Political Crossfire Forums

[Blackrain]

(sorry, another long post)


SO, I've been asking around, and it seems that even the anti-war crowd thinks Iran's making nukes.

“….let me say it plainly, the nuclear threat from Iran is real, and a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable.” Remember that line? It was Sen Kerry’s campaign sigline whenever Iran was brought up.

I tried to bring focus to this in the campaign days but was shouted down as singing the same ole song. Well y’all...the music's a playin, and it ain't comin from me this time. Look for it to get a lot louder.

Let's presume that oil-rich Iran isn't making benign nuclear stuff in those underground facilities that they've buried under alternating layers of hardened concrete and surrounded by incredible air and even ground defense perimeters. Let's just reach out and presume that it's not benign.

That means there are three instantly and equally sure things that follow
1) IRAN IS MAKING NUKES
2) IRAN ISN'T GONNA STOP MAKING THEM NO MATTER WHAT (too expensive of an investment, nothing to fear, and nothing to gain by stopping)
3) FORCE WILL BE NECESSARY TO END THE NUCLEAR THREAT OF IRAN

Now, it's the last one that causes puzzlement. Let's look at the knowns to see if it helps:
the nuclear facilities are very large, very well hidden, and extremely well protected from bombs.
KNOWN: airstrikes alone will NOT remove the Iranian nuclear threat

The only way to be certain that the facilities are destroyed is to seize control of them.
KNOWN: ground troops and/or airborne troops will be necessary to seize control of the Iranian nuclear facilities

So, who can pull off an op like that?
KNOWN: the US doesn't have many forces it can send to the region-maybe 2 airborne divisions for seizure, but none for occupation or support

So who can send troops to support the US airborne forces?
KNOWN: The French Foreign Legion, and perhaps a brigade each from the UK, Spain, and Italy

Why would those nations that worked so hard building up anti-war movements against the US pre-emptive anti-WMD invasion of Iraq do exactly that into Iran?
KNOWN: Paris, London, Madrid, and Rome are all within nuclear-tipped missile range of Iran

Would that be enough to make them willing to turn their backs on their anti-American/anti-war movements, risk being tossed from office, and risk going to war?
UNKNOWN

How could those same European nations pull that off and thus pull off an attack on Iran?
UNKNOWN

When will it all happen?
KNOWN: Israel says nuclear facilities will be making bombs by August, and it takes at LEAST 6 months to prepare an invasion force. Others say the facilities need another year-even as many as three, but what really matters is:
How long before the Israelis see the facilities as being a threat worth war?
How long before Europe realizes that it’s their nations that will be at risk of being leveled by Iranian nuclear missiles in 10-20minutes?

I see some serious disruptions in the next few months-not here, but in Europe.

Some have this idea that the US is some sort of European imperialist nation. We're not. We don't even want to stay in Iraq (though a European nation would likely make it a colony ).

Why would Pres Bush beat the drums of war with Iran if we have no war power to use there?

Try to see it this way...the US doesn't have imperialist desires on Iran, but we do have defensive concerns about Iranian nukes. That said, we could just sit back and let Israel nuke em and cut off Europe's oil source-bringing more business to Iraq.

OR you could look at it like this...the US is concerned about Iranian nukes (are those two words even safe to SAY together?!), but we don't have to do anything because they'll be a bigger threat to Europe than us, so Europe will have to act.

Nah, taking over countries, making them colonies, and then exploiting them for natural resources is the European way. Ours is to take them over, rebuild them into markets, then leave so we can buy and sell from them fairly (see also Europe and Asia for American examples, and Africa for European examples)

Pres Bush makes out if he does NOTHING, let's Iran build bombs, and leaves it to Europe to beat the war drums. Doesn't this just sound like the perfect Karl Rove/SecState Condi Rice plan? Do nothing, and let Europe fall into the trap that snaps shut and the only way out is to vindicate and even help in Iraq? Oh, that's got conspiracy all over it! C'mon guys! Pres Bush won't have to make a single WMD claim about Iran until Pres Chirac's addressed the UN this fall-maybe we'll even get it on 91205!

