Friday, October 05, 2007
Iran and the Use of Military Force
1) Iran is engaged in supporting military activity against the US and its soldiers in theaters outside of Iran, in particular Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you agree with this premise?
2) Iran has engaged in numerous acts of force which have caused death and injury to Americans since the rise of its current regime in 1979. Do you agree?
3) Iran is today engaged in a nuclear development and missile development program. Do you agree?
4) The ostensible purpose of the nuclear and missile development program is offensive military capability. That capability could be directed towards a number of targets, including Arab nations, Israel, certain European nations and even the United States. Do you agree?
5) Is the US ever justified it the use of military force against Iran? If so, in your judgment, under what circumstances? Must the US and its allies allow Iran to strike first, or would the US be justified in using preemptive force? What constitutes sufficient provocation against the US, its allies or its interests to use military force?
6) Is the Iranian Islamic theocracy a regime which requires a constant state of conflict with non-Islamic regimes as a matter of philosophy, or can non-Islamic countries coexist with Iran, such as it is?
7) If the US were to elect to use military force to confront Iran, what should the objectives of that action be? Destruction of offensive military capability? Economic dislocation/bankruptcy? Regime change?
A diversity of responses would be welcomed. And in the end, this is not so much about evidence as much as it is about opinion. What do you think? Not what has been proven. Fire away....
24 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Oct 05, 12:34:00 PM:
1) I agree.
2) I agree.
3) I agree.
4) I agree.
5) Yes; all of the above; preemptive force is justified; all of the above.
6) Beats the heck out of me.
7) Destruction of offensive military capability and regime change.
That said, our nation lacks the will to defend itself, despite 28 years and counting as the object of aggression.
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Fri Oct 05, 01:29:00 PM:
I would take Pohl's "cool war" approach towards Iran.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 02:33:00 PM:
If the US elects to use force against Iran, it should wait until 2009, when there is an administration competent to carry it out.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 02:35:00 PM:
I think we have been within our rights to attack Iran since at least 1982. Is it our best option?
I don't know. I would say YES W/O hesitation,but I have so little confidence in the people and President of America it may not be a good idea at all.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 02:56:00 PM:
Because I believe that all of the statements tend to be correct interpretations of fact, we should a) make the obligatory visit to the UN to detail the intelligence we have and the long trail of evidence of Iranian involvement in virtually every act of violence against the US over the past 28 years, b) clearly state that active Iranian involvement in the manufacture and use of EFP's and IED's in the Iraqi theater is the last straw and a clear act of war against the US, c) establish control of the airspace over the Straits of Hormuz and all Persian Gulf petroleum outlets, d) move our carrier groups in the area to a relatively safe distance from possible attack, e)inform such insurgents and supporters of a secular republic within Iran as we have contact with that we are about to enable their removal of the theothugocrats, f)remove all meaningful offensive military capability from the battlefield and, last but not least, g) put sufficient boots on the ground to eliminate anything that looks like a nuclear proliferation risk.
Option 2 would be to simply wait until Israel is sufficiently concerned and have them act out of a more localized self-defense motive, but it's a little embarrassing to have them do what we clearly should handle ourselves.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 03:05:00 PM:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Maybe. "Offensive" or "intimidating" are not exactly the same. I'm not sure they plan on attacking anybody, although there may indeed be hotheads in Iranian ruling circle who would like to. Intimidate, or "Finlandize" in the old terminology.
5) Yes, if identifiable formations of Iranian military units cross over into Iraq and attack US troops. Capturing officers of the Qods force involved in inciting war against our troops is indeed "provocation", but are we really willing to go to war over that?
6) Sure. Venezuala is a "perfect" example of that. And that is the perfect example case. Half a world away from Muslim nations and a common foe.
7) Economic dislocation and bancruptcy, along with identifiable nuclear weapons manufacturing locations. Using conventional munitions..
Is is undersirable now and into the forseeable future to confront Iran directly with military force.
We could succeed in our tactical aims but fail, strategically.
This is, indeed, something that they would desire. It would elevate their status, just as that idiot Bollinger inviting Amidenejad to speak at Columbia did.
Let them fail on their own, economically. Do everything we can, short of attacking, to reduce their oil exports. And see what we can do to drive down the world oil price, as the Russians do what they do to drive it up.
-David
By Fritz, at
Fri Oct 05, 03:29:00 PM:
hmmm... more or less what David said seems pretty reasonable. But please, no more regime change disasters! If Iraq and Afghanistan haven't disabused you of that notion, I don't know what will. Either the citizens of a country rise up and do it themselves or it just won't happen.
