Obama's French Lesson

[Midnight Judges]

Mousavi and the reform movement are opposed to sanctions because they think it will hurt them the most. Would you armchair generals care to tell us what new sanctions would accomplish?

Just out of curiousity, what exactly distinguishes you from the armchair generals?

IMO, we're all armchair generals, unless we happen to have jobs that include foreign policy-making.

[Midnight Judges]

I honestly think that military action would do more harm then a nuclear Iran. I think a military action would greatly strengthen the weakened regime in Tehran while allowing them to go full bore into getting a nuclear weapon. Iran learned from Iraq and their nuclear program and their nuclear program will be much tougher to hit effectively. Iran can open up and cause havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan if they wanted to as well as ramping up funding and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas. I think a nuclear Iran is a net negative but a military strike on Iran has the potential to turn out a whole lot worse.

IMO, there is something to this. If Iran is bombed, it will increase nationalism and support for the current regime.

Armchair QB time: If I'm Obama, I continue on the current path of diplomacy but also use our intelligence agencies to funnel material support to Iranian reform movements.

[SparkleMotion]

Just out of curiousity, what exactly distinguishes you from the armchair generals?

IMO, we're all armchair generals, unless we happen to have jobs that include foreign policy-making.

You're right, I'm just as distanced from the process as they are. I guess the difference would be the level of skepticism applied to the discussion before getting on board with more aggression against Iran. Some people, for reasons that are beyond my ability to comprehend, seem determined to err on the side of going to war. To me, an armchair general is someone who is too quick to resort to the military is the solution to every foreign policy problem.

[twa]

I honestly think that military action would do more harm then a nuclear Iran. I think a military action would greatly strengthen the weakened regime in Tehran while allowing them to go full bore into getting a nuclear weapon. Iran learned from Iraq and their nuclear program and their nuclear program will be much tougher to hit effectively. Iran can open up and cause havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan if they wanted to as well as ramping up funding and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas. I think a nuclear Iran is a net negative but a military strike on Iran has the potential to turn out a whole lot worse.

Quite possibly,but then the inverse is true as well.

The regime in Iran is very unlikely to fall for a long while(despite the opposition),and their efforts in surrounding countries will only increase with nuclear cover.

There will of course be opposition to this expansion of influence(both in the political and religious spheres),which there are signs of now from several players.

Iran is not going to settle for the status quo,and their actions will result in opposing reactions and instability and conflicts.

We cannot pretend Iran has no larger goals,nor ignore the effects from them.

A effective strike could be costly enough to refocus their priorities and their spending....though it will have the effect of rallying the people,w/o the assurance of changing their pursuit of nukes.(simply delaying it)

I do question your assumption SA will not go nuclear in response,it is a certainty they will do so imo.

Interesting times

I look forward to see how alliances shift as the great game;) goes on.

I look for a few surprises from odd bedfellows.

[SparkleMotion]

A effective strike could be costly enough to refocus their priorities and their spending....though it will have the effect of rallying the people,w/o the assurance of changing their pursuit of nukes.(simply delaying it)

It will only make them more determined to get nukes. We'll end up playing whack-a-mole with Iranian nuclear facilities for decades to come.

[jpyaks3]

Quite possibly,but then the inverse is true as well.

The regime in Iran is very unlikely to fall for a long while(despite the opposition),and their efforts in surrounding countries will only increase with nuclear cover.

There will of course be opposition to this expansion of influence(both in the political and religious spheres),which there are signs of now from several players.

Iran is not going to settle for the status quo,and their actions will result in opposing reactions and instability and conflicts.

We cannot pretend Iran has no larger goals,nor ignore the effects from them.

A effective strike could be costly enough to refocus their priorities and their spending....though it will have the effect of rallying the people,w/o the assurance of changing their pursuit of nukes.(simply delaying it)

I do question your assumption SA will not go nuclear in response,it is a certainty they will do so imo.

