War with Iran

[framed]

You said "We don’t pursue military options unless we are forced too." I'd have to respectfully disagree, we're in Iraq right now because we did the exact opposite and invaded them while they were posing no threat to anyone, let alone the US.

If anything our posturing at is point is pushing Iran towards nukes faster. I think its inevitable that they'll get them. If we want to slow it down we probably would have to invade, but at this point I'd rather get it over with and start dealing with them like all the other nuclear powers on the planet. (It wasn't the end of the world when India and Pakistan got the bombs, and they were more poised for war than Iran.)

I don't like or want the spread of nuclear weapons, but its going to continue to get easier to produce them as technology advances. We need to find a way to deal with people we don't like having nukes. Preventing them is not going to be possible short of worldwide conquest.

 

[Andy D]

Being forced to doesn’t necessarily mean someone has attacked us, though usually it does. I don’t want to start a “Why we went to war thread” in the middle of this, but in my opinion, we had too.

As far as Iran, Sen. Clinton has said we can not tolerate a nuclear Iran. I agree with her wholeheartedly. But, I also believe we need to be ready to do whatever it takes to ensure they don’t get a nuke. That might mean military operations. Military operations might mean an invasion, air strikes, or even remote strikes.

I believe in my heart that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it. They see themselves as responsible for brining about a global Islamic nation. With the other “crazy” ideas going out of the leaders of Iran, I truly believe they will use the nuke.

 

[framed]

"I believe in my heart that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it." - What evidence tells you this is unconditionally true? Aside from the US, no nation with nuclear weapons has used them, pre-emptively or otherwise. Why you do you think the leader of Iran, a well educated and informed person, would choose to create a nuclear war with his country as the centerpiece? And again I'll ask the same question, why do you ignore the option of diplomacy and negotiation?

 

[Andy D]

I ignore the option of diplomacy with Iran because the European Union says they don’t believe it will work. If the EU is willing to write off diplomacy, then it is probably not going to work.

The leader of Iran has said he would use a nuke in Israel, even if that meant retaliation against Iran. His reasoning was there are more Muslims than Jews, so he will win a war of attrition. Ahmedinjad has called for the destruction of Israel and the destruction of America. He has done this in no uncertain terms. Iran funds Hezbollah which has called for the same destruction. He believes that Iran is predestined to rule the world. At what point do we take him at his word? How many times does he have to say that Israel and America must be wiped off the face of the map? How many times does he have to threaten us with strikes against American interest foreign and domestic for imposing any sanctions against his nation? Do you really wait until he gets a nuclear bomb and give him the chance to use it before you do anything?

Nations have been trying to negotiate with Iran for a long time. Every time any deadline is given to Iran from the UN, Iran ignores it. Or worse, Iran threatens fire and destruction if the UN does anything to it. To me, and to the EU, negotiation no longer look like viable alternatives.

 

[framed]

You said: "hmedinjad has called for the destruction of Israel and the destruction of America. He has done this in no uncertain terms." This is just factually not the case. His articulated position is regeme change in Israel, a position not dissimilar to the US position on many current regemes around the world. That does not mean they are arming for war.

The idea that you would ignore diplomacy because it might not work is also a bit off to me. That the EU thinks diplomacy isn't going to work doesn't mean you dont attempt it before wasting lives on a battlefield. In any case the diplomacy I was referring to was in dealing with a nuclear Iran, not preventing Iran from getting nukes. We just don't have any ground to stand on to tell them that they don't have a right to nuclear defense.

We live with many nuclear powers, about half of whom we don't see eye to eye with. Why is Iran different? We can live with Pakistan having nukes, with China having nukes, with Russia having nukes, why not Iran? Because we disagree with them over Irsael? We disagree with Pakistan over Israel too. Because we don't trust them? We don't trust the Russians or the Chineese. MAD is a good policy. Iran knows we can in no uncertian terms end their country if need be. That will be enough for them to choose not to be the agressors in a nuclear conflict.

