Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nuclear Iran unavoidable?
#1
From MENL

Quote:WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has been advised to avoid a military strike and instead employ deterrence against Iran's emerging nuclear weapons capability.

A Defense Department-supported study asserted that the United States would find it extremely difficult to block Iran's nuclear weapons program. The study said that despite U.S. opposition Teheran would acquire and develop nuclear weapons to complement its arsenal of intermediate-range missiles. Iran could complete the nuclear fuel cycle required for weapons production within a year, the report said.

"Can the United States live with a nuclear-armed Iran?" the report by Judith Yaphe and Air Force Col. Charles Lutes, asked. "Despite its rhetoric, it may have no choice."

Both Ms. Yaphe and Lutes have advised the Pentagon on Middle East issues. The study, released last week, was sponsored by the National Defense University's Institute for National Strategic Studies, supported by the Pentagon. The study contained a Pentagon disclaimer.

Stratfor reported this earlier.


Does this mean that Bush' policy on WMD and NPT totally failed?

Or yet worse: is it that by removal of the threats to Iran from the East (Afghanistan) and the West (Iraq) Bush enabled Iran to concentrate on their *peaceful* nuclear development.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#2
I think unless we are willing to lose probably 50,000 dead and 10 years occupying Iran,the answer is YES.

And we all know we aren't willing to lose that many soldiers.

There is nothing to stop anyone from having nukes if they want them in this day and age because the regions where the money is don't work together. So much for the "allies" we Americans think we have in Europe.

Ya know,we're about to revolt over losing 2000 soldiers in Iraq to a bunch of dis organized thugs,who here has any thoughts we Americans will tolerate serious combat losses unless we're in a WWII situation?

Not me.

It could be avoided if the EU simply told them no nukes or no trade,but our European "allies" don't even have the nuts to do this.

Our British "ally" is amongst the lead European negotiators.
Reply
#3
Europeans are too socialist so their economies are suffering. They are not in a well enough economic situation to deny Iran trade or buy their oil. Now I do recognise things have gone easier for Iran because their rival Taliban is gone and their Baathist enemy is gone. Now Al Qaeda can do favors for the Iranians in exchange for a much needed base and sponsorship by a state. However this is short term. Long term a democracy in Iraq will rally shia Iran to remove the mullahs from power. In the meanwhile we need to slow down the Iranian's capability to develop nuclear weapons possibly through international sanctions. Ofcourse this isnt likely due to Europe needing Iranian oil.
Reply
#4
The Iranian people are inclined toward the U.S. - moreso than almost any other country in the world. Given that simple fact - isn't the easiest thing to do also the most practical?
Reply
#5
Palladin Wrote:I think unless we are willing to lose probably 50,000 dead and 10 years occupying Iran,the answer is YES.
Nice figure. Why not 100,000, 000, or twice that what the heck it's just a number. :o

Quote:And we all know we aren't willing to lose that many soldiers.
WE don't know that, only you do.
Quote: There is nothing to stop anyone from having nukes if they want them in this day and age because the regions where the money is don't work together. So much for the "allies" we Americans think we have in Europe.
Isreal.

Quote:Ya know,we're about to revolt over losing 2000 soldiers in Iraq to a bunch of dis organized thugs,who here has any thoughts we Americans will tolerate serious combat losses unless we're in a WWII situation?
Who is we? No one is about to revolt now or in the future. Just the same bunch of Libs that have been whining all along.
Quote: Not me.
Of course not you? How silly. Why would you? Reqires some beliefs you don't posess.

Quote: It could be avoided if the EU simply told them no nukes or no trade,but our European "allies" don't even have the nuts to do this.
Yes, Talk and threats. Works for me. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote: Our British "ally" is amongst the lead European negotiators.
Well you could always disown em as cousins. 8)
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#6
I don't think that blaming Europeans is warranted in this specific case.

We supported the and encouraged the EU3-Iran negotiations and after the failure of the negotiations Europeans supported the idea of the Iran referral to the UNSC. This is considerably more than one usually expects from the Europeans.

It is also incorrect to assume that Brits particularly depend on the Iranian trade. Given the current oil supplies situation, *everyone* depends on Iran's oil being available; but countries that would be specifically affected by trade embargo or war in Iran are mostly in Asia; Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and India are all on the list, albeit details are different in each case.