You KNOW they're just dyin’ for that situation where they can sit at the UNSC table, look Chirac and Shroeder in the eyes and say,

"Go screw yourself boys. I'm gonna veto your resolution against Iran unless you send 100k troops to Iraq. Remember Dien Bien Phu and how y’all left us that little thing called Vietnam...I wanna leave Iraq. You're under the gun from Iran, and I want you to replace us in Iraq before I let you have the legitimacy you bitched about giving us in 03. Allies huh? I'll give you allies. How about I authorize your resolution as long as it doesn't authorize the use of force-just serious consequences Oh yeah, that's it, and if you try to push through another resolution, or if I see that your SOF guys are already engaged, I'll ask Congress to drop its sanctions on Iran, we'll give them their own $80bn supplemental, and we'll let them join the nuclear club as long as they sign a non-aggression agreement with us. Yeah, that's it "

....and all the President has to do is sit by and watch as Paris, Berlin, Madrid, London, and all of Europe’s capitals come under direct, unstoppable nuclear missile threat from Iran. They'll have to either kiss-up or face destruction.

It’s a HUGE trick, but it's a box the Bush Admin can put them into without doing a single thing, and if the Bush Admin chooses to do just that, then they get both revenge for Iraq war opposition, vindication, and they get Iran dealt with for minimal US effort. You can BET that's the course those politicos will take.

Besides, The only contributions the US can really make to an attack on Iran is primarily air support, possibly both the 82nd and 101st airborne depending on their rotation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly a few thousand Marines. And I don’t think the Iranian facilities can be destroyed by airstrikes alone. There’s gonna have to be ground work, and I think the Europeans will have to do most of the it this time.

Now, technically speaking, it takes at LEAST 6 months to deploy an invasion force to the region (see also Op Desert Shield, Clinton-era buildups, and buildup to war in 03). There have been no such reported movements or buildups. June looks a little early. The Israeli Defense Minister says the facilities will be making bombs en masse by August. That sounds right-plus or minus a few months-from what I've seen and read.

if I'm right about Iran, it won't be the Bush Admin beating the drums of war this time. It'll be the French, Germans, Spanish, Italians, etc. Pres Bush will just sit back, agree, and talk about how he's gonna support America's allies who are in the missile range circles (implying he's got more conviction than they did for Iraq). It's no joke. Iran's got missiles specifically designed to carry Russian nuclear warheads, and the ones they're making are supposedly of that same design. The missiles I refer to have Paris, London, Madrid, etc all in nuclear strike range. If the Iranians admit to it, or if it's proven, then the Brits will never stand for it. Even the French will have to act.

I for one canNOT WAIT(!) to see Chirac tell the French people that Iran's not a threat when the Mullahs announce they've got the bomb, and missiles that can reach Paris. Oh, man! That one's gonna be rich!

I just don't see how they can sell that to their populations. Maybe they'll just do it regardless of poor popularity of the decision like Pres Bush did. I dunno. That's the conundrum we face. Gonna be real REAL interesting-especially because if I'm right, then the Bush Administration has put itself in a position where it gets everything it can possibly want, and it gets it by doing nothing rather than something (the only 2 real choices there are in politics).

The biggest problem with dealing re Iran is NOT having the carrot/stick (wartalk/UN diplomatic efforts) hitting hard and fast enough. If Europe waits until Iran announces or shows it has bombs, then it's too late to act. These are nukes after all.

Deterrence and Mutually Assured Destruction you say? Hehehehe-won't work with if one side is a state-sponsor of terror. That side will be able to impose its political will via terror completely unchecked since there can be no retaliatory threats against them as long as they've got the bomb. Iran could demand private Madrassas all over France be govt supported, and if they refuse, Iran can start sending suicide bombers all over France. What'll the French do? They can't retaliate because of the threat of nuclear war. It's not just France though-that's just an example. It could be any-ALL European nations.

So, what will Europe do when faced with unchecked Iranian state-sponsorship of terror, a state-sponsor of terror with WMD, a detente of mutually assured destruction, and the threat of having any European nation leveled in 10minutes by an Iran armed with 10-20 nuclear warheads a year on limitless numbers of ICBM's?

Who cares? Not America's problem. Let' Europe handle it. If their negotiations fail, it's their fault 'cause it's THEIR butts in missile range-not ours.

