To Attack or Not to Attack Iran

[ImNoAngel]

We need another war like we need another collective hole in our heads..

Number one, we cannot afford it. The National debt is already on the verge of bankrupting us; do we really need to dig ourselves even deeper into that already bottomless pit?

Number two, Iran, even if they build a bomb, has no intention of using it on Israel, given that Israel has subs with nukes that would easily turn Iran into a wasteland. MAD worked during the Cold War for a reason and there is no reason it wouldn't work between Iran and Israel.

Number three, attacking Iran would only delay, not stop them from getting a bomb, so an attack now would be pointless at best and ignite a nasty middle eastern free-for-all at worst.

Finally, number four: does Israel dictate what our foreign policy should be? Last time I checked, we actually are a seperate country with our own particular National Interests, which do not include lighting a torch to the Middle East. Mr. Obama needs to acquire a back bone very quickly.

[Snowball]

From what I gather, Israel is saying they will go it alone if necessary. They feel the threats made against her from Iran are genuine. Doing what they can to defend against the Persians is high on their priority list.

What troubles me also is how frightened other middle eastern countries are of a nuclear Iran. Arabia, and other sunni led countries seem to be indicating that if Iran goes nuclear, so will they. We are likely to see a nuclear arms race in that unstable region of the world if the Persians obtain the bomb.

I'm guessing their will be war before the election. Like most I'm not all that crazy about this. Not only is war costly, in lives and treasure, but 50% of the worlds oil comes from this region of the world. Iran is sure to do what she can to disruption supplies from the Persian Gulf. We'll see higher prices at the pump for awhile, even though Saudi Arabia promises to pump more crude if Iran is attacked.

But overall it seems to be in Iran's hands at this moment on what happens. I hope they back down, and negotiate for what they can.

Like Walter Russell Mead's take on the Iran situation and Obama's situation. Seems countries, like India, are now diversifying away from Iranian oil. They see the writing on the wall. Maybe loosing oil business will get Iran to change their path.

"Obama’s Iran Dilemma: Threats of War As Means To Keep the Peace"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...eep-the-peace/

[DaytonIllini]

I am not calling for an attack on Iran though it should be considered. An attack though should be a decapitation of their leadership including their ruling clerical body. Attacking a bunker or two is a waste of time as the original poster states.

I don't agree that we know what Iran would do with a bomb. I don't think they are a stable or logical government. Mutual destruction might be something they would feel is a reasonable exchange. Radical Muslims don't think at all like the rest of the world. Any group that will strap a bomb to their chest or that of a child cannot be viewed through the prism of logic.

Personally I would have attacked Iran for any of these reasons:

(1) The hostage crisis.
(2) Their support of terrorists around the world.
(3) Their suppression of their people.
(4) Their direct military support of hostile forces in Iraq that led to the death of hundreds of American servicemen.
(5) Their refusal to abide by the nuclear treaties they have signed.

I don't like war in general but for God's sake if you are going to do it, do it big and do it fast and don't worry about collateral damage. War should be avoided whenever possible. When not possible everything necessary to achieve victory in the shortest time possible should be done.

AND DON'T REBUILD THEM

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I am not calling for an attack on Iran though it should be considered. An attack though should be a decapitation of their leadership including their ruling clerical body. Attacking a bunker or two is a waste of time as the original poster states.

I don't agree that we know what Iran would do with a bomb. I don't think they are a stable or logical government. Mutual destruction might be something they would feel is a reasonable exchange. Radical Muslims don't think at all like the rest of the world. Any group that will strap a bomb to their chest or that of a child cannot be viewed through the prism of logic.

Personally I would have attacked Iran for any of these reasons:

(1) The hostage crisis.
(2) Their support of terrorists around the world.
(3) Their suppression of their people.
(4) Their direct military support of hostile forces in Iraq that led to the death of hundreds of American servicemen.
(5) Their refusal to abide by the nuclear treaties they have signed.

I don't like war in general but for God's sake if you are going to do it, do it big and do it fast and don't worry about collateral damage. War should be avoided whenever possible. When not possible everything necessary to achieve victory in the shortest time possible should be done.

AND DON'T REBUILD THEM

This.

In reality, I expect Barack Hussein Obama to do absolutely nothing, unless maybe there is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv, and even then I am doubtful.

[illini80]

I would make every attempt isolate them from the rest of the world, but that didn't work in Iraq so I'm not sure it would with Iran either. We have seen we can't trust our allies or our enemies in doing this. I think a war with Iran would be kind of like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq combined. They have millions upon millions who would gladly die for a cause deemed as religious. You could trust no one. Ever.