The global importance of Iran (and, subsequently its very protected position right now) is, of course, the direct result of higher oil prices -- an aftereffect of Bush' war on Iraq.

It is further incorrect to estimate 50K casualties and talk about occupation of Iran; in fact, occupation is simply impossible (the entire US army is not large enough), while the nuclear and missile programs can be greately reduced by airstrikes.

The main reason why this is not a valid option right now is that Iran has a very powerful retaliation weapon: a suspension of oil production. Three years ago, this would have not been a killer, but now, just a hint from Iran that they *may* on day stop exports will be enough to cause a spike in prices.

Creation of an Islamist Iran we credit to Carter, but creation of a moden powerful nuclear armed but-still-Islamist Iran we shall credit to Junior. The direct cost of Carter's efforts was about a million dead in the Iran-Iraq war; the eventual cost of Bush' efforts may be hunderfold higher.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#7
Quote:The global importance of Iran (and, subsequently its very protected position right now) is, of course, the direct result of higher oil prices -- an aftereffect of Bush' war on Iraq.
Horse hockey. The oil prices rose immensely after Katrina and other natural disasters. Try the truth. You were doing pretty good until you got here.
Quote:It is further incorrect to estimate 50K casualties and talk about occupation of Iran; in fact, occupation is simply impossible (the entire US army is not large enough), while the nuclear and missile programs can be greately reduced by airstrikes.
Estimating casualties is always incorrect. It is opinion based on ideology, not fact or military knowledge. The entire U.S. Army? They could handle it by themselves. there are more than enough indigents that would support them in Iran. Do you chose to underestimate the Army by choice or because you are vindictive? They managed to occupy Germany and Japan with no problem. You got a factual basis for that entirely erroneous conclusion and statement :?:
Quote:The main reason why this is not a valid option right now is that Iran has a very powerful retaliation weapon: a suspension of oil production.
An empty threat to many. There are tremendous oil deposits in Russia that can be exploited, as well as in the USA. Create a vacumm and someone will fill the void. Oil as a weapon doesn't work. Given enough impetus synthetic oil would be developed faster, and other means of producing energy (means that already exist) would get a technolgical and monetary boost.
Quote: Three years ago, this would have not been a killer, but now, just a hint from Iran that they *may* on day stop exports will be enough to cause a spike in prices.
Has not worked so far and they have done more than hint. They have threatened.
Quote:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494819/posts
Quote:Iran could hold back oil sales if it is referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions over its nuclear program, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a newspaper interview published Saturday
The other side of that economic coin is, no oil, no money.
Quote:Creation of an Islamist Iran we credit to Carter,
A black eye and a reason for him to commit suicide.
Quote:but creation of a moden powerful nuclear armed but-still-Islamist Iran we shall credit to Junior.
Try Bubba who gave them a wink and a nod on everything they did.
Do you know the truth when it hits you?
Quote: The direct cost of Carter's efforts was about a million dead in the Iran-Iraq war; the eventual cost of Bush' efforts may be hunderfold higher.
The direct cost to Carter was his name going down in History as a effete wimp.
The dead can be attributed to the people that killed each other. Iranians and Iraqi"s.
You seem to love plaving responsibility on every one but the individual that it belongs to. :roll:
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#8
Quote:Horse hockey. The oil prices rose immensely after Katrina and other natural disasters. Try the truth.

Always the truth. Oil prices were rising for more than two years -- it is strange you did not notice. And for the most part they were not driven by natural disasters.

Quote:The entire U.S. Army? They could handle it by themselves. there are more than enough indigents that would support them in Iran. Do you chose to underestimate the Army by choice or because you are vindictive?

No, because I trust simple numbers. S1

The population of Iran is three times that of Iraq, the occupation army would need to be three times as large. This force does not exist (unless you chose to ignore the rest of the world).

Quote:
Quote:The main reason why this is not a valid option right now is that Iran has a very powerful retaliation weapon: a suspension of oil production.

An empty threat to many. There are tremendous oil deposits in Russia that can be exploited, as well as in the USA. Create a vacumm and someone will fill the void

Not immediately. Either kind of deposits would require a couple of years at best; meanwhile Iran can *easily* shock the world economy into a global recession.

Quote:The other side of that economic coin is, no oil, no money.

Given that Iran is self-sufficient *in essentials* this is not a prohibitive situation for them. Undesirable, yes.

