Posted on 08/15/2007 7:54:59 PM PDT by americanophile
As the Presidential contest heats up, the Iran question comes into focus.
As it has been for decades, the Middle East continues to be the bane of U.S. foreign policy, and the tinder box that could ignite a major regional or global hot war. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is marching ever closer to the point of no return, and a radical nuclear Iran is the true nightmare scenario for America.
Though by most accounts it will be some time before Iran has the kind of intercontinental delivery system that could directly threaten the U.S. mainland, Europe is within Iran’s current or near-term capability. A fact that should have many Europeans scratching their heads at the continuing diplomatic kabuki dance between Tehran and key members of the E.U. - a multiyear process of “engagement” that has allowed Iran to vigorously pursue its nuclear weapons objectives while appearing to be open to compromise at the negotiating table.
The truth however, is that Europe may have an alternate agenda. Many Europeans openly view the U.S. with skepticism and even contempt - seeing unrestrained American power as a threat to multilateralism, Europe’s aspirations for global power, and world peace. Indeed recent polls have shown that a third of Europeans see the U.S. as a major threat to global peace.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopublius.com ...
The answer is yes, but we won’t. And we will pay for it later.
A clandestine attack on Irans only petrol refinery could cause some serious discontent among the Iranian populace and seriously weaken the mullahs grip.
Regards
Does anyone think we will not if they hit us first?
the question is, really, do we hit them before they can use it, or after they have used it on us? Because you know damn sure if they get one they WILL use it on us.
I say better to hit them before they can use it.
Well now, just what kind of position will we be in if we wait until AFTER they have nukes?????
It isn’t as though, “Well we have nukes....why shouldn’t they have nukes?”
Iran has made it’s intentions clear!
They want to destroy Israel!
Either directly or through proxy.
Israel will not sit still and take the hit.
They will nuke Iran, either pre-emptively, or in response.
Does somebody think this will end with one nuclear explosion in each of the two back yards?
I’m sure Hillary or Obama can talk Iran out of the whole idea. So not to worry....../sarc
Remember that nuclear weapons must have a delivery system. Our focus must be on stopping missiles, and to a lesser extent, ground and naval delivery.
The reason for this is that with preparation, we can stop missiles, but there is no way to predict when Iran will have both nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them. Therefore, we *have* to assume that they are very near or already have them. We cannot prove otherwise, but to assume otherwise could be a terrible mistake.
A missile defense must be layered, to make every effort we can to stop every single threat missile. But this is a sword that cuts both ways. It is the misunderstood concept of “overkill.”
Overkill is *not* delivering more weapon to a target than is needed. It is the assumption that your weapons will have a high failure rate. Missiles may not launch at all; they may blow up on the pad, shortly after launch, or anywhere en route. They may go off course, missing their target entirely, or their bomb may not work. That is why you must launch far more than you need to launch.
And the same applies to defense, which again is why missile defenses have to be layered. You cannot assume “one shot, one kill.” Ever.
Next we must consider Iran’s targets. Ironically, Israel is actually at the *bottom* of the list, not the top. Iran’s #1 target is one or more US aircraft carrier fleets. #2 are US military bases in Iraq and Bagram air base in Afghanistan. #3 is most likely the Iraqi and Saudi oilfields, and *then* Israel at #4.
What Iran hopes to accomplish above all else is to drive the US out of the Middle East. *Any* means they can use to achieve this goal is a reasonable strategy to them. And like Japan prior to World War II, they realize that this means our aircraft carriers have to leave and not come back, hopefully by being destroyed.
Fortunately, the US has for two years or more now, been planning and preparing this layered missile defense, in concert with Israel. Our ships at sea are heavily defended, and we have made it abundantly clear that Iran will pay for any attack on them. This is based on the idea of their using al-Quds, pretending to be al-Qaeda, attacking our ships away from Iran, with a nuclear weapon, most likely in the Mediterranean.
President Bush has sent a staggering number of Patriot and Pac-3 batteries to the region. Israel has completed its Arrow missile defense system, and together we are creating an advanced THAAD (theater) system. The final element that would be superb to have but we don’t have yet is the airborne laser, which is being upgraded as fast as possible.
This gives us a little breathing room, and to some extent, puts the ball back in Iran’s court. We have been seriously squishing their insurgency efforts in Iraq, and most likely we have been involved in doing out part to destabilize their regime in Iran proper.
Importantly, by declaring the IRGC to be a terrorist organization, we might be able to cut off the largest lifeline of the regime from international support, supplies and most of all, money. That will hurt their thugs badly.
I believe it must be done before 2009.
They have to know what an attack on us will bring. Even if they were to take out our aircraft carriers, our boomers and attack subs would be ready, willing and able.
there’s no consensus for attacking iran now.
the majority of americans would not believe bush,
especially after the wmd fiasco iraq.
it would be cheaper and less traumatic to pay for internal iranian opposition forces to topple ahmadinejad.
Remember this is Freerepublic. Many here believe the sun goes around the Earth.
Yes.
“What would Cheney do?”
Yes. See my tagline.
middle east ping
Nothing is ever easy. Most likely, the Iranians have contemplated trying to blame al-Qaeda for any attack on American forces.
To start with, their diplomatic corps would be primed to leap at the first hostilities in every country they have an embassy to both deny they attacked, to plead for grace, and to try and preclude counterattack in any way they could.
They would instantly be before the UN, offering complete access to their entire nuclear program (except for the stuff they have hidden), and offering to do *anything* the UN wants in exchange for not being attacked. Figuring they could incrementally back out of such promises later.
Do not underestimate how conniving they can be. For several years now, they have been trying to buy friends with lucrative contracts, exporting al-Quds agents to threaten other nations, suggesting that they can stop the flow of oil, and carefully calculating how to achieve their ultimate goal—US departure from the ME.
Remember that this is the ultimate objective, not war.
Saddam was an incredible buffoon, and did everything wrong, like a stereotypical evil overlord in a B movie. The Iranians have far more finesse, a much wider distribution of power, and basically, brains.
In past I have thought that it might even be to our advantage to have some teams sneak into Iran and fire one of their missiles, ineffectively of course, at us, just so that we would have an excuse. It would eliminate many of the barriers to our going in to clean their clocks.
But we shall see. Israel might initiate, and Iran might foolishly retaliate against the US forces as well. Whatever it takes.
I believe the Israelis. I don't know how much clearer they can be.
"...It's time we recognized the nature of the conflict. It's total war and we are all involved. Nobody on our side is exempted because of age, gender, or handicap. The Islamofacists have stolen childhood from the world." [FReeper Retief]
"...That the totalitarian force pitted against freedom wears a religious makes this civil war among mankind all the more difficult to engage. Loving freedom as we do, it seems reprehensible to deliberate against a religion. But this is no ordinary religion as it demands absolute obedience of all to their religion at the cost of freedom itself." [FReeper Backtothestreets]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.