I just can't see any way the outcome is positive. We can't afford it, and the public would not support it.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illini80

I would make every attempt isolate them from the rest of the world, but that didn't work in Iraq so I'm not sure it would with Iran either. We have seen we can't trust our allies or our enemies in doing this. I think a war with Iran would be kind of like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq combined. They have millions upon millions who would gladly die for a cause deemed as religious. You could trust no one. Ever.

I just can't see any way the outcome is positive. We can't afford it, and the public would not support it.

No way I'd go to war with them in that sense.

Use the Air Force and Navy to knock out their navy, missile sites, airports, electrical grid, water supply. Then knock out key nuclear facilities. Target their scientists. Then leave. No occupation.

[IntenselyOrange]

I have no interest in attacking Iran. I see the point Dayton and Razor make but I think it ultimately backfires. I don't think there is a good decision to be made....only a less bad decision which in my opinion is to wait until Iran is clearly the aggressor.

[-josh-]

“Ultimate excellence lies not in winning every battle, but in defeating the enemy without ever fighting.”


War should always be a last resort, always be prepared for it but never look for it. This country still needs time to recover from Iraq.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ImNoAngel

need to dig ourselves even deeper into that already bottomless pit?

Number two, Iran, even if they build a bomb, has no intention of using it on Israel, given that Israel has subs with nukes that would easily turn Iran into a wasteland. MAD worked during the Cold War for a reason and there is no reason it wouldn't work between Iran and Israel.

you are assuming that radical muslims would behave like the "Godless" communists of Soviet Union. Soviets didnt want to die, and knew they would if they attacked us. many radical muslims WANT to die.

that said, no we shouldnt attack them. but if Israel does we should stay out of it and let Israel deal with it.

[jbmay83]

For those of you who want to bomb, don't complain about gas going over $10 a gal.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by jbmay83

For those of you who want to bomb, don't complain about gas going over $10 a gal.

I'd love it if gas went over $10.

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I'd love it if gas went over $10.

So that Romney can beat Obama? That's the only semi-rational reason I can come up with for this.

[ImNoAngel]

Originally Posted by bmb777

you are assuming that radical muslims would behave like the "Godless" communists of Soviet Union. Soviets didnt want to die, and knew they would if they attacked us. many radical muslims WANT to die.

that said, no we shouldnt attack them. but if Israel does we should stay out of it and let Israel deal with it.

I remember hearing essentially the same thing about the Soviets growing up during the cold war....that they didn't really care if they died or not, etc. Didn't really believe it then and don't particularly believe it now about the Iranian leadership either.

From a historical perspective, people in power, while they often do not hesitate to send someone else into battle to get killed or have someone else strap on a bomb to die a glorious death, have never displayed much eagerness to get themselves killed in the process.

Despite what you hear, the Iranian regime is not suicidal.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

So that Romney can beat Obama? That's the only semi-rational reason I can come up with for this.

Romney elected.
Cleaner air.
Forces a march towards energy indepedence.
Fewer cars clogging my commute.

One of may partners and I commute to work and we can save half the gas used. Not too big a price to get the above.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ImNoAngel

I remember hearing essentially the same thing about the Soviets growing up during the cold war....that they didn't really care if they died or not, etc. Didn't really believe it then and don't particularly believe it now about the Iranian leadership either.

From a historical perspective, people in power, while they often do not hesitate to send someone else into battle to get killed or have someone else strap on a bomb to die a glorious death, have never displayed much eagerness to get themselves killed in the process.

Despite what you hear, the Iranian regime is not suicidal.

as dayton said before, you cant trust the intentions of a group of people who will strap bombs to the chests of children and blow them up to further their cause. Iran has stated several times Israel should be wiped off the map. There is only one way to wipe a country off the map, and that is by nuclear weapons.

I cant say I ever remember hearing the Soviets didnt want to die, and I grew up during the cold war. quite the opposite actually, I remember hearing they didnt want to die, and while obviously we didnt either, so that was part of the reason a nuclear war never happened.

I dont trust the Iranian regime, and that is without nuclear weapons. I dont think they would directly attack us, but I do think they might attack Israel.

[ImNoAngel]

Originally Posted by bmb777

as dayton said before, you cant trust the intentions of a group of people who will strap bombs to the chests of children and blow them up to further their cause. Iran has stated several times Israel should be wiped off the map. There is only one way to wipe a country off the map, and that is by nuclear weapons.

I cant say I ever remember hearing the Soviets didnt want to die, and I grew up during the cold war. quite the opposite actually, I remember hearing they didnt want to die, and while obviously we didnt either, so that was part of the reason a nuclear war never happened.

I dont trust the Iranian regime, and that is without nuclear weapons. I dont think they would directly attack us, but I do think they might attack Israel.

I believe it was Kruschev who said "We will bury you" to a cadre of western diplomats. While some have argued this has been taken out of context, including Kruschev himself, at the time it was generally taken as a nuclear threat.

