babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Thoughts on pending attack on Iran.

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Thoughts on pending attack on Iran.
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 04 November 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Currently, rumors of war abound, fueled by the presence of three US navy strike groups in the regions, as well as (unsubstaniated) reports of irregular call-ups and activations for long-term deployments.

The question has captured my interest to a great degree, and I've spent a few weeks reading relevant commentary and background.

I now believe that an American attack on Iran is *inevitable before Bush's term is up*.

Here is my attempt to organize and summarize my thoughts. Perhaps some of you can help by adding your own.


Underlying assumptions:
------------------------

1) Bush is a man who sees himself as a figure of historical greatness, with a destiny to do something of historical significance while in office. Critics be damned, he believes history will absolve and vindicate him.

2) We are at the Apex of Neocon influence, a height from which it may soon fall. Awareness of neocon influence is growing, and people are increasingly seeing the driving role they have played in America's "war on terror". Although this cabal is not dependant on any particular president, they enjoy great influence and status under Bush - A situation that could change with a new President. Even if the next president is neocon-friendly, they may not wish to spend the political capital required to maintain/permit the current level of neocon influence/presence in their administration.

3) Israel will not tolerate a threat to it's nuclear hegemony in the Middle East, and would like to see the issue forced, while they still have the upper hand. Israeli interests in the white house will drive the US to intervene on their behalf.


But but but what about....
---------------------------

How can America attack Iran when it's army is tied up in Iraq?

Simple: The army isn't needed. This won't be a war of occupation, or even an invasion. It will be purely a war of destruction, to cripple the technological ability of Iran. For that, only the Air force and the Navy is required. Ostensibly, the war will be to halt Iran's nuclear program, but in practice, Military installations and infrastructure will also be targeted. At most, there will be a few special ops teams sent in for sabotage/assassination

How can this possibly benefit the US?

It doesn't benefit the US at all. To assume that the "War on terror" needs to benefit the US is misleading. The "War on terror" has served to neutralize regional threats to Israel, as it will continue to do. Special interests in the American government will put Israel before America, and leave America paying the bill and holding the bag.

This is a historically unique situation in which a smaller nation (Israel) has enlisted a larger nation (The US) in a proxy war against its enemies.

Currently there are many within the current administration urging for war on Iran - And few voices against it. The voices of the American people are not part of this equation, and short of national or military revolt, there is nothing they can do to influence these decisions.


My take on much discussed elements of Iranian defence.
---------------------------------------------------------

1) Sunburns and Squalls: There's a lot of hysterical commentary on the web talking about how these weapons will sink the surprised and defenceless carrier strike groups. As good an idea as this sounds, it's unrealistic. This hysteria is predicated upon the tunnel-vision analysis that Americans have no defence against these threats. Developments in countermeasures and defences have largely closed this gap. Although these countermeasures may not have been live tested against these threats, simulations and evaluations should be sufficient to determine their approximate efficacy - And improve upon it. In addition, it is likely that the Americans will put a lot of effort into identifying launch sites, and taking them out up front.

Squalls may be used for by the Iranians for littoral defence, but it's not likely that the Americans are going to let Iranian subs/ships close enough to launch the 7KM-range squalls.


2) Shahab-3's. These missiles can't reach the US, but they can reach Israel. It's estimated that Iran slightly over 100 of these, each with a payload of roughly 1000KG HE. As this isn't likely to be a protracted war, Iran has little to gain by taking out American bases in allied gulf states, but would instead launch all of it's estimated 100+ Shahab-3's at Israel. It's an oft-repeated axiom of modern warfare that missiles can't be shot down with missiles. While this may not be entirely true, Israel's dubious ABM capability would likely be overwhelmed.

Ultimately, Iran will be completely outmatched, although it will make a good show of itself. America will not hesitate to play the nuclear trump card, as laid out in CONPLAN 8022.


