Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???

[David]

According to this article, it appears like the President has made an implied "threat" to use force against Iran if they produce a nuclear weapon.

I wonder if this is just a "game of chess" he's playing with Iran, or if push comes to shove, will he REALLY authorize an attack on Iran?

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=152461406&p=y5z46zyyz

'All options open', Bush tells Iran

US President George Bush today warned that “all options are on the table” if Iran refuses to comply with international demands to halt its nuclear programme.

Noting that he has already used force to secure the United States, he said in an interview with Israel TV that the US and Israel “are united in our objective to make sure that Iran does not have a weapon”.

If diplomacy fails, President Bush said “all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option for any president.”

He added: “You know, we’ve used force in the recent past to secure our country.”

Bush's warning came as Iran showed no sign of backing down in the row over Tehran's decision to press ahead with uranium development.

The Iranians are also pushing ahead on another track – construction of a heavy-water reactor that Tehran says will be used only for peaceful purposes but which could also produce plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

It will take at least another four years for Iran to complete the reactor, making it a less immediate worry for the west than the uranium programme, parts of which are either in operation or ready to operate at a moment’s notice.

But ultimately, the heavy-water reactor could prove more dangerous, since bombs made with plutonium are smaller and easier to fit onto a ballistic missile.

In a comprehensive package aimed at reining in Iran’s nuclear programme, Europe proposed that it give up the heavy-water project in return for a light-water reactor, seen by arms control experts as easier to monitor to ensure it is not being used for weapons.

Iran – which says its nuclear programme is peaceful – rejected the entire package this week. The head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation called the offer on the heavy-water reactor a “joke”.

“We have developed this capability. The heavy water project today is a reality,” Gholamreza Aghazadeh, who is also vice president, said on state-run television.

“This knowledge now belongs to Iran. Nobody can take it from us. As they (Europeans) see Iran’s determination, they will be forced to show flexibility and accept it.”

While Iran has agreed to suspend parts of its uranium programme as a gesture in negotiations with Europe, it has repeatedly rejected European calls for it to also freeze the heavy-water project, which is moving full steam ahead.

Iran says the heavy-water reactor will have a range of peaceful applications. It says it intends to use the facility in the pharmaceutical, biological and biotechnological fields as well as in cancer diagnosis and control.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is aimed only at producing electricity, but the US accuses it of secretly intending to build nuclear weapons.

Europe is trying through negotiations to persuade Iran to give up technology that can be used for military purposes and limit its programme to possessing reactors using fuel provided from abroad.

The 40-megawatt heavy-water reactor could produce enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon each year, an amount experts commonly say is 8.8 pounds.

The reactor – ringed with anti-aircraft guns as are all of Iran’s nuclear facilities – is being built at the foot of a mountain in the deserts outside the small town of Khondab.

Nuclear weapons can be produced using either plutonium or highly enriched uranium as the explosive core. Either substance can be produced in the process of running a reactor.

Uranium is enriched by turning the raw ore into gas, which is then spun in centrifuges. If it is enriched to a low level, it can be used as fuel for a reactor. At a high level, it can be used for a bomb.

Iran’s enrichment programme is at an advanced stage with thousands of centrifuges ready to start working.

While Iran is continuing its suspension of enrichment, it ended its freeze this week on the first step in the process – turning raw uranium into gas - bringing a sharp rebuke from Europe and today’s warning from President Bush.
******

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Iran would make the Iraq occupation look easy. Seriously, Iran has more than twice as many people as Iraq. Iran has a more stable political system with less tribal and ethnic divisions than Iraq had. Iran's government has more popular support than Iraq's did. Iran's leadership is not guilty of the same level of human rights abuses that Iraq's was. Iran is regarded as a more normal place with closer connections to Europe than Iraq was. Iran's geography may be even more challenging.

We've already lost the war in Iraq and I think a war in Iran would be much more difficult. We would be trounced.

The US sustains its power because everyone is afraid of the US. The fear itself is the basis of the power. If the fear is ruptured then that aspect of the power is gone. The fear already has been ruptured. All over the world, countries that think they might want to stand up to the US are looking at Iraq and saying, "well, Iraq is making their lives hell and they're going to have to leave, so they won't be able to do anything to us". Iran is in the same situation.

 

[Standing Wolf]

That's the trouble with land wars in Asia: there's a fair amount of Asia to fight in.

 

[WT]

I wonder if the Iranians are using the Canadian CANDU heavy water process?

