Is War With Iran Necessary?
 

I think not. We can settle this diplomatically and peacefully, not in the traditional war-mongering manner that we gave Saddam and Iraq.

I'm undecided. I see no reason to invade like Iraq, maybe we can kick them in the balls really hard. That might fix some things.:shifty:

Yes let's stop mucking about and this ltime let's not muck about with regime change, just dismantle anything they can use to harm us and go. Hey, I've got a better idea let's just take the oil wells and get some nice cheap petrol to recompense us for all the trouble they've caused.

No. I'm not being ironic. Yes I think we should do this everywhere.

If we became non-interventionist and were willing to trade with Iran freely and not back nations that have strained relationships with them then no it would not be neccessary.
If we continue to support Israel and maintain presence and/or support of Iraq I can see trouble ahead.
It's kind of a lose-lose situation; either we stay the hell out of Middle Eastern affairs so as to appease them and place our allies and other nations in jeopardy, or we play policeman and piss off Iran. And I'm certain that either way some extremist or another will be mad at us for either decision.

Is War With Iran Necessary?

translates into:

Do I accept a nuclear armed Iran yes or no? Do I accept nuclear proliferation benefitting terror organisations?

the latter is my primary concern. I never seriously believed in Iran sacrificng itself by reaching out with nuclear weapons itself.

However, a nuclear armed Iran, if if it does not use them, and just commits itself to proliferation (which I take as a given), will shift balances in the region and in the world, making the present ways of adressing tensions and diplomatic problems as well as resisting the pressure of the Islamic world much more difficult if not impossible. the mere threat of Islamic organisation to use nukes already would potentially be enough to paralyse the West and leave it vulnerable, if not defenseless to their demands.

Without force, Iran simply will not give up its nuclear military ambitions. It will not happen, believe it or not, it will not happen. That simple. Period. I do not believe that report of the program being stopped for a single minute. Not even for a second I believed it. It is illogical from an Iranian perspective to give it up. I do not expect an enemy to act stupid, or illogical.

So this is the question it comes down to indeed: do you accept a nuclear armed Iran? Sounds almost harmless and simple a question, but it is complex and has a lot of hidden intricacies.

I personally think it already was a very huge mistake to not find nout about the Pakistn program in time, and see how Pakistan messes up the whole region, far beyond its own borders. If it were possible to board a time machien, I would be willing to go back in time and destroy the nation before it built nulcear weapons, but that is not possible anymore, obviously. I do not want that bad example to be a story repeating itself. also, nukes in iran will mean nothing else but a nuclear arms race in the gulf region in total. Saudi Arabia alraedy has started first steps with a nuclear program years ago. More slamic nations having nukes. More threat of nulcear proliferation. How much can the world handle of that, before the sh!t happens? How long will the world's luck last, when everything is done to make it run out?

Which brings us to the next question:

Do I accept to deny Iran gaining nukes by using nukes against Iran myself?

Because I take it as a given that with conventional means the program can at best be delayed, but not stopped or prevented.

We should use as little force as possible but as much force as needed to prevent Iran getting nuclear arms. No matter what it costs. Preventing Iranian nukes must be our only top priority, and we shall not accept foul compromise - it will cost us more than what we have saved in the first. And that will necessarily include the need to use small nukes on selected target areas. While their immediate effect in taking out deep hidden research bunkers may be possible to save cities, towns and the civilian population, the lpongterm effect from contamionation of soil, groundwater and air remains, so even if the Pentagon speaks entzhusiastically of mini-nukes as bunker-busters, don't be mislead: it will remain to be an extremely dirty affair in the long range. However, if you are not willing to go all the way, don't start war action: nothing worse than to kill and destroy all for nothing. If you go for it, do what needs to be done, without mercy, and go all the way. There is no in-between.

So make damn sure you are sure about your motives.