Quote:Try Bubba who gave them a wink and a nod on everything they did.

Nope, this honor does belong to Junior. He removed both threats to Iran AND overlooked that rising oil prices make Iran pretty much invulnerable. When Iran obtains nukes, or even before, we will be seeing an unstoppable nuclear race; Saudis and Egyptians will be the next two. Maybe Turkey too.

The really interesting question is exactly when and how did Bush miscalculate (unless a nuclear Iran was planned).
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#9
No one has any intention of invading Iran because of their Nuclear Program. Israel will do a quick flyover though, and drop some well placed smart bombs on her Nuclear Facilities and refining plants. And while their there, they'll take out any offensive missile sites they know about.

They have done these targeted strikes going back decades and wont stop now as they realise all too well that the only way to contain the Islamic scourge is to prevent them from ever aquiring a completed Nuclear Program.
Reply
#10
mv Wrote:
Quote:Horse hockey. The oil prices rose immensely after Katrina and other natural disasters. Try the truth.
Quote: Always the truth. Oil prices were rising for more than two years -- it is strange you did not notice. And for the most part they were not driven by natural disasters.
Oil prices were not on a constant rise there were spurts where prices increased then leveled off. Those increases were generaaly generated by dsasters of one type or anither from Earth quakes to floods. I did notice. Strange how you didn't. The few increases thaty came about due to politics were minimal. Most if the increases were relatively small. Some of those increases were temporary and receded. Isn't it strange how you didn't notice that?
Quote:The entire U.S. Army? They could handle it by themselves. there are more than enough indigents that would support them in Iran. Do you chose to underestimate the Army by choice or because you are vindictive?
.
Quote: No, because I trust simple numbers. S1
Simple numbers? What simple numbers. By doing that you make the numbers work for your premise. In point of fact simple numbers play no role here. Again I state. They did a good job in Germany, and Japan where by simple numbers they were heavily outnumbered around 20 to one. Your simple numbers does not account for those that would support us.
Quote:The population of Iran is three times that of Iraq, the occupation army would need to be three times as large. This force does not exist (unless you chose to ignore the rest of the world).
The populaton of an occupied Germany was twenty times the size of the occupying force all nations combined. (There were only four and France was more token than real.)
Quote:[quote]The main reason why this is not a valid option right now is that Iran has a very powerful retaliation weapon: a suspension of oil production.
An empty threat to many. There are tremendous oil deposits in Russia that can be exploited, as well as in the USA. Create a vacumm and someone will fill the void
Quote:Not immediately. Either kind of deposits would require a couple of years at best; meanwhile Iran can *easily* shock the world economy into a global recession.
First, that is speculation not fact. Second the void would be filled rapidly. Third, we have gone through it before where we waited. If we had to do that it would not be that long. Oil companies would rush to fill that void and steal that market. That is the other side of the coin also. Cut off the market someone else fills it then when you decide to come back 'Voilà' no market.
Quote:The other side of that economic coin is, no oil, no money.
Quote:Given that Iran is self-sufficient *in essentials* this is not a prohibitive situation for them. Undesirable, yes.
Iran is harldy self sufficient "in essentials" no one country is any more.
They have needs that must be fulfilled and in order to do that they must trade. They are seeking entry into the World market. They want that acceptance. There is profit there and they seek it. No, they can not stand alone against the world.
Quote:Try Bubba who gave them a wink and a nod on everything they did.
Quote:Nope, this honor does belong to Junior. He removed both threats to Iran AND overlooked that rising oil prices make Iran pretty much invulnerable. When Iran obtains nukes, or even before, we will be seeing an unstoppable nuclear race; Saudis and Egyptians will be the next two. Maybe Turkey too.
Nope the honor stays with bubba who did his best to bolster any nation that was against us, and for the opposistion. Bubba made it clear that we were not threat by backing down or acquiescing every time to what ever demands were made. The iraq Iran war goes back to way before President Bush, and it pretty much came to a mutual end. Neither side could gain the advantage. Iraq was no longer a threat and that was before President Bush. Bubba made sure it stayed that way. Nope Bubba gets the nod and the award.
Quote:The really interesting question is exactly when and how did Bush miscalculate (unless a nuclear Iran was planned).
That qustion is mute. again that was bubba and his, 'give them what they want policy', Bubba would have sold them the reactor.
Not even a good try.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#11
Quote:Oil prices were not on a constant rise there were spurts where prices increased then leveled off. Those increases were generaaly generated by dsasters of one type or anither from Earth quakes to floods. I did notice.

