Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Nemo888]

We could try it the other way too. We need a plan to look good to the average Iranian while sowing internal discontent with the theocracy. Those military forces would then be tied up internally and we look like the good guys. I think the trick in the Middle East is getting the locals to fight for you and keeping plausible deniability. This guns a blazin stuff backfires politically. I liked Bush Sr's play both sides against each other strategies better. He totally hamstrung the fundamentalists and increased America's international credibility in the process.

If we want facitilities destroyed I'd much rather pay local contractors through back channels.

 

[Long in the tooth]

I think the recent US policy to meet with Iran on any issue is the right one.  A military strike is a trump card that really can only be played once; not because the US can't muster the force but because public opinion inside and out of Iran will become sympathetic to it.  I think the age of totalitarian state is coming to an end.  My 16 year old hardly acknowledges me with more than one syllable responses and is constantly engaged in 'texting' and 'Iming' (whatever they are).  Half of Iran's population is under 30 - do we expect them to be different from our kids and march willingly to war?

This regimes' days are numbered.

 

[Kirkhill]

I also don't disagree with continuing to talk with Iran: Mullahs, Opposition and Followers of the Hidden Imam.  All I am saying is that carrying a 10lb hammer and expressing an eagerness to use it is likely to focus the conversation.  Put the hammer away and the conversation is likely to drift off topic.

Edit: And I agree with Otto Fest on the kids and totalitarian states.  Communication.

 

[Martino]

I can't help but feel that any military action against Iran would be a mistake at this point in time. If you look at what happened during the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian leadership used the deaths of their soldiers to galvanize public support. Creating more 'Martyrs' would only do the same thing, and ultimately would strengthen the grip of the current regime.

The current government is already rotting from the inside out, and it's only a matter of time before it collapses. At most, we should be trying to give it a push in the direction we want by supporting groups that represent our interests.

 

[a_majoor]

Before we all pat ourselves on the backs:

1. The theocracy is fairly ruthless in controlling information flows from outside Iran. Regardless of how their population thinks about them, as long as there are limited references to choose from, I don't think we will be seeing crowds of "Democracy Babes" in the streets of Tehran anytime soon.

2. Coupled with point one, they are also running their own "Info Ops" campaign on the local population, especially the uneducated rural masses who would provide the bulk of the cannon fodder and are the bedrock of support for the current regeime.

3. Our own "official" efforts are pretty pathetic, particularly when stacked up against Al Jezeera and similar media conduits. Our unofficial efforts are far superior, only instead of focusing the people on their desire for freedom it is focusing people on their desire for jeans and t-shirts.........

4. Although the regime is rotting from within, in almost every historical example I can find, the rotten structure will stand for many years until it is given a swift kick from an external source. Barbarian invaders seem in short supply right now (at least the ones who might work in our favor), and we don't hold an ace card like some means to collapse the global price of oil overnight; at least not yet.........

Now, there are potential means of overcoming these limitations, although the western bureaucracies seem unable to change their course. I personally would favor flooding the entire SW Asia region with cheap cellphones who's browsers have been pre programmed by "us", followed by a crash program to create enough biodiesel to satisfy the import needs of the United States.

Still, the timelines to do these things are running out; a nuclear Iran would be a terrible danger to the entire region, fuel the "30 years war" for Islam to a higher pitch, as well as disrupting global energy markets (this would directly affect the EU and China, put their competition for oil in your strategic calculations). Military action must be an available option, and as Kirkhill said, it is the second last available option (most people will probably find "Surrender" an unacceptable option.).

 

[Long in the tooth]

Thucydides - We are still at the mercy of the middle east when it comes to oil, no doubt about that (the term '*****' comes to mind).  Alternatives should be pursued vigorously, just had a quote done for full solar ($20,000 to start).  Petroleum should be used for plastics and pharmaceuticals and not burning up for internal combustion.

