The Iranian problem

[Kerberos]

In the thread about North Korea http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1350516#post1350516 , Freakshow mentioned that he thought the problems we're having with NK was a good reason, not to let insane dictatorships like Iran have nukes. I then raised the problem of whether anything could be done, and this thread was born to discuss this issue.

The problem as I see it is that I doubt that they can realistically be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. I'm told that the Iranians, having leaned from Iraq's mistake, has spread out their nuclear production facilities, to the point where air strikes cannot easily destroy them. Sanctions could perhaps be implemented, but while this would hurt the Iranian economy I don't believe it would actually stop them from building nuclear weapons.

This leaves, as I see it two possibilities, either accepting that Iran will acquire nuclear capabilities, perhaps punish them with sanctions, but knowing that this might not stop them, or launching an invasion of Iran. The question then is which of these possibilities is worst. I personally tend to believe that the invasion would be.

First of all the Iranian army has not been run into the ground the way the Iraqi had been. I have no doubt that the US could win such a war, but it would be far more costly in both lives and money than the invasion of Iraq. More importantly I also believe that invading Iran would seriously undermine the chance to win Iraq. Iran like Iraq is predominantly Shiite, and I do not believe that they'd be inclined to accept what they'd see as an act of aggression against Iran. In the wider Muslim world I think this would strengthen the belief that the US is waging a war on Islam.

On the practical side, I don't think it would be politically possible for Bush to sell an invasion of Iran and finding a neighbouring country willing to serve as a base for an invasion might also be hard. To let Iran have Nuclear weapons is obviously not an attractive choice either, but I believe it's less unattractive.

I am of course aware of the threats that members of the Iranian clergy have made concerning Israel, and of course the costs of invading Iran pales in comparison to a nuclear war. Ultimately however, I do not believe that the Iranian government is in fact mad enough to use any nukes they might get against Israel or elsewhere without provocation.

Aggressive rhetoric is one thing, and something you hear often, but when it comes to actions I se no evidence that Iran is wildly irrational, to the point of inviting the destruction of large parts of their country and most likely the fall of their regime. Clearly a nuclear armed Iran would be more difficult to deal with, just as the NK nuclear arsenal makes them more difficult to deal with. It is however something that can be dealt with and contained. Just like NK has been.

 

[Giz]

"Aggressive rhetoric is one thing, and something you hear often, but when it comes to actions I se no evidence that Iran is wildly irrational, to the point of inviting the destruction of large parts of their country and most likely the fall of their regime."

It's always tricky to predict what religious nuts will do though isn't it?

And what seems like a proportional response depends on where you stand.
(i.e. someone in US/EU may feel 'there's only a 5% chance of Iran launching nukes therefore lets try and get along/contain/negotiate. OTOH, someone in Israel may feel that a 5% chance of a second holocaust and the utter anniliation of their country is a risk that cannot be run therefore let's kick some ass).


"First of all the Iranian army has not been run into the ground the way the Iraqi had been. I have no doubt that the US could win such a war, but it would be far more costly in both lives and money than the invasion of Iraq."

I would hazard a guess that any conventionally deployed formations would be destroyed with ease by US airpower. Policing the 'conquered' territory would be a nightmare though. In fact the worst case scenario is probably if on the eve of an invasion Iran dispands its army and sends them home with all their rifles and explosives after a rousing pep talk about resisting the infidels from the cover of the civilian population.

 

[dsm]

You ask this question from the perspective of what can the U.S. ALONE do about Iran? Must the U.S. operate alone?

What exactly is the U.S. doing to promote to the world a proper understanding of Iran and the threat that it may imply? Are those actions effective? Why or why not? If the actions are not (and have not been) effective, how should the U.S. change its tactics to achieve the goal?

 

[Kerberos]

"Aggressive rhetoric is one thing, and something you hear often, but when it comes to actions I se no evidence that Iran is wildly irrational, to the point of inviting the destruction of large parts of their country and most likely the fall of their regime."

It's always tricky to predict what religious nuts will do though isn't it?

Yes, but has Iran ever actually done anything really nutty, they talk the talk sure enough, but I can't think of any instances of them actually doing totally insane stuff.

And what seems like a proportional response depends on where you stand.
(i.e. someone in US/EU may feel 'there's only a 5% chance of Iran launching nukes therefore lets try and get along/contain/negotiate. OTOH, someone in Israel may feel that a 5% chance of a second holocaust and the utter anniliation of their country is a risk that cannot be run therefore let's kick some ass).

As it happens I'm in the EU . On a slightly more serious note yes you are of course correct, I actually said something similar in another thread. Realistically though the US are the only ones in the world world who can invade Iran so I supose ultimatly it's their choice.

"First of all the Iranian army has not been run into the ground the way the Iraqi had been. I have no doubt that the US could win such a war, but it would be far more costly in both lives and money than the invasion of Iraq."