I'm also not sure that, assuming that we get the Iranian nuclear weapons issue off the table one way or another, we should give up on the "soft power" approach completely. Remind me again why we still have an embargo on trade with Cuba? It's ridiculous, and Iran could turn into the same kind of situation if we're not careful. Even if Iran has caused the deaths of some U.S. citizens or soldiers in the past and is supporting the insurgency now, if we can contain them without fighting a war and let our superior culture and economy go to work on the Mullahs, then that's definitely what we should do.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 04:13:00 PM:
we are already engaged in crushing iran, it just isn't being reported (quel suprise). the u.s. is wrapped around them like a python and is squeezing them mercilessly. why do you think their economy is in near collapse, in spite of the high price of oil ? eventually they will lash out in desperation, and that's when the trap closes and we pulp their infrastructure. after that, it's ceaucescu time for the mullahs. in a funny way, the media actually helps in this process by painting a completely inaccurate picture of what's really going on.
and if you think a democratic administration (shudder) is going to be somehow more competent, then please account for the following:
1. bay of pigs
2. vietnam (the early phases)
3. seizure of our embassy in tehran
4. kosovo
5. somalia
yep yep yep, jimmy and bill certainly put the fear of god into tyrants and thugs. guffaw.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 04:32:00 PM:
By the Iranian's own admissions and declarations ("Death to American"?), they are at "war" with us right now, and have in the past +28 years and are right now committing acts of war.
But do we "give them what they want", and acknowledge that we have "only" force to diminish them?
We fiddled with Saddam's Iraq for 12 years before calling off the armistice that ended the Gulf War and starting OIF.
Afghanistan had become a charnel house of 17 million human beings. How the Hell were they supposed to rise up and over-throw the Taliban? Al Qaeda ( or the Taliban) assasinated the leader of the Northern Alliance right before 9/11/01. Coincindence? Pakistan's ISI very likely funded, supported and encouraged the Taliban, as they are now in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier provinces.
There are places in the world that are absolutely dreadful. Most of the people in the US, Canada, and Western Europe are so rich, relatively speaking, that most of us have no conception of how bad things are in some places in the world.
Sudan. Burma. Somalia. Congo. Zimbabwe. There is quite a list.
And in most of these places people have no freaking clue or ability to "rise up", unless they want to be massacred.
It's not our duty to fix all the broken countries in the world, but just what in the Hell ARE WE supposed to do?
And if we are even partly successful with economic weapons against Iran, we could be complicit in wrecking the Iranian economy, and bringing misery to millions.
There are no happy answers. There is only this flawed vail of tears that we live in. I hope President Hillary lives up to all the expectations people have for her.
-David
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 04:33:00 PM:
"it should wait until 2009,when there is an administration competent to carry it out."
Similar to Carter in Iran or Clinton in Waco and Miami! Did you see the children burn in Waco? Absolute competence.
Maybe Francois Kerry as secretary of defense, Al Gore as AG. Awesome.
Tinfoil and Kool-Aid.
SEW
By Ardeshir Dolat, at
Fri Oct 05, 05:01:00 PM:
Going away?
Hare are my answers:
to 1,2,3,4, yes
5: The Mullahs have already struck you many times. 6: The Mullahs are not nationalists who care about Iran, it is the Islam they stand for. The Islam does not understand borders and patriotism. Therefore it is foolish to believe that you can contain the Mullahs or force them to just confine themselves to within the Iranian borders. 7: The US should attack the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps all over Iran only. The war between the US and the IRGC by proxy has been going on since the inception of the Islamic regime. Your solders are being killed today not because the Iraqis don't want you, but because the Islamic regime wants you out of Iraq. It is the same in Afghanistan.
You can either carry on with the proxy war or take on the IRGC.
IMO You cannot go on any longer with the proxy war. The most successful wars for the US are those that are fought and won in the shortest possible time. The war with the IRGC is the final war with some inevitable after shocks. That final confrontation is as sure as night follows day and no one, not even the leftist Iranians, posing as the opposition, who have infiltrated the US decision making machine, can prevent it from taking place.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Oct 05, 05:16:00 PM:
I believe there is a gem of genuine wisdom in that last post.
Focus on the Revolutionary Guard, not the conventional army. The Guard are the tools of the religious nuts who revel in killing Americans. Should a power vacuum arise in Iran when whatever drama occurs plays out, there should still exist a cohesive, nationalist institution to fill it. The conventional army could be that authority.
Part and parcel of this is not supporting the partition of Iran as it currently exists.
