Yesterday saw the release of a long, but very well written article about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran. The author of the piece in the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, noted that there is a just better than 50/50 chance that Israel will strike Iran to eliminate its nuclear program in the next year. Now, he does not recommend strikes, just notes that the Israelis are serious about it and the U.S. knows this and is addressing Israelis concerns.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-point-of-no-return/8186/

What is also interesting are the responses the article is generating.
One from Steve Clemons on how the Iranian situations fits into the overall regional situation.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/08/an_israeli_stri/

One from Fred Kaplan on his view
http://www.slate.com/id/2263594/pagenum/all/#p2

Stephen Walt as well:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

Finally, the Atlantic will post responses to the article in the coming days:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/goldberg-on-israel-iran-first-reactions-and-the-coming-debate/61349/

The article is really diving into the nitty gritty policy questions of not only a strike against Iran, but what would it accomplish and what are the outcomes. It is interesting and does a great job explaining the complexities of Israelis situation.

Finally, one more piece popped in yesterday on the Atlantic, from Robert Kaplan on using Henry Kissinger's 1957 landmark book on Nuclear Deterrence, "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" to make a case for containing Iran, but that it might force the U.S. to use force in limited means to ensure deterrence is credible. A scholarly piece on deterrence theory, but a great one to understand modern deterrence theory.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/living-with-a-nuclear-iran/8193/

We think we have problems with the economy, Afghanistan and Iraq now, just wait until Israel bombs Iran.

It is going to cause complete chaos for the U.S, and the citizens of this country will turn on Israel and make them totally friendless once American soldiers become sitting ducks over there because of them. That is not even taking into account the catastrophic economic damage that will occur when oil spikes in ways we've never seen.

We should just be extending our nuclear umbrella over every Middle Eastern country and let Iran know that even one nuke set off will bring complete annihilation of the entire country, not just a few retaliatory bombs. That takes the cost benefit analysis out of play as to whether it is worth some collateral damage to Iran if it means totally destroying a neighbor.

Iggy, so I'm not sure where you stand. Do you believe Israel has the right to preemptive strike or not? Would it be wrong for them to do so in your mind?

I mean lets face if, if Iran gets nukes the chances of them using them on Israel are VERY good given Iran's and Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel.

I'll put it this way, if Mexico was on the verge of nuclear weapons and had made it very clear they planned on attacking the US, I would sure hope the US would preemptively strike their nuclear facilities to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

jmog;449237 wrote:Iggy, so I'm not sure where you stand. Do you believe Israel has the right to preemptive strike or not? Would it be wrong for them to do so in your mind?

I mean lets face if, if Iran gets nukes the chances of them using them on Israel are VERY good given Iran's and Ahmadinejad's stance on Israel.

I'll put it this way, if Mexico was on the verge of nuclear weapons and had made it very clear they planned on attacking the US, I would sure hope the US would preemptively strike their nuclear facilities to stop them from getting nuclear weapons.

Are you sure they would use it? Why would they when that would invite international pressure to regime change and would certainly invite a nuclear response by Israel and the U.S? Saying they would use it and actually doing it are two different things. Go back and read Khrushchev and even Ike about the possible usage/ or threat to use nuclear weapons.

If you look at Iran's history, it has acted like a rational actor in the international system, using self defense and regime security to act in the foreign policy realm. I'm not sold that the regime, the Ayatollah mainly, would sacrifice his regime and the Iranian people.

I'd also add, I don't even think Iran would declare itself a nuclear power. I think they will go the Israel and Japan route-meaning have the technology, material, warhead designs, and delivery systems ready, and if pressured put together their nuclear arsenal in a few months.

Would it be wrong for them to do so in your mind?

Considering that every bomb they drop has "Made i the USA" on it, and that we will be blamed for anything they do as well as have our troops attacked for it, absolutely I am against it.

Even in the best case scenario that Israeli's have essentially admitted all they can do is set the program back a few years, is that really worth destroying the world economy and seeing our troops killed over if there is no guarantee a strike is even going to work?

