A Fairer Iranian Options Thread

[Frodo]

Option 1, it is the least dangerous option out there with the least repercussions.  I have underlined my thinking on this in the other thread by TN2024.

[Jake]

Containment, with economic sanctions meant to cripple its economy, is the only rational course to take. Air strikes suffer from a multitude of problems, including basing, targeting, and recon of the targets, which make them unfeasible and a ground invasion is impossible for lack of troops and terrain issues. And contrary to what many think, sitting around hoping for the best is not going to solve any problem, just look at the border and/or North Korea.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Look, "containment" doesn't work, I tried to explain on the old one..

Fu** this...I'll change my vote -not only should we do a conventional airstrike, but also launch a full-scale military invasion and occupation of Iran.  And that should also involve reinstating the draft so we could have a deep reserve of readily-deployable manpower that we can throw at them.  If we are going to wipe out Iran's capability to develop nuclear weapons, it makes no sense to stop short with only an airstrike while the Iranian populace is clamoring for vengeance in its aftermath with terrorist cells being readied to wreak hell on the American homeland.  Let's fight the terrorists there rather than here.   

What do you suggest be done about the Iranian situation, Frodo?

It's easy to dismiss all the available options, but doing nothing will have a cost too, at some time in the future.

This is clearly a dangerous regime with great potential to bring destructive war to the region, and to the United States.  The countries around it are weak and will probably be intimidated enough to buckle to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the region into declaring economic warfare on the west by curtailing oil production and driving the price through the roof.

There are no easy answers to this problem, but I think we should be mindful of the potential costs of doing nothing.

Dazzleman -I see no reason why we can't simply contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union for over a half-century.  It is the least dangerous option out there, and though it is a dangerous regime, it nonetheless is a regime that values its own self-preservation.  They are rational beings.  Iran is not the equivalent of Al Qaeda which cannot be contained like any other nation-state and therefore must be hunted down with whatever means are at our disposal. 

Frodo, your point is valid and your mind is in the right place, but the reality of the situation doesn't allow for us to do the same thing this time. You have to remember we had the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to hold against the Soviets, they knew that America, if attacked, had the willpower and guts to wipe Communism off the map. This situation is completely different. Given the opportunity, the far right wing Islamic facists (that indeed exist) would take any uranium enriched or bought by the government and use it in such a way where it could do damage to this country. Imagine Los Angeles dissapearing one day? Now yes, it would be difficult for hardliners to come by this material, but surely not impossible. Knowing full well thier country would suffer nothing more than an American invasion, and with the whole-hearted view of martyrdom in thier minds, they would have no problem deploying such a weapon.

Meaning, do something about it now.

[Moooooo]

Tactical Aerial Assault on nuke sites and basic infrastructure.  By the time we're done, they will be begging for us to come to the table.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Tactical Aerial Assault on nuke sites and basic infrastructure.  By the time we're done, they will be begging for us to come to the table.

Yes, I'll point out that Iran has larger and more consentrated infrastructure, therefore it is a larger target, and unlike the Iraqis, they cannot function w/o power, water, and communication for very long.

[Nym90]

Containment.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder if the folks supporting direct confrontation want to pay $6/gal for gas, because that's exactly what Iran is capable of causing.

Right now, play along with the UN, which is supervising and inspecting to ensure that Iran's nuclear power is for, and ensure it is only for peaceful purposes, which they claim. And while they're hardly trustworth, they don't exactly have much reason to acquire nukes either.

[opebo]

Other - attempt to end the policies which have led to Iran's hostility, such as the pointless support of the Isreali empire, our general meddling in the internal politics of other nations, and of course most importantly ending the policy of attacking and colonizing nations - withdraw from Iraq.

An apology for what was done to Mohammed Mosaddeq wouldn't hurt either.

[minionofmidas]

Option 1 - scrap all nukes. Burn all knowledge on their production.
Option 2 - ensure that everybody, and I mean everybody including mad Mr Smith down the road, has got some.
Option 3 - normal options.

