If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
We should attack Iran - but we can't
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
There's an outstanding article in the Spectator this week by Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz on Iran. Dershowitz is unfortunately right, he speaks the grim truth.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=7660&issue=2006-04-22
We can’t attack Iran - Alan Dershowitz
Face it. Iran will get the bomb. It has already test-fired rockets capable of targeting the entire Middle East and much of southern Europe. And it claims to have 40,000 suicide volunteers eager to deploy terrorism — even nuclear terrorism — against its enemies. With a nuclear capacity, the Islamic Republic of Iran will instantly achieve the status of superpower to which Iraq aspired.
Nothing will deter Iran. Sanctions are paper protests to an oil-rich nation. Diplomacy has already failed because Russia and China are playing both sides. Sabotage, bribery — even assassination of nuclear scientists — may delay but will not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That leaves military threats and, ultimately, military action.
First, consider military threats. They are already coming from two sources: the US and Israel. Neither is working, for very different reasons.
The Iranians would probably give up their nuclear weapons programme if their leaders truly believed that refusal to do so would produce an Iraq-like attack — an all-out invasion, regime change and occupation. Leaders, even religious leaders, fear imprisonment and death. Only the United States is capable of mounting such a sustained attack.
But the continuing war in Iraq has made it impossible for the US to mount a credible threat, because American public opinion would not accept a second war — or so the Iranians believe. Moreover, America’s allies in the war against Iraq — most particularly Great Britain — would not support an attack on Iran.
That is precisely why the Bush administration is barking so loudly. It wants to convince the Iranian leadership that it is preparing to bite — to attack, invade and destroy their regime, perhaps even with the use of tactical nuclear weapons. But it’s not working. It is only causing the Iranian leaders themselves to bark louder; to exaggerate their progress towards completing a nuclear weapon and to threaten terrorist retaliation by its suicide volunteers if Iran were to be attacked.
The war in Iraq is a two-edged sword when it comes to Iran. One edge demonstrates that the US is willing and able to topple dictatorial regimes which it regards as dangerous. That is the edge the Bush administration is trying to showcase. The other edge represents the failure of Iraq — widespread public distrust of intelligence claims, fear of becoming bogged down in another endless war, strident opposition at home and abroad. That is the edge being seen by the Iranian leaders. The US threat is seen as hollow.
That leaves the Israeli threat, which is real, but limited. Who could blame Israel for seeking to destroy the emerging nuclear capacity of an enemy nation whose leader, as recently as 14 April 2006, threatened to eliminate ‘the Zionist regime’ by ‘one storm’ — a clear reference to a nuclear attack. His predecessor, the more moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani ‘speculated [in 2001] that in a nuclear exchange with Israel his country might lose 15 million people, which would amount to a small “sacrifice” from among the one billion Muslims worldwide in exchange for the lives of five million Israeli Jews’. According to the journalist who interviewed him, ‘he seemed pleased with his formulation’.
These threats of a nuclear attack are being taken seriously by Israeli leaders, even if they are neither imminent nor certain. Israelis remember apocalyptic threats from an earlier dictator that were not taken seriously. This time those threatened have the military capacity to confront the danger and are likely to do so if it becomes more likely. Even if Israelis believe there is only a 5 per cent chance that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, the risk of national annihilation would be too great for any nation — and most especially one built on the ashes of the Holocaust — to ignore.
The Iranian leaders understand this. They take seriously the statements made by Israeli leaders that they will never accept a nuclear Iran under its present leadership. They fully expect an attack from Israel when they come close to producing a nuclear weapon. Why then are they not deterred by the realistic prospect of an Israeli pre-emptive (or preventive) strike? For three related reasons. First, an Israeli attack would be a limited, surgical strike (or series of strikes). It would not be accompanied by a full-scale invasion, occupation and regime change. Second, it would only delay production of a nuclear bomb, because it would be incomplete. Some nuclear facilities would be missed or only damaged, because they are ‘hardened’ and/or located in populated areas. The third and most important reason is that an attack by Israel would solidify the Iranian regime. It would make Iran into the victim of ‘Zionist aggression’ and unify Muslims, both inside and outside of Iran, against their common enemies. I say enemies because regardless of what role the US played or did not play in an Israeli attack, the US would share the blame in the radical Islamic world.
I am not going so far as to argue that the Iranian leadership would welcome an Israeli attack, but it would quickly turn such an attack to its advantage. If matters get worse domestically for the Iranian regime — if the nascent anti-Ahmadinejad ‘democratic’ or ‘secular’ movements were to strengthen — Ahmadinejad might actually get to the point of welcoming, even provoking or faking, an attack from Israel. This is why the threat from Israel will not work as a deterrent.
So we have two threats: one from a superpower — the US — that can but won’t bring about regime change. The other from a regional power — Israel — that may well attack but, if it does, will not only fail to produce regime change, but may actually strengthen the existing regime.
