Ed's Blog

"Some people know everything, but that's all they know."

MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

Recent media stories tell us of an internal Israeli government debate over attacking Iran’s nuclear weapons program as the International Atomic Energy Commission’s (IAEA) prepares to release its report that Iran could soon have its first nuclear weapon. Taking out Iran’s dispersed nuclear-weapons-related installations—many of which are deep underground—is a difficult task; and Iranian retaliation on Israel and U.S. forces in the region could set off a destructive and costly war. Nevertheless, military action by Israel and or the United States is rapidly becoming the only option left after sanctions and covert action have failed to do the job. (More)

About these ads

Filed under: National Security, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

93 Responses

  1. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Defense Industry Network

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Neutron bombs leave most everything in tact ? Nuke Em before they release the terror on the rest of the world ? This debate will continue until another catastrophic event !

    Posted by Paul

  2. Charles W. Raymond III says:

    If what you sugget is coming on shortly, then I would refer to Herman Kahn’s Ladder of Escalation, and consider that the Intense Crisis Threshold (the unthinkable nuclear war becomes thinkable) has been passed and we are now agueably at Rung Eight (Super Ready Status) at the least.

  3. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Iran’s atomic chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, has said the country has set up an $8m fund to conduct “serious” research in the area of nuclear fusion, AFP has reported. “Fusion research has been launched seriously today,” the ISNA news agency quoted Salehi as saying. Fifty people have been hired for the work, which Iran began nearly three decades ago but was initially “not very serious” about pursuing, he said.

    Posted by Mark

  4. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    It will be very dangerous for the world. It will be probe might is right .

    Posted by MOHAMMAD

  5. [...] Military Strike on Iran Rapidly Becoming Only Option (ewrossblog.com) [...]

  6. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    A very well put together article and I agree, in order to retain the present regional balance of power Iran’s nuclear program must be destroyed or baring that significantly delayed. This issue, preventing covert development of nuclear weapons in the volatile ME/NE region, has been of the utmost importance to both the US and her ally Israel for decades. The question today is have we reached the point where Iran’s covert development program is in danger of succeeding at last and does the political cost of attack (either directly by the US or through the proxy of Israel) outweigh the benefit of significantly retarding their program. I believe we will have the answer to this question well before the end of this year. One point that I would like to bring up here is that I believe the Obama Administration’s preference for acting militarily overseas through proxies (ie NATO in Libya, the AU in Somalia, etc.) will almost certainly preclude a direct attack by US forces. Were an attack to be carried out the US military and other clandestine assets would absolutely play a key role but the visible aspects of the operation will be carried out by Israeli soldiers and airmen. It will be an interesting few weeks I think.

    Posted by Andrew

  7. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Heritage Foundation

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    This is all about another Hitler, another mindless nut bent upon the extermination of Jews. Israel may already believe she is past the point of no return. She may have enough of her own nukes to destroy Iran’s capability without our help, but what then? It may be time to be thinking about what we do in the aftermath of what seems to be inevitable. Do we have treaty obligations that won’t allow us to stay out of it? What will Russia do? What will our own Congress do? What negligence can we expect from President Barack Hussein Obama?

    Posted by Ronald

  8. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Center for a New American Security

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    If it happens, it will be an Israeli action. US will not initiate military action. We will end up increasing naval and air presence in the Gulf, Arabian Sea and Med. Israeli’s will be on the own on the ground to fend off the Syrians, Hezbollah and Hamas, along with any Iraqi insurgents that may join in with retaliatory action against Israel. Jordanians will stay out of it.

    Posted by Robert

  9. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Defense Executive Network

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    The Iran of today was once Persia. But is no longer Persia. Persia was an Empire, and despite the bad press it was given by those it subjugated or by those whom it sought to subjugate, such as Greece, it was actually a very civilized empire. It allowed freedom of religion. Alexander the Great was so impressed with it that he adopted its customs, which is saying a lot for a civilizing Greek, that is, a conquering Macedonian. Iran again seeks to gain empire, but it is no longer a tolerant nation. It is so intolerant it scares its neighbors, neighbors who themselves prefer a strictly controlled lifestyle under the banner of a favored book of rules. You can command rules or be a slave to rules set by another.

    Tensions to war are building, and, as there are no releasing forces in play, that tension will continue on until it bursts. So it is agreed by most that war is inevitable in order to withhold Iran from turning its desired dream into everyone else’s nightmare. In the modern age however, surprise is difficult to achieve, especially with operations that must be large scale and closely timed and once set in motion not reversible. The planning would have to be meticulous and the coordination spot on. As all is defined by ability to cover distance in a set time, tell-tale signs of eruption would show up as the pieces are set in their necessary places on the board. Surprise is not necessary if defenses are confounded and retaliation is minimized. So the senses of Iran would be blinded first, and in that darkness the Iranian military will know that monsters are coming. As with much of war, the lasting difficulties only start to shake minds awake when the battle is done, as in the aftermath of war comes the reckoning: How to secure what was won; how to prevent a retaliation not against the strengths of invaders but against their weaknesses and weaknesses in neighbors. Everything that can be destroyed is a vulnerability. After the Battle comes the Squabble. Warriors are trained and have abilities that can win the first and their task is done; but not even the wiles of politicians ever resolve the second, their training and ability never measures up to their job, whatever their job is, as they so easily change their job description and fee.

    These serious progressive scenarios of the consequences of actions and inactions, are quite plain to the military mind. Unfortunately the military mind does not rule where politics rules, it is a used and abused chair that must look up at those who sit upon it. People vote for personalities, not tradesmen. It is the destabilizing force of personality that rules by consensus, not the stable force of reason. Dominant people have teeth and snarl, reason only has logic and diagrams. There are indicators of immanent war, as the guns must be raised to fire. So the military knows what is coming and does its duty as that is its assigned role. However the minds of political overseers, when blinded by a religious enlightenment, grope with reality in a different way to logical and reasoning minds. To the religious radical struggling to make sense of a seemingly hostile world (to it whatever is not a heaven must be a hell), wrestles violently with others in a life and death match, even when those it wrestles with are not demons as thought, but would-be friends. To a radical there is only the logic of Either/Or, and stuck there, there is no further progression to the softer more adaptable Maybes and Possibles. As you make your Bedlam so must you reside in it. The trouble is, in this crammed little planet, which is an arena of dreams and daggers, the bugs in the bed we are all in, bite mainly those soft enough to bleed.

    Posted by Stephen

  10. Tony says:

    Well thought out for the last century, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable, and it is not a foregone conclusion that the US would go to war with Iran if Israel were to attack. The concept of power balance seems simplistic and perhaps outmoded in the context of today’s multifaceted global reach. There are those in Israel that are living in the twentieth century with a twentieth century view of today’s reality. Better all in the community of democratic nations, and most importantly, Israel understand the clear and present danger growing as a result of the much-applauded “Arab Spring”. Iran and nuclear weapons are the visible, and popular to attack, tip of an ice berg that is about to break off of the plateau of the newly developing Arab world, and it is not the visible tip that causes the damage and destruction, but rather the underlying invisible bulk of the total mass. One lesson learned from the Cold War is that once a nation state joins the nuclear community, they have entered into a game of restraints, for to take the first strike position and execute makes the striking nation a pariah in the world community and punishment becomes far easier to apply. The consequences are dire for both the attacker and the attacked. That said, it remains doubtful that the US would unilaterally enter into a nuclear war against Iran should Israel be attacked. But, it certainly changes the calculus and opens the door for consideration for a nuclear strike by a coalition of democratic nuclear partners, whereas conventional war waged by today’s potential coalition partners either before or after a nuclear attack on Israel is a non-starter. The biggest and most dangerous scenario is what if, using the misguided example set by Israel’s staunchest ally the US, Israel decides to execute a preemptive defense nuclear first strike. As absurd as that may sound to some, one must consider that if Israel is going to do anything at this juncture, do they actually have a sufficient force to conclusively eliminate Iran’s nuclear development? If Israel does not, the act of delaying Iran’s development and the casualties cause by such action are simply another repeated half-step and will increase strain on Israel’s relationship with the Arab world and the rest of the democratic nations…there must be found another option.

