Iran, GWB and his Legacy

[Edward64]

I would have assume plans were being developed to handle the Iran situation militarily ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

However, what I thought was interesting (because I didn't think to factor it in) is the legacy that GWB would want to leave behind.

"Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, has made the same case and Mr Bush is expected to be faced by the decision within two years.

By then, Iran will be close to acquiring the knowledge to make an atomic bomb, although the construction will take longer. The President will not want to be seen as leaving the White House having allowed Iran's ayatollahs to go atomic."

As GWB does not tend to "back down", do you think this issue of his legacy will make military action a forgone conclusion in the next 2-3 years?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As GWB does not tend to "back down", do you think this issue of his legacy will make military action a forgone conclusion in the next 2-3 years?

I think there will be military action within the next couple of years regardless of whether the President wants it or not. If it looks like Iran is going nuclear, Israel is not going to sit back and watch.

[tarcone]

cant go military until iraq and afghanistan are cleaned up ....would be spreading it too thin.
IF iraq is clean then i can see going int o eithe r IRan or Syria
If terorists are living and training in syria i think we go there 1st

[Desnudo]

I think it would have made more sense to invade Iran rather than Iraq in the first place. If they choose to go bombs-only route, it will be ineffective.

[BishopMVP]

I heard we're bombing Iran March 19... out of crazy unfounded rumor land, all the serious analysis I've seen thinks they are a lot closer to getting a nuke and testing one soon. It is quite obvious that they are not going to stop until they have a nuclear weapon(s). Given this and Ahmedi-nejad's recent comments on subjects like Israel and helping the fifth imam return to earth, I think that the US and Israel will at least commence bombing within the next 6 months. Hopefully there is international support, but I don't think it is necessary in the minds of those who matter.

[Desnudo]

Just posting thoughts without any factual evidence, but does anyone else think that there is some sort of overt nuclear threat towards Iran and other terrorist supporting countries? If you've ever read how screwed up the situation was in Russia for a long time, and probably still is, it's very likely that some nukes went missing. I think that Iran and the US have probably already had "informal" discussions on what would happen if a terrorist nuclear attack ever occurred in the US.

[Edward64]

Denusdo. I don't think we've had those 'informal discussions' with Iran. Too easy for them to say the 'Great Satan is trying to bully us'. I agree with you that bombs-only would be pretty ineffective in the long run ... the Republicans would lose the high ground in criticizing Clinton's bombing campaigns.

BishopMVP, Ryan S. Unless they were attacked first, or Iran declared war on Israel, I just can't imagine Israel acting first. The ramifications would be huge. I believe the US will be forced to act first (instead of Israel).

tarcone. I'm not saying we should, but if I had to pick, I would definitely pick Iran over Syria. Iran is definitely more of an imminent threat than Syria, which seems fairly isolated because of their escapade in Lebanon.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

...all the serious analysis I've seen thinks they are a lot closer to getting a nuke and testing one soon.

You may want to get the BishipMVP Intelligence Agency to place a call to the CIA, NSA, IAEA, UN, Mossad, MI6, etc., because you must have information that they are not privy to. They all say that Iran is 10 years away at least from making a nuke.

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, the whole Isreal bombing Iran like they did with Iraq in '82 may not work so well this time. The rumor is that the majority of Iran's nuclear weapons program is going on underground.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As GWB does not tend to "back down", do you think this issue of his legacy will make military action a forgone conclusion in the next 2-3 years?

It's definitely not a foregone conclusion. If we were dealing with rational actors, then we wouldn't attack because Iran is something like 10 years away from getting a nuke, and the GOP would just use Iran as a '2 minutes hate' type thing for the next couple of years. Need that boogeyman to drum up electoral support. We aren't dealing with rational actors though, so I think it's tough to say if we will attack Iran.

[sterlingice]

We're not doing anything but getting into a pissing match with Iran until after the midterm elections unless it's completely unavoidable.

SI

[Edward64]

sterlingice. I would think differently ... as the Republicans win on National Security issues, I would think a confrontation with Iran would help the Republicans in the midterm elections.

MrBigglesworth. Honestly, I've not heard the 10 year estimate, the media seems to indicate imminent danger is alot nearer. I would like to read more on this, can you post your sources on this?