Interesting times

I look forward to see how alliances shift as the great game;) goes on.

I look for a few surprises from odd bedfellows.

It is undeniable that Iran has larger interests in the region. It is also undeniable that a nuclear Iran would be a stronger Iran within the context of the region. I think Iran is at its stretching point for influence within the region. There is already some backlash that we are seeing from its policies (anti-syrian and by extension Iranian Cedar Revolution is one example) I think the Iranian regime realizes that being too heavy handed could have effects like this across the region. One of the reasons that Iran has been successful in their foreign efforts across the region is that they have allowed the movements to work on their own and have not been heavy handed in their approach to proxies. I think right now groups like Hezbollah have a very real stake in the Lebanon government and wouldn't jeopardize that by overplaying their hand if Iran is able increase their power. A nuclear Iran would strengthen their position relative to Israel but I am not sure how much more they can expand their reach in the region without having reactions like the Cedar Revolution where they are rejected by the populous at large. Right now Iran has a stake in a stable Iraq and Afghanistan as it is never a positive to have an unstable state on your border unless you are in direct conflict, with an American or Israeli attack Iran has an easy avenue for retaliation. Right now I think a nuclear Iran does not change their actions within the region dramatically, while an attack on Iran would drastically alter their actions for the negative. They would try to destabilize the region as effectively as they could.

As for Saudi Arabia I think it can be argued either way, I lean towards they would rely on United States protection but it can certainly go the other way.

This is a pretty good article on Saudi Arabia's nuclear options.

http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2008/ioi/080209-lippman-nuclear.html

[twa]

It will only make them more determined to get nukes. We'll end up playing whack-a-mole with Iranian nuclear facilities for decades to come.

Yes,but it does drain massive amounts of money from their pool as well as create time....would they be anymore likely to use nukes later?

There is no win-win scenario other than Iran accepting international will and changing it's focus and course.,,,there are some impressive and beneficial offers out there.

[twa]

A nuclear Iran would strengthen their position relative to Israel but I am not sure how much more they can expand their reach in the region without having reactions like the Cedar Revolution where they are rejected by the populous at large. Right now Iran has a stake in a stable Iraq and Afghanistan as it is never a positive to have an unstable state on your border unless you are in direct conflict, with an American or Israeli attack Iran has an easy avenue for retaliation.

Right now I think a nuclear Iran does not change their actions within the region dramatically, while an attack on Iran would drastically alter their actions for the negative. They would try to destabilize the region as effectively as they could.

Strengthen their position on Israel how?

If Israel is not capable of a effective strike now;),and certainly has no interest in destroying Iran,why is this a major factor?

What position do you mean other than pressuring Israel to accede to demands/blackmail and increased ops against them?

Careful with that answer...if Iran is considered a existential threat with either option there will be a strike....just another no-win situation.

Boxing Iran or Israel in a corner is not gonna have good results.

[jpyaks3]

Strengthen their position on Israel how?

If Israel is not capable of a effective strike now;),and certainly has no interest in destroying Iran,why is this a major factor?

What position do you mean other than pressuring Israel to accede to demands/blackmail and increased ops against them?

Careful with that answer...if Iran is considered a existential threat with either option there will be a strike....just another no-win situation.

Boxing Iran or Israel in a corner is not gonna have good results.

By strengthening their position I meant along the lines of no nuclear advantage for Israel, which imo doesn't mean much but it gives Iran a deterrence to Israel. I think Israel is smart enough to avoid a major strike into Iran and I certainly don't think that Israel would use a nuclear weapon, but in Tehran they have to hold the belief that it is possible in the future Israel will strike in Iran, just as they have done in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon. A nuclear weapon goes a long way in deterring this which is I believe Iran's primary goal in getting a weapon; to offset Israels nuclear advantage. I think a nuclear weapon for Tehran is simply a way to show off its strength and protect itself from attack.

