Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

The following link is an excellent non-partisan and objective analysis of the Iranian nuclear program. The report is a couple of years old, but appears to remain valid. There is a rather complete background brief on how the world has gotten to the problem we face today, and a good assessment of what the United States might do to intevene there. The primary "weakness" of the report is that it does not make any attempt to analyze what outcomes might be expected if Iran is successful in building a nuclear arsenal.

NPEC: Checking Iran's Nuclear Ambitions (2004)

If Iran was not primarily interested in obtaining nucear warheads, they would have no need to produce highly enriched fissile materials like Plutonium. Iran's nuclear program has always been highly secret, but why would anyone keep secret a completely peaceful program? Iran could open its facilities to close international inspection, but it has not. Why?

I think I just busted a gut.

At $70+ a barrel, you can't blame them!!

Anon

I think a nuclear strike against Iran is a distinct possibility. Are you going to allow this to happen? Are Americans going to allow their government, acting in their name to use nuclear weapons against a country that MIGHT want to acquire them? Moreover a country that poses no threat to the United States, that has signed the NPT and whatever the critics in Washington say, has abided by it. Whats going on? Has Dr Strangelove been in Washington all the time?

Makes very good business sense. Generate all domestic electricity by nuclear means, and save the oil to sell to the west and the Chinese.

They would have us over the proverbial barrel then, wouldn't they? They would have f-you money in superabundance.

The Israel thing is the problem....

So, what's a Pres to do? Wait? Or commit another major crime?

Difficult I agree. Options are limited. But a screw up is guaranteed.

Venezuela is doing the same thing! Their moving to oil alternatives so they can save their oil for sale for the national economy.

Hugo Chavez is one of the few national leaders to acknowledge the reality of Peak Oil. I've been going on about this for quite literally years now. It explains a lot.

Steve,

Wouldn't it be an idea to read some of the many posts on the thread? It is by no means certain that any intervention will be made to cripple the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Only two alternatives have been identified, either intervene in some manner, or leave the Iranian's to produce a nuclear weapons arsenal.

A whole range of interventions are possible beyond a diplomatic solution that would assure the world that Iran is not gong to build a nuclear arsenal. Each of those possible interventions by the United Nations, Israel and the United States are discussed and analyzed earlier in this thread. The least likely of all possible interventions would be a nuclear first strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

I'm as conservative any who post here, and it is my belief that the most probable outcome is that no effective intervention will be taken, and that Iran will acquire nuclear weapons before 2010.

Now how comfortable are you, a citizen of London, with the idea that Iran will soon be capable of shipping a Hiroshima style atom bomb into the Thames? If Iran makes explodes a nuclear warhead over Tel Aviv, do you believe that the Middle East will become a friendlier place? How stable do you expect the Middle East to become once Iran begins throwing its weight around with a few atomic bombs in its hip pocket?

OH? You trust the Iranians to be telling the truth. They would never have anything to do with supporting international terrorism, would they? The Iranian volunteers, weapons and munitions that have turned up outside of Iran are just a bad dream, right? Iran would never, ever threaten Israel with annihilation, that wouldn't be cricket? We shouldn't believe the infalmitory public pronouncements, because they are just empty words like Hitler promising that he had no territorial ambitions in Europe. Iran has kept its cyclotron and other efforts to enrich uranium into weapons-grade Plutonium, because they don't want the world to know they've developed a super reactor that only burns weapons-grade fissile fuel. You might be right about all that, but are YOU willing to take the chance that Iran will someday in the not too distant future murder a few millions Londoners with an Atomic Bomb? Would your conscience be any better if the victims were in Tel Aviv, or that den of inequity, Los Angeles?

Peronally, I'm not convinced at all.

But our great leaders have told us that e.g. Libya is a good ally and Gadhafi a close friend.

All and everything might happen.

