Biden indicates US will not hold back Israel if it strikes Iran

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm

Another step down that certain road...

[SUBMAN1]

Nor should we hold Israel back. They are the only country in the region that keeps radicals in check. Good for them and that is about the most intelligent thing I've heard com out of Biden's mouth! :up::up::up:

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

Interesting. I wonder if this stance was at all influenced by public outcry over U.S. condemnation of Israel's last anti-nuclear strike back in 81'.


I admit, I'm still a little torn over whether or not the U.S should back Israel. On the one hand, I'd love to see a Western-backed power establish dominance in the region. Islam has been a thorn in the side of the west for thousands of years, and I see little reason to believe that they will curb their policy of militaristic expansion anytime soon.
On the other, I wonder whether it is any of our business. U.S. interference in the region pre-dates terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and interests by quite a bit. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone. That's Europe's backyard, not ours.

Ideally, I'd like to see peace in the region and the establishment of less oppressive governments, but failing that I wouldn't mind seeing the region tear itself to pieces. Perhaps that is what is needed. My only caveat is that the U.S. must not be involved. Our intervention has been less than welcome on a number of occassions, so we have nothing to gain from acting on behalf of other nations.
Such a policy would leave Israel on her own in the region, and I feel badly about that, but the U.S. did not create Israel out of thin air(to the chargrin of Palestine, which had been there for two millenia), nor was it responisible for the division of the Ottoman Empire along arbitrary lines. That was Europe's doing, in Europe's backyard, and the problem is Europe's responsibility. I leave it to them to sort out the rest of the matter amongst their constituent nations.

Which is the better course of action at this point? Is there another, more reasonable course? I don't know, but I do know that just as some in the old world may be tired of our interference, we are tired of interfering. We should have heeded Jefferson's advice and remained neutral from the very beginning.

[Max2147]

I really hope Biden is just talking here.

Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous.

But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981.

The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen.

Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them.

It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.

[Frame57]

All you have to know is if they have centrifuges.

[baggygreen]

Israel will ultimately act in the manner that best suits them. If they feel their existence is threatened by an Iranian nuke, they will act to stop it, whether the yanks approve of it or not.

To max, I know what you mean about lack of evidence. However, the Syrians were able to go a long way to constructing a plant, how far along was it before it was discovered? in a country the size of Iran, we simply couldn't find it if they truly wanted to hide evidence.

My fear is that the first notice we'll have they've built a nuke is a "test" in either tel aviv or some other western nation.

[Platapus]

All you have to know is if they have centrifuges.

Why do you say that?

[Skybird]

Saudi Arabia seems to have given permission to Israeli strike to transit through Saudi air space.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece

This is the first time ever that I think the strike scenario is about to turn true indeed. The right figures are in the right place: it seems to me White's figures are on the intended starting squares, the player has made up his mind (the current Isaelis givernment being there, and no other), and Black has allowed his position to send a message of inviting an attack - when it opressed the opposition, saying that it will not give up the match for power peacefully.

Whether White'S attack plan could work or not, remains to be seen. As I often said, I am sceptical that if the mission objective is to really destroy the Iranian program, that could be acchieved without using nukes, whereas a conventional raid, without special forces taking out vital places on the ground manually, could hardly acchieve anything more than just some delays (as long as their intel basis has not dramatically improved with regard to precise target coordinates. Two years ago, these data on Iranian precise coordinates were simply lacking, it was said). Which would mean there would be a repetition of events some time later.

A half-hearted solution by the Israelis I will not support, they dissapointed twice in the past three years, making me u-turning on my initial support for them at both occasions. I will not make that mistake a third time. Since it is unlikely that they will go the tough way, I must express my opposition to this scenario then - as long as their conventional strike does not prove to be such that it kills the Iranian program for sure. Launching such an action just for delaying them, I will not support.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, didn't Iran tell the US to stop meddling in their affairs. :hmmm: Since this is an affair between Israel and Iran, no meddling from the US per Biden. :salute:

[Max2147]

Well, didn't Iran tell the US to stop meddling in their affairs. :hmmm: Since this is an affair between Israel and Iran, no meddling from the US per Biden. :salute:
No. Iran told us to stop meddling in their domestic affairs. Israel attacking Iran would hardly be an Israeli domestic issue. Such an attack would greatly harm American national security, therefore the US needs to make sure such an attack doesn't happen.

