Iran-- A Better Case for Preemptive War?

[JamesDillon]

This is a different issue than "Will the U.S. Nuke Iran?," so I think it warrants a different thread.

I was steadfastly opposed to the invasion of Iraq before steadfast opposition to the invasion of Iraq was cool, and I always thought that the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare was a lame post-hoc excuse to follow through on a plan that the administration had already decided to execute. I find myself wondering, though, whether the current situation with Iran doesn't present a much more compelling case for preemptive war than Iraq did. Unlike Iraq, we're pretty certain that Iran possesses the means and is actively pursuing the development of nuclear weaponry. My understanding is that Iran's ties to terrorism are also much better substantiated than were those of Iraq. If the United States, or the U.N. (preferably the U.N., but I'm not holding my breath) were to execute a military strike against Iran for the purpose of disabling its nuclear capacity, I think that I would be much more inclined to support that operation than I was in the case of Iraq.

I am, however, open to being persuaded otherwise. Certainly there are pragmatic concerns-- I don't trust the Bush administration to do anything right, and I doubt the U.S. military, in its currently overtaxed state, could execute a sustained operation against Iran without imposing a draft. But putting aside for the moment the fact that Rummy would probably screw it up and create yet another quagmire, is the idea of a military intervention to preclude the Iranian nuclear development project a good one? At the moment I'm inclined to think that the fewer nukes out there, the safer we all will be.

[bob_kark]

I simply don't think we've utillized our diplomatic options yet. The UN and the IAEA are still working with Iran to keep them from developing nuclear weapons. Now, if we had proper evidence to show that Iran was on the brink of creating nuclear weapons, I still believe we should obtain UN support before attacking.

I seriously see a huge threat if we play connect the dots in the middle east. Insurgents in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran could band together if we just ran in there, guns blazing. This really brings to mind OBL's plans for a Calaphate in the ME. What better opportunity could he ask for with weakened boarders from the Afghan/Pakistani boarder to the Iraqi/Syrian boarder? Don't get me wrong, if it was a choice between going without support and not stopping Iran from developing nukes, I'd still prefer that we go to war. I just think we need to be a bit more patient this time, if possible.

[Furious]

Pretty much every reason to invade Iraq has a stronger equivalence in Iran, other than Iran hasn't invaded another country recently, iirc.

Much stronger ties to Al-Queda, more obvious restarting of its nuclear program, open defiance of the UN instead of Saddam's waffling, and a freedom oppressing leadership pretty much make this a better target than Iraq for regime change.

Add in the fact that two of its traditional enemies (Iraq and Afghanistan) are now completely neutralized, its about to score huge points with militant and even moderate Muslims for funding Hamas, and its got Russia, China and India very hesitant to lose their oil supplier.

The West has their own cards, don't get me wrong, but Iran is in really good shape to make an invasion pretty miserable.

[Cain]

People have been conflating pre-emption with prevention. Prevention means taking out a regime that could be a threat in the future (i.e., attacking it while it's still weak). Pre-emption refers to the notion that the enemy is right about to attack (imminent threat). The Bush administration, with the help of the media, effed up the meaning of all these terms.

Pretty much every reason to invade Iraq has a stronger equivalence in Iran, other than Iran hasn't invaded another country recently, iirc.

Much stronger ties to Al-Queda, more obvious restarting of its nuclear program, open defiance of the UN instead of Saddam's waffling, and a freedom oppressing leadership pretty much make this a better target than Iraq for regime change.

I agree with you on every count. However, recall how and why the U.S. installed the Shah. That history alone, which led to the "Islamic Revolution", dictates we should have strong international support.

[BryanLower]

In answer to the question, I would answer with a qualified "yes".

Pre-emptive war is a dangerous tool. I'm not opposed it it in principle (though I think it was grossly misused in Iraq), but I think you have to be very certain about your reasons for going to war. The threat has to be *real* and *imminent*.

Even in a best case scenario, pre-emptive war isn't a very attractive solution. You're going to cause more problems-- maybe problems that outweigh the reasons for war. But i suppose there could be a scenario where it is the only realistic option. Iran may force our hand.

A more interesting question, I think, is: with what resources would we invade Iran?

[President Bush]

A more interesting question, I think, is: with what resources would we invade Iran?

http://www.homevideos.com/freezeframes918/stranglove19.jpeg

The technology required is easily within the means of even the smallest nuclear power. It requires only the will to do so.

[BryanLower]

.homevideos.com/freezeframes918/stranglove19.jpeg

That's a good picture. I love it.