The Iranians will persist therefore in their efforts to secure nuclear weapons. Unless they are stopped or significantly delayed by military actions, they will become a nuclear power within a few years — precisely how many is unknown and probably unknowable. Armed with nuclear weapons and ruled by religious fanatics, Iran will become the most dangerous nation in the world. There is a small but still real possibility that it could initiate a suicidal nuclear exchange with Israel. There is a far greater likelihood that it could hand over nuclear material to one of its terrorist surrogates or that some rogue elements could steal nuclear material. This would pose a direct threat to the United States and all its allies.
The world should not accept these risks if there are reasonable steps available to prevent or reduce them. The question remains: are any such steps feasible? Probably not, as long as the US remains bogged down in Iraq. History may well conclude that America and Britain fought the wrong preventive war against a country that posed no real threat, and that fighting that wrong war stopped them fighting the right preventive war against a country that did pose a danger to world peace.
Though the doctrine of preventive war is easily abused — as it was in Iraq — sometimes it is a necessary evil. The failure of Britain and France to wage a preventive war against Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s cost the world millions of lives. Will the same be said some day about the failure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=7660&issue=2006-04-22
We can’t attack Iran - Alan Dershowitz
Face it. Iran will get the bomb. It has already test-fired rockets capable of targeting the entire Middle East and much of southern Europe. And it claims to have 40,000 suicide volunteers eager to deploy terrorism — even nuclear terrorism — against its enemies. With a nuclear capacity, the Islamic Republic of Iran will instantly achieve the status of superpower to which Iraq aspired.
Nothing will deter Iran. Sanctions are paper protests to an oil-rich nation. Diplomacy has already failed because Russia and China are playing both sides. Sabotage, bribery — even assassination of nuclear scientists — may delay but will not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That leaves military threats and, ultimately, military action.
First, consider military threats. They are already coming from two sources: the US and Israel. Neither is working, for very different reasons.
The Iranians would probably give up their nuclear weapons programme if their leaders truly believed that refusal to do so would produce an Iraq-like attack — an all-out invasion, regime change and occupation. Leaders, even religious leaders, fear imprisonment and death. Only the United States is capable of mounting such a sustained attack.
But the continuing war in Iraq has made it impossible for the US to mount a credible threat, because American public opinion would not accept a second war — or so the Iranians believe. Moreover, America’s allies in the war against Iraq — most particularly Great Britain — would not support an attack on Iran.
That is precisely why the Bush administration is barking so loudly. It wants to convince the Iranian leadership that it is preparing to bite — to attack, invade and destroy their regime, perhaps even with the use of tactical nuclear weapons. But it’s not working. It is only causing the Iranian leaders themselves to bark louder; to exaggerate their progress towards completing a nuclear weapon and to threaten terrorist retaliation by its suicide volunteers if Iran were to be attacked.
The war in Iraq is a two-edged sword when it comes to Iran. One edge demonstrates that the US is willing and able to topple dictatorial regimes which it regards as dangerous. That is the edge the Bush administration is trying to showcase. The other edge represents the failure of Iraq — widespread public distrust of intelligence claims, fear of becoming bogged down in another endless war, strident opposition at home and abroad. That is the edge being seen by the Iranian leaders. The US threat is seen as hollow.
That leaves the Israeli threat, which is real, but limited. Who could blame Israel for seeking to destroy the emerging nuclear capacity of an enemy nation whose leader, as recently as 14 April 2006, threatened to eliminate ‘the Zionist regime’ by ‘one storm’ — a clear reference to a nuclear attack. His predecessor, the more moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani ‘speculated [in 2001] that in a nuclear exchange with Israel his country might lose 15 million people, which would amount to a small “sacrifice” from among the one billion Muslims worldwide in exchange for the lives of five million Israeli Jews’. According to the journalist who interviewed him, ‘he seemed pleased with his formulation’.
These threats of a nuclear attack are being taken seriously by Israeli leaders, even if they are neither imminent nor certain. Israelis remember apocalyptic threats from an earlier dictator that were not taken seriously. This time those threatened have the military capacity to confront the danger and are likely to do so if it becomes more likely. Even if Israelis believe there is only a 5 per cent chance that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, the risk of national annihilation would be too great for any nation — and most especially one built on the ashes of the Holocaust — to ignore.
