Iran

[Rainbow Moonlight]

You remember the "dry run" Israel did recently over Iran? Iran's response seems very contained.

The chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards has issued a new warning against Israel not to attack it, saying the Jewish state is well within range of its missiles, a newspaper reported on Saturday.
"This country (Israel) is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime -- despite all its abilities -- cannot confront it," General Mohammad Ali Jafari told the conservative daily Jam-e Jam....

"Iran will not begin any conflict but will punish any aggressor with force. With determination and using all the options -- without limit in time and space -- we will give a destructive response to any hostile action," Mostafa Mohammad Najar said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080628/wl ... 0628074850

[Rainbow Moonlight]

And this from a later article:

The commander of the Revolutionary Guards said Iran would impose controls on shipping in the vital Gulf oil transit route if the Islamic Republic came under attack, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear ambitions has risen since a report this month said Israel had practiced such a strike.

"Naturally every country under attack by an enemy uses all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Regarding the main route for exiting energy, Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz," commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari told Jam-e Jam newspaper.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080628/wl_ ... s_oil_dc_3

These seem rational responses and also tend to reveal that Iran is not using weapons it already could be against Israel. Maybe Iran is not a risk for pro-active attacks against Israel at all. I think it would be reasonable to expect a more extreme response than a verbal one to the dry run if they were as aggressive as portrayed because the dry run was a provocative action.

[JW Frogen]

Of course Iran will not openly attack right now, while Israel can take out their nuclear program.

All we have to do is listen the Iranian President, once they have the bomb, and then it is time to exterminate Israel. He openly brags about it.

Complete extermination.

Where as Israel had threatened to extinguish no people or UN recognized states.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I think Iran is being over represented as a threat, just as Iraq was. The language both from Israel and the US is getting more and more to sound like an attack on Iran is well and truly planned. But some folk were saying that when Iraq was invaded. I think there was a link right back then which showed US had plans, but that such plans were being defended as hypothetical and needing to cover all scenarios or something.

[helian]

There are significant problems with an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites (or an attack on Iran at all). Firstly, there is no way that the US would not become embroiled in the conflict resulting from such an attack which would mean that American troops in Iraq would endure a redoubled effort by Shi’ite militia to attack American soldiers.

Secondly, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence in its National Intelligence Estimate report determined that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003, does not possess a nuclear weapon and Iran's determination to pursue a nuclear weapons program is on the decline suggesting that Iran is responsive to non-military actions. This has severely undermined Bush's assertion that Iran is recalcitrant and continuing to develop a nuclear weapons program.

Thirdly, a strike on Iran would not just end at that. It would most likely be the beginning of another war of attrition in the Middle East that would continue for years.

There are other important considerations as well. For example, apparently some of the nuclear sites are close to large civilian populations. What would be the outcome for the US and Israel if a strike on a non-military nuclear site resulted in a “Chernobyl” where many thousands of Iranians were killed by fallout?

Although Iran has made several attempts to negotiate, the current Bush administration has ignored all Iranian overtures (and went so far as to label them part of an "axis of evil"). There was a belief within the Bush administration that after the "great success" in Iraq, the overthrow of the Islamic Republic could begin, so no negotiation would be necessary. However, the fiasco of the Iraq invasion has strengthened the Iranian hand. Saddam, the great enemy of Iran has been eliminated, the Iraqi Shi'ite majority is free to ally itself with Iran with most of its Shi'ite government having been exiled there being very well disposed towards Iran and the Iraq invasion itself is now increasingly being considered illegitimate by the American people and within the "coalition of the willing".

I think the only way out of the Iran issue is negotiation. The US has a lot on its side with this scenario, despite the fact that the two Bush Administrations have strengthened the Iranian cause in every way with their poor Middle Eastern foreign policy.

The general Iranian population (ironically) is pro US, it is the current administration that has a problem with the west. Iran was the only Muslim state to offer a spontaneous display of sympathy to the US after 9/11. There are strong pro democratic forces in Iran as well. All this street goodwill could be squandered with an ill-considered attack on Iran.

Also, according to polls conducted in Iran, only a third of the population believes that Iran should pursue a nuclear military program. Their main concern is the failing economy which the current Iranian Administration has failed to address.

The Iranian people want detente with the west and an unnecessary war will set back, probably for decades, the goodwill of the Iranian people. We can only be thankful that the administration of this most incompetent of US Presidents will terminate in a matter of months and the likelihood of a strike against Iran before that moment is becoming increasingly unlikely.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

Nice analysis there helian. This is dusk.

[JW Frogen]

Secondly, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence in its National Intelligence Estimate report determined that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003,

No, actually it didn't, it concluded the Iranains ceased their missle delivery program, the last part of a nuclear program any nuclear power developes because it is the easiest part to develope. If one actually reads the report they can make no conclusive assement as to Iran's uranium enrichment capacity.

Iran openly admits they are developing their nuclear capacity, in defiance of the UN, though being coy about what the falafel this actually means. They have just stated "no one can stop them."

Secondly, the Shia dominated government in Iraq is so sick of Iranian interference they have started to take on the Shia militias (a very tough decision), these Shia militias have never inflicted much damage on US forces (unlike Sunni forces) they have concentrated on killing other Iraqis, so an increase in such attacks will only isolate Iran more from the majority Sunni states in the region, all of whom fear Iran.