I would hazard a guess that any conventionally deployed formations would be destroyed with ease by US airpower. Policing the 'conquered' territory would be a nightmare though. In fact the worst case scenario is probably if on the eve of an invasion Iran dispands its army and sends them home with all their rifles and explosives after a rousing pep talk about resisting the infidels from the cover of the civilian population.

You might be right, the initial cost of invading Iraq was comparatively low so even if invading Iran would be significantly more costly it still might be considered acceptabel. Also, as I think I made clear, I don't consider this the biggest problem, I just though I'd mention it as well.

 

[Mycroft]

Aggressive rhetoric is one thing, and something you hear often, but when it comes to actions I se no evidence that Iran is wildly irrational, to the point of inviting the destruction of large parts of their country and most likely the fall of their regime.

Once you discount the evidence, then there is no evidence. Yes, that's true.

How about their continuing to build nukes despite pressure from all over the world to stop? Does that count for anything?

 

[Kerberos]

You ask this question from the perspective of what can the U.S. ALONE do about Iran? Must the U.S. operate alone?

What exactly is the U.S. doing to promote to the world a proper understanding of Iran and the threat that it may imply? Are those actions effective? Why or why not? If the actions are not (and have not been) effective, how should the U.S. change its tactics to achieve the goal?

The only part of my post that's US centric is the part about an invasion, and an invasion would be almost entirelly a US afair (meaning the military force would come form the US of course, not that it wouldn't concern others), so I think that's quite reasonable.

 

[Kerberos]

Once you discount the evidence, then there is no evidence. Yes, that's true.

What evidence? Actions, not words. I don't trust the word of Bush, Blair or Chirac, why should I trust the word of an Iranian Mullah? Certainly they don't have greater credibility.

How about their continuing to build nukes despite pressure from all over the world to stop? Does that count for anything?

Certainly it counts for something, but I don't think it counts for irrationality. It seems to me that it's perfectly rational for the Iranian regime to want nuclear weapons. It gives them almost perfect safety from a US attack to dispose their regime, strengthens their claim to be a regional great power, and the US is IMO currently not likely to invade them in response to their program. Which part of that is irrational?

 

[CFLarsen]

Certainly it counts for something, but I don't think it counts for irrationality. It seems to me that it's perfectly rational for the Iranian regime to want nuclear weapons. It gives them almost perfect safety from a US attack to dispose their regime, strengthens their claim to be a regional great power, and the US is IMO currently not likely to invade them in response to their program. Which part of that is irrational?

That's the problem. That this is not some unstable regime, desperately seeking world domination. This is deliberate, this is long-term strategic thinking.

This is also based on a worldview where you are right, because you interpret your religion in a way that you have to obliterate your enemies, whoever they are.

Religious fundamentalism + nukes = Really, really bad news.

Regardless of where it happens. In Iran, with Muslim fundamentalists in power, or a Western superpower where the man in charge thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that his own god is the only god, righteous and just.

 

[Ziggurat]

What evidence? Actions, not words. I don't trust the word of Bush, Blair or Chirac, why should I trust the word of an Iranian Mullah? Certainly they don't have greater credibility.

Historically, when people or groups have talked about wiping out the Jews, it's best to take those claims seriously.

Certainly it counts for something, but I don't think it counts for irrationality. It seems to me that it's perfectly rational for the Iranian regime to want nuclear weapons. It gives them almost perfect safety from a US attack to dispose their regime, strengthens their claim to be a regional great power, and the US is IMO currently not likely to invade them in response to their program. Which part of that is irrational?

I'm not sure if this was part of Mycroft's point, but from my perspective, the pursuit of nuclear weapons is what makes Iran dangerous, and GIVEN their propensity to export violence, that makes them an incredible threat to the region and to our interests. Call it rational if you want, it doesn't matter: totalitarian regimes ALWAYS export violence, the mullahs are trying to become MORE totalitarian again, and they're making threats about destroying one of their neighbors. On what grounds can we NOT take that threat seriously? And how can their possession of nuclear weapons do anything but make the situation worse?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Iran may not have done anything too nutty yet, this is true. However, when the leader of one country says another country needs to be "wiped off the map" (regardless of the country in question), I have a BIG problem with the idea that they may acquire the means to carry through.

 

[Kerberos]

Historically, when people or groups have talked about wiping out the Jews, it's best to take those claims seriously.

That's not evidence, and at the time Hitler didn't face the prospect of having half of Germany nukes in response to the Holocaust.

I'm not sure if this was part of Mycroft's point, but from my perspective, the pursuit of nuclear weapons is what makes Iran dangerous, and GIVEN their propensity to export violence, that makes them an incredible threat to the region and to our interests. Call it rational if you want, it doesn't matter: totalitarian regimes ALWAYS export violence, the mullahs are trying to become MORE totalitarian again, and they're making threats about destroying one of their neighbors. On what grounds can we NOT take that threat seriously? And how can their possession of nuclear weapons do anything but make the situation worse?

