Iran and it Nukes

[DanGenck]

Military action in Iran is a frightening proposition and not one that should be taken lightly but the United States must not ignore it's responsibilities as an ally. Regardless of how Iran may have come to its current government the fact remains that their president has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. As such, they must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. I hope that sanctions will be enough to convince the Iranians to forget their nuclear aspirations but I have little faith in the UN, or more specifically Russia and China. It appears that the UN has decided that it is perfectly acceptable for one of its members to threaten the destruction of another member.

WMDs in Iraq were the primary reason for regime change. They may have not been found but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Iran is controlled by radical Muslims bent on the destruction of Israel and the Western civilization. They have stated that in the event of US military action they will conduct terrorist attacks on civilian populations both in the Middle East and in the US, thus admitting they are a terrorist state. The US has made mistakes in Iraq but that is not a valid reason for ignoring what cannot be construed as anything other than a grave threat.

It appears that politics is going to play a part in this crisis and so I ask, is a hatred of President Bush really a good reason to allow a terrorist state nuclear capabilities?

It has little do with a hatred of President Bush and more of a broken trust in the system.

Further, my concerns with Iran are as follows-

#1- Does the United States military have the capability to handle another military conflict (that would give us 3 pending at once). In light of recent reports regarding our military readiness, I believe this is a serious concern.

#2- Are we willing to keep on with our "first strike" mentality? This line of policy could lead to serious trouble for us in the future.

#3- Have we forgotten about North Korea? Why not anymore fuss about North Korea? When and how did Iran move to the top of the list?

#4- There are currently few economic and social incentives for Iran to encourage their abandonment of nuclear technology. The "stern father" type of political strategy, which offers a "my way or the highway" response, is pushing Iran even harder into nuclear technology which is provoking trouble.

#5- From a financial standpoint, the American Government cannot bankroll military action in Iran. There is no money in the current budget for this type of activity.

#6- Given the poor level of intelligence on Iraq, what guarentee do we have as citizens that the United States military has the ability to strike nuclear weapons compounds in Iran with success? Iraq had no such weapons and we thought they did, which does not give Americans a whole lot of confidence that weapons can be found quickly in Iran. If the mark is missed, those weapons will be off the launch pad.

#7- There are numerous other hostile regimes in the world that oppress people with just as much regularity as Iraq and Iran, but there is no talk of "first striking" these nations to offer help. Why the Middle East?

7A) If nuclear technology is the reason, then why attack Iraq? And why not give harder pressure to Pakistan, India and other less than stable nations that possess this technology?

7B) If stopping terrorism is the reason, then it should be considered that Al-Qaeda has no official link in either Iraq or Iran. Any terrorist action by those countries at this point, would be a direct response to American occupation and would not be unprovoked action.

All for now... make me feel good about all 7 of those points and I will gladly vote for (and pay for) military action in Iran.

[Sonny]

Further, my concerns with Iran are as follows-

#1- Does the United States military have the capability to handle another military conflict (that would give us 3 pending at once). In light of recent reports regarding our military readiness, I believe this is a serious concern.

#2- Are we willing to keep on with our "first strike" mentality? This line of policy could lead to serious trouble for us in the future.

#3- Have we forgotten about North Korea? Why not anymore fuss about North Korea? When and how did Iran move to the top of the list?

#4- There are currently few economic and social incentives for Iran to encourage their abandonment of nuclear technology. The "stern father" type of political strategy, which offers a "my way or the highway" response, is pushing Iran even harder into nuclear technology which is provoking trouble.

#5- From a financial standpoint, the American Government cannot bankroll military action in Iran. There is no money in the current budget for this type of activity.

#6- Given the poor level of intelligence on Iraq, what guarentee do we have as citizens that the United States military has the ability to strike nuclear weapons compounds in Iran with success? Iraq had no such weapons and we thought they did, which does not give Americans a whole lot of confidence that weapons can be found quickly in Iran. If the mark is missed, those weapons will be off the launch pad.