I do have a humble question... how does a rotting regime get a kick from without and not be an overt act of war?  The cold war was fought economically at the margins and by proxies and proxies of proxies....

Personally, I'm a sit in the bush kind of guy who will wait until the enemy commits.  After I've TTF out of you by provocation (not ta ta for now).

I've been over there (in general) a few times.  Once the kids start driving shiny cars, expensive or not, they're reluctant to give it up for a T55.

Cheers

 

[Cheshire]

This regimes' days are numbered

Otto fest,

I would like to agree with you on that one. But, those same kids are still at the whim of the old salts/Mullahs, who run the show. And you don;t have to look to far to see an example of that. The peace movement during Vietnam. While there was a vast social change from it, the congress and administration of the White House remained unchanged. Remember the draft? You go to war, or you go to jail. The same I think will apply to Iran. While the majority of youngsters enjoy their cell phones, and shiny cars, the Iranian regime is still in control, and always will be. I cannot see a Woodstock happening anytime soon in that country.

 

[a_majoor]

There may lots of triangulation going on in the background.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/melaniephillips/388926/the-thousand-volt-farce.thtml

The thousand volt farce
Wednesday, 5th December 2007


How Iran is laughing. Ahmadinejad declares that yesterday’s US National Intelligence Estimate is

    announcing a victory for the Iranian nation in the nuclear issue against all international powers.

Indeed, with this report America has achieved the remarkable feat of dealing a terrible blow to all those fighting to defend civilisation. It has actually strengthened Ahmadinejad, whose grip on power had until yesterday been looking ever more fragile. But then the US handed him a priceless gift in the form of the NIE report which says, in effect, that US intelligence hasn’t got a clue about the Iranian nuclear threat. We can all see from its ludicrously threadbare reasoning — much of merely using guesswork to assess Iran’s intentions, in the absence of reliable information on the ground — that intelligence of any sort is clearly in short supply in the US security world.

The statement by President Bush that the report is

    a very important product…

is clearly nonsense. Despite the reforms to the intelligence community which he claims have worked, the US clearly continues to have a major problem with both the competence and good faith of its intelligence services. They must now be considered themselves to represent a threat to the west that they ostensibly serve — and Bush’s pathetic attempt to square the circle of the Iran assessments merely reinforces America’s humiliation.

As reported below, the Israelis don’t buy the NIE assessment. No-one with a functioning brain — let alone the country in Iran’s sights — could surely do so. Even the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn’t buy it — the body which is usually at the end of an American kicking for not being bullish enough. The New York Times reports:

    'To be frank, we are more skeptical,’ a senior official close to the agency said. ‘We don’t buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran.’ The official called the American assertion that Iran had ‘halted’ its weapons program in 2003 ‘somewhat surprising'.

To put it mildly. As things stand at present, America has abandoned everything it has stood for since 9/11. It has now prostrated itself before Ahmadinejad and invited him to stamp on its head. It has given up on the fight against Syrian despotism in Lebanon where the new president, General Michel Suleiman, is a pro-Syria Hezbollah puppet. And it has betrayed Israel at Annapolis: as I said in a previous post, America’s Munich with Israel in the role of Czechoslovakia.

What is the explanation for this? I am beginning to think that it might be all about Iraq.

The line coming out of the Israeli government after Annapolis was that this wasn’t about Israel and the Arabs at all. It was instead about bringing Saudi Arabia and others on board to construct an alliance against Iran, and building international capital in order that Israel might convince a sceptical world that Iran really was an unconscionable threat.

It is surely no accident, therefore, that the NIE volte-face was published after Annapolis. Had the US declared beforehand that Iran wasn’t really a danger after all, Israel surely would never have taken part in that farce.* As it is, Israel has now been absolutely betrayed. Having been humiliated at Annapolis and pushed by the US into a process in which it is expected to make suicidal concessions to people who will not even recognise the Jews’ right to their own homeland and are trying every day to kill its citizens, it now finds that, far from persuading the world that Iran is a mortal threat that must be stopped, America has actually told the world that it has no idea whether Iran is now a threat at all.

