Who here is worried about the building tensions regarding Iran’s nuclear program?
There are a number of issues to consider here. Firstly, the threat of a nuclear Iran. I don’t believe anyone wants a fundamentalist, hardline state such as Iran to have offensive nuclear capabilities. While the rhetoric against Israel is most likely just that, rhertoric, the risk is too high if Iran is allowed to become a nuclear power. Even if Iran does not have any intention of using a nuclear weapon against Israel, it is irrelevant. Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran does not cease it’s uranium enrichment program, at the very least airstrikes are inevitable, either from the US or Israel. Which brings us to the second issue…
What can be done to force Iran to cease enrichment? Unless Iran backs down within the next couple of weeks, sanctions are likely. Will sanctions do anything? I see it as a very plausible possibility that sanctions may be used by the Iranian leadership to increase public support for the nuclear program, and also marginalise more moderate citizens against the west.
But what else can be done? The military option will of course have even more disastarous effects. Which leads to a third issue…
What are the consequences of a miltary airstike? What about a nuclear airstrike? The problem is this, the enrichment that Iran is performing is located deep underground at the Natanz nuclear facility. The only way, other than special forces teams, to neutralise such a facility is with low-yield nuclear bunker busting weapons. Conventional weapons just won’t do the trick. If the US or Israel perform a nuclear strike on a Muslim country such as Iran (even if it is low-yield), all hell will break loose in the Middle-East and the rest of the world.
The only way out of this mess that I see, is Iran backing down on its own accord. How likely is this scenario? It seems like the US is just itching to strike, and the concern with the US motives lie not only in removing the nuclear threat, but it also seems likely that the administration desires regime change.
Most people in the know, suggest Iran is years, 5- 10 years
away from actual developing nukes. They are not a threat.
North Korea, now that is the threat we should be dealing with.
Iran is the back up plan to carry this country into another
stupid and pointless invasion, to help the GOP before
the next election. It is about the next election, not Iran.
North Korea is China’s problem. Seriously, don’t let your government do anything to North Korea, if it steps out of line it’ll have the world’s largest air force pissing on it from a great height…
I agree, that is the most likely time frame. However, if Iran so desired, it could have a parallel program developing highly enriched material that the IAEA does not know about. Unlikely? Yes, but not unlikely enough. I think it is likely enough to assist in the rationalisation of an attack by a determined administration. In fact, MOSSAD has claimed it is in the posession of evidence that suggests such a parallel program exists, and they will have enough enriched uranium to create an atomic weapon in 1 to 2 years. This probably isn’t likely, but if the powers that be can put a spin on such a situation, that is all they need to justify an attack. Unless Iran backs down, I see an attack occuring within a year, either by the US or Israel.
What will be the consequences of such an attack? A further destabilised Middle East? What about China and Russia? What will their reactions be? What will Iran’s retaliation be? Can they find a way to disrupt Gulf oil supplies?
NoelyG:
I agree, that is the most likely time frame. However, if Iran so desired, it could have a parallel program developing highly enriched material that the IAEA does not know about. Unlikely? Yes, but not unlikely enough. I think it is likely enough to assist in the rationalisation of an attack by a determined administration. In fact, MOSSAD has claimed it is in the posession of evidence that suggests such a parallel program exists, and they will have enough enriched uranium to create an atomic weapon in 1 to 2 years. This probably isn’t likely, but if the powers that be can put a spin on such a situation, that is all they need to justify an attack. Unless Iran backs down, I see an attack occuring within a year, either by the US or Israel.
What will be the consequences of such an attack? A further destabilised Middle East? What about China and Russia? What will their reactions be? What will Iran’s retaliation be? Can they find a way to disrupt Gulf oil supplies?"
K: Mossad is not the most reliable source in this matter, as
they have an axe to grind in this matter.
