The world has seen at least five years of kicking the can down the road on the Iranian nuclear program, in a long cycle of imposing incrementally tougher sanctions, waiting, getting a report, noting noncompliance, and imposing more sanctions. There virtually appeared to be an official policy of procrastination and denial until last fall, when at long last, a sense of urgency appeared on stopping the Mahdi Bomb: that is, nuclear weapons in the hands of a paranoid state sponsor of terrorism, eager for the End of Days and the return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.
There is also prospect that a nuclear Iran would lead to a nuclear Saudi Arabia. "US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely," by Chris McGreat for the Guardian, February 17:
Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.The president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to pressure Tehran.
But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.
"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything.
"Sanctions are all we've got to throw at the problem. If they fail then it's hard to see how we don't move to the 'in extremis' option."
The White House has said repeatedly that all options are on the table, including the use of force to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that for now the emphasis is firmly on diplomacy and sanctions.
But long-held doubts among US officials about whether the Iranians can be enticed or cajoled into serious negotiations have been reinforced by recent events.
"We don't see a way forward," said one official. "The record shows that there is nothing to work with."
Scepticism about Iranian intent is rooted in Iran's repeated spurning of overtures from successive US presidents from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, who appealed within weeks of coming to office for "constructive ties" and "mutual respect" .
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim this week that Iran loaded its first domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor, and Iran's threat to cut oil supplies to six European countries, were read as further evidence that Tehran remains defiantly committed to its nuclear programme. That view was strengthened by the latest Iranian offer to negotiate with the UN security council in a letter that appeared to contain no significant new concessions....
Boy, I sure hope that when hostilities break out, ...."Iran" doesn't throw a fit of spiteful pique and launch a missile at the Kabaa.
Yeah - it would be a real shame if ....."Iran" sent a missile spiraling into the sacred Kabaa....
Could lead to worldwide Shia - Sunni civil war. That would be terrible.....
Sure hope .... "Iran" doesn't do that....
And just to prove that Iran wants to cut off its nose to spite its face while at the same time shooting itself in the foot, the Iranian govt. has just announced that it's stopping the sale of crude oil to Britain and France four months ahead of the deadline from the EU to give up their nuclear weapon ambitions or face a boycott.
Self imposed sanctions(!) and loss of desperately needed foreign currency. Looks like Ahmedina-jihad and Co. have decided to burn down the circus tent already!
Clowns!
As Iran ramps up its threats towards Israel and the Western World in General by doing things like cutting off oil to EU Countries like France and the UK,sending troops to Syria,having warships dock at the Syrian Port of Tartus just North of the Lebanon Border. It may beg the questions; will its proxy fighters such as Hezbollah engage Israel and even NATO if it comes to that? What will be the stance of the So-called NATO Ally Turkey if actions are taken to stop Iran's Nuclear ambitions and the destruction of Iran by Israel? Will the Saudi Kingdom stand as a base against Iran? What role might the Arab winter country like Egypt play in this dangerous discourse that has the makings of WWIII? One possible and likely foolish player is Venezuela who is allowing the Iranians to build a missile base on it most Northern peninsula of Paraguana that brings Florida and the East Coast of America into contemporary Iranian missile range of a 1,000 miles,but that is a ways off.
Will Obama stand in support of Israel when the chips are on the table? Such a moment may be closer than ever.
One huge problem with sanctions is that they hit the Iranian man-in-the-street the hardest. In the hands of a fascist government such as Saddam Hussein's in Iraq, the government is perfectly capable of allowing its citizens to die needlessly by not taking advantage of humanitarian provisions. Does anyone doubt the government of Iran to be at least as vicious as Saddam Hussein's?
The second problem with sanctions is that once they are lifted, a smart, determined government can play cat-and-mouse for years, while making steady progress on nuclear weapons.
I would consider upping the ante for the government of Iran by making it clear if a strike is necessary against nuclear facilities, the government itself may be targeted. We would target the government, not in any hopes of getting a more tolerable or reasonable government in a Muslim country, but to simply show any government that they need to respect bedrock US interests. Any government coming to power in Iran is likely to be Islamic, just like the present government. If they are lucky, they'll have a secular dictator. But, the last thing the US should do is engage in another costly round of nation-building. The US under Obama has supported the overthrow of governments basically friendly to US interests in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Perhaps they should consider doing the same to a government fundamentally hostile and dangerous.
One wishes the government could undertake a truly rational assessment of such a step.
