The Case for Invading Iran

[gilliam]

If the United States does not forcibly prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, every country in the area will know to a moral certainty that they cannot rely on the United States for protection against Iranian nuclear attack, or Iranian nuclear blackmail in support of domestic opposition to the generally shaky regimes of the Middle East. American prestige and influence there will collapse. If we won’t protect ourselves by pre-emption, we can’t be relied on to protect anyone else.

So every country within reach of Iranian nuclear weapons will have enormous strategic pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons to deter Iranian nuclear threats. As a recent strategic survey noted, Syria has many times the per capita and absolute GDP of North Korea, and Egypt several times the per capita and absolute GDP of Pakistan. If North Korea and Pakistan can develop nuclear weapons, so can Syria and Egypt, and also Saudi Arabia, all three of whose regimes are shaky. And they won’t be the only countries to develop nuclear weapons after Iran does - many more will join the nuclear “club” within a few years, some within months.

windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

If the United States does not forcibly prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons, every country in the area will know to a moral certainty that they cannot rely on the United States for protection against Iranian nuclear attack, or Iranian nuclear blackmail in support of domestic opposition to the generally shaky regimes of the Middle East. American prestige and influence there will collapse. If we won’t protect ourselves by pre-emption, we can’t be relied on to protect anyone else.

So every country within reach of Iranian nuclear weapons will have enormous strategic pressure to develop their own nuclear weapons to deter Iranian nuclear threats. As a recent strategic survey noted, Syria has many times the per capita and absolute GDP of North Korea, and Egypt several times the per capita and absolute GDP of Pakistan. If North Korea and Pakistan can develop nuclear weapons, so can Syria and Egypt, and also Saudi Arabia, all three of whose regimes are shaky. And they won’t be the only countries to develop nuclear weapons after Iran does - many more will join the nuclear “club” within a few years, some within months.

windsofchange.net/archives/007981.php

Ever heard of Pandora’s Box? We opened it, now we’re trying to close it again, it won’t happen. Sorry but maybe it’s time to face up to the consequences of our own actions.

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

Ever heard of Pandora’s Box? We opened it, now we’re trying to close it again, it won’t happen. Sorry but maybe it’s time to face up to the consequences of our own actions.

From the article:
And if we don’t invade this year, it won’t matter much after that. We’ll be in the worst case scenario. And President Bush will be reviled as America’s worst President – the one who through inaction cost us our freedom.

UPDATE: Joe responds here on Winds with “Our Darkening Sky: Iran and the War”. It begins with Chesterton:

"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.

Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?"

 

[MrS]

Bush will do what is right… not Bush the politician, but Bush the man.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

walstan:

Ever heard of Pandora’s Box? We opened it, now we’re trying to close it again, it won’t happen. Sorry but maybe it’s time to face up to the consequences of our own actions.

You’re facing up to the consequences of 9/11? Well, that’s a step in the right direction.

 

[Jay74]

walstan:

Ever heard of Pandora’s Box? We opened it, now we’re trying to close it again, it won’t happen. Sorry but maybe it’s time to face up to the consequences of our own actions.

On the contrary, the Islamofascists opened pandora’s box on 9/11. As for the consequences of our actions, 9/11 happened before our war on terrorism, so to say that we’re the ones who opened pandoras box is just plain wrong.

As for Iran, if they weren’t a terrorist state who funded and aided the very terrorists who opened pandora’s box on 9/11, there would be no issue.

 

[gilliam]

Jay74:

On the contrary, the Islamofascists opened pandora’s box on 9/11. As for the consequences of our actions, 9/11 happened before our war on terrorism, so to say that we’re the ones who opened pandoras box is just plain wrong.

As for Iran, if they weren’t a terrorist state who funded and aided the very terrorists who opened pandora’s box on 9/11, there would be no issue.

It didn’t start on 9/11… we just noticed it on 9/11. They declared war on us years earlier, we, in our arrogance, ignored them.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

gilliam:

It didn’t start on 9/11… we just noticed it on 9/11. They declared war on us years earlier, we, in our arrogance, ignored them.

OK, then: the taking of over 90 American hostages in Iran a coupla decades ago.

 

[Jay74]

gilliam:

It didn’t start on 9/11… we just noticed it on 9/11. They declared war on us years earlier, we, in our arrogance, ignored them.

I agree it started long before. It is 9/11 though where they opened pandora’s box so to speak–they awakened a slumbering giant.

 

[walstan]

Ani Ibi:

You’re facing up to the consequences of 9/11? Well, that’s a step in the right direction.

No, “The Manhattan Project” 1945. That’s the one that killed an estimated 200,000. That’s over sixty six 9/11’s. Now I don’t agree with making comparison’s but I also don’t think the world started on the 9th September 2001.

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

No, “The Manhattan Project” 1945. That’s the one that killed an estimated 200,000. That’s over sixty six 9/11’s. Now I don’t agree with making comparison’s but I also don’t think the world started on the 9th September 2001.

