Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/28/2004 7:31:22 AM EST
From the Belmont Club

Tuesday, September 28, 2004
The Closing Door
Caroline Glick argues in the Sept 23 edition of the "Jerusalem Post" that the sole remaining hope of preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is to put the ball in the air and hope for a miracle basket, an act of desperation that would rank with Jerry West's 60-foot buzzer beater in the 1970 NBA playoffs.


Iran this week summarily rejected the latest call by the International Atomic Energy Agency to cease all its uranium enrichment programs. Speaking at a military parade on Tuesday, where Iran's surface-to-surface Shihab-3 ballistic missiles earmarked "Jerusalem" were on prominent display, Iranian President Muhammad Khatami defied the IAEA, saying: "We will continue along our path [of uranium enrichment] even if it leads to an end to international supervision."

US and European sources involved in tracking the Iranian nuclear program have made clear in recent weeks that Iran is between four and six months away from nuclear "break-out" capacity. This means that in the next four to six months Iran will have the nuclear fuel cycle complete, and will be able to independently construct nuclear bombs whenever it wishes. More conservative estimates have spoken of 12-24 months.



Glick did not believe that any new diplomatic initiative would materially delay the breakout. In order to illustrate the futility of further diplomacy, she focuses upon the proposals of veteran arms control negotiator Henry Solkoski who argued that diplomacy was the only option left because the United States was too preoccupied in Iraq to take on Iran and because the Islamic Republic's 15 uranium enrichment facilities were too hardened and dispersed to be successfully attacked. With force ruled out diplomacy remained by exclusion. But the cards left in the hand are not necessarily winning ones, as Michael Ledeen points out. Diplomacy had repeatedly failed to stop or even slow Iran's nuclear program. There was no reason for it to succeed with Iraq so close to its ultimate goal.


"This is more of the same, however you want to define it. We're not making any progress. The UN and the Europeans keep saying the same thing every three months. You wait every three months and eventually Iran has an atomic bomb. Then you don't need to worry about this failed policy.

Ledeen also believes that even if the Iranian program were to be referred to the Security Council, it is unlikely that sanctions on oil or natural gas – the only ones that might have an impact on the regime in Teheran – would be imposed. And even if they were, he says, "oil is fungible. Saddam proved oil sanctions don't really work. So who are we kidding?"



By applying the same exclusionary logic as Solkoski Glick arrives at the diametrically opposite conclusion. She counsels: don't dribble out the clock three points down with five seconds to go. Go for the 60-foot jumpshot. From the "Jerusalem Post" archives:

Sokolski states at the outset that the option of a military strike against Iran must be dismissed because Iran's program is too far flung and its sites are too hardened. That is, since it may well be impossible to hit every nuclear target, it is not worth hitting any of them. As well, Iranian leaders daily threaten that any military action taken against Iran will be responded to in a devastating manner.

Yet, were an air strike on Iran to take out say, only 10 of 15 sites, it would still severely retard the Iranian nuclear effort, buying the West time to formulate and enact either a policy of engagement from a position of strength, or a policy of regime change with the requisite credibility among regime opponents that such a strike would inspire.

Heady stuff. But what Glick does not say -- though it would perforce follow -- is that any strike would make it logically necessary to subsequently topple the Teheran regime by any means necessary. A second Osirak would prove to the Mullahs that they would have to use any nuclear weapons that came to hand before they lost it, a danger avertable only by eliminating the Mullahs. Bombing sites in the hope of delay would be like swimming into an underwater tunnel on a lungful of air hoping for an exit on the far side. But the only man who could turn the card was maddeningly ambiguous. President Bush, in an interview on Fox News on Sept 27, reiterated his determination to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the most uninformative manner possible.


"My hope is that we can solve this diplomatically," Bush tells Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" in the first part of a three-part interview to begin airing tonight. "All options are on the table, of course, in any situation," Bush said. "But diplomacy is the first option."