#7- There are numerous other hostile regimes in the world that oppress people with just as much regularity as Iraq and Iran, but there is no talk of "first striking" these nations to offer help. Why the Middle East?

7A) If nuclear technology is the reason, then why attack Iraq? And why not give harder pressure to Pakistan, India and other less than stable nations that possess this technology?

7B) If stopping terrorism is the reason, then it should be considered that Al-Qaeda has no official link in either Iraq or Iran. Any terrorist action by those countries at this point, would be a direct response to American occupation and would not be unprovoked action.

All for now... make me feel good about all 7 of those points and I will gladly vote for (and pay for) military action in Iran.

Not sure what North Korea has to do with your concerns about Iran, but do we really have a choice in the 9/11 era to be wrong about their nuclear ambitions & terrorist threats toward Isreal and the West?

[benji]

Sonny I think the bigger question is, at what point does our (Americans in general) fear/ paranoia of developing "threats" both isolated and terroristic still neccessitate or justify an American military response?

[Adam G]

My primary question about this entire situation was said by Dan. How could we possibly carry on a three-front war? Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran? We're already doubling troop tours to the middle east, and enlistment is at a serious low. Financially, we're not exactly in a war-time economy. If military action were to happen against Iran, wouldn't that leave a gaping hole in our own nation's security? We've got 40+ year old reservists in the mid-east already, who will that leave stateside to be there in the event of a catastrophe?

[Brent Burns]

I look at things differently, and the threat may be felt worldwide. If I understood from what I've read, Iran has stated that they would aim their Shabib missiles at Europe, Israel, and our country in some way.

Iran has not shied away from openly declaring their intentions to annilihate Israel. We all know that Iran is a Shiite country, and most of the Iraqis are Shiites mixed with Sunnis. Syria is still in chaoots with Iran.

Israel is surrounded by 22 Arab/Muslim countries, and all of them simply want Israel to be non-existent. Hamas will not back down nor change its charter.

The way I look at this situation is that Iran has its finger all the way to Israel to try to flick it away.

Interestingly, Iran announced that it would send funds to the Palestinian Authority on the same day the suicide bomber blew himself in front of a fast-food restaurant in Tel Aviv. Remember that several weeks ago, some Hamas officials visited Iran. There are a lot of very close connections among those Arab countries whether they be Shiite, Sunni, Wahaabi, etc.

Still, Israel will remain the focus for everyone, and we all know that the Middle East is still a smoldering powder keg.

However, I know Israel has its IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) including its army, navy, and air force groups still one of the best in the world.

I know that it has been prophesized that Persia (Iran) will be one of the several nations attacking Israel.

[StrykerFSU]

This is my second try at responding, my first one got lost in cyberspace when I got a php error.

Dan, I think you bring up some interesting points. I enjoy a good debate and my girlfriend is threatening to dump me if I opine to her anymore so here goes:

#1- Does the United States military have the capability to handle another military conflict (that would give us 3 pending at once). In light of recent reports regarding our military readiness, I believe this is a serious concern.

I agree that our troops on the ground are already stretched quite thin but the reports I have heard state that a campaign against Iran would involve a primarily aerial attack coupled with Special Forces operations. This would not entail an invasion or occupation as our goal would be very limited, the elimination of Iran's capability to enrich uranium.

#2- Are we willing to keep on with our "first strike" mentality? This line of policy could lead to serious trouble for us in the future.

I believe that a first strike mentality is imperative. Are we to wait until our enemies possess the means to seriously harm us or our allies before we take action? The fact is that the US is the only nation with the will and capability to combat the forces of terror around the world and as such, it is our responsibility to remove or limit governments that preach harm to others.

#3- Have we forgotten about North Korea? Why not anymore fuss about North Korea? When and how did Iran move to the top of the list?

Iran moved to the top of the list when their president called for the annihilation of Israel. North Korea is still a concern but Iran is clearly a greater threat to global security at this point.