And a very apt point. That's why people are taking the nuke-attack-on-Iran rumors seriously.

Well done, sir.

[BPSCG]

That's a good picture. I love it.

And a very apt point. That's why people are taking the nuke-attack-on-Iran rumors seriously.

Well done, sir.What, Doctor Strangelove is why people are taking the nuke-attack-on-Iran rumors seriously? :confused:

In any case, you don't think we could destroy Iran's nuclear development with a couple of weeks on nonstop conventional bombing?

One scenario I keep hearing is how this would unite the Muslim world in its hatred of the US, as if it didn't already (or so everyone opposed to the Iraq war keeps telling me is one of Bush's legacies). Consider an alternate scenario: After Iran's nuclear development has been reduced to rubble, the Iranian population, most of whom hate the mullahs, revolt in anger that the mullahs have brought American destruction on them with their fanatic drive for an Islamist nuclear device.

Likely? Oh, probably not. Out of the question? I'd say no, not if the Iranian people really hate the mullahs as much as we're led to believe.

Welcome to the forum!

[Gravy]

Use conventional weapons to take out nuclear weapons facilities if all international diplomatic options are exhausted? Sure. Ground war? Are you freakin' kidding me?

[Hutch]

Use conventional weapons to take out nuclear weapons facilities if all international diplomatic options are exhausted? Sure. Ground war? Are you freakin' kidding me?

Ground war is most unlikely, but don't count it as impossible. Iran has a much larger army than Iraq in 2003 and it wasn't decimated in 1991, but it has not been modernized to any great extent and the Iranian air force was based (during the Shah's time) on US and French aircraft that are probably not in good shape.

And you cannot truly believe the incredible destructive firepower that is out there today--for example, an Apache Longbow can stand off 7-8 km from a tank force, hiding behind a hill where they canot be seen, pop up, fire a missile that self-locks on target and duck back down--one aircraft can take out 16 tanks and they'll never know what hit them.

So yes, if needed the US Army/Marines could defeat the Iranians and take over the supposed nuclear sites, even stretched as thinly as we are. But while we could beat their Army in a sand-up fight, I doubt that we have the power to subdue the entire country...which was our mistake in Iraq, IMHO--we went in with the force needed to defeat the military threat but not with a force large enough to occupy the country--we beat them but did not conquer them.

I could see a land attack on Iran unfolding the same way...so I hope it does not ever come to that...

[BryanLower]

What, Doctor Strangelove is why people are taking the nuke-attack-on-Iran rumors seriously? :confused:

I posed the question: "with what resources would we invade Iran?"

The caption under the picture is:

"The technology required is easily within the means of even the smallest nuclear power. It requires only the will to do so."

This dovetails with the recent rumors of the US government planning nuclear strikes against Iran. There wasn't really anything more to it than that. Just a way to segue from one aspect of this topic to another. The picture, on the other hand, is just funny. That movie always makes me chuckle.


In any case, you don't think we could destroy Iran's nuclear development with a couple of weeks on nonstop conventional bombing?


No, I don't. We don't have a good track record in attempting to do this kind of thing. We bombed Iraq for a good long time with conventional weapons. It took years of inspections with people on the ground making a general nuisance of themselves to rid Iraq of WMD. Expecting a conventional bombing campaign to do it in Iran, I think, is expecting too much.



One scenario I keep hearing is how this would unite the Muslim world in its hatred of the US, as if it didn't already (or so everyone opposed to the Iraq war keeps telling me is one of Bush's legacies).


I am opposed to the Iraq war, and it is one of Bush's legacies. You seem to think that reaction in the region is unimportant, or that it can't get any worse than it already is. That's simplistic, and it doesn't reflect reality. It certainly is important, and it certainly can get worse. We undermine the efforts of middle eastern moderates with every new country we invade. This has real consequences, and you ignore them at your own peril.


Consider an alternate scenario: After Iran's nuclear development has been reduced to rubble, the Iranian population, most of whom hate the mullahs, revolt in anger that the mullahs have brought American destruction on them with their fanatic drive for an Islamist nuclear device.


This is pure wishful thinking, and it doesn't reflect how states actually behave.


Likely? Oh, probably not. Out of the question? I'd say no, not if the Iranian people really hate the mullahs as much as we're led to believe.


But they've also been conditioned to hate American interference even more. Look at history. There has been some American meddling in Iranian affairs before, and it didn't turn out well. Of all the countries in the middle east, Iran is probably the most suspicious of our motivations. You're right, this scenario is not likely. To make policy decisions based on it would be folly.