And if you think centrifuges are all we need to know about, you've got no idea of how Iran's nuclear program works.

I suggest that people here read How to Build a Nuclear Bomb by Frank Barnaby. It's a good technical summary of the world of WMD, and it's accessible to people without a scientific background. It's also fun to see how people react to you when you read it in a public place like a subway or an airport. ;)

[AVGWarhawk]

No. Iran told us to stop meddling in their domestic affairs. Israel attacking Iran would hardly be an Israeli domestic issue. Such an attack would greatly harm American national security, therefore the US needs to make sure such an attack doesn't happen.

And if you think centrifuges are all we need to know about, you've got no idea of how Iran's nuclear program works.

I suggest that people here read How to Build a Nuclear Bomb by Frank Barnaby. It's a good technical summary of the world of WMD, and it's accessible to people without a scientific background. It's also fun to see how people react to you when you read it in a public place like a subway or an airport. ;)

Don't meddle in their domestic affairs??????? That is laugh. You think they want the US to meddle in this affair with Israel? Come on, they do not want the US around for anything. The US could fall off the face of the earth for all Iran cares.

[Max2147]

According to diplomatic protocol, nations are not supposed to intervene in each others' domestic affairs. An act of war by one nation on another is not a domestic issue, therefore an intervention by a third power is not a violation of diplomatic protocol.

I really don't give a sh*t about what Iran wants, I'm just concerned with doing what's right for the US, and in this case it's VERY clear that what's right for the US is to prevent Israel from attacking.

[CastleBravo]

Without knowing the Iranian's current defense posture, or real, not imagined capabilities, with all the turmoil following the elections there, now may be a good time for a strike.

Or, a slow but steady increase in forces along the Pakistani/Iranian border. There are also many US troops out of iraqi cities which could be slowly moved towards Iran. Helmand province in Afghanistan is also w/in 200KM if the Iranian border.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think that this may not be a big deal. To me, this is a type of indirect sabre-rattling. Biden, in effect, was indicating that the US could would not be held responsible for what happens should the Iranians continue their nuclear program, kind of a 'see what'll happen' without a deliberate threat. Tehran will retort and we'll be back to where we've been for the past few years.

CastleBravo, I assume you mean the Afghan/Iranian or Iraqi/Iranian borders. Placing 10,000 US troops in Pakisan is probably not realistic.

[CastleBravo]

I think that this may not be a big deal. To me, this is a type of indirect sabre-rattling. Biden, in effect, was indicating that the US could would not be held responsible for what happens should the Iranians continue their nuclear program, kind of a 'see what'll happen' without a deliberate threat. Tehran will retort and we'll be back to where we've been for the past few years.

CastleBravo, I assume you mean the Afghan/Iranian or Iraqi/Iranian borders. Placing 10,000 US troops in Pakisan is probably not realistic.

You are correct Pakistani troops on that side, not US troops. The US troops can come from Iraq and to a lesser degree, currently, Afghanistan.

Israel will strike from other areas. The idea is to overwhelm Iranian defenses.

[Oberon]

Given Irans recent outbursts, they'll probably blame any Israeli airstrike on the UK :haha:

[Aramike]

I really hope Biden is just talking here.

Saying we're not going to restrain Israel isn't a bad idea - in fact it's some nice strategic ambiguity. It will help keep the Iranians nervous.

But airstrikes against Iran, regardless of who launches them, are a bad idea. The simple reason is that airstrikes alone cannot finish the job on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians have basically built their program from scratch. Anything that is destroyed in an airstrike, they can rebuild. The Iranian nuclear program is much further along than the Iraqi program was when the Israelis knocked out their reactor in 1981.

The one and only way to stop Iran's nuclear program through force would be to invade the country and occupy the sites. That simply isn't going to happen.

Ineffective half-measures like airstrikes would simply radicalize Iran and make them more likely to seek nuclear weapons, and fire them once they have them.

It's also worth pointing out that we have no proof that Iran is actually developing nucelar weapons. The evidence for the program is surprisingly weak. A couple months ago I had to prepare an argument to show that Iran was trying to build nukes, and I was utterly dismayed at the total lack of hard evidence. The evidence that Iraq was stockpiling WMD was much stronger than this.So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?

Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.

However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?

[CastleBravo]

So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?

Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.

However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?

Sadam Hussein's words come back to haunt us now. In paraphrase, I lead everyone to believe Iraq had WMD's to stave off the Iranians. If Iran is doing the same thing, they should have learned a lesson.

[Max2147]

Without knowing the Iranian's current defense posture, or real, not imagined capabilities, with all the turmoil following the elections there, now may be a good time for a strike.

Or, a slow but steady increase in forces along the Pakistani/Iranian border. There are also many US troops out of iraqi cities which could be slowly moved towards Iran. Helmand province in Afghanistan is also w/in 200KM if the Iranian border.
The turmoil actually means it's a bad time to strike. Ahmadinejad is still in a tough spot right now. The country is deeply divided, and a lot of people are against him.

An Israeli airstrike would be a political gift from the gods for Ahmadinejad. It would instantly unify the country behind him and his anti-Western rhetoric. Any political divisions in Iranian society would completely disappear.

Saddam Hussein used logic similar to yours in 1980. He assumed that the post-revolutionary turmoil in Iran (which was much, much worse than what Iran is going through now) would allow his forces to roll through Iran. But his invasion ended up unifying Iran behind Khomeni and the clerics and consolidating what had been a very fragile revolution.

As far as forces on the Pakistani border, the Pakistani military is currently devoting all their resources to their war against the Taleban in Waziristan. I personally would rather have the Pakistanis killing the people who helped the 9/11 attackers than massing forces against a country that can't directly threaten us.

[Platapus]

What doe the Israelis think will be the reaction of the Iranians?

Do they really think the Iranians will suddenly say "golly gee, we are sorry, I guess we will change."

Or, in the misquoted words of Admiral Yamamoto will the Israelis awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve?

I hope Israel is considering all the ramifications of their potential actions.

[Max2147]

So wait - you believe that the world should just idly stand by and allow Iran to continue with it's nuclear weapons program?

Air strikes could CERTAINLY impair Iran's ability to produce nuclear armamants. Just because they COULD rebuild doesn't mean that they have the resources or even the political will to do so.

However, there is indeed little direct evidence linking Iran to nuclear weapon production. Yet, there is plenty of indirect evidence suggesting that they may be building nukes. Now, if you have millions of lives hanging in the balance of your sworn enemy's rationalizations, how do you justify NOT taking action?
I didn't say we should do nothing - I just said we shouldn't take ineffective half-measures that only inflame our adversaries and make them more likely to attack us. Iranians have notoriously long memories.

There's no doubt that Iran would rebuild their nuclear facilities after an airstrike. They're already very well fortified, and the outrage that an airstrike would create would give them more political will than they would ever need.

If you replace 'Iran' with 'Iraq' in your last paragraph, you sound just like somebody advocating the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That episode should have made it very clear that attacking based on incomplete intelligence about WMD is a bad idea at best.

Anyways, when you have millions of lives in the balance, you should be more cautious and rational than ever. It's not the time to carry out impulsive and rash actions that don't achieve your goals and aid your adversaries.

[Aramike]

What doe the Israelis think will be the reaction of the Iranians?

Do they really think the Iranians will suddenly say "golly gee, we are sorry, I guess we will change."

Or, in the misquoted words of Admiral Yamamoto will the Israelis awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve?

I hope Israel is considering all the ramifications of their potential actions.Umm, I'm pretty sure that Iran isn't the "sleeping giant" in the region.

[CastleBravo]

Umm, I'm pretty sure that Iran isn't the "sleeping giant" in the region.

I think you wrong. Make the region nuclear and who has the oil reserves?

That is why the Saudis will allow any strike.

Hit them now!!

[Skybird]

What doe the Israelis think will be the reaction of the Iranians?

Do they really think the Iranians will suddenly say "golly gee, we are sorry, I guess we will change."

Or, in the misquoted words of Admiral Yamamoto will the Israelis awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve?

I hope Israel is considering all the ramifications of their potential actions.

Me hopes that, too, that'S why I also hope this time they will go all the way and make sure to destroy the progam (which inlcudes to kill the experts' heads as well), or stay away from the action until the situation has detoriated thzat much that the US will conclude they cannot afford to let it go - and take out an even bigger stick. Half-hearted attempts, and mission objectives different than the ultimate destruction of Iran's capability to build nuclear weapons and weapon-usable technology, I will not support.