[MasterJedi]

Option 3

Aerial Bombardment along with taking out anything that is military/navy and send in strike teams as well to get rid of into and the like on the nukes.

[Bdub]

Option 1 at first.  If they start to threaten other countries with actual nukes, we might need to do some aerial strikes.

[MODU]

US/Western Nations-backed revolution.

[WMS]

Option 1 combined with an attempt to kick-start the revolution there - remember kids, the Iranian people spontaneously lit candles and had rallies in support of the United States after 9/11. Unlike those f***ers in Pakistan or Palestine who cheered it on...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

and they elected Ahmadinejad.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Respond to my containment post? Frodo? Hello?

[Frodo]

What do you suggest be done about the Iranian situation, Frodo?

It's easy to dismiss all the available options, but doing nothing will have a cost too, at some time in the future.

This is clearly a dangerous regime with great potential to bring destructive war to the region, and to the United States.  The countries around it are weak and will probably be intimidated enough to buckle to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the region into declaring economic warfare on the west by curtailing oil production and driving the price through the roof.

There are no easy answers to this problem, but I think we should be mindful of the potential costs of doing nothing.

Dazzleman -I see no reason why we can't simply contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union for over a half-century.  It is the least dangerous option out there, and though it is a dangerous regime, it nonetheless is a regime that values its own self-preservation.  They are rational beings.  Iran is not the equivalent of Al Qaeda which cannot be contained like any other nation-state and therefore must be hunted down with whatever means are at our disposal. 

Frodo, your point is valid and your mind is in the right place, but the reality of the situation doesn't allow for us to do the same thing this time. You have to remember we had the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to hold against the Soviets, they knew that America, if attacked, had the willpower and guts to wipe Communism off the map. This situation is completely different. Given the opportunity, the far right wing Islamic facists (that indeed exist) would take any uranium enriched or bought by the government and use it in such a way where it could do damage to this country.

I don't buy it.  As I see it, the basis of the Islamist regime in Iran is its ability to protect the Iranian people from all threats, especially an American-led invasion -that, after all, is what this whole nuclear stand-off is all about as far as they are concerned.  If they set off a nuclear weapon in an American metropolis, they know full well that it will undermine Iran's national security (that they have so painstakingly tried to guarantee by creating a nuclear weapon in the first place) and the basis for their rule, and invite massive American nuclear retaliation that will leave Iran a nuclear wasteland. 

Face it, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on whether the powers that be in Iran are as rational as we think they are.       

[The Man From G.O.P.]

What do you suggest be done about the Iranian situation, Frodo?

It's easy to dismiss all the available options, but doing nothing will have a cost too, at some time in the future.

This is clearly a dangerous regime with great potential to bring destructive war to the region, and to the United States.  The countries around it are weak and will probably be intimidated enough to buckle to a nuclear-armed Iran.

Iran could use its nuclear weapons to intimidate the region into declaring economic warfare on the west by curtailing oil production and driving the price through the roof.

There are no easy answers to this problem, but I think we should be mindful of the potential costs of doing nothing.

Dazzleman -I see no reason why we can't simply contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union for over a half-century.  It is the least dangerous option out there, and though it is a dangerous regime, it nonetheless is a regime that values its own self-preservation.  They are rational beings.  Iran is not the equivalent of Al Qaeda which cannot be contained like any other nation-state and therefore must be hunted down with whatever means are at our disposal. 

Frodo, your point is valid and your mind is in the right place, but the reality of the situation doesn't allow for us to do the same thing this time. You have to remember we had the fact of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to hold against the Soviets, they knew that America, if attacked, had the willpower and guts to wipe Communism off the map. This situation is completely different. Given the opportunity, the far right wing Islamic facists (that indeed exist) would take any uranium enriched or bought by the government and use it in such a way where it could do damage to this country.

