Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Three day blitzkrieg in Iran

According to 'Times Online', the Pentagon is making plans to launch a massive offensive that will annihilate Iran's military capability completely in a span of three days. The IAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency) has reported last week that Iran has taken steps to slow down uranium enrichment. The spokesmen of the National council of resistance of Iran has said that the IAEA has yet to visit many of Iran's nuclear facilities and are giving Iran the benefit of the doubt when this regime has clearly provened its stance towards Israel and worldwide affairs. Would the future decision of the US to go to war with Iran the right one? Obviously diplomacy seems to have made little or no impact. Is war the only option left for the US? Have the inspections of the Iranian nuclear facilities been effective till now? Can a regime that is giving munitions to the Iraqi insurgents be trusted? Is is right on the part of the US to take matters in their own hands?

8 comments:

Kyle said...

As much as the U.S. would like to think that it has the right to tell other nations what to do, it has no right to attack Iran without any form of provocation. We would be invading a sovereign nation again, just like we did in Iraq which would only further destroy our international reputation. True, it is a very terrifying thought that Iran is creating nuclear weapons but we have no right to attack a country because of their national defense decisions. I sincerely hope that the Pentagon never actually goes through with this plan because doing so would only create more suffering and would effectively destroy any chance of the U.S. ever having a good reputation in the Middle East. Finally, if the U.S. is so concerned with destroying other nations' nuclear weapons then why don't we destroy all of ours?

MadMax said...

Klye.........it is very frightning that you think that nuclear weapons no longer have value. Please allow me to introduce to you the other side of this issue.

Nuclear weapons remain of vital importance to the security of the U.S. and to our allies and friends. Remember we are dealing with countries, namely Iran who would like to destroy our way of life and perhaps our very existence. It is clear to me that nuclear weapons have had an important role in preserving the peace and preventing world wars both in the past as well as years to come.

It is terrifying to think of what might happen if a country as unstable as Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons. In that light my only advice is to be proactive now rather than radioactive later!

prsjr said...

I'm with Kyle, if the pentagon is absolutely sure that Iran will directly attack the US, AND they are pursuing a weapons-grade uranium enrichment program, then the US and other nations in danger of nuclear attack, i.e. Israel, may have a case for a 'preemptive' attack. Under International law, preemptive attack is justifiable and legal.

Condi Rice, Colon Powell, Rumsfeld and the administration advertised the invasion of Iraq as a ‘preemptive’ attack. In hindsight, we know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor did it pose any direct threat to the United States. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq then or Iran now can only be classified as a 'preventative' attack, which is indistinguishable under international law from a war of aggression. Politically, it would be imprudent for the US, in the wake of Iraq, to invade or attack a state without a perceived direct threat. Even if Iran did have nuclear weapons, they still lack the ballistic missile technology to directly strike the US. With the academia, young people and middle class of Iran in support of many Western states, do we really want to force another generation into hating the U.S. through an unjustifiable war?

Ben said...

You claim that Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States but was it a threat to any other nation? It did have a previous encounter (The Gulf Conflict) I don't disagree with you that Iraq may have not posed as a threat to the United States but Iran is a different story. Iran is going to definitely become a threat to not only the United States but other middle eastern countries if it does not withdraw its nuclear programs.

jolz said...

America the big, the bad and the brave coming to the rescue the world from itself once again! It disturbs me greatly to think that after America embarked on the Iraq war, in search of the ever illusive weapons of mass destruction leaving a myriad of dead civilians in their wake, that they would yet again take another country to the slaughter house. I have to agree with Madmax, however, it is terrifying to think what Iran could do with a festering aversion for the United States and advanced nuclear weapons. The implications of an attack from Iran would be crippling and it may indeed destroy the American way of life. Then again wouldn’t the same be true for Iraq? The destruction of 1200 targets with technologically advanced bombs, with accuracy with an inch of the target, will undoubtedly destroy the way of life in Iran. Also keep in mind that these so called high tech bombs cannot and do not differentiate between the innocent child playing in the street and the nuclear physicist designing weapons. I worry about a nuclear attack just as much as anybody else but fighting fire with fire has never put out a flame.

KaiserPatrick said...

Diplomacy with Iran seems not to be getting any better and the muntions found on Iraqi insurgents that are clearly coming from Iran are not helping Iran's so called case that they want peaceful nuclear power. Attack is the only defence. If threatening acts and gestures persist, America and her allies have to act pre emptively and decisively to destroy Iran in the first few hours of war, like Israel in the Six Days War with Egypt. The quicker America acts upon this threat the better, for the good of our nation and the world, especially our major ally in the Middle East, Israel. War is the final necesary step needed and I hope the current leadership is able to step up to the task of eliminating Iran now. America needs a stronger sense of nationalism and support for its military, no more of this timetable for defeat but how about setting objectives and support all out victory. The UN is absolutely useless so its time we look inside ourselves, as the individual state, and ask if we have the courage to do what is necesary to stand up and defeat our enemies or are we going to dig a hole and wait for what the world throws at us and allow danger and threats the time to fester and grow. The end will justify the means, we must act now about today's problems, not tomorrow.

yanks23 said...