What President Bush will do with the clock running out is anyone's guess. But it's three points down and five seconds to go.

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:36:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 7:37:08 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
From the Belmont Club

A second Osirak would prove to the Mullahs that they would have to use any nuclear weapons that came to hand before they lost it,



I have been pointing this out for months…… it's called the "Use Them or Lose Them" scenario.

Andy
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:40:41 AM EST
Iran is a huge shit sandwich and it looks as if we'll have to take a bite from it. While the timing is piss poor with our forces spread so thin, we don't have many options. We simply can't allow Iran to get nukes. I hope our military commanders can develop a brilliant plan for dealing with this situation. This folks is a very serious situation and not one I like to be in. But again, it appears we have little choice.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:40:46 AM EST
TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE!!

just kidding but I really think we should re-group and rebuild our military i think its just cruel to send marines on a 4th combat tour.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:42:32 AM EST
Don't count the Russians out of this fight.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:48:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE!!

just kidding but I really think we should re-group and rebuild our military i think its just cruel to send marines on a 4th combat tour.



Are you mad? The alternative is a terrorst state with nuclear weapons, who WILL use them since the alternative is to have them destroyed.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:49:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 7:54:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By shotar:
You mean Russia, who's chechen terrorists are funded by Iran, those russians? Yeah, the mullahs might be putting themselves in line for a wakeup call here. Time to get even for the hostages.



Somehow I doubt that overflight rights over Central Asia will be hard to get from Russia.
If that happens Iran is then totally surrounded since we already have access from the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:01:21 AM EST
What I want to know is, how come nobody in the mainstream press is asking why an oil-rich nation with ties to terrorism would want to embrace nuclear technology just for the hey of it??? Furthermore, why isn't the UN asking questions (I dislike the UN as much as anybody... but they are more and more seeming like an outright liability to me... let them attempt something good for a change.)

Oh well.

My solutions:

1: Build up forces on the Iraq-Iran border as well as the Afghani-Iran border using troops pulled from bases in Europe. Bomb the reactor completely flat. If the Iranians get belligerent, let the Russians (should their economy be sufficient to maintain a war like this) take care of it.

Mind you I am not 100% familiar with the current TO&E so ... it's just pulling it out of my rear at this point. I don't think we can/should fight a THREE front war at this time.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:04:23 AM EST
ONE WORD

Tactical Nukes

­

Ok that TWO
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:05:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 8:06:27 AM EST by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By macman37:
What I want to know is, how come nobody in the mainstream press is asking why an oil-rich nation with ties to terrorism would want to embrace nuclear technology just for the hey of it??? Furthermore, why isn't the UN asking questions (I dislike the UN as much as anybody... but they are more and more seeming like an outright liability to me... let them attempt something good for a change.)

Oh well.

My solutions:

1: Build up forces on the Iraq-Iran border as well as the Afghani-Iran border using troops pulled from bases in Europe. Bomb the reactor completely flat. If the Iranians get belligerent, let the Russians (should their economy be sufficient to maintain a war like this) take care of it.

Mind you I am not 100% familiar with the current TO&E so ... it's just pulling it out of my rear at this point. I don't think we can/should fight a THREE front war at this time.



Well it conditional with getting the IRAQIs to control their own country, that is why killing the terrorists or driving them from the country are so important- and why Iran and Syria are spending so much money and effort in instigating terror in Iraq. The only real end to terror attacks in Iraq is to invade Iran, same with Afghanistan.

Really, invading Iran would turn a two theater war into a SINGLE theater war since Iran is important to anti-American movements in both Afghanistan AND Iraq. However we still must maintain rear security.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:06:41 AM EST
One word.
Isreal.
Isreal has long had a First Strike policy, and they adhere to it. They take the war to the enemy WHEREVER he is, and however it has to be done. Remember that car bomb just a few days ago? Perfect example.
Isreal will already make sure Iran doesnt become a threat, and most likely when they do they will be doing it with full support from US/Russia.

