Time to attack iran

Discussion in 'Iran' started by rhodescholar, Jul 3, 2009.

  1. rhodescholar
    Offline

    rhodescholar Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,439
    Thanks Received:
    758
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
    Ratings:
    +1,798
    Here is a great article on why iran needs to be attacked ASAP. Rather than respond emotionally, as have so many here have done recently, I would like to see posters come up with point-by-point responses why Bolton's assessment is inaccurate.

    washingtonpost.com

    By John R. Bolton
    Thursday, July 2, 2009
    With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

    Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

    Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

    He still wants "engagement" (a particularly evocative term now) with Iran's current regime. Last Thursday, the State Department confirmed that Secretary Hillary Clinton spoke to her Russian and Chinese counterparts about "getting Iran back to negotiating on some of these concerns that the international community has." This is precisely the view of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, reflected in the Group of Eight communique the next day. Sen. John Kerry thinks the recent election unpleasantness in Tehran will delay negotiations for only a few weeks.

    Obama administration sources have opined (anonymously) that Iran will be more eager to negotiate than it was before its election in order to find "acceptance" by the "international community." Some leaks indicated that negotiations had to produce results by the U.N. General Assembly's opening in late September, while others projected that they had until the end of 2009 to show progress. These gauzy scenarios assume that the Tehran regime cares about "acceptance" or is somehow embarrassed by eliminating its enemies. Both propositions are dubious.

    Obama will nonetheless attempt to jump-start bilateral negotiations with Iran, though time is running out even under the timetables leaked to the media. There are two problems with this approach. First, Tehran isn't going to negotiate in good faith. It hasn't for the past six years with the European Union as our surrogates, and it won't start now. As Clinton said on Tuesday, Iran has "a huge credibility gap" because of its electoral fraud. Second, given Iran's nuclear progress, even if the stronger sanctions Obama has threatened could be agreed upon, they would not prevent Iran from fabricating weapons and delivery systems when it chooses, as it has been striving to do for the past 20 years. Time is too short, and sanctions failed long ago.

    Only those most theologically committed to negotiation still believe Iran will fully renounce its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has a "Plan B," which would allow Iran to have a "peaceful" civil nuclear power program while publicly "renouncing" the objective of nuclear weapons. Obama would define such an outcome as "success," even though in reality it would hardly be different from what Iran is doing and saying now. A "peaceful" uranium enrichment program, "peaceful" reactors such as Bushehr and "peaceful" heavy-water projects like that under construction at Arak leave Iran with an enormous breakout capability to produce nuclear weapons in very short order. And anyone who believes the Revolutionary Guard Corps will abandon its weaponization and ballistic missile programs probably believes that there was no fraud in Iran's June 12 election. See "huge credibility gap," supra.

    In short, the stolen election and its tumultuous aftermath have dramatically highlighted the strategic and tactical flaws in Obama's game plan. With regime change off the table for the coming critical period in Iran's nuclear program, Israel's decision on using force is both easier and more urgent. Since there is no likelihood that diplomacy will start or finish in time, or even progress far enough to make any real difference, there is no point waiting for negotiations to play out. In fact, given the near certainty of Obama changing his definition of "success," negotiations represent an even more dangerous trap for Israel.

    Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

    Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal.

    The writer, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from August 2005 to December 2006 and is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad."
     
  2. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
  3. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,921
    Thanks Received:
    5,113
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,731
    I think a good time to attack Iran is 20 minutes after we attack North Korea. If we're going to mix it up, hey, let's get a bee in everybodys bonnet.
     
  4. rhodescholar
    Offline

    rhodescholar Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,439
    Thanks Received:
    758
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Strafing Iranian RGs with my .50 Cal
    Ratings:
    +1,798
  5. xotoxi
    Offline

    xotoxi Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    30,322
    Thanks Received:
    5,203
    Trophy Points:
    1,110
    Location:
    your mother
    Ratings:
    +5,492
    Why don't we fake everyone out and attack Mozambique?
     
  6. L.K.Eder
    Offline

    L.K.Eder unbannable non-troll

    Joined:
    May 29, 2009
    Messages:
    20,367
    Thanks Received:
    3,615
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    theartching thapphireth
    Ratings:
    +6,842
    no hard targets :(
     
  7. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Bolton is a world class retard

    No wonder RhodesStupid likes to quote him :lol:
     
  8. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    Well this article rests on the false assumption that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which we have no evidence for. So that is really the only refutation of the article that is necessary. If we start attacking nations based on a whim then we'll simply end up with another Iraq, and we don't have the money for another Iraq.
     
  9. PLYMCO_PILGRIM
    Offline

    PLYMCO_PILGRIM Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    17,416
    Thanks Received:
    2,855
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    America's Home Town
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    I dont think we are in a position to attack anyone right now.

    Considering Obama's opinions and attitudes on the subject of Iran I dont even see how this idea is feasible.

    The best chance of Iran getting attacked is by israel, or if they piss iraq off real bad...imagine the iraqi's using our training and equipment to attack Iran.

    I mean Ahmedinijad already said we tried to do a soft overthrow of him in the last election, he will then claim we made the israelis or the iraqis do it becuase we are just that bad arsed of a country.

    Since i'm new i have one disclaimer....i am full of sarcasm at times :D
     
  10. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    40,001
    Thanks Received:
    5,328
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    Patriotic American Muslim
    Ratings:
    +12,444
    Iran with the backing of the U.S tried that in the 1980's

    It turned into a huge disaster.

    I think the outcome today would be just as bad or even worse
     

Share This Page