  11. Bob Hoelle says:

    Israel is running out of options. Sanctions and diplomacy will never defuse the tension and hate Iran harbors towards Israel. Unless I read too many Vince Flynn or Tom Clancy books, I have little doubt that Israel might have our direct assistance in
    their elimination of nuclear scientists and our aid in sabotage of Iran’s nuclear facilities. I also wonder what other countries might be lending aid and scientific technology in Iran’s plight to destroy Israel. It seems that people with otherwise good intentions struggle to realize that Iran’s destructive hatred towards Israel is based on religion. The wars that most Americans are familiar with are about economic strength and power.

    I am not sure what undercover involvement our country might have in preventing a nuclear attack under our current administration’s watch, but I certainly hope we are involved in anyway that we can. I’m not thinking about “Harsh” sanctions and financial repercussions, when it comes to preventing a nuclear attack on our seemingly forgotten ally, its time to be off with the gloves.

  12. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING
    ONLY OPTION

    Tel Aviv will be nuked and remain a slab of glass, but Qom and other sites/cities in Iran will become same FIRST. Perhaps the price of peace is worth the sacrifice. Move assets before dropping in for a visit with the neighbors. A slab of glass so close to the Gaza strip could be the most vivid object lesson for miscreant populations. Let them glow with reverence for disobedience and hatred.

    Posted by George

  13. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    That’s hard to disagree with Ed. I’m not for another occupation at this point, I think our boys need a little r&r. I do agree that if a weapon is being assembled rather than focusing on energy for the grid we have fundamental problems. Any military power to speak of that would be concerned if we just blew the damn thing up? It would be a much better option than Israel as far as religious issues are concerned, what’s China gonna do march across the ocean? The rooskies could give them a ride but their ships would fall apart. Gotta love North America. We’re kinda way over here, Israel is too close for a strike. You know we could also pull a fast one and just start murdering the government over there.

    Posted by Francis

  14. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    In 2003 the CIA said Iran is building nukes. In 2007 the CIA said Iran is NOT building nukes. In 2011 the CIA says the Iranians are on the verge of having a nuclear weapon. Which CIA is correct?

    Posted by John

  15. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Israel has a neutron beam weapon…

    Posted by George

  16. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Or maybe we should ask Brazil, I hear they are financially vested… It would be a huge problem if that country is allowed with our knowledge to develop a bomb. George aren’t fast neutrons precisely the problem? Now an anti-neutron beam would. E very useful in removing nucleons wouldn’t it?

    Posted by Francis

  17. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I’m not an expert in physics. I just repeat what I have been told… The details remain obscure.

    Posted by George

  18. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Understood. I think fast neutrons to someone’s head is a good option, just not on the enriched fuel…

    Posted by Francis

  19. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I wish I had better answers. Murdering people seems like the best option. A military action would further embroil situations elsewhere. It is easier to diffuse a handful of smaller incidents than it is to diffuse a military action. It’s a shame we can’t come up with anyone aside from Israel that we could leverage in that direction. They are certainly outflanked, the question remains how to destroy their nuke program before its dangerous and the simplistic answer aside from murdering people to induce fear is to wait until the weapon is assembled and detonate it in their country and offer aid to help contain and cleanup their new problems.

    Posted by Francis

  20. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    George a slab of glass in Iran may in fact reflect a great deal of visible light and provide the global cooling we are all looking for.

    Posted by Francis

  21. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    SEVERAL slabs are better than one.

    Posted by George

  22. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Judgement is one thing, I was just simply suggesting murder. How about we parabolize those slabs into gigantic optical mirrors? This would be the most difficult optical telescop project on earth however it may in fact be able to use a geo sat at the focus aperture.

    Posted by Francis

  23. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    SEVERAL slabs are better than one. When reason fails, then action is the best reply to a threat. Decisive action, swift and totally efficient. Clearly, the majority of Iranian citizens embrace the reason of compromise. Only the minority of religious fanatics exist in the bubble of ignorance they believe has divine support. The only paradise on Earth for such as these is swift exaltation into paradise by means of death. The majority populations in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are moderates most interested in compromise and amicable contacts with the rest of the world. When the few insane persons in power are removed, then there is room to breath for the moderates who really do want to join the rest of the human race for survival in a modern world. When people beg for martyrdom and refuse the life sustaining effect of reason, then the only way to honor their peculiar hope, it to give them what they want. Only by removing the influence of malignancy can the rest of human interaction accommodate growth and development to the benefit of all. Their nuke program is already dangerous because it is operational. Why should anyone think Iran must develop their own fuel for nukes when they can simply buy them? Its absurd to think technology bars them from possessing a deliverable nuclear launch device with their proximity to such available nuclear powers. Embargo works when it works, but it does NOT work without flaw. Iran has an operational nuclear presence in Iran … right now.

    Posted by George

  24. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    And don’t give me Thou shall not Murder do I look Hebrew to you? There are only 2 commandments love the Lord your GOD with all you heart mind body strength and soul as well as to love your neighbor as you love yourself. I love you enough to kill me if I was trying to blow any race up.

    Posted by Francis

  25. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Or demolish personal freedoms for that matter…

    Posted by Francis

  26. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    “How about we parabolize those slabs into gigantic optical mirrors? This would be the most difficult optical telescop project on earth however it may in fact be able to use a geo sat at the focus aperture.” Submit a proposal and I’ll sign it too. If anyone could pull it off, Israeli’s could. I like the idea of multiple use too. That’s elegant thinking there, Francis. Great idea!

    Politics is a social disease that degrades human decency… but there is no practical replacement, so go with it or take the picture without it: anarchy. We have seen many recent examples of successful and necessary anarchy. Civil dissent is the final, best, response to oppressive government. Replace it, or die. Death is a part of the equation when its you or them.

    Posted by George

  27. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    And I don’t dispute that. Open discussions of sentiments are certainly the way diplomacy works and diplomacy is absolutely FREE. It would be a shame to have to use force but we all know damn well it’s looking more and more like a ise of force is going to be a requirement. I wish they would take the FREE diplomacy instead.

    Posted by Francis

  28. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    As intelligence professionnals, we must analyze our sources for bias and historical performance. On both counts I seriously doubt. We heard the same stories about weapons of mas destruction in Irak. Sorry guys, you are just not credible.

    Posted by Yves-Michel

  29. [...] Military Strike on Iran Rapidly Becoming Only Option (ewrossblog.com) [...]

  30. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Department of Defense

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    What are the avenues of diplomacy with this country? I’d like to know who they DO listen to officially? It’s gonna happen if the don’t wise up.

    Posted by Francis

  31. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Forum

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Yves-Michel Marti is spot on. The global Intelligence Services cannot be rushed to judgment regarding Iranian capabilities or intentions unless they are certain of their information. A repeat of the Iraq Invasion Decision Matrix based on erroneous intelligence simply cannot be repeated vis a vis Iran. The “Only Option” argument is premature and the facts supporting it are simply not evident at this time. Let the intelligence collection systems do their work in Moscow, Paris, London, and DC. Postpone this debate until we know what we are talking about.

    Posted by Mr. Gail H.

  32. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Campaign for Liberty

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I’m surprised that everyone doesn’t realize that the IAEA is just another U.N. organization that believes in World Governance. That they as a SOCIALIST Organization work diligently at removing the sovereignty of every nation, including our own. LIES and propaganda is not beyond them and this attitude is what walked guns into Mexico, the over throw of a Lybia who gave up their weapons and became legitimate trading partners and brought us GATT and the WTO to transfer Congressional Authority to the U.N.. We need to purge these Traitors from our Government and respect the sovereignty of other nations.

    Posted by Dan

  33. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: ICAF Alumni Network

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    It will be a good option. But, we should have to study the reaction that will affect the interests for the USA, EU, and other countries. Who has the benefits from this strike and who will strike? What about the relationship with Russia ,China and the influences in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon? What about the near targets Israel and Gulf States? All these questions will give you the good understanding that mien the National Comunity should have to share in this strike and the reigion countries.

    Posted by Faisal

  34. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: THEY’RE RIOTING IN GREECE, THEY’RE OCCUPYING AMERICA

    Michael, I take your points, but I think you may be missing mine. The issue is not Democrats vs. Republicans, as much as what the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protesters have in common. Neither group likes Wall Street, the bailout or the government’s reaction to it. Also, I think it is a mistake to associate the Occupy movement with the radical left wing, especially since 64% of Americans (according to Pew) view their actions positively. That is a lot bigger than the entire Democratic base and a lot bigger than the Tea Party.

    This is not the 1960s and these aren’t all hippies. Most of them seem to be unemployed, though. I suggest you read about Coxey’s Army ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coxey's_Army ) and the Bonus Army ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army ). Like the Occupy movement, those movements were co-opted, supported, denigrated. They also resulted in violence and significant social and policy changes.