So why has America done this? Maybe because it has sold Israel to the devil, in the shape of Iran and Saudi Arabia, in order to save its skin in Iraq.

As we know, it is of overwhelming importance to President Bush that peace comes to Iraq by November’s presidential election. The situation in Iraq over the past few months has dramatically improved. This has been assumed to be because, under the shrewd strategic leadership of General Petraeus, the previously terror-supporting and fratricidal tribal leaders finally turned against al Qaeda and decided to unite to reclaim their country from the endless spiral of mass murder.

But there may be another explanation. The Samson Blinded blog suggests the US did a deal with Iran, in which Iran wound down its support for terror in Iraq — in return for which the US promised not to bomb Iran. The NIE was published to cloak this decision in the convenient if implausible fiction of the scaling down by the US intelligence community of the Iranian threat.

The major player at Annapolis was Saudi Arabia. It was Saudi’s ‘peace plan’ to destroy Israel which the US was trying to force Israel to accept. My own sources suggest that at the heart of Annapolis was another deal done with Saudi Arabia by the US.

Saudi is absolutely terrified by the power of Iran, which it perceives as a major threat to itself and its role in the entire region. Saudi well understands that for Iran, the destruction of Israel is the core goal of goals which is driving Iran’s nuclear weapons programme — a programme that also directly threatens Saudi itself. So it made a deal with the US. Saudi would tell its terror puppets in Iraq to back off — and as a quid pro quo the US would force Israel to the negotiating table with the Palestinians and set in train a process to force it into concessions that would deal it a mortal blow. Thus two birds would be killed with one stone: Iran’s frenzied impulse to build a nuclear weapon — and Israel itself.

If this analysis is correct, Israel’s existence and the safety of the world have thus been bargained away in exchange for the ability of a US president to declare success in Iraq. On the other hand, as I said in my post below, it may be that Bush has simply been out-manoeuvred by both the spooks and the State Department.

The NIE report is of course being cheered on by all who see America (and Israel) rather than Iran as the major threat to the world. Those who believe the poisonous fiction about the ‘neocon conspiracy’ will once again be unable to grasp what is staring them in the face. Indeed, madness over Iraq is now broadening into madness over Iran. Those whose truncated brain processes tell them that the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proves that they never existed now claim that the Iranian threat is no more than a malevolently constructed fiction. Neocon ‘warmongers’, they say, believe US intelligence when it says there is a threat but not when it says there isn’t.

This ignores the context of that intelligence. All intelligence should be regarded with a degree of circumspection. It has to be assessed in the light of everything else that we know about the given situation. Given what we knew back in the 1990s about Saddam -- his regional ambitions, ties to terror and WMD efforts -- it is reasonable to conclude that US intelligence first failed to assess correctly the threat he posed to the west; then got part of it right; and then devoted the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq to putting out disinformation in order to cover up their own past incompetence. And given what we know about Iran, the NIE’s volte-face simply isn’t credible.

The report states as firmly as it can that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon until 2003. Is it really likely that it would have stopped and not re-started? If so, why is it continuing to defy the international community by enriching weapons grade uranium in 3,000 centrifuges? Why doesn’t it open up all its nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors? Why has it gone to such lengths to scatter and bury its nuclear installations? Why would a country whose president has said: ‘We must get ready to rule the world… the Islamic government in Iran is the pre-requisite for a world wide Islamic state’, which has committed itself publicly to the destruction of Israel and which is responsible for blowing up coalition soldiers in Iraq as part of its three decade-war against the west, want to restrict its nuclear technology to the blameless production of electricity?

Those who bat such questions away would believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. The west is signing its own death warrant. With its ignorance and stupidity exceeded only by its arrogance, it is unable to see that it is being played for suckers.

Pull yourself together, Mr President. You may score temporarily in Iraq, but at what terrible cost?