This is some kind of joke, right?

Perhaps the chart below will help you a bit:

[Image: oilprice1947.gif]

There were no natural disasters that affected prices in the 2001-2004 period (not counting minor spikes).

Quote:The populaton of an occupied Germany was twenty times the size of the occupying force all nations combined. (There were only four and France was more token than real.)

Lets see: 70 mil / 20 = 3.5 mil occupation army. What is the current size of the US army?

Quote:First, that is speculation not fact. Second the void would be filled rapidly.

If by "rapidly" you mean a few years, you are making sense. (It takes time to start production, especially in remote areas (Russia) or non-standard oil fields.) The firm fact we do have is that $50+ prices failed to start this production in more than a year.--already a historical fact :!: if you expect an oil-bringing messiah to arrive tomorrow, well, it is your right to hope... Wink1

I'm sorry, I have no time to read the rest of your post; get the price dynamics right, then I may take a look.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#12
Politiphile Wrote:No one has any intention of invading Iran because of their Nuclear Program. Israel will do a quick flyover though, and drop some well placed smart bombs on her Nuclear Facilities and refining plants.

I'm afraid you are overly optimistic.

Firstly, the Iranian program involves many sites, some protected (deep undeground). It is not the single Iraqi site above ground.

Secondly, Iran can retaliate, and not just against Israel, but also against the US/global oil interests. This means that the US is likely to restrain the Israelis, even if they decide to go ahead.

The ONLY scenario that may work is an Iran-generated global crisis, followed by tactical nuclear strikes against their facilities, both nuclear and IRBM's.

And while their there, they'll take out any offensive missile sites they know about.

They have done these targeted strikes going back decades and wont stop now as they realise all too well that the only way to contain the Islamic scourge is to prevent them from ever aquiring a completed Nuclear Program.[/quote]
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#13
I'm sorry, I have no time to read the rest of your post; get the price dynamics right, then I may take a look.
Yes do that.
Let's see.
Is this your source?
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
Stopped at 2004.
Wonder what was factored in and what was factored out?
Let's see.
Quote:Venezuela, 1999: Floods (20,000 dead)
Gujarat, India, 2001: earthquake (20,000 dead)
El Salvador, 2001: earthquake (850 dead)
Afghanistan, 2002: earthquake (2,500 dead)
Algeria, 2003: earthquake (2,266 dead)
Andhra Pradesh, India, 2003: Heat wave (1,300 dead)
France, Spain and Italy, 2003: Heat wave (50,000 dead)
Bam, Iran, 2003: earthquake (26,300 dead)
Al-Hoceima, Morocco, 2004: earthquake (571 dead)
Haiti and Dominican Republic, 2004: rains (2,400 dead)
Philippines, 2004: typhoon (1,000 dead)
China, 2004: floods (1,300 dead)
Southeast Asia, 2004: tsunamis caused by 9.0 earthquake (111,000 dead in Indonesia, 31,000 in Sri Lanka, 10,700 in India, 5,400 in Thailand, 68 in Malaysia, 82 in the Maldives, 300 in Myanmar and 150 in Somalia, including 1,500 Scandinavian tourists, and dozens of Germans, Italians, Dutch, etc)
Zarand, Iran, 2005: earthquake (500 dead)
Nias, Indonesia, 2005: 8.7 earthquake (1000 dead)
Mumbai, India, 2005: monsoon (1,000 dead)
China, 2005: floods (567 dead)
Louisiana and Mississippi, USA, 2005: hurricane (1,069 dead)
Niger, 2005: famine (10,000? dead)
So conviently none of these had any affect on oil prices? Just President Bush right?
OK let's look at your source. What an interesting quote from them. Regulation it seems had a big affect. What else?

