Military action against Iran

Steve at ThoughtsOnline has a fabulous post about Iran which I agree with 100%. His points are:

(1) It's extremely unlikely that there will be a democratic revolution in Iran.

(2) Diplomacy is unlikely to dissuade Iran from continuing its development of nuclear weapons.

(3) Iran is not a country we want to have nuclear weapons.

(4) Therefore military action against Iran is the best course of action. He says:

We don't have to invade and occupy the entire country, we just need to identify and destroy facilities that we believe are being used to develop their nuclear programs.

I highly recommend you read his whole post.

Comments

[chad]

Actually I would argue that he is entirely wrong. The first question he asks is how many times have people risen up against a dictatorship and effected change. Of the top of my head I can think of a few. Iran 1979,
Soviet Union, 1992, East Germany 1989, Romania, Albania, The French Revolution. The Spanish Revolution, although that one probably dosen't count since the replaced a socialist government with a Fascist government. The Belgian Congo.

While I agree that economic pressure alone will not cause the government to fall it can destabilise it. I forget who said it but the relevant though is any government is 3 meals away from a revolution.

As far as asking others to do our heavy lifting that is exactly the opposite of what GWB did last night in my opinion. He told the Iranian people if you rise up we will stand with you. The subtle implication is that we will provide support (probably air support if they rise).

Again just my uneducated opinion.

[DevP]

Check out the Atlantic Monthly's article by RIchard Clarke - a sort of narrative from 2011 where War on Terror had gone extremely poorly. A key part of that was poorly thought out strikes Iran due to nuclear proliferation.

Also, bear in mind that military aggression risks uniting the reactionary and progressive factions in Iran against a common (exterior) enemy, just as in the wake of 9/11, Democratic/Republican unity was at first easy (hence easy passage of Patriot Act et al).

Finally, consider the case where a democratic Iran desires nuclear weapons. What do you do? Isn't democracy, then, just a bit of a canard?

Please be more critical of the neocon ideologues in your party, as they most certainly do not have your best interests in mind.

[DevP]

To be fair, there aren't any easy solutions in this field - an nuclear Iran is a very scary thing. That's all the more reason not to be "100%" persuaded by this kind of dangerous planning.

[David]

This guy's post is not original thinking. But he is correct, a nuclear Iran is without any argument a direct threat to US security and, unfortunately, will have to be dealt with. And a surgical strike is the way to go. Yeah, it will rile the "Arab street" (even though they are Persian), if there even is an "Arab street" anymore, but better to have some regional unrest than a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran.

And when did Iran become democratic? Did I miss that memo?

[Outlaw3]

Military action in Iran... hmmmm. Direct action would have to be limited to a blockade (there is a task group there anyway), and the inevitable air strikes (cruise missiles and manned aircraft, conventional bombs only thank you). Those are your cheap options, but probably the least effective as the Clinton administration showed (Arabs took his strikes as cowardice, in case you missed it). CIA has proven itself pretty ineffective, so your other indirect action is the special operating forces in the military; they train and equip local groups in Iraq and send them into Iran, but most likely don't lead them into combat. If you provide direct air support then you pretty well tip your hand about surrogate forces. You might risk a SOF only operation against a high value (really high value) target that has to come off just right, but they would be sterile for the operation, hard to trace back.

The ground forces just aren't an option right now. The U.S. military is pretty well maxed out, as are the UK and Australia. I doubt anyone else is interested unless the U.S. is going to back it with fire support and troops and logistics.

There is another option. If you provide strategic forces to strike Iran high value targets (maybe with SOF ground units) and remove the Iranian Air Force (what is left of it) along with their mechanized units (what is left of them), you open them up for neighbors to do the ground work or even the population to rise up. I doubt there is a lot of love between Pakistan, India and Iran. No one else in the area is in any position or strength to do anything. Russia could never handle it and China doesn't have the strategic lift or a land border. I can't see the population rising up, but then, what is the state of their disarmament by the religious fanatics? What is the rumble about their military - how is morale under the religious rule? And that is why you need a CIA and national intelligence structure, minus the partisanship and plus the professionalism to figure it out.

Just an opinion, of course. Except I haven't been nationally embarrassed as a liar and charlatan like Richard Clarke and his CIA wife, what's her name.

[Outlaw3]

Oh, just remembered, there is more than 1 Richard Clarke, so was that the liar or the other one, DevP?

[chad]

Actually Outlaw 3 I believe you are thinking of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. Richard Clarke wrote the book Against All Enemies. He was the one who completely contradicted himself between his book and previous sworn testimony, thats neither her nor there though. The problem with his Atlantic Monthly article is that it is basically speculative fiction. I admit I haven't read it because I don't read anything other than Maximum PC, Juggs, and Soldier of Fortune (that was just a joke by the way I don't read Soldier of Fortune), however think back to 1985 and the articles that were coming out then, very few predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union. Most actually predicted that the United States would collapse under Economic pressure from Japan. That isn't to say his views aren't without validity just that he is basically looking into a crystal ball with all that implies.

