Is Iran a ticking timebomb?

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Schell article would be far more relevant if it didn't selectively quote from Schelling, effectively distorting the entire message.

Schellings main policy was to advocate a secure second-strike capability, negating any advantage to striking first.

Given the distortions of Schellings position, the Schell article is worse than worthless.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

Schell's analysis (if one should call it that) is a bit off the mark. If I remember correctly from Schelling (and I am paraphrasing all the way through because it has been a long time), the notion of "irrationality" had nothing to do with being a nutcase with an atomic bomb, it had to do with the irrational nature of total nuclear war. The idea was that once someone would actually see nuclear war as "rational" it had a greater likelihood of happening. Being able to launch a second strike after an utterly devastating first strike would make the idea of a rational first strike pointless. MAD was "irrational," so to speak, and that is why it actually worked.

As for the Iranian government, getting a nuke is more about global public relations. The growth of nuclear weaponry during the cold war was completely different than Iran, so comparisons are at best, weak.

 

[BrianHawkins1]

^ I'm sure you're both right about Schell and Schelling, and that you both know much more about the ideas and theories mentioned than I do. The point of posting the second article wasn't really to forward either of their ideas, nor was it to compare the current situation with the cold war - I was only trying to bolster the main thesis of the first article by illustrating that the notion of a leader possibly deliberately creating the impression of being a nut case for political advantage is nothing new.

"As for the Iranian government, getting a nuke is more about global public relations."

I agree, but no one really knows for sure.

What do you think - do you buy Porteous' main assertion? Is Ahmadinejad posing as a loon, or is he a real loon? Or perhaps a bit o' both? And what do you think is going to happen? Iran gets the bomb? Israeli air strikes? A pre-emptive nuking? Or something else?

My personal prediction (though who the hell knows - it is hard to see exactly where this is going) ...

Major terrorist event in the US by the end of this year, probably sooner rather than later. As a result, expansion of ground war in Iraq into Syria and regime change there. Massive aerial bombardment of Iran, including nuclear strikes. Probably no ground invasion there and no regime change (for now). After that, anyone's guess.

I base that in part of this...

www.amconmag.com/2005_08_...icle3.html

Philip Giraldi, The American Conservative, Aug 1/05:

"In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States."

Unsubstantiated, natch. But hardly far-fetched, given the response to 9/11.

 

[bizorky]

Posing as a loon, or a real loon? Good question, and I don't have the answer. But here is the problem: was Saddam a loon? Was he a crazy nutbar (as being insane)? No, I doubt it; but he did feel entitled to his position, he believed in his authority and saw no reason to restrain himself when acting against his opposition. He wasn't crazy per se, but probably more in the league of a sociopath.

As for Ahmadinejad, he sounds like a man moved by strong religious beliefs, which could make him dangerous, but primarily to his own people and potentially to some of the nations around him. For him (and his government) the purpose of possessing a nuclear weapon is that it is the ultimate big stick. When necessary, he can shake it at whomever and illicit some kind of a response (and I assume fear and awe is what he is after). I think he generally gets a kick out of pissing off and upsetting the Americans and the Europeans.

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.

Right away this tells me that (1) this is a crock, or (2) the American government is as nutty as Ahmadinejad is being accused of as. I think it (the plan) is a crock since nobody would in their right mind be broadcasting the details of such a plan in the first place, and it would be more than hypocritical to stop Iran's nuclear program (before it even had weapons), with a limited nuclear assault.

As for the idea of pre-emptive nuking, that did not happen between India and Pakistan, and they were essentially at war with one and other. The Iranian government would have to know that attacking the United States would be a one way trip to no tomorrow. The same would go for attacking Isreal.

A policy for dealing with emerging nuclear states does not exist, and that is too bad. I presume that if Iran really wants to develop a nuclear device, it will. Whether it can be controlled is something different. So long as Iran has no such weapon, they did not pose a significant threat to anyone outside their borders. By acquiring such a weapon, they will most definitely be viewed as a threat since the only purpose of such a weapon would be to threaten. They could argue that the device would be for retaliation in kind, but to everyone on the outside it will be viewed as a threat.

Cunning? No, just stupid. Should Ahmadinejad and his goverment acquire such a weapon, they will become target for exactly the same thing. He will have to learn to deal with that. He will be in a new and dangerous league.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

This situation isn't a whole lot different from China. Mao acted pretty provocatively before China became a nuclear power, and drastically curbed that afterwards.

Kevin

 

[BrianHawkins1]

bizorky:

"nobody would in their right mind be broadcasting the details of such a plan in the first place"

Probably not, but it's not being 'broadcast' - I've not seen such a specific allegation anywhere else. Giraldi is former CIA, so he could theoretically have access to privileged information. It might be pure bullshit, or perhaps a plant, but dismissing the notion outright simply because it allegedly couldn't possibly have been leaked doesn't seem sound.

"it would be more than hypocritical to stop Iran's nuclear program (before it even had weapons), with a limited nuclear assault."

Of course, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

"The Iranian government would have to know that attacking the United States would be a one way trip to no tomorrow. The same would go for attacking Isreal."

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that Iran would theoretically attack the US or Israel (although those are remote possibilities), but the opposite.

"So long as Iran has no such weapon, they did not pose a significant threat to anyone outside their borders."