I've been away, not had the inclination to wade through 30 pages, especially when my post directly addressed thread topic.
I didnt say a nuclear first strike was certain, only a distinct possibility.

atom bombs up the Thames? The only way that would happen is if we joined in a pre emptive strike with the US which, on this occasion, we are not going to do. Potomac?

If Iran threatens to wipe out Tel Aviv, then thats a problem for Israel. Perhaps they would not get threatened if they did not behave in such a beligerent manner themselves.

I dont believe the Iranians tell the truth, only that they have up till now abided by the NPT. Do you think the American British French or Israeli governments are familiar with the concept of truth?

I quite believe Iran would threaten Israel, especially if Israel continues with its policy of territorial land grab and colonial expansion in the middle east.

Murder a few million Londoners? Our foreign secretary has described Iran as a peaceful and democratic country. Why would Iran bomb London any more than Israel or Pakistan, except of course if we bombed Tehran first. hell we even went along with the pretence that Lockerbie was perpetrated by Libya, not to upset Iran.

It would not be on my conscience if Tel Aviv or Los Angeles was wiped out, but on the consciences of those who did such a foul deed, and those whose policy of military aggression led directly to such retalliation.

What Asherman forgot to mention is that, there is a slight possibility they may want these weapons for self-defence.

Why would they need self defense? No one wants a chunck of Iran...well not on the surface anyway...its what's deep beneath those Persian carpets thats driving the whole thing...as usual.

Asherman also consistently characterizes the failure or refusal to use military force against Iran as "allowing" the Persians to "build a nuclear arsenal." In the first place, we don't know that this is what they intend, and they deny it. I have noted, however, that i personally think they are lying, and that this is what they intend. However, the particular phrasing which Asherman uses suggests that we are able to do anything about, and that we have a right to intervene. As i've already pointed out to him, it is by no means certain that we can prevent it, short of invasion and occupation--and, it may prove necessary for American conservatives to suck it up and accept that we cannot control every thing in the world for which we do not care.

It is propagandistic to continue to characterize those with whom he disagrees as "willing to allow" the Persians to have nuclear weapons--it is tendentious language which is part and parcel of a partisan propaganda.

If the US was not such a threat to any nation that had something that they wanted :wink: - I do not believe that they would want nuclear weapons.

With their enemy, Israel, armed to the nuclear teeth and nuclear America rattling the sabre (and, by invading Iraq, showing that they are not adverse to aggression when they can smell oil - of which Iran has an elegant sufficiency) they would be stupid in the extreme not to try to build a deterrent.

well said. and just for the record, just because I cant prevent someone doing something, it does not imply my tacit approval...SO HEY Mr A'hm mad dinner bad and you collection of Grand Ayatollah...I'm telling you now STOP IT YOU HEAR? Thats an order.

We've already discussed at some length the foolishness of any notion that Iran is seeking a deterrent capability. They don't even claim that as part of their motivation. They are not threatened by any regional neighbors, and they can not easily reach beyond the region. Even if they had a small nuclear arsenal it would not be an effective deterrent. Indeed, Iran's attempting to acquire nuclear weapons is the only thing that puts them at risk of intervention today.

Steve,

I see you are convinced that the only reason that radical Islamic terrorist organizations exist is because the West imposed Israel upon them. Radical terrorists only began conducting operations outside the Middle East to "punish" the United States for being allied with the Jewish State. Oh, they might still resent British colonialism and oil policies that existed in the "bad old days" when Winston Churchill was PM, but the populations of Southwestern Asia would really love the UK, if only it didn't support the United States. If you believe that, then enjoy your dream whilst it lasts.

You are, of course, wrong. The Radical Islamic Movement has been around since the middle of the last century. They supported and admired Hitler, long before the UN created Israel. They have been in the forefront of every war and attack on Israel since 1948. They allied themselves with the USSR because the Soviets were determined to defeat the West, and the radical Islamics thought that the Soviets would win. As the USSR began to lose its grip, their Islamic clients asserted their independence and enjoyed the support to of the West for a brief period. At the end of the Cold War, the radicals turned their entire attention to defeat of materialistic Western Civilization. The radicals despise what they regard as the weakness of Western humanistic values. The West is Infidel and those who die in a Holy War to defeat the "Crusaders" go immediately to paradise where virgins wait to reward them for their murders.