#4- There are currently few economic and social incentives for Iran to encourage their abandonment of nuclear technology. The "stern father" type of political strategy, which offers a "my way or the highway" response, is pushing Iran even harder into nuclear technology which is provoking trouble.

Why should the world (UN) offer incentives for Iran to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons? There is no question that the only goal of their nuclear program is to develop a weapon with which to terrorize their neighbors. Iran is an underdeveloped country sitting in the middle of the richest deposits of oil in the world, they have no need for nuclear energy. Are we to rely on the UN? China imports 12% of its oil from Iran and recently signed a $100 billion deal to import more. Russia, despite their rhetoric today, showed in their refusal to support the Iraq invasion that government corruption (Oil for food) trumps global security.

#5- From a financial standpoint, the American Government cannot bankroll military action in Iran. There is no money in the current budget for this type of activity.

Are we to tell the residents of Tel Aviv that we were unwilling to save their city from a nuclear attack because we couldn't afford it? What about New York? It may be time for Americans to tighten their belts and realize that we are in a global war and that we are going to have to spend money to win.

#6- Given the poor level of intelligence on Iraq, what guarentee do we have as citizens that the United States military has the ability to strike nuclear weapons compounds in Iran with success? Iraq had no such weapons and we thought they did, which does not give Americans a whole lot of confidence that weapons can be found quickly in Iran. If the mark is missed, those weapons will be off the launch pad.

I disagree with your assessment of our intelligence. Even Saddam's own generals believed he had WMDs as recently as three months before the invasion! There are no weapons in Iran...yet. We do know where their nuclear facilities are as semilaxed as already proven.

#7- There are numerous other hostile regimes in the world that oppress people with just as much regularity as Iraq and Iran, but there is no talk of "first striking" these nations to offer help. Why the Middle East?

Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, showed the willingness to use them, and was beginning a nuclear effort. Iran has called for the annihilation of a close ally. The US also relies on Middle Eastern oil so we have an economic interest in the region. The same cannot be said for regions like Darfur.

7A) If nuclear technology is the reason, then why attack Iraq? And why not give harder pressure to Pakistan, India and other less than stable nations that possess this technology?

Pakistan and India are not threatening one of our most important allies. Their missiles are pointing at each other and the region is not as important strategically as the Middle East.

7B) If stopping terrorism is the reason, then it should be considered that Al-Qaeda has no official link in either Iraq or Iran. Any terrorist action by those countries at this point, would be a direct response to American occupation and would not be unprovoked action.

It is US policy to oppose nations that harbor terrorists and Iraq certainly did that under Saddam. Iran has strong connections with Hamas and Hezbollah. They have also said that any attack by the US would be answered with terrorist attacks against us and our allies. That makes them a terrorist state. Are we to allow a terrorist state to build nuclear weapons? I find the thought of an Iranian nuclear warhead on top of an ICBM to be a frightening thought.

[laxfan25]

Iran moved to the top of the list when their president called for the annihilation of Israel. North Korea is still a concern but Iran is clearly a greater threat to global security at this point.

One big difference is that most experts feel that Iran is at least five to ten years away from having nuclear weapons capability, while North Korea already has them now. That should be a factor in our policy decisions.
Given that the majority of the population in Iran is friendly to the west and the US, does it make more sense to work for regime change over the coming years rather than tick off a whole 'nother country?

To me the bigger worry is Pakistan. Pavez Musharref may be friendly to the US, but his position in Pakistan is tenuous at best, and if he gets toppled/assassinated (a very real possibility) then you have existing weapons in the hands of a likely fundamentalist government, one that will not be as friendly to the US.

One statement in your initial response caught me short. You stated that the reason we invaded Iraq was because of WMD's, but since we haven't found any, that is irrelevant now. I agree that we are where we are right now, but many, many people feel that the WMD case was a trumped-up canard to justify a long-planned invasion to slap Saddam upside the head. Those planners also thought we'd be in and out in 90 days. Doh!

