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

[Oberon]

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

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by Aramike

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Max2147

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.