NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is a really excellent analysis of the factors to be considered in any attack on Iran. Conclusion: the downside risk of attacking is just too great, but do we really want an Islamic terrorist state to have nuclear weapons?


Is Iran next? The calculus of military strike. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p01s02-usfp.html)

Tehran has raised the stakes, saying it is enriching uranium.

By Mark Sappenfield | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Time and again this week, President Bush and his team reiterated their position on Iran's nuclear program: America wants a diplomatic solution, and any suggestion it is moving toward an inevitable strike on Iran is "wild speculation."

At the same time, however, Mr. Bush has remained steadfast in his statements that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable and "no option is off the table" to prevent it.

The news Tuesday that Iran is now producing enriched uranium for atomic reactors - considered a first step toward nuclear weapons - has heightened the sense that America and Iran are on a collision course. A new article in The New Yorker claims that the administration is again on a path to war.

Yet amid the tumult is an effort to shape a debate that's more robust than the one before the Iraq war. While military action doesn't appear certain, the hint of it raises questions on the use of force, and what it might - and might not - accomplish.

It seems likely that precision airstrikes could set Iran's nuclear program back at least a year and perhaps several. Whether that delay is worth the probable consequences - the strengthening of a despotic regime within Iran and the increased likelihood of terrorism in nearby Iraq and the broader region - is what's at issue.

"The military option has a lot of costs," says Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute here. "But is the cost of the Islamic Republic of Iran having a nuclear weapon greater?"

Iran closer to nuclear weapon

Reports out of Iran Tuesday suggested that the country has moved closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon. Tuesday's announcement claimed that Iran now has 164 centrifuges, which yield more-concentrated uranium. Iran would need thousands of centrifuges to produce enough fuel for a nuclear weapon - and the country's leaders insist that the program is solely for nuclear power - but it is a concern for international officials.

Few security analysts think Iran would actually use a nuclear weapon against the United States. It is an established nation motivated by self-preservation as much as power.

Indeed, Iran's terrorist links are capable of causing much more damage than they do.

But Iran does not desire to prompt the US or Israel to a major response, says Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations. "If Iran used a nuclear weapon against New York - or if it could be traced back to Iran - Tehran would fall ... and the Iranians know that."

More likely, Iran would ratchet up its terrorist activities, knowing that enemies would be less inclined to retaliate strongly against a nuclear foe. For Dr. Rubin, that still makes a military strike "the lesser of two evils" if diplomatic efforts fail.

With the United States Army fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are the most likely option. The operation might take five days, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who participated in a war game on the subject in late 2004.

Some sites, like the centrifuge facility in Natanz, are obvious and would be relatively easy to target. Others are less known or more deeply buried, leading to speculation that the United States might use special nuclear weapons designed to penetrate deep into fortified bunkers.

While that remains a possibility, Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, called the suggestion "completely nuts," and analysts agree it would be disastrous for American interests in Middle East.

The use of conventional weapons is problematic enough. Not only do experts like Colonel Gardiner question whether America could locate and destroy all the relevant targets, but they also wonder whether even a successful attack is worth the cost.

"None of [the military options] are any good," says Gardiner.

No matter how precise or limited, any airstrike against Iran is likely to be perceived there as a declaration of war. "There is a tendency to think of it as a quick, surgical action short of war," says Dr. Biddle. "That is a mistake."

Surely, Iran would retaliate through a more aggressive terrorism campaign, he and others say, and with US troops close at hand in Iraq, they could become the first targets. Iran could also try to close the narrow Strait of Hormuz - through which all Persian Gulf traffic, including oil tankers, must pass.

Iran's internal strife

In some ways, though, the greatest effect could be within Iran itself. For years, a younger generation seeking democratic reforms has struggled against Iran's government of autocratic clerics, who espouse the destruction of America and Israel.

Yet unlike Iraq, a splintered country that was essentially the creation of British imperialism, Iran has a national history stretching back thousands of years to the days of the Persians. As in any country, an attack from a foreign power would likely rally support for the government.

"Iranians are fiercely nationalistic," says Rubin.

He believes the US could mitigate that somewhat by also attacking symbols of the regime's repression, such as the ministry of information and the guard towers in the country's most infamous political prison.