* Update: Amos Harel on the Ha'aretz website reports that Israel was told about the NIE report well before Annapolis. Baffling.
The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP. All Articles and Content Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved

 

[TCBF]

The Persians are a proud and ancient race who wear their heavy sacrifice in the 1980s war with Saddam like a crown of thorns.  Attacking them would serve to unite them stronger than any mullah ever could. 

This is another society that views itself as at least culturally superior to it's neighbours, if not the rest of the planet. 

I have no doubt they believe that Iran's natural boundaries should stretch from the Mediterranian to the Indus River.

 

[tomahawk6]

Unfortunately we have a number of leftists entrenched in the bureaucracy. When Bush came into office he thought he could work with the dem's and left many of these political appointees in place at State,DoD and CIA to name just a few departments. These people have been responsible for a number of damaging leaks.
The authors of this NIE crafted this report pretty much out of whole cloth. The findings are at odds with known intel on Iran's nuclear program. Clearly the Israelis disagree with the report and our allies have been quiet on this issue. Intelligence analysis should present known/suspected facts and options for the decision makers and not make policy.

One reason we might have a disparity is the result of the "defection" in March of IRG General Ali-Reza Ashgari. There are now strong suspicions that he is a double agent.The Russians used double agents to tie the CIA in knots. Ashgari left his family behind in Iran without any seeming repercussions by the regime.He may have told the spooks that Iran suspended their nuclear program in 03. Anyway CIA is taking another look at the intel and Director Hayden is going to Israel to see what Mossad has.

 

[TCBF]

You mean "..to see what Mossad wants to tell him."

8)

 

[tomahawk6]

Israel has pretty good intel sources in Iran and they devote alot of resources to the task.They cannot afford to be wrong. I wouldnt let your personal bias get in the way of being objective.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm glad you highlighted the text you did Thucydides.  While I like to consider myself open-minded on intentions and motives this Spectator speculation whips a few too many "loose ends" together.  I don't doubt that it is POSSIBLE that this report is connected to Annapolis, the timing suggests that if nothing else.  That and the fact that President Bush approved its release.  But to go from there to suggest a complete, if covert, surrender....I can't bring myself to believe that.  On the other hand I can believe that there are many people wedded to positions to such an extent that any "trade" would be considered defeat.

Based on a comment from Senator Joe Biden yesterday

...I want to be very clear: if the President takes us to war with Iran without Congressional approval, I will call for his impeachment.

I do not say this lightly or to be provocative. I am dead serious. I have chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still teach constitutional law. I've consulted with some of our leading constitutional scholars. The Constitution is clear. And so am I.

I'm saying this now to put the administration on notice and hopefully to deter the President from taking unilateral action in the last year of his administration. If war is warranted with a nation of 70 million people, it warrants coming to Congress and the American people first.

I think President Bush is cutting his losses domestically.  He can't bring the Democrats onside.  He is having trouble bringing the general public onside.  He can't get his fellow countrymen to sustain the effort.  I think, despite his tough talk about not wanting to be held responsible if Iran does get the bomb, he has decided to punt.

With the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan he has materially advanced the yardsticks.  The situation is vastly different than it was before he came to power and while others may argue the point I think the change has been beneficial - any change had to be for the better.  The Dems will not be withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan.  That ground will be held.  Israel, Kuwait and Jordan are in improved positions.  Iran is in a worse position.  

If he can't get the Dems and the peepul to accept the necessity of action then he must wait until a casus belli presents itself.  And that is likely to happen on the next President's watch.  So if the Dems want to buy that project more power to them.....

There was this little gem from Future-President Biden's analysis:

...And let's not kid ourselves: any military conflict with Iran is likely to become major. Don't be fooled by talk of a "surgical" strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks. It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force, repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country, securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond. What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war. There's only one thing worse than a poorly planned, intentional war: an unplanned, unintentional war.

Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it.

Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation. In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office.
....