I don't buy it.  As I see it, the basis of the Islamist regime in Iran is its ability to protect the Iranian people from all threats, especially an American-led invasion -that, after all, is what this whole nuclear stand-off is all about as far as they are concerned.  If they set off a nuclear weapon in an American metropolis, they know full well that it will undermine Iran's national security (that they have so painstakingly tried to guarantee by creating a nuclear weapon in the first place) and the basis for their rule, and invite massive American nuclear retaliation that will leave Iran a nuclear wasteland. 

Face it, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on whether the powers that be in Iran are as rational as we think they are.       

They're not interested in protecting thier own people, they're interested in being all... Islamicky and they're willing to supress whoever disagrees, as unstable as they are, can you not imagine some of that fancy uranium they're coming by slipping into some crazy peoples hands?

[The Man From G.O.P.]

As I said, we are just going to have to agree to disagree on the rationality of the Iranian leadership.  Clearly, no amount of persuasion will make any difference on either one of us.  Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this argument is over.   

NO YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!

[opebo]

Option 1 combined with an attempt to kick-start the revolution there - remember kids, the Iranian people spontaneously lit candles and had rallies in support of the United States after 9/11. Unlike those f***ers in Pakistan or Palestine who cheered it on...

That generation doesn't know the United States very well after 25 years of isolation, and because they have a different oppressor closer to home are under the mistaken impression that the american empire is, relatively speaking, their buddy.

[WMS]

Option 1 combined with an attempt to kick-start the revolution there - remember kids, the Iranian people spontaneously lit candles and had rallies in support of the United States after 9/11. Unlike those f***ers in Pakistan or Palestine who cheered it on...

That generation doesn't know the United States very well after 25 years of isolation, and because they have a different oppressor closer to home are under the mistaken impression that the american empire is, relatively speaking, their buddy.

*sighs*

If the American Left ever wonders why they have such trouble winning elections...

[DanielX]

Option 1 combined with an attempt to kick-start the revolution there - remember kids, the Iranian people spontaneously lit candles and had rallies in support of the United States after 9/11. Unlike those f***ers in Pakistan or Palestine who cheered it on...

That generation doesn't know the United States very well after 25 years of isolation, and because they have a different oppressor closer to home are under the mistaken impression that the american empire is, relatively speaking, their buddy.

*sighs*

If the American Left ever wonders why they have such trouble winning elections...

To be fair, WMS, opebo is rather less sane than your typical leftist (which says a lot, quite frankly).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyone advocating an attack like this scenario?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Jake]

1. US attacks.

2. A few Exocets from hideouts in the Zagros Mtns. will take out a couple of tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, trapping the US carrier group in the Persian gulf.

First, if the Iranians target tankers, you can be damn sure the US Carrier Group to defend the tankers, in which case the attacks will be largely ineffective.

3. Here come the Sunburn ASMs, along with even more Exocets, again from the Zagros Mtns raining down on the Carrier group. US dead will number in the thousands, and the ships will be sunk.

Again, this presumes the US does not fight back. Surface to Surface missiles have never been proven against a naval target, nor have air launched weapons.

4. Surface to Surface missles will come across the Gulf, raining down on refineries in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE, crippling oil production indefinitely.

This presumes, again, that the US will be impotent against Iranian attack. Strongly unlikely.

5. Iraqi Shiite forces will begin coordinated hits on US forces, who due to the hits on the naval forces, will be cut from their supply line.

6. The Iranian Army, mobilized and numbering upwards to 15 million men (CIA World Factbook) pours across the border with Iraq, vastly outnumbering US 130K troops.

15 million? Effectives or including the twice yearly militias? Iran doesn't have the supply capacity to mobilize and support 15 million, or anywhere near that many troops. This also strongly ups the ante, and increases the likelyhood that the US would use tactical nukes to wipe out the Iranian units massing across the border.

Where did you get this nonsense BTW? Even you couldn't be so dense.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's a post on DU.

[Jake]

Figures