[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

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

Agreed. Now you know why I say conventional bombs cannot reach the key installations of their program. 20m and more below the surface, or inside mountains, several meters of steel-conkrete walls and barriers, GPS locations unknown, entrance tunnels partially known (could be fakes). Bring on the MOAB, it does not matter - you do not even know where to aim exactly (intel status 1.5 years ago). If you want to destroy it, you need to obliterate the whole area. Here is where the nasty part begins.

- it cannot remove the existing regime, in fact it will most likely strenghten it

Such war/strike would not be about regime chnage. Wether it will be remain strong in the longer run, when the consequences of the destruction done would start to affect the country, remains to be seen.

- it will give Iran a casus belli for creating all kinds of havoc like blocking the straits of Hormus,

yes, that will be their first reaction in any kind of conlfict with them. It is military fact that needs to be dealt with.

open support for shiites in south Iraq,

already happening.

maybe even a limited cross border guerilla campaign.

What's new? Iranian commandoes can'T do more damage than Hezbollah in Lebanon, the assembled opposition in Iraq, or the Taleban in Afghanistan. A couple of hundred or thousand such fighters more or less - okay. Maybe it is a good idea to prepare for that in advance...?!

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.

And what will the world economy do once the first terror group with Iranian support starts to blackmail the west by threatening to detonate a nuclear terror gadget?

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.

The destruction can be turned into a fact when using nukes, even more so since the radioactive contaoimnation will prevent access to eventually survivng parts of nuked structures for a damn long time to come. I wonder if for that kind of strike any additnal military campaign is needed at all, but however, it probably would be conducted anyhow to cripple Iran'S offensive naval and airborne capacity. However, I see no reason to turn that into an ongoing, lasting military campaign.

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.

the main problem that remains, is contamination. f you remeber the so far published satellite pictures, you see that the kea cnetres of the program are not situated inside or close to huge cities. I assume that intel efforts has been increased in the past two yars to get more precise target data, I doubt that they got all what they need, but improved the intel situation. the better your intel data (cordinates) is the fewer and smaller nukes you use. The more unprcise your info is, the bigger and more you need. anyhow, the major detonations must not affect close areas of dense settlement. Granted, even subterranean explosions will do contamination of ground water, soil and air. But hell, I am not talking about a picknick in the meadows. I refuse that this fate eventually will reach us becasue we are expected to save the perpetrator from this fate. I said that I take proliferation by Iran as a given, and I do not accept playing games about this scenario. If you - or them - want to evade the longterm contamination of their country, then come up with a reaosnable option of how to guarantee that they will not develope nuclear weapons, or technology knowledge able to be used by terrorist allies to build their own one.

caused economic destruction that will cause mass unemployment and a ****load of other consequences.

not our concern. At the time a strike is being carried out they would have had time enough to chnage their minds while there was time left.

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.

Huh? Have I missed something? I was several months in Iran, in 1996, that was during the "youth rebellion", so to speak. There is a fundamental misperception: even the iranian burgeosie and ntheb young at that time did not want an american model installed, and they did not want a democracy according to american example. They wanted a bit more freeedom to move, more options to choose their media from, the clerics being driven back A BIT. but the majority still wanted the Islamic state to stay, basing on Islamic principles, and sharia. and america was seen quite complex, nevertheless in 1996 there was already the feeling that it would let them down if they do not comply with it'S thoughts about how iran should be 100%ly - and that's what turned out to happen indeed. If you see any sign that their politicians or their clerics or the public have great sympathy for present america and it's role, then you are wrong. also, last but not least, only in a few countries I notiuced such strong feeling of national pride and patriotism, like in Iran. It rivals the ammount of american patriotism easily.

And then after Iran has recovered, or even if it hasn't, who is keeping the mullahs from starting it all over again?

After what I line out as a blueprint to do to Iran, there will be nothing like that for a very long time to come.

Then what? Another bombing campaign? Bomb Iran once or twice a year for decades whenever the US has suspicions of such activity?

That's what probably would be needed to do if one laves it to conventional weapons only in order to destroy the hearts of their program. That translates into a useless and tzhus: unneeded wa. And that is exactly what I want to avoid. You cannot succeed without nukes.

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.

Okay, I accept that to happen, and see it as of secondary importance. We are heading into the post-oil era anyway. Primary impotance has to prevent nukes in the hands of terrorists, and nuclear blackmailing of wstern nations (even more so in the name of Islam). nothing of what you said until here I see as of equal importance. consider this: you meet me and raise a loaded weapon while shouting you now want to kill me. what do you expect me to do? Simply stand still and wait? I admit I am out of training since a very long time now, and so lack routine and practice. depending on chance and situation, I would try to overwhelm you, and since I am rusty and my skill to vary my combat means and adapt to yours has suffered, I would play it safe and would not play games at all. Which means I would immediately try to kill you. Who would dare to morally accuse me for that...???

