• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Iran Super Thread- Merged

Cliff said:
I agree with you on surgical air strikes.  

It was back in about 1981 that IDF used its aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in a nearby 'ME' country. It makes sense to me to do it again, this time it does not have to be Israel, but I don't think they are about to sit back and do nothing.


There are many very articulate and compelling opinons about Iran and the current state of Iran
-Iraq situations or possible situations on this site, which are appreciated. I base my opinions on
the State of Iran today on two sources; people whom I have worked with from the Northrop
Corporation, California, who had a significant presence in Iran in the days of the Shah, and my
association with Israeli industries. In particular, I read DEBKAfile on a daily basis. The best intelligence
on the Iran of January 2005 comes from Israel and France who have for different reasons, a vested
interest in knowing a great deal about the intentions of the Mullahs, who recently for instance
executed two Iranian nuclear scientists who attempted to flee Iran through Syria. Fellow readers,
take the time to read the reports in DEBKAfile and Paris Match (en francais of course). North American
news sources are biased, untruthful, and motivated by commercial interests, in particular, in Canada
the god-awful CBC. There is also, in my opinion, based on information from American friends and
associates, no doubt that the Bush government are focused on an orderly departure from Iraq - a
good source of information on this thesis can be found on the US site "Military.com" MacLeod
Cliff said:
You raise some interesting points. Another interesting point is that the US preemptive policy has proved very effective in curtailing terrorism on the US home front,, while most of the world sits back and watches. I think the US needs to let it all hang out and clean out the hornet's nest once and for all. If it extends to limited warfare in Iran..so be it.   Doing nothing while Iran builds its nuclear capability doesn't seem like much of an option.

I'm unsure how you can support your statement that a preemptive policy has been effective at curtailing terrorism on US soil- could you please elaborate?

In general, an operation in Iran would have to be justified with readily verifiable intelligence that the consequences of not acting far out way those of the operation- an international Defence of Necessity, per se.  What it boils down to is that one country is going to bomb another country because: it thinks it may have nuclear capabilities, those nuclear capabilities might be passed on to some terrorist organization, and that terrorist organization might attack another country.  What of Iran's response to this action?  If they did possess nuclear weapons, is it conceivable that they are all centralized in one location or in locations that the US knows of?  As such, if one facility survives, creates a nuclear weapons, and then passes it off to said terrorist groups in retaliation of an the offensive, this creates a bit of a vicious cycle.  

I don't believe Iran would ever use a nuclear weapon- directly or through a proxy.  The consequence is that the smallest shred of heretic evidence pointing the finger at them would lead to a very bad state in the world.

So, unless you can go to the world stage and say, "Hey Tehran, here's undeniable proof that your building nuclear weapons- stop it, or else", I hope this argument remains academic!

TA said:
I'm unsure how you can support your statement that a preemptive policy has been effective at curtailing terrorism on US soil- could you please elaborate?

The CIA effectively taking out terrorist targets in Yemen would fit nicely into Washington's preemptive policy.   These type of actions will continue to curtail terrorism,since they won't be around to mount attacks on US soil.    

So, unless you can go to the world stage and say, "Hey Tehran, here's undeniable proof that your building nuclear weapons- stop it, or else", I hope this argument remains academic!

I hope "this argument" materializes into taking out any nuclear capability Iran has.    
Wesley H. Allen said:
It was back in about 1981 that IDF used its aircraft to destroy a nuclear facility in a nearby 'ME' country. It makes sense to me to do it again, this time it does not have to be Israel, but I don't think they are about to sit back and do nothing.



Kudos to Israel.. They did the right thing.
SITUATION REPORTS - January 22, 2005
2349 GMT - EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner says the threat of a U.S. military attack against Iran is not that great, predicting that a diplomatic solution ultimately would be found, although negotiations likely would be difficult. U.S. President George W. Bush warned Jan. 17 that the United States would launch a military strike against Iran if Tehran does not end its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

...Someone care explain to me how the EU suddenly can decide what the US will do?

Anyways, I'm on the fence for this one.. On one hand we (the West) have to be careful of not letting a crazed state created nukes and possibly completely destabilize the whole region, and give nukes to terrorists, but on the other hand we can't go and destabilize it ourselves and created a very very bad situation.

And another trouble is finding allies who'll let "us" go into Iran using their territory:

SITUATION REPORTS - January 20, 2005
1405 GMT - The Afghan Defense Ministry said it would not allow a third country to use Afghan territory against neighboring Iran, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported Jan. 20. Afghan Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Mohammad Zaher Azimi said that while there was a large U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, Kabul would never be convinced to allow Washington to send special forces into Iran -- a reaction to a recent report in The New Yorker magazine of a covert U.S. military reconnaissance operation under way in Iran.

