WAR WITH IRAN: What Are the Implications?

[berni_mccoy]

I've heard much talk about the U.S. attacking Iran, initially through a series of air strikes.

I've also heard much discussion about Iran trying to assemble a nuke which would threaten nearby neighbors, including Europe, given Iran's ballistic capabilities.

I have to say, I've heard this song and dance before and it didn't work out too well for anyone.

There are some key differences between Iran and Iraq however, that give me a great deal of concern:
- Iran has not had it's infrastructure, economy or military decimated by a previous war with the U.S.-- they have a functioning Navy, Air force and Army
- Iran has a decent sized military (I looked it up on the CIA website). About 1/2 a million troops (includes reservists).
- They have ballistic missile capabilities and can reach as far as Israel and Europe
- The youth in Iran are REQUIRED to serve... which means even those who are not in the military presently have already been trained and are capable soldiers
- Iran has about 15 million able bodies capable of serving in combat
- Iranian youth (18-25, the largest segment of the population), while they may not agree with their current leadership, are EXTREMELY patriotic to their country
- Russia and China (who have been holding joint military exercises over the last two years) have been in political discussions with Iran outside the scope of the U.N.
- It is extremely unlikely that the U.S. would gain support from the U.N. for an attack against Iran. In fact, more than 1/3 of the IAEA board members opposed a U.N. security council referral
- Iran has only stated they would resume pursuit of nuclear weapons capability as a response to threat of preemptive strike against Iran by U.S. They have not actually resumed their program at this point, but will unless the U.S. tones down it's War stance against Iran.

If the U.S. attacks Iran, it is very likely that Iran will respond with
- A ballistic attack against U.S. troops in Iraq
- A massive invasion force (several hundred thousand if not millions) into Iraq
This response would result in potential nuclear strikes by the U.S. on Iran. If Iran does have any WMD capability, it would certainly be unleashed as a response. An entire nation would be erased and the U.S. military would take on serious casualties (upward of 100,000).

If Iran does not respond with aggressive military action, which is also plausible, they would respond by
- Request action by the U.N., declaring the action illegal by international law
- Only respond with defensive military action (anti-aircraft, ground defense on Iranian soil only)
In this case, what will the U.S. do? I could see they would not be able to continue a bombing campaign against Iran and it's likely that the U.N. would be forced to respond. Politically within the U.S. there would be huge pressure to stop any military action. Any action would have to go without Congressional approval (let's face it, BushCo has ZERO credibility when it comes to saying a country like Iran poses an imminent threat), and that being the case, there would be internal political pressure to stop. Externally, countries like China, Russia and Venezuela could certainly pressure the U.S. to stop via economic force. Europe would also not be very happy with kicked over bee's nest on their doorstep, which Iran certainly would be for them and they would likely pressure the U.S. to stop as well. Given that, I can see further international action being taken against the U.S. afterward for an illegal military action against Iran. We become a pariah nation in the world.

Does anyone see any good that can come from military action from Iran? Is there a rosy scenario like the Bush admin painted about Iraq that I'm missing? Could BushCo really get away with unsanctioned military action by saying they are protecting us from Iranian WMDs?

[appal_jack]

1. & close the straits of Hormuz

You make some good points.

I believe that B* & co. have screwed up our relations with the rest of the world to the point that even the best of presidents, over a series of decades, will be required to help the US regain standing in the international community. In the shorter term, I just can't see an easy way out. Maybe the Iranians are developing nuke weapons (although I admire Scott Ritter for his past prescience, I find his blanket assurance that a nation sitting on a sea of oil ONLY wants nukes for peaceful purposes a little hard to swallow). Maybe more Muslim-fundies will be kidnapping westerners over cartoons. Maybe there really is a war between Islam & the West, but if that's the case, it's a multi-front war. And the side I'm on (bioregional democratic governance, drawing heavily on liberal notions of liberties and civil society) seems to be greatly outnumbered. Christian fundies govern the US. Islamic fundies govern Iran. Both are rattling the sabers. Looks like a mess in the making...

One additional option Iran has is easy control over oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf. If they close the strait of Hormuz, our lives ain't gonna be pretty.

Since I don't believe in nuking Iranians (or anyone else) over oil, I'm spending every weekend day between now and April cutting firewood (for next year, when oil will probably be $12 / gallon, if this insanity continues). Hunting rifles are next on the wish list. If I can eat, cook, and stay warm, then I'll be more helpful to my neighbors, and maybe we can muddle through this impending mess with some semblance of sanity, mutual aid, and civilization.

-app

[doublethink]

2. ............

You said (although I admire Scott Ritter for his past prescience, I find his blanket assurance that a nation sitting on a sea of oil ONLY wants nukes for peaceful purposes a little hard to swallow) ......

The only thing I can answer to you is as I seem to be repeating every time I get on DU lately is this ..... Why don't you ask the dead Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger who back in the 70's were going to fund the Shaw of Iran to build 23 nuclear plants for nuclear energy? Why don't you ask Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield who back then were behind the plan employed by U.S. Big Oil Company's who wanted to sell the Iranian Oil rather than have the Iranian people use it domestically? And don't say ..... but but they were our alie back then .. yea a propped up dictatorship, as undemocratic as you can get.

