Attack on Iran ...

[Jocko]

I'm thinking in particular of France, Germany and Russia. They're supposed to be taking the lead on this and they're only now coming around to maybe thinking about a letter which suggests that in the future there might be a referral to the UN for another letter. I'm thinking (in my darker days -- not most days) that the US should announce that no, we're not going to be the military of last resort, we're not going to be the big stick that allows others to speak softly. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and missiles that can hit Paris, Berlin, and Moscow than Paris, Berlin and Moscow can bloody well deal with it on their own -- we have no objection to Iraq proceeding.

Amen to that. Let them bitch about US passivity instead of US imperialism for a change. It would be a refreshing switch. Oh, and I also think it's high time these erudite, limp-wristed debate club third-stringers got a clear lesson in why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[Darat]

US Dept. of Energy

I don't see Iran on that list. I believe British Petroleum (BP) is dependent on Iranian oil. Not sure. I think Iran's biggest oil customer is China, though.

The world's economy is dependent on oil which means the USA would be effected if Iranian oil stopped reaching the market place regardless of whether the USA directly imports oil from Iran or not.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/07/news/international/iran_oil/

...snip...

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Not a drop of oil from Iran reaches the nation's gas pumps. But escalating tensions about Iran's nuclear program are already being felt in oil and gas prices in the United States.

That's because even though the United States has banned oil imports from Iran since the 1979 Iranian revolution, some 4 million barrels of Iranian crude are shipped around the world each day, accounting for about 5 percent of global supply. That has an effect on prices everywhere, no matter how much or how little Iranian oil reaches U.S. refineries.

...snip...

 

[Manny]

That doesn't make sense.

If Iran attacked another country then that country would also be a "particular attack interest" yet your post makes it sounds as if you wouldn't;t in those circumstances expect the USA to retaliates.

Iran is not on record as threatening to wipe Germany off the map. Tell ya what -- any country which Iran threatens to wipe off the map (for reasons other than opposition to its nuclear program, of course) I'll include in the special protection. So if Ahmadinejad takes a sudden disliking to, I dunno, Moldovans, they're in.

 

[Jocko]

The world's economy is dependent on oil which means the USA would be effected if Iranian oil stopped reaching the market place regardless of whether the USA directly imports oil from Iran or not.

Yeah, drilling in ANWAR is a complete waste of time. Glad we didn't move ahead on that, 'cuz we'd sure look silly the next time some politically radioactive piece of real estate got a burr up its butt and put a ding in the world oil markets.

Yup. Three cheers for the caribou.

 

[Darat]

I'm thinking in particular of France, Germany and Russia. They're supposed to be taking the lead on this and they're only now coming around to maybe thinking about a letter which suggests that in the future there might be a referral to the UN for another letter. I'm thinking (in my darker days -- not most days) that the US should announce that no, we're not going to be the military of last resort, we're not going to be the big stick that allows others to speak softly. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and missiles that can hit Paris, Berlin, and Moscow than Paris, Berlin and Moscow can bloody well deal with it on their own -- we have no objection to Iran proceeding.

Yet you do for another country called Israel - that just strikes me as inconsistent.

Also your facts are inaccurate, your country along with the other members of the permanent security council referred the Iranian's breach to the IAEA - which is the precess the USA signed up to (along with the other signatures of the nuclear non proliferation treaty):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4662676.stm


...snip...
At a meeting in London on 30 January, the five permanent members of the Security Council - the US, Russia, China, Britain and France - agreed that the IAEA should report to the council its decisions on steps required of Iran under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
...snip...

You may not like the bureaucratic nonsense or the diplomacy that countries engage in but the USA is a willing participant in them.

 

[Darat]

Iran is not on record as threatening to wipe Germany off the map. Tell ya what -- any country which Iran threatens to wipe off the map (for reasons other than opposition to its nuclear program, of course) I'll include in the special protection. So if Ahmadinejad takes a sudden disliking to, I dunno, Moldovans, they're in.

OK that seems fair enough, it just seemed very strange when you had singled out one country that for some reason deserved special consideration.

 

[Jocko]

OK that seems fair enough, it just seemed very strange when you had singled out one country that for some reason deserved special consideration.

Better you should ask Iran why THEY singled out one particular country for "special consideration."

 

[Ed]

Only in the shortest possible terms, IMO. First, militarilly, the US is now practically over extended...so, at best it is a raid (a'la the Israeli model). And, assuming it is successful...i.e. that it is able to hit the facility sufficiently to knock out the technology (and keeping in mind that Iran, not stupid, perhaps has learned something from Iraq and made a real effort at secreting the most important "military" parts of its nuclear program...) we are than left with the global fallout.

Yes, two years of "negotiations" certainly assured that.

Certainly, many in the world don't want Iran to have a bomb...especially its neighbors (it's sunni Arab neighbors). However, the act of the US knocking out that facility uniliaterally, will either, IMO, cause several marginally cooperative MiddleEastern governments to fall, or it will push many of them into a decisively anti-west "the west is at war with Islam" camp that potnetially will create all of the hidding places for terrorists that Iraq never contained.

