Asherman wrote:Steve,
Please excuse my inability to express myself clearly. Your personal opinion that nothing could justify intervention in Iran's nuclear weapons program, did not admit of any possibility that such an intervention might be appropriate. Not the affair of the UK. If things go badly, not of any concern of mine.
I wasn't asking you to make a decision to stop Iran's mad course, but only to put yourself in the place of those responsible for making the decision.
Imagine yourself the President of the United States faced with evidence that Iran is, and has been working, to develop and build nuclear weapons. Knowledgable advisors in the intelligence and military communities tell you that Iran's weapons capability doesn't currently exist, but is probable in a few years. Iran's leadership is making inflammatory speeches calling for the extinction of Israel. Iranian volunteers, weapons and munitions are being used against US troops in Iraq.
You must choose a course of action from the following list:
A. Intervene to prevent Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons for 5-10 years, or
B. Leave the Iranian's to produce nuclear weapons in the next few years.
Inside the A alternative you have:
Try to find a diplomatic solution that halts Iran's nuclear programs. This is currently being done, but does not appear to be working. The matter is likely to be dealt with (LOL) by the UN. The UN may put some sanctions in place, but they are unlikely to be effective in convincing Iran to abandon their quest for nuclear weapons. Will the UN authorize military intervention to protect world peace? The organization's history in these matters is almost unrelieved failure. Even if the UN were to authorize military action, it would be the United States alone who would have to do the deed. Still this is everyone's preferred option.
Try to sabotage and delay Iran's program by covert means. There is good reason to suppose that many Iranians do not support their governments nuclear efforts, and some of those might assist in secretly derailing the programs. Subtle sabotage can be quite effective. The downside is that US HUMINT has never fully recovered from the constraints put upon it since LBJ's administration. Finding and assisting Iranians to wreck the programs might be difficult, and would certainly involve bribery, blackmail, and coercion as much as appeals to patriotism. Espionage is not and has never been a pretty business that "gentlemen" want to be involved with. This option should be pursued, and probably is already in place.
Make a conventional attack on all known Iranian nuclear facilities. To be successful I believe we need to inflict damage that will at least delay the Iranian Bomb programs for 5-10 years. The targeted facilities are secret, dispersed, in hardened sites with the best Air defenses Iran can muster. Not all facilities may be known. The attack, if decided upon, would come from CONUS, carrier/submarine platforms, and from Diego Garcia. Some US losses should be expected, but they would be comparatively light. BDA is always a problem, and this case is no different. If Iran's program is not set back for 5-10 years, the regional dangers of an Iranian nuclear strike might be increased in as little as 2-3 years.
Politically, we can expect a wave of disapproval both at home and abroad. Some will want demand condemnation of the US by the UN. The tempo and seriousness of terrorist attacks can be expected to increase at least temporarily.
Make a nuclear first-strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The amount of damage inflicted on the Iranian facilities would be greater and the probability of setting their program back 5-10 years would be enhanced. On the other hand, this option is recommended against. First, the probability of inflicting the sort of damage required for success is not all that much greater than use of conventional munitions. Second, it would be a sea-change of American Policy since the late 1940's. Third, a nuclear strike would be counter-productive to our national alliances and agreements. For all practical purposes this option is on the table as a "stick" to help convince Iran's leaders to take a deep breath and decide not to play with nuclear fire.
The second alternative is to leave Iran to develop nuclear weapons if they can not be dissuaded by diplomacy or covert actions. The risks involved with this alternative is that Iran will in a very short time have the capability of making a nuclear missile attack anywhere in the region. If they choose, they can destroy an Israeli city or Baghdad. They can become a definite threat to US vessels operating in and around the Persian Gulf, which in turn might result in widespread shortages of oil throughout the world. A nuclear armed Iran could threaten and blackmail other regional states into subservience to Iran's idea of what an Islamic State should be. The House of Saud would be put at additional risk.
Having "bearded the lion", Iran might well increase its support of international terrorism, and once in possession of nuclear weapons they could transfer some of those weapons to terrorist organizations. This would extend the reach of the Iranian threat to every major sea port in the West.
On the other hand, if Iran later is implicated in the use of a nuclear device it will be open season on Iran and the world won't shed a tear as it is pushed from the 8th century CE back into the 8th century BCE. We can only speculate as to how much satisfaction that might bring the victims of millions killed by weapons that might have never existed.
Alright, President Steve, or President f4f .... what would your decision be? How would you prevent the "down-sides" associated with each of the two primary alternatives? Youse guys seem so quick with the simple solution, cut your teeth on this.
Ok Barcelona won, brilliant goal by Guilly. To answer your question...I would make a Grand Understanding with Iran. Your various scenarios are all predicated on the assumption that Iran is was and always will be the implaccable enemy of the United States. The fact is, for all their bluster Iran has been trying for years to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement with the US - every time rebuffed by the Americans. There is still a large segment of Iranian society favourably disposed to America...they are maginalised by the regime, and their position is not made easier by continual American hostility to Iran. The US and the West need Iranian oil, and a dependable trading partner to safeguard passage through the straights of Hormuz. And guess what? Iran actually wants to play that role. They want to sell the oil just as much as we need to buy it. I would make peace not war. I would put everything on the table, an understanding between the west and the leading Islamic power, including the position of Israel, nuclear weapons, terrorism, and the situation in Iraq. Of course such an all encompassing deal might be very difficult to achieve, but I really dont think its impossible. It was Churchill who said jaw jaw is better than war war. America has had no diplomatic relations with Iran since the fall of the Shah. Its time to make some.
[The alternative btw, i.e. continued cold war or a short hot war has no future. Either way, if Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons they will do so eventually, admonitions to the contrary or conventional or nuclear strikes not withstanding. The Iranians are patient, tough and clever. The trick is to deal with them, give them no cause to go around threatening US or Israel, and to get them on our side in dealing with international terrorism].