One thing nobody should have illusions about: diplomacy of whatever a kind will only be abused by Iran to buy time. They jujst laugh abiut the europeans, and they know the Europeans can do nothing about Iran. They will not give up their plan due to clever, or respectful, or well-meant, or ambitious, or deal-offering talking by western smartheads that think they know Iran better than Iran knows itself.

Hell, even the much celebrated western "hope" Mussawi said in interviews he backs the Iranian program in full. Rafsandjani does. Chamenei does. I mean there is not a single clerical or poltical Iranian voice of weight and power that says something different than that they will stick top their problem, no matter what.

Why somebody could fear that Iran could be "radicalised", I do not understand. Their needles already are glued to the red-printed 100-mark of the scale.

A giant they only are in exporting and funding terror organistions. That's why leaving them nuclear weapon technology is no option. Never. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not in ten years. Not with a different government. I do not see them nuking Israel. But I see them proliferating. And that is all justification needed to destroy their nuclear capability by any means needed to assure that objective gets fulfilled. I do not want to see the mistake with Pakistan (and N-korea) being repeated. It has already proven to be too costly in both nation's cases, killing thousands and thousands even in times of "peace".

[Max2147]

But will an airstrike stop them from proliferating? Highly doubtful. If anything it will give them even more of an incentive to give nukes to those who might use them.

Anyways, aside from Hezbollah, I can't think of any group/country that Iran might give a nuke to that couldn't already get a nuke from elsewhere (i.e. Pakistan or North Korea).

[Skybird]

But will an airstrike stop them from proliferating?

No. So destroy what they have to proliferate - before they have it to proliferate it. Take the according sites out before they finish production. Once they have a single weapon ready, it is too late, becasue whatever you do, New York or London or Frankfurt is at risk.

Anyways, aside from Hezbollah, I can't think of any group/country that Iran might give a nuke to that couldn't already get a nuke from elsewhere (i.e. Pakistan or North Korea).
I can. For example every single group with religiously doomsday fantasies on their mind that seeks revenge for - well, for whatever. These people are not short on ideas of what they wish revenge for.

I am relatively sure that Iran would not militarily attack Israel or Europe with nuclear missiles. But I am very sure that we will have a nuclear attack that was delivered by suitcase or container.

[Aramike]

If you replace 'Iran' with 'Iraq' in your last paragraph, you sound just like somebody advocating the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That episode should have made it very clear that attacking based on incomplete intelligence about WMD is a bad idea at best.You're kidding about this, right?

Say Israel did to Iran what the US did to Iraq: how on earth can you contend that Iran would be more of a dangerous nation?

[Max2147]

No. So destroy what they have to proliferate - before they have it to proliferate it. Take the according sites out before they finish production. Once they have a single weapon ready, it is too late, becasue whatever you do, New York or London or Frankfurt is at risk.


I can. For example every single group with religiously doomsday fantasies on their mind that seeks revenge for - well, for whatever. These people are not short on ideas of what they wish revenge for.

I am relatively sure that Iran would not militarily attack Israel or Europe with nuclear missiles. But I am very sure that we will have a nuclear attack that was delivered by suitcase or container.
You missed both my points.

On the first point, even if we hit them now, before they have a weapon, their program will continue and they'll still end up with weapons they could proliferate.

On my second point, any of those groups you mentioned can already get a nuke today. If they have hard currency, North Korea will take it. If they are Islamist, they probably have more than a few sympathizers in Pakistan's notoriously leaky ISI. Iran's nuclear program really doesn't change the non-state actor proliferation picture.

The biggest fear with Iran's nuclear program is that they will start an arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran would at the very least trigger a Saudi nuclear weapons program, plus maybe Egypt and some of the Gulf States.

[Aramike]

On the first point, even if we hit them now, before they have a weapon, their program will continue and they'll still end up with weapons they could proliferate.What would stop a Israel from continuing to prosecute an air war against Iranian nuclear sites, effectively preventing them from continuing the program?

[Max2147]

What would stop a Israel from continuing to prosecute an air war against Iranian nuclear sites, effectively preventing them from continuing the program?
Distance and a lack of surprise.