As far as I can tell the only country in the middle east with expansionist tendencies right now is the United States. If a war breaks out with Iran in the near future, it will be because we started it. Frankly I don't think we need the blood on our hands.

 

[tater03]

Maybe I am wrong but isn't the President of Iran more of a figurehead? I mean if the Mullahs or whatever they are called were the ones that were spouting off I would be more concerned. Now I will say that I think the President of Iran doesn't really care what the world thinks of what they want to do with a nuclear bomb. I will agree that military options do need to be on the table but I feel that we do need to at least try for diplomacy first. Maybe I am wrong here but I believe that if we end up having to use military force on Iran we will be in a much bigger war than we are currantly in, maybe with even some of our allies going to the other side. This is just my opionion.

 

[framed]

Tater,

You say military options should be on the table. Typically you only have options on the table for dealing with something specific. What is the specific Iranian problem you would propose needing a military option for? Would you invade them for no reason other than that they're building nukes?

Incidentally I found a nice timeline of our involvement with Iran. Its a good refresher on how we got to where we are in our relationship with the country. I yanked it out of this article by Gary Norton, worth the 5 minutes it takes to read.

We deposed Mohammed Mossadegh their elected Prime Minister in 1953 and installed the Shah;
We armed the Shah to the teeth as a bulwark against the USSR and friend of Israel
We sided with the Shah in suppressing the Iranian Kurds
The people revolted under the Ayatollah
Our hostages were illegally imprisoned in violation of international law
Diplomatic relations between our countries ceased
Iran were invaded by Iraq, who we supported
Iran gave refuge to anti-saddam shia
Iran helped Iraqi Shia train anti-saddam militias
Iran continued to be anti-Soviet but were now anti-Israel
Iran supported palestinian and Lebanese groups and militias, particularly Hezbollah
We shot down an Iranian passenger plane by accident killing over a hundred people
Iran may have been responsible for Khobar Towers, but Saudi stonewalling makes that unclear
Iran opposed the Soviets in Afghanistan
When the Taliban came to power Iran, unlike Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, did not recognize them
Iran provided material and logistical support to overthrow the
Taliban/Qaeda until Bush declared them the Axis of Evil
We deposed Sadaam, their worst enemy, and put the Shia, their best Iraqi friends, in power
Iran is probably giving arms and other support to their Iraqi allies
Iran continues to arrest and detain al Qaeda operative
Iran is a signatory to the NNPT unlike India, Pakistan and Israel
Iran may be able to build nuclear weapons years from now
Iran has never waged war against us
Iran is still seeking reparations from Iraq for the 1980 war
We continue to hold assets seized after the hostage crisis.


I'm quoting the last paragraph of the article:

"It seems clear that we have some issues with them and they with us. If the roles were reversed and they had begun interfering in our internal affairs in 1953 and engineered a coup ousting Eisenhower I wonder how we would feel. It also seems clear that we have no irreconcilable differences with the Iranians. All we need to do is start dealing with them as adults. Yes, the hostage taking in 1979 was an outrage. But time has passed. In fact more time has passed than it took us to establish diplomatic relations with the Vietnamese after the war. we and they need to move on. And now is the time."

I couldn't agree with the sentiment more.

 

[Andy D]

My rambling Response.

Framed,

I am beginning to believe that you and I simply aren’t going to see any middle ground here. I thought I would give you a few more points.

You said that I wasn’t being factual when I said that the President of Iran has called for the eradication of Israel and the West. I looked at your wikipedia entry and then did a quick google search. My first hit was from Al-Jazeera. Since Iran is deeply involved with Hezbollah, I thought this would be a fair representation of the Iranian leaders speech. Here is the first portion of that article:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government
rallies.



