Iran: What would YOU do?

[electronjohn]

We've been hearing quite a bit of noise about what to do about Iran and their nuclear ambitions. I won't bother to outline some of the proposals...we've all heard them. I will stipulate from the outset that, regardless of statements from the Iranian government, they intend to develop nuclear weapons. If it were strictly an electric power program...why the secrecy & hardening of facilities?

So...what would YOU do? In my case...I would cripple Iran's electric power system to the point of near-obliteration. Uranium enrichment is a very power-hungry process, and, without electricity...the enrichment process stops. No juice=no nukes. Take out the power plants first, wipe out the HV transmission lines, flatten substations & switchyards. This tactic would obviously have quite an effect on the populace, but it beats most alternatives.

[d-ray657]

So we start an air war. Do you have a prediction about what Iran's response to this would be, and on how any conflict would be contained within Iran's borders?

Regards,

D-Ray

[barbara]

I'm no war expert, but ever since our unprovoked invasion of Iraq, I've just had a gut feeling that most anyone in the mid east is just looking for us to give them an opportunity to play their war games on united states soil.
Hopefully, I'm wrong.

[electronjohn]

I'm making the assumption that sanctions aren't working and that diplomacy is a non-starter. That leaves some sort of offensive action as the only viable alternative. It would be nice to flood the country with saboteurs & take care of things from within...but I don't know if that could be pulled off.

I'm not a saber-rattling warmonger...just looking for the most efficient tool for the job at hand.

[piece-itpete]

Heck if I know. I'll leave it to Obomba

Pete

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by electronjohn

I'm making the assumption that sanctions aren't working and that diplomacy is a non-starter. That leaves some sort of offensive action as the only viable alternative. It would be nice to flood the country with saboteurs & take care of things from within...but I don't know if that could be pulled off.

I'm not a saber-rattling warmonger...just looking for the most efficient tool for the job at hand.

with all due respect, your entire premise is based on the type(s) of military action for the USA to take against a free and sovereign nation in order to bend them to our will because they won't willingly submit to it, even in the face of the strenuous sanctions already in place and on our hegemonist drawing board. Your post suggests that we actually have the right, if not the responsibility to try and blast them into submission if they don't bow down to us.

and you say you're not "a saber rattling war monger"?

[electronjohn]

The salient fact is, unlike the ginned-up BS about Iraq having WMDs...the Iranian nuclear weapons program is a real thing. If it were truly a program devoted to establishing a nuclear-based electric power supply...then it would be logical to expect Iranian authorities to open their arms wide and say "Come see! Come see!" But...that's not the case. Logic doesn't apply when you're dealing with a theocracy rooted in the Middle Ages with the avowed goal of conquering the West.

Even North Korea is starting to weigh the consequences of their own nuclear program. I would predict that NK will abandon their weapons development before Iran does. A big difference is that North Korea doesn't have the jihad mentality that Iran does. NK's only ideology is that of "juche" AKA total self-reliance (with a strong undercurrent of reunification with the South). I believe North Korea is beginning to realize that reunification by force isn't going to happen...so some sort of "understanding" will eventually be reached to allow two independent nations to exist on the Korean peninsula with free trade and travel between the two.

I would truly love to see the Iranian problem be solved non-militarily. But...that may not be the case. It's quite likely the US won't need to lift a finger...the Israelis are more than capable (and more motivated by a real threat) of taking care of business. However, all contingencies need to be considered. To think otherwise would be a serious error.

[piece-itpete]

You warmonger!



Pete

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by electronjohn

...just looking for the most efficient tool for the job at hand.

Seems to me that would involve not giving them reasons to desire to attack us in the first place?

It's like blaming a dog you've continually mistreated for biting you. It's not the dog's fault...

[neophyte]

should we, as the self appointed bitch mother superior of the planet, also be developing contingencies for the obliteration of the infrastructure of Brazil as well? I mean, they have uranium mines and nuclear generation facilities. it only stands to "reason" that they're developing nuclear weapons and have designs on conquering the world we somehow feel is ours to manipulate.

I have an idea. Let's install a proxy in the region and arm them with our nukes. Maybe Paraguay. Perhaps we can even conjur up some mythical reason to illegally occupy the Falklands, and establish a Guantanamo like presence there. I mean, it's the American way, and everyone on the planet is in awe of how just, righteous and perfect we are, aren't they?

We should do this in the best interests of the countries and cultures in the region. I mean, look how stable the Middle East is as a result of our benevolent posture and actions there.

electrojohn, stop and think about what it really is you're musing about. how did you make the leap to the position you appear to advocate? you appear to have "rationalized" committing outrageous acts of war on a nation that may (or may not) eventually possess nuclear weaponry, and appear to be licking your chops at the prospect of the judeo christian henchmen we installed in the region doing same.


wtf?