Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11895)	2/14/2006 12:19:34 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 540746

There was a very interesting article in Foreign Affairs a few months ago which essentially concluded that we have to engage the Iranians. The article was written before Ahmadinejad's election, so I think it is probably no longer valid. I think some sort of military option is inevitable since Israel cannot allow the Iranians to become armed with nukes. Given the prospect of an almost certain Israeli operation, it is likely that we will facilitate the action, which will not require invasion, and participate in it to some extent. Whether such a surgical bombing attack will work is simply unknowable at this time. This will naturally inflame the Muslim world even more. A tough choice. Is the further deterioration of our relations with the Muslims worth the price of delaying Iranian ownership of nuclear weapons for perhaps 5-10 years? Are our relations already so bad with Muslims that it doesn't matter?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11895)	2/14/2006 12:25:28 PM
From: Sultan	Respond to of 540746

US used to carry a big stick and walk softly.. Generally it was seen as even handed.. Under this admin.. the policies towards Israeal is seen as one sided.. Principles have turned into platitudes.. And foray in to Iraq, a really broken down place, has shown the weakness in the system as well as the limits to military power.. All in all, I would say things are very different from before.. As for trying to stop Iran from going nuclear, not sure what happens.. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle.. Israel is nuclear.. Iraq has conventional long range missiles etc.. the whole area has a lot of historical grievances.. What could have been sorted out years ago was really never done.. US supported dictators against locally supported, democratic govt. etc.. Too many baggage and this admin certainly has not shown any finesse in handling any one..

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11895)	2/14/2006 12:59:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 540746

Nuclear weapons are one thing. Nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy mullahs is something else. The Nightmare Scenario. I prefer $100/barrel oil to that scenario. One nuclear bomb -- maybe not so bad. They take out Tel Aviv, or Washington DC, the world will toddle along somehow. But don't just let them keep making them. That's crazy.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11895)	2/14/2006 1:50:58 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 540746

On your options, Dale. Invasion is out of the question. We don't have the troops, money, international support or probably domestic support (certainly not to support a draft, which would be essential). Plus Iran is a huge country with a fairly sophisticated military and endless potential for insurgencies against occupiers. I agree and I think all the talk seeping out of the obvious places in government such talk seeps, of an invasion, is a negotiating tactic rather than a real alternative. Within this option, there could be notions of special forces dismantling this or that or the other. I seem to recall Wesley Clark saying his sources in the Pentagon told him that was being considered. I agree with you, though, about the limitations for an outright invasion. Bombing - might slow them down but the backlash from the Shiites in Iraq makes the net value of the policy a wash, most likely. The option the administration is most likely to take. Either in concert with the Israelis or on their own. Again, Clark's Pentagon informants suggested that the Bush folk believed a bombing campaign could be more successful than has been bandied about in the public. I'm not as certain as you apparently are that it would dramatically alienate the Iraqi Shiites. But world opinion vis a vis the Bush folk would go even lower. Perhaps low enough to cause much worse diplomatic problems. Sanctions - the likely course with doubtful impact for a country making billions in oil exports. The world can't (and won't) do without Iranian oil. Bush won't tip crude to $100/barrel for the sake of going after Iran. Another highly likely Bush admin strategy. But only done in consort with other powerful international actors. I doubt it would be sufficiently effective to be worth the costs without the other major Iranian trading partners involved. Would that be China? Surely it would be Russia. Persuade - might work with a carrot and stick approach, much like the European talks with Libya over several years convinced the nutbar there to play nice. This strikes me as only working if the US has some believable sticks. Thus sanctions and bombing. If those threats are not credible, I doubt persuasion would be. Or, to put it another way, it would only be so with large scale international cooperation. But this administration cannot get to that point, I'm afraid. Finally, for all this talk, I think the genie is out of the bottle. The spread of nuclear weapons is simply with us. There were moments went it was stoppable. When the Israelies acquired them, had Johnson done more to block that; when the Pakistanis and Indians acquired them; during the various tradeoffs engineered after 9-11 with the Pakistanis in which perhaps pressure could have been put on Mushareff to give Kahn up; and, of course, the North Koreans (though I don't think any country had leverage here). But it has now become a matter of national honor to have such. Steve Coll's most recent piece in The New Yorker concerning the Pakistani/India conflict is simply one more reminder of such.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11895)	2/14/2006 2:13:45 PM
From: Suma	Respond to of 540746

Check MATE...

To: Dale Baker who wrote (11895)	2/15/2006 4:58:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 540746

Invasion - I wouldn't say it is totally out of the question but its very close. No substantial disagreement here, perhaps a slight shade of difference. Bombing - If it was one easily accessed plant and we (or Israel) could do the same thing that Israel did to Iraq, than I think it would be a good option. But Iran's sites are dispersed. They also apparently put some of them near sites that we wouldn't want to hit. I've heard that one nuclear site is under a hospital (I'm not sure if that is true I have no reliable source for it). The operation would be very difficult, and would probably result in civilian deaths, maybe quite a few. We may go in this direction. I might decide to support it. But its not something that should be rushed in to. Its more likely to work than the softer courses but it isn't guaranteed and it would be expensive economically and politically. Sanctions - the likely course with doubtful impact for a country making billions in oil exports. The world can't (and won't) do without Iranian oil. I agree that non-oil sanctions aren't likely to work. I also agree that an embargo of Iranian oil is unlikely. Not impossible but very unlikely. It would be a hard sell in the US and I think Europe would be even less likely to support it. The embargo/sanctions would have to cover all major consuming nations or it would be worthless. Bush might tip crude to $100/barrel if he thought it was necessary and it would work, but The EU countries, Japan, China, and others probably would not support the scheme. Persuade - might work with a carrot and stick approach, much like the European talks with Libya over several years convinced the nutbar there to play nice. I'm not optimistic that this will work. Even many of the relative moderate in Iran want nukes, they just aren't calling for Israel to be wiped off the map with nuclear weapons. I think Qaddaffi was seriously concerned about an American attack, the Mullah's are probably not as concerned. Iran is a much tougher target than Libya. Ignoring - not an option. It actually might be the option picked. Not totally ignoring the situation, but a half hearted attempt at persuasion, a few mild worthless sanctions, and nothing that has any real chance of success, followed by Iranians having primitive nukes in 4 to 15 years, and missile deliverable nukes in another 2 to 10 after that. I have very little optimism that Iran will be stopped from becoming a nuclear power I agree there is little reason for optimism. Hopefully if Iran does get nukes there will be a fairly stable threat of MAD with Israel. Another problem with Iranian nukes is that they encourage other countries in the region to get nukes, increasing the chances that they will be used by a ME country or that they could possibly fall in to the hands of terrorists. Tim