George W And Iran

[Rog]

I love Rog's usual blind spots ... Pakistan, a nuclear armed Islamic country ... but its ok cos its secular ... hasn't Rog posted multiple times that its impossible for Islamic countries to embrace secular constitutionalism.

 

 

Pakistan is not governed by an islamic government - it is governed by what is in effect a military junta following the overthrow of the Nawaz Sharif government.

 

The present ruler – there really is no other word to describe General Pervez Musharraf – is a prime example of a good and well intentioned man.

 

It is, after all, not the coruption by the man in his following of islam that creates evil, it’s the corruption that islam is allowed to have within the man.

[VinnieK]

Nuclear proliferation is a huge concern, and one that is demeaned by the kind of drooling arrested development case who thinks cheering for a totalitarian regime is a good way to stick it to the man (conveniently forgetting that it's hard to argue against the establishment by backing fascists and their 'right' to have nukes), but I would argue that a nuclear Iran in at least the medium term is less dangerous than is sometimes presented, the reason being that today a nuclear warhead by itself is less of an immidiate threat than common perception of nuclear weapons (as forged in the explosion at Hiroshima) suggests.

 

The reason for this is that the usefulness of a nuclear weapon relies on much more than just the destructive capacity of its payload. Back in 1945 the atomic bomb could largely be treated by those who made the decision to drop it as a massive conventional bomb, simply because nothing else like it existed at the time and so the strategic uses of nuclear weaponry carried little risk to its owners. Today, in an age where a number of countries possess considerable nuclear arsenals, using them in an offensive capacity is to risk suicide. As such, nuclear weapons are only as much a practical an option as they are accurate and resiliant to counter attack - during the Cold War, it was not so much the U.S.S.R's or the American's missile silos that threatened one another as it was submarines and aircraft carrying nuclear payloads that could easily survive a first or retaliatory strike, and the sophistication and comparitive accuracy of each others' weapons that could be trained on strategic sites. In both respects, Iran lags so far behind that it possesses little ability to seriously threaten anybody without signing its own fate. It's likely that Iran will lack the capability to make an accurate and effective first strike against an enemy's strategic nuclear warfare sites for many years, with any hostile use of her nuclear weapons almost certainly resulting in the total elimination of her silos, launch areas, and conventional military strategic posts by Israel and/or U.S./British submarines and bombers, leaving her largely helpless in the face of a likely conventional counter-attack.

 

Now, I admit that this is somewhat of a late cold war view of what's going on today, but apartheid South Africa was not the only example of a paranoid, insular state that had an enthusiasm for nuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R. fitted that description quite nicely as well. Secondly, despite the beligerant rhetoric of Iran's rulers, the first priority of any tyrannical regime is ultimately self-preservation, and, unlike Saddam Hussein (with his provocative attacks on neighbours), the Iranians seem to know and abide by this principle. As such, I would argue that their development of nuclear weaponry is not for primarily offensive purposes, but their symbolic and defensive potential. Having a nuclear bomb forces the world to deal with Iran as a nuclear power, and whilst it would be suicide to use such a weapon in an offensive capacity, potential enemies are going to be much more wary of marching their batallions in Iranian territory and parking their aircraft carriers near Iranian waters when they know that a lot of men and expensive ordinance could be wiped out in an instant. Nor does it immediately follow that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will immediately result in a regional arms race, Israel's development and production of missiles in the 1970's had no such result, and the illicit nuclear programmes of India and Pakistan have as yet failed to inspire other states to ignore what has been demonstrated to be an ineffective ban on proliferation.

 

All this is in no way arguing that Iran is harmless, or that nothing should be done about her acquisition of nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are many good reasons besides a nuclear arsenal to be suspicious of Iran and to desire a change of rule there, but I would argue that dealing with Iran requires more to be taken into account than simply the very real evils of proliferation and the power of warheads.

[Chinahand]

VinnieK I agree Iran lacks offensive delivery systems, but I assume that some American and Israeli planners are trying to work out how to deal with a "Fourth Protocol"-like explosion from a smuggled truck bomb at Eilabun, or some other Israeli nuclear facility. This would be blamed on an Israeli error and create much mischief ... or are Frederick Forsyth's plots just too unrealistic!!

 

I don't at all agree with Bush and Cheney that states would be willing to provide WMD to terrorists ... these are weapons of state control ... but the use of such a weapon by special forces ... there I'm more worried and I don't think the above scenario is sooooo way out as to be inconcievable.

