stephanie]

if Iran esclates any operation into a full scale war... they better be prepared to have their country smashed, and lose 50% of their civilians

i personally do not think the Iranian President even cares as this would undoubtedly lead to a "deeper rift" between the West and Islam...in a way i almost think he would welcome it. JMHO

I agree.

[LSU2001]

As a former Sailor, I say that we should use pre-emptive strikes well before there is a possiblity that Iran has Nuclear weapons. I think that this time may be in the next year or so. I think what we will see is a slow diplomatic approach followed by very fast escalation and military strikes.
TIm

Ps. The sailor part does not make me anymore qualified than anyone else only that I have worn the uniform and understand the realities of life in the service. I knew it when I joined and I swore to defend the Constitution and the US.

[Stratosphere747]

Just some of the responses shows how naive the general public is. I am not trying to disrespect anyone, but you should educate yourselves on what may lie ahead for our armed forces.

The Iranian army is not the Iraqi army. I'm sure that the majority of the country will try and equate the two.

In the first Gulf war we had a decent sized coalition to help along with one heck of a bombing campaign to decimate the Iraqi army, physically and mentally. Hence the reasons for the total collapse and surrenders once the ground troops made their move.

In the second Gulf war we, along with help from the Brits, did everything on our own without much more of a fight from the Iraqis. There was no bombing campaign and we went in with ground troops almost immediately. No matter what is said about the UN resolutions, Iraq and its army never came close to rebuilding itself after the first Gulf war. There was going to be no effective fighting force put up by the Iraqis. While there were pockets of what may be considered formidable resistance, the war *with the Iraqi army* was over in less than a month.

Iran is a much different matter......

Without going into the effectiveness of the Iranian army *there are varying accounts of their capability*. They would IMO fight back much more effectively than what Iraq showed in either Gulf war, plus they have the ability to take out a few ships in the Persian Gulf. The difference and what people fail to acknowledge is that the US is not ready for a battle right now without taking some significant losses. Would we lose a war against Iran? No, but we would lose more soldiers than both Gulf wars and the ensuing conflict combined.

Now what people don’t realize is how we must keep Israel from getting involved. Why? If and when Israel becomes involved militarily in any conflict, then Syria may sense a weakness and decide to attack Israel, which places Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries in a delicate position. This could potentially put all of the Middle East at war against the US, Britain and Israel. Not quite a World War, but the implications are frightening. Don't expect to see any coalition either, with how the world views the US and our decision to go into Iraq, they will most likely stand by militarily and watch.

So those of you that claim we should just start bombing Iran and think there will be no repercussions are sadly mistaken. I recognize the fact that we cannot let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, and must do whatever possible to keep this from happening. But you must open your eyes to what potentially may happen.

Hopefully there will be a diplomatic solution, *though I must admit with the psycho Iran has as president, may negate this possibility*

Scott

[brunota2003]

My parents are both former Marines...that is where I get my, "turn them into a parking lot" from...

[Rainband]

Just some of the responses shows how naive the general public is. I am not trying to disrespect anyone, but you should educate yourselves on what may lie ahead for our armed forces.

The Iranian army is not the Iraqi army. I'm sure that the majority of the country will try and equate the two.

In the first Gulf war we had a decent sized coalition to help along with one heck of a bombing campaign to decimate the Iraqi army, physically and mentally. Hence the reasons for the total collapse and surrenders once the ground troops made their move.

In the second Gulf war we, along with help from the Brits, did everything on our own without much more of a fight from the Iraqis. There was no bombing campaign and we went in with ground troops almost immediately. No matter what is said about the UN resolutions, Iraq and its army never came close to rebuilding itself after the first Gulf war. There was going to be no effective fighting force put up by the Iraqis. While there were pockets of what may be considered formidable resistance, the war *with the Iraqi army* was over in less than a month.

Iran is a much different matter......

Without going into the effectiveness of the Iranian army *there are varying accounts of their capability*. They would IMO fight back much more effectively than what Iraq showed in either Gulf war, plus they have the ability to take out a few ships in the Persian Gulf. The difference and what people fail to acknowledge is that the US is not ready for a battle right now without taking some significant losses. Would we lose a war against Iran? No, but we would lose more soldiers than both Gulf wars and the ensuing conflict combined.

Now what people don’t realize is how we must keep Israel from getting involved. Why? If and when Israel becomes involved militarily in any conflict, then Syria may sense a weakness and decide to attack Israel, which places Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries in a delicate position. This could potentially put all of the Middle East at war against the US, Britain and Israel. Not quite a World War, but the implications are frightening. Don't expect to see any coalition either, with how the world views the US and our decision to go into Iraq, they will most likely stand by militarily and watch.

So those of you that claim we should just start bombing Iran and think there will be no repercussions are sadly mistaken. I recognize the fact that we cannot let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, and must do whatever possible to keep this from happening. But you must open your eyes to what potentially may happen.

Hopefully there will be a diplomatic solution, *though I must admit with the psycho Iran has as president, may negate this possibility*

Scott

Bravo

[sunny]

You beat me to it Rainband!!! But I do second that Bravo.

[Stephanie]

Great post Stratosphere!

[MiamiensisWx]

Agreed... outstanding post!