I know the Canadians sell a lot of these units to underdeveloped countries. I remember seeing the Canadian Prime Minister at a ribbon cutting ceremony for one in Romania.


Back to the original questions: Is IRAN Next For The US Military ???
.............. NFW.

 

[Preacherman]

I don't think that a land invasion of Iran by US forces is on the cards, for many reasons. However, this leaves open several interesting possibilities:

1. Air strikes against nuclear and related targets;

2. Support of (even creation of) an internal insurgency in Iran;

3. Blockade of Iranian oil exports;

4. Interdiction of Iranian air space to prohibit international flights;

5. Mining of Iranian ports;

6. Disabling of Iranian oil production.

Any or all of these would put a whole lot of pressure on Iran without exposing US forces to major danger in large numbers.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

What military would we fight them with? We are already spread thin with our world-wide commitments, and I don't think recruitment is working out the way the government hoped.

Of course, if we do it would not be the first time an Empire spread its military too thin.

 

[taliv]

Iran has a more stable political system with less tribal and ethnic divisions than Iraq had.

Iran's government has more popular support than Iraq's did.

Iran's leadership is not guilty of the same level of human rights abuses that Iraq's was.

We've already lost the war in Iraq...

put down the crackpipe


If we want to stop Iran from making nukes, it's as good as done. That's a walk in the park for our military. It would not be significantly more difficult than the spanking we gave Iraq.

We aren't (as far as I know) talking about overthrowing the iranian gov and setting up our own puppet gov. We're not talking about extended police action here. We're talking about shutting down their nuclear facilities.

Heck, that can be done from orbit.

 

[Cosmoline]

No.

 

[beerslurpy]

We dont have to occupy Iran to destroy their factilities or even to destroy the entire country. Israel didnt occupy Iraq to destroy their nuke facilities in the 80s.

Which raises the whole question of why we bothered to occupy iraq (to intimidate syria and iran?), when every other country in the region is better acquainted with the language, customs and people of Iraq and all likely have intelligence assets in the country. .

 

[rock jock]

We dont have to occupy Iran to destroy their factilities or even to destroy the entire country. Israel didnt occupy Iraq to destroy their nuke facilities in the 80s.

I have to agree with this. The hard part of the Iraq situation has been after we took down Saddam's regime. Why we felt any obligation to start a democracy there I have no idea, but from a strictly military standpoint, there is no reason we couldn't beat Iran handily.

 

[yucaipa]

I don't see the people who run Iran ever giving up their program. The nut-jobs behind the curtain who really run the country are on a "mission from god"

Once they obtain nuclear weapons 1st they will go after Israel, 2nd they will go after "the great Satan"

From Iran's POV there's no incentive at all to take any military program off line, "the great Satan" all ready as a standing army on both it's west and east borders.

 

[Monkeyleg]

And could it just be that we went into Iraq to establish staging grounds for actions against countries such as Iran or even Saudi Arabia?

The "Bush was an idiot for believing flawed intelligence about Iraq" argument has worn thin.

Since the World Trade Center attacks, the plan has been to secure ground in the Middle East where we could either intimidate or directly attack enemy countries more effectively.

 

[Rebar]

Iran is ready to throw off the rule of it's mad mullahs. An Afghanistan type operation, Iranian rebels with imbedded special forces calling in airstrikes, would work fine. I bet there are A-Teams working in Iran as I type this.

 

[SIGarmed]

We've already lost the war in Iraq and I think a war in Iran would be much more difficult. We would be trounced.

We already lost the war in Iraq? That sure is news to me.
You've got to be kidding.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Ah, I see Monkeyleg... the true reason for invading Iraq has been revealed... at least until the next true reason comes along.

So for the goals-in-constant-motion in Iraq have been:

Eliminate WMD
Topple Saddam
Free the Iraqi People
Create a Middle East Democracy
Fight terrorists abroad, not at home
and now so we can have a staging ground to fight Iran, Syria, or whoever.

All these goals are admirable, but the fact that the present administration can't remember from day to day why we are there is troubling. Bush wonders why American support for the war in Iraq has dwindled to an all time low (now about 39%). The answer is simple. He won't set a consistent goal, and then pull no punches at acheiving it.

I don't believe we need a staging ground in Iraq to keep Iran's nuclear program in check. The US Navy can do that from hundreds of miles away at sea.

 

[David]

I agree with Preacherman and the others who think our most likely military response to Iran's nuclear program would be some type of LIMITED strategic attack, as opposed to a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran.