[mikeca]

Much of the Iranian nuclear program is in facilities buried deep underground. It will take very good intelligence, and very accurate air strikes with bunker busting bombs to do much damage. (Is this the reason the Bush administration wants to develop bunker-busting bombs with tactical nuclear ware heads?).

Iran has repeatedly warned that it will retaliate for air strikes at its nuclear program by attacking US forces in Iraq. I doubt that this means air attacks or an invasion of Iraq by Iran. It probably means Iranian sponsored terrorist attacks on US forces in Iraq.

From what I have read, there is broad support in Iran for their nuclear program. It is not just the hard line mullahs. This is an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq. Everyone recognizes that if Iraq already had nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Iraq. North Korea and Iran are now full speed ahead on their nuclear program trying to make sure they have nuclear weapons before the US army gets out of Iraq. Most Iranians believe Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons, since Israel and Pakistan already have them, and very few Iranians want to see the US treat Iran the way Iraq has been treated and believe nuclear weapons are the only way prevent the US from eventually invading Iran.

[chad]

There may be broad support for the Iranian Nuclear program but there is also a heavy pro-US sentiment in the general population. If the Iranians are banking on Nukes keeping the US at bay they are sorely mistaken. The offical US policy is use a WMD on us or an ally and we will reatliate with nukes. (Massive Retaliation policy) The definition of massive retaliation is complete destruction. Considering we can hit Iran from the continental US and they can't hit us we kind of have the upper hand.

[dadahead]

I really, really hope these four "points" are not supposed to constitute an actual argument for military action against Iran, because that would be a hideous argument indeed.

Unfortunately, I suspect that its writer does intend it to be an argument, mainly because the last line says "therefore".

People, you can't just say a bunch of shit, slap a "therefore" on the end of it, and think that makes it an actual argument.

[fling93]

I think a much better Atlantic Monthly piece on Iran was James Fallows's Will Iran Be Next (subscription required). Here's some of its sobering conclusion:

But for the purposes most likely to interest the next American President—that is, as a tool to slow or stop Iran's progress toward nuclear weaponry—the available military options are likely to fail in the long term. A full-scale "regime change" operation has both obvious and hidden risks. The obvious ones are that the United States lacks enough manpower and equipment to take on Iran while still tied down in Iraq, and that domestic and international objections would be enormous. The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests. Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States....

What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal—but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

This is the lesson of opportunity cost. We do not have a military capable of sustaining two simultaneous occupations, which means you need to prioritize your targets carefully.

[chad]

That assumes that we are still occupied in Iraq. The iraqi interior minister has stated twice now he expects american troops to withdraw within 18 months. Further if we did decide to go to Iran, I doubt we would experience the buildup that was in place for Iraq. The speed with which the American military can move if it needs to is really mind boggling. Of course that incurs costs in follow on support but if it came down to it we could have at least 3 divisions in place as a beach head in less tha 2 weeks.

[pubcrawler]

And now we get word from the NCRI that Iran is developing nuclear triggers.
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7529216

Point 1: The NCRI are a very, very, bad bunch of people. Think Hussein Goon Squad and you've pretty much got these guys. We could do the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing but with these guys, I don't know. They are more trouble than they are worth.
Point 2: The mad mullahs in Iran are just as bad, if not worse. The idea of these blokes with nukes should make you hair turn white.
Point 3: The UN is on the case. That roughly translate into nothing is being done.
Point 4: If we screw this up then there is a very good possiblity that millions will die from it. I wouldn't put it past the mad mullahs to set off a nuke just for grins.

So Steve at ThoughtsOnline is right. The longer we ingore this the more perilous it becomes.

[James Leroy Wilson]

Excellent points. Whenever the Authorities, whoever they are, tell us that Iran is a Threat, they must be right. Consider their amazing accuracy about Iraq being our Greatest Threat, and Saddam's WMD's, links to Al Qaeda, and whatnot. Believing whatever it is Authority tells us to believe is the proper, libertarian thing to do. Even if Authority says that living in the USA is the same as living in Israel, and that any possible threat to Israel, is the same as a threat to Arizona or Nebraska.

To question such logic, however ungrounded from facts, is, of course, to appease the Mullahs.

I'll be sure to raise a glass in gleeful triumph when I found out how many hundreds of thousands of Iranians we killed in our Crusade to Make the World Safe From Iran. A wholly just, righteous cause, to be sure.

America! Fuck yeah!

[fling93]

chad: That assumes that we are still occupied in Iraq. The iraqi interior minister has stated twice now he expects american troops to withdraw within 18 months.