Issidiqui. I agree, bunkers and more spread out.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

sterlingice. I would think differently ... as the Republicans win on National Security issues, I would think a confrontation with Iran would help the Republicans in the midterm elections.

That's exactly SI's point, the GOP is drumming up the Iran angle because it helps them, but since we have no capacity to attack them and they aren't an imminent threat we won't hear about it after the elections. But then my suggestion is that we aren't dealing with rational actors, so we can't be sure of that.

Originally Posted by Edward64

MrBigglesworth. Honestly, I've not heard the 10 year estimate, the media seems to indicate imminent danger is alot nearer. I would like to read more on this, can you post your sources on this?

The media isn't indicating imminent danger, the GOP and conservative pundits are.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101453_pf.html

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That's exactly SI's point, the GOP is drumming up the Iran angle because it helps them, but since we have no capacity to attack them and they aren't an imminent threat we won't hear about it after the elections. But then my suggestion is that we aren't dealing with rational actors, so we can't be sure of that.

Yeah, I think Bigglesworth is 100% correct on it. The GOP looks good on security when we're talking about the abstract. If we start a new body count calculator in the next 6 months, something tangible the public can grasp on to, they'll be hurt by that.

SI

[M GO BLUE!!!]

From what I have seen recently, all we need to do is infultrate an Iranian newspaper and run a few cartoons...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

BishopMVP, Ryan S. Unless they were attacked first, or Iran declared war on Israel, I just can't imagine Israel acting first. The ramifications would be huge. I believe the US will be forced to act first (instead of Israel).

Given Ahmadi-nejad's statements on the destruction of Israel and the hastening of the return of the 12th imam, I doubt Israel feels it can give the benefit of the doubt to Iran. Their alliance with us has always been one of convenience, and if they feel the US isn't acting fast enough to prevent Iran getting nukes, they'll act and damn the consequences.

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You may want to get the BishipMVP Intelligence Agency to place a call to the CIA, NSA, IAEA, UN, Mossad, MI6, etc., because you must have information that they are not privy to. They all say that Iran is 10 years away at least from making a nuke.

El Baradei and the IAEA reports from the last month would seem to directly contradict that, with A) a few month window to nuclear weapons once technological knowhow, a parallel weapons development program and uranium enrichment programs are put in place. The military does have the weapons program going on, there is evidence of secret facilities for uranium enrichment (I'm a pessimist and take the refusal to allow the IAEA access to certain sites as evidence of wrongdoing) and documents relating to weaponization of uranium that Iran claims AQ Khan dropped off on his own. On the others, I don't recall the intelligence agencies issuing press releases, and even if they did, am I supposed to trust the CIA's track record after Pakistan and North Korea (not to mention Iraq)?

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Btw, the whole Isreal bombing Iran like they did with Iraq in '82 may not work so well this time. The rumor is that the majority of Iran's nuclear weapons program is going on underground.

Underground, spaced out and likely put under sensitive sites (mosques, schools, population centers.)

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

That's exactly SI's point, the GOP is drumming up the Iran angle because it helps them, but since we have no capacity to attack them and they aren't an imminent threat we won't hear about it after the elections. But then my suggestion is that we aren't dealing with rational actors, so we can't be sure of that.

We clearly do have the capacity to attack them, at least via airstrikes similar to Desert Fox. We also almost certainly do have the ability to invade and overthrow the regime, but the commitment to stabilization afterwards is where troop strength would falter.




My opinion is quite clear. Those in charge of Iran are irrational, and through the Qods Force have already been waging low-level war on America (and Israel) going back to Beirut in the early 1980's whether we care to acknowledge it or not and must not be allowed to go nuclear. Currently they are operating under the North Korean assumption that you can keep on making treaties with the West and breaking them until you have a nuke, and then you are safe from invasion. I don't blame them (and unfortunately, probably agree with its lessons.) Whether it is 6 months, 3 years or 10 years away is largely irrelevant, the end game is clear and in the absence of definitive evidence I would err on the side of caution with regards to the timetable. In addition to any terrorists inside Iran (and there are plenty being sheltered/helped or ignored by the government), this would stir up a hornets nets of terrorist groups/militias in Afghanistan, Iraq (Badr Brigades, SCIRI), Lebanon/Syria (Hezbollah), Palestine (Islamic Jihad, Hamas, al-Aqsa) and possibly even the US. This would be horrible in the short-term, but is necessary to prevent a larger confrontation down the road. Because barring a miraculous overthrow of the regime, which I used to hold out hope for, if we choose inaction and a nuke does go off in the US or Israel, it's over and the blood of many moderates and doves, in Iran if not the US and the rest of the MIddle East as well, will be shed too.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