Let's break this down:

"It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks."  And?  That is doable.  In fact a constant air patrol was maintained over Iraq for the best part of decade under President Bill.

"It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force,"  Yep

"repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country," Yep

"securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf," Well I thought that the oil facilities already had to be secured in the area and the prospect of creating a cordon sanitaire on the Iranian side of the Straits of Hormuz shouldn't be impossible. Couldn't it be done by air patrols eliminating subs, boats and missile launch sites?

"and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond"  And? Aren't they already at risk?  Weren't they at risk before 9/11?  Weren't they at risk in 1993? 1982?

"What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war" Yep. But what tools does Iran have to launch a general war?  How long would it take to dismantle what little capability they have to conduct conventional war - or at least degrade their capabilities and keep up the harassing fire to keep them unable to build the tools of war.

"Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it."  And in the long run Toronto can't be held.  Air strikes setting back Iran's nuclear program is possible sez Senator Joe.  Well then, keep launching air strikes and setting them back every time they look to be advancing.  Eventually they are likely to get the message.  Lasting solution, forever, never, utopia - all nonsense.  Military power provides the opportunity for continuous action.  The only problem with any control system occurs when activity stops.  Kate and Anna McGarigle have a song about log drivers "burling down and down the whitewater, that's where the log driver learns to step lightly..."  if he stops dancing from log to log he sinks and drowns.  Military power can provide a longterm control.  God himself might be able to provide a lasting solution but he isn't volunteering.  


"Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation."  By whom? The Iranians? I thought they were already "retaliating" against US troops.

"In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed."  And?  Actually you could only see them as being unleashed if you see them as being leashed by Iran just now. With Iran otherwise engaged I can't see them acting out for any length of time - beans, bullets and bandages would be hard to come by.

"In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office."  It seems unlikely that the non-Pashtun population of Afghanistan would be bothered about Persians, particularly the Baluchis.  As to the Pashtuns of Pakistan - how much more enraged can they get?  Musharaff has already lost control.  The Arab Street - dead quiet now, dead quiet then and likely to remain dead quiet if it is those nasty apostate Persians that are being discomfited.

But fair dues to Senator Joe - he knows a saleable product when he sees it and "Peace in our time" is always saleable.

September 1938 to September 1939
December 2007 to December 2008

I wonder Senator Joe's, or Hilary's first order of business will be?

 

[CougarKing]

[quote author=Kirkhill ] 

If he can't get the Dems and the peepul to accept the necessity of action then he must wait until a casus belli presents itself.  And that is likely to happen on the next President's watch.[/quote]

Peepul? hehe  ;D

Let's break this down:

"It would probably require thousands of sorties by our air force, over two to three weeks."  And?  That is doable.  In fact a constant air patrol was maintained over Iraq for the best part of decade under President Bill.

"It would mean bombing Iran's radar sites and air force,"  Yep

"repeatedly striking multiple targets across the country," Yep

"securing the Straits of Hormuz and oil facilities throughout the Persian Gulf," Well I thought that the oil facilities already had to be secured in the area and the prospect of creating a cordon sanitaire on the Iranian side of the Straits of Hormuz shouldn't be impossible. Couldn't it be done by air patrols eliminating subs, boats and missile launch sites?

"and preparing for attacks against our troops, citizens, allies, and interests across the region and beyond"  And? Aren't they already at risk?  Weren't they at risk before 9/11?  Weren't they at risk in 1993? 1982?

"What looks "limited" to us almost certainly would be seen as something much bigger by the Iranians and could spark an all-out war" Yep. But what tools does Iran have to launch a general war?  How long would it take to dismantle what little capability they have to conduct conventional war - or at least degrade their capabilities and keep up the harassing fire to keep them unable to build the tools of war.