Sometimes life leaves you with only bad options and one is left deciding which is the least bad option to go with, such as here with Iran moving to acquire nuclear weapons. The fundamental problem is not that the leaders of Iran are bastards. They are. The real problem is that they're crazy bastards, though they still might prize their lives enough not to go into full crazy mode and thus the soundness of RonaldB's suggestion above that if a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities becomes necessary it should be made crystal clear to Iran's leadership that they will also be hunted down and terminated no matter how long this might take.
"Evil countries don't suddenly decide to abandon their evil goals -- they are forced to do so by pressure and circumstance." Ben Shapiro
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/06/deserve-victory.html
I agree with almost all the comments above. However, any military action taken against IRAN with the current administration will not and can not result in solving the Iranium problem. It is because OBAMA is not capable of understanding what we are fighting against. We need an administration who is capable of understanding who and what the enemy is and than taking action with a long range view of eliminating the problem = ISLAM. We need a REAGAN. Obama is more dangerous to the USA than the IRANIAN Mullahs.
I hear from a lot of young Iranians how much they hate their government, and how young the population of that country is. I wonder if any of them are considering an "arab spring" sort of uprising right about now. If they stand by and let Ineedadinnerjacket" defy the world with his posturing and Israel-hatred, they just might end up seeing their country on the losing end of a possibly nuclear war. THEY can get rid of this idiot. If they don't oust him, Israeli or American bombs WILL.
Now ain't this just great. The Obama Administration will get us out of recession and guarantee re-election by getting us into a war with Iran.
Granted, I despise the Mullah-ocracy. Yes, I think we should make it clear to them that certain countries are under the US nuclear umbrella, so they'd better watch their steps (and those of such proxies as Hezbollah and Hamas).
But war?
In case nobody's noticed, Iran is a large, populous country. Its people may hate their government, but so did most Chinese intellectuals hate their government during the 1930's, when Japan invaded in order to "save" China from chaos and Communism. Japan found itself with a million soldiers tied down in a no-win situation in China from 1931-1945. A US war against Iran will only unite the Iranian populace behind its government, and force the war into nuclear or worse mode if it is to have any chance of success. And, if we end up victorious and occupy Iran, what kind of government will we nurture on the ashes of the old? What local alternatives are there?
And is this a conflict that the USA can either afford or win?
Given that we have a very large knee-jerk "hate America" crowd in our own country, which will instinctively side with our enemies (note pro-gay, pro-feminist Leftism's sympathy for al-Qaida), I see an Iranian war as an international and domestic disaster.
I agree, Kepha, that a direct war with Iran would be a disaster for the world at large (and if such happens I will place almost the entire onus on Iran, which has functioned as the butthole nation of butthole nations since 1979), but it could be argued that no recourse will eventually exist but to engage in a war with the miscreants who now run the Persian state.
All totalitarian ideologies, whenever given the opportunity, will go into complete control-freak mode; it's one of many of their eregious faults. A better classic example than Islam, for well over a full millennium now, could not be found. Still, if confronting the totalitarian ideology du jour means impending disaster, as it often does, the forces of civilization must still take the risk because if civilization, as opposed to anti-civilization, is worth what free people think it is, then not putting it on the line from time to time is evidence in and of itself that civilization is not worth defending. I mean, if civilization can't be put on the line now and again, what the hell is it good for? Sometimes it's necessary to roll all the marbles. Like now.
It is safe to say that military actions will never happen under the current administration. Hussein Obama has a Valerie Jarrett as his top advisor, who is of Iranian dissent.
'nuff said.
Kepha
I assume that by 'war' you mean the kind of fiasco that the US and some of its allies have gotten into in Iraq and in Afghanistan, or even like the first gulf war to boot Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait? Boots on the ground fighting-in-the-trenches sort of stuff?
I'm not thinking about that, when I think of 'military action' against Iran.
I'm thinking about a heavy-duty scaled-up version of what the Israelis did to Osirak and to that Syrian nuke plant that they believed was a-hatching.
Lots and lots and lots of enormous bunker-busters dropped, in rapid succession, from on high on every known and suspected Iranian nuke site and on such sites as are reasonably supposed to be their 'support system'.
And if Russia and China object, then they have to have it spelled out to them that this action is potentially saving *their* azzes as well, and that they should really have come to the party too, to help turn these Shiite Islamic nuke-plants into great big smoking holes in the ground;, since this is about preventing the creation of an entire *nation* ready and willing to behave like a suicide bomber on a global scale...a nuclear-armed suicide murder-'martyr'.