Welcome to the forum!

Thanks!
Alas, I spent too much time on here yesterday, and not enough time working. So I probably won't be able to respond much today. Bummer. But I know some disagree with me, so they'll have an opportunity to state their case without any rebuttal from my corner. :D

[tedly]

In the aftermath of WW2, and witnessing the power of the last ever use of nuclear weapons, some very wise people, mostly from the US, built, on the ashes of the League of Nations, the United Nations.

From Gwyne Dyer's "Future: Tense"

"Since 1945, according to the UN Charter, it has been illegal to wage war against another country except in two tightly defined circumstances. One is that you have just been atacked, and are fighting back in immediate self-defence pending the arrival of international help. (There is no possible reading of this rule, Article 51 of the UN Charter, that would extend it to cover preventive war, where one country attacks another because of something it fears the other might do in the future.) The other exception arises when the UN Security Council authorizes various member states to use military force on its behalf to roll back an aggression, or to enforce its decisions on a tightly limited number of other questions."

So that's it. The Welsh Art of self defence is illegal. If we return to the War-Lord Rogue State environment of the late 19th century small states are at great risk. 'When elephants fight only the grass suffers.' That is why, when the US was attacked by Afghanistan-based terrorists, there was near universal support in the world community for the US attack on Afghanistan, because it was nearly legal. (The Canadians sent snipers, for Ed's sake.) When the US went in for LLAP-GOCH in Iraq, there was little or no support for what was seen as an illegal invasion of another sovereign state.

What interests me is that, on this forum, I never see any discussion of the illegality of the attack on Iraq. (Getting rid of Saddam is obviously not on as a justification. Suppose India decided to get rid of Musharraf - another bad guy- and we have two nuclear powers going at each other.) There is no better justification of the planning for an attack on Iran. It is entirely likely that the US will do this, if it does it, entirely on its own, which is the definition of a Rogue State.

[zenith-nadir]

JamesDillon: At the moment I'm inclined to think that the fewer nukes out there, the safer we all will be.

There is no way in hell the US would drop a bomb on Iran. That would be nuts. Seriously. If you thought cartoons pissed people off imagine what a tactical nuke would do. Nor does the US have the resources or political capital to pull off a ground assault.

North Korea poses a greater actual threat than Iran. It actually has the bomb and eventually may be able to deliver it 4,000-4,300 km with the Taep'o-dong 2... hehehe...he said "dong".... But lucky for us Kim Jong-il likes his French wine, Johnnie Walker and penchant for American cinema too much. He just likes to rattle the cage to feed his Napoleon complex.

We know he had no intention of limiting his nuclear program to producing electrical power and neither should we expect Iran's mullahs to limit their nuclear program to producing electrical power. That would be naïve of us. Right now the path of least resistance remains playing the UN "strongly-worded letter" game publicly, and supporting the Iranian opposition groups privately.

[BryanLower]

... Back for my lunch break..


What interests me is that, on this forum, I never see any discussion of the illegality of the attack on Iraq.

This is because states exist in a state of anarchy, with no central enforcement agent to make them obey international law. That's not to say that international law is worthless. It gets air traffic controlers speaking the same language, and it provides a way to monitor nuclear proliferation. But beyond that, it's only as good as the strongest state allows it to be.

You're absolutely correct about the invasion of Afghanistan, though. Take your mind back a few years and remember how (relatively) united the world and the country were before the Iraq invasion. Contrast that to now. Sad, isn't it? And preventable. But it would have required wisdom in the use of force and deft handling of the international institutions that many Republican leaders think shouldn't exist in the first place.

[tedly]

No, only the largest states can exist in anarchy, and for the most part they have realised that this is a bod idea.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, international sanction of the most violent kind was invoked, and the invason was reversed.
For the most part the UN refuses to recognize the result of aggression. East Timor was not abandoned for nearly thirty years, the occupation of Namibia was not recognized for almost as long, and both territories regained their independence.It has been thirty-nine years since the occupation of East Jerusalem, and that has not been recognized either.
The UN can't get past the vetos of the permanent members, (if they hadn't got vetos they wouldn't have signed on) so it can only act rarely. Korea, and Kuwait are the only ones I can think of. But that doesn't mean we have to roll over and drop the long view. 'Outlawing war' is a century long project, and by the time it comes to completion China is going to be the major power, or we're all going to be radioactive dust.

[Giz]

... Back for my lunch break..