"Second, military power can't provide a lasting solution. Air strikes can set back Iran's nuclear program, but they can't stop Tehran from restarting it."  And in the long run Toronto can't be held.  Air strikes setting back Iran's nuclear program is possible sez Senator Joe.  Well then, keep launching air strikes and setting them back every time they look to be advancing.  Eventually they are likely to get the message.  Lasting solution, forever, never, utopia - all nonsense.  Military power provides the opportunity for continuous action.  The only problem with any control system occurs when activity stops.  Kate and Anna McGarigle have a song about log drivers "burling down and down the whitewater, that's where the log driver learns to step lightly..."  if he stops dancing from log to log he sinks and drowns.  Military power can provide a longterm control.  God himself might be able to provide a lasting solution but he isn't volunteering.  


"Third, imagine the consequences beyond Iran. In Iraq, our troops would be targets for retaliation."  By whom? The Iranians? I thought they were already "retaliating" against US troops.

"In Israel and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah would be unleashed."  And?  Actually you could only see them as being unleashed if you see them as being leashed by Iran just now. With Iran otherwise engaged I can't see them acting out for any length of time - beans, bullets and bandages would be hard to come by.

"In Afghanistan and Pakistan, enraged Muslim populations would make it much harder for moderate leaders to cooperate with us, if they didn't force them from office."  It seems unlikely that the non-Pashtun population of Afghanistan would be bothered about Persians, particularly the Baluchis.  As to the Pashtuns of Pakistan - how much more enraged can they get?  Musharaff has already lost control.  The Arab Street - dead quiet now, dead quiet then and likely to remain dead quiet if it is those nasty apostate Persians that are being discomfited.

But fair dues to Senator Joe - he knows a saleable product when he sees it and "Peace in our time" is always saleable.

September 1938 to September 1939
December 2007 to December 2008

I wonder Senator Joe's, or Hilary's first order of business will be?

+1 Kirkhill. Still, if I can recall correctly, then British PM Chamberlain used the "Peace in our time" quote to justify appeasement to Hitler's Nazi Germany, and we all know what that led to...though I am not suggesting that you want appeasement.

However, I did watch the Democratic debate on CNN a couple of weeks ago and yes US Senator Biden did seem to have quite a grasp on the issues of that region. BTW, on a little sidenote, did he not say during the debate that he did call Pervez Musharaf and actually told him not to relinquish at least one of his two positions, before the Pakistani leader stepped down as head of the Pakistani military?

I doubt Biden will be elected, but he is certainly a less polarizing figure than Hillary Clinton.

 

[Flip]

Ok,  I've read the Spec-tater article and I have a few thoughts.

The underlying premise seems to be that "America" is a single minded
entity under GWB's complete and total control that does what it does to suit him.

As most publications and rants from that side - they forget that
"America" is the dizzying swirl that it is, with competing factions and
multiple intents.

Ultimately the "intelligence report" is just paper.
I think T6 is correct in pointing out that it's paper with a political
reason to exist.  I think Kirkhill has it exactly right ( his whole post )
Why worry about agitating an already engaged enemy?

Maybe Ahmedinejad is feeling lucky............
Their long game approach is the most worrisome.
Step 1. Get nuclear "peaceful" nuclear power
Step 2. Let everyone get used to the idea that it's OK
Step 3. When noboby's looking - throw together a few nukes
from stockpiled Uranium or Plutonium.........

OF COURSE THERE'S NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM RIGHT NOW!!!  ;D 

 

[MarkOttawa]

A pessimistic view from the Wall St. Journal:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110010965

...The very first sentence of this week's national intelligence estimate (NIE) is written in a way that damages U.S. diplomacy: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program." Only in a footnote below does the NIE say that this definition of "nuclear weapons program" does "not mean Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment."

In fact, the main reason to be concerned about Iran is that we can't trust this distinction between civilian and military. That distinction is real in a country like Japan. But we know Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered in 2003, and Iran continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale, with 3,000 centrifuges, in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. There is no civilian purpose for such enrichment. Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from Russia at the plant in Bushehr. The NIE buries the potential danger from this enrichment, even though this enrichment has been the main focus of U.S. diplomacy against Iran...