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Oct 05, 05:38:00 PM:
but just what in the Hell ARE WE supposed to do?
According to Fritz, you sip lattes and remark about how dreadful those places are, but they brought it on themselves and deserve to live under tyrants.
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 06:32:00 PM:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes and no. I believe they are primarily to act as a defensive deterrent, but with offensive options. The offensive options would likely be of the "nuke in a shipping container" variety, not the missile option.
5) Yes. Given that they are already (mostly non-directly) attacking us in Iraq, we already have sufficient justification.
6) Can co-exist.
7) Regime change would be ideal, but significantly slowing down their nuclear program is far more realistic. May be a good idea to hit key economic points too, depending on the strategic plan.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Oct 05, 06:52:00 PM:
Anonymous, at Fri Oct 05, 02:56:00 PM~
I agree, but I think item (g) is problematic. After what the Clinton Administration did to our military, I don't think we currently have enough combat troops to but those "sufficient boots on the ground". Recovering from the gutting of our military forces is going to take time. Had we not been in that situation when Bush came into office, we might have had a different strategy when we invaded Iraq that would have prevented the type of insurgency we saw develop (with the help and encouragement of non-Iraqis, not Iranian and otherwise). Iran needs to be dealt with, but I don't have the answer as to "how". I do know it needs to be BEFORE they acquire nukes - some of those in the power structure over there are just to willing to hasten the return of the 12th Imam.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Oct 05, 06:54:00 PM:
By , at
Fri Oct 05, 07:47:00 PM:
Iran is our enemy, they are dangerous, they are in a state of low-level "sitzkrieg" war with us until they get nukes and/or ballistic missiles that can hit the US or Europe. Of course Iran needs to be dealt with.
Political reality at home is that no level of combat casualties are acceptable to the US public, despite an all-volunteer military.
Therefore, US response should maximize our advantages: air and naval power and minimize our disadvantages: political fallout from US casualties. At all points UAVs and such should be used.
Iran's biggest danger to the US is their nuke program which poses an existential threat to US cities. Given that Iran has no experience of US responses to attacks and has a deniable cut-out in Hezbollah.
Iran's nuke program is spread out, making it hard to hit the components and destroy them. BUT this has another vulnerability, i.e. each site needs transport and power to assemble the final pieces. Therefore the appropriate US response is to hit power plants, power lines, and all modes of transport in and out of the various sites.
The bonus of this is that few casualties among Iranians as well as our own will happen.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Oct 05, 09:50:00 PM:
Iran is literally fueled (heh) by their petrol exports and the high cost of oil.
Step 1) Blockade.
Step 2) Air/missile-strike their export pipelines. Coordinate this with an OPEC spike in production (they ought to be thrilled at the idea) to avoid completely upsetting the international market.
Step 3) Watch the Iranian state implode. They've been spending money like crazy trying to modernize military equipment and build nuclear bombs, while their workers aren't getting salaries for as long as 8 months at a time. Let's see what happens when they don't have *any* money.
Simple, elegant, and relatively cheap. So, naturally, it isn't an option.
By Fritz, at
Fri Oct 05, 10:37:00 PM:
Right, and according to PA, you go in, overthrow the government, and if 50-70,000 civilians die during the occupation, well, you can assure yourself you did the right thing because of your noble intentions, and after all overall everyone is happier this way. I don't believe that either, but see how stupid this kind of crap that you are spewing is, PA?
Also, we're going to be in Iraq for a while yet, so I wouldn't go gearing up for your next occupation to save the world just yet. There are things we can do to help people in other countries, and possibly also to reform bad regimes, but I don't think that Iraq/Afghanistan have demonstrated that military force is a good option, and I am convinced we should avoid it if at all possible. But of course, that doesn't fit into the black and white, us vs them vision of people like PA.
By Cas, at
Fri Oct 05, 11:30:00 PM:
Anyone who can read a map would see that cjm was correct in saying that we have Iran surrounded, and have been trying to (economically) choke the "mullahocracy" for some time.
The Iranian (Persian?) people are for the most part quite sick of the regime as well. But can we use any of these points, or the Iranian regime's nuclear program, as a cuase to go to war? The American public is sick of war, and only believe what the media tell them...
By , at
Sat Oct 06, 07:02:00 AM:
Iran has pretty much given us multiple causes to go to war anytime we want. They are providing people, money and weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. The question is what should we do about it?