Meanwhile, I will quietly work for regime change a little closer to home...

[StrykerFSU]

I don't think that an attack on Iran is imminent. As you say, Iran is several years away from reaching their goal so there is time for diplomatic efforts as well as hopefully regime change led by the more moderate Iranians.

many, many people feel that the WMD case was a trumped-up canard to justify a long-planned invasion to slap Saddam upside the head.

This often seems to be the main point of contention in discussing the war in Iraq. The Bush Administration may have been predisposed (I'm not conceding they were) to invade Iraq but they were not the only ones to believe there were WMDs at Saddam's disposal. Other foreign intelligence services agreed and as has been reported in The New York Times, the Iraqi military hierarchy was surprised to learn in the months leading up to the war that Saddam had eliminated these weapons.

Your point about Pakistan is an interesting one. It is my feeling that if there were an undesirable change in leadership there, then India would be the most likely target. India and the US do not have a history of cooperation, certainly not on the level of our relationship with Israel so we would be less likely to be drawn into a conflict. Also, we don't really have as great a stake in the stability of the Indian subcontinent. Then again, who would answer the phone when I call for help with my computer?

[Brent Burns]

I find the thought of an Iranian nuclear warhead on top of an ICBM to be a frightening thought.

I concur with your statement as I know that the Israeli officials and military folks have repeatedly stated that Iran's ambitious plan to develop nuclear technology would be the "point of no return."

You would notice that the Iranian President is claiming credit for Iran's success, yet he had not acknowledged those who have worked behind the scenes over the years including former Iranian presidents.

[laxfan25]

I don't think that an attack on Iran is imminent.

That is why I would recommend reading the latest Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker. Click on my previous link and you can read it or download it for free. I didn't think this was serious myself....oh my!
As I said earlier, I think this is the reason the generals have been getting together to try to get Rumsfeld out - they don't want to do this.
While you're at it, I would also highly recommend reading the George Packer article - I really think you would find it fascinating!

[semilaxed]

I believe we have 2 options. Get them soon before they build bunkers to protect there program or take out there scientist. If I were the CIA I would start taking down the scientists. You can't build anything with out people to build it. Make them scared to go to work. Im sure they'll be an accident soon....

and then the UN will have to jump in if they are acting unsafe.

[DanGenck]

I like all the chatter... chatter is good.

I wondered this point just now-

Since when did America begin to openly admit AND openly support wars for economic incentives? Obviously it is a reality and has been for quite some time, but it seems socially acceptable now.

Considering what war does to people, is this an ethically acceptable practice?

[OAKS]

I find the thought of an Iranian nuclear warhead on top of an ICBM to be a frightening thought.

I concur with your statement as I know that the Israeli officials and military folks have repeatedly stated that Iran's ambitious plan to develop nuclear technology would be the "point of no return."

I find the though of a Russian or other unaccounted for nuclear warhead in the hands of any terrorist floating in a rowboat in New York Harbor, Baltimore Harbor, Miami Harbor, San Francisco Harbor, New Orleans Harbor, etc. etc. much more frightening and realistic of a though.

[benji]

I find the though of a Russian or other unaccounted for nuclear warhead in the hands of any terrorist floating in a rowboat in New York Harbor, Baltimore Harbor, Miami Harbor, San Francisco Harbor, New Orleans Harbor, etc. etc. much more frightening and realistic of a though.

... and so did Tom Clancy

[Brent Burns]

With Iraqi PM willing to step down and allow the Shiite lawmakers decide on the next PM, this may be a minor thing in our eyes. However, I am even wondering if Iran would subtly relay messages to some of those Iraqi Shiite lawmakers to dictate who the next PM should be.

I also read that Russia is becoming annoyed with US pressure on UN, Iran, etc., so I would not be surprised that they would continue to veto any decisions at the UN level. They are still going ahead with weapons sale to Iran and still working on building reactors for Iran.