The question is, of course, if we did attack Iran's nuclear plants, what type of response could we expect from Iran in return?

An Iran funded terrorist attack on US soil?

A direct attack on US Troops in Iraq?

A direct attack on Israel?

No response at all?

None of the above?

All of the above?

Interesting times in which we live...

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

What military would we fight them with? We are already spread thin with our world-wide commitments, and I don't think recruitment is working out the way the government hoped.

We would need a draft. We would need to draft about a million soldiers to a) squish the insurgency in Iraq and b) have a hope of occupying Iran. Drafting a million soldiers is a political impossibility right now.

Of course, if we do it would not be the first time an Empire spread its military too thin.

Yes they only get to do it once.

For the others who said that full-scale occupation isn't necessary: That's true. The nuke facilities could be taken out with air strikes, limited ground operations, that kind of thing. That's practical and possible. Another Iraq-style "regime change" is just not possible.

As for the US losing the war in Iraq: Yes, we lost it. The occupation gets weaker and the insurgency gets stronger every day. They are killing US soldiers with remote-detonated bombs. The more the soldiers go out on patrol the more they get killed. To make the occupation work we would need to double or triple the occupation force and the amount of patrolling which would double or triple the casualties. None of this is politically possible and the insurgents are well aware of it.

Oh yeah, we did achieve the objective of getting rid of the regime, but we still have lost the war because we didn't meet the other objective of creating a friendly and stable government there, which would enable a guaranteed flow of oil. Didn't happen, won't happen, time to cut the losses and go home.

The question is, of course, if we did attack Iran's nuclear plants, what type of response could we expect from Iran in return?

An Iran funded terrorist attack on US soil?

A direct attack on US Troops in Iraq?

A direct attack on Israel?

No response at all?

None of the above?

All of the above?

Hard to say. I doubt there would be a direct attack on Israel, or if there were one it would be something symbolic, not really destructive. No one wants to get involved with that. An attack on US troops in Iraq is possible. There are a lot of Shiites in Iraq who would be happy to help in that. Terrorist attacks on the US are less likely. That's not a productive thing to do. No response at all is possible. That way they actually win brownie points with Europe. Iran used to be quite a Europeanized country and elements of that still remain. They are Indo-European people, just like Europeans.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Iran can be brought to its knees without an American setting a boot on their soil. Any nuclear facilities can be obliterated by cruise missles from hundreds of miles away. End of that threat. Then demand that Iran use its influence to recall terrorists from anywhere in the world. Iran has seaports; destroy one a week, sinking ships and blocking harbors until they comply. Tell them (privately) that if the U.S. is the target of any terrorist act fulminated by Islamic extremism, one of their cities disappears. I'll bet things will get a whole lot quieter real quick.

 

[Rebar]

As for the US losing the war in Iraq: Yes, we lost it.

Utter nonsense. The insurgency is reduced to using children and dogs for their attacks, the Iraqi military is getting stronger every day, the Iraqi people are sick and tired of terrorists and are actually taking the law into their own hands and shooting them. Every report from soldiers in Iraq confirm that we are in fact winning.

You really should stop getting your news for Michael Moore's web site.

 

[Cosmoline]

We already lost the war in Iraq? That sure is news to me.

I've heard this from many anti-war folks. They've convinced themselves that the actions of a handful of suicidal terrorists means Iraq has rejected democracy. It's the same sort of weird self-deception that convinces them a draft is around the corner--or an invasion of Iran.

 

[KriegHund]

We didnt lose any 'war' in Iraq. Were just struggling with insurgents or if you like freedom fighters.

But Iran? We could kick their butss with minimal losses. Occupation is a different story.

Thats the thing, it seems, american forces can kick anyones buttocks, but only for a small time.

 

[jdberger]

Ah, I see Monkeyleg... the true reason for invading Iraq has been revealed... at least until the next true reason comes along.

So for the goals-in-constant-motion in Iraq have been:

Eliminate WMD
Topple Saddam
Free the Iraqi People
Create a Middle East Democracy
Fight terrorists abroad, not at home
and now so we can have a staging ground to fight Iran, Syria, or whoever.

All these goals are admirable, but the fact that the present administration can't remember from day to day why we are there is troubling. Bush wonders why American support for the war in Iraq has dwindled to an all time low (now about 39%). The answer is simple. He won't set a consistent goal, and then pull no punches at acheiving it.