    As for John’s comments about picking presidents (while I am being misanthropic) I should note that the preparation of a presidential candidate has a lot to do with the team he puts together. Candidates need to pick and lead a good team. That is an important part of how we choose a president. The individual matters less. Unfortunately, sometimes the team that runs a good campaign governs poorly, which is the situation we have at the moment.

    Posted by David

  35. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Foreign Area Officers

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Not so fast, Mr. Ross…

    See the article below which articulates far better what I would have attempted to respond with:

    In 1980, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. He reckoned Iranians were too divided by their year-old revolution to offer much riposte. Wrong: Iranians were galvanized, the last internal opposition to Ayatollah Khomeini’s theocracy was quashed, and Iran stood as one to face the enemy.

    There’s no need to look much further to know how Tehran would respond if Israel or the United States bombed Iran in an attempt to halt its nuclear program. An Iranian society that today is a combustible mix of depression, division and dysfunction — overseen by a Brezhnevian supreme leader at loggerheads with his erratic president — would unite in fury.

    This, in the cautionary words of U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, could have “unintended consequences.” Among them: a lifeline for the weakened Islamic Republic that would lock it in for a generation; a sharp rise in American dead in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan; direct or indirect (through Hezbollah) retaliation against Israel; a wave of radicalization just when jihadist ideology seems tired and the Arab Spring stands at a delicate juncture; a blow to the global economy from soaring oil prices; a revival of Iran’s sagging regional appeal as it becomes yet another Muslim country to face Western bombs; increased terrorism; and a subsequent Iranian race for a nuclear weapon fired by resentments as indelible as those left by the C.I.A. coup that ousted Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.

    This is not an appealing proposition. But nor of course is a nuclear Iran. And there’s the rub.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/opinion/cohen-contain-and-constrain-iran.html?hp

    Posted by Hank

  36. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Its time for Israel to take action, we are not their body guard and should not be expected to provide the money, assets and lives to keep their borders safe. Its time they projected their stance with actions and no longer rely on the US. We can no longer financially police the world.

    Posted by Raymond

  37. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group Campaign for Liberty

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    A war with Iran, will cost us dearly in blood & resources, it will also touch off a “religious war” of the likes that we have never seen.

    Posted by James

  38. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I don’t think the military option is the only one, North Korea has nuclear weapons and it hasn’t improved their situation any, in fact it’s made it worse in the International Community. Nobody wants to deal with North Korea and while they have isolated themselves because of their regime and quest to obtain the bomb, their country has failed and South Korea has prospered. It’s only a matter of time before the country falls apart completely.

    I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but so what if Iran succeeds and develops one bomb or a couple bombs. They can’t use them without risking a retaliation in kind, which would wipe out their country. Their regime like north Korea is all about survival. If they didn’t have an oil and gas industry, they would be in the exact same situation right now as the North Koreans, the regime in control of a failing state.

    If they had a nuke and attacked Israeli, then Israeli would have no choice but to retaliate in kind. Same if they attacked the US, so what would they accomplish other than having at the very list every military facility in their country wiped out in a retaliatory attack.

    If we want real change in the region then we have to remove the supreme leader and all his corrupt cronies from power along with everyone in and associated with the IRGC. Then and only then will the country be able to have free elections and a real president and not a puppet, being controlled by a bunch of religious and corrupt nut jobs

    Posted by Mike

  39. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Iran has yet to demonstate that it has a nuclear weapon. Neither has Iran demonstrated the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to its intended target. Israel already possesses an anti-missile defense shield. How does attacking Iran serve Israel’s long term security interests? Did the attack on Osirak discourage Iraq? What would a pre-emptive attack by Israel on Iran accomplish? What can it accomplish?

    Posted by John

  40. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Comparing NK with Iran is like comparing apples and oranges, Matt.

    Iran is located strategically next to the world’s oil wells, potentially destabilizing the entire region with the currency acquired once a bomb is developed. Iran also has ambitions to export its revolution. The ‘shia tsunami’ is vastly feared by the Sunni Muslim world and with Iran acquiring a bomb, we could see a domino effect and other regimes seeking their own arsenal. Let’s not even mention the kind of support Iran will allow itself to give Shia extremists from Lebanon to Bahrain to Iraq to Kuwait and the whole of the Persian Gulf. Although it is unlikely that Iran will ever use a nuclear weapon, there is a fear of nuclear materials being transported to terrorist orgs. Finally, Iran is has indicated its messianic beliefs and even if there is a 0.001% chance of them using the bomb, can any state actually take that chance? As little as it may be?

    I am not even touching on the fact that if Iran acquires the bomb, it will suffer from extreme isolationism for a short amount of time, but will soon be embraced much like India and Pakistan were. I definitely foresee all sanctions being removed relatively shortly after they acquire the bomb.

    Iran is not North Korea and we should not use NK as a case study of what will happen.

    Posted by Ron

  41. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    So if Iran has one nuclear one that’s going to destablize the energy industry in the region? Oil and Gas production are about the only thing that is keeping Iran afloat under the current sanctions, do you think they want to do anything to destablize a market they have to participate in? They are part of OPEC.

    Come on, we have been hearing the same thing with terrorists obtaining nuclear material since the Soviet Union collapsed and North Korea developed their program and pakistan , etc, etc

    Posted by Mike

  42. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Sorry, *Mike…

    You honestly don’t think that Iran will allow itself to be overtly supportive of shia extremists in the entire middle east once it doesn’t fear any sort of military strike against it? I mean, once acquiring a nuclear bomb, Iran essentially guarantees its own safety from attack, with its own deterrence mechanism.

    Take Saddam Hussein circa 1990, when he didn’t even have a nuclear bomb, and dared to simply roll into Kuwait and try to annex it. I am not saying that Iran holds claim to Arab lands across the mid east, however Iran will certainly support Shia rebels in Arab countries that have Shia majorities (e.g. Bahrain and other GCC countries). That will inadvertently create instability within the energy industry, not to mention threaten western friendly regimes and the west’s hold, or rather ‘influence’, on their commanding heights.

    Again, this isn’t about fear mongering, but looking at the reality of a post nuclear bomb Iran era. Our (western liberal democracies) short term losses with an attack on Iran are trumped many times over by our long term gains by conducting such an attack. IMHO.

    Posted by Ron

  43. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    The IRGC is going to go about their business in support of extremism regardless of whether or not they obtain a nuclear weapon.

    Let’s not forget Khamenei has issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam. So even if they do obtain a weapon, they’ll continue to do things behind the scenes, using the IRGC, and other proxies to undermine us in the region.

    Posted by Mike

  44. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Bottom line: a nuclear Iran is much more costly to EVERYONE, than the repercussions of an air campaign against their nuclear sites (and other WMD production sites).

    Posted by Ron

  45. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I think it’s just the opposite, because it’s not simply a matter of an air campaign. Does anyone believe that the Iranians are just going to sit back and accept the losses during an air campaign and not fight back? If they are dead set on proving to the world their program was for peaceful purposes and they were not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, then wouldn’t they consider any military a violation of the sovereign rights and an act of war? So along the lines why wouldn’t they counter attack with everything they have? Their state propaganda machine (state media) has made it clear they will make anyone pay if they are attacked.

    While they don’t have the most modern Air Force or Air Defense in the region, they do have both and they do have a considerable number of tactical and medium range missiles.

    So who is leading the Airstrike? Israeli on their own? Israeli with US support? Or are we talking NATO intervention here?

    In either example what’s stopping Iran from deciding to launch everything they have against our forces in Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, etc? I’m not saying that any of their forces are equally matched against us, but we can’t presume we’ll come out of this unscathed. It’s simply not a matter of air assets in the theater taking losses. We have a large presence in the region and everyone is a target even non-military assets, our embassies, contractors, support personnel, etc. I don’t think the Iranians would care too much who they attacked as long as they were westerners.

    We lose either way as far as perceptions in the region go and we’re going to damage everything we’ve been doing there the last decade.

    If we let Israeli attack on their own, then it looks like we don’t support our allies

    If we support Israeli, then that further damages our reputation in the region as the west trying to enforce its will in the Middle East

    I doubt we’ll convince NATO to get involved after Libya, but if we did, then everyone is going to be running scared they are next if they do anything the west doesn’t like.