The result is that we now have NIE judgments substituting for policy in a dangerous way. For one thing, these judgments are never certain, and policy in a dangerous world has to account for those uncertainties. We know from our own sources that not everyone in American intelligence agrees with this NIE "consensus," and the Israelis have already made clear they don't either. The Jerusalem Post reported this week that Israeli defense officials are exercised enough that they will present their Iran evidence to Admiral Michael Mullen, the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visits that country tomorrow.

For that matter, not even the diplomats at the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency agree with the NIE. "To be frank, we are more skeptical," a senior official close to the agency told the New York Times this week. "We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran."..

All the more so because the NIE heard 'round the world is already harming U.S. policy. The Chinese are backing away from whatever support they might have provided for tougher sanctions against Iran, while Russia has used the NIE as another reason to oppose them. Most delighted are the Iranians, who called the NIE a "victory" and reasserted their intention to proceed full-speed ahead with uranium enrichment. Behind the scenes, we can expect Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to expand their nuclear efforts as they conclude that the U.S. will now be unable to stop Iran from getting the bomb...

The text of the NIE is here (pdf):
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/20071203_release.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Nemo888]

Iran has had the brainpower to develop nuclear energy for decades. Till baby Bush tied up all his military resources they were too scared. Now they have out manoeuvred America, most especially by sowing rebellion in Iraq. They see a chance to join the nuclear club or at least use it as a bargaining chip for something they want.

Iran has at least three known uranium mines and probably more like 10 in reality. Eventually when the oil runs out they will need to get power from somewhere or go back to being an agrarian society. The only way long term (30 years +) to keep nukes away from them is to give them free electricity or destroy their civilization.  Petro won’t last forever and will be too expensive soon to use domestically to generate electricity. They actually need nuclear power in about 30 years.

If you are in favour of the destroy Iran option then you have just made the best argument for them needing a nuclear deterrent. If we want Iran not to develop nukes military options will only give us a few extra years and create and enemy with a valid grudge. We need a carrot, not just a stick.

Bush Sr. never would have been outfoxed like this. Israel really can’t get to all the sites without heavy looses. If they could I think they would have done it already. No wonder Ahmediejad is always smiling lately.

 

[Flip]

Nemo - No-one wants to destroy Iran.

Just the current regime that makes them dangerous.

There is a very large distinction between Iran's government
and Iran's people.

The lady who cuts my hair is Iranian, I've had neighbours
who are Iranian.  I have no beef with the people.

I would like to see them liberated.

 

[Nemo888]

That is nice to hear. Though some people did want to destroy every single military resouce Iran has. I don't think those soldiers, most of them conscripts, had anything to do wtih the current administrations political decisions. No one hates the current fundamentalists in control there more that the Iranians I've met in Canada.

Most of that is for domestic American consumption anyway. Like Ahmedinejads anti-Israel speeches. I fell for it completely the last time the drums of war were beaten with patriotic fervour. I actually feel a bit like a fool for believing it the first time. Now I just nod and play the game at work but I think it's all BS.

 

[Kirkhill]

Though some people did want to destroy every single military resouce Iran has.

I presume that's me.  That would be a fair assessment.  But you seem to have missed the "IF".

IF Iran continues to allow itself to be governed by a raving loonie who wants to create havoc in order to bring him closer to paradise, and in the course of his activities threaten his neighbours, our friends and us, THEN I would consider it right, reasonable and proper to take the weapons out of his hands.  As far as possible civilians would be avoided.  Power and Water would beol avoided.

Headquarters would not be avoided.  Tank parks, submarine and patrol boat sally ports would not be avoided.  Airfields and missile launch sites would not be avoided. Air Defences would not be avoided.  And needless to say any weapons manufacturing facilities would not be avoided.

Men, with guns, in the streets.....they are up to the Iranians to handle.  They pose no threat Iran's neighbours.