In the context of the war on terror
------------------------------------

Take a moment to break out a map and look at the location of Iran. Looks at who its neighbors are. Seeing a pattern? It is increasingly apparrent that the attack on Iran isn't necessarily an extension of the war on terror, but it's culmulation. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have laid the groundwork for an attack, by neutralizing possible support for Iran, gaining control of local airspace, and allowing America to establish forward bases close to the objective.


Ecological impact.
-------------------

The impact on the persian gulf would be terrible. In such a tiny, enclosed sea (~800km by 140km), the mining or sinking of even a couple of tankers would be an environmental catastrophe.

What will this mean to Americans?
-----------------------------------

Although there's a lot of discussion about a spike in "terrorism" in the US, I would be surprised if Iran didn't direct all of it's retaliation at Israel, a far more accessible target. Nonetheless, an increased war footing would result in further loss of freedoms, and redirection of more public funds to the Military/Industrial/Zionist complex. Petrol prices would increase. America would lose the last of its credibility on the world stage.

Although there would be a short-term increase in call-ups, A military draft wouldn't be an issue, as there'd be no increased long-term requirement for troops - If anything, there could be many returning from Iraq, with the need to occupy it gone, and pretexts for invasion made irrelevant.


What will it mean to Iranians
------------------------------

Significant destruction, particulary if the Americans use nukes. The "collateral damage" will be massive. Humanitarian crisis that will dwarf that caused by Israel in Lebanon/Palestine. It will remove Iran as a world power. Regional efforts to assist with rebuilding will be halfhearted.


What it will mean to Israel
----------------------------

Iran is the last remaining obstacle to Israeli hegemony in the ME, and it knows it. On the converse, Iran is the last Muslim state with the ability to seriously damage Israel, and it likewise knows it.

It is possible that Iran will launch all of it's remaining MRBMs at Israel, overwheming ABM defences, and causing massive damage. Really, one need only do significant damage to 15 major municipal/industrial centers in Israel to set it back as a world power. Ironically, although this attack will take place in the name of Israeli interests, it could very well be Israel that pays the highest price among the agressors.


What it will mean to Canadians.
---------------------------------

Increased gas prices, but a corresponding economic boost, particularly in the oil-rich regions.

Harper has already contributed A Canadian warship to the gulf buildup. When the attack/counterattack takes place, this token participation will be used as an excuse for more contribution and committment.

Canada has already played an enabling role by backfilling and relieving American forces in Afghanistan, thus freeing up their resources for other efforts.

War fever will consolidate the right-wing conservative party's hold on the public. Politicians will climb over each other to "stand with Israel".


The spark to light the gas
---------------------------

Once the battle plans have been drawn up, the missles armed, the troops fed, and the gas tanks filled, America will still need a justification to attack, a casus belli. Some sort of quasi-plausible justification to look good for the headlines.

The American attack on Iran commence over some sort of Nuclear-Program halt deadline. It may be based on an Iranian retaliation to an (underreported) American provocation. Perhaps a false-flag attack on American ships.

The attack will happen, and when it does, the event that will be used to justify it shouldn't be misconstrued as legitimately causal.

The gulf of Tonkin incident stands as an excellent example of American provocation, overreaction, and deception in the name of justifying premeditated war.


Margin of error
----------------

It's difficult to imagine that America will not attack Iran before Bush's term is up, although it's possible that the following events could divert the current collision course:

- Major catastrophe in Israel rendering defence of it a non-issue. It would have to be non-military in nature, as a military catastrophe would be used as pretext to attack Iran. Unlikely.

- Major catastrophe in Iran rendering it's technological potential and military power irrelevant. Unlikely.

- Military revolution in the US - Refusal of the military leadership to participate in the war. Unlikely.

- Catastrophe in the US. It would need to span regions and cripple the nation. Anything less would not derail the path to war. We've seen the government's indifference to regional disaster via Katrina.


I'm sure these musings must be a lot to swallow. Time will tell.