Others, however, see a different lesson from history. When America helped topple Iran's government in 1953, Iranian outrage spawned the hostage crisis of 1979. Now, the US and Iran could be on a course again to poison their relations for a generation.

The concern is that the US might attack before all other options have been exhausted. Indeed, America and Iran still don't talk to each other diplomatically; they rely on Europe as a mediator.

Given that Iran is surrounded by American troops - in Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west - some suggest that there may still be a diplomatic way forward: A direct US offer to Iran of security guarantees for cooperation with its nuclear program.

Says Robert Hunter, a former US ambassador to NATO: "If you try and fail, at least you have a circumstance that clarifies the issue."

No matter how precise or limited, any airstrike against Iran is likely to be perceived there as a declaration of war.I wonder why...

I wonder why...
LOL! Yeah, kinda like "DUH," eh? :D

LOL! Yeah, kinda like "DUH," eh? :DTrue. I'm puzzled at why this needs to be mentioned, as it only serves to reaffirm the stereotype that it wouldn't occur to the average American reader.

With the United States Army fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are the most likely option. The operation might take five days, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who participated in a war game on the subject in late 2004.

"None of [the military options] are any good," says Gardiner.

And that would be the war games written up in The Atlantic, which I posted a thread about a few days ago (and which quickly desended in to typical a NS hell that completely ignored the article).

That article concluded:

The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices—and all of them are bad. The United States can’t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can’t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can’t keep prisoners at Guantánamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can’t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can’t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can’t accept Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means—unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war. The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran/

Here's the article on the war games:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

It concludes with the following:
So this is how the war game turned out: with a finding that the next American President must, through bluff and patience, change the actions of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited. "After all this effort, I am left with two simple sentences for policymakers," Sam Gardiner said of his exercise. "You have no military solution for the issues of Iran. And you have to make diplomacy work."

I must say this whole nuclear nonproliferation deal, is very hypocritical Something like--"I have a lot of nukes, so I mustnt let anyone else have any"
--------
Even though I don't have much sympathy for Iran's government(isnt it funny how whenever wants to degrade a government in the eyes of the public they call it a "regime) I must call for a look at history---
-------
And what do we see?
-------
The only country which ever used a nuke on someone else is the U.S.
So isn't it funny that it is now a huge advocate of nuclear safety and nonproliferation.

The whole I can have nukes and other "Evil" countries cant is a sad reality of today---but it would at least be nice if politicians didn't feel it was their right to control other nations' nuclear development.
--===--

--------
One more thing
I find extremely hilarious the grief Iran gets on the mainstream radio, for saying that in case of a U.S invasion, it will defend itself by way of instigating an uprising in Iraq etc----
----
Might I point out that any country has a right to defend itself from invasion so this is quite reasonable

Or is sitting back and letting yourself get invaded "the democratic thing to do"?

Because airstrikes arn't real military actions and won't illicit a retaliatory strike against our troops in Iraq.
If any strategist thinks Iran would retaliate with any less than a full military strike if we carry out an airstrike on any Iranian installation, they should be fired. To think they would step up a campaign of "terrorism" is delusion.

Because airstrikes arn't real military actions and won't illicit a retaliatory strike against our troops in Iraq.
If any strategist thinks Iran would retaliate with any less than a full military strike if we carry out an airstrike on any Iranian installation, they should be fired. To think they would step up a campaign of "terrorism" is delusion.

Yeah, exactly. If you attack them, they'll (in indirectly) attack you. What a surprise that is.

It would be daft to think that they would react any differently than we would. If a nation...any nation engaged in a limited surgical military airstrike against an american target. Any american target... We'd go apeshit. Why should any other nation react differently?

Secondly, I understand our reluctance at letting Iran have nuclear weapons. Their ties to terrorists makes that dangerous. But I am a strong opponent to pre-emptive strikes. Why?

Well, let's see... I live in the only country with massive stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that also happens to be the only nation in history to actually use a nuclear weapon against another nation. Heh. We're an imminent threat. By our own standards, we are a fair target. :p

Be nice if Bush if he's going to try something would do it more indirectly, the American way of organizing a coup in Iran to get the younger generations democratic ideas in power. Bush likes democracy after all and invading could just form more radicals in country.

