Comments on: Plans for Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Sites Well Advanced

By: The Moderate Voice » Blog Archive » U.S. Generals Threatening to Resign and … Israel Preparing to Attack Iran?

Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:34:29 +0000

[...] However, like it or not (and some of the bloggers I link to below don’t) airstrikes / threatening to use force seems to work. As I wrote a while ago: ‘If the U.S. and European countries are not willing to use force against Iran, Iran will not change its policies, of that we can be quite sure. And if one threatens to use force, one should be prepared to use it (if absolutely necessary).’ [...]

By: The Moderate Voice » Blog Archive » U.S. Generals Threatening to Resign

Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:52:09 +0000

By: kritter

kritter — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:31:25 +0000

jdledell and domajot have nailed it as usual. We have a fallacious notion that enough force (or the threat of it) will bring Iran to its knees, and they will give up their nuclear ambition. The more we threaten them, the more they will unite against us. Any reform movement will be crushed, because they know we are hoping for regime change. They will try even harder to make mischief in Iraq, as that reinforces their status as a regional power.

By: Jason Steck

Jason Steck — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:37:11 +0000

George, I think you draw the dilemma rather well. A credible threat is necessary, but the Bush administration has a historical tendency to let the credible become the real in fairly short order.

I do take some comfort from Gates, though. He is not Rumsfeld and, in many ways, is the anti-Rumsfeld. (Doubters should read his book, particularly the chapter on Nicaragua, for insight into how he may advise running Iran and Iraq policy.) As long as he says that no attack is imminent, I’m inclined to believe him. Also, critics should keep in mind that the Bush administration has been multilateral in regards to Iran in all the ways it has been unilateral in regards to Iraq.

By: George Sorwell

George Sorwell — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:30:41 +0000

Good analysis.

Of course we have to have contingency plans for Iran. And a viable threat of military action is something that might cause the Iranian leadership to re-think its desire for nuclear weapons.

Or, of course, it might make their leaders feel more strongly about acquiring them in the name of self-defense–especially if we’re unwilling to negotiate with them.

So I’m kind of a bind here. I think a credible threat is helpful in dealing with Iran. Do I think the Bush Administration’s threats are credible? Holy God, do I ever!! But do I think they’re wise enough to draw that line properly? Absolutely not!!

And yet…somehow that makes the threat even more credible…which I think is a good thing.

But…good sense…absolutely not.

Whoever thought up the curse, “May you live in interesting times,” knew what he was doing.

By: domajot

domajot — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:26:48 +0000

This is not good. The very fact that a possible strike at Iran is talked about so much is making tensions rise. What we need is for tensions to be lowered, before someone on either side makes a rash decision. When everyone is nervous, the slightest thing can trigger a fatal move.
I think the whole world is afraid of what the US is capable of doing. It’s high time for our daministration to start working on rhetoric that lowers the temperature.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 00:00:51 +0000

MvdG – Thanks for a post without the hyperbole of your fellow blogger.

By: Upinsmoke

Upinsmoke — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:06:12 +0000

Trully agree with totally. They always have advanced planning in place.

I hope and pray that we do not bomb them for the sole reason that its proven time and time again that with these type of people that will solve nothing.

We have to work with sanctions. Santions worked so well that Saddam Hussein could not even make bombs and chem weapons because of these sanctions. But the world needs to get on board with this.

Without the world its once again the USA looking the bad boy trying to keep the entire world from burning and doing a bad job of it.

By: jdledell

jdledell — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:20:45 +0000

MG – Bombing Iran will produce exactly the opposite effect of getting them to stop work on Uranium enrichment and involvement in Iraq and Lebanon and Palestine. Bombing will NOT lead to regime change, the Mullahs in Qom will still be control even if Ahmadinejad is killed or tossed overboard. Nuclear work will continue hidden in the mountains and terrorist activities will actually increase. Iranians are ultra-nationalistic people and bombing them might set back their nuclear program a few years but at a terrible cost.

Their economy will be ruined but so will the rest of the world with oil running $150-$200/b and the 1930’s will be revisited. The only way military action would be effective in Iran is a massive 1,000,000 + army invasion and occupation. Odds = 0%.

By: Tully

Tully — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:02:14 +0000

I’d be more worried if they didn’t have any advance plans in place. The fact of modern military planning is that you keep plans for all kinds of scenarios, and keep them “freshened up” to reflect current events. And if you don’t have assets in place, threats (subtle or otherwise) are hollow, and pointless.

Actually using those assets is a different story. But the posturing requires them.