Carrying out a long-term air campaign against an enemy when there are three countries that don't like you between you and that enemy is extremely difficult. Saudi Arabia may have given the Israelis overflight rights for now, but I can see them wilting under international pressure to rescind those rights once the attacks begin. That would mean that Iraq or Turkey would have to give the Israelis those rights. Turkey is run by a semi-Islamist party right now, and Iraq's government is too fragile to do something as unpopular as letting the Israelis bomb a Muslim nation.

Also, even if those countries give overflight rights, there will be plenty of elements in those countries who sympathize with the Iranians more than the Israelis. Those people could find out about the Israeli overflights and give the Iranians plenty of advance warning to prepare their defenses. This nearly happened in the Osirak attack. The Jordanians saw the Israeli planes, realized where they were going, and tried to warn the Iraqis, but for whatever reason the message didn't get through.

There's also the issue of aircraft. The IAF is mostly made up of F-16s, but Iran is well outside the F-16's combat radius from Israel. The Israelis only have six tanker aircraft. Their only other strike aircraft is the F-15E, and they only have 25 of those. Between refuelled F-16s and their F-15s, the Israelis would have enough planes for one strike, but not enough to overcome the inevitable losses through enemy action, operational losses, and/or mantenance isseus in a prolonged campaign.

Finally, there's the issue of bombs. The Iranaian nuclear sites are well fortified, so the only thing that can damage them are bunker busters. I doubt that the Israelis have enough of those to mantain a prolonged campaign. After all, even the Bush Administration refused to sell them to Israel.

[Aramike]

Distance and a lack of surprise.

Carrying out a long-term air campaign against an enemy when there are three countries that don't like you between you and that enemy is extremely difficult. Saudi Arabia may have given the Israelis overflight rights for now, but I can see them wilting under international pressure to rescind those rights once the attacks begin. That would mean that Iraq or Turkey would have to give the Israelis those rights. Turkey is run by a semi-Islamist party right now, and Iraq's government is too fragile to do something as unpopular as letting the Israelis bomb a Muslim nation.

Also, even if those countries give overflight rights, there will be plenty of elements in those countries who sympathize with the Iranians more than the Israelis. Those people could find out about the Israeli overflights and give the Iranians plenty of advance warning to prepare their defenses. This nearly happened in the Osirak attack. The Jordanians saw the Israeli planes, realized where they were going, and tried to warn the Iraqis, but for whatever reason the message didn't get through.

There's also the issue of aircraft. The IAF is mostly made up of F-16s, but Iran is well outside the F-16's combat radius from Israel. The Israelis only have six tanker aircraft. Their only other strike aircraft is the F-15E, and they only have 25 of those. Between refuelled F-16s and their F-15s, the Israelis would have enough planes for one strike, but not enough to overcome the inevitable losses through enemy action, operational losses, and/or mantenance isseus in a prolonged campaign.

Finally, there's the issue of bombs. The Iranaian nuclear sites are well fortified, so the only thing that can damage them are bunker busters. I doubt that the Israelis have enough of those to mantain a prolonged campaign. After all, even the Bush Administration refused to sell them to Israel.Good, well thought-out post.

So, let me ask you this: say that a sustained Israeli campaign is nearly impossible. Should other nations (such as the US) intervene to assist in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes or should be just allow them to have the weapons?

[CastleBravo]

Distance and a lack of surprise.

Carrying out a long-term air campaign against an enemy when there are three countries that don't like you between you and that enemy is extremely difficult. Saudi Arabia may have given the Israelis overflight rights for now, but I can see them wilting under international pressure to rescind those rights once the attacks begin. That would mean that Iraq or Turkey would have to give the Israelis those rights. Turkey is run by a semi-Islamist party right now, and Iraq's government is too fragile to do something as unpopular as letting the Israelis bomb a Muslim nation.

Also, even if those countries give overflight rights, there will be plenty of elements in those countries who sympathize with the Iranians more than the Israelis. Those people could find out about the Israeli overflights and give the Iranians plenty of advance warning to prepare their defenses. This nearly happened in the Osirak attack. The Jordanians saw the Israeli planes, realized where they were going, and tried to warn the Iraqis, but for whatever reason the message didn't get through.