    At the end of the day though it doesn’t matter what we think, because the current administration is the one that has to make any kind of decision, which will probably be the same thing they have been doing with Iran….nothing…..and propose more sanctions, which is essentially nothing but a delay tactic

    Posted by Mike

  46. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I’ll keep it short. I doubt the US or NATO will be a part of any attack. Tacit support, and by that I mean: not intervening and allowing Israel to conduct the attack, is much more likely on their parts.

    The Arab world has shown signs of how they will not oppose any attack against Iranian nuclear targets, and even would welcome it.

    The Iranian reprisal attacks will be limited to their failed ballistic missile program and activation of terrorist proxies around the region. No one said that there wont be an Iranian response, however that same said response is trivial compared to the consequences of them acquiring the bomb (as were listed earlier).

    Furthermore, I doubt that Iran will ‘declare war’ on the whole of the western world (the US and NATO) because Israel went on an air raid and bombed facilities of theirs. in reality, there will be a limited regional conflict including Israel and Iranian proxies in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, which will end with a UN resolution condemning everyone, alongside a limited exchange of ballistic missiles that will probably miss their targets anyways.

    PS. Israel has shown in the past that it is willing to upset its allies when faced with an existential threat (1982 Osirak Raid in Iraq). I doubt Israel will simply sit back and watch as the world allows Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, which is clear as day that they are pursuing it.

    Posted by Ron

  47. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Alright, let’s go with the solo Israeli attack scenario. Why would Iran limit its counter attack to only ballistic missiles or terrorist proxies? Why not call on its ally Syria? Or send its Navy around to the red sea where it could launch missiles from there? Or launch their own counter attack with their air force?

    Israel is small target so how accurate do their missiles need to be? We’re not taking precision guidance here, they land anywhere in an urban area they’ll be effective. Let’s assume they have around 200 SRBMs and MRBMs in their inventory right now that are operational, this is an old report from fas.org http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/NASIC2009.pdf , but it gives some general numbers.

    Plus their cruise missiles, I don’t know what that number is off the top of my head.

    How many patriot batteries, Iron Dome and Arrow systems does Israeli have? They’re not going to be able to shoot down everything. Not if they are also dealing with rockets attacks from Hezbollah.

    I think its pie in the sky thinking this would be a limited conflict, should Israeli choose to go ahead with an attack. Unless of course everything the Iranians have every said over the last few years about wiping Israel off the map is complete BS. I certainly believe everything in their media on their capabilities is exaggerated at best

    Just found this, actually a good briefing outlining possible scenarios

    http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf

    Posted by Mike

  48. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    @John, That depends. If Iran is close to developing a nuclear weapon and it is close to developing a missile that can deliver it, then the entire region is destabilized and becomes more than its current powder keg, its a powder keg with a lit fuse. We should be cognizant of the fact that Israel has 100+ nuclear weapons and will use them if sufficiently threatened. Do we take Iran’s leader’s word that they seek the end of Israel and that they believe in the apocalyptic views of the 12th Imam? If all that is true, and I think Israeli leaders believe that. Then Israel will likely strike and strike hard. When they struck Iraq and Syria they did, in fact, set back their development schedules markedly, Iraq had not effectively restarted their program prior to our invasion and Syria appears to be dead stop now that it is consumed by the Arab Spring movement. A proper strike by Israel could stop or slow their development and could restart Iran’s internal protests. To answer your questions, the Iraqi and Syrian attacks were effective; Israel could slow or cancel Iran’s progress towards joining the nuclear club. From Israel’s point of view, good outcomes. I think it is likely the Israelis will strike and, like @Raymond, should do so unilaterally without our support. This is the likely scenario since I don’t think the Israeli’s will wait till January 2013 when the current President is retired.

    Posted by Michael

  49. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Pre-emptive war by Israel will not improve their security situation. Each time they have resorted to this in the past 1956, 1967, 1982…their international credibility has been gravely damaged and they were forced to back down. The Persian Spring didn’t turn out too well, and if Israel actually attacks Iran, then those innocent people asking for reform will be accused of being agents of Israel, and an even more brutal repression will ensue.

    Posted by John

  50. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: Naval Postgraduate School Alumni

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    @John, you may be right, the stakes are extremely high. My expectation is that Israel will weigh those factors and attack Iran regardless.

    Posted by Michael

  51. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Mike, Ill try to respond to each question.point:

    Iran doesnt have the means to conduct a war beyond the use of their limited Ballistic Missiles Program and the use of terrorist proxies. Their Air Force is made up of out-dated US F-14s and a limited amount of Russian Suhkois and Migs. They do not have the means to bring an armada through the red sea in order to attack Israel…and even if they try, it will likely fail on account of the scores of allied ships and subs in the region.

    Syria knows all too well that if it gets involved in a war with Israel, that the entire regime will fall. Syria, unlike terrorist groups in Lebanon and elsewhere, have vast amounts of infrastructure which the IAF will undoubtedly attack if rockets are fired from across their border. In other words, Syria will not strike Israel in response. Fact.

    Saddam Hussein launched hundreds of scuds at Israel during teh first Gulf War. Minimal damage was done. Today, Israel boasts a formidable missile defense system and although it is likely that some Iranian Missiles will hit their targets, once again THIS threat is not an existential one…them acquiring the bomb is.

    Israel showed how little damage the thousands of rockets rained down from Lebanon actually did. Hezbollah also learned a lesson that perhaps taking their cues from Iran is not in their best interest. rocket fire from Hezbollah…and even Hamas in Gaza, is once again…NOT AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT.

    All those scenarios you laid out still do not compare to the reality of a post nuclear weapon Iran.

    Posted by Ron

  52. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I think you’re overstating Israel’s capabilities and underestimating Iran’s because you have already concluded that the outcome would be a successful Israeli airstrike and that Iran’s response would be limited and no one is going to come to their aide. You’re being biased by the fact you served in the IDF, which is understandable, but I’m trying to present the situation from both sides.

    My job as an analyst is not to make presumptions on the outcome it is to present the facts in different plausible scenarios, regardless of my own personal experience, biases, etc. I’ve served in the military and of course I think we can take on every enemy we face, however, I can’t discount an adversary’s capabilities, just because I think we’ll win. Once the conflict starts the other side gets an equal say in the outcome. I’m not supporting an Iranian victory here, but you have to look at all possible scenarios, you can’t just assume the outcome and say well it’s a fact the IAF will be successful and Iran’s abilities are limited, etc, that’s really not how it works

    SCUDs have never been accurate; they weren’t designed to be precision weapons. My point was from posting the ballistic missile report was that Iran does have other missiles besides the SCUDs and that Israel would be within range of those missiles. Whether or not some, all or none make it through to their targets is not a fact until they actually launch an attack. We can’t just assume that the air defense units would be 100% successful, nothing is every 100%.

    The regime in Syria is already in trouble and their only supporter to date in the region has been Iran. Everyone else has been calling for Assad to cease action against the protestors, make reforms or step down. You’re making a big assumption that Syria would not provide support to Iran if Israel were to attack. It’s not a fact, or set in stone they (Assad) would not help out and would just look the other way.

    Iran doesn’t have the means to conduct war? Based on what? So they didn’t fight Iraq for almost a decade? They must not have a standing military then. I guess the Artesh regular forces (Army, Navy, Air force. Air Defense) and the IRGC (Army, Navy, Air force) are what just for show on paper? Just because Iran is currently using proxies to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than face us directly, does not mean they don’t have the capability to go to war.

    Yes the IRIAF is not as modern as the IAF, this is not news, the most modern fighter they have is the MIG-29, and however once again, you’re assuming they’re not coming to the fight. Do you think because they are not flying the same modern aircraft as the IAF, that they’ll just give up? You don’t think they’re going to try and protect their homeland? They’re not sitting there running air and air defense exercise every year just for some news footage for the media.

    Posted by Mike

  53. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I guess we’ll have to wait an see what happens. I am curious as to what Iran is planning on doing in the region once we pull of out Iraq this year and Afghanistan in whatever the lastest moving target date is for our withdrawal.

    One can only hope that the supreme leader and all his cronies drop dead soon.

    Posted by Mike

  54. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    You responded to each of my points Mike, but you ignored the underlining theme: how none of Iran’s current capabilities are an existential threat to Israel, where as a nuclear weapon is potentially that same said threat. This is the only argument that is relevant in my honest opinion.

    Nevertheless, let me try touch on the counter-points you made:

    During my Graduate studies, I conducted a Intelligence Report on Iran’s WMD capabilities that had a section dedicated to their ballistic missile program. I am well aware that their arsenal includes much more than SCUDs.