El Baradei and the IAEA reports from the last month would seem to directly contradict that, with A) a few month window to nuclear weapons once technological knowhow, a parallel weapons development program and uranium enrichment programs are put in place.

I'm not sure where B) is, but A) doesn't cut it. That's widely discredited right wing nonsense:

Originally Posted by Mediamatters.org

ElBaradei's "few months" quote first appeared in a December 5 article (subscription required) in Britain's The Independent. The article stated that "[a]lthough IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for [the Iranians' underground uranium enrichment facility at] Natanz to become fully operational, Mr. ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be 'a few months' away from a nuclear weapon." The article noted that Iran so far has not begun the process of re-opening the plant at Natanz.

It's not a few months from now, it's a few months after they get enough enriched Uranium. When will they get enough enriched Uranium?

Originally Posted by Mediamatters.org

When Iran will have the capability to produce enriched uranium is unknown, but news reports have indicated that the IAEA and U.S. intelligence believe that the Iranians could not produce enough weapons-grade uranium for at least two years. The Independent, a British newspaper, interviewed IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei and reported on December 5 that "[a]lthough IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for [the underground enrichment plant at] Natanz to become fully operational, Mr. El-Baradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be 'a few months' away from a nuclear weapon." The article noted that Iran so far has not begun the process of re-opening the plant at Natanz. U.S. intelligence reportedly believes it will take longer. An August 2 Washington Post article reported that "[a] major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis." The article also reported that the intelligence review, known as a National Intelligence Estimate, "extended the timeline [for Iran's achievement of the ability to produce a nuclear weapon], judging that Iran will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon, before 'early to mid-next decade,' according to four sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line with recently revised British and Israeli figures."

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

We clearly do have the capacity to attack them, at least via airstrikes similar to Desert Fox.

We can't order airstrikes against Iran with 150k US soldiers sitting ducks right across the border. That's part of not having the capacity to attack. There is no manpower to invade, and we are in a terrible strategic spot for air strikes.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Those in charge of Iran are irrational...

Really? What irrational acts have they done so far?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm not sure where B) is, but A) doesn't cut it. That's widely discredited right wing nonsense:

B should have been my contentions in the next statement that Iran was closer to achieving said conditions. A was merely the statement in the Newsweek interview by El baradei that "if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon."

It's not a few months from now, it's a few months after they get enough enriched Uranium. When will they get enough enriched Uranium?

Most estimates fall in the 2-4 year range after breaking the seals at Natanz - which Iran did in January hxxp://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7071FFA3D5B0C728DDDA80894DE404482

We can't order airstrikes against Iran with 150k US soldiers sitting ducks right across the border. That's part of not having the capacity to attack. There is no manpower to invade, and we are in a terrible strategic spot for air strikes.

We've drawn down from 165k to 130k from December to January, and I'd expect that number to keep coming down significantly in the next few months.

Really? What irrational acts have they done so far?

hXXp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html would be a good place to start. Particularly the talk of the 12th imam and halos around his head. hxxp://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html would be another. Then there is the constant holocaust-denying and threats to wipe Israel off the map, but I suppose that is rational to some. And that is merely the current president's public statements.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Edward64

As GWB does not tend to "back down", do you think this issue of his legacy will make military action a forgone conclusion in the next 2-3 years?

A couple of thoughts here...

I am not really sure George Bush makes decisions based on building his legacy. He has said himself that he does not believe in introspection, so I doubt he thinks too hard about his "legacy".