They are not going to drop a nuke on Israel if we make abundantly clear to the regime that the entire country goes up in flames if a nuke is fired. There is alot of talk and bluster from the Iranian govt, but alot of that is rhetoric for domestic consumption. There is a grand canyon sized gulf between talk of destroying Israel and actually doing it.

Given that all that best case scenario it just delays the inevitability of Iran getting the bomb, the pragmatic thing to do is to figure out how to contain and box in the threat.

To destroy the world economy and get American troops killed in order to buy yourself maybe another couple of years until they get the bomb anyway is not a price worth paying. Not to mention that they don't even know if they know everywhere that is currently producing nuke material. It would be an unmitigated disaster on a scale we have rarely seen to go on a bombing raid only to find out you missed a bunch of target sites you didn't know about, which is a very real possibility as no one has great intelligence on Iran right now.

I read this article yesterday, but one thing I did find humorous was that Bush used to call Bill Kristol, Krauthammer, and the likes the "Bomber Boys" because of their obsession with attacking Iran. Even Bush, who is hardly a dove, wanted no part of that. The Pentagon is also severely down on the idea, because they know what the fallout would be to our troops over there as they would become retaliatory targets and destroy everything we have spent almost 10 years, trillions of dollars and thousands of troops lives fighting for.

I'm of the belief that a country has the right to defend themselves, if the evidence is there that Iran would attack israel (its 100% there verbally), then Israel can and should defend itself.

And trust me, we both know that the US would pull out of Iraq and probably Afghanistan the day the bombs dropped on Iran.

I'm not saying I'm for Israel attacking Iran, I know what the fall out could be, but I am for their right to defend themselves as they see fit as a sovereign nation.

So what happens when alternative energy has displaced the need for oil, the Mid East's primary (and in most cases, only) source of wealth? What happens then if these radicals have nuclear weapons?

The US needs to stay the hell out of it. More Americans do not need to die over other countries' problems. I would not support Israel in a strike just to eliminate nukes if there was no imminent threat to their country.

I don't see how people can say if Iran had nukes they would attack Israel. Iran is not attacking Israel conventionally (full scale war) right now, why would they use nukes?

People that actually believe that are buying into the proppganda and fearmongering. I am with P-town on this, I don't think Iran would declare itself a nuclear power.

Israel has every right to defend themselves if they are attacked, but to pre-eminently strike over words, that's a bit far-fetched. We saw how that worked for the US in Iraq.

dwccrew;449814 wrote:I don't see how people can say if Iran had nukes they would attack Israel. Iran is not attacking Israel conventionally (full scale war) right now, why would they use nukes?

People that actually believe that are buying into the proppganda and fearmongering. I am with P-town on this, I don't think Iran would declare itself a nuclear power.

Israel has every right to defend themselves if they are attacked, but to pre-eminently strike over words, that's a bit far-fetched. We saw how that worked for the US in Iraq.

Maybe because in a conventional war, Isreal would completely dominate Iran? Isreal has the most powerful and best equiped military in the Middle East, with tons of technological support from the United States.

The people discussing this matter have better information than anyone on this board. They will make the correct decision. If we do it, then we do it. It's a shit situation either way.

I'm all for the U.S. to tell Israel, who I support, to get the fuck out of Palestine with all of those settlements though. If they treated Palestine well they wouldn't be so hated.

dwccrew;449814 wrote:I don't see how people can say if Iran had nukes they would attack Israel. Iran is not attacking Israel conventionally (full scale war) right now, why would they use nukes?

People that actually believe that are buying into the proppganda and fearmongering. I am with P-town on this, I don't think Iran would declare itself a nuclear power.

Israel has every right to defend themselves if they are attacked, but to pre-eminently strike over words, that's a bit far-fetched. We saw how that worked for the US in Iraq.

I'm not saying Iran would or would not use nukes on Isreal.