There's also the issue of aircraft. The IAF is mostly made up of F-16s, but Iran is well outside the F-16's combat radius from Israel. The Israelis only have six tanker aircraft. Their only other strike aircraft is the F-15E, and they only have 25 of those. Between refuelled F-16s and their F-15s, the Israelis would have enough planes for one strike, but not enough to overcome the inevitable losses through enemy action, operational losses, and/or mantenance isseus in a prolonged campaign.

Finally, there's the issue of bombs. The Iranaian nuclear sites are well fortified, so the only thing that can damage them are bunker busters. I doubt that the Israelis have enough of those to mantain a prolonged campaign. After all, even the Bush Administration refused to sell them to Israel.

When I say prolonged I assume, although perhaps misguidedly, a hit and egress tactic which will allow for BDA and a return a number of years later, if necessary. The Israelis excuted this type of operation in 1981 against Iraq. No territory needs to be taken. The very bombastic rhetoric for which many Muslims are known will shorten their breath and allow them to realize the folly of their ways.

Also for all intents and purposes the Iranians are surrounded. ISO talking nukes w/ the Russians Mr. Obama should be talking Iran.

[Max2147]

Good, well thought-out post.

So, let me ask you this: say that a sustained Israeli campaign is nearly impossible. Should other nations (such as the US) intervene to assist in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes or should be just allow them to have the weapons?
At this point, I think the best option is to continue down the diplomatic track. It's the safest option, and it has some important positive effects, which I'll explain below.

Let's look at the facts on the ground. Right now Iran is mostly complying with IAEA inspections and regulations. So far the IAEA has not found any substantial evidence of a nuclear weapons program. That means one of two things:

1. Iran is building nuclear weapons, but they're doing a very good job of hiding it.

2. Iran is legitimately not trying to build nuclear weapons.

Now, let's see how the diplomatic and military options would affect each of those scenarios.

Scenario 1 (hidden weapons program), diplomatic option. - If Iran has an active nuclear weapons program right now, the diplomatic option won't stop them. However, it can slow them down a lot. A nuclear weapons program is a big thing, and it's hard to hide. It can be done, but it requires a lot of additional resources and inefficiencies. Right now, Western diplomacy is keeping the IAEA in Iran and ensuring that the IAEA is as vigilant as possible. This in turn makes Iran's nuclear weapons program a lot more inefficient than it would be if the IAEA wasn't there. So while it's frustrating and ineffective from the outside, the diplomatic option does have some benefits.

Scenario 1, military option. This would delay Iran's program, but I don't think it could stop it. An attack would strengthen Iran's resolve to build nuclear weapons, so they'd simply rebuild their facilities and strengthen their defenses. Of course, the first thing they'd do when the facilites are rebuilt is kick out the IAEA, so the new weapons program would be much more efficient than the secret one it replaced. Now, the US could bomb the sites again, but Iran would just rebuild them again. It would come down to a battle of wills, and I think the Iranian will to build the nukes, having been reinforced by each attack, would be stronger than the US resolve to stop them. The end result would be a nuclear-armed Iran hell-bent on revenge against the US. That would be more than a little bit dangerous.

Scenario 2 (peaceful nuclear program), diplomatic option. Not much would happen. At some point the West would figure out that Iran isn't trying to get nukes, and they'd back off. Israel would probably keep screaming bloody murder, but they'd be ignored. This is obviously the ideal scenario.

Scenario 2, military option. This is the scenario that I'm most scared of. It would turn Iran's nuclear weapons program into a self-fulfilling prophecy. It would turn a peaceful Iranian program into a military one, because the attack would give Iran all the motivation it needed to pursue nuclear weapons. So our effort to eliminate a nuclear threat would end up creating a nuclear threat that wasn't there in the first place.

So given that the evidence of Iran having a nuclear weapons program is weak at best, I think the diplomatic option is the best way to go right now. It has its uses under Scenario 1, and it avoids the nightmare outcome in Scenario 2.

It's also important to remember that the road from the diplomatic option to the military option exists, but it's a one-way street. If we pursue the diplomatic option now, we could switch to the military option if we have to. However, if we go military now, then we permanently destroy the diplomatic option, since Iran never engage in diplomacy with somebody who just attacked them.

[CastleBravo]

If it is wanted to get the US off of its oil addiction why not watch as Israel does the work?