I don't think he "doesn't back down" consistently either. I think much of the tough talk is just that. Decision-making in geopolitics is driven by both intent and capability of both the actor and target. He didn't "back down" on issues like Iraq, where he knew that a conventional invasion of Iraq would be very likely to succeed. He did back down on issues like the imported steel tarriffs--the targets were able to push back with their own tarriffs on US goods.

With that being said, is military intervention imminent? That would depend on the level of military intervention. Again, while the administration's rhetoric is often bellicose and their decision-making seems incomplete, they do seem to follow a cost-benefit calculus when they make foreign policy decisions (again, arguably, with the caveat that they don't seem to anticipate moves 2 or 3+ steps down the road).

Air strikes seem much more likely than an invasion. The administration is currently not advocating the removal by force of the North Korean or Iranian leadership, as a traditional mechanized assault on the mountainous North Korean or Iranian heartland may not be as effective as the Iraqi situation where the invasion was facilitated by a river plain and an extensive road network.

Also, in the Iranian situation, people do not appreciate the vastness of the country--it is almost 4x larger than Iraq with almost 3x the population. Any invasion would requre an occupying force much larger than what was ever in Iraq. In Donald Rumsfeld's attempts to transition the military's policies and capacities in order to fight the wars of the future (specifically his policies in making our military "leaner" and the associated reductions in manpower), our abilities to fight wars in the present have been affected. For example, the troop reductions have compromised the effectiveness of the occupation in Iraq. Also, due to the manpower reductions, we have abandoned our traditional policy of having the military preparedness to fight major wars in more than one theatre of operation simultaneously.

US conventional force planners have traditionally required overwhelming force in planned invasions. With Iraq, the US now has somewhere to project it's military power from, in any potential invasion of Iran. However, I have my doubts as to whether the US can muster adequate levels of projectible military power in the short term. So long as Iraq requires a large stabilizing force (and possibly even if not), I don't think the US has the capacity to conduct a successful conventional invasion with the accompanying long-term occupation of significant amounts of Iranian territory.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by tarcone

cant go military until iraq and afghanistan are cleaned up ....would be spreading it too thin.
IF iraq is clean then i can see going int o eithe r IRan or Syria
If terorists are living and training in syria i think we go there 1st

Sure you can. There are lots of options outside of a full scale invasion.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Sure you can. There are lots of options outside of a full scale invasion.

Of course, but one should also be realistic on what one hope to accomplish as well. Smaller-scale options typically beget smaller-scale outcomes. I think that is perfectly fine, but again, remember that what you can hope to accomplish will be limited...

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Of course, but one should also be realistic on what one hope to accomplish as well. Smaller-scale options typically beget smaller-scale outcomes. I think that is perfectly fine, but again, remember that what you can hope to accomplish will be limited...

We know where one of the major sites is located already. You can hit that, knock it to hell and gone, then tell tell them that you will continue to hit targets until the threat is gone. If you have world opinion on your side, you could get away with it.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

=If you have world opinion on your side, you could get away with it.

This is where the US might have problems, the major regional powers--Russia, China, and India all have relatively close relations with Iran. I think that the Europeans are too heavily invested in Iran and are likely to find a work-around to maintain their economic links regardless of official policy...

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

This is where the US might have problems, the major regional powers--Russia, China, and India all have relatively close relations with Iran. I think that the Europeans are too heavily invested in Iran and are likely to find a work-around to maintain their economic links regardless of official policy...

And that will be unilateral action that I will support.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

We know where one of the major sites is located already. You can hit that, knock it to hell and gone, then tell tell them that you will continue to hit targets until the threat is gone. If you have world opinion on your side, you could get away with it.

Just like we knew where the Iraqi WMDs were too, right?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Just like we knew where the Iraqi WMDs were too, right?

Nope. In this case, I'm referring to taking out the uranium processing compound outside of Ishifan that they let a BBC reporter into. I'm pretty sure if the BBC knows where it is, the Pentagon does also.

But this does bring up a good point...you have to know where the rest of the targets are. At some point, we're going to need to trust the intel community again. Without good intel we aren't going to be able to do much against anyone.