[VinnieK]

VinnieK I agree Iran lacks offensive delivery systems, but I assume that some American and Israeli planners are trying to work out how to deal with a "Fourth Protocol"-like explosion from a smuggled truck bomb at Eilabun, or some other Israeli nuclear facility. This would be blamed on an Israeli error and create much mischief ... or are Frederick Forsyth's plots just too unrealistic!!

 

In principle this is possible, but in practical terms it's incredibly difficult to produce a nuclear weapon small enough to be as portable and easily concealed as this method of delivery would require - something that only the most technologically advanced nations have been capable of doing. Even the smallest U.S weapon of this kind was a metre long and had an explosive force of one kiloton, which although still destructive is considerably less than that of the smallest nuclear missile which most many and facilities are built to withstand.

 

I don't quite see why such an attack, even if such devices were feasible and the Iranians successfully managed to sneak a nuclear weapon through the kind of security that surrounds nuclear facilities, would necessarily be blamed on Israeli error. Such an explosion could be traced back to a central point of detonation, identifying the cause as a smuggled device. In such a scenario, the Israeli's and indeed the world would have sufficient reason to suspect Iran.

 

I don't at all agree with Bush and Cheney that states would be willing to provide WMD to terrorists ... these are weapons of state control ... but the use of such a weapon by special forces ... there I'm more worried and I don't think the above scenario is sooooo way out as to be inconcievable.

 

I would say that it is. By nature special forces require mobility and the ability to deploy undetected. Existing 'mini-nukes' are either the size of a huge backpack and require the wearer to deploy it close to the target, or are a metre long and require either a tripod or a vehicle mount to be fired, and need a clear line of sight over a considerable distance to operate. Despite all the mid 90's scares about suitcase nukes going missing in Russia, many sources, including governmental and military figures as well as nuclear physicists regard these kinds of weapons as myths* thanks to the incredible technical difficult in manufacturing them. If Iran were even to attempt developing them, it would require not just decades of work on nuclear technology, but also decades of the kind of test explosions that immediately attract attention from various intelligence and military organizations - a rough estimate of the size and force of a payload can even be gathered using seismic data alone. In short, were these kinds of weapons being developed, it would be noticed, and probably provide sufficient justification for Israel or the US to forcibly strike at Iranian targets themselves.

 

*an exception is the so-called 'dirty' bomb. But this is just a conventional bomb that also happens to scatter radioactive material over a large radius. It's destructive power would be no more than that of a regular car or truck bomb, and are already manufacturable by anyone who can get their hands on fissile material.

[Rog]

We need to think way beyond whatever capability that Iran has as a state and the influence and affect that Iran will have if it becomes a nation with The Islamic Bomb.

 

For another thing there is far more involved than just what a nation has, there is the influence that a nation can have based on what people think that it has.

 

Or again what they know that it has and that they rely on it being willing to use if push came to shove and they needed support.

 

There’s also the games that can be played by getting another nation to react on the basis of what the other state thinks or even knows that you have or are developing.

 

Already opinion is polarising regarding the response of Western governments to the Iranian situation with that nasty little creep ahmadinejad gathering support from states that wouldn’t normally support him but are doing as a result of the stance that the US is taking.

 

But to the weapon system in question.

 

An atomic weapon is an interesting weapon as it is one of the few weapons that has more power and influence by its possession than as a consequence of its use.

 

Israel knows this, so did saddam. Although in my opinion there WERE horror weapons in Iraq but they were shipped out before hostilities began, even if there were not the amount of clout that saddam had in the region was massively enhanced by him perpetrating what may have been the myth that he did have them but that they simply had not yet been discovered.

 

Just briefly on that – people seemed for some odd reason to forget that the role of the weapons inspectors sent into Iraq was just that – inspectors, NOT detectives, and saddam was obstructing them at every turn. But back to the subject ---.

 

Iran is different. In the case of Iran there is the religious factor with ahmadinejad seeing himself not as a latter day Saladin as saddam had but more The caliph of a new global caliphate or ummah – a VERY much more dangerous prospect for everyone in the evolved nations of the world.

 

Iran MUST be tackled and tackled very soon.

 

Diplomacy won’t work, reason won’t work, only force of arms will and a willingness to go the full nine yards if needs be. Iran is a key battle in WW3, probably the first as we move out of the equivalent of the WW2 Phoney War phase.

[Gladys]

Israel knows this, so did saddam. Although in my opinion there WERE horror weapons in Iraq but they were shipped out before hostilities began, even if there were not the amount of clout that saddam had in the region was massively enhanced by him perpetrating what may have been the myth that he did have them but that they simply had not yet been discovered.