Likewise, the missle crisis of '62 where the Soviets loaded Cuba up with nukes capable of issuing a first strike seemed to clarify their intentions for most.

You don't have to trust the Iranians. I don't. I trust self-interest. This was the key behind detente and kept the US and Soviets from melting down the globe for almost half a century. Again, it's one thing to strap a bomb to someone else's back and quite another to paint a target on your own.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ImNoAngel

I believe it was Kruschev who said "We will bury you" to a cadre of western diplomats. While some have argued this has been taken out of context, including Kruschev himself, at the time it was generally taken as a nuclear threat.

Likewise, the missle crisis of '62 where the Soviets loaded Cuba up with nukes capable of issuing a first strike seemed to clarify their intentions for most.

You don't have to trust the Iranians. I don't. I trust self-interest. This was the key behind detente and kept the US and Soviets from melting down the globe for almost half a century. Again, it's one thing to strap a bomb to someone else's back and quite another to paint a target on your own.

You know that I think you are probably right but if you threaten to kill me and call the gun shop to buy a gun, I think I'd rather just kill you with my gun before yours arrives. That way I don't have to wonder whether you're rational or not. If your dead, I can pretty much be sure you won't be shooting me and I can sleep a lot more peacefully.

[BES76]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I'd love it if gas went over $10.

Just as long as it is market driven and not a liberal tax. However, an interesting fact about 'clean' electric cars in China ... they're not because they're building coal plants that polute more than the cars/gasoline than they replace.

http://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2012...E2%80%99t-mix/

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ImNoAngel

Likewise, the missle crisis of '62 where the Soviets loaded Cuba up with nukes capable of issuing a first strike seemed to clarify their intentions for most..

yes but when then faced with the fact we would have nuked cuba and soviet union if attacked by nukes in cuba, they backed down.

when Iran has said multiple times Israel should be wiped off the map, Israel would be crazy to not take that as a credible threat by nuclear weapons attack against them.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

You know that I think you are probably right but if you threaten to kill me and call the gun shop to buy a gun, I think I'd rather just kill you with my gun before yours arrives. That way I don't have to wonder whether you're rational or not. If your dead, I can pretty much be sure you won't be shooting me and I can sleep a lot more peacefully.

At the same time, I've become pretty convinced that much like an Iranian attack on the West, a preemptive strike is essentially the catalyst for WWIII/mutually assured destruction. I'd rather give it the most shot of not happening. If we strike, we don't know whether they would have. If they do, we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, so who cares.

I've seen a lot of talk and puffery, but haven't seen anything to conclusively determine that Iran is close to attacking anyone. If that changes, maybe my opinion will. Until then, I aint paying for any more stupid world police force adventures.

Of course now you have McCain calling for us to attack Syria too. I honestly wonder if that man's brains are still fully in tact. Or if it's a clever ploy to get Obama to do it and then blast him for "allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to rise to power."

[IntenselyOrange]

Originally Posted by ill07

At the same time, I've become pretty convinced that much like an Iranian attack on the West, a preemptive strike is essentially the catalyst for WWIII/mutually assured destruction. I'd rather give it the most shot of not happening. If we strike, we don't know whether they would have. If they do, we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, so who cares.

I've seen a lot of talk and puffery, but haven't seen anything to conclusively determine that Iran is close to attacking anyone. If that changes, maybe my opinion will. Until then, I aint paying for any more stupid world police force adventures.

Of course now you have McCain calling for us to attack Syria too. I honestly wonder if that man's brains are still fully in tact. Or if it's a clever ploy to get Obama to do it and then blast him for "allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to rise to power."

You pretty well summarize my feelings. As for McCain, there is no way this is a clever ploy. He's lost it. He's old and out of touch (sorry if I offend any old people).

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ill07

At the same time, I've become pretty convinced that much like an Iranian attack on the West, a preemptive strike is essentially the catalyst for WWIII/mutually assured destruction. I'd rather give it the most shot of not happening. If we strike, we don't know whether they would have. If they do, we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, so who cares.

I've seen a lot of talk and puffery, but haven't seen anything to conclusively determine that Iran is close to attacking anyone. If that changes, maybe my opinion will. Until then, I aint paying for any more stupid world police force adventures.

Of course now you have McCain calling for us to attack Syria too. I honestly wonder if that man's brains are still fully in tact. Or if it's a clever ploy to get Obama to do it and then blast him for "allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to rise to power."

I agree. THat is why I said I am not calling for an attack. I think it should not be ruled out but I am all for negotiation if there is a chance it will be successful.

[pizzaman]

Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange

(sorry if I offend any old people).

I'm old, most of my friends are old. I think the only mistake you make is to assume that McCain's faulty thinking is due to age. It's not, it's simply insanity.