Essentially, we're gonna pay/supply them to do our dirty work. Which is fine by me.

My thoughts anyways.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:07:13 AM EST
We will not let them go nuclear. If we did we would have to negotiate with them. I don't think the US

Government wants to negotiate with known terrorist. Yes we will or we will let Israel bomb them.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:13:35 AM EST
There's no need to "invade". We can take out the facilities from the air.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:14:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By knightsar:
I don't think the US

Government wants to negotiate with known terrorist.



We've done it before under a strong president. R.R.
why would now be any different?
Nothing would suprise me at this point from them (gov't) But that's just me.

Chris
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:14:44 AM EST
I think it is best to allow Israel to handle it, so we don't have to.
We've got enough going on right now.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:15:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By ovrtym:
There's no need to "invade". We can take out the facilities from the air.



+1

I'm in a +1 mood today and this responce most closely represents mine.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:16:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 8:16:58 AM EST by Chaingun]

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE!!

just kidding but I really think we should re-group and rebuild our military i think its just cruel to send marines on a 4th combat tour.



Time to activate the arfcom army and send them to Iran
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:17:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By ovrtym:
There's no need to "invade". We can take out the facilities from the air.



Which they will start building again as soon as the planes leave. And once they have bombs they WILL use them rather than risking losing them.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:17:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
i say there is either an Israeli or American attack on Iran w/i the next 6 months.



www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=278426

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:19:03 AM EST
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:19:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chaingun:

Originally Posted By mike45acp:
TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE!!

just kidding but I really think we should re-group and rebuild our military i think its just cruel to send marines on a 4th combat tour.



Time to activate the arfcom army and send them to Iran



Where do I sign?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:21:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.



The Iranians remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in Iraq in 91'. They will not rise against the Mullahs without a large US ground presence well inside Iraq.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:27:08 AM EST
This will grease the skids a little with the Russians

September 27, 2004
Guardian: Beslan militants 'called Middle East'
From the Guardian Unlimited:

Two of the militants who took part in the Beslan school hostage siege phoned the Middle East during the drama, a senior source from the Russian security services has said.
The official said two calls were made from Beslan in Arabic, and that “one call was to Saudi Arabia by one of the Arabs who was there”.


The report supports the Kremlin’s strongly held view that a link exists between terrorist groups sympathetic to al-Qaida and Chechen separatists.

This story has, of course, been reported in the Russian online media. At llenta.ru, for example, the story appeared with the headline rewritten to read: “Terrorists called Saudi Arabia from the Beslan school” (Russian original: Террористы звонили из бесланской школы в Саудовскую Аравию).

Cheers…

Posted by AlexPGP at September 27, 2004 06:27 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:28:14 AM EST
Sounds like ground penetrating nuclear bunker busters will come in handy.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:29:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.



The Iranians remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in Iraq in 91'. They will not rise against the Mullahs without a large US ground presence well inside Iraq.

do you think ground troops(beyond SF) is gonna happen in Iran?
i have a hard time thinking we will commit that much, like M4 i think airstrikes are most likely
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:29:15 AM EST
I can't believe that we haven't done anything about problem this yet.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:33:26 AM EST
Dont your guys know, JFK wants to talk to those poor misunderstood mullah's and work with them. GWB is just too judgemental and alienating them is the reason they lash out at the world.


On a serious note- ya think they and the DPRK would be smart enough to coordinate their troubles in order to spread our forces even thinner?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:33:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.



The Iranians remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in Iraq in 91'. They will not rise against the Mullahs without a large US ground presence well inside Iraq.

do you think ground troops(beyond SF) is gonna happen in Iran?
i have a hard time thinking we will commit that much, like M4 i think airstrikes are most likely



Yes there will be, because without them the Iranain people will stay home. There will actually be more divisions because we will not be forced to funnel everything through just one port facility. The most interesting event is if the Russians let us base the 101st Airborne in Central Asia- with Tehran within helicopter range across the Caspian Sea.