The Iranian leaders understand this. They take seriously the statements made by Israeli leaders that they will never accept a nuclear Iran under its present leadership. They fully expect an attack from Israel when they come close to producing a nuclear weapon. Why then are they not deterred by the realistic prospect of an Israeli pre-emptive (or preventive) strike? For three related reasons. First, an Israeli attack would be a limited, surgical strike (or series of strikes). It would not be accompanied by a full-scale invasion, occupation and regime change. Second, it would only delay production of a nuclear bomb, because it would be incomplete. Some nuclear facilities would be missed or only damaged, because they are ‘hardened’ and/or located in populated areas. The third and most important reason is that an attack by Israel would solidify the Iranian regime. It would make Iran into the victim of ‘Zionist aggression’ and unify Muslims, both inside and outside of Iran, against their common enemies. I say enemies because regardless of what role the US played or did not play in an Israeli attack, the US would share the blame in the radical Islamic world.
I am not going so far as to argue that the Iranian leadership would welcome an Israeli attack, but it would quickly turn such an attack to its advantage. If matters get worse domestically for the Iranian regime — if the nascent anti-Ahmadinejad ‘democratic’ or ‘secular’ movements were to strengthen — Ahmadinejad might actually get to the point of welcoming, even provoking or faking, an attack from Israel. This is why the threat from Israel will not work as a deterrent.
So we have two threats: one from a superpower — the US — that can but won’t bring about regime change. The other from a regional power — Israel — that may well attack but, if it does, will not only fail to produce regime change, but may actually strengthen the existing regime.
The Iranians will persist therefore in their efforts to secure nuclear weapons. Unless they are stopped or significantly delayed by military actions, they will become a nuclear power within a few years — precisely how many is unknown and probably unknowable. Armed with nuclear weapons and ruled by religious fanatics, Iran will become the most dangerous nation in the world. There is a small but still real possibility that it could initiate a suicidal nuclear exchange with Israel. There is a far greater likelihood that it could hand over nuclear material to one of its terrorist surrogates or that some rogue elements could steal nuclear material. This would pose a direct threat to the United States and all its allies.
The world should not accept these risks if there are reasonable steps available to prevent or reduce them. The question remains: are any such steps feasible? Probably not, as long as the US remains bogged down in Iraq. History may well conclude that America and Britain fought the wrong preventive war against a country that posed no real threat, and that fighting that wrong war stopped them fighting the right preventive war against a country that did pose a danger to world peace.
Though the doctrine of preventive war is easily abused — as it was in Iraq — sometimes it is a necessary evil. The failure of Britain and France to wage a preventive war against Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s cost the world millions of lives. Will the same be said some day about the failure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
0
Comments
The main issue that Dis doesn't and refuses point blank to realise is...
THEY ARE ONLY BUILDING A NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
There is NO evidence sofar suggesting intent to develop nuclear weapons.
Plus they are NOT going to use them even if they do. Has anyone who has nukes EVER used them? No. The fear of payback is too great.
Except the US, but there is no payback for them now, they got them first, so they got to be the first people to test them on real victims and see the effect.
Winner's prize.
if you believe that stuff ...that american generals are now voiving as utter bullshit ///your way off reality.
daddy bush destroyed iraqs military ...totaly.
there was nomilitary left when junior invaded ...the desire to invade has been there for a generation.
Aye.
I hope one day we can enlighten this fellow. He's like Rich Kid but less funny.
Unless someone in Hiroshima had a faulty microwave.
a seriously dangerous lunatic and his lunatic mates ...are sitting on one of the biggest oil and gas sources on the planet ...and they suddenly want a nuclear power plant!
how are they going to cool this reactor i wonder ... :chin:
they may be years away from nuclear weapons but ...they will now have a steady stream of nuclear shit which they can dump abywhere in the world ...london?
and know in this age of fear and terror ...it will be an incredible black mailing weapon.
london ...new york ...paris ...can be made uninhabitable for 500 years in one day.
the people willing to do such things are now ...manufacturing their very own supply of big death.
Rolly... they won't use a birdty bomb... or anything. They are the people in Power in Iran... they know if they do anything...
BOOM! Power is gone. Who wants to lose power? Terrorists getting Nuclear weapons is a Worry... but it'll be off the Russian Mafia if anyone. Iran is probably likley to well establish its ability to protect itself before bothing to activley use radiation or nuclear weapons against any big target, however it choses to do so.
Giving us plenty of time to think of a sensible solution.
Perhaps not continually annoying the Middle East?
And TBQH... I am FAR more scared of North Korea than Iran...
Kim is far more nuts and dangerous. We let HIM get nukes. Why not Iran?
the differnce is ...the russian mafia are only interested in money ...irans mullahs are interested in helping allah to remove the jews ...they believe their ultimate rewards to be in heaven ...not in earthly power.
Iran won't use nuclear weapons anyway, for all the bollocks people go on about Islam, the Koran doesn't explicitly say "kill non-Muslims" or "destroy Israel with nuclear weaponry" It's not in any countries interests for their to be nuclear warfare.