Other than that keep chopping your wood, some hard times ahead for the world because of ignorance, un-warranted fear, and greed. But Peace to you and yours always.

[appal_jack]

6. US actions are not an excuse, but are a reality

Your points about Nixon, Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. are all true, as far as my limited understanding of history allows me to comprehend. I'm sure they would have gladly given nukes to Iran, then used such nukes later as justification for war (hmm... sounds like a batch of chemical weapons that Cheney and Rumseld gave to... oh yeah, Iraq!) The US has a long history of propping up dictators (Noriega, Contras, the rest of Central America in the '80's, Haiti over generations, etc.) and delivering weapons to such nations and people as we will later fight (Al-Qaeda terrorists were once Mujahadeen freedom fighters, etc.). I suppose that's job-security if you're part of the military-industrial complex... For the rest of us (particularly US-enlisted men and women, plus other nations who get caught in this international shell game), this sucks bigtime.

That said, I'm old enough to remember the Hostage Crisis. It was grim. No matter what Kissinger & Nixon did, I still don't like seeing people getting kidnapped. There certainly were historical provocations, but such do not serve as justifications for imprisoning innocents.

But my point in my first reply was not that the Iranians are unreasonably mean and nasty. My point is that much of the world is angry right now, and that I find it difficult to visualize a path ahead that is not fraught with conflict. This fact makes me wish that the Iranians NEVER gain nuclear weapons. And while I'm wishing, I'll wish that the nukes of China, Russia, Israel, the US, and everyone else who has 'em all suddenly disappear.

OK, I've made my wish. What now? Back to cutting wood I guess...
-app

[doublethink]

3. WW3. n.t.

[berni_mccoy]

4. That's what I fear the most...

[mmonk]

5. creek.

No paddle. Possible economic chaos and ruin.

[PretzelWarrior]

7. Implications? LOTS and LOTS of dead people

in Iran. in Israel. In U.S.

Bush is trying to start WW3/Armageddon. We elected a complete psychopath and it is going to dawn on the other 49% when it's too fucking late.

[USA_1]

10. Iran is UNIFIED unlike Iraq ...

... they will ALL join in fighting imperialistic criminal Bush. Many will die.

DON'T BLAME ME - I VOTED FOR KERRY!

[goodboy]

8. The Center for Nonproliferation Studies has a must read here>>>>

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences
Photo
Bushehr Satellite Photo

By Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster


At a time when Iraq and the war on terrorism tend to dominate the debate on international affairs, the possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has not been a major topic of discussion in the United States. There are reports, however, that the Bush administration has seriously considered this option but opted to put it on the back burner for the time being.<1> Further, on May 6, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed Resolution 398 in a 376-3 vote, calling on the U.S. government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."<2> If a similar resolution passes the Senate, it will give President Bush or any future administration the ability to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities whenever this is deemed necessary.

In Israel, planning and rhetoric appear to have progressed quite a bit further<3>; it appears that some in Israel are seriously considering a preemptive attack similar to the June 1981 attack on Osirak that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor.<4> Meir Dagan, the Chief of Mossad, told parliament members in his inaugural appearance before the Israeli Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran was close to the "point of no return" and that the specter of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons was the greatest threat to Israel since its inception.<5> On November 11, 2003, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel had "no plans to attack nuclear facilities in Iran."<6> Less than two weeks later however, during a visit to the United States, Israel's Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz stated that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession"<7> and just six weeks earlier, Mossad had revealed plans for preemptive attacks by F-16 bombers on Iranian nuclear sites.<8> This report will examine the following: The Iranian nuclear facilities most likely to be targeted and their proliferation risk potential; the likely preemptive scenarios involving Israel or the United States; and the possible consequences of any preemptive action.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040812.htm

[berni_mccoy]

13. House Of Reps bill 389 does not authorize force (as that article suggests)

Here is a link to that bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.con.res.00398:

And here is the FULL applicable excerpt:

(2) calls upon all State Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including the United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including ending all nuclear and other cooperation with Iran (including the provision of dual use items), until Iran fully implements the Additional Protocol between Iran and the IAEA for the application of safeguards;

.

If it meant force, they would have included the phrase: "including the use of military action." The bill specifically quotes All State Parties of the NPT, of which IRAN IS A MEMBER. I take it to mean that State Members of the Treaty will use "all appropriate means" in accordance with the NPT to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. I DO NOT take it to read that the U.S. will invade Iran in order to prevent it. However, I'm not an asshole republican either who thinks the President has the right to torture or spy on Americans, so I COULD be using a SANE interpretation when only an INSANE one applies.

[BrotherBuzz]

9. Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

Waist Deep in the Big Muddy

Words & Music : Pete Seeger

<snip>

Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.


Knee deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on
Waist deep! Neck deep! we'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fools keep yelling to push on


http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/snd/waistdeep.html

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gloria]

12. Clark: an embittered Iran, which will lead to more danger for the

US in terms of people who hate us. It won't make us safer.

[upi402]

14. Iran's army will be WAY more than .5Mil troops if we bomb

the entire Arab world will go nuclear.
If the froth up over a stupid cartoon...

[berni_mccoy]

15. I agree... every one of age over their

Is required to serve 2 years in the military... they have 15 million who could serve at a moments notice... not good numbers if you ask me.