Yes, but they may have the nuke by the end of this year.

And 18 months seems a bit optimistic. When the issue about insufficient occupation troops levels comes up, a common partisan defense-of-Bush-and-Rumsfeld response I've seen is, where the heck would we get the troops? How long do you think it would take? There aren't any insta-soldiers where you add water, and presto! Enough forces to ensure security in Iraq. No, it doesn't work that way. It takes a lot of resources and a lot of time for training.

Well then, why the hell would you expect Iraq be able to build up a military force to stabilize the country any quicker than we could? Germany didn't take three years (we still have troops there, for that matter). And heck, we're still in Bosnia. Arguably, the ethnic and religious tensions in Iraq are a lot pricklier than either of those places. Make no mistake. This is going to be long, and anybody who downplayed the length and difficulty and cost of the occupation was trying to pull a fast one on you.

[chad]

First the Germany issue is not an apt comparison. Troops are not in Germany for an internal security purpose. Bosnia I have not paid much attention too. Your point about insta-troops is true there is however the flip side that has been brought up over and over by various Democratic Presidential candidates during the campaign. There are hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers that were dismissed by the CPA that can be brought back into service by the Iraqi government if they wish. (BTW I thought it was a mistake for the CPA to dismiss them, but I understand the reasoning at the time). That would free up a lot of American troops. Also consider that the hold up on the American side is not the number of troops available, we can make the troops, it is a debate about authorized force levels. Back in the 90's when the military was being cut to the bone and the 2 regional war concept was floated a lot of us who had been around for a while tried to point out that the cuts were to deep. We lost and the military reconfigured into its present form. Now we have inertia and no one wants to change force structure, but it could be done. The simplest way and the way that i would use is for lake of a better term force cloning I don't have time right now but I could explain the concept later if you like.

[Mexigogue]

By the rationale that if a country is ideologically opposed to yours and has weapons that it will not give up then it is ok to attack them. . . well by that rationale then Al Qaeda was justified in attacking the US right? When the twin towers were bombed did you stand up and say hey it made perfect sense for them to attack us because we're different and we have weapons.

??

[Outlaw3]

Wilson... Clarke... yep, had them confused. Clarke was the one who worked counter-terror, yet had the most terrorist attacks in history that were completely unpredicted, then tried to cover his failures with that whining book.

Actually, tactical nukes in bunker busters are a logical development that has been under way a long time (more than just a bright idea during this Bush administration). Previous nuke bunker busters took out the city, so getting it small enough and making it survive penetrating yards of reinforced concrete or granite, then explode, takes time to figure out.

Besides, you might not have to hit the underground bunker to ruin the program. You could seal the entrance and air vents long enough to set the program back 6 months. That brings them out in the open and you can track it all being reconstructed as they work and talk about it.

[Mexigogue]

It is not ethical to attack someone simply based on the fact that there is a hypothetical possibility that they might use their weapon against you one day. Or else if I were to have reason to believe that Libertarian Girl had a gun in her purse and I knew she didn't like me, would that make it ethical to come up from behind her and slit her throat? No, not unless I was some kind of sociopath. There is something very wrong with people who advocate committing violence against people based on hypothetical situations.

[markm]

Mexigogue: You aren't taking into account the person who is wielding the weapon. In our society, someone with a history of acting anything like the Irani regime would be locked up in either a maximum security prison or the most secure ward of a mental institution. OTOH, I wouldn't be worried at all about LG misusing a gun.

But if you're going to let insane mass murderers run the asylum (and I really can't think of a more apt way to describe the present situation in Iran), then you do need to watch for what they might hypothetically do - because they'll do it if they can.

[Apesnake]

While I agree with much of what this Steve fellow said there are a couple of things about this deal-orama that make an Iran plan seem less advisable to me.

Firstly, Iran's hardliners are nuts. If you start dropping bombs on their atomic "baby food factories" they are going to become the next H.Q. and funding source for every anti-American group on the planet. (Which is something they only dabble at now due to fear of being invaded.) Start dropping bombs and the Godlies will suddenly feel they have nothing to lose and you will have no choice but to go in heavy.

Secondly, China has Nukes; the Soviets had lots of nukes. Just because a nation or empire is armed and deranged does not mean they are stupid. Iran is not going to commit a first strike against Israel, India or anyone else as long as a cold war arsenal is in the hands of a Texan evangelist/former drug user.

Also, any attempt to destabilize Iran should keep in mind that while its people may be yearning for freedom, its military, police and large numbers of conservative morality vigilantes with a long history of abuse to account for are not. Terrorist resistance in Iran would be sizable and far better prepared.