Quote:The U.S. petroleum industry's price has been heavily regulated through production or price controls throughout much of the twentieth century. In the post World War II era U.S. oil prices at the wellhead have averaged $20.94 per barrel adjusted for inflation to 2004 dollars. In the absence of price controls the U.S. price would have tracked the world price averaging $22.86. Over the same post war period the median for the domestic and the adjusted world price of crude oil was $17.18 in 2004 prices. That means that only fifty percent of the time from 1947 to 2004 have oil prices exceeded $17.18 per barrel. (See note in box on right.)
[box on right]
*
Quote:World Price - The only very long term price series that exists is the U.S. average wellhead or first purchase price of crude. When discussing long-term price behavior this presents a problem since the U.S. imposed price controls on domestic production from late 1973 to January 1981. In order to present a consistent series and also reflect the difference between international prices and U.S. price we created a world oil price series that was consistent with the U.S. wellhead price adjusting the wellhead price by adding the difference between the refiners acquisition price of imported crude and the refiners average acquisition price of domestic crude.
I don't see any correlation to President Bush do you?
It seems rig count is also involved.
Quote:A discussion of crude oil prices, the relationship between prices and rig count and the outlook for the future of the petroleum industry.
Well there it is. It is all President Bush's fault. Yep. Well I think I will just let this discussion go on with others that may want to continue it with you.

8)
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government
Edward Abbey
[Image: eagle_1721.png]
Reply
#14
Quote:Venezuela, 1999: Floods (20,000 dead)
Gujarat, India, 2001: earthquake (20,000 dead)
El Salvador, 2001: earthquake (850 dead)
Afghanistan, 2002: earthquake (2,500 dead)
Algeria, 2003: earthquake (2,266 dead)
Andhra Pradesh, India, 2003: Heat wave (1,300 dead)
France, Spain and Italy, 2003: Heat wave (50,000 dead)
Bam, Iran, 2003: earthquake (26,300 dead)
Al-Hoceima, Morocco, 2004: earthquake (571 dead)
Haiti and Dominican Republic, 2004: rains (2,400 dead)
Philippines, 2004: typhoon (1,000 dead)
China, 2004: floods (1,300 dead)
Southeast Asia, 2004: tsunamis caused by 9.0 earthquake (111,000 dead in Indonesia, 31,000 in Sri Lanka, 10,700 in India, 5,400 in Thailand, 68 in Malaysia, 82 in the Maldives, 300 in Myanmar and 150 in Somalia, including 1,500 Scandinavian tourists, and dozens of Germans, Italians, Dutch, etc)
Zarand, Iran, 2005: earthquake (500 dead)
Nias, Indonesia, 2005: 8.7 earthquake (1000 dead)
Mumbai, India, 2005: monsoon (1,000 dead)
China, 2005: floods (567 dead)
Louisiana and Mississippi, USA, 2005: hurricane (1,069 dead)
Niger, 2005: famine (10,000? dead)

Events like this occur ALL THE TIME. Unless they affect all production/distribution centers (Katrina), they DO NOT MATTER. If you really think they drove the prices up, well -- let me not waste my time any longer.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply
#15
lets take the three biggest disasters in our recent history and apply them to Oil prices. if there is no or a very subtle change, then environmental disasters have no effect on our energy prices, unless like MV said, they hit our distribution centers, refineries, or oil rigs...

Tsunami in South East Asia 2004: 100,ooo+ dead. price for barrell of oil down to around $35...

Niger Famine 2005: barrell of oil up to about $45, but at this time the Asian demand kicks in, so it is hardly palpable that famine in Africa would tip oil prices so significantly.

European Heart Wave 2003: oil prices drop to $30 per barrell, but we have a war going on in Iraq and when the oil fields didnt explode, everyone just kinda relxaed and prices dropped until the firs tIraqi exports hit the market.

in no way do i see any evidence that disasters affect oil prices, but in fact, i see a direct correlation between oil prices and geo-political events.

for example:

Korean war: oil drops to $15 a barrell...

9/11: oil plummets to $17 a barrell...

Iraq invaded: drops from $33-34 to $25 a barrell...
Reply
#16
mv Wrote:Events like this occur ALL THE TIME. Unless they affect all production/distribution centers (Katrina), they DO NOT MATTER. If you really think they drove the prices up, well -- let me not waste my time any longer.

Add Rita to that and Ivan from last year. A lot of production has still been shut in from last summer.
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#17
You're all looking in the wrong places. Forget just natural disasters and price controls... instead look at the investment potential of energy futures as do the managers of the many funds that set the price of oil/barrel.