[st.cronin]

Iran has had parades featuring missiles (sans warheads) with the addresses of Israeli temples on them. I'm just sayin'... it's not like we don't know what they plan to do as soon as they get the technology.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

B should have been my contentions in the next statement that Iran was closer to achieving said conditions. A was merely the statement in the Newsweek interview by El baradei that "if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far - a few months - from a weapon." Most estimates fall in the 2-4 year range after breaking the seals at Natanz - which Iran did in January hxxp://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F7071FFA3D5B0C728DDDA80894DE404482

That El baradei statement is based off a thousand ifs, none of which any intelligence agency has any evidence off being true. It is very very hard to engineer a nuclear weapon, all the evidence points to them being worst case scenario 5 years from making a nuke, but closer to 10. Ten years just is not very close, which means that it is not a problem right now. And furthermore, the argument can be made that a nuclear Iran would make the middle east safer and cool things down, like what has happened between the Pakistanis (muslims, remember) and the Indians, which means that Iran getting nukes is not the worst thing imaginable.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

hXXp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html would be a good place to start. Particularly the talk of the 12th imam and halos around his head. hxxp://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-havent-we-seen-this.html would be another. Then there is the constant holocaust-denying and threats to wipe Israel off the map, but I suppose that is rational to some. And that is merely the current president's public statements.

That's all talk. It's all rhetoric. I'm looking for acts of irrationality. You don't listen to what politicians say, you look at what they do.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It is very very hard to engineer a nuclear weapon, all the evidence points to them being worst case scenario 5 years from making a nuke, but closer to 10. Ten years just is not very close, which means that it is not a problem right now. And furthermore, the argument can be made that a nuclear Iran would make the middle east safer and cool things down, like what has happened between the Pakistanis (muslims, remember) and the Indians, which means that Iran getting nukes is not the worst thing imaginable.

Since you bring up Pakistan, Atlantic Monthly did a nice piece on AQ Khan and his network last month you might want to check out. Among countries contacted and helped with a nuclear program were Iran, Libya, North Korea, Iraq, Egypt, Malaysia, Syria, and of course Saudi Arabia. And yes, the US government knew about most of this despite public claims of ignorance. Your estimates of 10 years are for a program starting from scratch, which Iran is not doing.

Let's assume Iran does get a nuke. Just like Pakistan, we are then forced to prop up the regime against the will of the people. Because if there are widespread protests and they are at the gates of the palace with the mullahs no place to run, Israel gets nuked, blaze of glory, they get a place in history, go to heaven with 72 virgins and take a lot of people along with them. Even short of that threat, Iran is already fighting a low-level war against the US, and having a nuclear backup would only increase their boldness. There is no rational analysis that has Iran's current regime playing nice once they get nuclear weapons. None. Whatsoever. And don't forget, if Iran gets a nuke, it's not just them, it's everyone. I'd be a lot less comfortable living in that world, because MAD falls apart once one faction knows it will be destroyed anyway.

That's all talk. It's all rhetoric. I'm looking for acts of irrationality. You don't listen to what politicians say, you look at what they do.

In retrospect, Irrationality was the wrong word to use. While a man like Kim in NK is irrational, I believe that all Ahmedi-nejad's actions are the perfectly rational actions of a man who, at best, wants to consolidate his power and help bring about our long-term downfall and at worst actively wishes to cause Armageddon. While I fully recognize the value of looking at a politicians actions and not his words, when you only have words to go on, I tend to err on the side of caution. Anything I could list for actions would be shady and mostly conjecture, seeing as how groups like Hezbollah, IJO and Qods force don't generally put out public financial statements, let alone in English. I'll just say I've seen enough evidence of different events involving American bloodshed with enough Iranian fingerprints on them to think better of just hoping that they are making their public statements for domestic consumption (to foreign news outlets, in English, which most of their population doesn't speak.)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Your estimates of 10 years are for a program starting from scratch, which Iran is not doing.

No, it is the CIA's estimate of how far Iran is from getting a nuke, not someone starting from scratch. Someone starting from scratch would be far longer than 10 years.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Because if there are widespread protests and they are at the gates of the palace with the mullahs no place to run, Israel gets nuked, blaze of glory, they get a place in history, go to heaven with 72 virgins and take a lot of people along with them.