However, if you and your neighbor do not get along and he told you if he had a gun he'd shoot you and your wife. Now, he's not starting a fist fight with you, however, if he ever got a gun wouldn't you believe he'd use it on you?

When Ahmadinejad said he'd like to whipe Israel off the face of the Earth, that sounds like a threat like "if I only had nukes" to a lot of people, Israel included.

Again, if Mexico REALLY hated us, and said they'd like to whipe the US off the face of the Earth. In the process of this they are getting close to nuclear weapons, you better believe I'd want our government/military to take action.

That's all I'm saying, I don't want the US to get involved, but if I were an Israeli, I'd want Israel to take action.

sjmvsfscs08;449955 wrote:The people discussing this matter have better information than anyone on this board. They will make the correct decision. If we do it, then we do it. It's a shit situation either way.

I'm all for the U.S. to tell Israel, who I support, to get the fuck out of Palestine with all of those settlements though. If they treated Palestine well they wouldn't be so hated.

I'd be "ok" with telling them to treat Palestine different, however you were dead wrong. Israel was hated by the Muslim nations of the Middle East the day they became a country after WWII. They've been attacked a few times.

slide22;449900 wrote:Maybe because in a conventional war, Isreal would completely dominate Iran? Isreal has the most powerful and best equiped military in the Middle East, with tons of technological support from the United States.

Just like Lebanon in 2006?

jmog;450020 wrote:I'm not saying Iran would or would not use nukes on Isreal.

However, if you and your neighbor do not get along and he told you if he had a gun he'd shoot you and your wife. Now, he's not starting a fist fight with you, however, if he ever got a gun wouldn't you believe he'd use it on you?

When Ahmadinejad said he'd like to whipe Israel off the face of the Earth, that sounds like a threat like "if I only had nukes" to a lot of people, Israel included.

Again, if Mexico REALLY hated us, and said they'd like to whipe the US off the face of the Earth. In the process of this they are getting close to nuclear weapons, you better believe I'd want our government/military to take action.

That's all I'm saying, I don't want the US to get involved, but if I were an Israeli, I'd want Israel to take action.

Again, saying one thing and actually carrying it out is totally different. Khrushchev was full of rhetoric, but never pulled the trigger, and was actually scared to do it if you followed the Cuban Missile crisis. Plus, Ahmadinejad would probably not be the one to authorize the launch, it would be the Ayatollah, so it really doesn't matter what he says.

In order to deter another state, one needs to create a box, where if they cross the line, they will get punished in some way. I think you can do this with Iran, if Iran did decide to cross the nuclear threshold.

Mexico can say whatever, but if we tell Mexico, if you advance past this point or do x, then there will be punishment, then deterrence theory starts to take hold and preemptive strikes are not needed.

If Iran gets nukes it will allow them more power to project their conventional military power on their neighbors and the Persian Gulf. They will always have their nuke arsenal looming in the backround and any retaliation to their aggression will have to take that power into consideration. Maybe they can start sinking warships like North Korea.

The west will rue the day they allow Iran to posess nukes.

ptown_trojans_1;450037 wrote:Just like Lebanon in 2006?



Again, saying one thing and actually carrying it out is totally different. Khrushchev was full of rhetoric, but never pulled the trigger, and was actually scared to do it if you followed the Cuban Missile crisis. Plus, Ahmadinejad would probably not be the one to authorize the launch, it would be the Ayatollah, so it really doesn't matter what he says.

In order to deter another state, one needs to create a box, where if they cross the line, they will get punished in some way. I think you can do this with Iran, if Iran did decide to cross the nuclear threshold.

Mexico can say whatever, but if we tell Mexico, if you advance past this point or do x, then there will be punishment, then deterrence theory starts to take hold and preemptive strikes are not needed.

The problem is nuclear weapons are game changers.

In conventional war you can say "if you cross line 'x' we will attack" that will work well. However, if the 'line' is a nuclear bomb attack that's a whole city whiped out with hundreds of thousands possibly millions of people dead.

