Should the US attack Iran?

[whirlygigspin]

BBC Hardtalk

As the Bush administration sets out its foreign policy for a second term, Zeinab Badawi talks to two academics with opposing views on what course of action America should take.

view:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/05/hardtalk/ansari_gerecht26jan.ram

[moggie12]

1. With who? The Boy Scouts?

All our other uniformed personnel are tied down in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

28. Actually they could do it

General Clark was asked that recently, by Tweety as I recall. He said, basically, don't think they can't and don't think they won't. The army involvement, especially, would depend on what happens after the election in Iraq, but he said there's Air Force not stretched as thin right now.

Also, I have a hunch they'll get Israel involved -- even to make the first strike.

Also, this new push for more troops isn't really about relieving those who are active now, imo -- given more troops, they'd still keep them as stretched as possible but cover more ground.

And one more "also": they like private contractors involved for anything and everything possible (profit motive for their contributors) and I think they'll keep moving toward making war a more and more commercial enterprise.

[Downtown Hound]

2. No.

Why? What has Iran done to us lately?

[JHBowden]

3. Yes, if their nuclear program is not transparent.

Given Iran's ties to Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas, letting them have nuclear bombs is not a strategic option. Does anyone really want nuclear bombs going off in Tel Aviv and Los Angeles?

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to resolve this diplomatically. But if Iran puts us in a bad position, we must be prepared to use airstrikes.

[ElectroPrincess]

4. Yeah, bring on the Nuclear Winter. This is INSANITY!

We are supposed to be "the good guys" and NOT attack sovereign nations.

[JHBowden]

6. Are you cool with a nuke going off in Tel Aviv?

If a few airstrikes will prevent this, then we should go for it. No one complained when Israel took out Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981.

[wuushew]

20. Do your research on Osirak

the French stopped shipment of the fuel before the site was completed. All the strike did was kill an innocent worker who happened to be in the path of the bombs.

[Sirveri]

7. uhhhh... bombing one nuke reactor halfway across the world

would not cause a nuclear winter. Nuclear winter is caused by low level atomic ground bursts which pick up large ammounts of particulates and throw them into the atmosphere, blocking out the light of the sun. Blowing up their nuclear reactor would likely cause a fire and let loose a massive ammount of radioactive steam into the atmosphere, but it wouldn't be a nuclear winter. Think Chernobyl instead.

[ElectroPrincess]

15. Yes, I'm well versed also in the effects of EMP

It's not that easy ... Iran has it's tentacles around the world. And here's a newsflash, "There's loose Nukes about."

This is a wild and crazy notion but HOW ABOUT WE MIND OUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS? Last I check Israel is not our 51st state. If they are insane enough to risk a possible NUCLEAR repercussion (we don't have the controls we had even a decade ago), then it's their a**es that will "glow all night and day" NOT over here in the USA.

Warning! = Brusque but honest sentiments expressed above.

[pdurod1]

18. Chernobyl only released about 5 % of its fuel.

and look at the mess.

must see site http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

warning the latimes tried to debunk some of the site as fiction

[Sandpiper]

8. If Iran puts us in a bad position?

That's pretty clever.

Iran hasn't actually done anything to us, but if we make up some demands that they refuse to give in to, they'll have "put us in a bad position" and we'll have to attack.

Hey, why not?

Invent a problem, then pretend that military action is the only "solution."

It worked for Iraq.

[JHBowden]

9. Islamic radicals with nuclear bombs *is* a problem.

That's the reality we have to deal with. We can either put the lives of MILLIONS at risk, or we can choose the least crappy solution and use the airstrikes. This is indeed the bad position we will be in if Iran isn't transparent to international inspectors about its nuclear program.

[Sandpiper]

11. You're using the same bullshit that Bushco used

On why Iraq "had to be invaded."

MILLIONS of lives would be at risk if we didn't.

WMD, death, mushroom clouds in NYC.


I didn't buy it the first time, I'm not buying it now.

[TwentyFive]

14. I agree. I am a progressive - not a pacifist.

Sometimes military action saves the most total lives, especially when a country like Iran is building up their nuclear arsenal.

The problem is that this president lacks diplomatic skills, and Iran knows we are getting our ass kicked in Iraq. If anything, this emboldens them.

[fugrepugs84]

27. True...

... But at the same time -- and I'm trying my utmost to not sound like a bit of a warmonger here -- the U.S. is seemingly the only country that will do something IF Iran doesn't become transparent enough.

Given Chimpy's record though, I'd say he's been planning it for ages now regardless. That's what really irks me.

[Lexingtonian]

16. Israel's isn't

There is a double standard involved here, and a load of hypocrisy.

As for airstrikes having any efficacy whatsoever, what are the chances of that? 5%?

The Bushies simply want to overthrow the Shi'ite mullahs, mostly as retribution for the debacles and problems they've subjected U.S. interests to since 1978. It's hardly more complicated than that, or less. Iran has nukes in order to prevent a U.S. military invasion, for reasons as simple and blunt.

So the Bushies first gambit is to bully and get Iran to disarm itself. The second gambit- sort of independent of the first succeeding or failing- is to try to instigate and support a coup. Were Iran to present some kind of WMD threat, the pretext to send in commando units and bombers (and that seems to be the size of the plan) and such is that much greater.