Did people forget what country we're talking about here? We're not talking about some peaceful country, or an allied country, we're talking about Iran. This is the same nation which on a daily basis chants "death to America, death Israel."Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the same many who openly denies the holocaust, is a madman. Isn't it ironic that this same man has had numerous conversations with Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyah,the senior political leader of the radical Islamic groups Hamas, who has been behind various terrorist attacks? People like Ahmadinejad, are not trust worthy political leaders. As time goes by and we continue to watch Iran build it's nuclear weapons, America becomes more and more vulnerable to an attack. I think it would be foolish for the United States to sit back and wait for another 9/11.

jurisprudence said...

No I haven’t forgotten which country we are talking about. But who are we to tell countries what they can and cannot develop? Did anybody tell us we couldn’t develop nukes? Would we have listened? Many other countries think we are a threat and with the possible exception of Russia we have the most nukes in the world! We also spend the most money on defense. If I was another country I would feel threatened. Furthermore, what we did in Iraq is not that different than what Iraq did in Kuwait (Gulf War). We invaded another country. Iraq invaded Kuwait because it's a land locked state looking for more resources and access to water. According to realists, that is what countries do. America stood up to Iraq and protected international boundaries safeguarding sovereignty. Great for us. But then we invaded Iraq later seeking resources, namely oil. Yes I’m aware of preemptive strike but the criteria for preemptive strike is imminent threat. We didn’t even know whether Iraq had nukes let alone the capabilities to launch one as far as the U. S., so without that knowledge how was imminent threat met? Later we learn Iraq has no nukes. America’s actions seemed more due imminent fear. Fear, if not kept in check, leads to irrational behavior. So now America has violated international customs and invaded a sovereign country, a country directly adjacent to Iran.
In Iranians’ view and the view of many other nations (example France) America is running amuck. Many countries globally, not just Iran, have heightened their awareness of America and wondering if its a power that may need to be counterbalanced. Are we going to invade every nation that feels this way? Is Might right? Iran is upping their security because America’s actions seem threatening to them. They can’t be blamed for that. It is a natural reaction according to the security dilemma. Iran sees Iraq with no nukes invaded while North Korea another radical country but with nukes, left alone. And Japan the country a nuke has been dropped on was a country without nukes. In fact, any objective realist would encourage Iran to develop nukes. Increase one’s power in order to deter threatening nations. That was the whole idea behind nukes and MAD (mutually assured destruction). Countries with nukes won’t go to war because rational fear of MAD. According to the theory, no matter how radical a country one can always depend on self-preservation and the desire of leaders to stay in power.
Mad max in your own words “Nuclear weapons remain of vital importance to the security…It is clear to me that nuclear weapons have had an important role in preserving the peace and preventing world wars both in the past as well as years to come.” ok Max you got that part right which is why it sounds so irrational when you say “It is terrifying to think of what might happen if a country as unstable as Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons.” MAD only works when both countries have nukes. Look to the Cold War if Russia didn’t have nukes it would have been a hot war Because America would have blown Russia up. If you believe in MAD like you state, Max ( “It is clear to me that nuclear weapons have had an important role in preserving the peace”) then why wouldn’t you want Iran to go nuclear.
Also, even if Iran does develop nukes that is only the first step. They still would have to develop capabilities to launch nukes as far as the U.S. and then actually threaten the U.S.before a preemptive strike and invasion would be legitimate. Because invading every country we do not like is irrational and tyrannical and thus will not be allowed. Just as punching each person you don’t like for no reason is criminal. If America keeps throwing around its might other powers will band together to counter against it and then it will have many wars on its hands.
Ben said “Iran is going to definitely become a threat to not only the United States but other middle eastern countries if it does not withdraw its nuclear programs.” My question is who gave us the authority to be the world police and protect everyone. Middle eastern countries can do for themselves. The world will always be full of threats but until they become imminent and until countries follow through on those threats no nation has the right to invade or start war with it. At least no nation expecting to be called just.
KaiserPatrick said... “Diplomacy with Iran seems not to be getting any” in fact there are two factions vying for power within Iran those are willing to be more peaceful for economic benefits and those more fundamentalist who are anti America. However, the economists are gaining great pull. If America takes the stand that the world took with Germany after WWII, overlooks the bad blood and tries to integrate Iran into the international community we may find Iran to be more stable. If America meets Iran half way and lifts some of our economic sanctions then Iran may very well decide to ignore its vendettas in light of economic prosperity and a better life for its citizens. As prsjr said the “young people and middle class of Iran in support of many Western states, do we really want to force another generation into hating the U.S. through an unjustifiable war?” If America gives a little now it may gain a lot later. Look to history Germany being re-intergrated into society after WWII worked wonderfully. If we can forgive Germany of the Holocust , can we not bear relations with Iran? America relations with Iran may not be great in the near future but we should at least establish some ties for the hope of future generations. Think I’m silly? Well, democracies don’t go to war with each other, right? Well maybe its less to do with the fact that they are democracies and more to do with the fact that the governments and people see each other as legitimate and have set up ties to assure their interdependence. If America and Iran can stop seeing each other as the “them” the “bad guy” and give each other more respect perhaps war won’t have to be the “war only option”.
And KaiserPatrick do you hear yourself? “better eliminating Iran now”. Iran is not just an apparatuss its filled with innocent civilians. You should not take killing a country full of people so lightly.