Iran seems to have a society that is in some ways more technological, educated, young and yearning for change than Iraq was. Why not use that as an advantage? Develop tools and techniques for social organization. The Serbian and Ukrainian revolutions made clever use of the Internet, cell-phones and e-mail to organize protests, transfer information in and out of the country and generally convince the tools of state enforcement like the military that the protesters had the power not the elite. Now that text messaging, blogs and camera phones are available, would it not be safer and less expensive for the world to flood the country with broadband and electronics shops and see what happens instead of just kicking the hornet's nest and hoping for the best? Don't get me wrong I am not against the war in Iraq and I am not against action in Iran if the case were strong.

At least wait a couple years so that Iraq is more stable and you don't need so many troupes there. You could use the time to build more of those killer robots. Those are cool.

[A RICH ASIAN GUY]

See Asian men vigorously fucking and pounding away at hot tight white pussies.

!!!CLICK ON THE "POSTED BY:" LINK BELOW!!!

[greenwodik2]

NIKO! Pliz buy love its sites!
http://herbalphentermine.dzite.com

[Truck a]

Fine and pretty site! Very good owner and design!
http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/chevy-trucks-for-sale.html >Chevy trucks for sale http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/cartoon-truck.html >Cartoon truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/chrome-truck-wheels.html >Chrome truck wheels http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/refuse-trucks.html >Refuse trucks http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/hess-truck.html >Hess truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/pickup-truck.html >Pickup truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/used-semi-trucks.html >Used semi trucks http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/new-ford-trucks.html >New ford trucks http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/japanese-mini-trucks.html >Japanese mini trucks http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/vacuum-truck.html >Vacuum truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/used-dump-truck.html >Used dump truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-suspension.html >Truck suspension http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/trucking-accident.html >Trucking accident http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-trader-canada.html >Truck trader canada http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-grilles.html >Truck grilles http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/rc-truck.html >Rc truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/freight-trucking-companies.html >Freight trucking companies http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/trucker-talk.html >Trucker talk http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/radio-controlled-trucks.html >Radio controlled trucks http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/4x4-trucks-for-sale.html >4x4 trucks for sale http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/pierce-fire-trucks.html >Pierce fire trucks http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-performance.html >Truck performance http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-stops-sex.html >Truck stops sex http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/1974-gmc-6500-truck.html >1974 gmc 6500 truck http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/old-chevy-trucks-for-sale.html >Old chevy trucks for sale http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-art.html >Truck art http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/las-vegas-truck-accident-lawyer.html >Las vegas truck accident lawyer http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/heavy-duty-truck-tools.html >Heavy duty truck tools http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/trucker-hats.html >Trucker hats http://www.trucks.besttrucksusa.org/truck-lettering.html >Truck lettering

[New music a]

Hello. I love your!
http://www.allmusicmusic.org/where-can-i-listen-to-music.html >Where can i listen to music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/coldplay-music-downloads.html >Coldplay music downloads http://www.allmusicmusic.org/magic-music.html >Magic music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/codes-for-background-music.html >Codes for background music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/free-live-streaming-music.html >Free live streaming music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/star-wars-battle-music.html >Star wars battle music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/salvation-army-music.html >Salvation army music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/ice-cream-truck-music-box.html >Ice cream truck music box http://www.allmusicmusic.org/here-i-am-music.html >Here i am music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/cakewalk-music-creator.html >Cakewalk music creator http://www.allmusicmusic.org/nat-king-cole-music.html >Nat king cole music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/final-fantasy-7-theme-music.html >Final fantasy 7 theme music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/filipino-music-download.html >Filipino music download http://www.allmusicmusic.org/opening-a-music-store.html >Opening a music store http://www.allmusicmusic.org/star-wars-music-video.html >Star wars music video http://www.allmusicmusic.org/switchfoot-music-video.html >Switchfoot music video http://www.allmusicmusic.org/free-live-music-downloads.html >Free live music downloads http://www.allmusicmusic.org/acid-music-loops.html >Acid music loops http://www.allmusicmusic.org/avenged-sevenfold-music-videos.html >Avenged sevenfold music videos http://www.allmusicmusic.org/free-johnny-reb-music-download.html >Free johnny reb music download http://www.allmusicmusic.org/happy-birthday-piano-sheet-music.html >Happy birthday piano sheet music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/gospel-music-association.html >Gospel music association http://www.allmusicmusic.org/the-lord-bless-you-and-keep-you-music.html >The lord bless you and keep you music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/nazareth-music.html >Nazareth music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/finale-print-music.html >Finale print music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/celtic-music-online.html >Celtic music online http://www.allmusicmusic.org/find-country-music.html >Find country music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/free-mariachi-sheet-music-for-violins.html >Free mariachi sheet music for violins http://www.allmusicmusic.org/tringas-music.html >Tringas music http://www.allmusicmusic.org/giuseppe-verdi-music.html >Giuseppe verdi music