Indeed, it's not as if Iran hasn't experienced the sharp end of war in recent history. Invaded by Iraq in 1980, it had its cities bombed and lost hundreds of thousands of men in battle, including tens of thousands killed and wounded by nerve gas. Even getting hit my MWDs did not deter them for the 8 years it took to beat Iraq. The result, widespread public respect for the military and a rise in popular nationalism.

It's pretty much what you would see in any country that's a natural social and political entity rather than a former colony with arbitrary borders. And its economy is doing quite well too, so people know they have something to lose from disruptive outside interference. Unlike the story across much of Iraq by the time of the 2003 invasion, they have a real stake in the stability of their society. And yes, while they lack the ability to attack anyone directly, they retain some very competent people in their employment.

It would be daft to think that they would react any differently than we would. If a nation...any nation engaged in a limited surgical military airstrike against an american target. Any american target... We'd go apeshit. Why should any other nation react differently?

Secondly, I understand our reluctance at letting Iran have nuclear weapons. Their ties to terrorists makes that dangerous. But I am a strong opponent to pre-emptive strikes. interesante..

You are not as crazy as your name indicates afterall. ;)

Be nice if Bush if he's going to try something would do it more indirectly, the American way of organizing a coup in Iran to get the younger generations democratic ideas in power. Bush likes democracy after all and invading could just form more radicals in country.

NO NO NO NO NO!

The USA should never undermine a democratically elected government again if it wants to self-righteously enfore democracy again.

Secondly, I understand our reluctance at letting Iran have nuclear weapons. Their ties to terrorists makes that dangerous.
If I recall, a leading scientist of one of our allies, *cough* Pakistan *cough*, sold nuclear secrets to terrorists.

This is all a bullshit political game, if you are our friends, here, have some extra nukes, if you said we smell like chese, no nukes for you!

we should be more worried about World-Wide poverty and horrible destitution, esp. in the Arab world, since any reasoned asessment of why the Mid-East is the way it is names exploitation and subjugation to unjust, criminal rulers who shove their subjects down into the dirt. Nukes or no Nukes, Iran is a Frankenstein that WE helped create, and as such it's our duty to fix it. Why not just try being nice for once?

If I recall, a leading scientist of one of our allies, *cough* Pakistan *cough*, sold nuclear secrets to terrorists.

This is all a bullshit political game, if you are our friends, here, have some extra nukes, if you said we smell like chese, no nukes for you!

Unless you're Britain, and then you're just being a really good friend who bitch-slaps us when we're being too drunk to know what the f*** we're doing.

NO NO NO NO NO!

The USA should never undermine a democratically elected government again if it wants to self-righteously enfore democracy again.

Ah, Ahmadinejad was elected fairly? Surprise, surprise. He doesn't look too insane does he?

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,552636,00.jpg

interesante..

You are not as crazy as your name indicates afterall. ;)

It's a crazy world. Sometimes a crazy viewpoint is a perfect fit. :p

Or maybe the only sane ones are the IN-sane....

NO NO NO NO NO!

The USA should never undermine a democratically elected government again if it wants to self-righteously enfore democracy again.
Iran is a "democracy" in name only. It's actually a theocratic oligarchy. Kinda like the US is an economic oligarchy (with the proviso that if enough people get upset with the way the government is being run, they can vote en mass for a different leadership ).

Iran is a "democracy" in name only. It's actually a theocratic oligarchy. Kinda like the US is an economic oligarcy.

That doesn't make it any better to support a coup there.

That doesn't make it any better to support a coup there.
A theocracy which supports terrorism? Hmm.

Iran is a "democracy" in name only. It's actually a theocratic oligarchy. Kinda like the US is an economic oligarch (with the proviso that if enough people get upset with the way the government is being run, they can vote en mass for a different leadership ).
I'd say a constitutional theocracy, because they waste as much time arguing over protocol as does the US. :p

They do have a fairly complex legal relationship between the unelected religious leaders, the elected civilian government and the military. Many competing bureaucracies.