An attack of any kind on Iran, will have several immediate
consequences. First of all, Iran is a well run, large, efficient
modern state. They have real ties to terrorist, not like the
pretend ties Saddam was supposed to have. They have a large
well trained, efficient army. Iraq rolled over and played dead
in less then a month. Iran will fight back in any way they can,
and almost certainly terrorist attacks of a magnitude that will stun
the west. I know many Iranians, who still have family in Iran,
they are a patriotic bunch. Even those who hate the regime in
Tehran, will react badly to any attack in Iran. Iran because
of its location can blockade any ships coming out of the red sea,
which means the price of gas will skyrocket, to probably 6 bucks
a gallon at the least. Iran will try to take the war to the west,
so expect not only increased and dangerous terrorist attacks,
but expect soldiers to get to the west and sabotage western
facilities. Now the other brick in the wall, no ones talks about
is the fact an attack on Iran could very easily lead to World War
3. Iran has connections within the middle east, they could use
that to lead several countries to declare war on the U.S. or the west
in general. Their thinking might be why should the U.S. stop at
bombing Iran, when they have already invaded Iraq and
afghanistan. The feeling could be within Syria, turkey, Lebanon,
Egypt, among others that they could be next. Included in this
little scenario is the fact that Russia has long standing agreements
with Iran, and could be faced with the decision of opposing
the west and/or the U.S. If Russia gets involved, look out.
Nothing good can come out of attacking Iran, and only
really, really bad things can occur. The diplomatic solution
is really the viable card the west has. I hope we take it.
I agree, but their intelligence could be easily used to justify an attack. It seems credibility is not exactly necessary these days, given the right spin.
Definitely. But what if Iran does not respond to diplomacy or sanctions? War will be inevitable and the consequences will be severe. Either way, Iran is in a lose-lose situation. If it backs down, it losses internal and middle eastern reputation. If it does not back down, it faces war. Let’s hope it chooses the first option, the lesser of two evils.
NoelyG:
“Definitely. But what if Iran does not respond to diplomacy or sanctions? War will be inevitable and the consequences will be severe. Either way, Iran is in a lose-lose situation. If it backs down, it losses internal and middle eastern reputation. If it does not back down, it faces war. Let’s hope it chooses the first option, the lesser of two evils.”
K: What is lost, is that it is a lose-lose for the U.S… I can’t see
a single positive thing coming out of invading/attacking Iran.
Gas prices going out of the roof, massive terrorist attacks,
a military already stretch far too thin. Nothing good coming out
this act of stupidity.
The situation is alittle bit of fear mongering on a part of well, Israel. There adherence to Islam is quite well known about by now, now they publicise this Iran situation as the end of the world. The situation in Iran couldnt really be any different, ok there president mr Mahmoud something lets a few rascist remarks fly from time to time, aimed mostly at Israel, sometimes at the West but in comparison to yester year, after the break up of Persia, its like farting in a bath. His relatively harmless compared to the other guy who was running for president, he wanted to see the West burned to the ground in cries of agony, this new President Mahmoud something or other just doesnt want it to exist. Iran internally is changing, theres a growing population of people who now are pro-west, pro-capitalism and anti-fundamentalism. Iran is a young country now demographically, the president reflects this, as it was an excuse for another revolution, been the old “theres loads of us young with nothing been told what to do by you - the old guys” scenario going on. Like France now, but completely different.
I’d say give 'em the darn Nukes, it like getting a penis enlargement but getting your balls snipped at the sametime. Jesus, look at the European countrys once there got them! Germany couldn’t look at another nation without wanting to rip its throat out, England had about 348 wars in the space of two centuries; and one of them lasted a hundred years. Its the ultimate anti-weapon, is the fundamentist Iran the new evil empire willing to… no! Its not, hipe, a political geographical sham. If it on CNN its a sham. Who’s to say Iran would push the button, they are a geographical sitting duck.
I think if the US governer (bush of course) is going to lend them nuclear weapons as after the streets bombs and pitiful driving mistakes stop of course , plus now there’s a problem getting the food and medic supplies over there now , so not much hope or trust within the next couple of years is going to come out of this , lets not forget about the damn oil prices and greedy basterds on the other side supplying it for let’s see…almost everybody on the planet.