    Here is a small chart I came up with:

    Name Stages Range (KM) Warhead (KG) IOC NO.

    Medium Range Ballistic Missiles – LIQUID FUEL
    Shahab-1 (Scud-B) 1 300 1,000 1995 50-300
    Shahab-2 (Scud-C) 1 550 800 50-150
    Shahab-3 (No-dong) /ZELZAL-3 1 1,300-1,500 760-1,100 1999/2003 25-100
    SSN-6/BM-25 2 3218-4000 N/A 2008-2009+ 16-32?
    Shahab-3(B/M) 2 1500-2000 ?? 2006-8 ?
    Safir SLV 2 2000? 50 2008 ?

    Medium Range Ballistic Missiles – SOLID FUEL
    Samen/Ghadr-101 1 800-1000 1150-650 2007-2008 ?
    Sejjil/Ghadr-110 2 2000-2510 650-1000 2009+ ?
    Ashura/Ghadr-110A 3 2000/3000 ? 2010+ ?

    As for Syria, the Assad regime didnt retaliate when Israel bombed their covert nuclear facility a few years ago…I seriously doubt they will sacrifice themselves simply to stand up for Iran. “As an analyst”, I would hope you understand the reality of the conflict and how the Syrian-Israeli border has been the quietest border since the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

    Finally, are you really comparing their decade long war with a country that shares a massive border, and a war several thousand miles away? Any military analyst will state that Iran does not have the means to conduct a conventional, prolonged conflict with Israel. Unless of course they plan on driving their tanks, and marching their divisions across Iraq and Jordan… (unlikely…sarcasm…lol).

    PS. I never claimed that Israel will have a 100% success rate… but even if it sets them back another decade, the cost of such an attack is well worth it, as for the last time, Iran currently doesn’t pose as an existential threat to Israel. After it acquires the bomb, it will.

    Posted by Ron

  55. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Amen to that Mike.

    Unfortunately, it is very likely that radicals such as muqtada al-sadr will finally have their opportunity for revenge on the ex-incumbents; the Sunnis. The Iranians are patient and knew very well that a US withdrawal was an inevitability. Time will indeed tell if the investment in Iraq was worth it.

    One thing is for sure though, Iran with a nuclear weapon will make their influence, and their capability to act in Iraq with impunity, almost a certainty.

    Cheers.

    Posted by Ron

  56. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Ron & Mike great discussion!

    Mike already knows my absolute conviction that Iran will not stop until they have the new” Caliphate “. But that being said I tend to side with Ron because I too believe that Iran has no power projection capabilities big enough to significantly harm the west be it Israel or US forces in the region. Their proxies again are less capable than the ‘fear’ that precedes or follows them and they are NEVER a match for a US force or Israeli force for that matter. But here is the rub and Mike touched on it neither the US or NATO has any will to match this threat. We spent our wad on IQ Astan and IMHO got a raw deal IRT any lasting gains be it influence in the region or change of mind of the population. I do believe that Irael will NEVER allow Iran to obtain a working nuke. So if it is an overt ‘Osiark’ type attack or a covert stuxnet type attack or some combination in between it will be intersting to follow. I just wish we would have rolled into Iran after 9-11 instead of Astan/IQ. We would have ‘won’ more and probably had less of a total cost, not to mention crushing the Iranian regime would have sent the message that our enemies understand, ” if you don’t stop this will happen to you!”

    Posted by Bryan K.

  57. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Iran sees itself surrounded by aggressive enemies intent on destroying itself, in the west a nuclear powered Israel, who by the way, has defied international treaty constantly regards its nuclear armoury. Then Iraq full of Americans. Then Russia in the north, then Afghanistan with NATO assets, then nuclear armed India and then the Persian Gulf with Bahrain, home to US fleet.

    Any attack on iran would destroy any chance of effective internal opposition, as a patriotic people, they would gather around the flag and defend their nation.
    Iran is a Shia nation and as no interest, ideologically or rationally, in the new Caliphate. As Persians and not Sunni arabs, they have their own ancient culture and religion.
    Israel is the only nuclear state in the ME, tell me has any nation or IAEA ever inspected the Israeli enrichment plant in Dimona? the answer is no. Has Israel ever side any nuclear treaty? no, whereas Iran has.

    Iran has a poor conventional military capability. It would rely on non conventional response to any attack. The Persian gulf where 60% of global crude oil flows through would be effectively closed by Iranian mines & missiles & weapons. That would cause massive negative effect on the global economy including even America. If the strike/s released radiation, which to effectively disrupt the nuclear programme, it almost certainly would, prevailing wind in that region blow east to west, which would mean American allies dealing with radioactive fallout.

    Then we get onto the terrorist response through IRGC QF & Hezbollah, every allied and American facility and citizen globally would be a target.

    The Iranian programme will produce all the components of a viable nuclear weapon, i doubt very much if they would even assemble a weapon unless they felt an attack at state existential level was imminent.

    Lesson then is – learn to live with it

    Posted by Paul

  58. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Keep your eyes on the southern coast (Baluchistan), in Iran as well as in Pakistan.

    I think this is the next big “trouble spot” and the Chinese are also in there.

    I wouldn’t rule out a Baluchi Independence Movement, which will pose a problem for both countries. Disruptions in Western China also possible in the same time frame.

    Posted by David

  59. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    @Paul… That final point: “lesson is… learn to live with it” is unacceptable.

    Most of what you posted was already discussed between Mike and myself, so I will stick to just the point made about Israel and its covert nuclear program… and the lack of IAEA, UN, International, etc demand to inspect its sites.

    Israel is a responsible, western style democracy, with a true separation of powers, that employs a proportional representative parliament government. Israel’s Judiciary is constantly active, counter-balancing any ‘counter-democratic’ policies proposed by any said government. What’s more important, Israel has never threatened to ‘wipe off the map’ any of its neighbors. Hence, Israel’s ambiguous nuclear arsenal is tolerated… and the regions (and world) have “learned to live with it. When Israel developed its covert nuclear program, it did so as an ultimate deterrent against a constant hostile Arab world, which since its inception in 1948, has vowed to destroy her. Israel has fought 4 wars (not including more recent limited conflicts in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories) where insurmountable odds were placed against it. One of the reasons today there is peace between Israel and several of its neighbors is the fact that Israel’s nuclear arsenal was the last move to ensure future wars would not occur.

    So please, do me a favor and do not compare apples and oranges.

    PS. India’s nuclear arsenal is solely aimed at Pakistan, much like Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. The theories of MAD apply on the Indian sub-continent, where assured destruction is promised to each side if ever used. India’s nuclear weapons are not a threat to Iran.

    Posted by Ron

  60. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I firmly believe that Iran would sacrifice it’s people just to nuke Tel-Aviv. They would consider their people that were killed in a retalitory strike martyrs.

    Posted by Charles

  61. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Why is it that just because they are Persian Muslims, that they must be insane and suicidal? Who believes this rubbish?

    Iran will back the Shiites when the civil war breaks out in Iraq. I really don’t think they’re interested in causing trouble elsewhere.

    If there’s an “incident” that implicates Iran, I would look at it with skepticism. It would probably be engineered to implicate Iran, so as to provide an excuse to “retaliate” against them. Who would benefit from this? You can speculate for yourself.

    In review, ask yourself who Iran poses a threat to:

    (1) Sunnis in Iraq (in the pending civil war).
    (2) Saudi Arabia and other Arab Muslim nations.
    (3) Israel (but they’d be fools to do anything against Israel).

    The war drums are beating loudly, but is anyone listening?
    Have you ever heard of the boy who cried “wolf” once too often?

    Posted by David

  62. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    David, I can see you are not from Europe where the islamists are trying to take over. These people believe YOU deserve enslavement or death, unless you are muslim yourself. Their ONLY goal in this life is world domination and people like you help their cause.

    Posted by Charles

  63. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I don’t think Arab Islamists and Persian Islamists are necessarily on the same page.

    Posted by David

  64. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    The dirty little secret here is that short of using nuclear weapons the Israelis do not possess the military wherewithal to conduct a comprehensive and effective strike on the myriad Iranian targets involved. If they had the capability, they would have already used it. Even our own JCS, with bases and carriers in close proximity, and abundant air refueling capability, sees this as a challenging operation and they are entirely unenthusiastic as is obvious from the public comments of the CJCS and others.

