Iran: What would YOU do?
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Pete

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"?

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.

You warmonger!

;)

Pete

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

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

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?

That's a lot deeper than what I said but we're saying the same thing.

It's easy to see that you do not approve of electronjohn's proposal, but the question up for debate is: What Would YOU Do ????

Just how you would you deal with Iran ?

Sincerely,

Bill

You mean, we actually attempt to limit our adversaries ability to acquire holocaustical weapons? Jeez, we're a bunch of idiots.

Pete

In other news -- invoking Godwin's Law -- Poland is manifestly ours!

(sigh) :rolleyes:

I think we should invade Canada first. Second time's the charm!

Pete

That's exactly what I was looking for: How would YOU deal with Iran? Obviously, what I proposed was a way to deal with a worst-case scenario: All else has failed...the only option left is the military option. Carpet-bombing with B-52s is a non-starter...ICBMs to turn the place into a molten lake won't pass muster here or with the world community...so you're left with exploring the most efficient way to accomplish the objective: Kill the electricity and you kill the program.

I suppose I should start another thread: What would YOU do about Syria?

oh, my mistake. I mistook this thread as something more than mental masturbation about apocalyptic, dime store novel scenarios.

first,i'd fire god, he's obviously a lazy fucker. this is clearly a job for superman.

Call in the Family and put a hit on Assad.:p

LMAO!!!!! Love it!!!

Dave

It seems the sanctions are working for the moment. While I agree with Neophyte that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the notion of imposing our will on a sovereign country, Iran is a bit untrustworthy for my tastes as a potential nuclear power. Of course, they have every reason to dislike or feel threatened by us as much as we do by them considering we assassinated their first democratically elected President in 1953 over oil.

With a well integrated power grid, bombing a nearby power plant would have little lasting impact. Besides, centrifuges are far more energy efficient than the old gaseous diffusion method. If it comes to airstrikes against Iran, we need to go far enough that reconstituting their program is, for all practical purposes, impossible. Bombing a power plant won't do that.

I think we still have several years to figure this out. Israel's war drums are a tactical ploy to make Iran feel that an attack is imminent and to get the intransigent actors (i.e., Russia, China) on board for stricter sanctions.

I'm siding with Zeke and Pete on this one.
As a peace gesture to the mullas we should deliver the deceased Shah as they have demanded. The Cromwellian solution usually quiets down the hubbub and the rabid warmongers go back to sharpening their long knives in the dark.:rolleyes:

OP, taking out the power grid as you've envisioned violates quite a few conventions and treaties that we've fostered. Just because we've essentially used the Geneva Convention for toilet paper once or twice doesn't mean a logical precedent has been established, I hope. :p

Better yet , invite them to take out Miami or LA if that'll make them feel better. Randy Newman said it best" Let's drop the big one and see what happens. Boom goes London, boom Paris." I'm with Neo, today!

Ah, dime store scenarios, until Tel Aviv vaporises. But they'd have deserved it?

Finn I agree with you. Further, I believe that the right's sabre rattling is orchestrated to scare them even more (I believe this happens more than we think).

Pete

What would I do?

Tell Israel, and whoever else is in striking distance of Iran they can do what they feel is necessary.

But, I would send not a single US soldier, nor launch a single US missle or drop any bombs from any US aircraft until someone actually and physically threatened Americans on American bases*, territories or the American soil itself.

It's time to let our allies fight their own battles.

Screw this "World Cop" BS, we can't afford it anymore.

(*And we would have far LESS of those abroad, if I had anything to say about it.)

Dave

Put ourselves in a position (develop our own energy resources) where we don't need the Middle East in general and Iran in particular in the 1st place. Should have been doing that since 1973 at the latest.

And do our best to ignore them in the meantime.

BTW, the first rule in training a dog is to ignore it if it doesn't obey your commands.

Chas

Another thought, let's bomb the shit out of Morgan Stanley, Citibank, BIS, the Bank of England, etc, right on down the line.

It's not as crazy as it sounds, if you stop and think about it.

Chas

Shhhhh, BOfA is monitoring this forum. :D Not that I disagree..:rolleyes: Not to mention the Homies Securities Club

2nd rule is to withhold food.;)

You're giving me too much credit, Pete. I prefer the term comic book scenarios.:D too bad Cap'n America is destitute these days.:p Not toothless, though..

I do believe that the crazy mullahs understand the 'right of the sea' doctrine especially with Diego Garcia on their doorstep. I trust that the mils have more than enough Patriot batteries set up there.

The Riyadh Corp. ain't going to take any shit from across that little waterway, either. Funny how they've kept above the fray, so to speak. It's like Stewart said last night, Iranian election year, US election year and Netanyahoo is calling for elections. I'll bet all of these assholes are in the oils futures biz. TelAviv isn't going anywhere, you can count on that!

Ossirac is a prime example of Israeli foreign policy in this dimestore novel....

Excellent! Time for us to take Buffalo back. Then again....

We could try something novel, like actual diplomacy!

So why would they want to have nukes? The US helped overthrow their democratically elected government and installed a dictator. The US then supported that dictator, until it became inconvenient and then threw him to the dogs. The US then supported aggression by one of Irans neighbors against them. The US dicks with their economy. US pres calls them a part of an axis if evil and threatens to do what it takes to protect itself from them.

So in what part of this has diplomacy been tried and found not to work? Hey, I'm no fan of Ahmadinnerjacket and the ayatollahs and mullahs, but it is not like we have given them any reason not to want to have nukes. Especially when their are likely a couple of hundred nukes pointed at them right now by their sworn enemy.

Their is a lot of room for diplomacy actually. Crap, let's just give them Some Canadian CANDU reactors, and they will have the power they need without any worries of them making nukes from them.

The US has made friends with worse regimes. Mubarak was no saint. Saddam was a buddy. Damn, Nixon went and met with the worst mass murdering regime in history, and that is one of Americas largest trading partners now. So, now would be a good time to normalize relations with Iran.

Then again, it's a whole lot easier to just drop some bombs, isn't it?

So much for Hope and Change.

Pete

Because Dr. No changed it to Nope.:p

lol :D

Here's the thing, and it reflects well, at least a little, on our Fearless Leader too: If our friendship/support of thugs in the past resulted in everything bad in the world, from Iran to Al Qiada, how can we say keep on doing it? Isn't this why we bombed Libya?

Pete

That's one of the things about Obama that has really disappointed me. Compared to the bonehead that preceded him at his desk, he has been a foreign relations wizard. Just a genius. But compared to what he should have been doing, he gets a D+ from me.

I'll let the "bonehead" defend himself.

Attachment 1203

I've been waiting to drop that one!!!

Chas

Pretty weak defense. I guess that's about right for the guy tho.

how does that old proverb go? "a bird in the hand....."

More Christian values.........:p

Dave