Of course the demand from emerging nations like China influence the fund managers - as do stupid regulations in the U.S. and elsewhere. Some of that is balanced by the U.S. know-how being purchased by overseas suppliers with insufficient technology of their own to develop their own resources. The North American continent may have more petroleum locked up in sand and other hard to access geology than all of the Middle East - but technical costs from regulation often dictate who does what when.
Reply
#18
regulations may have actually effected a positive result for us in the begining...

[Image: crudeoilprice4774we.gif]

i know it isnt the full regalia of todays regulation, but it appears that this was the start of it all; in Eisenhowers office. his policies drove down the price of oil, why can this same thing not be done today?
Reply
#19
To get back to what I think is the original topic of the thread, here's a paper from NDU and a transcript of testimony before the House Armed Services Committe that each bear a read:

Reassessing the Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran

The Threat From Iran
Reply
#20
Very nice links, thanks Jed!

A couple of quotes for those lazy to read the entire articles (which ARE worth reading).

Pollack Wrote:The Consequences of an Iranian Bomb
Tehran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons creates two different threats to U.S. vital interests. The first, and the most direct, is the threat that if Iran acquires a nuclear deterrent, it will believe that it is no longer vulnerable to external (that is, American or Israeli) conventional military retaliation and so can revert back to the aggressive, anti–status quo foreign policy it pursued in the early 1990s. Iran abandoned this policy in 1996-97 because Tehran sensed that it had overstepped itself. The verdict in the Mykonos terrorism trial in Gerrmany, the passage of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), the Gulf Cooperation Council’s response to the Iranian-backed coup attempt in Bahrain, the international reaction to Tehran’s successful effort to use of terrorism to swing the 1996 Israeli election against Shimon Peres, and the terrorist attack on the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, all created the potential for a very severe backlash against Iran. In particular, the Khobar incident, in which 19 American servicemen were killed and over 400 others injured, raised the possibility of massive American military retaliation which frightened Iran’s leadership. Many Iranians have suggested that they want nuclear weapons so that they never again have to fear such an American retaliation.
............................
A second threat is the spur of Iranian nuclear development to further proliferation, both in the region and around the world. Because many countries fear that once Iran acquires nuclear weapons it will pursue an aggressive foreign policy, if and when Tehran crosses the nuclear threshold, other Middle East countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, might decide to follow suit to deter an Iranian attack (covert or overt). Those outside the region considering whether to acquire nuclear weapons could draw the lesson from the Iranian case (and the North Korean and Pakistani cases) that the penalties for developing a nuclear weapon are bearable and much less than they might have feared.


After discussing all pressure options....

Pollack Wrote:Finally, and only as part of a new containment of Iran, the United States should look hard at the possibility of waging a targeted air campaign intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and so set back the entire program. At present, this policy has little to recommend it since Western intelligence agencies do not believe they know enough about the Iranian nuclear program to know all of the sites to be hit; there is reason to believe that even strikes that successfully destroyed the entire program as it currently exists would not set Iran’s efforts back for very long since Iran is probably far enough along in its efforts to be able to reconstitute quickly; and Iran can do considerable damage to Western interests,....

On the Israeli options:

McNair Wrote:Israel probably considers military
preemption to be its most realistic and surest option, but most experts
are skeptical that Israel has the capability for such a distant series of
strikes.
Government is necessary because people left unchecked will do evil.

The government is composed of people left unchecked


Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Iran's Nuclear Scientist Murdered Palladin 17 2,276 01-15-2010, 08:10 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  U.S. intelligence on Iran's nuclear weapons found faulty quadrat 40 7,105 12-12-2007, 06:05 AM
Last Post: quadrat
  Quaker thinks Iran's president won't build nuclear bombs Fit2BThaied 2 1,271 09-23-2006, 02:52 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Iran Asked Pak Army for Nuclear Bomb in 1990 ghoullio 1 1,229 05-13-2006, 02:49 PM
Last Post: Palladin
  Iran resumes Nuclear Weapons Program Independents4Bush 64 17,705 02-26-2006, 01:33 AM
Last Post: mv
  Omar's Views on Iran's Nuclear Actions Palladin 1 1,073 09-20-2005, 01:32 AM
Last Post: Boon Mee
  Iran 'misled UN on nuclear work' Gunnen4u 12 3,593 06-16-2005, 12:00 PM
Last Post: WmLambert

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)