    Pull out your Janes Weapons systems, look at the range and payload of the IAF aircraft and their limited refueling capability, then figure in the overflight rights issues and other logistical headaches. Look at the distances between targets and the hardened nature of many of them. This bears no resemblance to Osirak. No doubt this is immensely frustrating for Netanyahu et al, but the plain truth is that his own military is unenthusiastic because they are unable to offer assurances that an IAF attack will do anything more than stir the hornets nest. Further, it is clear at this juncture that the US is opposed to a military operation and is not prepared to coordinate with any Israeli attack at this time. That, by itself, is nearly tantamount to a veto over an Israeli operation given the Israeli need for US political, military and diplomatic support not only to conduct such a raid but deal with the aftermath.

    Again, if Israel had a reliable military option they would have already used it rather than continuing the hollow threats they have been making over the last few years (which are intended to generate stronger support for international sanctions). Expect the covert actions to continue, the assassinations etc, but don’t take bets with people who are of the opinion that there is not going to be an Israeli air strike any time soon.

    Posted by Chris

  65. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    While Chris makes alot of good points he underestimates Isreali resolve when they think they are threatened. They had no problem bombing out Saddam’s nuclear plant in the 80s and making daring raids like at Entebbe. I also think Chris underestimates US and Isreali intelligence on where each of the target installations are located. The IAF doesn’t need to actually fly into Iranian airspace to launch cruise missles which would be the weapon of choice to use on these facilites with US in flight refueling and satcom intelligence leading the way. Cruise missles can be launched from Isreali submarimes also. The Isrealis are masters at hiding their capabilites. Who knows what weapons and tactics will be used in such an assault.

    Posted by Charles

  66. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I think this time it will me primarily a cyber-war.

    Poke ‘em in the eye first, then go in and do what you will.

    Posted by David

  67. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Wouldn’t be surprised to see our friends in Gakona, Alaska arranging a scalar surprise as a prelude to attack. Also, don’t be surprised if Isreali commandos are already on the ground in Iran.

    Posted by Charles

  68. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Ron –

    They’re just the “boogeyman of the week.”

    Posted by David

  69. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    David, that is the very typical, and easy, overly-liberal argument that is made regarding Iran. As an academic, I look at facts and trends. Iran is not simply a boogeyman, or a necessary evil, for the west to target. Iran poses a serious threat to its neighbors, regional stability, and to a certain extent, global security (for a wide array of reasons)… and for Israel, it poses a potential existential threat.

    Posted by Ron

  70. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Ron –

    Do not call me a liberal. I’m so conservative it would make you sick.

    We always have to have an enemy, even if it is one of our own creation.

    We are not now, nor have we ever been, at war with Oceania.

    Are you familiar with Operation Ajax?

    Posted by David

  71. … [Trackback]…

    [...] Read More here: ewrossblog.com/2011/11/13/military-strike-on-iran-rapidly-becoming-only-option/ [...]…

  72. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Of course. Operation Ajax had nothing to do with fighting an enemy… it had to do with inserting a western friendly government in a nation abundant with precious natural resources, as well as a strategically important geographic location.

    It might be late, and i might be tired, so forgive me if I don’t understand the Oceania comment. :/

    Posted by Ron

  73. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    PS. I never said that western nations are absolved of any wrong doing throughout history, especially when their interests are at risk. But THAT has little to do with the real threat Iran poses if it goes nuclear.

    Posted by Ron

  74. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Ron –

    The reference to Oceania is from George Orwell’s “1984.” The perceived enemy changed periodically, and the government pretended that who ever they wanted to be the enemy had always been the enemy, and whoever was now allied with them had always been allied with them. Of course, this kept changing, and the government had to keep lying to the people. For example, “We are now, and always have been, at war with East Asia” and “We are not now, and never have been, at war with Oceania.” And then it would change to “We are not now, nor ever have been, at war with East Asia” and “We are now, and always have been, at war with Oceania.” Everybody knew this was the exact opposite of what they had been told previously, but did not discuss it among themselves. They just knew that the government would chance the “official” position from time to time, depending on what the political agenda was. I guess you’d have to read the book. If you decide to do so, I recommend you also read “Animal Farm” (also by Orwell).

    I have seen this as we were allied with Russia and China and at war with Germany and Japan, and later built up Germany and Japan for the “Cold War” against Russia and China.

    Manuel Noriega was a U.S. ally. Then, one day (actually one night), we invaded Panama and deposed him.

    Just as recently as July, when the 2010 State Department Report on International Terrorism was released, Khaddafi was touted as a “valuable partner in the global war on terror” (or words to that effect). Just a few weeks later, he was a “evil dictator” and had to be deposed.

    We were, for a long time, allied with Iran. Later, we were allied with Iraq against Iran. Then, later, we invaded Iraq. Now, Iraq is supposedly “friendly” to the U.S., and it’s Iran’s turn again to be our enemy.

    Now, I would like to ask you a serious question, and hope it doesn’t upset your idealistic paradigm: If Iran didn’t have oil, what do you think we’d be doing? England wants their overseas assets back. Sir Joshua Reynolds discovered oil in Persia just when the British Navy was switching over from coal to oil. Reynolds and his backer went broke exploring for oil, and could not develop the oil fields and build refineries. The British Government became a majority shareholder in Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (later BP). Operation Ajax was a scheme to regain control of their overseas assets. What’s going on now, we might as well call “Operation Ajax 2.”

    While we’re at it, perhaps you’d like to ponder the following:

    (1) Why did Germany (WW1) want to build the Berlin-to-Baghdad Railway?
    (2) Why did Hitler (WW2) invade Russia?
    (3) Why did the Japanese (WW2) attack Pearl Harbor?
    (4) Why did the Korean “War” end with a DMZ at the 38th Parallel?
    (5) Why were we in Kosovo?
    (6) Why did we rush (gulf War 1) to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
    (7) Why are we (Gulf War 2) in Iraq?
    (8) Why are we now in Africa?
    (9) Why did Obama just assign a Marine detachment to Darwin, Australia?

    Posted by David

  75. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Bryce: How could the Iranians, who are neither Arab nor Sunni, become the model for “Pan Arab unity?” -Chris

    Posted by Chris

  76. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I am enjoying this immensely satisfying discussion and would like to pose the following to the group:

    What if Bruce Mesquita’s analysis is correct? What if the Iranians go right up to the line but don’t cross it: “We have the capability but we will not have any weapons”…what happens then? Is it realistic? Or is it purely rational self-interest?

    Posted by John

  77. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Allow me David… (1) WW1 Germany was allies with the Ottoman Empire and also the Austrian Hungary Empire and this railroad would have stretched through all of them, linking them sorta speak. (2) Hitler invaded Russia in WW2 for several reasons but natural resources such as farmland and oil was priority, pushing them away from the Polesti oilfields in Romania, which supplied the Wehrmacht, but he also had a hatred for the communists who wanted to control Germany after WW1 and thought them an inferior army since the Russians failed in their invasion of Finland. (3) The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in WW2 to try to neutralize the US Pacific Fleet by sinking our aircraft carriers which would have delayed us from doing serious damage to them early in the war while they carried out thier asian campaigns. (4) We decided that peace was preferred over a continued war with the Chinese involved. The allies has actually pushed the North Koreans back to the Chinese borders before China attacked. Fighting a conventional war with China, who had superior manpower, could have dragged the war out for a long time. At the time an armistice was preferable over continued fighting. (5) We had a very limited presence in Kosovo. Our actions was limited to air strikes with aircraft and cruise missles. Bill Clinton wanted to defend muslims against the genocide effort being carried out against them. (6) (7) We had to stop and then later oust Saddam Hussein and destroy his military efforts to control the bulk of the world’s oil supply. We are talking about world oil here not just US interests. Europe, Japan and China are also 100% dependent of foreign oil and having a madman like Saddam invading Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was unthinkable. Economic blackmail wuld have been the order of the day. Plus, in the first gulf war Saddam was shooting scud missles at Isreal. We did not want the Isrealis to attack Iraq since it would have unraveled our alliances with the Middle Eastern nations involved in stopping Saddam. (8) We are also very limited in Africa. Mostly anti-terrorist efforts right now. (9) Obama is trying to beef up the American military presence in the Pacific by sending troops to Australia and other locations in an attept to intimidate the Chinese whose influence is increasing with money and military assets, adding new naval assets every year. Obama is not experienced enough to know that sending a few Marines to Australia will deter the Chinese.

