You were very close to calling a
Posted on 08/29/2005 2:35:19 PM PDT by F14 Pilot
CANBERRA (Herald-Tribune) -- Iran and the United States are now on a collision course. Despite warnings from America and Europe, Iran has resumed enriching uranium, with its new President, Mahmud Ahmedinejad, insisting it has a right to do so under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes.
President George W. Bush has reacted by declaring all options open, including military action, which has drawn a stiff rebuke not only from Tehran, but also from Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, one of America's allies. Israel is also reported to have plans for targeting Iran's nuclear facilities. But the use of force against Iran could prove to be very costly for all sides. Iran has the capacity to respond in several nonmilitary and military ways in the event of a confrontation.
Iran could block the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which the bulk of oil from the Persian Gulf countries is exported to the outside world. Iran has a considerable military and naval power deployed to the north, with a preparedness to carry out commando actions to mine or sink a number of ships to block the strait.
The best way for the United States to keep the strait open would be to land troops on the Iranian side, which would mean a ground war - something that the Iranians would welcome, but America would want to avoid, especially in the light of its bitter experiences in Iraq.
Tehran can also flex its oil muscle. A substantial reduction or a complete halt in Iran's oil output about four million barrels a day would push up oil prices dramatically, with devastating economic and political consequences for the United States and its allies. Such a development would also be extremely harmful to Iran itself, but several Iranian policy makers have indicated in private that when it comes to the survival of the Islamic republic, no means will be spared.
Further, Tehran is capable of making life a lot more difficult for American forces and its allies in Iraq. Iran has so far acted with much restraint in Iraq, in the belief that the U.S. push for democracy will ultimately deliver political power to Iran's Shiite allies there. But in the event of an American or Israeli attack on Iran, all the gloves would come off.
Tehran could be expected not only to encourage its Iraqi allies to fight U.S. forces, but also to send thousands of commandos and suicide bombers to support them. It could also count on the support of many Shiite activist groups within its regional Islamic networks to target Americans and Israelis and their interests throughout the region. Given Iran's extensive cross-border ties with Afghanistan, it could even stir up trouble to undermine that country's fragile stability.
Tehran also has the capacity to take retaliatory military actions. It has a formidable military machine, equipped with both medium- and long-range Shihab missiles capable of carrying heavy payloads to hit American and Israeli targets as far as 2,000 kilometers away. While unable to match American firepower, Iranian forces could make up for this to some extent by their Islamist and nationalist fanaticism.
Given the costs of a confrontation, it is essential that Iran and its three European negotiating partners, Britain, France and Germany, work out a mutually acceptable agreement. Yet for this agreement to materialize, the parties involved may need to go beyond the nuclear issue to address the conditions that have led the Iranians to live in constant fear of the United States and Israel.
A viable resolution of the nuclear row depends very much on how the parties can come to terms with each other politically. If Washington recognized Tehran's Islamic government, stopped constantly threatening Iran, and agreed to controls on weapons of mass destruction across the region - including Israel's - it would make considerable progress in dealing with the nuclear issue. But Washington has never wished Israel to become subject to the same constraints as the Arabs and Iranians.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, has been investigating Iran for about two years but it has not found any evidence suggesting that Tehran is seeking nuclear arms.
Virtually every contention of the author is immediately questionable. Iran is a problem, but less intractable than the author supposes.
The question is: Shall we (or the Israelis) neuter Iran's WMD program? If the answer is yes, let the bombers fly. If the answer is no, prepare to wait out the nuclear fuel cycle, and find out if the Iranians were serious about nuking Israel. If Israel is nuked, Tehran, Mecca, Medina, Damascus and Cairo ought to be flattened. Otherwise MAD prevails.
Them's the possible outcomes, IMHO.
It is obvious from reading this tripe that the writer of this story hasn't got a clue if the US ever decided to stop playing f*ck-a-duck and get serious about kicking a$$ and taking names.
If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.
That will happen simultaneously with all of your other items on the list.
Might it have something to do with, oh, I don't know, maybe THE TAKING OF AMERICAN HOSTAGES FOR 444 DAYS?
Oh, and let's not forget all the terrorism they've sponsored. It sucks when the chickens come home to roost, doesn't it?
Does anyone remember thr Iran-Iraqi war. Iraq kicked ass big time. Iran could not stand up to a STRONG American devestation of that sorry assed country.
You were very close to calling a
Iraq kicked ass big time.
???
How?
Can you enlighten us?
Many more Iranians were killed than Iraqis.
Yes, they were killed due to bravery
Many coward Iraqis became POWs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.