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.

I was not aware that tactical nukes were used on Yugoslavia.

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 agree. Starting to use the military card only makes sense when inclduing nukes. That'S why I would not support any of these two scenarios of yours. Remember the Lebanon war - I first supported it in the wrong belief that they were well-prepared and serious in their intention to do everything needed to destroy Hezbollah and to destroy every kind of infrastructure that would help Hezbullah to respond, and to survive, and to move and hold out. When it became clear that the Israelis were not prepared at all, shied away from doing what would have been needed, and their intel was bad, I immediately made a 180° turnaround and attacked Israel for having launched such a stupid, ill-prepared war. Today, I have not the smallest support for this way they had waged the war, and say it should never have been started. I have absolutely and uncompromisingly attacked the Iraq war from day one on, on the basis of bad preparation, political lies, different intentions then what was told to the public, and underestmating it and being counterproductive. I have bitterly criticised the stupid way in which afghanistan was forgotten and underestmated after the initial battle 2001/2002 - until the mess we deal with now started to rise it'S ugly head in 2004. On the Vietnam war I only say: it was waged for stupid, partly lying reasons, and it was waged in a stupid way, with too many restrictions cuased by political naivety. I fully support the second world war, and defend the need to fight it, and I think Chamberlain was an idiot who was sos cared of what was coming that he fleed into an illusive dream world instead. See what came from it.

I am no warmongering massmurderer-for-fun, AntEater. I do not like the scenario I line out a bit, and it horrifies me, like you. that'S why I refuse to attack Iran right now 8also since I know the place a bit, amongst all muslim countries that I stayed in, iran probably has been the most pleasant experience, despite the obvious two faces of it), although by my argument that they will press on anyway it could be justified to say it makes no difference wether to strike now, or later. I want to be sure that of all time there is they make use of - even if it is irrational. I accept to violate what cold logic is telling me. but different to you, I refuse most wars, but not all wars in principal. I am pacifist in that I do not use war in attack to gain economical or other selfish advantages, but I insist on my right for self defense when being threatened (that's why I do not believe in unarmed pacifism and support the idea of a strong army nevertheless), and I argue that a threat must be countered as long as it is building up. when it is fully established, it is too late. Regarding Iran and proliferation, I am determined not to accept warm-hearted good will and hopes and wishing they mean it well as a valid basis of our actions. It is foolish, and infantile, and potentially suicidal. To acdept that scenraio even the chance to turn out as real, is non-negotiable for me. Becasue on the side of those kinds of terrorists we talk of when mentioning Iran, we talk of religious zealots with a clear, hot.-shing hate on the West. and difefrent to you and me, these kind of people will every mean in order to overthrow what the West stands for, and kill infidels in as high numbers as possible. you may think you can negotiate with them, and trust what they say, and maybe you will to sell away more and more poarts of your own cultural idnetity and what the Wetsern history stands for in psoitives. But you walk alone from that point on - I, and many others, refuse to follow you there. If that means I have to kill, or accept a great war being done, so be it. I did not ask for it. Nobody of us has asked for it - but they keep pressing on. eventually they will only stop when they get what they ask for: the consequences of the West's right for self-defense. To accept a chance to become vulnerable to nuclear blackmails by irrational, hatefilled zealots, is unacceptable.

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.

Hope...? Well, i hope in lottery, and I wish all people would turn into peaceful beings, and I pray for food and water and medicine for people on the globe.

Hope is not a strategy. I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist. I try to be realistic. Adressing a world that in the assumed format does not exist, makes no sense for me. the world as we want it to be, and the world as it really is - are to very different things.

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.

You cling to irrationals here. The presidents before Ahmadinejadh - knew and willed the nuclear program. the country has not chnaged since then, Iran is not a more and not a less irrational country as before. They will negotiate until the sun falls down and the ocean floods the moon - if that buys them the time to compelte their program. they will tell you every lie youn want to hear in order to give them more time. Well, go on, negotiate. But don't say you had not been warned.

Paper with inks and stamps on it mean nothing here. the EU is not in a position to negotiate. If you think about it, you can negotiate only from a position of power, wether it be absolute power or be it something you have that the other wants desperately. Else you depend on the good willingness and friendliness of the other - and you better don't bet on that being realities. Regarding Iran, the EU is powerless - and Iran knows that.