This is because states exist in a state of anarchy, with no central enforcement agent to make them obey international law. That's not to say that international law is worthless. It gets air traffic controlers speaking the same language, and it provides a way to monitor nuclear proliferation. But beyond that, it's only as good as the strongest state allows it to be.

You're absolutely correct about the invasion of Afghanistan, though. Take your mind back a few years and remember how (relatively) united the world and the country were before the Iraq invasion. Contrast that to now. Sad, isn't it? And preventable. But it would have required wisdom in the use of force and deft handling of the international institutions that many Republican leaders think shouldn't exist in the first place.

What good was that supposed international solidarity though? Almost as soon as the US started to look like doing anything the bonhomie dried up. It could just as well be claimed that the post 911 diplomacy was saying "chin up, now lets just get back to business as usual eh" to Uncle Sam, pbuh.

[BryanLower]

No, only the largest states can exist in anarchy, and for the most part they have realised that this is a bod idea.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, international sanction of the most violent kind was invoked, and the invason was reversed.
For the most part the UN refuses to recognize the result of aggression. East Timor was not abandoned for nearly thirty years, the occupation of Namibia was not recognized for almost as long, and both territories regained their independence.It has been thirty-nine years since the occupation of East Jerusalem, and that has not been recognized either.
The UN can't get past the vetos of the permanent members, (if they hadn't got vetos they wouldn't have signed on) so it can only act rarely. Korea, and Kuwait are the only ones I can think of. But that doesn't mean we have to roll over and drop the long view. 'Outlawing war' is a century long project, and by the time it comes to completion China is going to be the major power, or we're all going to be radioactive dust.

Ah, but the UN isn't really an enforcement body. It may have delusions that it is, but in reality it can only act (as you said) when the permanent members allow it to act. So the international system is *still* anarchy. And international law is *still* only as good as the biggest state allows it to be. Take a look at your examples. Thirty years for East Timor? The UN does not recognize the occupation? Then look at your first example, Kuwait. When the biggest state decides to step in, the solution is expedited.

International law does provide *some* structure, so I don't want to be lumped in with the "realists" who think that it's all worthless. But I am saying that it is less solid that what the average person expects from something called "law".

Thanks for your comments. It's actually been a while since I've talked about this subject. I'm shaking loose the cobbwebs. :)

[BryanLower]

What good was that supposed international solidarity though? Almost as soon as the US started to look like doing anything the bonhomie dried up. It could just as well be claimed that the post 911 diplomacy was saying "chin up, now lets just get back to business as usual eh" to Uncle Sam, pbuh.

Respectfully, I don't think that's correct. It was not US action in general that caused the bonhomie to to dry up, it was the specific type of action that we chose. We did act in Afghanistan, and for the most part we were supported. Since then, well... not so much.

[karl]

[...]
One scenario I keep hearing is how this would unite the Muslim world in its hatred of the US, as if it didn't already (or so everyone opposed to the Iraq war keeps telling me is one of Bush's legacies). Consider an alternate scenario: After Iran's nuclear development has been reduced to rubble, the Iranian population, most of whom hate the mullahs, revolt in anger that the mullahs have brought American destruction on them with their fanatic drive for an Islamist nuclear device.

Likely? Oh, probably not. Out of the question? I'd say no, not if the Iranian people really hate the mullahs as much as we're led to believe.


There is a difference between hating your political leaders and feeling that thousands of your fellow citizens (perhaps including your friends and relatives) deserve to die because of your foreign policy. Consider the first weeks after 9-11. IIRC, even among the Democrats the "we brought this upon ourselves" group was a tiny minority. If anything, the support for Bush increased.

Because if you don't think a bunch of your civilians deserve to die, you will see the attack as an over-reaction, and then you will come to hate the aggressor more than you hate your leaders, and be more likely to side with them if you need to choose.

Iran obviously can't hope to strike back against the US, so in my opinion the most likely scenario following a bombing would be that people vented their anger by rioting in the streets and lynching anybody looking remotely like an American.

But both sides would be able to tell their people about the others, "See? We were right about them all along. They're evil." And that's what matters, isn't it?

[BPSCG]

But both sides would be able to tell their people about the others, "See? We were right about them all along. They're evil." And that's what matters, isn't it?No, what matters is that crazy messianic crackpots with ideas of exterminating another country would no longer have their finger on the nuclear trigger. I can't think of much that matters more than that.

Funny, you keep hearing about how the Muslim world will react if the west does anything. Perhaps the Muslim world should be more concerned about how the west would react if provoked too far.