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 04 November 2006 01:52 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why do you think the Sunburn is unequal to the task? The carriers are vulnerable, should the Iranians retaliate. For myself, I think it possible that an unprovoked attack will be as precious to Iran as 9/11 was to USrael..and they will not respond.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 04 November 2006 03:01 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It doesn't benefit the US at all. To assume that the "War on terror" needs to benefit the US is misleading. The "War on terror" has served to neutralize regional threats to Israel, as it will continue to do.

The PNAC is a "globalitarian" enterprise. The fact is that "regional" threats are considered global threats to American hegemony. The U.S. now has billions in material, troops, investment, etc. tied up in an imperial project to control Mideast and Central Asian resources as well as reshape the political/ideological climate to be well-disposed to orders issued from the White House and American-based corporate interests. Iran poses a significant threat to both these projects through continued defiance of U.S. edicts, and by providing ideological and material support to groups around the Middle East. This is a continuation of a conflict that began as far back as the U.S. intervening to install the Shah.

quote:
Special interests in the American government will put Israel before America, and leave America paying the bill and holding the bag.

This is perilously close to the ol' "Zionist Occupational Government" canard fronted by antisemitic groups.

quote:
This is a historically unique situation in which a smaller nation (Israel) has enlisted a larger nation (The US) in a proxy war against its enemies.

Only if we believe the erroneous assumption that the U.S. really have no interests in the Middle East worth going to war with Iran over. If you are the most powerful nation on the planet, then you want to decide who is going to have nukes and oil and who isn't. That's just basic business: control resources. Heck, it's just basic behaviour going back to the first bacterial colonies that arose on the planet a few billion years ago.

On the history; let's take British imperial history as an example. They have gone to war to preserve the independence of the Netherlands, to keep the French and Germans from controlling the Benelux countries on several occasions, and went to war in 1939 by virtue of a treaty with Poland. There are a great many examples of states going to war on behalf of smaller states because it serves mutual interests. Find me an empire, and I'll give you a list of "interventions". Attempts to make the U.S/Israeli relationship seem historically unique are suspicious to me.

It's simple, Israel and the U.S. (or at least three decades of U.S. administrations) have had significant confluences of interest - not unlike many other empire/client state relationships, why is that so hard to comprehend?

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 04 November 2006 03:38 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
great summary.

i think one tendency the US has is to make the mistake of thinking it's an 800 pound gorilla, out to pick a fight.

an 800 pound gorilla that doesn't know it's a 350 pound gorilla.

i think the US will get in over its head, in terms of non-nuclear warfare.

part of that opinion comes from spending about 10 years working for American defense contractors, and witnessing the "yes-man" culture.

in the public domain, this can be investigated by exploring Nira Schwartz and TWA Flight 800, both related to missile defense.

getting back to Iran, should the US find itself over-stretched (which i think it is), then will come the big decision, on whether to use the nukes. besides depleted uranium, i mean.

though i do hear that Israel may have used some nuclear-associated weapons in Lebanon. not sure about that.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 04 November 2006 04:46 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Pls delete this post - It was a double post.

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 04 November 2006 04:49 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
DIME?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Inert_Metal_Explosive

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B79DF070-B20C-47A7-A204-08297E5FC1B2.htm

[ 04 November 2006: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 04 November 2006 05:01 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
who knows ?

you'd think the official policy is to kill as many people as possible.

Depleted Uranium - "the perfect weapon for killing lots of people". the US is using lots of it.

the foreign policy of the US and Israel and England and their allied and semi allied countries (for example, Germany just built some new subs for Israel) is 2 pronged -
* the body count we witness
* the "make nice" isms of people like Condoleeza Rice.

it's a Devil's farce.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 05 November 2006 05:10 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder how the US can strike at Iran without first moving their Iraq assets into force protection mode, and thus tip their hand. Bush's recent remark that he would "understand" should Israel strike Iran was not credible..even that dullard must understand what would ensue in Iraq.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 05 November 2006 06:11 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bush declares war on Iran, declares Marshal Law (then he cannot be removed), a draft, the Identity Project and voila! There you have it. Bush wins. The world loses.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 05 November 2006 07:56 AM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

I now believe that an American attack on Iran is *inevitable before Bush's term is up*.