Again, you are giving irrational actions for people who have so far acted completely rationally. The fact that there have been no suicide bombers in the United States since 9/11 is evidence enough that the number of people willing to blow themselves up is in the tiny, tiny minority of people. That's not something that a majority of Muslims truly believe, at least believe enough to act on it. If political change happens in Iran, the United States just has to work so that it happens in a democratic way where the palaces aren't stormed, the Mullahs are just voted into an increasingly marginal aspect of society, like our fundamentalist religious leaders in our country. Invading or bombing the hell out of Iran is not the only option to consider, and probably it is the worst action of all.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The fact that there have been no suicide bombers in the United States since 9/11 is evidence enough that the number of people willing to blow themselves up is in the tiny, tiny minority of people.

Don't really get to train to be a repeat suicide bomber

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

No, it is the CIA's estimate of how far Iran is from getting a nuke, not someone starting from scratch.

I don't trust that NIE estimate. I have no idea what went into changing it from 5 to 10 years, but all the open source information is around 2-4 years assuming no outside help or interference. But if you want to base your argument on government assessments of WMD capabilities be my guest.

Again, you are giving irrational actions for people who have so far acted completely rationally.

And you are giving the complete benefit of the doubt to people who have done nothing to earn it. Any more on this point between me and you isn't likely to achieve anything, since I believe they want to kill us and would be willing to use nuclear weapons if they thought they were about to lose while you don't.

The fact that there have been no suicide bombers in the United States since 9/11 is evidence enough that the number of people willing to blow themselves up is in the tiny, tiny minority of people.

That makes as much sense as saying it is evidence enough that our homeland security is airtight.

If political change happens in Iran, the United States just has to work so that it happens in a democratic way where the palaces aren't stormed, the Mullahs are just voted into an increasingly marginal aspect of society, like our fundamentalist religious leaders in our country.

Have you followed the elections and democratic process there? It was looking nice for awhile, but any progress gained has been lost. Those in power are not going to let themselves be voted out of office - at best, someone like Rafsanjani would come back into power. The only way significant change is going to come is with the barrel of a gun. Sad but true.

[Warhammer]

Couple of things, I disagree with the 5-10 year development time for a nuke. If they knew what they were doing, my guess is they could develop a nuke in 5 years. The main part of the development time for the bomb is the fissionable material. If they have a working reactor, they can already be producing it and refining it. It only took us 3 years to do it in the 40s, I'm sure someone now can speed up that time frame.

Second, we're kind of picking and choosing what we believe in government assessments. You complain about our intelligence estimates in Iraq, but now wholeheartedly agree with our assessments regarding Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons? IIRC, we have very little intelligence assets in Iran currently, I want to say a memo compromised many of them, but I might be getting that mixed up with another country over there.

Third, why should we have faith in a country where the democratic process there has been described as a farce. Similar to the elections held in the Soviet Bloc after WWII.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I have no idea what went into changing it from 5 to 10 years...

I think that's the most true thing you have said so far in regards to Iran.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't trust that NIE estimate...But if you want to base your argument on government assessments of WMD capabilities be my guest.

I trust the national intelligence agencies more than I trust your expertise and the expertise of the GOP, that much I can assure you. To use my buzzword fo the day, I think it's irrational to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

And you are giving the complete benefit of the doubt to people who have done nothing to earn it. Any more on this point between me and you isn't likely to achieve anything, since I believe they want to kill us and would be willing to use nuclear weapons if they thought they were about to lose while you don't.

It's not the benefit of the doubt, it is basic human nature and a basic understanding of how geopolitics work.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That makes as much sense as saying it is evidence enough that our homeland security is airtight.

An attack on the scale of 9/11 requires years of training and years of funding. Strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing it up requires a trip to the store and a willingness to blow it up. The limited factor there is the willingness, and it just isn't there except in an extremely tiny minority of people.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Have you followed the elections and democratic process there? It was looking nice for awhile, but any progress gained has been lost. Those in power are not going to let themselves be voted out of office - at best, someone like Rafsanjani would come back into power. The only way significant change is going to come is with the barrel of a gun. Sad but true.

Things were going well...until the "Axis of Evil" comment and other fear mongoring similar to your comments made the United States an easy target for the hardliners to scapegoat. After that SOTU speech, all the hardliners had to do was paint the moderates as 'on the side of the US' and public opinion followed. It's a common tactic, sound familiar at all?