Unless we are, in fact, at war with Islam. I personnally think that we are and that it was going on since

It seems to me that economic sanctions -- given the precarious economic condition of the Irani state -- are the most effective option.

In theory, yes. In practice, everyone has their price and I suspect efforts such as this would fail.

The religious party needs to keep control of the economic power they've created for themselves or refocus public anger at the West and the US.

Which they will do under any circumstances.

Bush thought we'd flow into Iraq, clean it up and be moving out by now. That the same team might be planning how we deal with Iran doesn't give me any comfort at all.

The alternative is ... the EU?

 

[Manny]

Also your facts are inaccurate, your country along with the other members of the permanent security council referred the Iranian's breach to the IAEA - which is the precess the USA signed up to (along with the other signatures of the nuclear non proliferation treaty):

Acually it's the other way around. The IAEA referred it to the Security Council.

Except that they didn't. They requested their Director-General or Model of a Modern Major General or whatever to report to the Security Council. Which he hasn't. I'm sure he'll get around to it soonest, though. It's not like there are any clocks ticking.

You may not like the bureaucratic nonsense or the diplomacy that countries engage in but the USA is a willing participant in them.

Oh, absolutely. To be clear, what I'm proposing is that we become a more willing participant. Instead of hinting at military action if all else fails, the US should get on board with the multi-lateral, peace-loving approach and state affirmatively that we will not use force to prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear weapon and that if the world decides that force is called for then the UN or France or Russia can do it. After all, that's what the world keeps telling us we should do. I'm proposing to acquiesce to the world's opinion.

 

[Ed]

I'm thinking in particular of France, Germany and Russia. They're supposed to be taking the lead on this and they're only now coming around to maybe thinking about a letter which suggests that in the future there might be a referral to the UN for another letter. I'm thinking (in my darker days -- not most days) that the US should announce that no, we're not going to be the military of last resort, we're not going to be the big stick that allows others to speak softly. If Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and missiles that can hit Paris, Berlin, and Moscow than Paris, Berlin and Moscow can bloody well deal with it on their own -- we have no objection to Iran proceeding.

and if various countries don't want to spend on their military but rather spend on social programes let them do so.

 

[Jocko]

and if various countries don't want to spend on their military but rather spend on social programes let them do so.

Sure, why not? Soldiers, welfare recipients... they both melt down the same. I'd like to see less American blood in any nuclear Euro stew, so I favor immediate US troop withdrawal from Germany and anyplace else within reach of Iran's arsenal.

Maybe keep Italy as an exception; they, at least, are capable of locating their biscuits when push comes to shove.

 

[Ed]

Sure, why not? Soldiers, welfare recipients... they both melt down the same. I'd like to see less American blood in any nuclear Euro stew, so I favor immediate US troop withdrawal from Germany and anyplace else within reach of Iran's arsenal.

That would add some consernation, I suspect. I agree though. I would not want to have our troops being a tripwire for what is, essentially, and European problem.

 

[Jocko]

That would add some consernation, I suspect. I agree though. I would not want to have our troops being a tripwire for what is, essentially, and European problem.

Well, look at the context. They understood the USSR was a real threat. Today, they're a bit too fat and happy to actually believe a real problem exists... what they call here a 9/10 mentality.

A psychotic government is on the cusp of acquiring a nuclear arsenal and they're happy to wait a month just to file a report to a corrupt and toothless organization, just so they can be on the record as presenting a morally superior strategy... and completely gloss over the fact that it's a failed strategy.

Yes, I think a glowing Belgium might be what it takes to shake them out of their rhetorical stupor.

 

[richardm]

Yes, I think a glowing Belgium might be what it takes to shake them out of their rhetorical stupor.

Not really. If Belgium was hit by a nuclear-tipped missile then the nuclear powers in Europe would flatten Iran. Iran knows this, and wouldn't waste their chance on Belgium. They'd spend it on Israel instead, in which case the US would hop into action. Even if Iran produces more than one nuclear weapon and starts slinging them around willy-nilly Israel is bound to be one of the first targets, so we can still just sit back on our smug socialist arses and wait for the USA to bail us out again.

 

[Jocko]

Not really. If Belgium was hit by a nuclear-tipped missile then the nuclear powers in Europe would flatten Iran.

You know something? I seriously doubt they would. On what do you base that assumption? I wish it were true (like the negotiators wish Iran's pursuit was peaceful), but I'm not blinded by good intentions.

Iran knows this, and wouldn't waste their chance on Belgium. They'd spend it on Israel instead, in which case the US would hop into action. Even if Iran produces more than one nuclear weapon and starts slinging them around willy-nilly Israel is bound to be one of the first targets, so we can still just sit back on our smug socialist arses and wait for the USA to bail us out again.

Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear. It will fall to them to clean up the mess made by Euro-led negotiations. And then the debate club will convene a meeting to draft a strongly-worded condemnation of the very act that dragged their collective kiesters out of the fire. Smug socialist asses, indeed.