[Max2147]

When I say prolonged I assume, although perhaps misguidedly, a hit and egress tactic which will allow for BDA and a return a number of years later, if necessary. The Israelis excuted this type of operation in 1981 against Iraq. No territory needs to be taken. The very bombastic rhetoric for which many Muslims are known will shorten their breath and allow them to realize the folly of their ways.

Also for all intents and purposes the Iranians are surrounded. ISO talking nukes w/ the Russians Mr. Obama should be talking Iran.
The Osirak attack in 1981 was an extremely difficult attack for the IAF that pushed their capabilities to the limit. To their immense credit they pulled it off perfectly, although they also had a lot of luck on their side (such as the Jordanians failing to get word to the Iraqis in time).

An attack on Iran would make Osirak look like a piece of cake. For starters, Iran is much further away, and crucially it's out of range for the F-16, which makes up the overwhelming majority of the IAF's combat fleet. Second, Osirak was Iraq's only nuclear site. Iran has many nuclear sites spread out across the country. Third, Iran's nuclear sites are online and funcitonal. Osirak was still under construciton when it was hit. Fourth, Iran's nuclear sites are well-fortified. Many of them are underground and would require bunker-busters to damage them. Finally, Iran's air defenses are much stronger than Iraq's were in 1981.

I'm sure Obama is talking about Iran with the Russians. Russia has actually been a huge help on this issue. But if the US or Israel attacks Iran, any international support we have will evaporate pretty quickly, and the Iranians will get a lot of sympathy from the rest of the world.

If you expect Muslims to "realize the error in their ways" you badly underestimate them, especially the Shias. The Shia have a fetish for martyrdom, so an attack would actually urge them on.

[CastleBravo]

The Osirak attack in 1981 was an extremely difficult attack for the IAF that pushed their capabilities to the limit. To their immense credit they pulled it off perfectly, although they also had a lot of luck on their side (such as the Jordanians failing to get word to the Iraqis in time).

An attack on Iran would make Osirak look like a piece of cake. For starters, Iran is much further away, and crucially it's out of range for the F-16, which makes up the overwhelming majority of the IAF's combat fleet. Second, Osirak was Iraq's only nuclear site. Iran has many nuclear sites spread out across the country. Third, Iran's nuclear sites are online and funcitonal. Osirak was still under construciton when it was hit. Fourth, Iran's nuclear sites are well-fortified. Many of them are underground and would require bunker-busters to damage them. Finally, Iran's air defenses are much stronger than Iraq's were in 1981.

I'm sure Obama is talking about Iran with the Russians. Russia has actually been a huge help on this issue. But if the US or Israel attacks Iran, any international support we have will evaporate pretty quickly, and the Iranians will get a lot of sympathy from the rest of the world.

If you expect Muslims to "realize the error in their ways" you badly underestimate them, especially the Shias. The Shia have a fetish for martyrdom, so an attack would actually urge them on.

All this is about international support? When your life is on the line who cares? When the burgler is breaking in your house and/or threatening your family please ask for permission to protect yourself. How long have we been talking to Iran, North Korea, etc? Talk only works in favor of both/all not Israel.

[nikimcbee]

Obama, Iran, North Korea....bah
This all I have to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1b26BD5KjH0

[Max2147]

All this is about international support? When your life is on the line who cares? When the burgler is breaking in your house and/or threatening your family please ask for permission to protect yourself. How long have we been talking to Iran, North Korea, etc? Talk only works in favor of both/all not Israel.
I give half a dozen reasons why the Israelis can't strike, right after a very long and detailed post about why we shouldn't strike for now, and you just focus on one tiny bit I wrote about international support?

It's pretty clear that you're not reading my posts, you're just skimming them to find one little bit you disagree with. It's pretty annoying.

[CastleBravo]

Wall of text doesn't impress me so I go to the salient point. Sorry if that anoys you. "Brevity is the essence of wit." William Shakespear.

[Skybird]

You missed both my points.

On the first point, even if we hit them now, before they have a weapon, their program will continue and they'll still end up with weapons they could proliferate.

On my second point, any of those groups you mentioned can already get a nuke today. If they have hard currency, North Korea will take it. If they are Islamist, they probably have more than a few sympathizers in Pakistan's notoriously leaky ISI. Iran's nuclear program really doesn't change the non-state actor proliferation picture.

