Iran warnes US to not return carrier to Persian Gulf

[RoccoR]

GenSeneca, et al,

There is no right or wrong answer.

My question remains unanswered... Do you believe military action will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

(ANSWER)

If the US goes in and does a limited, half=hearted strike --- THEN NO! It will only stiffen the Iranian resolve and piss-off the tiger.

If the US degrades Iran back to the 6th Century; --- THEN GREATER CHANCE OF SUCCESS!

(COMMENT)

I have been an advocate of the US withdrawing from the Persian Gulf. I believe the Middle East/Persian Gulf neighborhood should be protected by the Gulf Coast Community. But the US is, from a political-military position, a hegemony. So there is no way, from a practical standpoint, is the US going to make the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf Countries stand-up and protect themselves. The USG believes that it have a higher calling and moral imperative to police the seas. So it will not withdraw.

By not withdrawing, the risk of confrontation is greater, and the chance for political success on the matter of non-proliferation MUCH LESS likely.

Even if the US militarily engages Iran, it will be limited and not decisive in terms of leaving Iran the ability and strong will to pursue retaliation asymmetrically.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BigRob]

Pocket, what is your position on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?

Dogtowner, you see Iran obtaining nuclear weapons as a threat to US and Israeli national security, correct? What other, if any, nations would a nuclear armed Iran pose a threat to national security?

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two that immediately come to mind.

 

[BigRob]

That didn't work when we used that strategy against the Norks, why do you believe that same strategy will be successful in Iran?

It is not quite the same. Our intel presence on the ground in NK is non-existant. In Iran, we could have more success (and have going by some recent news stories)

 

[GenSeneca]

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two that immediately come to mind.

What are they offering to do, and/or suggest be done, in order to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons?

 

[GenSeneca]

It is not quite the same. Our intel presence on the ground in NK is non-existant. In Iran, we could have more success (and have going by some recent news stories)

Are you making that comment in regards to sanctions, covert actions, or both? I really can't see intel making a difference in regards to sanctions but maybe you know something I don't... BTW, do you think sanctions can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, whether alone or as part of a broader strategy (without the use of military force)? As for covert action, exactly what action(s) do you believe we could pull off that would end Iran's nuclear ambitions? Lastly, do you believe military action would end Iran's nuclear ambitions?

 

[BigRob]

Are you making that comment in regards to sanctions, covert actions, or both? I really can't see intel making a difference in regards to sanctions but maybe you know something I don't...

I state that solely in regards to covert action. I think sanctions are typically not worth much of anything.

BTW, do you think sanctions can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, whether alone or as part of a broader strategy (without the use of military force)?

No.

As for covert action, exactly what action(s) do you believe we could pull off that would end Iran's nuclear ambitions?

I think you are asking the wrong question. I don't care about "ending" Iranian nuclear ambition...I care about delaying it. I think a combination of facility espionage, key assassinations of scientific leaders, and cyber attacks would be a good place to start.

Lastly, do you believe military action would end Iran's nuclear ambitions?

No...but again, I think the question is really how we can delay their ambitions, not end them.

 

[BigRob]

What are they offering to do, and/or suggest be done, in order to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons?

In the public, there is nothing they really can do - however I believe (based solely on my viewpoints) that they are offering covert assistance to delay an Iran weapon.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't care about "ending" Iranian nuclear ambition...I care about delaying it.

Delay it to what end?

I think a combination of facility espionage, key assassinations of scientific leaders, and cyber attacks would be a good place to start.

Is any of that legal?

 

[GenSeneca]

I believe ... they are offering covert assistance to delay an Iran weapon.

In what form? Would/Could those countries carry out covert acts of espionage, sabotage, assassination, and hacking?

 

[BigRob]

Delay it to what end?

6 months...a year...anything that is not "now".

Is any of that legal?

Well...it kind of depends on how exactly you structure it all.

But -- are you prepared to let Iran obtain a bomb today on the grounds that prevention skirts the lines of legality?

 

[BigRob]

In what form? Would/Could those countries carry out covert acts of espionage, sabotage, assassination, and hacking?

Yes (in varying degrees, and with varying degrees of assistance) to all your questions.

Even if they cannot -- information sharing is just (if not more) valuable. And it is far easier for Jordanian intelligence (as an example) to get better information than our own people in this scenario it seems.

 

[BigRob]

et al,

Yes, that is a thought. But, no covert action in the Middle East/Persian Gulf has ever resulted in a 100 year old stable Regime (or even a 50 year old stable Regime)..

It should be noted that the goal of covert action regime change is not a 100 year old stable Regime either. It is a fallacy to assume that our interests cannot be served in the short run by a regime that 15 years down the road will work against us.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are two that immediately come to mind.

UAE as well...Better chance of them attacking the UAE then even Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

BigRob, et al,

You are in very good company.

It should be noted that the goal of covert action regime change is not a 100 year old stable Regime either. It is a fallacy to assume that our interests cannot be served in the short run by a regime that 15 years down the road will work against us.

(COMMENT)

This is the near same logic that created the problems in the Middle East in the first place.

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Yes, of course you are right. Your generation can reap a short-term benefit today, while a future generation might have a more serious problem to handle. Short-term might also be myopically short-sighted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pocketfullofshells]

My question remains unanswered... Do you believe military action will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

and you have not responded to mine...though I thought I made it very clear...can it? Yes...would be be costly? Very...would it be easy? not even close. Would many Americans die? yes...would it cost a Fortune...yes...would the war be more then just against Iran..yes...

Asking if it could is a stupid question...the real question is...is there a better way to do it...and would the cost of doing it be better then the cost of not...

How many Dead American Troops would you be ok with to protect Israel?