I have come to the conclusion that only the swift, intelligently applied use of overwhelming force will avert a nightmare: a nightmare in which Iran explodes a series of nukes on top of Israel, annihilating a good deal more than half of the entire population of Jews remaining in the world; and, quite possibly, follows up with an EMP attack on the US (and quite probably other countries, in due time).
Dumbledore's Army wrote:
I assume that by 'war' you mean the kind of fiasco that the US and some of its allies have gotten into in Iraq and in Afghanistan, or even like the first gulf war to boot Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait? Boots on the ground fighting-in-the-trenches sort of stuff?
I'm not thinking about that, when I think of 'military action' against Iran.
.................................
I agree, DDA—we should be thinking Osirak 1981, rather than any sort of actual invasion.
Now, Iran has learned from that strike, and has scattered its nuclear facilities—so I realize that we cannot be quite as surgical as Israel was with Iraq. But I believe that should be our model, and that it is still generally viable.
Kepha, I don't want to see the death of Iranian civilians, either—but neither do I want to see that genocidal theocracy "wipe Israel off the map".
Kepha, as I recall, you have served your country as a diplomat. So, you are no stranger to issues of war and peace.
You know that the 1979 Iranian seizure of the U.S. embassy was an act of war.
You know that the Iranian mining of the Persian Gulf in the 1980's was an act of war.
What I am sure you know, but many others may have forgotten, is that the current sanctions against Iran are also acts of war. I have no problem with this, because I believe that we are already in a state of war with Iran, that we have been at war since 1979, and the latest act of war on the Iranian side is their continued violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
I agree with your assessment of the difficulties of military action against Iran. A 'traditional' victory would require an occupation of the country that in turn would require a World War Two level mobilization on our part, and we are not politically ready for that. But something along the lines of DDA's posting is both feasible and probably necessary.
Gravenimage, you wrote '...I don't want to see the death of Iranian civilians, either—but neither do I want to see that genocidal theocracy "wipe Israel off the map".'
Of course, we need to remember that we are also targeted by the mullahs. Remember the comment 'We have 25 targets identified that if destroyed will bring down Anglo-American civilization. We have thought very seriously about this'? Any administration in Washington (and London) would be crazy to ignore this threat.
I'd like to go on record as saying, "the U.S. can't offord another war like Iraq or Afghanistan". Besides it never changes any ones ideology.
Our legislators better start thinking much clearer than they have in the past 45 years.
Our news media better start seeing a much larger picture of reality.
All should learn the ideology of Islam. Once you understand that, everything else falls right into place.
To DDA, Tom Davis, Gravenimage:
Yes, I suppose if war came, it would probably involve nukes. And, if the mullahs do push us into war, I hope we have the sense to use or strategic superiority to turn the country into the world's largest wildlife preserve.
But one of the things that trained the American people to give up their liberty and trust in overbearing government was World War II (don't get me wrong: I'm glad the Third Reich and Imperial Japan went down). I can see a war with Iran strengthening the hand of domestic forces who'd carry us further down the road to serfdom, even if we knuckle under and win.
And,I also accept that the Embassy takeover in 1979 was an act of war. It's one reason why I'm enraged whenever I see the Mojaheddin-e-Khalqi sc#m^cks (excuse my Yiddish) petitioning on the Washington Mall, since they were the first "revolutionary fighters" to enter "the nest of spies" back then.
But I see a USA prepared neither morally, economically, nor psychologically for conflict.
Tom Davis wrote:
Of course, we need to remember that we are also targeted by the mullahs.
..................................
I am well aware of this, Tom.
The Mullahs main targets are the United States (the "Great Satan"), Israel (the "Little Satan"), and Britain, who they hate as much as the two "Satans".
Iran has threatened and targeted Americans and Brits as well as Jews in the past—and their hatred of other Western Infidels is pretty rabid as well.
All the more reason to prevent a nuclear Iran—if we are not already too late...
As soon as the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad unites (and Obama is currently and basically the acting political Mahdi) and/or becomes strong enough (they do have African oil now also), all it would take is one major city being destroyed for them to hold the world hostage. Obama would immediately sign a dhimmitude agreement. Then, how would other nations, who depend on the U.S. for troops, defend themselves? If an EMP took out the U.S. power grid, how long would it be before the caliphate is established? The American Militia Movement was arming itself, afraid the U.N. would supersede the U.S. Constitution and take over the U.S. Now, they see it might just be the jihadists who armed them who might actually do it and take back their caches. We need to post our military at our borders and citizens need to learn to have enough respect for them to work with them during a crisis.
Why have we waited so long?