I, as well as all of my old friends, are sick of the US sticking our military might into world disputes and paying for it in increased deficit spending and loss of lives.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by pizzaman

I'm old, most of my friends are old. I think the only mistake you make is to assume that McCain's faulty thinking is due to age. It's not, it's simply insanity.

I, as well as all of my old friends, are sick of the US sticking our military might into world disputes and paying for it in increased deficit spending and loss of lives.

A good point...there's many more good reasons than age for the failings of mental faculties.

[carverchile]

Originally Posted by ImNoAngel

We need another war like we need another collective hole in our heads..

Number one, we cannot afford it. The National debt is already on the verge of bankrupting us; do we really need to dig ourselves even deeper into that already bottomless pit?

Number two, Iran, even if they build a bomb, has no intention of using it on Israel, given that Israel has subs with nukes that would easily turn Iran into a wasteland. MAD worked during the Cold War for a reason and there is no reason it wouldn't work between Iran and Israel.

Number three, attacking Iran would only delay, not stop them from getting a bomb, so an attack now would be pointless at best and ignite a nasty middle eastern free-for-all at worst.

Finally, number four: does Israel dictate what our foreign policy should be? Last time I checked, we actually are a seperate country with our own particular National Interests, which do not include lighting a torch to the Middle East. Mr. Obama needs to acquire a back bone very quickly.

I basically agree with all of this, though I think I approach it slightly differently. I think a nuclear-free Iran is the ideal, but we're limited in what we can do. What are our options?

1) Air strikes to take out the nuclear sites. From most accounts i've read, these are likely to be very ineffective--Iran has built these sites deep down and has enough redundancy and know-how that we're not going to set their program back by much. The result? The regime stays the same and the limited tendrils of opposition that exist in Iran can be more easily squashed. The nuclear program is set back slightly, but not really substantially in any long-term view.

2) Air strikes to take out the regime. I'm not aware of any instance where a regime has been overthrown by air strikes alone. Anyone? Iran doesn't have a credible opposition army like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan that we could support. I'm not even aware of anything like existed in Libya. (keeping in mind that Libya has a population of about 6.5 Million; Iran has a population of about 80 million with a much stronger and well-established military.) Also keeping in mind that Iran isn't run by a single person like say, Libya or Iraq or North Korea--a lucky hit on one building isn't going to change anything. Result: ineffective--the regime stays the same and the limited tendrils of opposition can be easily squashed.

3) Full ground invasion and scorched earth policy: immediate withdrawal thereafter. I'm sure such an operation would cost at least a couple hundred Billion. We take out a stable (if unfriendly) government. Civil war follows, as does a humanitarian crisis, for which we get the blame. Many innocent civilians die. Iran as a failed state becomes a haven for terrorists or other irrational groups. The Iranian nuclear scientists and their know-how are bought by the highest bidders--Syria? Saudi Arabia? Al Queda? Eventually a new government emerges. I have no reason to believe such a government would be any more friendly to the US or Israel.

4) Full ground invasion and occupation/rebuilding. Even if the US people could be talked into this (they can't be, so soon after Iraq/Afghanistan), this probably costs 1-2 trillion, minimum. At the end of the day, we'll have to hand the country back over to the Iranians and hope that they like the US and Israel and have given up their nuclear ambitions.

5) We let Iran get nukes, encourage opposition from within and try and do what we can to influence the culture softly. As said elsewhere, Iran may encourage suicide bombers for the people's purpose, but i'm not aware of any instance where the people in power--the people with money and nice houses and status, the folks who have real things to lose--have strapped bombs to themselves. Again, Iran is a theocracy or a military dictatorship, depending on your point of view, but it's not run by a single crazy people--it's run by a lot of factions of "crazy" people. More than a few of them would have to agree to enter into a suicide pact to engage in a first strike on Israel. I just don't think that's going to happen. On the off chance it does, at least it's on the far side of the world and no Americans die.

I'm not really happy about the idea of Iran getting nukes. I don't think they'll directly attack anyone with them...but there's a chance they get a lot more aggressive in the region. Then Saudi Arabia and maybe Egypt or even Syria gets nukes...and then you have a whole lot of unstable countries with nukes filled with people who hate America--the chance of one getting lost/stolen/sold goes up. At the same time, i think we tend to view the world as more static than it is. I can't think of any dictatorships that have lasted more than a generation or two. Cuba? Things tend to change--in 30 years, i'm betting Iran doesn't look like it does today, regardless of what the US does.

Anyway, as a practical matter, i think this is mostly talk for political reasons. I doubt Romney or Gingrich does anything substantially differently than Obama. They might talk more aggressively, but they're basically sane people who understand reality and the limits of American power (I'm taking a waiver on guessing whether Santorum is sane and understands reality and the limits of American power)