Finally Iran openly admits not only are they determined to pursue their nuclear program, but they have a leader who openly admits he wants to exterminate Israel, Israel will never allow them to have such a weapon.

The last leader so honest about his hate was Hilter, intellectuals then said he did not mean what he was saying (with the exception of Orwell), those of who now think they are intellectuals are looking for a way to think your way out of strategic reality, rhetoric to save you from reality, and you are once again wrong.

It is just this time, you are not in power.

[helian]

The first key judgement of the National Intelligence Estimate stated that “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program”. The Estimate does not appear to refer to Iran’s nuclear missile program. Can you give a source for the more specific information?

The Shia dominated government are very well disposed towards Iran (that sheltered them during the Saddam years). Influential Shi’ite clerics like Muqtada al-Sadr are still vehemently against the current foreign forces. No one is predicting that an attack on Iran will result in less violence in Iraq on US forces. As the Shia (not Sunnis) are the majority in Iraq, what reason do you have for optimism on this point?

Iran has indicated it is ready to negotiate and has delivered its response to EU proposals on Friday July 4. If positive, the likelihood of an Israeli/US attack will be further reduced.

Hitler? Are you forgetting Nassar? Or Syria? Or the sentiments of nearly every Middle Eastern state at one time or another?

[JW Frogen]

Actually Helend you are correct, I was pissed as a newt last night and got it backwards, the NIE did not mention Iran’s missle program, one reason the report is so defective. Because her missile program reveals her intentions with her nuclear program. (Why does an oil exporter need nuclear power?

http://www.heritage.org/research/MiddleEast/bg2098.cfm

Here are some of the key problems with the NIE report, remember the intelligence community is at war with the Bush Administration ever since he attempted to reform their practice after the Iraqi WMD fiasco.

“The NIE's key judgments do not address Iran's extensive ballistic missile program and its efforts to develop nuclear-capable missile cones. Iran's Shahab-3 missile, which is a derivative of the North Korean Nodong missile, has an estimated range of 1,300 kilometers. Iran also has purchased the Musudan, a missile with a range of 3,000 kilometers, from North Korea.
“Given the relative inaccuracy of Iran's ballistic missiles at such great distances, it makes little military sense to invest so heavily in such missile programs unless the warheads are armed with nuclear weapons. "Historically," one defense expert has noted, "every state that has developed missiles of this range or greater has sought to arm them with nuclear warheads."[20]
“The NIE's key judgments also omit any reference to Iran's reported efforts to design nuclear-capable warheads for its missiles. In 2004, an Iranian defector provided a laptop computer that contained designs for a nuclear warhead and documents related to the "Green Salt Project," a secret Iranian program that involved uranium enrichment. The IAEA still has not received adequate Iranian explanations of these revelations. Iran also has continued its efforts to purchase dual-use and nuclear weapons technologies since 2003.”
“The report reveals in a footnote that this sweeping conclusion was reached in part by defining "nuclear weapons program" to exclude "Iran's declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment," a definition that has been denounced by prominent nuclear experts as "ludicrously narrow."[2]“Even IAEA officials, who have long treated Iran with kid gloves and accorded it the benefit of the doubt, have been critical of the controversial NIE. One unnamed senior IAEA official quoted in The New York Times carped: "To be frank, we are more skeptical. We don't buy the American analysis 100 percent. We are not that generous with Iran."[3]

If Iran has no harmful weapons intent why not obey IAEA directives?

Time to get real here.

Now a nuclear Iran is not only unacceptable to Israel, it is to the Sunni states as well, so if Iran is allowed to pursue her nuclear ambitions we are going to see the oil rich Sunni Gulf state respond in kind, and we are going to have a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.
Who believes this is a good idea?

As to your last point, no I haven’t forgotten Nasser, and his unending military defeats nor have I forgotton Sadat, who made peace with Israel, one that holds between these two countries to this day.

Iran can decide, peace, or Israel (and I think even Bush) will decide for them.

“

[JW Frogen]

As to the Iraqi government being sympathetic to Iran, they have to consider an Iran who has interfered with her affairs, supported terror against a democratically elected government, and who the US has been too weak with, but they are hardly sympathetic, have you not heard of the recent orders of the Iraqi government for Sadr to de-arm, they even attacked his forces to do so.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/21/8421/

“The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, sounds confident that he can win a confrontation with the Sadrists since he is backed by the US, the main Sunni party and the Kurds, all of whom have doubted his leadership in the past. Iran has also openly supported his offensive in Basra while criticising the American air assault on Sadr City.
In the past, Mr Maliki has often been over-confident of his ability to act without American military support. He became prime minister thanks to Mr Sadr’s support but this was withdrawn when Mr Maliki failed to set a timetable for an American withdrawal.”


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gkx- ... wD91MK0880
“Violence in Iraq has dropped to its lowest level in more than four years as a result of the 2007 buildup of American forces, the Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and Iraqi government crackdowns against Sunni extremists and Shiite militias, among other factors.”



Iraq is a multi ethnic democracy, the Kurds and Sunni (the latter who now with the Unbar Awakening will vote in large numbers on Oct 1, and get more representation in the democratic government) certainly do not want to see Iranian dominance, but the strange thing is even in the Shia South most Shia have called for Iran to stay out of their affairs.