With the exception of Israel I do not see any Western nation seriously willing the use of nukes in Iran. And that is the Iranian gamble: they know that western politicians will not accept the use of nukes, and will be afraid of the population at home. That's why they are pressing on: it is their winning strategy, and the strongest move they have: it will win them what they want. Sanctions they can easily aford. conventional strikes they can easily survive, and even strike back in various different means. since I cannot see a military operation like I figured, I do see a nuclear armed Iran in the future. That will be the reality we will have to deal with. there will also be nuclear blackmailing of the West soem time later. This is the most likely scenario in my thinking, and eventually we will realise that the price has been too high. but then it will be too late for us to correct it.

Maybe we should do like that danish ministre once proposed during the cold war: he wanted to set up a telephone answering machine linked with the kremlin, and a tape saying: "Welcome to Denmark, we surrender."

More to the point, what dose the general public think of this one in America & England? Forget the scheming politicians for the moment.

Here in the UK the Army's moral is rock bottom and more and more are leaving once there term is up, so sending them in to Iran will do nothing for them. As for the general public, the feeling seems to be no trust to wards politicians on this one. And with recession now a fact I hardly think we're going any where unless Iran had nuclear weapons in the here and now as of today.

Israel is keeping an eye on them and most likely will act if they need to. It all boils down to who is running Iran and at the moment its a lot of wind bags. And of course the oil situation will play its part in 20 to 30 years from now.

Hmmm ironic that I just read THIS this morning.....

Whoa, that's too funny. Small world:rotfl: .

I rescind my earlier opinion. I change my answer to "no". Partially, this is because of skybird's post but also because I have decided that isolationism is preferable to war until we can take care of our own country. As Jefferson said; "Trade with all nations, alliances with none".

:rotfl: StdDev! As a friend of mine once said, "America's policy is to leave people alone. If you mess with us, we'll come to your house and kick it into rubble. Then we'll go back home, put our feet up and have a beer."

Would that it were still so.

No, war is not necessary. The talk of war and threat of nuclear weapons become a self-realising discourse. I'm sure any nation would engage in a show of force when there is constant talk of attack.
Ideally, no side should make provocative moves, but that's not this world. There is much discontent in Iran with the political leadership and overall economic situation, change may well be in the air.
War, or even air strikes, would bind the nation together. Not a good thing for those looking for progress. I do hope John McCain either modifies his position or fails miserably in November.

To be honest, unless Iran stops pissing around and making remarks like "we will set Israel on fire" or "wipe israel off the map" I think we are heading for war anyway, Israel already feels severely threatened by its Arab neighbours, and Iran test firing long range ballistic missiles along with a strengthening nuclear program will surely be ringing some very loud alarm bells in Israel! There will come a time when Israel will have to use force to protect itself. People critisized them for blowing up the nuclear facility in Iraq, but afterwards its been learnt that senior scientists working there have admitted they were working on a nuclear device... At least Israel, unlike the West, is actually takleing this problem instead of allowing it to grow whilst we sit on our arses pondering what to do about it.

Love the or loate them, you simply don't threaten Israel like the way Iran has been doing of late... its asking for trouble. If Germany were to say that they wanted to see the French wiped off the map of Europe there would be absolute uproar, however have some towel wearing extremist say it and we brush him off thinking nothing of it.

Only fools underestimate their enemies, and thats precisely what the West (apart from America) are doing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...9/iran.nuclear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

Remember that in decisions of war, Ahmedinijad has feck-all power.
Regarding the first statement, I think it's not surprising given that the sole remaining superpower devotes a huge chunk of political energy to the possibility of attacking Iran. It's not like such a threat falls right out of the sky.

In case of war, we do not care for "progress" anyway. Removing the nuclear threat would be sufficient. In case of war, Iranian interests would not matter at all. At least not for "us". Their interests must not be our concern.