I doubt that. It is possible, but not inevitable.

For one reason: In all likelihood, Iran already has nuclear weapons. This is one serious assumption missing from your analysis.

And the relatinship between Iran and Israel is not as hostile as it looks on the surface.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 05 November 2006 09:25 AM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:

For one reason: In all likelihood, Iran already has nuclear weapons. This is one serious assumption missing from your analysis.

It's missing because I don't believe it.

What leads you to believe that that Iran has nukes, and what role do you think they would play?


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 05 November 2006 10:02 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My thinking runs parallel to yours, Legless Marine. On doing some more reading on sunburn missiles et al, I agree that US naval protection may be much more robust than I had assumed. It's also reasonable to assume that the US would inflict as much damage on Iran's civil infrastructure as it could. The ecological consequences would be horrific. Aside from a massive maritime oil and chemical pollution, any bombing attack (nuclear or otherwise) on Iranian research facilities may well disperse highly long-lived radioactive isotopes around the countryside, killing millions eventually. I remember a statement that a nuclear bomb attack on a civilian nuclear power plant would permanently contamimate an area the size of West Germany.

Further likely sequelae - Israel is critically weakened, and the US becomes universally reviled as a pariah nation, weakening the US project in the mid-east and elswhere. The economic shock of massive petroleum shortages pulls the final struts out from under the US economy, triggering social unrest and martial law -or more accurately, permanent fascist dictatorship in America.

In Canada, the Harper government falls in disgrace as Canadians are outraged at him putting us in an illegal, evil war. NATO forces in Afghanistan are encircled and beseiged everywhere. The Karzai government falls. Who knows? One could easily speculate all day on the possible consequences of such a monumental act of folly as attacking Iran.


The largest question, always: what do China and Russia do? They already actively support Iran militarily with the most modern weapons apparently. Does any international agreement such as the Shanghai Co-operative (or whatever that recent mutual defence agreement between China, Russia, and their neighbours is called) oblige Russia or China to come to Iran's defence?


The only realistic hope I see of forestalling this insanity is in the power of Democratically-led US Congress might exercise. I realize they cannot veto the President without, what, a two-thirds majority? But democrats and the increasing number of realist republicans may be able to blow the whistle on this mad plan in time. I hope. And no, you're quite right of course - Iran does not itself have nuclear weapons.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 05 November 2006 11:03 AM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

It's missing because I don't believe it.

What leads you to believe that that Iran has nukes, and what role do you think they would play?


Not developed locally yet, but purchased from an ex-Soviet source after the collapse of the soviet union.

That would explain why there has been no Osirak style attack on Iran's installations. I always suspected the whole row is not about Iran "having" nuclear weapons, but about Iran "becoming" a mass producer of such weapons.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 November 2006 12:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ghlobe:
That would explain why there has been no Osirak style attack on Iran's installations. I always suspected the whole row is not about Iran "having" nuclear weapons, but about Iran "becoming" a mass producer of such weapons.

That's a strange assumption coming from a former Iranian national. Do you have any proof that Iran is producing nuclear weapons ?.

And what about former CIA pawn Gerald Bull ?. If he was aiding the Iraqi's to re-equip Soviet in origin "scuds" for long range capabilities in hitting Iranian cities in the 1980's, then who's to say he wasn't warfiteering on both sides of the Iraq-Iran war ?. We do know that the Yanqui shadow government was selling missiles to Iran in order to fund an illegal war on 5 million peasants in Nicaragua then. Treacherous bastards.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 05 November 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the Sunburn, in concert with the 300 Exocets Iran can deploy, more than a match for the US Navy..should the Navy approach close enough. My best guess is that the Navy will have to tempt fate in order to put their targets in unrefuelled range of their Hornets.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Legless-Marine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13423

posted 05 November 2006 01:00 PM      Profile for Legless-Marine        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

This is perilously close to the ol' "Zionist Occupational Government" canard fronted by antisemitic groups.

