Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Sobriety on Iran
His messages:
1) The current Iranian regime must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons
2) Notions of UN referral and economic sanctions are destined for utter failure
3) Reliance upon the Europeans to demonstrate strength is a joke
4) The US must act with strength but also with realism -- that is, there will be a high cost to eliminating Iran's nuclear program. It will be ugly. Many will die. It will take quite awhile.
5) If the US chooses to act, which he seems inclined to do, the American people have to be prepared to "go to the mat."
Peters is a good analyst, a supporter of the Iraq War, but not an unalloyed Bush supporter. Furthermore, he detests Donald Rumsfeld; and I think his analysis is an implicit criticism of Rumfeld's DoD management and management of the Iraq War. His view, I think, is that Rumsfeld was less than upfront about the challenges of Iraq. He also speaks for a crew of Army folks who really don't like Rumsfeld beating on them. I take his stuff pretty seriously and recommend you have a look.
6 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Feb 22, 05:04:00 PM:
The case against Iran has been overstated -- they're still years away from being even close to having a nuke. I would be much more worried about Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons right now and is a Musharraf-assasination away from pointing it right at the U.S. (or Israel).
But regardless of the strength of Iran's threat, all this saber-rattling against Iran is an exercise in futility. There's simply no way we can put any military pressure on Iran with our troop levels as low as they are. Right now, we're pursuing diplomatic options because that's simply our only option, and will be for years to come.
By 
PeterBoston, at
Wed Feb 22, 05:18:00 PM:
Sam, how would you know for a fact the status of Iran's weapon development? It may be just as likey they are only months, maybe even weeks, away.
I also think your assessment of US military capability is way off the mark. Nobody is talking about a military occupation of Iran from either need or desire.
By , at
Wed Feb 22, 06:21:00 PM:
We humbly recommend to readers our analysis of The Consequences of an Iranian War,
Part 1
Part 2
and
Part 3.
These posts discuss a military plan to eliminate Iran's nuclear-industrial complex, the problems and risks with the plan, and the possible "blow-back" consequences if the plan were executed.
We conclude that the plan is likely feasible under current circumstances and the consequences manageable. But it is substantially risky; it operates under the assumption that the U.S. action will be a large-scale raid, meaning in-and-out, with no occupation of Iran and no attempt to manage any regime change. The risk is that unforeseen circumstances, a fact of life in war, may upset this critical assumption.
Westhawk
By blert, at
Wed Feb 22, 06:28:00 PM:
The Iranians have leaked time and again their nuclear competence. They ALREADY have a token nuclear deterrent.
They don't need to test proven blueprints. They are receiving help from all over: Pakistan, North Korea, China....
Uranium enrichment is not essential to getting first generation fissile weapons. India, China, Pakistan, Isreal and South Africa got the bomb without enrichment. Most used CANDU reactor designs: heavy water moderated. Iran has had serious heavy water production capacity for years. You really think that they just let that capacity sit idle?
Uranium enrichment is essential when you cook up the trick magic isotopes required in advanced weapons. They need a hotter nuclear fire for practical production.
Iran's gambit is to move on up to hydrogen bombs. They are being massively assisted by China via a string of sock puppet front nations.
Since China almost certainly has obtained our most advanced nuclear designs... and done their own work to boot: there is no wasted effort for the Iranians.
On present trends, America figures to become the Gulf's hegemon for generations. That does not fit with Chinese hopes.
Iran has already unleashed its 'brownshirt' rabble to intimidate Western opinion makers. It's working perfectly; way beyond hope.
Amahdi-Nejad is naturally full of himself and well on the way to dictatorial power.
The train has left the station. Start running.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Feb 22, 09:59:00 PM:
...and the whole deck of cards comes crashing down on 5.
By , at
Wed Feb 22, 11:19:00 PM:
Sam, how would you know for a fact the status of Iran's weapon development? It may be just as likey they are only months, maybe even weeks, away.
Well, our own intelligence says Iran is still ten years away from a nuclear bomb.
But I guess we've been wrong before, eh?
I also think your assessment of US military capability is way off the mark. Nobody is talking about a military occupation of Iran from either need or desire.
You really think a few air strikes are going to be enough to deter Iran? There's just too many targets and too much area to cover for a campaign waged solely in the air. Once you open that can of worms, the first bomb drop would be enough of an excuse for Iran to make good on their promise to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". If you're going to go into Iran, it would have to be a complete campaign to lessen the possibility of collateral damage outside of Iran's borders.