I'd say a constitutional theocracy, because they waste as much time arguing over protocol as does the US. :p

They do have a fairly complex legal relationship between the unelected religious leaders, the elected civilian government and the military. Many competing bureaucracies.
But only one, non-competing theology.

A theocracy which supports terrorism? Hmm.

The USA's simply a capitalist state which supports it, too. Think how many times you've funded horrible groups like the Taliban (Muhaj'adeen in the Soviet-Afghanistan war) to further your political views.

But only one, non-competing theology.
I doubt anyone could seriously suggest the US had competition in the religious market. If you're not Christian (or if you get away with being Jewish), you won't get elected. If you're not religious you won't get elected. Christianity is the official theology of the US, its people and its government, the only suggestion to the contrary, and flying in the face of all empirical evidence, being a faded piece of paper.

I might just be a bit naive here, but I'm pretty sure that if we used all the assloads of money we have and spent it on "feeding and clothing the poor, not one single person left out [Bill Hicks]" then there really wouldn't be any reason to have to defend ourselves. Others would want to protect us, so we wouldn't have to protect ourselves - eventually it would bring everyone together as we help eachother.

We -could- have started doing that long long ago...

I doubt anyone could seriously suggest the US had competition in the religious market. If you're not Christian (or if you get away with being Jewish), you won't get elected. If you're not religious you won't get elected. Christianity is the official theology of the US, its people and its government, the only suggestion to the contrary, and flying in the face of all empirical evidence, being a faded piece of paper.
Hmm. I would say it's more "theist" than "christian," but you have a valid point, at least lately. Still, the separation of church and state does not, indeed cannot, forbid individual belief even for politicians. IMHO, more often than not, many politicans give lip-service to their "christianity" than anything else.

I might just be a bit naive here, but I'm pretty sure that if we used all the assloads of money we have and spent it on "feeding and clothing the poor, not one single person left out [Bill Hicks]" then there really wouldn't be any reason to have to defend ourselves. Others would want to protect us, so we wouldn't have to protect ourselves - eventually it would bring everyone together as we help eachother.

We -could- have started doing that long long ago...
I'm assuming, since you didn't stipulate, that you're referring to "the poor" outside the US, and that it should be free. We already do that in many places, at least those who don't shoot those who deliver the food.

People want a great many things besides just food and clothing. When some of them get power, they try to take what they want by force, whether their people are hungry or not.

Hmm. I would say it's more "theist" than "christian," but you have a valid point, at least lately. Still, the separation of church and state does not, indeed cannot, forbid individual belief even for politicians. IMHO, more often than not, many politicans give lip-service to their "christianity" than anything else.
How many politicians in Iran must exaggerate their religious credentials in order to clear a path through the hurdles of running for office and being permitted to stay there? Judging by the vodka drinking of one Iranian I knew, I am sure there is a bit of that going on. ;)

How many politicians in Iran must exaggerate their religious credentials in order to clear a path through the hurdles of running for office and being permitted to stay there? Judging by the vodka drinking of one Iranian I knew, I am sure there is a bit of that going on. ;)
Probably quite a few, but you have to admit that the controls are far more stringent there than here.

Probably quite a few, but you have to admit that the controls are far more stringent there than here.
That is the case at present. There has been an alarming degree of convergence of late. Whether the controls are a rule that is written, or unspoken, the effect is the same.

I'm assuming, since you didn't stipulate, that you're referring to "the poor" outside the US, and that it should be free. We already do that in many places, at least those who don't shoot those who deliver the food.

People want a great many things besides just food and clothing. When some of them get power, they try to take what they want by force, whether their people are hungry or not.

Untrue. Proof?

Are there still poor and homeless and starving people in the world? Yes.

Therefore we have not used our resources to their fullest in a helpful way (not using money on defense).

That is the case at present. There has been an alarming degree of convergence of late. Whether the controls are a rule that is written, or unspoken, the effect is the same.
That's one of the costs of electing your leadership. Sometimes the people vote for those who believe as they do.

Interesting...why can't they have their damn nukes...they don't even claim to have them. If the US was against Israel, there wouldn't be any of this anti-Iran business. I'm not condoning going against Israel, I'm just stating POV.

Untrue. Proof?