Anyways, all in alll, this could turn ugly REAL fast. Let's just hope it doesn't.
Ugly it is already

Nasty is and real are what you have to hope it doesn't become.

Iran will be quite capable of giving the US more then just a bloody nose should they choose to invade.

Going after the leadership of Iran is an option but one that comes with possible unintended consiquences.  Having a harsher party rule.

Yes the air strikes may work and put back Iran's nuclear weapon program 10 yrs but what if that just pisses them off and they start to sell the stuff just to make dirty bombs to prove a point.

I'm not trying to fan a fire here or anything, nor am I being sarcastic or rhetorical when asking this but can anyone tell me what right we, the US, or anyone else has to attack Iran or take any action against them (save passive actions such as economic sanction) because they're seeking nuclear weapons?

Mon, January 24, 2005

Strike at Iran possible

By Peter Worthington -- For the Toronto Sun

A topic of concern around Washington in these days of post-inauguration and pre-State of the Union address, is what's next?

President George W. Bush's inauguration speech left some puzzled, others encouraged, many uneasy.

He talked a lot about freedom, without getting into specifics, and didn't mention Iraq. That got people buzzing.

What he seemed to be doing was giving a blueprint for the future -- a future that extended beyond his term in office, deep into the unforeseeable future.

To some it was a perilous approach, to others it was inspired. Thinking big, thinking beyond. An agenda for America.

No lame duck

What Bush did convey, was that he intends his final term to be no lame duck administration.

His fixation on freedom and democracy in the world conveyed to a growing number the likelihood that the next big target for his aggressive democracy is Iran -- not a war, not ultimatums or embargoes, but direct action. Something has to be done about Iran's already considerable nuclear ambitions.

There isn't much time.

It is an issue that also worries Europe.

In 1981 Israel did the world a favour when it bombed and destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor which was intended for nuclear weapons, with a large assist from France.

That message was absorbed by Iran, which apparently has no single Osirak-like site, but diverse sites to develop various aspects of the program, with back-ups and duplication.

Some sites are underground, some in population centres, all of them widely distributed.

So air strikes alone are unreasonable and unlikely.

What seems possible in the future -- that is, during President Bush's watch - is sabotage on the ground. Perhaps a Special Forces style attack, with limited air co-ordination -- an aggressive raid to eliminate some or all key nuclear sites. Then get out.

In Pakistan

While Western intelligence has some knowledge of where these sites are, the ones who know best are in Pakistan, which is believed to have helped Iran develop its nuclear potential in the days before Pakistan was an American ally, and when it backed the Taliban of Afghanistan and al-Qaida.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf changed all that when he decided President Bush was serious and not one to be toyed with, and threw his future in with America's.

Some realists speculate that there already are Special Forces inside Iraq, and that at some point an un-admitted alliance of American, Pakistani and German commandoes, with a possible inclusion of British, will be tasked with eliminating Iran's nuclear sites. Or at least some of them, before it's too late.

The one thing that seems fairly certain (one can never be absolutely sure in such things) is that Israel will not be directly involved.

Iran has few friends in the Islamic world who look forward to the ayatollahs and mullahs wielding nuclear weapons.

Since in foreign affairs as in war (and love) success is the prime virtue and failure the cardinal sin, judgment awaits the outcome of this nuclear showdown. Will, or will not, Iran become the next nuclear world influence?

Regardless of what happens in Iraq (a Shiite win in the Iraq election seems assured), it won't affect what is viewed as necessary in Iran.

As for the third member of Bush's "axis of evil" trio -- North Korea -- little action is planned. Kim Jong Il is so obviously a fruitcake with no allies except Cuba, and is in questionable health anyway, that nature will likely settle that issue.

Maybe the future will become clearer at the State of the Union address on Feb. 2 -- probably more about America's self-decreed responsibility if not to make the whole world democratic, to at least make the world safer for democracies.

Not a bad legacy



Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?  :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.  ;D
Wizard of OZ said:

Did you miss the memo on the US being appointed the defenders of democracy and international policeman?   :threat:

If you did sorry.

OK enough of the sarcasm.   ;D

;D As much as I'd love to comment, I don't want to be inflammatory.

Regarding my previous post, I don't necessarily oppose non-violent efforts against proliferation but it doesn't seem to me that taking overly aggressive postures towards countries is likely to make them NOT want nuclear weapons - quite the opposite. If a man with a big gun bent on obtaining your subservience keeps threatening you, what are you going to do - capitulate or get your own gun? If you subscribe to the old "better to die free than live on your knees" maxim, you get a gun.

