Simon W. Moon said:
AFAICT, your cite says that it would take a "year or so" to "learn the enrichment technology sufficiently." Also AFAICT, your cite says that after doing this Iran would still have "to learn how to trigger a nuclear explosion" and also how to "make a device small enough to be carried by an aircraft or missile."
AFAICT, your cite does not say what you appear to think it says. IMHO, it seems to say that it would take several years for Iran to get a nuke, not a single year.
Reread it. Maybe I'm wrong.
Ah, you are correct. This was the first source I found that had the one-year figure I've seen thrown around in the editorials. I'll look for another, however the "point of no return" within a year is a matter of equally grave concern:
BBC said:
However, Israel is worried that Iran could learn the enrichment technology sufficiently within a year or so and that achievement, Israel believes, would be the point of no return.
Simon W. Moon said:
So, you're using the phrase 'just as easy' to describe something that would require three times as much manpower? Just trying to be clear here.
"Just as easy," in the sense that American victory would be assured, and it wouldn't take much longer than it did in Iraq if we went in with three times as many troops.
Simon W. Moon said:
I note that our troops are still over there in more or less the same numbers that they were when we first went in. Since we haven't withdrawn or even drawn down our troops in any significant way, and since there's still ongoing violence, it wouldn't be too terribly out of line to suggest that the "Iraq War" is ongoing, IMHO. YMMV.
Agreed. But Iran is not Iraq. We would need to have clearly defined objectives in an invasion of Iran: Overthrow the theocracy and destroy the weapons programs. I have no interest in leaving our troops there to babysit an insurgency.
Simon W. Moon said:
And if our goals were to secure peace in the region and long term security for the US, then our goals might be different and require more subtlety than a daisy cutter.
Yes...but those aren't the goals I'm talking about when I support an invasion of Iran, and there's no reason that an invasion would need to be premised on such overreaching goals.
Simon W. Moon said:
Well, there have been numerous violent uprisings in Iraq that were brutally squashed. These sorts of things tend to leave lingering feelings. Whereas in Iran, things have been more stable - less mass slaughter of the citizenry anyway.
Perhaps the increase in the slaughter of folks by the Baathi govt didn't have the emotional effect that I assume it did. Or, perhaps the folks in Iran take to blood fueds over lesser things than the folks in Iraq.
What say you? Does the periodic mass slaughter of civilians lead to more resentments than not?
So you believe that popular support (or lack thereof) is solely based on the number of people the regime has killed?
Simon W. Moon said:
Stirring the pot in iraq would be a defensive measure. It would tie US resources down in Iraq. It would be a relatiovely cheap necessity for Iran.
It seems to me that if the Iranians wanted to fight off US troops, they'd get a lot more bang for their buck investing in their own military to fight US troops, rather than "stirring the pot" next door.
Simon W. Moon said:
sure, but the willingness of the potential participants has already been established. So all that left is 'the word.' If Iran gives it, then its actors will act.
If the Iranians have no money, no capability to threaten, and no capability to reward, then we would not be in the position we're in. Going to war w/ them will not render Iran harmless. They will defend themselves. Stirring up Iraq will be a part of their defense.
No, I mean after the war (or immediately before it). If the ayatollahs are hiding in the mountains from US troops (or there's reason to believe that they will be doing so in the near future), they lose a lot of credibility with their Iraqi colleagues.
Think of it this way: If your boss offered you millions of dollars a year to take a job that you disliked, you'd probably consider it (most people would anyway). If the police busted into your office and arrested your boss, and he promised you thousands of dollars in IOUs to take a job that you disliked, you'd probably be a lot less likely to take that same job.
The same thing with the Iraqi government...if they think that their Iranian benefactors are about to disappear, what incentive would they have to obey them?
Simon W. Moon said:
I'm not saying that the political parties in iraq are Iran's tools, but rather that they are inclined to take Iran's side over the US's. To paraphrase a recent Iraqi minister, "The US will leave, but Iran will always be next door."
Iran certainly has some influence in Iraq as it is. But if it came to a stand off between the United States and Iran, which country is more stable, more likely to win the war, and more willing to pour large sums of money into Iraq?
Simon W. Moon said:
AFAICT, things would not have to be great to be better than 'untold misery.' They'd only have to be not as bad.
Your adjective, not mine. And I see no reason to believe that the failure of US objectives in Iraq (what are those, BTW?) would be anywhere near as bad as a nuclear Iran.
Simon W. Moon said:
I see. You don't recognize American credibility as being all that valuable
American military power is not infinite. We can't just stay in Iraq indefinitely and continue pouring money into it, just to protect American credibility. The administration made a mistake and it's time to move on.
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps it is. However, I'm not alone in my flight of fancy:
From escalating? I'm talking about a full-scale invasion, not just a few airstrikes. I agree that airstrikes would escalate, which is why I think we need to plan for invasion now.
Simon W. Moon said:
Well, we should have at least an inkling that they're about to do so before we ask folks to die over it. I mean how sure do you think we should be before we ask someone to die? Given the lack of an aggressive hiostory, I think we should reflect a bit more before we load up the troop transports w/ folks who haven't even been recruited to our army yet.
Not invading other countries is not the same as a "lack of an aggressive history." Iran is the single most aggressive country in the region.
Simon W. Moon said:
Using the bomb ends Iran as we all know it. There's no benefit to Iran in 'national obliteration.'
That is but one of many fears. If Iran only uses the weapons as a defensive measure, that is still a cause for supreme concern. If they believe that no one would dare retaliate against a nuclear power, what's to stop them from stepping up conventional forms of aggression?