Do not be foolish to assume that it is Ahmadinejadh alone. He can leave office tomorrow - and they still would press on for nukes. It has not begun with him enetering office, you know. Their intention was restrengthened from the bad example the Americans have set with accusing an unarmed nation (Iraq) of having nukes and then attack it because it had no nukes to keep any attacker away), although it had none; but it also comes from the self-dynamic that has developed that many oriental Muhammeddans look at Iran both in fear and pride, for having the guts to confront the great satan and threatening to get it's hands on nukes. Plus nukes would be a valuable tool to further fuel Islam's inherent dogmatic claim for world power, and enforcing itself onto all that is not already islamic. Ahmadinejadh is not clashing with the clerics about wanting nukes - the clerics want them, too. they are angry at him because he did not play a calm hand and directed unwanted attention at Iran's ambitions, he did not remain a low profile - he did not protect their project, but damaged it that way. seen that way we must be thankful for him being an idiot and making all the noise, else many more people in the West than it still is the case would still be sleeping. Pakistan was much more clever and managed to hide it's ambitions until it was too late and the world was confronted by solid, undeniable facts that could not be reversed without a nuclear exchange. this is the reason why Pakistan can afford to bring the hoole region into trouble and destabilization, since thirty years at least.

Progress and what global Islam thinks of the West is not my priority. Appeasing them will not change a bit the Islamic agenda of chnanging the world. My priority is not to see an Iran engaging in nuclear proliferation, by ruling out the option that it could choose to do that (trust is kind, but control is better). This priority ranks above everything else, without compromise. I know that ironically Iran needs civilian use of nuclear energy, to free more oil it consumes itself at ridiculous low prices for export and winning profits from that to boost it's industrial developement, currently they are wasting money in ridiculous ammounts by wasting too much of their own gas. However, as logical and understandable as that is, due to the factors mentioned above this second interest in civilian nuclear developement ranks below our interest of not allowing them nuclear arms - not today, and not in the forseeable future. They have successfully destroyed any basis for having trust they would handle nuclear capabilities responsibly. The risk that civilian use goes hand in hand with military use - or better: proliferation-wise use - is not acceptable for us. And if that hurts Iran's desires and interests, I'm sorry (well, not really) - and still remain adamant on the issue.

Skybirds posts are a perfect indication that moral people will always be the ones f....ed by the warmongers.
I simply don't buy the "just war" thing anymore, it has been done to death.

The "nuclear proliferation" is just an assumption, nothing more. Interestingly, Pakistan (directly or indirectly) sponsors pretty much every stupid terrorist there is, without ever giving them nuclear material sofar.
Why can't they simply revert to cold war logic? If somebody has nukes and launches them, he will be wiped out, it is as simple as that.
Regarding military options, there are a few problems:
If there is a limited strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, there is no 100% guarantee that every last facility will be destroyed.
With Israel, I doubt they can even pull this off, but with the US using B-2s and cruise missiles and a concerted air campaign from carriers and Iraqui bases, they could.
What would be the result? Ok, for now the threat is gone, but Iran could now officially announce they have the right to develop such weapons and publically announce that. The result would be some kind of perpetual semi-war against Iran, with airstrikes every now and then against selected targets.
Nobody could stop Iran from offensively expand terrorism in Lebanon and engage in small scale warfare in the straits of Hormuz. Keep in mind that even if the US navy wins control of the Straits of Hormuz, the oil price will still go through the roof, just because every tanker sailing there would be under the potential threat. Even if the US Navy has everything under control, the pressure on the markets would not subside.
Not to mention the costs of convoying them until the end of hostilities. And in such a quasi war, the hostilities might linger on for a decade or so. I wouldnt be suprised if the oil price would double in that chase, and this would simply crash the worldwide economy. Militarily it would be Gaza/West Bank on a scale of thousands of kilometers and quite one sided too, but economically, it could be fatal for the worldwide economy as it exists. Keep in mind our globalized free market is not made for international crises, as it always strives to operate at peak efficiency to keep shareholders happy, there just no leverage anyway to write off losses or cover dry spells. It is a fragile system, and the Iran situation might really make things go south economically.

In fact, the only war against Iran that would make any sense would be a full scale invasion. A land drive to Teheran with serveral divisions. Occupy the country, let the son of the Shah return and keep the Iranians under control again for the US. Such a war would take some time, cost casualties ranging in the thousands on the "coalition of the willing" side and maybe hundreds of thousands on Iranian side.
But I see neither the political will nor the actual capacity to launch such an offensive. Also the problem is that the starting point, Iraq, is not exactly the safest operational base either.
All said, such a war would be over some time, limiting the economic damage.