This one should make for some good discussion ;)

*****

My guesstimate timeline would be:

-start pulling out of Iraq in 06 (when the UN mandate ends)
-pressure bigtime on Iran starting in Aug/Sept 05
-Europe leads the way with rhetoric (gonna take serious effort here)
-US plays at being just "supportive" allies
-Europe sends support troops to Iraq in late 05 for first elections in January 06. After elections, Iran is put on notice (troops really staging for Iranian invasion)
-Europe and US hail elections in Iraq as success and use that to brag about success in other nations-successes that somehow take them off the prepare-to-be-invaded list and ensure that they'll back or ignore action against Iran.
-European troops, American aircraft hit Iran in late spring early summer 06 (gives 4-6 months for fighting before winter ends offensive ops).

[Canada_Rocks]

Okay my friend, say Iran has bombs, what is America seriously going to do about it?

[res ipsa]

Clearly, not protect Canada, eh?

[Canada_Rocks]

Um canda is not an enimy of iran eh and beside, our "balanced" budget has set aside money to improve our millitary, and how can you protect against a nuclear war? with your junk missile defence. larf

[res ipsa]

Dude, your insult was already in the other forum about yields snuffing Americans but not enough to snuff Canadiens. You are really that confident that the Iranian missiles might not go off course? Jeez, if you dont want the defense fine, but hoping that folks here get incinerated is hardly the touchy-feely sensitivity on which the Great White North seems to pride itself. Besides which, wake up brother, unless you pray to Allah, the jidihadis are not going to distinguish the white infidels based on accent. As as aside, the extreme left (I dont know if you fall within that demographic) has no problem apparently with folks who have declared it their duty to kill in the name of God and, in the same breathe, bash Bush/U.S. for being too religious. As for your oil, well no one here will be driving after eating the Madcow beef Canadien cattlemen seem to export here.

On a more important note, how do we settle the NHL strike/lockout?

[Canada_Rocks]

I believe that has already been proven wrong..since canada supposidly harbours terrorists. Nothings blowing up here. As far as Iranian missiles are concerend, the Iranian gov is quite different than the jihadmysters you speak of. I give it a russia/america ending. Arms race and nothing else.

Madcow beef! a few cases. How about our electricity, water, minerals, and lumber.

[Jari]

If Iranians try to develop the a-bomb, US dear allie Israer would definetly act first. their asses are on the line there. I mean there's no motive to strike Europe. Propably the second thing after threatning israel would be to tell the US forces in iraq to "f@ck off, we have the bomb now, we'll finish what we started in 80's. So Iran without nukes is a shared interest.

[Canada_Rocks]

Isreal can't do nothing. it too torn up itslef, it can barely keep up with the palistinians. Iran has a very popular government, it will be nothing like Iraq. No isurgency. No little idiots strapping explosives to themselves..it will be all out war. fought in the middle east, surrounded by countries that would love nothing more than to shoot at american soldiers. . Nukes are an issue to the states because it mean they arent in control. That is all it means. People seem to think gov is this supreme being but it still behaves like everyone of us. Protect itsleft through control, same reason americans carry guns, cuz other people has guns.

[res ipsa]

How do you explain U.S.'s coexistence w/ USSR for nearly 50 yrs? Doesnt seem to square up w/ the control contention. I dont know what is in the heads of the Iranian leaders. Can only go by what they say about infidels and fatwas etc. The applicability of MAD to a nuclear Iran doesnt seem to fit as tightly as it did to USSR.
P.S. Most folks here dont carry guns, and it is generally illegal to do so.

[Canada_Rocks]

US couldnt do anything about Other nations with nuclear arms then, and still can't today. All America could do is out spend the Soviets, that's it plain and simple. Iran's Infadels to the west is exagerated by your Media. Not all Iranian gov officials consider Americans Infadels, and the one's that may, consider your righty gov infadels, not you.

