Is War With Iran Necessary?

[Stealth Hunter]

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

[AntEater]

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.

[PeriscopeDepth]

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

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,

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.

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.

[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
- 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.

[baggygreen]

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.

[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.

[Frame57]

Having a few drinks with Ret. Lt. CMD R.H. Boehm we had a discussion about "world peace". I asked him if he thought we would ever see it. His reply to me was, "Are you kidding me? Look at the history of the human race, mankind will go to war over cultural issues, religion, turf, economy, you name it. How about in school wasn't there always a school bully or two? Did the bully quit bothering kids that were peace loving? No! This just inflames the instincts in man to take advantage over the weak as they see it. the only way to get the bully to stop is to punch his lights out. Works every time! No! We will never see world peace...."

I agree with Roy, and the situation in Iran will not be solved through diplomacy. However, I think it should be Israel's decision not America's to take out Iran's nuclear facilties. they did it before and they can do it again. Iran seems to harbor an "armageddon" view of it's role in the world. Which makes me believe that if they get the bomb, they will use the bomb in a most deleterious fashion. So, I do not think war with Iran is necessary, just a nice spanking my do the trick.

[Ishmael]

So here is my scenario of the possible consequences of an attack on Iran by either Israel or the US.

Once the attack begins, expect the Iranians to repond with an overwhelming anti-ship missle attack on the US Fifth fleet using waves of hundreds or Exocet, Sunburn and Yakhonts missles combined with Shkval torpedos launched from submarines and suicide speedboats. The Navy's own war games predicted a result of Naval casualties in the 20-30,000 range and vessel losses in excess of 75%. At the same time, look for the Iranians to close the Hormuz Straits with similar attacks on any vessel attempting transit, driving oil prices to $3-400/bbl and $20-30/gal for gas. If Iran's ballistic missle arsenal doesn't have the range, expect Hezbollah to launch massive rocket attacks with conventional, chemical and biological warheads on Israel proper. While all this is going on, expect China, Russia, and Iran to dump their dollar holdings en masse triggering both hyperinflation and economic collapse in the US. Other OPEC members will also be forced to dump their dollar holdings as well, accelerating the US economic collapse. The Shi'ite population of Iraq will rise up against US forces there, trapping them in Iraq as the Iranian Army moves across the Shat-al-Arab and taking Basra leaving the only escape route through Kurdistan into Turkey for US forces there. This will leave the Bush administration no choice but to use nuclear weapons against Iran, triggering a general war with the Islamic world, the collapse of the Pakistani government and giving al-qaeda in Pakistan the very access to Nuclear weapons the Iran attack was supposed to forestall.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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

You act as if they are leaving "anyone" a choice...kinda reminds me of some other guy who kept snubbing UN investigators for years.....hum wonder where he is?

The attack will not come from the U.S. either but Israel if from anyone...the writing is on the wall...

War-mongering?...lol you crack me up....war is all humanity knows....and they/we are good at it.

Mark 13
[28] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
[29] So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

and Ant-Eater...that cold war "MAD" strategy will only work on a guy who does not want to die...these ****ers....want to die in Jihad...you have serious trouble dealing with people with that mentality...so not to face reality your are setting your self up to get screwed hard.

What amazes me is America really hasn't learned the lessons of War from Sun Tzu and the Romans...by maintaing such drawn out campaigns without replenishing your funds and troops..IE conscripts...IE ...seizing and taking over the oil fields....kaos and despair is the only thing left....the world is seriously screwed...or at least America and anyone in it's path...

I voted yes not because I want it but because Inevitable was not a choice...

[Enigma]

What amazes me is America really hasn't learned the lessons of War from Sun Tzu and the Romans...by maintaing such drawn out campaigns without replenishing your funds and troops..IE conscripts...IE ...seizing and taking over the oil fields....kaos and despair is the only thing left....the world is seriously screwed...or at least America and anyone in it's path...

Clearly didn't learn **** from Vietnam, either.

[nikimcbee]

Now, by war, do you mean invade or just drop some bombs?

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/m...564654,00.html

Als ob die internationalen Atom-Kontrolleure nicht schon genug Sorgen hätten, kommt nun die überall beschworene Renaissance des Atomstroms hinzu. Und die dürfte, sollte sie tatsächlich stattfinden, die Gefahr einer nuklearen Katastrophe noch verschärfen. Denn eine massive Ausweitung der Kernkraft-Nutzung würde bedeuten, dass eine große Zahl neuer Reaktoren nicht nur in demokratisch regierten Industriestaaten, sondern auch in Drittwelt- und Schwellenländern entstünde.

"Das setzt einen enormen Transfer von Material und Know-how voraus", sagt John Large, einer der führenden Atomenergie-Experten Großbritanniens, im Gespräch mit SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Dieses Wissen könnte später auch für ein mögliches Waffenprogramm genutzt werden."
Das Problem sei, dass man unmöglich wissen könne, wie sich die politische Lage in heutigen Schwellenländern entwickelt. "Jedes zivile Nuklearprogramm eignet sich per se dazu, ein Waffenprogramm zu verbergen", erklärt Large. "In vielen Bereichen ist die militärische von der zivilen Nutzung kaum zu unterscheiden." Spätestens seit dem Fall Khan gebe es einen internationalen Schwarzmarkt für Nukleartechnologie. "Zusammen mit der Verbreitung von Know-how ist das eine gefährliche Mischung."

Or in summary: you cannot separate the civilian and the military use of nuclear technology.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I know, I am a whore for this blog. But I think it's very well done.

Things aren't lookin' good :
http://informationdissemination.blog...r-part-ii.html

PD

[Tchocky]

Question - Would the use of American nuclear bombs of Iranian soil guarantee a nuclear reprisal by a non-state group?

Seems like using nukes to knock out nukes both legitimises the use of nuclear weapons and invites responding attacks.