So your saying that because of the Manhattan Project, the US, Israel, and the EU should be happily accept being blown up by Islamo-fascists??? If not, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

So your saying that because of the Manhattan Project, the US, Israel, and the EU should be happily accept being blown up by Islamo-fascists??? If not, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

No, what I am saying is without the Manhattan Project and mans insatiable appetite for building a bigger and better bombs for killing each other the Islamo-Fascists wouldn’t be able to blow anyone up. And before we go down the “What about Nuclear Power” route, remember which came first, the bomb? or the power station?

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

No, what I am saying is without the Manhattan Project and mans insatiable appetite for building a bigger and better bombs for killing each other the Islamo-Fascists wouldn’t be able to blow anyone up. And before we go down the “What about Nuclear Power” route, remember which came first, the bomb? or the power station?

Again, this thread is on the future, not the past. No matter who was first to create a cart and put a log on it to bash down a door, or sharpen a stick to make a spear, we have to deal with Iran in 2006. Let’s stay on topic.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_11_44.gif

 

[rlg94086]

walstan:

No, what I am saying is without the Manhattan Project and mans insatiable appetite for building a bigger and better bombs for killing each other the Islamo-Fascists wouldn’t be able to blow anyone up. And before we go down the “What about Nuclear Power” route, remember which came first, the bomb? or the power station?

So you are suggesting that without the Manhattan Project, a bomb wouldn’t have been developed? Man does have an insatiable appetite for creating the “perfect weapon.” It has been that way since the Stone Age. I don’t believe the world started in 1945 .

As far as nuclear power, I believe that a lot of the scientific work at Manhattan Project also enabled nuclear power, which is a good thing. It often happens that military research leads to other more useful things.

 

[Philip_P]

Okay, if we’re going to talk about invading Iran, let’s do what we didn’t do with Iraq…talk about what happens *after *the invasion.

What’s the plan? What are the odds of a long lived, dogged insurgency? What kind of government is going to go up after the mullahs are gone? What kind of instability will result following the removal of the mullahs, how long will this instability last, and how severe will it be? What kind of reasources does the US realistically have to apply to the post-mullah era?

These are the kinds of questions we need to be asking. As Iraq should have shown us, deciding whether or not to invade is only the beginning of the serious questions we should be asking.

 

[cathologos]

The discussion is moot.

The United States does not have the military resources to invade Iran.

We can launch air attacks, fire missles, etc. – but we simply don’t have the available ground forces to mount an invasion.

That’s probably true even if we pull our our ground forces out of Korea – which ain’t gonna happen, by the way.

If you’ve been paying attention to our effort in Iraq, it should be fairly obvious – we’ve had to rely heavily on National Guard and Reserve units already.

Iran is larger than Iraq, more populus than Iraq, significantly more difficult terrain than Iraq, and not riven with ethnic divisions the way Iraq is. The Iranian military is also more highly regarded than Iraq’s was (for whatever that’s worth). If you think it’s difficult to occupy Iraq (and I recognize that some here do not acknowledge this!), trust me, Iran would be more difficult.

We have the most powerful military in the world…but we’re not all-powerful. There are things that are simply beyond our capacity. This, I think, is one of them.

 

[gilliam]

Cathologos,

That is what Germany and Japan said about us before WWII. The question is do we have the will to fight or not? It is a matter of will, not technology, or capability.

 

[MrS]

Jay74:

I agree it started long before. It is 9/11 though where they opened pandora’s box so to speak–they awakened a slumbering giant.

yep… in the early 600’s

 

[MrS]

cathologos:

The United States does not have the military resources to invade Iran.

What we lack in numbers/might, we more than make up for in quality… perhaps that is another reason why the SEALS program is in expansion mode.

We could destroy Iran just with air power… the number of innocents would be the only, ONLY, deterant.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cathologos:

The discussion is moot. The United States does not have the military resources to invade Iran.

Did you read the entire article?

cathologos:

We can launch air attacks, fire missles, etc. – but we simply don’t have the available ground forces to mount an invasion.

There is a sizeable civil society already in place. In the event of a surgical strike, a prolongued occupation will not be necessary. There is also the possibility of sizeable bribes: $1B to rat on a nuke. With the number of folks in Iran unhappy with the regime, that’s a play worth investing in.

cathologos:

That’s probably true even if we pull our our ground forces out of Korea – which ain’t gonna happen, by the way.

Well, this is where I ask: what option do you think we have? Do we just lie down and admit defeat? Cooperate in the forcible conversion of America to Islam?

cathologos:

If you’ve been paying attention to our effort in Iraq, it should be fairly obvious – we’ve had to rely heavily on National Guard and Reserve units already.

So what do you suggest happen in the next year?

cathologos:

Iran is larger than Iraq, more populus than Iraq, significantly more difficult terrain than Iraq, and not riven with ethnic divisions the way Iraq is. The Iranian military is also more highly regarded than Iraq’s was (for whatever that’s worth). If you think it’s difficult to occupy Iraq (and I recognize that some here do not acknowledge this!), trust me, Iran would be more difficult.

The invasion of Iran would be significantly more difficult than that of Iraq. The occupation would not be.

cathologos:

We have the most powerful military in the world…but we’re not all-powerful. There are things that are simply beyond our capacity. This, I think, is one of them.

Well, we’ll see… it ain’t over til the fat lady sings.