I guess what I'm saying is that, in this case, we might get catch more flies with sugar than we will with s***.
I am always puzzeled by posts which seem to get the positions reversed and postulate Iran as the aggrivated party in this dispute.

Iran is the nation actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran is the nation that sponsors terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, as well as many others.

Iran is the nation which seeks to export an Islamic revolution. (Among others. Saudi Arabia has also done so, although it is questionable if this was state policy.)

Iran is the nation that openly seeks the destruction of a democratic state (Israel)

Iran is the nation which has branded the United States "The Great Satan", and openly incites violent actions against Americans everywhere in the world.

Iran's government uses its oil wealth to further these aims, rather than concentrate on the various needs of its own people, who are enslaved by the Mullahs.

George W Bush is continuing the unofficial policy of "containment" begun at the end of the Carter Administration, but is now openly offering moral support to any pro democracy movements in Iran (read here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23747-2005Jan20.html and draw your own conclusions). Further efforts through trade and diplomacy may occur, and as long as Iran keeps their provocations to a minimum, the Americans will keep their "terrible swift sword" sheathed. Otherwise, read the Iran and Syria-war of the future? thread http://army.ca/forums/threads/25162.90.html
Majoor i agree Iran has done all of those things.

But he without sin cast the first stone.

America is the only nation in the world to use nuclear weapons.

America sponsered the CONTRA rebels

America traded arms for hostages in Iran

America sponsored the IRA

and the list could go on.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't doubt that Iran has some evil intent.  But without prove of this how could an attack be justified.  If the US does it alone why do we have a UN? 

The list could go on, but these situations you list have little or nothing to do with the current situation that the Iranian government is creating. Grievance lists of American actions (especially with no reference to why these actions took place) are very much like Osama Bin Laden complaining about the destruction of the Moorish Andelusian state by Ferdinand and Isabella in the 1490's.

As for the UN, based on their constant anti semitism, inaction during genocides in formar Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia and now Dafur, revelations about the extent of the corruption in the UN run Oil for Food program and the continuing "sex for peacekeepers" scandle in the Congo, well, "why do we have a UN?"
Ok i will update my list to make it more relevant

US attack Iraq with no prove of WMD or positive links to the OSMA

US openly threatens Iran a sovergin nation.

US openly threatens Syria a sovergin nation.

they branded the US the "Great Satan while the US was supplying IRAQ weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.  They also branded the USSR the lesser Satan but still bought weapons from them.

I have no love for Iran but i just don't think the US should go around and say hey change to be like us or we will kick your ass. 

I don't see them talking to China that way or to a lesser extent North Korea. 

If they could prove that Iran is threating the free world by selling nuclear weapons or waste to terrorist groups i mean real proof not that betty crocker instant bake stuff they had for Iraq. then they could make a case for it.

As for the UN what mutinational group does not have scandals.  Does this meant it is invaluable or just requires a revamping of its internal doctrine?  (kinda like the Canadian government)

The UN is still a worth while body that should play a larger role in the world and needs to be revamped to do it.

Another good call was when Reagan ordered terrorist targets taken out in Libya back in the 1980s.      

Some excellent points regarding the US, however, one of your examples is outdated and doesn't include important context info.

The US was justified in using nuclear weapons against Japan because: a- the alternative (mainland invasion of Japan) would have caused more casualties than the 2 nukes did; and b- they were in a state of TOTAL WAR with Japan.

And as Majoor pointed out, that was 60 years ago.

Yea i kinda updated that list

Still that is one of the major threats of Iran according to the US is it not the fact that they are developing nuclear weapons?

While the US was the only nation to use them be it 60 yrs ago or not.  Total war or not.  Do you think they would have used them in Europe?  I doubt it highly doubt it.

Staying on topic though let he without sin cast the first stone.  I see no defense of America here?  Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.  Saber rattling will do little to solve the situation.  I can't remember who said it but you may catch more flies with sugar.  Not saying us an appeasement policy but maybe they should not threaten everybody at once.
Wizard of OZ said:
I see no defense of America here?   Not looking for a fight but all nations have their skeletons.

Your second sentence answered your first, and perversly decimated any argument you might have been trying to make.  You're right, every nation DOES have it's "skeletons", yet people of a certain political persuaision insist on only protesting and criticizing the actions of the US.  That alone gives them all the justification they need.  Why bother listening to "world opinion", when the people who oppose your policies also turn a blind eye to the actions of those just as bad or even worse?  If people are going to be against you no matter what you do, you may as well do what's in your best interest.