See, it's things like this that make me want to pull troops out of Europe. It's just good money after bad at this point. I prefer to see them in places like Iraq, where there's at least a chance of success.

 

[richardm]

You know something? I seriously doubt they would. On what do you base that assumption? I wish it were true (like the negotiators wish Iran's pursuit was peaceful), but I'm not blinded by good intentions.

I do believe that they would. France has a border with Belgium for a start, and I don't think they'd stand by. I don't think the UK would either. It's a NATO thing apart from anything else - if you attack one country in NATO then you attack all of us. Er, that treaty includes you Americans as well, but for the purposes of argument we'll say that you aren't playing.

See, it's things like this that make me want to pull troops out of Europe. It's just good money after bad at this point. I prefer to see them in places like Iraq, where there's at least a chance of success.

Things like what?

 

[richardm]

Israel won't allow Iran to go nuclear.

I should think that the USA would very strongly lobby Israel to let them put together a coalition to stop Iran. As I understand it Israel does not have the conventional equipment to do the job, and going nuclear would cause intolerable pressure in places like Pakistan to retaliate in kind. In fact even a conventional attack from Israel might cause a major war in the Middle East. I appreciate that there are some voices in America who would welcome this, but I think most would rather avoid it if possible.

 

[Jocko]

I should think that the USA would very strongly lobby Israel to let them put together a coalition to stop Iran.

Yes, but what you fail to see is that there is a logical end to lobbying and coalitions. Your current state of affairs is an excellent example of that.

Suppose the lobbying for Israeli moderation fails (like the negotiations) and the construction of a wide coalition fails (like the negotiations). Then what?

That's a serious question, by the way. Then what?

As I understand it Israel does not have the conventional equipment to do the job...

Well, Israel has been surprising opponents for a long time now. I've got no doubt that if they want Iranian nuke sites dusted, they'll make it happen. I have far more confidence in their military capabilities than the UN's will to enforce their own words... when they get around to actually writing them down in a month or so.

...and going nuclear would cause intolerable pressure in places like Pakistan to retaliate in kind. In fact even a conventional attack from Israel might cause a major war in the Middle East.

Don't follow you here. Israel's been nuclear for decades, it's an open secret. I don't think a nuclear strike would be required, either, unless the nuke bunker buster has been deployed (I don't think it has).

I appreciate that there are some voices in America who would welcome this, but I think most would rather avoid it if possible.

Your (by which I mean the EU) definition of "possible" is the source of this problem, not what some Americans may or may not wish for. But I give you full marks for a snarky aside and an attempted deflection.

 

[Ed]

Well, look at the context. They understood the USSR was a real threat. Today, they're a bit too fat and happy to actually believe a real problem exists... what they call here a 9/10 mentality.

I suspect that there are many that would say that the USSR wasn't really that big a threat.

I also doubt, that if Belgium got hit, they would do much more than bleed.

 

[richardm]

Yes, but what you fail to see is that there is a logical end to lobbying and coalitions. Your current state of affairs is an excellent example of that.

Suppose the lobbying for Israeli moderation fails (like the negotiations) and the construction of a wide coalition fails (like the negotiations). Then what?

That's a serious question, by the way. Then what?

You tell me. I've said elsewhere that I don't know what the solution is, other than to negotiate where we can and use military options where we can't. I don't see any real difference between the EU attitude and the US one in this respect. After all - nobody's started bombing Iran yet. But I don't believe Iran wants this stuff for peaceful purposes, and I agree that they must be stopped. I'd rather exhaust all the possibilities. It seems likely to me that now they have started enriching Uranium then those possibilities may already have been exhausted, because there will be the fear that the stuff could be smuggled out for dirty bomb type purposes. Perhaps it cannot be used in this way, in which case smarter people than me will know and bide accordingly.

Don't follow you here. Israel's been nuclear for decades, it's an open secret. I don't think a nuclear strike would be required, either, unless the nuke bunker buster has been deployed (I don't think it has).

By "going nuclear" I mean actually using those nuclear weapons. That is predicated on them being unable to do the job with conventional weapons; I don't know whether they have the wherewithal or not. Using nuclear weapons would have an especially emotive effect. Even without them I'm sure you remember the intense pressure that was brought to bear on Israel not to retaliate when Scuds were landing on Israeli towns during the first Gulf War - the given reason being to avoid drawing in other Arab nations to the conflict. I doubt there would be any difference this time.

Your (by which I mean the EU) definition of "possible" is the source of this problem, not what some Americans may or may not wish for. But I give you full marks for a snarky aside and an attempted deflection.

Are are you saying that there are no people in America who would would like to see an all-out war in the Middle East? Because I'm fairly sure that they do exist. But I actually said that I thought most would rather avoid it. If it is still "possible" that we might resolve this peacefully - why not try? Hope for peace, but plan for war.

I'm not sure where the snark is supposed to be, but I'm sorry if you felt that it was.