A lot depends on where the nuclear facilities are, along with the Mullahs themselves.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:37:21 AM EST
I piss on Iran and fart in their general direction.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:40:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/28/2004 8:43:30 AM EST by ABNAK]
It is imperative to CRUSH the insurgency in Iraq once and for all, and SOON. I have heard of plans to "clean up" insurgent strongholds (Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi, Sadr City, etc.) by the end of the year. About time. That is the only way we will free up resources for dealing with Iran effectively or at least showing we're serious.

One other unpopular option exists after Nov. 2nd: The "Pick 2 Million Lottery Game".
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:43:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.



The Iranians remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in Iraq in 91'. They will not rise against the Mullahs without a large US ground presence well inside Iraq.

do you think ground troops(beyond SF) is gonna happen in Iran?
i have a hard time thinking we will commit that much, like M4 i think airstrikes are most likely



Yes there will be, because without them the Iranain people will stay home. There will actually be more divisions because we will not be forced to funnel everything through just one port facility. The most interesting event is if the Russians let us base the 101st Airborne in Central Asia- with Tehran within helicopter range across the Caspian Sea.

A lot depends on where the nuclear facilities are, along with the Mullahs themselves.


very interesting. i still think the Israelis will beat us to the punch,.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:45:05 AM EST
I would expect the US to do it, not Israel.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:47:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.



The Iranians remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in Iraq in 91'. They will not rise against the Mullahs without a large US ground presence well inside Iraq.

do you think ground troops(beyond SF) is gonna happen in Iran?
i have a hard time thinking we will commit that much, like M4 i think airstrikes are most likely



Yes there will be, because without them the Iranain people will stay home. There will actually be more divisions because we will not be forced to funnel everything through just one port facility. The most interesting event is if the Russians let us base the 101st Airborne in Central Asia- with Tehran within helicopter range across the Caspian Sea.

A lot depends on where the nuclear facilities are, along with the Mullahs themselves.


very interesting. i still think the Israelis will beat us to the punch,.



Just like in 91' Israel will need our permission to strike Iran with anything other than ballistic missiles, and I don't even know that Israel has a BM with that kind of range. But perhaps we can get Israeli help on this endeavor?
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:51:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By ABNAK:
It is imperative to CRUSH the insurgency in Iraq once and for all, and SOON. I have heard of plans to "clean up" insurgent strongholds (Fallujah, Samarra, Ramadi, Sadr City, etc.) by the end of the year. About time. That is the only way we will free up resources for dealing with Iran effectively or at least showing we're serious.

One other unpopular option exists after Nov. 2nd: The "Pick 2 Million Lottery Game".



Most of the insurgents are coming from Iran, Syria, and a few other Arab countries. Working over Iran and Syria will effectively keep the Hadji's at home as the Great Infidel will be on their home turf. Syria and Iran have been the biggest sponsers of terrorism in the Middle East for decades.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:51:47 AM EST
As to the terrorists in Iraq,

U.S. Says Strikes Pro-Zarqawi Hideout in Iraq

FALLUJAH, Iraq (Sept. 28) - U.S. warplanes struck a suspected hideout for followers of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Fallujah on Tuesday, destroying the building and killing an unknown number of militants, the U.S. military said.


Doctor Tameem al-Naimi of Fallujah hospital said overnight U.S. strikes on the town west of Baghdad had killed a child and a man, and wounded eight others.

The military said U.S. forces "conducted a precision strike" on the confirmed "Zarqawi terrorist site" in southern Fallujah.

"Several credible intelligence sources confirmed that members of the terrorist group were operating at the site at the time of the strike," a statement from the military said.

It said it had specifically struck rising members of Zarqawi's organization, which has claimed responsibility for several of the bloodiest attacks in Iraq over the past year, including the beheading of several foreign hostages.