Your opinion is contrary to all other indicators. If they were shipped out, where were they shipped to? Sure, Saddam probably had aspirations to stockpiling some nasty weapons, and, sure, he wouldn't be against using them, but it would seem that, thankfully, he never achieved his wish.

 

(By the by, I think the word should be "perpetuating", i.e. carrying on or reinforcing!)

[Rog]

Israel knows this, so did saddam. Although in my opinion there WERE horror weapons in Iraq but they were shipped out before hostilities began, even if there were not the amount of clout that saddam had in the region was massively enhanced by him perpetrating what may have been the myth that he did have them but that they simply had not yet been discovered.

Your opinion is contrary to all other indicators. If they were shipped out, where were they shipped to? Sure, Saddam probably had aspirations to stockpiling some nasty weapons, and, sure, he wouldn't be against using them, but it would seem that, thankfully, he never achieved his wish.

 

(By the by, I think the word should be "perpetuating", i.e. carrying on or reinforcing!)

 

The UN report shows that materials had been smuggled out of Iraq so there’s no doubt that other materials that were not simply sold as scrap might have also got out and my bet is that they went to the Bekar valley.

 

Here’s the URL to the UN report.

 

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/docume.../s-2004-435.pdf

 

It’s a long read and is just one of a number of similar items that in themselves are not conclusive that the WMD were exported but taken together shows that it is highly likely that this is what did happen.

 

Here’s the ‘world tribune’ story on the subject.

 

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/W...iraq_06_11.html

 

Will we ever know for sure?

 

I hope not.

[Tugger]

It doesn't matter how muhc evidence appears to the contrary, Rog will always be faithful to the beliefs of his masters, Dick and Dubya

[LoneWolf]

Yet another series of well thought out and exceptionally well articulated posts from Vinnie [im impressed]

 

I would still go along with the wisdom passed down by nearly all the world's energy analysts that the US will not launch a strike against Iran because of China's involvement with Iranian energy.

China has recently closed a deal for LNG [natural gas] worth around 100 billion dollars. China has also committed to investment in Iran in the order of a further 100 billion dollars. In addition China sources a massive amount of oil from Iran.

These energy deals alone are sufficient reason for the US to be wary of invading or acting against Iran. The Chinese would undoubtedly move to protect their national interests.

Moreover, the relationship between Iran and China is not limited to massive energy deals.

China has supplied Iran with advanced missiles and missile technology since the mid-1980s.

It has supplied anti-ship missiles like the Silkworm. China has also sold Iran surface-to-surface cruise missiles and, with Russia, has assisted in the development of Iran's long-range ballistic missiles. This assistance included the development of Iran's Shihab-3 and Shihab-4 missiles, with a range of about 2,000 kilometers. Iran is also reportedly developing missiles with ranges approaching 3,000 kilometers.

So Iran does have,at least some, capability of delivering nucleur weapons.

In summary, the evidence of a growing alliance between China, Iran and Russia is irrefutable and it goes a long way past simple trade of oil and gas.

The US, in my opinion, will continue to rattle its sabres but no more than that. The consequences would be too dire ..even for Mr Bush's tastes.

[VinnieK]

Thanks, Lonewolf!

 

Although I'm not sure too much should be made of the relationship between China and Iran at present. China's affiliation with Iran is powerful of course, thanks to China's revolution in manufacturing industries driving an ever increading demand for reasources. However, China's economy is also inextricably entwined with, and to no small degree reliant upon that of the U.S. (despite whatever tensions over monetary policy and the like may occassionally surface in Congress), with both parties tacitly acknowledging their mutual reliance on one another. I'd say that China's arms for energy deals with Iran represent more a pragmatic (if morally questionable) solution to the latter's problems with satisfying the demands of its industries, rather than an ideological or geopolitical alliance. Under current circumstances, if push came to shove, I suspect that China would weigh up the benefits and costs of supporting Iran in the face of U.S. belligerance, and choose not to provoke the Americans too greatly. This understanding between the two nations can most clearly be seen in the cases of Taiwan and North Korea, with the U.S. urging Taiwan to tone down any references to independence or acting in some way that might offend the sensibilities of the Chinese, whilst China places pressure on North Korea to step back from the confrontational posturing it has been doing of late. Although the U.S. would of course have to take Chinese interests in Iran into consideration when planning any kind of action, I doubt this would be quite as diplomatically problematic as recent trade deals suggest.