Bottom line, Iran is not a threat to the United States. They are years away from developing nukes, and even if they had nukes, they have no way of getting them here. They have no ICBMs, no missile launching subs, nothing. And even if they did, the worst they could do would be to blow up a few cities, and in return they would be completely annihilated. Iran, like terrorism, isn't the greatest threat ever to the republic. Should they be dissuaded from building a nuke? Yes, nuclear proliferation as a whole is bad. But let's not get crazy about it. I wouldn't be willing to risk my life to stop their nuclear program, so I wouldn't want another American to risk his.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Couple of things, I disagree with the 5-10 year development time for a nuke. If they knew what they were doing, my guess is they could develop a nuke in 5 years.

Warhammer I respect your opinions, but if my choice is between your 'guess' and the work of the CIA, the NSA, Mossad, and MI-6, I'm going with the latter.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Second, we're kind of picking and choosing what we believe in government assessments. You complain about our intelligence estimates in Iraq, but now wholeheartedly agree with our assessments regarding Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons?

A lot of our intelligence in Iraq was wrong, a lot of it was right. Our leaders chose to heed the incorrect information and ignore the correct information. I think that reflects more poorly on the judgement of our leaders than it does on the abilities of our intelligence network. So if the two are at odds, I'm going to trust the intelligence network. Furthermore, the Isreali's say the same timeframe, 10 years, and I would think they have a better handle on the situation than we do.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Furthermore, the Isreali's say the same timeframe, 10 years, and I would think they have a better handle on the situation than we do.

I'll grant you that. However, from what I have found, both Britain and Israel recently refined their estimates to 10 years. My question is what has changed that resulted in their revised estimates? The article that references the 10 year time frame was from August of 2005. The only reason why I can think of Israel, Britain, and us all revising our intelligence estimates is due to the seals on the reactors at this time.

Now on January 10, 2006, Iran broke the seals at their reactor and began production of fuels again. Knowing that the main obstacle in making a bomb is the procurement of the fissile materials, their resumption of fuel production should lead to a revision of the estimates. That is where I am getting my guess of 5 years.

In either case, I would rather err on the side of 5 years and be wrong by being early, than err on the side of 10 years and being late.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There is no rational analysis that has Iran's current regime playing nice once they get nuclear weapons. None. Whatsoever. And don't forget, if Iran gets a nuke, it's not just them, it's everyone. I'd be a lot less comfortable living in that world, because MAD falls apart once one faction knows it will be destroyed anyway.

I would love to hear a plausible outline of a doomsday scenario involving either the Iranian use of nuclear weapons or the exportation of nuclear technology that would advance Iranian security interests.

Low to moderate levels of state sponsorship of terrorist and militant groups serves Iranian foreign policy, since it (for better or worse) provides a check on expansion of the Israeli (and Hussein-era Iraqi) sphere of influence. Sponsorship achieves this in such a way that the Israelis cannot respond proportionally: the Israelis have no political or economic leverage over the Iranians, any military retaliation would be by definition a disproportional escalation since the damage done by any small-scale terrorist strike would be dwarfed by an Israeli military conterstrike.

Exporting nuclear weapons does nothing to advance Iranian security interests since the Iranians will lose their proportionality advantage once it happens. All bets are off after an Iranian-produced terrorist nuclear bomb goes off in Tel Aviv: Iran's nuclear destruction at the hands of the Israel becomes quite probable. I am sure that the Iranians are content to continue harass Israel in a low-level manner, and are pragmatic enough to see the folly in escalating the destructive power of their terrorist clients.

I don't see much evidence of realpolitik falling apart. If you look at Iranian foreign policy in the past 15 years, they are playing a mixed-game: belicose rhetoric against the US, terrorist sponsorship against Israel, close economic ties to Western Europe, Russia, Asia, and most of the Middle East. Though cutting it quite close at times, the Iranians have rarely let their ideology override state interest. It is in their interests to maintain good economic relations with its current partners. Remember Ahmadinejad won the election on an economic platform. The Iranians know that they will pay dearly economically if the use or export nuclear weapons, they cannot afford to take that risk. Having a nuclear detterent capability does serve Iranian security interests, but exporting those weapons does not.