I suspect the Israelis and Iraqis do not share this assessment.

"By acquiring such a weapon, they will most definitely be viewed as a threat since the only purpose of such a weapon would be to threaten. They could argue that the device would be for retaliation in kind, but to everyone on the outside it will be viewed as a threat."

And vice versa, no?

"Cunning? No, just stupid. Should Ahmadinejad and his goverment acquire such a weapon, they will become target for exactly the same thing. He will have to learn to deal with that. He will be in a new and dangerous league."

Why is it "stupid" for Iran and Ahmadinejad to enter this league, but not, say, Israel? Or Pakistan? Or France? Or China? Or do you think that those countries were equally stupid in acquiring nukes?


drunknsubmrnr:

"This situation isn't a whole lot different from China. Mao acted pretty provocatively before China became a nuclear power, and drastically curbed that afterwards."

Are you implying that you think Iran will succeed in establishing a nuclear arsenal? What do you suspect is going to happen in the short term with this whole US-Israel-Iran-Iraq-Syria-Russia-China-etc. situation?

 

[bizorky]

Many points to cover:

Concerning the so called plan of attack by the US: no I have no proof that the US won't attack, but the supposed details of this attack and the use of nuclear weapons makes me think it is a complete non-starter. The United States has been in far more difficult military engagements over the past fifty years and did not choose to use nuclear weapons. The geo-political fallout would be enormous, and they are smart enough to know.

Possessing nuclear weapons is a message, it is a message that the Iranian government would send if it ever tested one underground, which would be detectable. It would not necessarily be a military-ready weapon, but a detonation illustrating their capacity to make such a weapon. Has the message already been heard? Think of Chirac's recent statements.

What I meant by non-nuclear Iran not posing a significant threat to its neighbours is that it has no real reason to actually do so. With respect to Isreal, Iran does not have an airforce capability to do anything to Isreal, nor the navy.

With respect to "vice-versa," I think I already viced the versa, so to speak.

As for Ahmadinejad being stupid, I am sure he would disagree with me. But he may as well stick a big target on his chest. Acquiring nuclear weapons would perk up the interest of the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, the French, the British and India. Some leaders and diplomats might be all smiles on the outside, but the nuclear politics can be pretty cold and stark.

With respect Mao, the same will go for Iran, being a nuclear power puts you in a new league when you realize the scale of the destruction that could fall on you. A multi-million man army is nothing compared to nuclear weaponry.

I suspect Iran will acquire a nuclear arsenal, a small one, most likely. The real danger is not that just the arsenal, it is whether they (or any of the other minor league nuclear nations) decides to distrubute the technology to like-minded idealogues.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Are you implying that you think Iran will succeed in establishing a nuclear arsenal?

Yes, I think they will. The US/Israel etc can delay that if they are prepared to go to airstrikes etc, but not stop it. Most likely they won't bother.

What do you suspect is going to happen in the short term with this whole US-Israel-Iran-Iraq-Syria-Russia-China-etc. situation?

I suspect that Iran will adopt a whole new attitude in terms of their relations with the other nuclear powers. If they have nuclear weapons, they're legitimate nuclear targets.

I'm not worried about Iran sharing nuclear weapons with terrorist organizations. Nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology can be "finger-printed" back to their state sponsors. The day an Iranian sponsored terrorist nuke initiates is the day that Iran ceases to exist. They're not going to want to play with that.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

I'm not worried about Iran sharing nuclear weapons with terrorist organizations. Nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology can be "finger-printed" back to their state sponsors. The day an Iranian sponsored terrorist nuke initiates is the day that Iran ceases to exist. They're not going to want to play with that

Good point, but all it takes is one short-sighted regime and...

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Good point, but all it takes is one short-sighted regime and...

Then we lose a city. Iran loses everything. They're not that crazy.

Kevin

 

[shumoon]

If the Americans do invade Iran, I can guarantee that it will be much tougher occupying the country than Iraq:
1) Iran has a stronger and more motivated army than that which Saddam Hussein used to have.
2) Iran is mountanous and Iraq is a lot more flat. Hence there will not only be a great deal of urban combat but also up on the mountains and hard to occupy terrains.

Adding to what Mislav stated:
3) Iran is 2-1/2 times the size of Iraq, and it would take a proportionately larger military force to occupy Iran, which the U.S. does not have because of its commitments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Europe and the Far East.
4) Iran has 2-1/2 times the population of Iraq, thus providing the possibility of an insurgency 2-1/2 times as large. If the U.S. cannot quell the insurgency in Iraq, it would be far more difficult in Iran.

 

[bizorky]

The US won't invade Iran. If they were to do anything it would be to damage Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons. That does not appear to be happening any time soon or at all.

The Invasion of Iraq was done on the the pretense of weapons of mass destruction, not for the sake of. In other words, the invasion of Iraq was for the purpose of political gain and not weapons reduction. The Iraq military fell apart quickly, so there was not going to be a huge opposition to the US militarily. The problem is that the political gains are not making an impressive headway because the insurgent opposition has chosen a course of primarily killing Iraqis, which is damaging to the sense of stability of the population. They want to create mayhem.

I don't think one can compare the invasion of Iraq with the theoretical motivations for attacking Iran; they are different.