North Korea aren't really a threat either, leave them alone and they'll leave us alone, seems to be a recurring theme throughout world politics.
itsl ike taking out a fixed rate mortgage that costs more than a variable, becuase you rmeove more risk
I think that's pretty true of most countries, most just want to be left alone to get on with their own thing .. but these days so many countries that have the power just want to keep it to themselves and gang together to prevent up and coming countries from getting any further along.
But i think we can all agree, that Iran is building a bomb as much as they are building a power plant when it comes to nuclear technology. But we can also agree that there is no point invading Iran unless we want to take some more oil. Stopping them getting nuclear technology will require little more then a few bombs and the whole argument of invading is mutely irrelivent as it would be pointless.
What's Zionist about the article in question? It's about Iran... :rolleyes: I'd appreciate an intelligent answer for a change...
most countries want to manipulate ...trade ...gain footholds ...dominate.
iran do not give oil away for fucks sake.
they have huge pipelines going to india pakistan and china ...for money ...lots of money.
the current leader is often shouting his mouth off about israels destruction ...i think he means it.
as for the koran ...i'll do a bit of research for you turlough ...somewhere it says that allah cannot return to earth or something like ...until his enemies have been destroyed.
Well read my other post then for a proper discusasion. That person who write that article is your typical Jew Zionist. Fucking prat.
I rest my case, Jewish propganda.
That such extremist ideologues, Dershowitz, Pipes, Krauthammer, Hitchens, et al., betray the very principles set forth in the Nuremberg Principles only shows them of similar mindset to the warmongering Third Reich itself. Not to mention other onerous examples of group superiority (exceptionalist) politics of the contemporary era (aka Apartheid).
It is moral and intellectual duplicity and hatemongering at its most elequent, to be sure.
Make an intelligent post then.
Heh, tbh, that Article is shite. Cland could probably destroy it in a second.
That you talk of ‘Jewish propaganda’ (not that you can even spell propaganda) is pretty much testament to my belief that you’re a thick anti-Semite. Disregarding something as ‘propaganda’ because you don’t have the intellect to directly challenge it and counter it is unsurprising from you. Then talking of ‘Jewish propaganda’ which implies some bizarre universal Jewish consensus that’s being spread in the form of disinformation is just complete nonsense. As even Clan has himself pointed out there are Jews who are anti-Zionist. And on just about any political debate you’ll find Jews on opposing sides that disagree intensely with each other. (The belief in some single Jewish point of view is so ridiculous it’s an idea pretty much exclusive to some fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East and white supremacists – fans of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion pretty much. Long proven to be a hoax and forgery in the West the lies contained in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are unfortunately swallowed by many in the Middle East, ignorance I guess is mostly to blame).
The writer is simply saying that we did something stupid, invade Iraq, when they posed no threat whatsoever.
It makes a lot of sense and history will probably judge Bush and Blair as a couple of idiots for invading the wrong country at the wrong time for the wrong cynical reasons.
As for the people who moronically claim that because Iran haven't yet admitted that they are seeking to develop nuclear weapons they must be telling the truth, they are obviously clueless. Of course they want to develop nuclear weapons, it's in their interest, this is a country whose leaders want Israel destroyed. Most of the world's governments seemed to have caught on to that fact too.
You're an idiot. Clandestine thinks that 9/11 was a jewish conspiracy. The other guy is a professor at Harvard.
Best you strive to attain some basic level of intellectual and political deiscernment toward your clearly unscrutinised targets of gullible adoration. Oh and I suggest you knock off the mantra of "conspiracy theorist". It only highlights your incapacity to distinguish evidential realities (let alone the very definition of terms themselves) of power politics from the PR used to divert simple minds such as yours.
A categorical lie, groove. Quite a stoop even for you.
And Harvard professors are not the font of truth and wisdom. If you think him any less than an agenda laden crackpot who has been exposed more often then not for his intellectual bankruptcy, you are just as gullible as dis.
All the more telling of a Dershowitz/Pipes groupie. Perhaps the less well read here would be interested to note that your beloved hero is a staunch advocate of the legalisation of torture.
I'm sure you have some handy AIPAC-scripted talking point ready to dodge any acknowledgement of the moral duplicity inherent to that position as well.
And of course there is always the latest demonstration of Mr. Dershowitz's liabelous slander against Prof's Mearsheimer and (fellow Harvard prof) Walt for daring to expose the manipulation of US foreign policy by the rabid Israel lobby. A mantra of stock in trade defamation and unsubstantiated assertions characteristic of those we see you regurgitating time and again.
Spare us all your pretense at intellectual enquiry, its as shallow as is your concept of liberal democracy.
Clandestine's points are so deeply hidden amongst dense complex language I sometimes wonder if he is making any point at all.
I could have sworn you said something along those lines, my mistake if you didn't. My point was that you believe in other similar, "theories".
That however is another discussion which has repeatedly gone nowhere on these boards.
Not complex at all for those who bother to educate themselves beyond tabloid-level text.