Some thoughts on Iran

[nosarcasm]

I am sure you have heard alot about Iran lately. Here are some sorts
on the whole problem.

In September 2004 the US agreed to sent Israel a bunch of bunkerbusting bombs
for their F18. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/21/1095651323300.html?oneclick=true
They made it public so that Iran knows that the Us is widening its option
against Iran's nuclear program by arming the proxy Israel.

The latest leak of reconnaissance missions in Iran is for the same reason. To make it clear to Iran that the US is serious and ready. So either Iran becomes
the yes man in the proxy diplomacy the Europeans carry out or else.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4180087.stm
notice how they not totally deny the claims. I assume because they want them to know.

Iran plays on time and on the fact that the US has all troops it has already deployed in Iraq. If they could have sent in more troops they would have, but with recovery , rotation and support 150.000 is all there is.

So Iran feels safe to say bring it on, because on the field the Us cant.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20050118/wl_nm/iran_usa_dc

Thats why the Us and Israel have made it so public that they are ready
for a quick air attack, like the one against the Iraqi reactor in 1981.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

Difference is that Iran has its program better hidden and split up to several
defended objective.

On the other hand if even I am allowed to see potential nuclear sites on the news it gives a clear message to Iran to not get their hopes up. So in 2002
the Us gave some evidence of Iranian sites and continues to do so on the 24h
news channels. Secret
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.nuclear/

I am not sure if Bush bluffs. Is he ready to take out the Iranian sites, that would encourage the Iranians to support the insurgence in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They already do to a degree, but it is more to position a more
pro Iran friendly factions.

Are the Iranian gonna call it. Bush can always play the Israel joker. Yeah that will not be popular with the Arabs but they can either fear you or like you.

Fear seems the only option currently.

Anyhow interesting how the politics play out on Iran currently. Because
the Us has no formal contacts to Iran I assume Britain represents the US
interest to the Iranians.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1130301

Now when Bush visits Europe I am sure he ll press Germany and France to
go aboard an embargo vs Iran to increase the pressure if there is no solution till then.

If "Old Europe" wants to revitalize the transatlantic relations they will
go along. Trade with Iran overall is not significant. While Germany as
a strong export nation is more dependent on US goodwill than France
you might see a little split on that topic.

Either way, Pakistan and North Korea are enough, no more proliferation please. Maybe the US should consider to take out one of these desert
sites with a tatical nuke to prove the point how serious the business is
since 9/11.

For that the president would need to seek the quiet pre support of the loyal opposition. Who knows if that is feasable. Either way after Iran gives
up its nuke program or is forced to end it I forsee a change in attitude
in Syria.

North Korea is just too crazy to predict.

 

[Annie]

Are the Iranian gonna call it. Bush can always play the Israel joker. Yeah that will not be popular with the Arabs but they can either fear you or like you.

Seems to me they, (the extremists), fear or they kill. Easy choice for US.

 

[nosarcasm]

Another report that supports my oppinion


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/afp/20050122/ts_afp/usiranmilitaryoptions

US military options in Iran not good: analysts

WASHINGTON (AFP) - With the bulk of its ground forces tied down in Iraq (news - web sites), the United States has compelling reasons to avoid military action against neighboring Iran even while stepping up pressure to halt Tehran's nuclear program, analysts say.

"There are no good military options," James Carafano, a military expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Friday.

The United States could launch pinpoint strikes on targets in Iran from US warships or from the air. But short of an imminent threat from nuclear armed Iranian missiles, any gain would likely be outweighed by the trouble Iran could cause US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites), he said.

Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Iran at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Iran "would see any pre-emptive attack as encirclement."

"It would probably react hard to whatever happened, and that would make it more destabilizing than stabilizing," he said in an interview.

"But there would be many people who argue just the opposite," he cautioned.

Indeed, the perception that the United States is embarking on a course of confrontation with Iran has grown here since The New Yorker magazine reported this week that US commandos have been operating inside Iran since mid 2004, secretly scouting targets for possible air strikes.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) attacked the story by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh as "riddled with errors of fundamental fact" but did not expressly deny conducting covert reconnaissance missions.

Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites), declaring on a radio talk show this week that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of global problems, warned that Israel might launch a pre-emptive strike on its own to shut down Iran's nuclear program.

"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," he said.

But Cheney played down the likelihood of US military action.

"In the case of the Iranian situation, I think everybody would be best suited by or best treated and dealt with if we could deal with it diplomatically," he said.

One reason is that the US military already has its hands full in Iraq, where 150,000 US troops are struggling to contain a predominantly Sunni insurgency.

A ground war with Iran would be unsustainable, Carafano said in an interview.

"We couldn't do another large scale ground operation without a major mobilization that would require mobilizing basically all of the national guard," he said.

"Even if we wanted to do that, it would be pretty obvious because it would take us months if not years to get the national guard up and ready to go."

Even a limited US attack on Iran, which shares a 1,450-kilometer (900-mile) open border with Iraq, would invite Tehran to use its influence among Iraq's Shiites to sabotage the separate peace US forces have enjoyed in southern Iraq. The same is true in Afghanistan, which has a 900-kilometer (560-mile) border with Iran.

"When you're trying to stabilize Iraq and you've got this long border between Iran and Iraq, and you're trying to keep the Iranians from interfering in Iraq so you can get the Iraq government up and running, you shouldn't be picking a war with the Iranians," said Carafano.

"It just doesn't make any sense from a geopolitical standpoint," he said.

Iran is believed to protect its most sensitive facilities by dispersing, burying and hardening them, learning from the 1981 Israeli air strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.

So the payoff from surgical strikes on suspected nuclear facilities would be uncertain and temporary, Carafano said.

"On the other hand," said Cordesman, "one can argue that a successful strike has a powerful intimidating and deterrent impact."

"So there will always be those people who argue that the short-term political cost will be offset by the longer term impact on Iran's political behavior and military capabilities," he said.

Moreover, he said, it's unknown to outsiders how close Iran is to gaining a nuclear weapon, or what the US military has learned about its efforts, further obscuring the course of action the United States may take.

"When you deal with any power that proliferates that is hostile, you are going to constantly update and improve your contingency plans, and you are going to carry out intelligence reconnaissance," he said.

"One problem is, you are going to carry out virtually exactly the same intelligence effort if you are contemplating military options or if you are trying to make arms control work, or put pressure on the UN and Europe to be more effective in their negotiating effort," he said.

"The difficulty here is there is essentially one man who can make this decision. And that's the president of the United States," he said.