    Posted by Charles

  78. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    @John Hey John thanks for the question. I think the Iranians can come completely clean by allowing total and unrestricted access to all their facilities for inspection. That, and combined with our own intelligence efforts, could draw a final curtain to this question of Iran’s intentions. As long as they keep a civil nuclear program a secret (or parts of it) I think they are simply “bringing it on themselves.” However, their leader has spoken of himself being some sort of prophetic being with the mission of destroying Isreal, so secrets and this supreme divine rhetoric will only prompt us to assume and plan for the worse. These people do not respect life like we do. They are not afraid of retaliation when it comes to a “religious” first strike.

    Posted by Charles

  79. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    @ Chris, I see your point. But I’m talking geo-politically. They want to unite the entire region (yeah I know…sunni/shia, etc.) and use “military might” to accomplish their goals. It’s the same pipe dream Hussein had (he believed he was a re-incarnated King Nebuchanezzer and would conquer the middle east and Iran). Again, this action would be a failed attempt of course. “Pan-Arabic unity” according to Ahmadinejad would mean the destruction of Israel and conquest of it’s neighbors and subject the remaining Arab world and middle east region to Iran’s reign. Like I said, I was addressing the fabled Grand Caliphate theory. Thanks.

    Posted by Bryce

  80. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Charles –

    The answers are:
    (1) Oil
    (2) Oil (specifically, Caspian oil)
    (3) Oil (specifically, Indonesian oil, and transport routes back to Japan)
    (4) Tungsten
    (5) Chromium
    (6) Oil
    (7) Oil
    (8) Oil, Cobalt, Chromium
    (9) Oil (and routes to transport oil to China – and don’t forget the Spratley Islands)

    If you really believe that “freedom” and “democracy” and “human rights” are anywhere on this shopping list, I believe you are deluding yourself. I used to be a little more idealistic (as apparently you still are), but I started researching the history, and found that warfare has historically been a struggle to control resources. Politics is apparently the mechanism used to justify it.

    Posted by David

  81. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    This is one of the better OSINT articles on Iran that I have read in quite awhile. It lays out in a very succinct fashion the history and anticipated courses of action that are assessed to be on the table. Iran has defied all actions by the international community but as long as the country has positive relationships with Russia and China, its behavior is not going to change. The thought of “living with a nuclear Iran” is something that I cannot stomach as the leaders of Iran have expressed their disdain of Israel for years and we would be fooling ourselves to think that a nuclear Iran is only planning to provide electricity and heat to its citizens.

    Posted by Levar

  82. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    David, this is a pretty heavy question as not voting is still a vote in my opinion. In this case, I believe that there is too much at risk believing what is reported about Iran’s intentions as being true. I am certainly not one to follow the masses blindly. By my decisions and my decisions only, if I am going over the edge of the cliff one way or another, I would prefer to hit the bottom first if you understand what I mean. I believe that a preempted strike of facilities ensuring the lowest degree of collateral damage of the local civilian populace would be my first course of action taking into account that all other international efforts have failed to this point.

    Posted by Levar

  83. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    O.K., then feature this scenario:

    Saudi Arabia backs the Sunni majority in Iraq.

    Iran backs the Shiite minority in Iraq.

    There’s your proxy war. We are being played.

    And we’re dealing with our own self-imposed deadline.

    December will be interesting.

    Posted by David

  84. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    So David, are you going to move to Tel-Aviv with Iran owning a nuke? Remember, they MIGHT use it on you. Never mind that Iran’s President already said that Isreal should be wiped from the face of the Earth.

    Posted by CharleS

  85. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Not to change the topic too much, but I will quickly address the “Saudi Arabia supporting the Sunni” insurgency in Iraq. I was there for four deployments and yes, Saudi was always viewed as a waypoint for foreign fighter infiltration but there was nothing documenting reporting-wise that Saudi was harboring Sunni extremists. It has been confirmed time and time again that Iran is supporting the Shia extremists as was obvious once we started to see EFPs all over Baghdad proper.

    As for Mr. Mahmoud, even if he is arguably sitting in the chair of a puppet, he without question, echoes the intentions of those truly in power.

    Posted by Levar

  86. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    I guess I have somewhat different views than most in this thread regarding Iranian intentions and Israeli concerns.

    The prospect of an Iranian attack on Israel with a nuclear armed missile is minimal and I believe the Israeli leadership and their military and intelligence services would agree. They can distinguish between Ahmadinejad, who makes highly inflammatory statements but doesn’t control the Iranian Armed Forces, and the statements of the Supreme Leader, who does control the military and consistently maintains Iran will never start a war. He wants to eliminate the Jewish state via a plebiscite in Palestine. In fact, according to Glenn Kessler of the WP, even Ahmadinejad’s alleged remarks about “wiping Israel off the map’ are in fact based on an inaccurate and misleading translation. Here is a link to the Kessler article which puts the quote so often used by Netanyahu and others in context:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

    Clearly, Iran would not out of the blue try to nuke fellow Muslims in Israel and Palestine to save them. Moreover they obviously know Israel has very formidable air and missile defenses, not to mention a massive nuclear retaliatory capability. Like most dictatorships, they above all want to retain their hold on power and expand it where possible. The “bolt from the blue” missile scenario is merely intended to simplify and crystallize the threat for public consumption. But if so, why the terrible angst in Israel about the Iranian nuke program when Pakistan has had nukes and missiles for years?

    The greater and more valid concern underlying Israeli fears is the long-term impact of the present Iranian regime deploying a nuclear deterrent. With a nuclear deterrent, Iran would become more brazen and less constrained with regard to supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Shia in Bahrain and other radical groups and organizations. With the protection of a nuclear deterrent, even a small one, fears of a US invasion or Israeli attack would be much reduced and Iran would have a much freer hand to support the highly motivated armed groups already pressing on Israel’s narrow borders. And if Iran were to progress to manufacturing tactical nukes, which could someday be distributed to the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas — well that is simply a bone fide nightmare for Israel.
    In addition, an Iranian nuke might spur nuclear programs in Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

    So ironically, while we went to war in Iraq at the behest of the neocons because of a bogus alleged connection among Iraqi WMD programs and terrorist organizations, the Israelis are now confronting the real deal, a radical terrorist sponsoring regime with genuine WMD programs. And an increasingly isolated Israel will have to deal with the threat during a period of greater regional instability, radicalization and declining US access and influence as we withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq and reduce force structure in the face of budget cuts.

    In sum, over the long term, unlike the Pakistani program, Iranian nuclear weapons portend a potentially dramatic shift in power away from Israel and into the hands of its dire enemies. The radical groups targeting Israel would have a protective umbrella to huddle under. Unfortunately, bombing Iran would have the unintended effect of spurring further radicalization throughout the region and might even destabilize friendly governments and drive up the price of oil at a time when the entire Western world is already on the brink of financial catastrophe (increased oil prices for example, could dash any hopes of Italy, Greece and Spain meeting their debt reduction goals and greatly increase the risk of a Euro meltdown). In this context there are no easy answers, but sanctions and aggressive CA are probably the best of the available bad options.

    Posted by Chris

  87. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Unfortunately Chris, when it comes to “bogus” Iraqi WMDs you can always ask the Kurds about those since Saddam used chemical WMDs to kill off thousands of them. A WMD doesn’t have to be nuclear. Chemical and Biological are WMDs too. Also, Pakistan hasn’t threatened to blow Isreal off the map. You were correct in assuming that Iran cannot reach Isreal by missle attack since they have very limited ranged rockets (and hardly any missle guidance system technologies) but a nuke smuggled into Lebanon or the Gaza Strip might be used by radical suicide “martyrs” to flatten a major Isreali city. Such a scenario is most likely rather than the nuke attached to a missle.

    We are dealing with two extremes here in the Middle East, a determined muslim attempt to destroy Isreal and a determined Isreali fight to survive. Both will do whatever it takes to succeed. No matter the cost in lives. Make no mistake, Isreal is nuclear armed to counterbalance being surrounded by hostile armies. These enemies have attacked in the past and would again if they knew they could defeat Isreal on the battlefield. Also, Iran would certainly blackmail the West and their neighbors if they had nukes. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would certainly be effective if nuclear weapons were threatened to be used. So now we are back to the old arguement of taking world economies hostage by blocking oil flow by mad men. Saddam wanted to do it and so will Iran if they ever get nukes.