That's a stupid thing to say.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 05 November 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

That's a stupid thing to say.


Glad you think so. You gots youself an argument to back that up? Or are you gonna suffice with conjecture about American officials being secretly more loyal to Israel than their own state?

Let's have a look at the Required Elements, shall we?

1. Baseless conjecture that the loyalties of top U.S. government officials are with Israel and not the United States.

Check.

2. Unsupportable notion that U.S. policy in the Middle East has been "uniquely" hijacked by "special interests" and is dictated by Israel completely contrary to American interests. Israel gets what it wants and hapless Americans are left "holding the bag".

Check.

The United States government currently envisions itself as a globalitarian power with the right to police the military, economic and political affairs of anyone it sees fit. It projects power into "localised" conflicts for several different reasons. One of which is basic economics - i.e. the fight to control important resources which hold both material and political power. The second is being global arbiter.

[ 05 November 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 November 2006 02:22 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
THE SPECTRE of a nuclear race in the Middle East was raised yesterday when six Arab states announced that they were embarking on programmes to master atomic technology.

Arab states rush to go nuclear

Note the reason given for these states to want nuclear programmes is the Iranian program rather than the lesson of failing to have a deterrent learned from Iraq.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ghlobe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12731

posted 05 November 2006 03:05 PM      Profile for ghlobe        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

That's a strange assumption coming from a former Iranian national. Do you have any proof that Iran is producing nuclear weapons ?.

You misunderstood me. I did not mean that Iran is producing nuclear weapons now. What I meant was that the concern in the west seems to be more about Iran having the technology to build weapons "locally".


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 November 2006 04:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's western hypocrisy then, because Washington approved of Iran's nuclear power ambitions in the mid 1970's. Nuclear power generation was promoted by the west as the power source of the future and a natural fit for Iran's future energy needs. UN specialists in civil engineering understand that adequate electrical power generation is vital for lower mortality rates and developed world status in general.

[ 05 November 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 13 November 2006 07:51 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A Chinese attack sub surfaced on Oct. 26 within five miles of the carrier Kitty Hawk. It's presence was a shock to the carrier group; it was sighted by a reconnaisance aircraft.

If a deisel sub armed with Sunburns can pop in unannounced on a carrier, it can scupper said carrier.


From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 13 November 2006 08:02 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Diesel electric subs are more likely to get close to carriers than nuclear ones. On electric power they are quieter, which is the critical factor.

On the other hand, if things heat up, and especially after that incident, I would expect a lot more active sonar being used around the carrier fleet. The trick being that using active sonar makes you a loud target.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 13 November 2006 08:40 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
here is an informative and authoritative piece from the Atlantic on the Iran question.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
BitWhys
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13465

posted 17 November 2006 10:48 AM      Profile for BitWhys     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
some may consider this to be relevant...

Iran to replace dollar with other foreign currencies in its trade

FYI, as they say.


From: the Peg | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 17 November 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
it can scupper said carrier

Scupper? What, you a pirate now?

The 6 new nations jumping into the nuclear energy is disturbing, but completely expected by now... The diplomatic policy the Bush admin took really enforced 2 positions in which you're taken seriously... You're either actively fighting terrorism, or you have a nuke. Otherwise, a nation will be pushed around and ignored.

I'd almost classify this move to nuclear energy by 6 nations as a cry for attention (and maybe a cry to be taken more seriously ^^)


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 17 November 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Brett:
quote:
here is an informative and authoritative piece from the Atlantic on the Iran question.

An article written back in May 2006 that starts with this assumption:

quote:
Now that Iran unquestionably intends to build a nuclear bomb, the international community has few options to stop it—and the worst option would be a military strike

... is NOT INFORMATIVE.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
moderatelib
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13528

posted 18 November 2006 06:51 AM      Profile for moderatelib        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi folks,

First time poster here, looks like some vibrant debate going on.

Regarding Iran's nuclear program:

Referring to this article:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/11/14/plutonium_found_in_iran_waste_facility/

quote:

New traces of plutonium and enriched uranium -- potential material for atomic warheads -- have been found in a nuclear waste facility in Iran, a revelation that came Tuesday as the Iranian president boasted his country's nuclear fuel program will soon be completed.

This despite the Iranian governement's claim that it is only working with low-enriched uranium...

And it isn't just the U.S. and Israel that are concerned that Iran is attempting to develop nukes:

quote:
The IAEA board in February referred Iran to the Security Council, suggesting it had breached the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and might be trying to make nuclear weapons.

Here's the thing: If Iran has nothing to hide, why doesn't it allow IAEA (a UN agency) to inspect it's facilities?

Given President Ahmedinejad's holocaust denial and rhetoric on wiping Israel off the map, I think concern is warranted.


From: toronto | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 18 November 2006 07:39 AM      Profile for nister     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The same people who hang on every word Ahmadenijad utters dismissed every word Khatami said when he held the post. Then the office was "ceremonial"; the real power emanated from the mullahs.
From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 18 November 2006 08:55 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What makes the Atlantic article I linked to relevant and informative is not the date of its publication - the original article appeared in 2004 - but the quality of analysis underlying it.

"So under the guidance of Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who had conducted many real-world war games for the Pentagon, including those that shaped U.S. strategy for the first Gulf War, we assembled a panel of experts to ask “What then?” about the ways in which the United States might threaten, pressure, or entice the Iranians not to build a bomb. Some had been for and some against the invasion of Iraq; all had served in the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, or other parts of the nation’s security apparatus, and many had dealt directly with Iran."


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 19 November 2006 08:00 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

Iran to replace dollar with other foreign currencies in its trade

Other than to reduce foreign exchange costs for the Iranians (as they do no business (officially) with the US) this has no economic impact. It makes no difference what currency you use for trade, as long as it's convertible. But of course it has symbolic impact.

And there is a perfectly good reason why the US won't attack Iran: it is holding the US hostage in Iraq. Iran's Shia allies effectively control the Iraqi army and police, which could inflict severe casualties if they turned on US forces. Kinda dumb to make Iran's allies your nominal allies, isn't it?

Not to mention that the US needs Iran's help to get anything close to a resolution in Iraq.

quote:
the power of Democratically-led US Congress might exercise. I realize they cannot veto the President without, what, a two-thirds majority?

Um, just what are you trying to say? It's the president who has the right to veto bills passed by Congress, which can then override the president if it has a two-thirds majority.

Congress can pass laws restricting presidential authority, but it cannot "veto" presidential actions. And of course it can remove a president with 1/2 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate.

Oh by the way, the President cannot declare war, that power belongs to Congress. But that hasn't happened since 1941. Also only Congress can impose a draft, and there's no way that's going to happen, even if the GOP hadn't lost the last election.

[ 19 November 2006: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 19 November 2006 10:52 AM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps Legless-Marine is on to something:
Rangel says he will introduce bill to reinstate military draft
“If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.”
This fellow is a Democrat and soon to be the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

http://www.silive.com/newsflash/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-19/1163958554155800.xml&storylist=simetro

The argument:

Bomb Iran
Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show of force is the only answer.
By Joshua Muravchik, JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
November 19, 2006

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story?coll=la-opinion-center

I don’t see the U.S. government slinking away from that region of the world unless some other concern presents itself to captivate the attention of the U.S. public.


From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca