The Iranian problem

[Kerberos]

True enough.

Also, I would be surprised if the USA acted against Natanz. The Israeli Prime Minister Arik Sharon is the one who has political capital to gain, in the run-up to the elections. He knows that his constituency will build even more in the aftermath of a strike at Natanz. He knows what Menahem Begin attained after Osirak was destroyed. The current posturing by the Americans looks like they are laying the groundwork to justify a way for Israel to do the job, and grab the glory (or grab the heat, more accurately, since worldwide condemnations will invariably follow).

Since the elections in Israel are scheduled for end of March, an IAF raid on Natanz can be expected to happen some weeks prior to that event!

Perhaps, but as I mentioned, I've heard that airstrikes might not be able to do the job, I can't remember where though so I can't really vouch for the accuracy. Do you know anything more specific about the posibilities of an airstrike? As for condemnation, I cannot speak for the world, but personally I could probably live with an Isralie air strike.

 

[Ed]

Using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power without provocation is just about the most stark raving mad thing you can possibly do. Taking hostages doesn't come within a mile of being as insane. .

Committing suicide to kill civilians is an acceptable option to radical moslems. I have no doubt that the regime in Iran is peopled largely by nutters and the use of nukes has been carefully considered for a few years now.

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

This series of quotes goes back to 12/01 and shows a troubling consistancy in the thinking at the very highest levels of Iran. I have no doubt that they would nuke Istreal in a heartbeat.

I suspect that there are a bunch of westerners that will deny the possibility of Iran nuking Isreal and will wring their hands as the situation gets worse and worse. But consider this: As bad as a Western action against them might be, it is as nothing if the Jews get pissed and fry them. The very fact of Isreals existance might very well force us (the west, collectively) to do something that under other circumstances (say NK) we might hesitiate to do.

A question that bears on this is how far would one put up with their posturing? How far is Too Far? If, say, they only want the Sudatenland back, and maybe Checoslovacia but really, really, have no other designs in the reigon, would that be acceptable in order that the west would not have to make those troublesome decisions?

 

[Kerberos]

Committing suicide to kill civilians is an acceptable option to radical moslems. I have no doubt that the regime in Iran is peopled largely by nutters and the use of nukes has been carefully considered for a few years now.

Iran isn't Al-qaida.

This series of quotes goes back to 12/01 and shows a troubling consistancy in the thinking at the very highest levels of Iran. I have no doubt that they would nuke Istreal in a heartbeat.

Actually it shows a considtency of wording, not of thinking, are Iranians somehow magically incabable of lying?

I suspect that there are a bunch of westerners that will deny the possibility of Iran nuking Isreal and will wring their hands as the situation gets worse and worse. But consider this: As bad as a Western action against them might be, it is as nothing if the Jews get pissed and fry them. The very fact of Isreals existance might very well force us (the west, collectively) to do something that under other circumstances (say NK) we might hesitiate to do.

Are you sugesting that Israel would preemptively nuke them?

A question that bears on this is how far would one put up with their posturing? How far is Too Far? If, say, they only want the Sudatenland back, and maybe Checoslovacia but really, really, have no other designs in the reigon, would that be acceptable in order that the west would not have to make those troublesome decisions?

You'vew got a point there, I'll support taking out Iran by any means necessary, when they begin threatening to invade the Sadatenland, we've got to draw a line somewhere.

 

[CFLarsen]

He hasn't, he has said that he thinks the jury is still out on evolution http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0DF1739F936A35752C1A9669C8B63 , though whether that's because he believes in creationism, but doesn't want to offend the moderates, believes in evolution, but doesn't want to offend the religious right or if it's actually his honest opinion is anybodys guess.

Not quite:

A profile of George W. Bush (front page, Oct. 29) revealed that the Republican presidential nominee does not believe in evolution, feeling that the jury is still out.

Bush. Does. Not. Believe. In. Evolution.

 

[Ed]

Are you sugesting that Israel would preemptively nuke them?

Yes.

Or attack with conventional weapons.

 

[Kerberos]

Not quite:



Bush. Does. Not. Believe. In. Evolution.

That's NYT's spin not what he said.

 

[Kerberos]

Yes.

Or attack with conventional weapons.

Or attack with conventional weapons? Nuking Tehran and launching an airstrike against a nuclear plant isn't really the same thing. I would be more than suprised to see them do the former, but not the latter.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's NYT's spin not what he said.

"Spin"?

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
Source

President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.
...
Bush declined to state his personal views on "intelligent design," the belief that life forms are so complex that their creation can't be explained by Darwinian evolutionary theory alone, but rather points to intentional creation, presumably divine.

The theory of evolution, first articulated by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859, is based on the idea that life organisms developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature that favored certain traits that helped species survive.

Scientists concede that evolution doesn't answer every question about the creation of life, but most consider intelligent design an attempt to inject religion into science courses.

Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over "creationism," a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

On Monday the president said he favors the same approach for intelligent design "so people can understand what the debate is about."
Source

He's an equal-timer. But refuses to say out loud what he himselfs thinks. He's a politician.

What do you think?

 

[Kerberos]

"Spin"?

yes spin, "A distinctive point of view, emphasis, or interpretation" as opposed to for exampel a simple recital fo what he said.

He's an equal-timer. But refuses to say out loud what he himselfs thinks. He's a politician.

What do you think?

I don't have enough evidence to make an educated guess.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sure you do.

 

[Kerberos]

Sure you do.

Listen this is dreadfully simple, the question of whether Bush "had actually said that", meaning that the Earth was 600 years old was asked. I answered no. If you know this to be incorrect, it should be a simple matter of finding the quote where he did say that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Listen this is dreadfully simple, the question of whether Bush "had actually said that", meaning that the Earth was 600 years old was asked. I answered no. If you know this to be incorrect, it should be a simple matter of finding the quote where he did say that.

6000.

You can interpret it in any way you want. It is very clear to me: Bush doesn't believe in Evolution.

 

[webfusion]

I doubt that GW Bush could point to Natanz on a map.

KERBEROS __ "Do you know anything more specific about the possibilities of an airstrike? "

Sure, it is being planned and practiced already, by the IAF. That information is classified, of course, but the Israelis have gone on record as saying they will act, should the diplomatic route fail --- and the diplomatic route is failing.
Natanz is a good target, since by destroying that nuclear-enrichment facility, it removes the capability of Iran to proceed to produce material of high enough grade for bombs. Time is of the essence for Natanz (or perhaps Isfahan) to be destroyed, since the Russians have promised to help Iran to bring these centrifuges on-line with hot radioactive material by the spring (they were planning on doing so a few months ago, but Israel persuaded the Russians to delay, in order for the diplomatic process to convince Iran to stop the program -- to no avail, as we've seen).

Does this look like a difficult target to hit?

 

[Kerberos]

I doubt that GW Bush could point to Natanz on a map.

Sure, it is being planned and practiced already, by the IAF. That information is classified, of course, but the Israelis have gone on record as saying they will act, should the diplomatic route fail --- and the diplomatic route is failing.
Natanz is a good target, since by destroying that nuclear-enrichment facility, it removes the capability of Iran to proceed to produce material of high enough grade for bombs. Time is of the essence for Natanz (or perhaps Isfahan) to be destroyed, since the Russians have promised to help Iran to bring these centrifuges on-line with hot radioactive material by the spring (they were planning on doing so a few months ago, but Israel persuaded the Russians to delay, in order for the diplomatic process to convince Iran to stop the program -- to no avail, as we've seen).

Does this look like a difficult target to hit?

Not really, well as I said you have my blessing (and I know my approcal just means everything to Sharon ). A diplomatic solution would of course be preferable, but if that's not possible... On a similar note I seem to remember something about being in the process of buing some new planes that would be well suited for such a mission, something about your existing ones not having suficient range. Have you heard about that.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Kerebos - not that I dont doubt that the US armed forces dwarf those of the UK but I do resent your implication that the contribution of the UK has been of no significance.

While I dont doubt that an Iranian invasion of Iraq could be repelled, the fact remains that broadening the existing combat zone by..oh.. around 100% I'd guess would be utterley disaterous. Lets face it, our armies are barely managing to cope just keeping the lid on a full-blown blood-bath in Iraq, let alone Iran also.

 

[Kerberos]

Kerebos - not that I dont doubt that the US armed forces dwarf those of the UK but I do resent your implication that the contribution of the UK has been of no significance.

I wasn't talking about you contribution to Iraq, but your contribution to a hypothetical invasion of Iran. US troops are significantly superior to those of any other nation in actual combat, if nothing else due to their technological edge, though I'm told their combat training is superior too. The latter fact was from a political science text, rather than one focused on military so it might be incorrect. Stabilizing Iraq is not a combat operation per see, though of course it does involve combat and I wouldn't automatically assume that US troops are superior to those of other countries in that regard.

While I dont doubt that an Iranian invasion of Iraq could be repelled, the fact remains that broadening the existing combat zone by..oh.. around 100% I'd guess would be utterley disaterous. Lets face it, our armies are barely managing to cope just keeping the lid on a full-blown blood-bath in Iraq, let alone Iran also.

Well again it comes down to my belief that the Iranians are more rational than most other on this thread believes, bur I doubt that the Iranian would chose to escalate the conflict in such a manner, considering that it would mean the destruction of most of their army. Aid (or perhaps that would be increased aid) to Iraqi insurgent groups and perhaps a few raids across the border, but I doubt they’d try to invade.

 

[Mycroft]

Iran isn't Al-qaida.


Actually it shows a considtency of wording, not of thinking, are Iranians somehow magically incabable of lying?

Is that a joke?

Are you sugesting that Israel would preemptively nuke them?

If someone had been threatening you verbally for years, wouldn't you take action if you learned they were getting the means to carry out those threats?

 

[Kerberos]

Is that a joke?

No, mind you I'm not sugesting that the Iranians aren't antisemitic, simply that threatening to nuke Israel is a lot easier and less costly than doing it.

If someone had been threatening you verbally for years, wouldn't you take action if you learned they were getting the means to carry out those threats?

That depends on the threats, the estimated likehood of them being carried out, the possibilities of "taking action" etc. In this case: Would I launch an air strike? Yes. Would I nuke Tehran? no.

 

[Hutch]

Just a couple of notes here, as many feel that Israel not only will but can take out the Iranian facilities. I have a couple of doubts on that score.

First, they would probably use their F15/F16 fleet to carry out the bombing. (I do not believe the US has sold them the Cruise Missile technology at this time, although I would not put it past the IAI to have reverse-engineered it.)

"As the crow flies" distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran is about 990 miles, we're talking about a 2,000 mile mission. That's probably to far for the F16 and the F15 would need to carry drop tanks or have to refuel in midair--which would mean having a tanker up and about over another country's airspace for an extended period. That's a pretty risky proposition.

For comparison, Tel Aviv-Baghdad is about 560 miles.

Second, take a look at this map of the Middle East.

If Israel takes the shortest route, guess who's airspace it has to cross over? And guess who's patrolling that airspace right now?

So do we (the US) let a purportive Israeli airstrike pass over Iraq (perhaps refuel over it also)? And where does that leave us with the Iraqi Shi'ite population? Could be they might be a bit upset about that--national soverignity and things like that. Which would make our job in Iraq that much more complicated.

So I do not see Israel's taking out of the Iranian nuke program as being a 'done deal', and it would have a major impact, IMHO, on what we are doing in Iraq.

Press on.

 

[Mycroft]

No, mind you I'm not sugesting that the Iranians aren't antisemitic, simply that threatening to nuke Israel is a lot easier and less costly than doing it.

I'm not talking about anti-Semitism, I'm talking about the suggestion that there is a difference between a consistency of wording and a consistency of thought, and that either might be seen as evidence of lying. It just seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to go through to come to the conclusion that their intentions are something other than what they say they are.