[Derek Ortt]

I am aware of thosr risks, but do not forsee the entire Mid east rushing to the side of Iran, even if Israel enters the war

If Iran attacks Iraq as they have threatened, this would likely take Iraq out of any pro-Iranian coalition, since Iran will be at war with them. I also dont forsee Kuwait joining Iran either

I am aware of the risks, but those outlined do seem to be a better scenario than allowing Iran to get the bomb, when the stakes are, IMO, too high

[cycloneye]

Agree 100% with you Stratosphere747 about Iran not as the same as Iraq in terms of military might that they have meaning more superior.The best option is the diplomatic course and hopefully it comes.However the military option should be the very last resort especially as we know the U.S is streched out with the Iraq situation.

[cycloneye]

Diplomats Say Iran Starts Enrichment
Feb 13 9:29 AM US/Eastern
Email this story

VIENNA, Austria


Iran has started small-scale enrichment of uranium _ a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors or bombs, diplomats said Monday. The move reflected Tehran's defiance of international pressure meant to ease concerns it wants to build nuclear arms that led to its recent referral to the U.N. Security Council

"Uranium gas has been fed into three machines," one senior diplomat familiar with Iran's nuclear file told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter. Another diplomat confirmed that limited enrichment had begun at Iran's Natanz site.

To produce significant amounts of enriched uranium, gas must be fed into hundreds of such machines. Uranium enriched to a low degree can be used for nuclear reactors, while highly enriched uranium is suitable for warheads.

Iran is years away from running the 50,000 centrifuges it says it wants to operate as a source of fuel for its Russian-built nuclear plant at Bushehr.

Even small-scale enrichment is significant, however, because it represents symbolic determination on the part of Tehran to go ahead with a technology that most nations want it to give up because of fears of misuse.

Further piling on tensions, a senior Iranian official announced Monday that talks with Moscow scheduled for Thursday on moving Iranian enrichment to Russia as a way ensuring Iran has no direct control were on indefinite hold. And the official, presidential spokesman Gholamhossein Elham, reiterated that his country may reconsider its adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if it judges that goes against its interests.

North Korea _ the world's other major proliferation concern _ quit the Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003, just a few months before U.S. officials announced that Pyongyang had told them it had nuclear weapons and may test, export or use them depending on U.S. actions.

Iran had warned it would resume work large-scale enrichment of uranium after it was reported Feb. 4 to the U.N. Security Council by the 35- nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resolution passed at that meeting indirectly linked referral to breaches of the Nonproliferation Treaty and concerns Tehran's activities represented a threat to world peace.

The IAEA is due to issue a report on Iran at its March meeting, after which the Security Council is expected to consider taking steps against the country.

Tehran repeatedly has stressed the nuclear arms control treaty allows it to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes and says it will never give up the right to enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel. The U.S., its European allies and Israel believe Iran is seeking to develop atomic weapons _ a belief shared by an increasing number of nations as Tehran shrugs of international pressure to return to negotiations on its nuclear ambitions and instead opts for measures that raise tensions.

Reacting to the news that Iran had resumed small-scale enrichment, a diplomat from the European Union, which backed Iran's referral, said the move "makes it more difficult to resume negotiations."

"The Iranians are once again ignoring the will of the international community and creating further obstacles to a negotiated settlement" of the crisis, he said, demanding anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the issue to the media.

Much of the surveillance equipment and seals from Iran's nascent uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz have been removed by the Iranians in the month since they announced they would resume limited activities there.

Without the seals and surveillance equipment _ and with Iran's recent decision to end the agency's rights to in-depth nuclear inspections at short notice _ the IAEA has few means to monitor Tehran's enrichment efforts.

It also is crippled the agency's efforts to look for secret sites and experiments that could be linked to nuclear arms.



More fuel to the fire against a diplomatic solution to this standoff.

[canegrl04]

Iran has just blown off Russia's uranium deal,now they have started their program back up.Look for something big to happen after the UN meeting next month

[alicia-w]

while i respect the intent of the UN, what real authority do they have? They dont directly supervise any forces that can immediately resolve this matter for once and for all.

[LSU2001]

while i respect the intent of the UN, what real authority do they have? They dont directly supervise any forces that can immediately resolve this matter for once and for all.

The real answer is none alicia-w. The UN is really a toothless body. However, by going through the UN the US and Europe will at least have the political appearance of working with the world body. If the Security Council approves any action then there will be a much better chance of using NATO forces and creating a coalition of nations. I beleive that the US or Israel will act with or without this "approval" but it would be much, much better to work through the Security Council.

Who knows there may even be a true Diplomatic Solution to this very scary problem.
Tim

[Skywatch_NC]

My parents are both former Marines...that is where I get my, "turn them into a parking lot" from...

All due respect...just pray and hope that one or both of your parents don't get called over, Tim...or their comrades, etc.

[alicia-w]

the "agency" could always stage a coup.

[sunny]

My parents are both former Marines...that is where I get my, "turn them into a parking lot" from...

I actually remember that from the Iran Hostage Crisis days. They took the song by the Beach Boys "Barbara Ann" and turned it into "Bomb Iran". One of the lines was "turn them into a parking lot".

And you are right Eric. Everyone should pray that SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, sending in troops can be avoided.

[GalvestonDuck]

Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks
Tell the ayatollah, "Gonna put you in a box!”

[sunny]

lol Duckie!! That's the one I had forgotten it was Vince Vance and the Valiants that did that remake!

[JTD]

Poll-Americans nervous about Iran Crisis:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/ ... index.html