It amazes me the number of people who seem to feel military force is not an option. How many people are dying because we refuse to use force? Not just Iranians, Not just Iraqis, but American citizens as well. Soldiers are citizens after all. How much of the insurgency would go away if Iran’s government toppled? Could the soldiers occupying Iraq occupy Iran? Look at GDP and defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget. This is a cheap war compared to the past, we are hardly exerting ourselves. We could invade if we wanted to, but everyone seems convinced we don’t want to.
Our goal needs to be regime and Ideology change. Civilization is about cooperation and respecting another person or county’s rights to life and property. You can only talk with someone willing to negotiate. Otherwise, you talk while they carry out their plans. No longer can we make phrases about Ignoring towel heads and let them ride their camels. Aside from the immorality of ignoring the suffering of human beings, 19 people on 9/11 demonstrated the fallacy of such isolationism. So we should ignore the President of a country who says he is pursing nuclear weapons to destroy another country. Hardly civilized.
I have a Venezuelan friend. We talk weekly about what is going on in Venezuela. It is clear that the educated and moneyed people who had the option of leaving have left. Those left riot against Chavez, get killed by Chavez and are slowly but surely submitting to Chavez. I would like to think Americans would not stand for such nonsense, but too much of what I hear on the news gives me doubt. Fighting a government will cause many whole families to be killed. Would you take the risk for your family? What if you had no money, no education, no weapons, etc. Most Americans don’t even comprehend the local conditions.
What Bush is trying to do is spread Civilization. We don’t have the capacity to treat every location, so we are going after spots that mean the most for our own interests. Bringing the current Iranian Government down is in the US and the World’s best interest. The sooner the better.
All Administrations make mistakes. All human endeavors have mistakes, but we can learn. What we learned from Iraq is still fresh and can help us with Iran. I don’t know that military force is the best option, but I am unwilling to take if off the table. Do we have an economic chokehold on Iran, I don’t know. I have been in wrestling matches where someone thought they had a choke hold, but I could breath a little. It was enough to let me concentrate on a reversal to get a pin. We don’t always know what we know.
If Iran’s economy is weak, her population ready to rebel, maybe this is the best time to invade. Make it clear we want the current regime out. But we will be there for a long time. In Iraq, no one under the age of 40 remembers life before Saddam. In Iran it is pretty much the same for the Theocracy. They need time to learn civilized behavior and government, because they do not understand that yet or they would not be acting as they are.
Ask yourself this, what will be your opinion if Iran succeeds in her quest to nuke Israel? If that happens, who should do what? Should we act to prevent it? What do you do in an imperfect world with imperfect information? I say fail conservative and shut Iran down soonest by whatever means are necessary. Those 50-70,000 Civilian deaths won’t be from the US Military. Find out who is killing the majority of Iraqis, it is not Americans.
By , at
Mon Oct 08, 11:59:00 PM:
You've left a step out:
Given the ability of the American government and population to sustain military action, is military action the best approach?
I think all recent wars show that the ability of the USA to sustain military action is fairly low.
It might be, that the brutal, ruthless approach is to wait until Paris/Israel/Ethiopia is nuked, and then the USA will able to use it's otherwise handcuffed military.
By , at
Tue Oct 09, 10:26:00 AM:
Yes to 1-4
5) Yes but sufficient provocation has not yet been met but is pretty close.
6) Maybe
7) The most effective course of action the US can take is spend a minimum of $100 Billion on bringing a non-oil based Energy source to market and freely sharing it with the rest of the world. The resultant Economic crash of Iran would more than likely bring about Regime change.
By , at
Fri Oct 12, 06:08:00 PM:
"It's not our duty to fix all the broken countries in the world"
Then It IS our duty to see that those broken countries never have the means to threaten our people.
I vote for blockade, b*tch slapping them without mercy - as in the tanker war- no apology and targeted elimination of all religious leaders, schools, and forces. Our actions should be provocative, pro-active and aimed not at having them backing down, but rather at sticking their neck out. Its their plan, we certainly can do better.
The political and social power their clergy wields is more dangerous than their (very soon to have) nukes. Even they know that. But hit those plants too. And since their religious jihad is pan national – indeed they have no thought of destroying the Persian cultural heritage – then that is more reason not to limit strikes to just their homeland but Hizbollah too; they have already indicated their plans too strike us in other parts of the world.
Put Sistani on a night train with American escort to Qom to start a counter quietist revolution. Arm non-persian ethnic separatist groups. Don’t be cheap. Its logistics from here out, not resolutions. I dont think we will get a pass at any international "consensus". The consensus is not for democracy. If it is, well then its immoral not to go to war with the ayatollahs.
If that doesn’t soften them up, well its on their heads with the LeMay Option. Let whatever religion replaces islam in iran rebuild from the rubble without our help.