You need me to elaberate on control? USSR, The sole fact of the cold war was basically to control soviet behavior, to control the evil "communism" that fit some govs like a glove but becasue the american administration didnt believe in it, led them to act, hence Vietnam, korea....CUBA. It's all about control. and ummmm IRAQ. This Missile defense network is a perfect example of the cold war. Countries trying to out do eachother. America puts up a defense grib..well safe for a few months until China or another country finds a way to get around that. And hey, missiles can't protect you from one of your Jihadinaters bringing a nuke into one of your free ports and blasting you from within. False security isn't it. Iran fits in perfectly to all scenerios concerning the past. It's a stalemate.

[Vonegut]

1. Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons as long as the russians, americans, french, chinese, british and etc. do so.
2. No one can be sure that Iran is building nuclear weapons. There is a nuclear plant in Bulgaria also, but no one thinks that nuclear weapons are developed meanwhile.
3. Israel has the power to fight against every country in the Middle East including Iran. And it has the power to prevail.
4. Iran is not Iraq...a future war against Iran will defenatly result in a world economic crisis, the US-army will be exhausted, EU, Russia and China won't be very happy => USA will stay "home alone". You don't deserve that.
5. The Defence System (so called - space wars) is useless.

[Rousseau]

Bush will most likely invade Iran because
1. He already sent in unmanned drones
2. He already has troops stationed in nearby Iraq
3. He's already saying Iran has a weapons program just like pre-war Iraq

In regards to the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). If the United States were to be capable of intercepting any Nuclear missles, it would upset the balance of power in the world. This would lead to the Russian, Chinese, English, French, German, or any other power whose nuclear power is compromised. Which obvious leads to the "weaponization of space".

[Canada_Rocks]

Rousseau, Im glas you touched down on the "star wars" issue. It is a very big reality. You see, when America went againt the uN and invaded Iraq, it got other countries thinking. They are thinking "hey we arent safe. America is completly unretrained and unpredictable" I mean serioudly, America can not take away the nukes from all the "naughty" countries..can they?

[Blackrain]

BUMP

Sorry I was off on the dates yall. Even global security. org had a countdown to Iran meter going based on a similar confronation timeline. Still, this little oped seems to have been dead nuts on the money, and only a few months off.

Even now, Dems like Hillary are complaining the Pres wasn't tough enough on Iran, Chirac is threatening Iran with nukes, and Germany's new Chancellor is so hawkish that it's actually conceivable that the Luftwaffe might be deployed to defend Israel.

Saw this in my files today, noted the date of the original post, and just had to share.

take care

[TheKrava]

Blackrain wrote: BUMP

Sorry I was off on the dates yall. Even global security. org had a countdown to Iran meter going based on a similar confronation timeline. Still, this little oped seems to have been dead nuts on the money, and only a few months off.

Even now, Dems like Hillary are complaining the Pres wasn't tough enough on Iran, Chirac is threatening Iran with nukes, and Germany's new Chancellor is so hawkish that it's actually conceivable that the Luftwaffe might be deployed to defend Israel.

Saw this in my files today, noted the date of the original post, and just had to share.

take care

I read in some Israely news websites that there is possible plan of stricking Iran in March.
Some date in march will be a point of "no-return".

[Saracen]

I'm sure Bush would want to instigate a war with Iran, but the American people could care less after they saw the results of the war of Iraq: chaos, destruction, and civil strife.

[The_Right_Honourable]

I think that action must be taken. Sadly we cannot trust the Iranian government.

But an invasion would be disastrous. And sanctions don't seem to work.

I geuss its an Isreali airstrike...

[Chris29]

an israeli airstrike would be disastorous, it would only result in further instability

[eynon]

Chris29 wrote: an israeli airstrike would be disastorous, it would only result in further instability

(shrug)Iran and Isreal don't share a border, plus there's 120,000 American troops between them, so no ground war.

Iran could launch scud missle atttacks against Isreal in retaliation, but they wouldn't use WMDs because Isreal could retaliate with nukes. So.................Isreal bombs the plan, Iran responds with a few scuds, egos satified, everybody moves on.

[Maruf]

As far as I know, Iraq had minimum air defence capability in the early 80s and it was after the Israeli air attack that the Iraqi govt. started building an elaborate air defence network within the country. But Iran already has a formidable air defence and it may not be as easy for Israel to bomb the nuclear plant in Iran as some people here think it is.