It just isn't possible to prevent every state we'd prefer not to obtain nuclear weapons from obtaining them. I don't worry so much about the states, I worry about the non state actors.

PD

Exactly.

BTW, I have not voted. I'll keep all options open, and refuse to limit my possible decisions that early.

Not that my decision, or this poll, do matter anyway.

AntEater,

you have queer images on your mind when calling invasion the only reasonable war - and expecting that one to be a short war and limited in damage. You have not looked close enough at Iraq then. I can tell you that Iran would be a hundred times more difficult then Iraq. It's the worst case scenario, lasting longer, costing more in lives and money - and cannot be won anyway. Your "only way" scenario is my worst case scenario and the reasosn why I would refuse to support such kind of a stupid war. Because it has no reasonable chance to succeed, and would cause killing and destruction all for nothing. I think your problem is that you mix up what you want to achieve with what can be achieved by a given way of going, or in other words: wishful thinking, and making hope a valid strategy. At the same time you shy away from the grim side of war, and trying to talk it nice and tidy. Please put your own life at risk for such goals, if you want. But stay away from putting other's lives at risk for that.

I have no doubt tjhat even the Pentagon does not plan for an invasion of Iran. I gues they have learned a lesson or two from the past two wars Rumsfeld has messed up for them.

First of all, I don't want to go to war at all. You got me wrong on this one. I voted no.

Yes, but what can a limited bombing campaign accomplish?
- it cannot, by any guarantee, eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely. Iran had years to prepare for this eventuality
- it cannot remove the existing regime, in fact it will most likely strenghten it
- it will give Iran a casus belli for creating all kinds of havoc like blocking the straits of Hormus, open support for shiites in south Iraq, maybe even a limited cross border guerilla campaign. When the bombs start falling, there is war and there's no reason for Iran to hold back and not do all the damage it can do. And as I said above, the world economy will start hyperventilating as soon as there's the slightest suspicion of any armed conflict around the straits.
- it will basically be open ended, for the fact that if no one can guarantee the total destruction of iranian WMDs, and because of the reasons 2 and 3 it will most likely be expanded to include targets like iranian naval facilities or facilities of the Pasdaran. There could be a "mission creep" where a limited campaign slowly slides into an all out air campain
Basically, you can bomb the crap out of Iran and when the rubble clears, all you have done is postponed the problem for 5-10 years, given the mullah regime a new lease of life and killed hundreds or thousands of Iranians, caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences. Not to mention the fact of turning around public opinion in Iran, which seems strangely pro US from what I heard and read into the government line.
And then after Iran has recovered, or even if it hasn't, who is keeping the mullahs from starting it all over again?
Then what? Another bombing campaign? Bomb Iran once or twice a year for decades whenever the US has suspicions of such activity?
Basically this whole scenario could drag on indefinitely and could close down for business the persian gulf and Kuwait and most of the gulf emirates for the time being.
If Milosevich himself had not given in, NATO could've bombed Serbia until it ran out of bombs, and Milosevich was a european head of government, not a mideastern head of a bunch of religious fanatics.
So if any US administration goes to war over Iran, it is basically in a lose-lose situation. It can wage an air campaign with the described consequences or it can wage a ground assault which will cost countless lives and, as you say might lead to another Iraq.
I don't have a patent solution, I don't like Iran becoming a nuclear power either. I suppose with both current administrations (plus with the current israeli non-administration) there's nothing to do but hope neither of them does anything stupid.
A new iranian president might be behind their nuclear program as well, but the west can better negotiate with someone who does not regularly threaten Israel.
But if the US decides it needs another war, in my opinion an invasion would be the better answer.

We keep speaking of the US waging war...

Fact of the matter is the first strike won't be by the US, or by Iran.

It'll be Israel.

Sure, they might be nice and let the US know about it in advance, but what can the US do? they've sworn to protect Israel from attacks, they can't back out of that. they can't shoot down the Israeli jets, no doubt that would be made public in minutes.

The key player here is Israel, don't forget that! they've done it before and will do it again.