The biggest fear with Iran's nuclear program is that they will start an arms race in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran would at the very least trigger a Saudi nuclear weapons program, plus maybe Egypt and some of the Gulf States.

No, I got both your points, and in parts even agree. I just come to different conclusions.

On your first point, since long I argue that to me a war to stop the program in the meaning of destroying it, necessarily means the selective use of nuclear weapons. that is no hooray-nukeymongering by me, that simply is what it is. That's why I say any determined effort to kill that program would become a real nasty thing. To your relief you can assume that probably even the Israelis currently do not will the use of nukes. That's why they only will delay Iran's work, not stopping it.

On your second point, you are only partly right. That there are Korea and Pakistan cannot be an easy argument why we should not care about a third threat being added to the list, increasing our worries. Korea is rational enough to be able to differ between provoking rethorics and actual deed, they know where to stop in order to not provoke an american first strike - which they would if the CIA learns they are knowingly delivering a warhead to a facion that intend to strike the US. The Pakistani proliferated so far knowledge, but stopped short of exporting actual warheads, here the biggest risk is that the religious nutheads take over the country - in that case I would not give a penny for that country anymore. We need to find out where they have their warheads. In case of Iran you can safely assume that they will start to proliferate actual weapon-capable hardware as soon as they have it. They would welcome a terror group nuking Israel or the West - and afterwards saying "What do you want? It was not us".

One has to make a decision sooner or later here. there are three options only, and none of them is nice.

1. Do you will to accept the risk of living under an Iranian nuclear terror thread, being left with the only option of simply hoping they will be kind and not proliferate to terror groups, and totally depending on their good will, needing to foster it by being the obedient servant to their ideological demands? Do you will to knowingly enter a condition of being prone to blackmailing?

2. Do you will to plan for a future in which you need to strike Iran with extended air campaigns every couple of years in order to delay their progam time and again, always running the risk that they manage to save some components and put them together in a hidden place that you do not know of; by that causing an accumulated death toll and destruction over the years that will make mockery of your intention to wage a civilised war that saves the population, and increases the losses of your own forces?

3. Do you will to strike them with overkill capacity to make sure that while you do not know the precise target locations of critical bunker complexes in the reaearch sites of interest, the ammount of destruction set loose will nevertheless most likely shatter the structures even if they are not precisely hit at weak points of their structures? Taking of small nuclear weapons here. To make that clear: I do not talk of nuking cities and just killing people for the sake of "bombing Iran back into the stone age". I talk about small tactical nukes as bunker busters inside the indentified restricted areas that house installations and facilities of their program. Under Rumsfeld, of whom I certainly am no friend, such tactical nuclear bunker-busters with the special intention to destroy hardened subterranean targets that could not be reached or detsroyed by conventional megabombs, have been researched, and I think it is a safe bet that such weapons exist today. Because there is a clearly defined military need for them, especially with regard to so-called rogue states.

That is what makes the Iranian problem so extremely unpleasant: we either will get our hands dirty - or we will need to accept an nuclear armed Iran, with Saudi Arabia and Egypt going nuclear next, and all the risk in that fragile strategic constellation between hostile rivalling powers, one of them being eager to indirectly strike Israel anyway. For my own part, I am not willing to accept these risks, and I am not willing to accept living in a state of being blackmailed and highly vulnerable to a nuclear and proliferating Iran. The biggest danger here is proliferation by Iran - that is the worst evil here. Taking their program out with the tools needed to assure that, is still an evil - but a minor one, compared to the first. I would not like to do it, but i would do it when thinking that that is what is needed. Priority before anything else is to prevent a nuclear Iran. they have had their chance for a long time to convince the world of their peacefulness and reasonability and trustworthiness, and they failed miserably time and again. That'S why I even changed my mind on the outlook to leave them the civilian use of nuclear energy, because the step from civilian to military use of nuclear technology is no big one and control mechanisms by cameras and inspections can be cheated, blocked, betrayed.



Edit
P.S. Good German-language comment by Der Tagespiegel (not to be mistaken with the far left Die Tageszeitung)
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/meinung/kommentare/Iran-Israel-Joe-Biden;art141,2841271

[Max2147]

Wall of text doesn't impress me so I go to the salient point. Sorry if that anoys you. "Brevity is the essence of wit." William Shakespear.
But how on earth do you know what the salient point is if you don't read the whole post?