Incidentally, I noticed your timeline didn’t include anything about Hezbollah. Since Iran is the founder and continued sponsor of Hezbollah, why not include its activity in there as well?
And lets not forget, the EU 3 (Britain, France, and Germany) have been trying to negotiate with Iran since 2003. Those have gone bad enough that talks broke off in November and have just recently started back up. But they are still at a point where the EU has imposed sanctions on Iran.

Continuing with my rambling….Iran does not deserve to have a nuclear weapon. The argument that it does starts from the point that all nations are created equal and that is simply not the case. Iran is a state sponsor of terror. The Iranian leaders rule through fear and tyranny. A nation like that is not equal to the Democracies of the world.

Having rambled for some time, I want to get back to my last question you didn’t answer: At what point do we way negotiation is no longer an option and we must seek a military answer?

 

[framed]

With regards to Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel:

Its a known translation issue. I'm trying to give you links (1, 2, 3, 4) that go into the translation issue, but you have to go beyond the sound bites. Ahmadinejad's own people said it was not intended as a threat. Giving the guy some leeway on one specific speech seems warranted, especially when US mainstream press can't even decide how it should have been translated. In any case the context around it gives you a better picture, and shows you the guy isn't out to start a war. It's much more akin to regime change, which is in line with US policy in many countries.

With regards to the time line:

It wasn't my time line, I just pasted it from the article I linked. I don't know enough to add my own elements to the time line, though I would like to see them as they relate to Hezbollah if you know them.

With regards to your question:

I'm not sure I'm getting your question right, but heres an attempt: If its over Iran having nukes, I'd say theres no point at which I'd go to war over it. They'll get them, and well have a MAD scenario, and the world will continue, just like it has with the other nuclear powers (eg: Pakistan). Its not worth starting a war over. If its over them mucking around in Iraq its more complicated, but as long as they're mucking around IN Iraq, there's no reason we cant be targeting them as combatants while they're in the country. It doesn't require escalating into a new battlefield.

Its not necessary for us to be the aggressor, or to our advantage. If we or our allies are directly attacked by Iran we can formulate an overwhelming response in very short order. In that situation we can say we did our honest best to avoid a conflict, it happened anyway and we were NOT the initiators, and we come out victorious just the same but with fewer enemies and a better world image. Its not like we're in a position where we lose the advantage by waiting, they aren't an equal force to us - not even close. Why not take advantage of our dominance and mellow out a little?

With regards to the rambling: (hehe)
Its not a matter of "deserving" a nuclear weapon, as if that was for us to decide. A country with ambition and means can get one, its just a technological fact. In 20-30 years smaller non countries will get them. It will continue to get easier to produce high-destruction level weapons as mankind's technology improves. The easier they get to make, the more we will have to spend to stop it, to the point where we simply can't anymore. We are going to have to learn to deal with that reality and figure out how to handle nukes in the wild. I have no doubt it will be painful, but long term I really don't see an alternate path, we cant declare war on the entire planet. At least at the state level we still have MAD as a viable policy, which saves us in Iran's case.

 

[mamab]

I don't think that we're going directly to war with Iran. I don't think the President could "afford" to take that step. However, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if another country wouldn't strike at them first, and then we'd be drawn into it. I just don't see us making the first step.

 

[mtatum4496]

I sincerely hope that is the case, mamab - at least, I hope that we do not find ourselves being eased into a war with Iran by our current administration. More and more I want to focus resources on our own internal problems, and spend less of them engaging in wars.

 

[tater03]

If you remember this guy that is the president of Iran was one of the people that was involved in the kidnapping. But that is beside the point.
I am no politician and don't have a degree in political anything by any means. But I do believe that somehow we need to make sure that Iran is using the power they want to have for nuclear energy. To many countries seem to say they want it for energy but then won't allow inspections. Now that being said I believe that if the rolls were reversed we should also be under inspections if another country seems to think we are using the power for other means.
The last thing I want to do is go into another war but I also don't want to be beholden to some terriostic country that only wants harm to come to us. Not saying for sure that is the case with Iran but I can say that there is no love lost between our two countries so I think that it would only be smart to proceed with caution on all ends.

