NYT article on pre-emptive strike against Iran

[MillCreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/will-israel-attack-iran.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print

I just finished reading the book 'The Nuclear Jihadist', about A.Q. Khan from Pakistan and his dissemination of nuclear technology throughout the world. It was interesting to read how concerns over Iran's WMD program and the discussion of pre-emptive strikes go all the way back to the first Bush administration.  The book made the case that by now, Iran's nuclear program is too decentralized and in too many hardened shelters to take out via conventional military means.

I really wonder what is going to happen.

[roo_ster]

I really wonder what is going to happen.

If they were smart, they'd STFU and tone down the threats, keep working, and announce their new nuke status some time in the future.  They will lose personnel to whomever is operating against them inside Iran, but the mullahs want it enough to keep feeding the beast.

I suspect they are both stupid and crazy and will shoot up some tankers and close the straights.

At that point, they will face a no-bull coalition of countries that don't take kindly to having their already-ailing economies starved of fuel.  Not only will the straights be busted back open, every Iranian military base will be turned to rubble and every suspected nuke facility bunker busted to a fare-thee-well in one of several ways.

[Perd Hapley]

straits

[CNYCacher]

straits

they are dire

[TommyGunn]

straits

they are dire

Very punny. 

[Tallpine]

straits

Crooks

[Jamisjockey]

If they were smart, they'd STFU and tone down the threats, keep working, and announce their new nuke status some time in the future.  They will lose personnel to whomever is operating against them inside Iran, but the mullahs want it enough to keep feeding the beast.

I suspect they are both stupid and crazy and will shoot up some tankers and close the straights.

At that point, they will face a no-bull coalition of countries that don't take kindly to having their already-ailing economies starved of fuel.  Not only will the straights be busted back open, every Iranian military base will be turned to rubble and every suspected nuke facility bunker busted to a fare-thee-well in one of several ways.

Which would be a valid reason to bomb them back into last century. 

[Tallpine]

A powerful US Navy is one government thing that I agree with.

We need to be able to keep sea commerce open around the world.

[seeker_two]

I'm still waiting for the Iranians to publish the plans for a preemptive strike on the New York Times....

[French G.]

Two thoughts. 1. SSGN
2. The Germans feel so guilty about WWII they wrote off a billion on the last subs they delivered to Israel. With crooze missiles! Ours would be conventional, theirs, not so much perhaps.

[S. Williamson]

Which would be a valid reason to bomb them back into last century. 

Didn't we (meaning humanity) invent nukes last century?  What good would that do? 


 

[wmenorr67]

My take on the whole Iran situation is that with enough pressure whether it be from economic sanctions or military might, the Iranian people will revolt.  There are enough people there that want to be Westernized and all they need is a catalyst.  I don't foresee the need for a large contingent of ground troops in that country.  After a few well placed tactical strikes on key military infrastructure just a few Spec Op raids will be all that is needed.  I think the Iranian people will do the rest. 

[roo_ster]

straits

I do not spell or grammar-check forum posts.

[Perd Hapley]

I do not spell or grammar-check forum posts.

Knot that it wood have helped in this case. 

[HankB]

. . . I suspect they are both stupid and crazy and will shoot up some tankers and close the straights.

At that point, they will face a no-bull coalition of countries that don't take kindly to having their already-ailing economies starved of fuel.  Not only will the straights be busted back open, every Iranian military base will be turned to rubble and every suspected nuke facility bunker busted to a fare-thee-well in one of several ways.

Iranian military action (another "tanker war?") in the Straits of Hormuz would provide a casus belli to take out their military and their nuke program, pretty much ending the debate and vacillation that's been going on for the better part of a decade now.

I wonder if we'd be smart enough to take out their ayatollahs as well by targeting their next leadership meeting, conclave, or whatever they call it . . .

[Fitz]

Then, we'll get to hear another *expletive deleted*ing four years of bellyaching about "ZOMG ILLEAGAL WAR!!!Oneoneone" and "WAR CRIMEZ! WAR CRIMEZ!!!!! US SOLDIERS SHOULDNT KILL!!!!!!"


Screw that

[longeyes]

The real issue is how we got to this point of dwindling options.  Who moved the ball?  Who didn't?  Where's the accountability?

[roo_ster]

I wonder if we'd be smart enough to take out their ayatollahs as well by targeting their next leadership meeting, conclave, or whatever they call it . . .

Hootenanny.

[MechAg94]

My take on the whole Iran situation is that with enough pressure whether it be from economic sanctions or military might, the Iranian people will revolt.  There are enough people there that want to be Westernized and all they need is a catalyst.  I don't foresee the need for a large contingent of ground troops in that country.  After a few well placed tactical strikes on key military infrastructure just a few Spec Op raids will be all that is needed.  I think the Iranian people will do the rest. 

I think it all depends on how far they can take it themselves.  IMO, the question with many Muslim countries is will the moderates stand up to the fanatics?

[Fitz]

I think it all depends on how far they can take it themselves.  IMO, the question with many Muslim countries is will the moderates stand up to the fanatics?

I think the recent arab revolts prove that in most cases, they'll replace one group of dipsticks with another group of dipsticks

[MillCreek]

I think the recent arab revolts prove that in most cases, they'll replace one group of dipsticks with another group of dipsticks

Well said, sir!

[Monkeyleg]

Remember, the US (or Carter's administration anyway) had high hopes for the Ayatollah Khomeinni being a benevolent leader following the overthrow of the Shah. The mideast doesn't seem to be much better than Africa at replacing governments.

[De Selby]

Wait a sec here - Iran has been subjected to a pattern of attacks on scientists that, if they happened in the US, would undoubtedly start a war, and is subjected to ever tightening economic sanctions and threats of attack from the US and Israel....

So when they say "If you attack us we'll close the straits of hormuz!" they're belligerently threatening us?  How does that figure? 

It's an amazing propaganda feat to have the populations of the most powerful nations in the world convinced that a third world country like Iran is menacing them. 

[HankB]

I think the recent arab revolts prove that in most cases, they'll replace one group of dipsticks with another group of even worse dipsticks

FIFY

Wait a sec here - Iran has been subjected to a pattern of attacks on scientists that, if they happened in the US, would undoubtedly start a war . . . 

Not really - by some counts, illegal aliens - mostly Mexican - kill over a dozen people a day in the USA. And we're not dropping bombs south of the Rio Grande yet.

[Lee]

It's an amazing propaganda feat to have the populations of the most powerful nations in the world convinced that a third world country like Iran is menacing them.

You got that right.  For 50 years we've subverted (or helped subvert) the leadership in Iran and other ME countries, supported Dictators and Kings, armed their neighbors to the teeth, and invaded those who had no nukes.   Can't say as I blame them. 

By the same logic, we should have flattened Pakistan and N. Korea years ago...and perhaps China.  Another war is all we (don't) need. 

Limited attack, and the locals will revolt?  Where TF have I heard that one before?  They revolted to get the government they currently have.  If they choose to revolt against it...then great.  It's not our fight.  The Iranian people can't help it if the Iranian equivalent of Pat Roberts and Richard Daley are running their country.  They tried to vote them out, and the elections were rigged.  Given time, the economic sanctions will likely work...and the government they choose then is also none of our business.

If they close the Straight...that's a whole new ballgame.  I don't think they are that stupid.