[Furious]

For those that supported the invasion of Iraq, why are we waiting on Iran?

I haven't heard an argument that the situation in Iran is not worse than pre-war Iraq, and they have proudly stated they are enriching uranium. If nothing else, they can make a dirty bomb now (though I'm not sure how dirty 3% enrichment is).

Is it strictly a deployment issue? If the Iraq war was justified, we could probably restart the draft.

Or does that feed into my next question: is the Iran war just politically unfeasible at this time, and that's the difference? It seems to me wars for American security shouldn't be waged on political winds.

[ERGONER]

... is the idea of a military intervention to preclude the Iranian nuclear development project a good one? At the moment I'm inclined to think that the fewer nukes out there, the safer we all will be.
...well, applying some initial critical-thinking to that idea -- a skeptical question quickly pops up:

Why is it OK for the U.S./Russia/France/India/Israel/U.K/North Korea/Pakistan/etc. to have nuclear weapons -- but not Iran ?

If one were sitting in Iran, one could probably see very credible foreign threats to its sovereignty and existence. Do they have a right to self-defense as other nations do ?

[Jocko]

...well, applying some initial critical-thinking to that idea -- a skeptical question quickly pops up:

Why is it OK for the U.S./Russia/France/India/Israel/U.K/North Korea/Pakistan/etc. to have nuclear weapons -- but not Iran ?

If one were sitting in Iran, one could probably see very credible foreign threats to its sovereignty and existence. Do they have a right to self-defense as other nations do ?

If one were sitting in Iran, chances are you'd be howling for Zionist blood to fill the seas, or at least keeping your trap shut while your neighbor howls for Zionist blood to fill the seas. Try applying critical thought to that mindset, and see how far that gets you.

[Ralph]

anything[/B]. Perhaps the Muslim world should be more concerned about how the west would react if provoked too far.


I wonder if the Iranian mullahs & their "president" truly understand the nature of what they're dealing with here.

I believe the Soviets certainly did--which may be one reason why despite the years of tension and both countries having their fingers on nuclear-hair triggers, the worst never happened.

Do they understand what would happen if the US ever took off the gloves and acted as ruthlessly as they would?

Are they that confident that they can keep tweaking the dragons tail without it finally getting angry and swatting them like flies?

Do they sincerely believe in their hearts that Allah will help them prevail against US military power.

I wonder sometimes how devout these mullahs actually are (given the lack of martyrs from the leadership ranks)....and if they actually believe in their own hearts all the religious bilge they spill to control the masses.

[BryanLower]

I wonder if the Iranian mullahs & their "president" truly understand the nature of what they're dealing with here.

I believe the Soviets certainly did--which may be one reason why despite the years of tension and both countries having their fingers on nuclear-hair triggers, the worst never happened.

Do they understand what would happen if the US ever took off the gloves and acted as ruthlessly as they would?

Are they that confident that they can keep tweaking the dragons tail without it finally getting angry and swatting them like flies?

Do they sincerely believe in their hearts that Allah will help them prevail against US military power.

I wonder sometimes how devout these mullahs actually are (given the lack of martyrs from the leadership ranks)....and if they actually believe in their own hearts all the religious bilge they spill to control the masses.


Yes, they know what they're dealing with. No, it doesn't have anything to do with Islam. They're behaving exactly as most states would in a similar situation. There's a mini-Security Dilemma going on here, and Iran is using this window of opportunity to gain the leverage that nuclear weapons can give them. It isn't religious, it isn't emotional, and the solution-- if their is one-- won't be emotional either.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, they know what they're dealing with. No, it doesn't have anything to do with Islam. They're behaving exactly as most states would in a similar situation. There's a mini-Security Dilemma going on here, and Iran is using this window of opportunity to gain the leverage that nuclear weapons can give them. It isn't religious, it isn't emotional, and the solution-- if their is one-- won't be emotional either.
Damn' right.

Ahmedinejad is being deliberately provocative because of his weak political situation. That's a short-term issue. In the medium-to-long term Iran will have nuclear capability, that cat is out of the bag and over the fence. The Iranian plateau has a history of regional importance that goes way back before Islam - a foreign import, imposed by force. Even under a functioning democracy, with mullahs and Suprem Leaders out of the way, Iran will at least reach the verge of nuclear-capability. China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Europe, Russia, box the compass around Iran. It can't ignore that.

[Dcdrac]

Contravention of Article 51 of the UN Charter makes such an act illegal.