Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

As you can easily see, most of us said what we think may happen, but not what will happen.

Nuclear option problems

But a nuclear attack is improbable.

There are three main reasons of military and diplomatic importance for this.


The first is that even a nuclear "bunker-buster" would produce large amounts of radiation. This could cause thousands of casualties among civilian populations.

The Federation of American Scientists says that "the bombs would penetrate at most only a few metres into rock, causing no reduction in blast, fire, or fallout damage on the surface. The largest would have blown out a crater almost a thousand feet across and thrown a cloud of radioactive fallout tens of thousands of feet into the air where it would be blown hundreds of miles downwind."


The second is that the political implications are so huge of the US attacking, with nuclear weapons, a country (and in the Muslim world) which is not armed with similar weapons and which says it has no intention of making.

The third reason is that, doctrinally, the US is moving away from developing new nuclear bunker busters. It does have one already, the B61-11, but it cannot penetrate very deeply and last year Congress withdrew, at the administration's request, funding for further research.

Legality issue

There is also the question of legality to be considered.

Any attack would be hard to justify. Jack Straw told reporters recently: "I don't happen to believe that military action has a role to play in any event. We could not justify it under Article 51 of the UN charter which permits self-defence."

In the absence of Security Council approval, the US might argue that its interests in the Gulf were at stake and that its ally Israel was at risk.


Conventional bombs

Instead of nuclear bombs, conventional weapons would be used, but of a massive type. They would try to do a similar job, but without the same physical and political fallout. One called "Big Blu" is currently under development.

Hersh also said, in both articles, that the US had infiltrated agents into Iran to pick targets and make contacts with dissident groups.


One reading of the White House attitude is that it wants to scare Iran into making concessions and wants in any case to foment political unrest. This it hopes might eventually produce policy change by producing regime change. Hersh says that Washington regards President Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler."


US threats

What nobody doubts is that the US is determined to stop Iran from become nuclear-armed.


Iran says it will not build a bomb but wants the technology only to make fuel for civil nuclear power. It is allowed to make its own fuel under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).



However, the dilemma might be more difficult than that because Iran might not become "nuclear-armed". It might simply become nuclear-capable.


The technology in question can be used for both civilian and military purposes.

Consequences


If attacked, Iran might simply leave the NPT, as it has the right to do, and go ahead with nuclear development anyway. That could set the scene for further attacks over a long period of time.


Iran might also retaliate, against US interests in Iraq and the Gulf, and might use the militant group Hezbollah in southern Lebanon to attack Israel. The region could be in uproar.


On this side of the Atlantic, Dan Plesch, Research Associate at the London School of Oriental and African Studies, is proclaiming the same message.

He gave a speech analysing the options recently and told the BBC News website: "The United States has the capability to come out of the clear blue sky and destroy the Iranian military infrastructure."

All of you saying that Bush wants to inveade Iran,or that he wants to bomb Iran,I have a question...

If none of that happens,will all of you be adult enough to admit you were wrong,or will you deny saying it would happen to begin with?


Personally,I think all of you will say you never said it would happen.

It's too bad Reagan didn't have the balls to just glass over this garbage dump after the hostages were freed.

Rice is indeed demanding that the U.N. threaten force thus giving Iran "no choice" but to discontinue its nuclear energy program:

Rice says U.N. must adopt tough Iran resolution

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Thursday the United Nations must consider strong action against Iran, such as a resolution that could lead to sanctions or lay the groundwork for force.

Asked what options the U.N. Security Council should consider, Rice said it should look at chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to force Iran to comply with international obligations over its nuclear plans.

"I am certain we will look at measures that can be taken to ensure that Iran knows that they really have no choice but to comply," Rice told reporters.

Chapter 7 makes a resolution mandatory under international law for all U.N. members. It can lead to sanctions and eventually the use of force if it specifically calls for them or threatens "all necessary measures."

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Interestingly US-media report that "Rice calls for 'some consequence' against Iran's nuclear intentions" (or with similar headline), while European papers report about the same event like "Rice demands UN should threaten Iran with 'force of arms'."

Well, since Rice made no such demand, it appears "European papers" are not accurate.

Ticomaya wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Interestingly US-media report that "Rice calls for 'some consequence' against Iran's nuclear intentions" (or with similar headline), while European papers report about the same event like "Rice demands UN should threaten Iran with 'force of arms'."

Well, since Rice made no such demand, it appears "European papers" are not accurate.

Rice indeed demanded that the UN threaten Iran with the use of force. Accordingly, the "European papers" were accurate.

From all accounts, tico, Iran is a long way off from producing nuclear weapons even if it does really have intentions of producing them, which it claims it does not. Why are you and other like you always in such a hurry to kill and destroy people that you can't give peaceful and political means a chance? Even a lot of your republicans are saying a military solution to Iran would be a mistake as previous links have already been left in this thread have indicated.

From all accounts, tico, Iran is a long way off from producing nuclear weapons even if it does really have intentions of producing them, which it claims it does not. Why are you and other like you always in such a hurry to kill and destroy people that you can't give peaceful and political means a chance? Even a lot of your republicans are saying a military solution to Iran would be a mistake as previous links have already been left in this thread have indicated.

Iran president: Israel a threat to Islamic nations

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran's president said on Friday that the existence of the "Zionist regime", Iran's term for Israel, was a threat to the Islamic world, days after declaring Iran had become a nuclear power by enriching uranium.

But the tone of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to a conference on the Palestinian issue was slightly more moderate than fiery rhetoric last year, when Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a conference: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

...