 

Ultimately, I think the U.S. has chosen a fairly wise path so far. The recent leaked plans of attack are a potent reminder that should Iran prove itself to be dangerous by threatening its neighbours, then the U.S., if given no other option, could annihilate Iranian military forces and regime, regardless of Iran's nuclear arsenal. U.S. policy makers probably don't believe that such sabre-rattling will deter Iran from persuing it's nuclear aspirations, but I believe they hope it will at least curb these aspirations from manifesting as anything that could prove unduly threatening. Meanwhile, I suspect there's a lot of shuttle diplomacy going on about the Middle East. The rise of Iran as a nuclear power is, perhaps ironically, an opportunity for the U.S. to strengthen its position in the region by appealing to the concerns and fears of Iran's non-nuclear and neighbours. Of course the U.S. can't justifiably invade Iran at present, but they can encourage the growing regional isolation of Iran. As it stands, Iran doesn't pose that significant threat to the U.S., even with nuclear weapons. The U.S., on the other hand, could significantly threaten Iran if its hand were forced. Something I think is an underestimated factor in the events that are presently unfolding.

[LoneWolf]

The rise of Iran as a nuclear power is, perhaps ironically, an opportunity for the U.S. to strengthen its position in the region by appealing to the concerns and fears of Iran's non-nuclear and neighbours. Of course the U.S. can't justifiably invade Iran at present, but they can encourage the growing regional isolation of Iran. As it stands, Iran doesn't pose that significant threat to the U.S., even with nuclear weapons. The U.S., on the other hand, could significantly threaten Iran if its hand were forced. Something I think is an underestimated factor in the events that are presently unfolding.

 

I think you are spot on here. I cant post the link as it is a subscription account but Reuters are reporting almost exactly the same analysis. "The US will seek to exploit the region's political instability and further isolate Iran from its neighbours"

We will probably have to wait and see what unfolds. However, the situation is offering less support to oil prices than the [apparently] much less serious situation in Nigeria. So I would guess a miltary solution is judged less likely than a diplomatic one [even if, as you hint, the diplomacy turns out to be distinctly gunboat!]

[VinnieK]

I think you are spot on here. I cant post the link as it is a subscription account but Reuters are reporting almost exactly the same analysis. "The US will seek to exploit the region's political instability and further isolate Iran from its neighbours"

 

We will probably have to wait and see what unfolds. However, the situation is offering less support to oil prices than the [apparently] much less serious situation in Nigeria. So I would guess a miltary solution is judged less likely than a diplomatic one [even if, as you hint, the diplomacy turns out to be distinctly gunboat!]

 

It is going to be a hell of a headache for U.S. policy makers and diplomatic staff though. Contrary to the impression that is often given, even in some of the press, Israel is no proxy state or unequivocal agent of U.S. interests in the region. Many U.S. politicians have expressed frequent exasperation and impatience with Israel's actions and attitudes over the years. The American government was distinctly annoyed at Israel's development of nuclear weapons, which served only to compromise what used to be a fairly good relationship between the U.S. and Arabian and Middle Eastern states. The Americans will not just have to contend with Iran, but also Israel's reactions and attitudes once Iran does become a fully fledged nuclear state, as well as finding a way to win over other states.

 

It's a wild guess and nothing more, but if I had to make one prediction about this whole affair, it's that the U.S. will gradually be seen to take a tougher line with Israel, either in public or behind closed doors. Indeed, they may find a way to exploit the notional threat from Iran to Israel to highlight the reliance of the latter on American defencive capabilities, and use that to squeeze a few concessions out of the Israeli government. After all, the U.S. doesn't need Israel's nukes to counter Iran's threat, and, given the situation in Iraq, as well as America's strategic aims in the area, the support of Arab and Middle Eastern nations has become more a urgent aim than supporting a lone democratic outpost in the area.

[lectro]

I have no doubts that the US or Israel could remove Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cronies if they wanted to. Who says they need a dirty great bomb? Mossad/CIA have numerous ways of ending it in a "quieter" way.

 

It is possible that Russia and China could end up supporting Iran and going toe-to-toe with the US. Something I'm sure they would relish and the US would not. US body bags on primetime news does not go down well with the US public and I'm sure the US administration are already aware they are stretched militarily. Russia has had years of humiliation and a lot of the old guard are still behind the scenes. I'm sure they'd love a chance to get back at the US if not militarily then definitely diplomatically. China... well that's a different cup of darjeeling. They have not gone far enough down the economic road yet and there is a danger they might risk the progress they've achieved thus far to expand their influence and maybe even territory. Fisticuffs in the middle east might just give them an opportunity they have been looking for.

 

Anyone read Total War 2006? Although it's 13 years old now and a work of fiction it's very well researched (although dated by recent events) and a scary account of what could happen in the Middle East.

[Crozza]

.