Are there still poor and homeless and starving people in the world? Yes.

Therefore we have not used our resources to their fullest in a helpful way (not using money on defense).
How high is "up?" :rolleyes:

Interesting...why can't they have their damn nukes...they don't even claim to have them. If the US was against Israel, there wouldn't be any of this anti-Iran business. I'm not condoning going against Israel, I'm just stating POV.
In international relations, as in politics, perception is everything.

How high is "up?" :rolleyes:

As far as we can go.

Interesting...why can't they have their damn nukes...they don't even claim to have them. If the US was against Israel, there wouldn't be any of this anti-Iran business. I'm not condoning going against Israel, I'm just stating POV.
It has little to do with Israel at this point. the fear is not an Iranian missile, the fear is an Iranian warhead 'accidentally' going missing and turning up in any of a number of countries Iran does not like. followed by a big Ka-Boom!

I might just be a bit naive here, but I'm pretty sure that if we used all the assloads of money we have and spent it on "feeding and clothing the poor, not one single person left out [Bill Hicks]" then there really wouldn't be any reason to have to defend ourselves. Others would want to protect us, so we wouldn't have to protect ourselves - eventually it would bring everyone together as we help eachother.

We -could- have started doing that long long ago...

Amen, brother, Amen.....(forgive the quasi-religious phrasing)

I mean, admittedly there are parts of the world that no matter what we do we will be reviled, but there's a lot more we could be doing to help people, and there are always good people who would be thankful for food and clothing.....And, if we weren't propping up the dictators who opress them or responsible for blowing up their crops and homes, maybe they'd like it EVEN MORE! *GASP!!*

we should be more worried about World-Wide poverty and horrible destitution, esp. in the Arab world, since any reasoned asessment of why the Mid-East is the way it is names exploitation and subjugation to unjust, criminal rulers who shove their subjects down into the dirt. Nukes or no Nukes, Iran is a Frankenstein that WE helped create, and as such it's our duty to fix it. Why not just try being nice for once?

Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster

Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster

hehe.....thanks. I've allowed my literary skills to slip....whoops:p

Frankenstein was the doctor not the monster
Yes, and quite a demented lil doctor he was. Perhaps the metaphor is more apt that first suspected. :)

I think its time we just give up and let the impeding Nuclear Apocalypse come. Its been almost happening ever since the cubam missle crisis. Then I can finally live like the road warrior!!!!!
:headbang:

I think its time we just give up and let the impeding Nuclear Apocalypse come. Its been almost happening ever since the cubam missle crisis. Then I can finally live like the road warrior!!!!!
:headbang:

LONG LIVE RAMBO:mp5:

I think its time we just give up and let the impeding Nuclear Apocalypse come. Its been almost happening ever since the cubam missle crisis. Then I can finally live like the road warrior!!!!!
:headbang:
*Ahem*

You do realize, do you not, what the RL "road warrior" became? ;)

So we are looking at the military facts, I hope the bigshots don't forget to take the dozens of other facts seriously.
I don't doubt that America could occupy Iran but not without loosing a lot of it's power and credibilty worldwide.

So we are looking at the military facts, I hope the bigshots don't forget to take the dozens of other facts seriously.
I don't doubt that America could occupy Iran but not without loosing a lot of it's power and credibilty worldwide.

and, according to some estimates, upward of 500 billion in men, equipment, and investments.

So we are looking at the military facts, I hope the bigshots don't forget to take the dozens of other facts seriously.
I don't doubt that America could occupy Iran but not without loosing a lot of it's power and credibilty worldwide.
After the Vietnam and Iraq experiences, I strongly suspect that's the last thing on anyone's mind!

I don't doubt that America could occupy Iran but not without loosing a lot of it's power and credibilty worldwide.

No, we can't. Not sucessfully, at least.

Historically, sucsessful occupations of hostile nations frequire a force to population ration of 20+ military and security personnel per every 1000 population. (Note, this was the subject of a 1995 article in Parameters, the US Army War College journal.)

http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1995/quinliv.htm

Iran has a population estimated at 68 million. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

Thus, an occupation of Iran would require a ground force some 1.36 million men, or about three times the size of the current army.