    Posted by Charles

  88. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    @David, using a fictional story, that uses hyperbole, to compare with reality is silly, IMHO. Yes, interests change. Allies change. The West new very well that they signed a packed with a tyrant during WW2, simply to defeat a bigger tyrant. Ill concede the obvious fact that such interests and alliances change often on account of natural resources and political differences. Regarding Kosovo, I would say that the West was willing to go to war with Milosevic to provide NATO with a power projection vis-a-vis Russia, especially in the early years after the Cold War ended. As for the concept of Iran developing all the means to develop a nuclear weapon, but stopping short of actually developing the weapon… that would be fine if they were a responsible democracy, with a true separation of powers, etc etc, akin to Japan, which btw could have a working nuclear weapon within 6 months of they chose to do so. Unfortunately, Iran is a tyranny, headed by religious fanatics, protected by an SS style personal army that is even more fanatic than the leadership (the IRGC).

    @David, the shias are the majority in Iraq, and the Sunnis are the minority. Hence all the civil strife today. The once incumbents have become the second class citizens.

    There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread…. going off on tangents that are simply wrong.

    Posted by Ron

  89. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    “With a nuclear deterrent, Iran would become more brazen and less constrained with regard to supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, the Shia in Bahrain and other radical groups and organizations. With the protection of a nuclear deterrent, even a small one, fears of a US invasion or Israeli attack would be much reduced and Iran would have a much freer hand to support the highly motivated armed groups already pressing on Israel’s narrow borders. And if Iran were to progress to manufacturing tactical nukes, which could someday be distributed to the likes of Hezbollah or Hamas — well that is simply a bone fide nightmare for Israel.”

    THIS, Chris. And this reality is unacceptable.

    I must disagree regarding the argument that states: “while we went to war in Iraq at the behest of the neocons because of a bogus alleged connection among Iraqi WMD programs and terrorist organizations..”

    It wasn’t a bogus excuse to go to war with Iraq. In order to understand the Bush Admins push for war in Iraq, one must understand their view of International relations, non-state actors, terrorism, under their neoconservative, realist perceptions (realism as it is defined in IR). It is a long story, but the gist of it describes a scenario where no one in the Bush admin could believe that a rag-tag group of cave dwelling terrorists could actually be responsible solely for 9/11. In fact, according to their views of IR and non-state actors, al-Quada must have received some sort of support, help, finances, training, etc, from a sovereign state. What Sunni Muslim regime in the mid east, has the will, desire and means to help such a group? I will let you answer that.

    As for Saddam’s connection with WMD, there is enough precedent throughout his reign of trying to acquire WMD, as well as using them. The US’ fears were logical and therefore war was warranted.

    Posted by Ron

  90. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Hi folks, everything Ron B said, and my 2 cents: Not being a chemistry major I have the following on good faith: whoever launches a nuclear device, in any direction, in the middle east just closes that part of the world off to commerce and much of life as we know it. Nobody is going to be able to sell or trade any product from Iran or it’s neighbors. Radioactive goods just don’t sell that well these days. Look at the destroyed and leaking power plants in NE Japan. And that was an “accident” aggravated by human greed plus a natural cataclysm ! Iran and other oil producing nations of the Persian Gulf region will be stuck with a viscous commodity that they will not even be able to barter with their neighbors for dates, figues or camel dung! Not if it glows in the dark ! I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it were the West that would block the strait of Hormuz, let alone the Iranians or anyone else. Contaminated oil, assuming it can still be extracted and put into tankers, is of no use to the world market. Thus Nigeria would increase it’s oil output considerably as might Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico, Siberia, and so on. NGOs would not want to send anyone into a Radiation zone, just as Japan is having to order subject matter experts into the current glowing severely damaged power plants. Remember how the wind carried the contaminated air from Chernobyl north west over the skies of the Baltic Sea into Scandinavia…? How quickly we forget. A nuclear blast from any country, in any part of the world is just not an option. It can but be a bluff. But if I think the son of a bitch who came to rob the local convenience store where I’m standing in line to pay (having stopped by on my way home is going to use that shotgun to harm anyone there, I’m going to use my concealed handgun to blow his shit away so that he NEVER ever threatens innocent folk again. And Just about now, the guy holding the threatening shotgun looks an awful lot like Mr Mahmoud!!!

    Posted by christian

  91. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Charles Hopkins • David, I can see you are not from Europe where the islamists are trying to take over. These people believe YOU deserve enslavement or death, unless you are muslim yourself. Their ONLY goal in this life is world domination and people like you help their cause.

    Charles here in London, which is in Europe, I can say that the ‘Islamists’ whatever that is, are most certainly not trying to take over. I guess you’ve been watching too much Fox Tv. Muslims believe that people of the book are to be treated with respect, something that we western nations, this includes the USA, ought to recall when we deal with other peoples and nations.

    If any nation and belief system is dominating the Earth it is unbridled rampant capitalism, which is slowly and gradually destroying the planet.

    Posted by Paul

  92. Reposted from LinkedIn says:

    LinkedIn Group: The Intelligence Community (IC)

    Discussion: MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN RAPIDLY BECOMING ONLY OPTION

    Charles Hopkins • Also David, as far as the world’s oil resources, the idea has always been keeping them out of the hands of the bad guys.

    I take it the ‘bad guys’ are anyone you determine to be bad. Haven’t learnt much from Vietnam and Iraq have you.

    Posted by Paul

  93. Francis says:

    I say do it now, did you see the conference discussions that we had with China and France about further sanctions against Iran where China and Russia wouldn’t support any further sanctions and all China had to say is watch out for N. Korea. I would love to very quietly shoot some hoops with the new kid, he’s got great potential for quiet relations, they already know how to keep their mouths shut.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

EWRoss on Twiter

RSS EWRoss.com RSS

  • CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AT THE VA May 18, 2014
    ow many veterans that lingered on secret waiting lists at Veterans Affairs hospitals gave their lives so hospital administrators could receive bonuses and promotions?
  • HAVE WE HIT BOTTOM YET? April 13, 2014
    During the nearly five and a half years of the Obama presidency, America has been moving in the wrong direction. The U.S. economy continues to struggle through the longest and slowest recovery from recession since World War II. From Benghazi to Ukraine, U.S. foreign policy has collapsed. U.S. world leadership has receded to a low not seen since the 1930s. Ha […]
  • UKRAINE: APPROACHING CRITICAL MASS? March 23, 2014
    Critical mass in nuclear science is the smallest amount of fissile material needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. Critical mass in international politics is the smallest amount of aggression needed to start a war. Despite what President Obama and other Western leaders say and do, the situation in Ukraine may be fast approaching that point.
  • WINNING THE POLITICAL PROPAGANDA WARS March 9, 2014
    If Republicans continue to lose presidential elections it won't be only because they failed to garner a sufficient percentage of the growing Hispanic, Asian and African-American vote; it will be because they continue to lose the political propaganda war.
  • RESTRUCTURING THE MILITARY March 2, 2014
    Like most conservatives, President Obama's proposed reductions of the U.S. armed forces disturb me. Since after World War I, every time we have reduced our military strength after a war, we've regretted it. Nevertheless, it's time to rethink the mission, size and composition of the U.S. military, preparing for the next war, not a repeat of the […]
  • GLOBAL WARMING; A POLITICAL WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION February 23, 2014
    Speaking in Indonesia last week, Secretary of State John Kerry, said that global warming is “perhaps even the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction." Sec. Kerry may or may not be right about the destruction global warming may ultimately cause; but he's absolutely right about one thin. Global warming is a weapon. It's a politica […]
  • COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM AND SHORT MEMORIES February 16, 2014
    We might forgive NBC Sports for glossing over the evils of Soviet communism during the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, if it weren't for all those young men and women, born since the fall of Soviet Union, that have no memories of the Cold War or the "evil empire." Given the U.S. education system these days, I doubt they learned much about it […]
  • THE TONIGHT SHOW February 9, 2014
    Is Jimmy Fallon in the same league with Steve Allen, Jack Paar, Johnny Carson and Jay Leno?
  • JEB BUSH? February 2, 2014
    Is Jeb Bush the answer to the Republican Party's woes?
  • THE OUTLOOK FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN 2014 January 26, 2014
    Straight-line projecting current trends into the future is easy; but odds are that you'll be less than half right. History rarely unfolds in a straight line; and the U.S. national security environment in the year ahead is fraught with twists and turns. Nevertheless, straight-lining things, odds are that by this time next year, threats to U.S. national s […]
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,617 other followers

%d bloggers like this: