Re: @@ JEW Robert Kagan tries to recycle the same old failed plots against Iran @@

"Arash" <A7000@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:UOtDf.1538$_l.5087@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Washington Post
> January 29, 2006

Now that you've ranted and raved about delusional fantasies that exist only
in your mind, let's take a look at reality, shall we?


> If an air and missile strike could destroy Iran's nuclear weapons program,
> it might
> seem the best of many bad options. But the likely costs outweigh the
> benefits.

Of course an air strike can destroy Iran's capability to build a global
nuclear arsenal. To doubt that proves a total lack of knowledge on your
part.


> Is the intelligence on Iran so much better than it was on Iraq? The
> Clinton
> administration launched Operation Desert Fox against Iraq in 1998 to
> degrade its
> weapons programs, and even today we don't know what it achieved. As
> President Clinton
> later put it, "We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of
> it; we might
> have gotten none of it. But we didn't know".
>
> Would Desert Fox II in Iran, even on a larger scale, produce a very
> different result?
> The Pentagon can hit facilities it can see with relative confidence. But
> much of
> Iran's program is underground, and some of it we don't know about. Even if
> a strike
> set back Iran's plans, we would not know by how much. For all the price we
> would pay,
> we wouldn't even know what we'd achieved.

We will know exactly what we have achieved, we will have prevented Iran from
building a global nuclear arsenal. Try to fathom the existance of spy
satellites and spy planes capable of flying over Iran with impunity. US spy
planes are over Iran every day, and have been for decades. We watched them
build their underground facilities. We know where all of them are. We have
been watching hostile nations build underground facilities since WWII. It
is not possible to construct a "secret" underground facility. Well... we
can do it, but nobody else can. So we know where all of their underground
facitlities are, and we have weapons capable of destroying them. Welcome
back to reality.


> And we would pay a price. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs
> would declare
> victory, as Saddam did in 1998, and probably would gain some sympathy and
> admiration
> from the Muslim world and beyond.

They will claim victory when they are attacked and their entire nuclear
program has been destroyed? They are welcome too, but they should realize
that the entire world will be laughing at them when they do.


> Instead of pushing for sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council,
> the
> administration might be fending off resolutions censuring it for
> "aggression".
>
> Then there is the prospect of Iranian retaliation: terrorist attacks,
> military
> activity in Iraq, attempts to close off the Persian Gulf shipping lanes
> and disrupt
> oil supplies. Unless we were prepared to escalate, ultimately to the point
> of taking
> down the regime, we could end up in worse shape than when we began.

Iran is a minor nation of insignificant military power. They are incapable
of responding in any significant way. All they are capable of doing is
supporting terrorism, which they already do, so in reality nothing will
change. Nothing noticable will happen. Even if they are capable of a
noticable response, which they are not, it wouldn't matter, because anything
is worth preventing Iran from building a global nuclear arsenal. We are
willing to destroy the entire planet over this issue, anything less than
that is a victory for us. The only way we "lose" in this game is if we
destroy the entire planet. Welcome back to reality.


> But the inadequacy of the military strike option does not mean we can
> simply turn to
> diplomacy. Diplomacy by itself has no better chance of success. The
> present Iranian
> regime appears committed to acquiring a nuclear weapon. It has been
> undeterred by the
> prospect of international isolation or economic sanctions and apparently
> deems these
> hardships an acceptable cost. If so, even bigger carrots will not persuade
> it to
> forgo a program it considers vital to its interests.

What "inadequacy"? We are most certainly capable of destroying the entire
Iranian nuclear program. We don't even need to do that, we could take out
just a few key components and, without those key components, Iran will be
incapable of building a nuclear weapon. It is, here in reality, a very
simple thing for us to do. It isn't even hard. We can also, of course,
return every few years to destroy anything they attempt to rebuild. We can
continue doing this for the rest of eternity, although I suspect that the
near billion dollar loss the Iranains are about to suffer will teach them
that they are, in fact, not capable of building a global nuclear arsenal.


> Fear of U.S. military action is probably the only reason Iran even
> pretended to
> negotiate with the Europeans (and a big reason why the Europeans have
> negotiated with
> Iran), but it has not been enough to stop their program.

Which is why we have no choice but to destroy it. You really are totally
and completely clueless, aren't you?

"War is a continuation of diplomacy through other means."


> We need to reorient our strategy. Our justifiable fixation on preventing
> Iran from
> getting the bomb has somehow kept us from pursuing a more fundamental and
> more
> essential goal: political change in Iran. We need to start supporting
> liberal and
> democratic change for an Iranian population that we know seeks both.

We have been doing that since 9/11, you moron. It isn't happening fast
enough. Iran MIGHT be only months away from a nuclear weapon. Since we
don't know for sure, we MUST assume the worst case scenario and base our
decisions on the assumption that they are only months away. We gave the
Iranian people time to overthrow their government, they have not done so.
You total lack of knowlege has no effect on reality. Here in reality, we
are already doing this and have been for years now.


> No one wants to see Iran get a bomb, but it does matter who is in power.
> We don't
> worry that France or Great Britain has nuclear weapons. We tolerate
> India's and
> Israel's arsenals largely because we have some faith that their democratic
> governments will not use them.

Yes they do. Lots of people do. They are all over internet. Are you
blind? Can you not read? There are many people who envision themselves as
being a part of a "glorious vision" where Iran becomes a global power due to
it's global nuclear arsenal. Who ever wrote this is, in fact, one of those
people. This article is very well done enemy propoganda, not as obvious as
the usual "death to america" variety. The author of this article wants Iran
to have a global nuclear arsenal, and envisions himself as a part of the
"glorious revolution". A wild fantasy that has no chance of becoming a
reality.


> Were Iran ruled by even an imperfect democratic government, we would be
> much less
> concerned about its weaponry. It might dismantle its program voluntarily,
> as did
> Ukraine and South Africa. But even if it didn't, a liberal and democratic
> Iran would
> be less paranoid about its security and therefore less reliant on nuclear
> weapons to
> defend itself.

If Iran was an American ally we might allow them to have nuclear weapons,
then again we might not. But since that is not the case it is a pointless
thing to even waste time talking about.


> The Bush administration, despite its doctrine of democratization, has not
> yet tried
> to apply it in the one place where ideals and strategic interest most
> clearly
> intersect. It has done little to push for political change or to exploit
> the evident
> weaknesses in the mullahs' regime.
>
> The steps are obvious: Communicate directly to Iran's very westernized
> population,
> through radio, the Internet and other media; organize international
> support for
> unions and human rights and other civic groups, as well as religious
> groups that
> oppose the regime; provide covert support to those willing to use it; and
> impose
> sanctions, not so much to stop the nuclear program -- since they probably
> won't --
> but to squeeze the business elite that supports the regime.

How do you know that this is not the plan? The Iranian people have been
unable to take their country back from the evil radical muslims... perhaps
they will be able to with the US Air Force assisting them. We have the
capability to terminate all Iranian radio and TV and begin broadcasting our
own radio and TV throughout the country. How do you know the plan isn't
exactly what you are describing? We could take out their air defenses,
their nuclear program, and their means of maintianing control of the
civilian population, and then begin broadcasting to the people that now is
the time to take back their country and the people have the full support of
the US Air Force. Maybe that is exactly what we are going to do... That
thought never crossed your puny little mind, did it?


> Some worry about sparking another Hungarian-style uprising or Tiananmen
> Square
> massacre. True, the mullahs might quash dissident movements we support,
> just as they
> have quashed dissident movements we did not support. But the Iranian
> people would not
> be worse off than they are now, and if some want to risk their lives for
> freedom, who
> are we to tell them they shouldn't?

We've been doing that for years now. It isn't working. Time is running
out. As I just laid out above, we may very well give the Iranian people the
best chance they will ever have to rid their proud nation of Persia from the
muslim invaders who now control it. We may offer "as much or as little
assistance as they request" in taking their country back... and people say
Gene Roddenberry never had any practical ideas:-)


> This doesn't mean giving up on diplomacy. A strategy aimed at changing the
> Iranian
> regime is entirely compatible with ongoing diplomatic efforts to slow
> Iran's weapons
> programs. It might even aid diplomacy, since Iran's leaders fear internal
> unrest more
> than external pressure. In the 1970s and '80s, the West pursued arms
> control while it
> supported dissidents and liberalization in the Soviet bloc. The one did
> not preclude
> the other.

And we have already been doing so for years now. There is a clock on this,
we can't wait forever.


> But we shouldn't delude ourselves. Efforts to foment political change
> won't
> necessarily bear fruit in time to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. That
> may be the
> risk we have to take. But if this or the next administration decides it is
> too
> dangerous to wait for political change, then the answer will have to be an
> invasion,
> not merely an air and missile strike, to put an end to Iran's nuclear
> program as well
> as to its regime. If Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon is truly
> intolerable, that
> is the only military answer.

That's where you go horribly wrong. Iran with a global nuclear arsenal is
most certainly not a risk we are going to take. That's not how the nuclear
game is played. The nuclear game is played in absolutes, that's the only
reason that we are all still here. Iran will absolutely not have a nuclear
arsenal. As for an invasion on the ground being necessary, that is simply
proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Iran, or any other
nation, can very easily be prevented from building nuclear weapons through
airstrikes alone. Very specific equipment is needed to build nuclear
weapons, and it is not possible to hide that equipment from US spy satelites
and planes. We know where all of it is, even the underground components,
and are fully capable of destroying it. Without that equipment, Iran cannot
possibly build nuclear weapons. Welcome back to reality.


> The nonmilitary answer in Iran is political change. That is where we
> should now be
> directing our energy, our diplomacy, our intelligence and our substantial
> economic
> resources. Yes, time is growing short, and partly because so many years
> have already
> been squandered. But better to start now than to squander more.

You are several years late, which is not suprising since you clearly know
nothing of these matters. The actual experts began your plan many years
ago, because they actually know what they are doing and didn't need wait
until the problem was hitting them over the head with a hammer to recognize
it... like you had too. All you've really succeeding in doing is
demonstrating that you have no knowledge of these matters and, in fact,
aren't even capable of recognizing a problem until it is too late to deal
with it. It is WAY too late to start tryiung to overthrow them from
within... but, then again, the actual experts, unlike you, began that effort
years before the thought ever even entered your clueless little brain.


.

Relevant Pages

  • @@ U.S. & Iran: Democracy, Terrorism, & Nukes @@
    ... Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons ... Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani as the new head of Iran is undeniably a setback for those ... necessarily be seen as a turn to the right by the Iranian electorate, ... political freedom, its support for terrorism and subversion, and its nuclear program. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • NBC: Iranian Ironies
    ... Michael Schwartz on Iranian Ironies ... matter of the Iranian nuclear program may even go to the UN Security Council ... The geopolitical fundamentalists of the Bush administration have been ... fundamentalists of Iran at least since the President, ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • @@ NSC & Brookings Flynt Leverett on Americas mis-steps @@
    ... The Gulf Between Us ... 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush announced that Iran was part of an ... In the spring of 2003, shortly before I left government, the Iranian Foreign Ministry ... order to pursue talks that might lead to an economic, nuclear and strategic deal. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • [southnews] Zbigniew Brzezinski: Do not attack Iran
    ... Iranian nuclear facilities: ... Do not attack Iran ... If there is another terrorist attack in the United States, ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Pentagon three-day blitz plan for Iran--GREAT!!
    ... The Iranian clergy will happily use nuclear ... Pentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran ... Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, ...
    (uk.religion.islam)