America should leave Europe to work out its own problems. Why should we get involved in a European War? Why make Hitler mad at us for sending arms and support to the UK? Provide the supply necessary to preserve the Soviet Union, the very idea is cracked. Its not our affair, and if we just stick to our own knitting, we'll be alright. Winny is spinning.

You are a very bad, bad man, Steve . . . and it's always good to see you lurking about . . .

I would suggest a small nuclear arsensal together with a small number of missiles adds up to one pretty big deterent.

Islamic terror is a direct result of western meddling in the middle east over the last 100 years. Its given further impetus by Israel, but thats not the root cause. I dont enjoy any dreams about Islamist terror, any that I do have are distinctly more nightmare-ish.

. Now thats a funny thing because I distinctly remember the CIA equipping the Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan with stinger shoulder held anti aircraft missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters.

In any case we are talking about Iran here who are Shi'ia. The international Islamic terrorist movements are sunni, wahhabist, muslim brotherhood, and their predecessors going back all the way to the Khajariites.

Actually, Set, I believe I've consistently said that I believe that the non-intervention alternative is the one most likely to be adopted. I will be surprised if the President chooses anything beyond covert, and deniable interventions. Without successful intervention the risk of Iran later using its Atomic weapons against Israel, Iraq, or supplying a weapon for use against the West will exist. It is a No-Win decision that the President is facing, and I'm glad its on his shoulders not mine. BTW, if it were my decision to make, I would probably reluctantly go with the non-intervention alternative myself.

Can we successfully damage the Iranian weapons program to the point where no Iranian Bomb is likely to exist in the next five-ten years. That is indeed the question. Dispersed secret installations in hardened sites with good air defenses would not be easy damage as thoroughly as would be required. It can be done, and done with conventional munitions. The probability of success is, however, too low to warrant the attempt in my opinion.

As to our "right" to intervene, I don't even enter the concept into my analysis. Where possible I strongly believe that staying within the law is greatly to be preferred. However, if I take the "right" to save thousands or even millions of lives in opposition to the world's opinion, then stand back. The decision is entirely with the National Command Authority, and I trust that they will make the best decision on behalf of our country and the people of the world that is humanly possible. I know that many here disagree with me and my faith in the nations decision-makers, but that doesn't change the facts ... nor will it likely influence the decision very much.

Steve,

If you could prevent "someone from doing something", say exploding an Atomic Bomb in a crowded urban area, and instead you walked away saying "it's none of my affair", would you then have some guilt for the result? What if the probabilities of preventing an Atomic attack was only 80%, and the intervention might lead to the death of thousands, instead of hundreds of thousands. Would intervention then be worth consideration?

f4f,

Israel nuclear armed to the teeth? I think not. Though we all believe that Israel has a small number of nuclear warheads, they have never been confirmed. Israel fosters the idea they have sufficient retaliatory power to strike back in any attack, but no one has yet to see an Israeli Bomb. Israel has never threatened anyone with nuclear attack. Israel is no more an Atomic threat than France is ... and we are certain that France has nuclear weapons.

To continue to rant that the only real reason that the U.S. is in Iraq is to seize its oil is getting old and stale, and there isn't a shred of evidence to support that silly notion. Move on. You say that Iran would be "stupid in the extreme not to try to build a deterrent". Far from being a deterrent, the Iranian weapons program is a threat to regional and world peace that is far more likely to bring down destruction on their country than otherwise. If the United States was as evil and wicked as some claim to believe and determined to invade Iran to steal their "elegant sufficiency" of oil, we'd just do it and Iran's nuclear "deterrent" wouldn't slow the effort by a tenth of a second.