I agree that boxing Iran or Israel into a corner is going to be bad but both sides are already at a stalemate with Israel threatening Iran and Iran threatening Israel, I think a nuclear Iran would force both sides into non action as the stakes are raised enormously for both sides and military action almost comes off the table. There is the chance that a nuclear Iran would become belligerent thinking it can't be touched but I don't think that is the most likely outcome, I think Iran is set on slowly increasing its power in the region and becoming belligerent would cause major problems in the region and would not work towards this goal.

[twa]

Not following your thinking.

Iran fears Israel will strike in the future for some reason,yet will not NOW when it possibly could prevent the determent and threat a nuke would bring?

What would drive Israel to attack Iran but a credible existential threat?

Think they are gonna invade?

Not logical.

The only reason Israel threatens Iran now is a perceived threat from them(and they have several other nations as company to a lesser degree)

There is NO nuclear advantage for Israel other than a existential one.

Anyone tossing nukes in the area and Israel loses(unless they have VERY bad aim;))

[jpyaks3]

Not following your thinking.

Iran fears Israel will strike in the future for some reason,yet will not NOW when it possibly could prevent the determent and threat a nuke would bring?

What would drive Israel to attack Iran but a credible existential threat?

Think they are gonna invade?

Not logical.

The only reason Israel threatens Iran now is a perceived threat from them(and they have several other nations as company to a lesser degree)

There is NO nuclear advantage for Israel other than a existential one.

Anyone tossing nukes in the area and Israel loses(unless they have VERY bad aim;))

I agree that this would be the most logical time for an Israeli strike if one were to come, but I believe Iranian leadership wants nuclear weapons to protect themselves against any strike in the future. For Iran a nuclear weapon would mean at worst they have a strong deterrent if Israel were to attack. Israel has a history of striking in other states and I think Iran believes that they may not be immune to that so if they can get a nuclear weapon it insulates them from this threat. Now Israel may strike now but there is not much Iran can do about it, Iran is making steps so that they can prevent a future strike down the line. I think Iran is trying to protect against future threats and is willing to risk that Israel or the United States will not attack in near future.

[twa]

Again, What future threats?

Israel has a history of striking threats...so you make yourself a threat????

Either Iran fears someone else,or have a different purpose than you present.

[mjah]

This is where you lose me. We DO have the force to truly end the Iranian nuclear threat by military means. Will it create other problems? Sure, absolutely. But you reach too far when you say we can't end an Iranian nuclear threat. That just isn't true.

Well, let's be careful to recognize what I'm saying, first of all. Specifically: you can't just dismiss the "other problems" aspect as if it's not part of the conversation. That's exactly my point, which I explicitly made earlier. A military solution can't cause a major risk of bigger problems, or else it's not a solution at all.

If not for that important rule, then this discussion would be pretty pointless: for the sake of argument we could just run a thought experiment in which we nuke the everloving snot out of Iran and then wait to see what kind of nuclear threat a lifeless layer of silica glass could muster. I know you're not arguing this line of reasoning, but it certainly does constitute a military solution that we could put in motion right now -- provided that we don't care about the greater problems that would follow! I'm requiring the "no major risk of greater problems" angle in order to short-circuit this kind of silliness. Interestingly, the rule also cuts out pretty much any permanent military solution to nuclear Iran that I can envision.

Anyway, long story short: preventing greater problems later is part of solving the problem now. Fail to do that, and we're not solving anything. We've learned that many times, most notably after WWI.

And ending the nuclear threat Iran poses (not a threat -- the threat, once and for all, completely and comprehensively) by military force, with our current military situation -- I'd like to see a plan to do that. If it can be done by attacking from afar, I'd like to know why we didn't do that in Iraq. (You know, 'cuz of the dire nuclear threat they posed and all. )

So I'd like to read about your military plan to end the threat, if you're willing to share it. I'd also like to mention that it's nice to have a conversation with someone like you, who is willing to act as an honest broker for your point of view. Not everyone in the thread can claim as much, so thank you.