Seems to me that the reasons have been pretty consistent with what the Senate approved when they authorized the President to go to war in October 2002. Here is the link to the resolution S J Res 45

Hard work is...uh..hard. Some folks have the stomach for it, and others don't. The idea is that we are looking well beyond instant gratification, attempting to establish a liberal democracy in a region that has never experienced it. Difficult, but possible (but I've always been an optimist).

As to the other;

Oh yeah, we did achieve the objective of getting rid of the regime, but we still have lost the war because we didn't meet the other objective of creating a friendly and stable government there, which would enable a guaranteed flow of oil. Didn't happen, won't happen, time to cut the losses and go home.

Case in point.

Stop thinking of these guys as "insurgents". You give them too much legitimacy. Truly, they are just right wing paramilitary death squads. The proof that they are losing is that the Shiites, who are also the targets of these maniacs, haven't started stringing up Suunis on principle. Self restraint and trust in the impartiality and rule of law is a HUGE step toward a liberal democracy.

 

[itgoesboom]

No, we can kick anyones butts for a significant amount of time.

Unfortunatly, our politicians won't let us finish the job and fight the war the way it needs to be fought.

Some things just don't change, and some lessons are never learned.

I.G.B.

 

[Joejojoba111]

There are still some big crucial moral elements that have been disregarded in a disconcerting manner. Even the Soviets would have had more concern for their actions than this.

Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

Furthermore Israel, supplied almost certainly by America, has an illegal but completely tolerated nuclear weapon status, and they receive absolutely no negative feedback on it. They are in fact most likely the strongest argument the Iranians have for needing their own nukes. And it is a damning argument.

Then you have the arguments that the USA conducted de-facto WMD attacks on Iran by supplying nerve agents to Iraq, who killed millions of Iranians in an unjust war they started. This is another black eye. Couple that with the good relations with Iraq kept after the world understood the scope of it's atrocities (roads built through swamps using nothing but human corpses from chemical attacks) as symbolized by the dated photograph of a smiling Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand, and you have an PR problem.

Then you have the problem that Iran is a democracy, so you go for regime change what do we plan to substitute? Replace their unique mixture of theology and democracy with the standard American-supporting hereditary tyrant which abuses his populace and breeds terrorists who fly planes into the World Trade Center?

Furthermore Iran has several significant geographical differences from Iraq. In almost every quantifiable way their geography has differences, and these differences almost invariably suit the defence, increased size, mountain ranges, etc.

Then you have the presence of a working military, and not a stupid one. They appear to have been permitting US military aircraft to overfly them recenty. Smart because there is little an F-16 aircraft can photograph that a satellite can't, and smart because the aircraft wants Iran to power-up it's air defence network so it can chart it for destruction. Smarter yet because the US officials keenly desire cassus belli such as Iranians mercilessly shooting down a US aircraft, which naturally was accidentally off course due to a hapless technical malfunction.

Oh yes, and Iran has little useful systems which, if used smartly, would make military action come at a price. The SS22 missiles and things like this are potent systems, and if the Iranians are smart, which no shot-at or shot-down US F-16s suggest they are, then the Iranians will not wait for the US in its usual MO of taking 5 months fo amass forces and then strike. They would be smart to strike the naval forces with things like the SS-22 before they are prepared to strike. An American general playing opfor won a scenario war-game simulating the 2nd US-Iraqi war by attacking the US navy with small boats as they gathered. The war game was stopped, the navy re-floated, and the game continued. Then he frustrated them by using motorcycle couriers instead of wireless for communications, well he did a lot of things that worked and they kept changing the rules until he resigned from the Army. And this was all in the newpapers, so if Iran is smart they might have read the papers. And while they do have small boats to attack with, they also have things like the sunburn missile.

In short Bush is practicing brinksmanship, which is also a smart move. Iraq gave him street cred, he can depend on the media at home for domestic control, and it's already worked once on Syria. Plus he owes Israel a favor after pushing the withdrawl from disputed territories.


Or maybe I'm reading too much into this, and it really is as simple as it sounds.

 

[jdberger]

Firstly, what reason is to be proposed as for why Iran should not have nuclear weapons, especially when China India Pakistan Russia and so on and so on do have them. And how can America, the creator of said bomb, and posessor of thousands of them, declare it immoral to possess them?

Good point. A parallel is the "armed society = polite society" argument.

There is a great book on this issue, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate , by Scott D. Sagan, Kenneth N. Waltz