The west will rue the day they allow Iran to posess nukes.

We picked the wrong country to invade. The whole time we were making the WMD case against Saddam, it was really Iran that was building the bomb.

They have just really ratcheted it up over the past 6-7 years because they knew with us bogged down in Iraq/Afghanistan that regime change was not an option.

In one foul swoop we took out their mortal enemy and gave them the room they needed to largely finish developing a bomb when we overthrew Saddam. Even we bomb them now, the Pentagon has essentially admitted that they are so far along that the best we could hope for is slowing them down, but that they eventually would have the bomb.

Their behavior would be alot different I suspect, and they would take our threats about not developing a bomb more seriously if it weren't for the fact our military is stretched so thin. Those are the choices we made though, and now we have to live with the consequences.

jmog;450052 wrote:The problem is nuclear weapons are game changers.

In conventional war you can say "if you cross line 'x' we will attack" that will work well. However, if the 'line' is a nuclear bomb attack that's a whole city whiped out with hundreds of thousands possibly millions of people dead.

Per deterrence theory, you make that choice of a country to launch a nuclear strike so painful that it alters their calculations. If the U.S. and Israel say to Iran that any attack of a nuclear nature will result in the full retaliation of the U.S. strategic nuclear forces, including targeting leadership, I think the Iranian regime will really think hard about launching a strike. You also have to say that any attempt to launch a missile will also invite a nuclear response. Of course conventional deterrence also comes into play, and bolstering Arab states in the region.

The Kaplan piece quoting Kissinger sort of gets at that.

I pray for the day missile defenses are advanced enough to stop nuclear missiles, how far away are we ptown? To me, it sounds like the great equalizer after 60+ years of the nuclear threat being unstoppable.

Iran's nuclear abilities would be pretty moot if we could just shoot it out of the sky, no? They'd have to manually deliver it to the country, which is trickier.

And when will the international community finally put some pressure on Israel to deal with Palestine in a manner that fits both of their causes. Israel wants to be left alone while simultaneously building settlements on land that isn't theirs. They look like hypocrites to be completely honest.

Anywho, what kind of realistic scenario can one draw up?

Assume Israel strikes Iran via Saudi Arabian airspace and decimates their nuclear program. Does Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon launch of myriad of rockets, does Syria sit idly by? Israel was somewhat limited in 2006 to how much they could escalate the war in 2006, in a full-blown war vs. Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon they'd wipe the floor with Syria and Lebanon within a month, albeit slowed in Lebanon. Iran and Israel would trade missiles, but it's not like they can invade each other without going over water.

Does Iran retaliate against Saudi Arabia? Does Iran attack the Strait of Hormuz, inviting reply from the United States? Does Russia help Iran? How quickly will the Europeans call for peace?

To an extent, I want them to duke it out, but not nuke it out. However I'm in favor of sitting on the sideline for this one, we have enough problems.

sjmvsfscs08;450320 wrote:I pray for the day missile defenses are advanced enough to stop nuclear missiles, how far away are we ptown? To me, it sounds like the great equalizer after 60+ years of the nuclear threat being unstoppable.

We are moving a system to stop their medium range missiles, and that is scheduled to be in place in a few years. The long range missile defense is still probably a decade away. The problem is it costs a ton, a few billion and has a mixed track record. (The latest test the radar did not even pic up the target. Plus, you can build a missile shield, but all it takes is a volley of missiles and some decoys to trick the system. No system will be 100% effective, or even 95% effective, so if Iran throws enough missiles at it, some may get through.
Also, Iran is still, at best, 5 years away from an ICBM delivery vehicle.

Iran's nuclear abilities would be pretty moot if we could just shoot it out of the sky, no? They'd have to manually deliver it to the country, which is trickier.

I'd agree missile defense would change their calculus, meaning they could seek other means of delivery is they want to, but I doubt they would cause they would know any attack would be the destruction of their regime.