 

[Andy D]

Framed, I think you and I are going to simply have to disagree. I have seen too many comments from the President of Iran to believe he is anything less than serious about destroying Israel and the West. I hope and pray that I am wrong, but the more I look into it, the more I believe I am right.

Hezbollah was founded by Iran and is funded and directed by Iran today. Prior to September 11th, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization. And they have cells here. A cell was broken up in North Carolina that was selling cigarette’s illegally and sending money back to Iran and Hezbollah.

Because of that, I think Iran should be prevented from getting a nuke at almost any cost. They are supplying men and equipment to kill American soldiers today. I think that means they are fair game. I don’t think we should invade Iran with another 140,000 soldiers. I think if we know where the nuclear plants are and where the plants are for the weapons that are showing up in Iraq, they should be hit.

 

[framed]

I actually wouldn't disagree with the last thing you said there. (can you imagine?!) If we have clear reliable intel (stress reliable, especially lately) that tells us where ALL their nuclear material is, I'd be fine with a limited strike to destroy it. I'm assuming that would be an air strike, so zero casualties for us, and minimal relative cost. The risk is a ton of Iranian soldiers flood across the border, but considering our ability to escallate if that happens we have a decent hedge.

Just to be clear, I'm not for our enemies having weapons that can cause us a great deal of harm. I'm just not for investing more into a conflict than we get out of a conflict. A full on invasion of Iran would be a disaster, and in the end it would prevent nothing, and make it hard for our allies.

Per your comments about the time line I did some reading on Hezbollah. Its a pretty interesting background that I didn't have before. Unfortunately most of the sources are secondary at best, and its so politicized that getting at the facts there is difficult. It's clear that they're the enemy of the western world, but whats not clear is how far they would or would not go to "end" the western world. One thing I'm betting neither of us knew: They're about 10% of the ruling body in Iran. They by no means ARE Iran, but they definitely exert an influence. The Wiki entry about them is pretty solid, though obviously since its wiki you can't just take it for fact.

One thing I fundamentally don't understand is why we are so incredibly obligated to Israel. I get that they're our ally, but they have nukes of their own, and are well funded. Why do we need to keep fighting their battles? A lot of the anger in that region stems from verifiable bad behavior by Israel. When we use our UN veto to save them that bad reputation rubs off on us. What do you think about playing more hardball with Israel about their activity in Palestine? I think we could be doing more to keep them in check (with respect to bulldozing Palestinian homes, using nerve gas, etc), and it might play favorably to the middle east in general.

The big thing in my mind is a war has to have an end goal that justifies its cost. Its entirely unclear to me what the end goal of another full scale war would be, and how the outcome would justify the cost in lives and dollars. We're already spending upwards of 60% of the budget on defense, aren't there better uses? (imagine how many additional lives would be saved by say, preventing cancer and AIDS with that budget instead?) I'm not saying they aren't our enemy; I'm saying we don't have to fight every enemy we have, we can ignore the problems that aren't worth the cost to address.

 

[Andy D]

I had promised myself that I wasn’t going to post to this particular topic anymore, but I feel I can’t avoid it. To answer my personal opinion on some of your questions, Framed, here goes:

Hezbollah is funded by Iran. Because of that, Iran has a tremendous amount of influence with them, and has the ability to direct Hezbollah operations. If Hezbollah does something, you can bet the Iranians have given it their blessing.

We protect Israel because they are a lone Democracy in a see of Intolerance. We protect them as far as we can because they are our ally, and when Israel has no one else to turn to, they know we will back them up. We don’t have that kind of political capital with many of our allies, and I am glad we have it with one. We also help Israel because it is the morally right thing to do.

In my mind the stakes are to great to not spend that money on the military. I truly believe if we loose, it is only a matter of time before we fight these same people on our shores. At that point, most everything else is unimportant because we will be fighting to live.