I do see Ahmadinejad as a bit of an extremist, but realpolitik and organizational theory dictates that his actual policies will eventually move more moderate than his rhetoric. Remember too, that Ahmadinejad is not a theologian but a scientist by profession (Doctorate in Engineering, I think), so I think that he is capable of rational-actor cost-benefit analyses.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I'll grant you that. However, from what I have found, both Britain and Israel recently refined their estimates to 10 years. My question is what has changed that resulted in their revised estimates? The article that references the 10 year time frame was from August of 2005. The only reason why I can think of Israel, Britain, and us all revising our intelligence estimates is due to the seals on the reactors at this time.

Now on January 10, 2006, Iran broke the seals at their reactor and began production of fuels again. Knowing that the main obstacle in making a bomb is the procurement of the fissile materials, their resumption of fuel production should lead to a revision of the estimates. That is where I am getting my guess of 5 years.

In either case, I would rather err on the side of 5 years and be wrong by being early, than err on the side of 10 years and being late.

Five years is what the experts predict to be worst case scenario, so they may be five years away. But the thing is, five years is a very long time! Bush would be out of office three years by then. So saying that the danger is 'imminent' is simply incorrect. There is no reason to even consider military strikes at this time. We should be working diplomatically. We should even be helping the Iranians get nuclear energy, and use it as a carrot to get them away from developing nuclear weapons. Hard line talk has it's place, but there is no need for attacks.

[Warhammer]

I can agree with that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I would love to hear a plausible outline of a doomsday scenario involving either the Iranian use of nuclear weapons or the exportation of nuclear technology that would advance Iranian security interests.

Low to moderate levels of state sponsorship of terrorist and militant groups serves Iranian foreign policy, since it (for better or worse) provides a check on expansion of the Israeli (and Hussein-era Iraqi) sphere of influence. Sponsorship achieves this in such a way that the Israelis cannot respond proportionally: the Israelis have no political or economic leverage over the Iranians, any military retaliation would be by definition a disproportional escalation since the damage done by any small-scale terrorist strike would be dwarfed by an Israeli military conterstrike.

Exporting nuclear weapons does nothing to advance Iranian security interests since the Iranians will lose their proportionality advantage once it happens. All bets are off after an Iranian-produced terrorist nuclear bomb goes off in Tel Aviv: Iran's nuclear destruction at the hands of the Israel becomes quite probable. I am sure that the Iranians are content to continue harass Israel in a low-level manner, and are pragmatic enough to see the folly in escalating the destructive power of their terrorist clients.

I don't see much evidence of realpolitik falling apart. If you look at Iranian foreign policy in the past 15 years, they are playing a mixed-game: belicose rhetoric against the US, terrorist sponsorship against Israel, close economic ties to Western Europe, Russia, Asia, and most of the Middle East. Though cutting it quite close at times, the Iranians have rarely let their ideology override state interest. It is in their interests to maintain good economic relations with its current partners. Remember Ahmadinejad won the election on an economic platform. The Iranians know that they will pay dearly economically if the use or export nuclear weapons, they cannot afford to take that risk. Having a nuclear detterent capability does serve Iranian security interests, but exporting those weapons does not.

I do see Ahmadinejad as a bit of an extremist, but realpolitik and organizational theory dictates that his actual policies will eventually move more moderate than his rhetoric. Remember too, that Ahmadinejad is not a theologian but a scientist by profession (Doctorate in Engineering, I think), so I think that he is capable of rational-actor cost-benefit analyses.

I agree with this. Iran hasn't done anything which shows it is acting completely against its interests or totally irrational. It seems Iran, for all the rhetoric, is a fairly pragmatic state. After all, they were willing participants in Iran Contra, trading with the "Great Satan". They have apparently settled into a happy medium. Supporting small scale attacks, realizing nothing can really be done against them substantially as a result. They haven't launched any wars (Hussein declared war first in the Iran-Iraq War).

I don't think that they'll launch against Isreal, but use it as a threat. I think a big reason to get nukes probably is because their most hated neighbor kind of used a good number of WMDs against them, and I don't think Iran trusts Iraq in any form.