And when will the international community finally put some pressure on Israel to deal with Palestine in a manner that fits both of their causes. Israel wants to be left alone while simultaneously building settlements on land that isn't theirs. They look like hypocrites to be completely honest.

Anywho, what kind of realistic scenario can one draw up?

None come to mind as both sides do not want peace and cannot agree on anything. Until both sides honestly want to solve the problem, the international community and the U.S. cannot do much.

Assume Israel strikes Iran via Saudi Arabian airspace and decimates their nuclear program. Does Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon launch of myriad of rockets, does Syria sit idly by?

I have no idea, but I could easily see Hezbollah and Syria responding to an attack by launching attacks on their own through Lebanon and the Golan Heights. I could also see Shia forces in Iraq attack western troops as well as sunni areas in Iraq.

Israel was somewhat limited in 2006 to how much they could escalate the war in 2006, in a full-blown war vs. Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon they'd wipe the floor with Syria and Lebanon within a month, albeit slowed in Lebanon. Iran and Israel would trade missiles, but it's not like they can invade each other without going over water.

Israel wasn't restrained in the first few days and when they were on the ground. If you look at some of the internal Israeli reports, it was bad on the ground leadership, poor use of ground forces and lack of a clear air and ground strategy that hurt them. Plus, they found Hezbollah actually fought like a semi-professional army, using fortified positions, attacking the weak part of Israeli ground forces, and maneuvering fire. Also, Israeli air forces did destroy a lot of Hezbollah places, but not many.

If Israel would have went 1982 style into Beirut, it would have been worse for them. Syria, Egypt and Jordan have a poor record against Israel, but for some reason the Lebanese always fight Israel to a draw. In an all out war, I think the Israelis would win, but it would be ugly, worse than 1982-83.

Does Iran retaliate against Saudi Arabia? Does Iran attack the Strait of Hormuz, inviting reply from the United States? Does Russia help Iran? How quickly will the Europeans call for peace?

Excellent questions and the answers are we don't know, but I for one, don't find to be put in a situation where we have to find out. Iran would probably try and close the straits, but I'm not sure.

To an extent, I want them to duke it out, but not nuke it out. However I'm in favor of sitting on the sideline for this one, we have enough problems.

Agreed, but there are so many unknowns, that to me the risk of striking now far outweighs the benefits. But, that could change.

sjmvsfscs08;450320 wrote:
And when will the international community finally put some pressure on Israel to deal with Palestine in a manner that fits both of their causes. Israel wants to be left alone while simultaneously building settlements on land that isn't theirs. They look like hypocrites to be completely honest.

No offense, but when Israel beat the snot out of Egypt because they were about to be attacked, they "won" Gaza and Palestine in the war. Technically the land absolutely does belong to Israel. You can discuss the moral dilemnas of keeping land obtained from war, but that is another subject.

jmog;450460 wrote:No offense, but when Israel beat the snot out of Egypt because they were about to be attacked, they "won" Gaza and Palestine in the war. Technically the land absolutely does belong to Israel. You can discuss the moral dilemnas of keeping land obtained from war, but that is another subject.

And don't forget the Sinai peninsula, Israel returned it when they singed the peace treaty between them and Egypt. Lands have changed hands like this throughout history. We are no strangers to it ourselves. No nation is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100817/wl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusmilitary_20100817120240

8 days to do something ......

QuakerOats;453914 wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100817/wl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusmilitary_20100817120240

8 days to do something ......

Oh God John Bolton. He is so wrong, as usual. The deal with the Russians for the fuel for the reactor involves the Russians taking back all spent fuel, which could be diverted for reprocessing plutonium. In addition to Russia taking back all the fuel from the reactor, the IAEA is safeguarding the reactor, meaning monitoring all fuel that goes in and out of the reactor. Plus, the fuel in there is only 3% enriched uranium, which Iran already has and any knowledge they may pick up from the reactor, they already learned from the Tehran Research Reactor.
What an idiot. The reactor doesn't matter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081301471.html
The Russians are just doing it, 1 cause the reactor is finally ready, and 2. to make money.