There were no immediate reports from doctors in Fallujah of any civilian deaths or casualties from the air attack.

The military has been at pains to discredit consistent reports from doctors and residents that women and children have been killed or wounded in repeated air strikes on Fallujah in the past couple of weeks.

A senior U.S. military official said last week he believed there were very few or next to no civilian casualties from the air raids, and suggested some doctors were reporting civilian casualties in an effort to malign the Americans.

In video footage shot after one air strike last week, a small child was rescued from the rubble of a building.

The same U.S. official said Zarqawi's network had been hit hard in recent weeks, with up to 100 of his associates killed in U.S. bombing operations.

The military, quoting unspecified sources, said those targeted on Tuesday were planning attacks using foreign suicide bombers. It said it did not know how many people had been killed.

"Based on detailed intelligence and analysis, multi-national forces accurately targeted this terrorist location while protecting the surrounding homes," the statement said.

"Intelligence indicated that only Zarqawi operatives and associates were at the site at the time of the strike."


09/28/04 02:39 ET

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance

Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:51:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I would like to see Iraq in a more stable state before we do anything but I don't believe we have that kind of time. We wouldn't need to put troops on the ground in Iran...several well timed airstrikes would eliminate their nuke capabilities and put the rat bastasds in such a tailspin they wouldn't be able to stay in power.



The Iranians remember what happened to their Shiia breatherin in Iraq in 91'. They will not rise against the Mullahs without a large US ground presence well inside Iraq.

do you think ground troops(beyond SF) is gonna happen in Iran?
i have a hard time thinking we will commit that much, like M4 i think airstrikes are most likely



Yes there will be, because without them the Iranain people will stay home. There will actually be more divisions because we will not be forced to funnel everything through just one port facility. The most interesting event is if the Russians let us base the 101st Airborne in Central Asia- with Tehran within helicopter range across the Caspian Sea.

A lot depends on where the nuclear facilities are, along with the Mullahs themselves.


very interesting. i still think the Israelis will beat us to the punch,.



Just like in 91' Israel will need our permission to strike Iran with anything other than ballistic missiles, and I don't even know that Israel has a BM with that kind of range. But perhaps we can get Israeli help on this endeavor?

if Isreal does it, i'm sure it would be airstrikes. And i'm not so sure we would't mind them taking care of Iran for us (especially depending on the situation in Iraq 3-4 monthsfrom now). let them do the leg work and we can quietly veto UN condemnation...
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:58:00 AM EST
Our Air Force is underworked. If we want airstrikes we will have no trouble pulling them off, but it seems unlikely that airstrikes alone will bring anything but a temporary respite. What we need to do is occupy the areas where the nuclear facilites are to keep them from being salvaged.

That requires ground troops, and while we could have SF guys visit each of the sites right on the heels of the bombardment, especailly that we could probably shake lose a few Ospreys by next year, such small light forces couldn't keep the place (although they could conduct a more throrough demolition with C4 and thermite).

And we also need to secure the oil production facilities just like in Iran.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 8:58:58 AM EST
US recently sold BLU-109s and JDAM kits to Israel. I would expect to see Israel do a surgical strike on Irans nuclear facilities similar to the one they did on Iraqs back in the early to mid 80's.
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 10:50:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By -Absolut-:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By M4arc:


I don't even know that Israel has a BM with that kind of range. But perhaps we can get Israeli help on this endeavor?



They do… their Jericho II would do the job.


www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/jericho-2.htm

Andy
Link Posted: 9/28/2004 11:03:32 AM EST
In fact, Iran has really been the 'biggest' problem over there for some time (decades). I was only a kid in the 70's but I remember the hostage situation back then (with Americans). I still have it out for those fucks.

Iraq needs Martial Law to speed up the process there.

Iran needs a shake up. In a big way. We would probably would have done more good taking them before Iraq.
Top Top