I totaly agree with that, I never said that Iran getting nukes was a good, thing just that I don't see anything that can be done to stop the that isn't worse than them getting nukes. Feel free to diagree that's what the thread is for. Do you think that an invasion wouldn't course the situation in Iraq and the muslim world at large to deterioate? Do you think that sanctions or the threat of them can be used to stop the Iranians? Do you just consider the risk of Iran using their nukes greater than I do? Outline you position and explain why you hold it.

 

[Kerberos]

Iran may not have done anything too nutty yet, this is true. However, when the leader of one country says another country needs to be "wiped off the map" (regardless of the country in question), I have a BIG problem with the idea that they may acquire the means to carry through.

And what do you think can be done?

 

[Mycroft]

I totaly agree with that, I never said that Iran getting nukes was a good, thing just that I don't see anything that can be done to stop the that isn't worse than them getting nukes.

Why would an invasion of Iran be worse than Iran getting nukes?

 

[Kerberos]

Why would an invasion of Iran be worse than Iran getting nukes?

I explained why in the OP.

 

[punchdrunk]

This leaves, as I see it two possibilities, either accepting that Iran will acquire nuclear capabilities, perhaps punish them with sanctions, but knowing that this might not stop them, or launching an invasion of Iran.

Is aggressive, and I mean hyper-aggressive, counter-intelligence not a possibility? What if we put incredible resources into finding and financing all opposing factions within Iran covertly?

 

[Kerberos]

Is aggressive, and I mean hyper-aggressive, counter-intelligence not a possibility? What if we put incredible resources into finding and financing all opposing factions within Iran covertly?

I doubt it, massive resources and covert are probably mutually exclusive. The more money, the more people will notice that group X suddenly have an ammazing amount of money they didn't have before, and start to wonder. Also more resources mean more personal and more personal means less secrecy. Also there are to the best of my knowledge no armed groups to support and as for political groups the support would need to be covert (or the government would shut them down) and as I said that's inconsistent with being large scale. In fact the Iranian government harasses political groups without them getting US support, I don’t see how money would change that.

 

[Perforatu]

I wonder how the concept of assured mutual destruction factors into all of this. The US and the USSR were fairly succesful at keeping eachother at bay with it, but I'm not sure if Iran would be weary enough of Israel's nuclear capabilities if they had their own supply.

 

[Freakshow]

What evidence? Actions, not words. I don't trust the word of Bush, Blair or Chirac, why should I trust the word of an Iranian Mullah? Certainly they don't have greater credibility.


Certainly it counts for something, but I don't think it counts for irrationality. It seems to me that it's perfectly rational for the Iranian regime to want nuclear weapons. It gives them almost perfect safety from a US attack to dispose their regime, strengthens their claim to be a regional great power, and the US is IMO currently not likely to invade them in response to their program. Which part of that is irrational?

It is rational from the perspective of Iran's leadership getting what they want. But that doesn't mean it is right or that it is a good thing for the world. And although it may be rational from a perspective of their own wants, they might do very irrational things with those weapons. Like nuking Israel, without any provocation or warning. The "rational actor" scenario doesn't presuppose that the actor is in fact rational, from a larger societal viewpoint. Only that you must consider that people will do what THEY believe is the proper thing for them to do. Plenty of people exist that do extremely whacky things, that they believe to be perfectly rationally justified. Like flying airliners into skyscrapers filled with civilians, for example.

 

[Freakshow]

I wonder how the concept of assured mutual destruction factors into all of this. The US and the USSR were fairly succesful at keeping eachother at bay with it, but I'm not sure if Iran would be weary enough of Israel's nuclear capabilities if they had their own supply.

The US and USSR had intelligent, sane, rational leaders. @$$holes, yeah. But intelligent, sane, rational @$$holes. Iran has...screaming ultra-fundamentalist nutbags.

It is NOT okay for everyone to have nukes. Some countries can handle them (as evidenced by multiple generations of their not being used, despite some very tense conflicts), and some cannot. Iran is one that likely cannot.

Not every person is identical. Some can handle more responsibilities than others. Not every country is identical, either. Some can handle the responsibility of having nukes. Some cannot. I would scratch any fundamentalist Islamic regime off the "can" list.

 

[Perforatu]

Some can handle the responsibility of having nukes. Some cannot. I would scratch any fundamentalist Islamic regime off the "can" list.

Much as that idea frustrates and terrifies me, given Iran's current leadership I'm inclined to agree.

I'm not yet willing to concede that a Western invasion is the best solution, though. There have to be avenues that we haven't explored yet...

What would Randi do?