Btw, the American cities with (by far) the most Iranian immigrees is...Los Angeles. And nuking Tel Aviv, the radioactive fallout cloud would drift...due east, right across the most populated parts of the West Bank, the best parts of Jordan, a bunch of desert, the most populated and Shi'ite portions of Iraq, and then southwestern Iran and Kuwait.

Your argument seems so cogent, and yet it assumes that the Opponent is the first to deviate from realistic assessments- when in fact, you do.

[Sufi Marmot]

17. What makes you think....

...that the mullahs are likely to endanger their own existance by giving their terrorist proxy agents access to nuclear weapons/material? After all, the minute something bad happened to Isreal, Tehran would be wiped off the map as a matter of principle. I've never been convinced that, for all their overblown rhetoric, the Iranian government was inclined to self-annihilation.

-SM

[ProgressiveConn]

19. You joining up to go fight if we do? nt

[fujiyama]

22. You're buying the bullshit the neocons are selling

While Iran's mullah's are theocratic fascists, they really aren't the threat they're made out to be by the neocons - and if they are, they aren't to the US.

Attacking Iran would hardly be more justified than attacking Iraq. The real nuclear problem is that of Pakistan and the potential of their loose nukes falling into rogue generals and terrorists. It's funny, but with the US govt it's always about the same old bullshit about Syria and Iran...You never hear anything being said about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the real terrorist threat of Al Quaeda. Oh sure you'll hear a lot of lip service about Al Quada but it's really our supposed "allies" that are sponsoring them.

If Iran is such a huge threat to Israel then let them take care of it. You can be sure that if they think the threat is great enough, they will. They're not our 51st state. We should do everything in our power to diplomatically end the crisis and find a way to have them discontinue its nuclear program, but if they won't, then we have to live with it, and the Israelies will too...and if the Israelis won't, then they will have to live with potential consequences of Iran retaliating. While Iran's military isn't nearly as powerful as Israel's, they're much more capable than Iran ever was of retaliating. I think Iran even has a medium range ballistic missile capability, more advanced than the scuds Iraq had during the gulf war.

It's no surprise that Iran is constructing a nuclear program. It has several nations surrounding it that do have nukes - including Pakistan, India, and Israel.

Also remember that Iran is majority Shiite. Al Qaeda is mostly Sunni. One thing I won't understand is why we aren't trying to create better ties with Iran, inspite of their mullahs. But of course I also don't really understand why the hell we're in Iraq.

[hangemhigh]

5. The US should clean up it's own damned side of the street

and stop acting like fucking Inspector Javiere to the rest of the world. for Christ's sake.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Here is what General Clark has to say about attacking Iran, today

http://www.u-wes-a.com/mediaclips-post.html
Select to view today's (1/30/05) appearance by Clark on Fox News.

I know, I know, it's Fox News.....

But General Clark is very clear on what we should do about Iran on this. Starts out talking about Iraqi election....but quickly turns to Iran and Syria.

General Clark is a very smart guy (a Rhodes Scholar in fact).....I'm with him on this!

[Pam-Moby]

12. When do we say enough is enough?

We do not have the right to preemptively continue to invade country after country!! This idea of securing the US by controlling any country with force is creating a more unsecured situation that we will have to deal with rather than making us more secure!! We have more power working with the rest of the world in fixing these problems with less resentment to wards the US.

[PATRICK]

13. Should humanity stop Bush?

This is the proper perspective and no other earthly issue will be resolved without grave peril and tremendous useless loss of life. But absolute power deflects the minds, the words, the stampeding herds.

Posing this as an issue is a prelude to Bush's inevitable march. it is worthless and insulting as well as enabling by granting a lie dignity, a war the pre-illusion of justification.

The BBC needs some Hardertalk or they will be dragged along by Tony into yet another war crime. Of course the BBC has been slammed and intimidated too.

[MrSlayer]

21. Of course, they are about to nuke us.

Everyone knows their nookular program is further advanced than ours and they have Polaris subs heading to the coasts of New York and L.A. as we speak. ICBMs will rain down on the Fatherland like...uh...rain if we do not act immediately. This is a threat that has gathered, this is a threat that has grown, this is a threat that is imminent! Freedom is on the fuckin March and will continue it's reign!

[Bouncy Ball]

23. What has Iran done to us lately?

Answer me that and then I'll tell you. As far as I know, though, the answer is "nothing" which means my answer to your question is NO we should not attack Iran.

It's insane enough that we attacked Iraq. Let's not pile up insanity after insanity.

I can't believe that question is even being debated. Has everyone gone fucking mad?

[fujiyama]

24. Yeee Haaaa!

Anyone else reminded of Dr. Strangelove?

[wuushew]

25. kick

:kick:

[ulysses]

26. I can't even think of a way to respond

without deepening sarcasm at the whole state of affairs. Why is this even a question?

[American Tragedy]

29. What sort of attack are we talking about?

Strategic strikes on the nuclear sites, or all-out decapitation of the leadership of the country?

All normative considerations aside, the former could technically be done fairly easily, though it would produce a potential long-term biohazard. The latter is practically impossible, unless the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan all converge on Iran. I hope neither happens, although even simple logic seems to elude this administration, let alone ethics.