Iran announces mass uranium production

[Odin]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop.

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.

There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.

A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.

I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

[Devastatin Dave]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

[KukriKhan]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

[Odin]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Well that assumes we leave intact thier ability to move into these area's dosent it? I suspect that airstrikes will envitably lead to targeting military infrastructure as well (I am not advocating that, its just my read on the evolution of the event).

I also think that any land grab by Iran, in a weakened state, will envoke a reaction from Sunni majority states in the region. Iran is a powerful nation but its ability to act unilaterally is some what contigent on regional support for its policies which it dosent have.

[gunslinger]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

I really don't think that scenario is too worrisome. The U.S. military has lost a lot of face due to the inability to end the insurgency in Iraq, but it is still nearly invincible in a "conventional war" against an army like the IRG. I'm sure the U.S. generals and policymakers would actually love to see the Iranian army come storming across Iraq's borders. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

[Devastatin Dave]

. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[Adrian II]

"Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."

Dixit Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University and said to be the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

[Pannonian]

"Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."

Dixit Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University and said to be the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

Don't forget his remark that Iran would be mad if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons.

We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?

That's why it's so important to get them on our side so we can help them retain control of any potential nuclear matter. To paraphrase, it's better to have them in the tent urinating out, than out urinating in. If you can't stop someone from getting something, you might as well try and get control of it once they have it.

[doc_bean]

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys. But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran, so this is a non-issue.

Regardless it would probably be a bad idea to attack them, China would probably want part of the 'action' which could be very bad in the long term. The muslim world 'might' unite and that would be a VERY bad thing, and in the short term oil prices will go though the roof, possibly crippling US economy.

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

[Odin]

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys. But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran, so this is a non-issue.

Regardless it would probably be a bad idea to attack them, China would probably want part of the 'action' which could be very bad in the long term. The muslim world 'might' unite and that would be a VERY bad thing, and in the short term oil prices will go though the roof, possibly crippling US economy.

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

Yet again Doc you dont dissapoint, you offer no solution or even an attempt at one, merely listing the potential negative outcomes to prior actions or future choices is pure armchair general and smacks of lack of imagination,and no real thought of your own.

instead we get

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys.

and

But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran

Come on, go out on a limb, put the "U.S. dosent have the balls" rhetoric to the side and lets hear what you think should be done about the Iranian nuclear issue.

Love to hear you give us an original thought on it Doc, rather then the tired recycled jib jabs you currently offer.

Of course coming from a position of

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

I suspect you dont really have a solution, or would even attempt to formulate one anyway.

ahhh makes it much easier to take the easy way out dosent it, I mean its easy to beat the same tired drum at nauseum after the fact.

Again, I find your contribution less then enlightening

[BigTex]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

There's almost no way they could win in an offensive conventional war agaisnt the USA and Britian. They'd definately try, but for one thing the only strength Iran has against the USA in a conventional role is the terrian of Iran. We may not be able to easily invade, but bombing and defending the borders is very possible, and Iran knows that.

We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?

[KukriKhan]

So it's green-light time for the US Navy & Air Force to bomb what might be nuke facilities someday, and military installations, as a pre-emptive measure, and our Euro friends will buy it, as long as we don't put boots-on-the-pavement of Tehran?

[Ice]

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on

Yes, I agree.

, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.

Not a good idea.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.

Very high. It would send the US economy into a deep recession.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.

Oh, it can get MUCH MUCH worse. Like I said, a war with Iran would cripple our economy due to the fact they can cause even more instability in the already volatile Middle East.

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

[Odin]

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

Perhaps we disagree on the effect of any UN sanction, what was that Iranian generals name who was just in Moscow that was apart of the current ban ? It isnt working without full implementation by the soviets and the chinese, they dont seem to be on board.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

I am not educated enough about the process of how one becomes a supreme leader in Iran to offer a counter argument. Currently though, he is not a moderate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

I honestly agree, my position is based on the current situation though. It dosent appear to be heading in the direction you are noting as far as the time line. Our carriers arent there just for show I just havent seen any historical precedent for it.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

I agree, I want to talk to these people 1 on1 and figure it out. I am not concerned with loss of prestige or recognition, I want Rice to visit Tehran and start a conversation with them now, so if your time line is correct by then we can recognize and monitor thier peaceful civilian nuclear program.

But, thats not the way it seems to be progressing.