• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran test-fires missiles amid nuclear tension

Charles Martel said:
I agree deterrence is unreliable, so some form of military action?
Click to expand...

Well, I would say that airstrikes are a terrible option, but it might just be the best bad option that we have.

Before we rush to that however, I would attempt to contact dissident groups inside of Iran and take a realistic look at the odds they could orchestrate some kind of rebellion. If that actually works, we can offer to recognize whatever government would come from this in exchange for all Iranian fissile material and an end to the nuclear program. If there is no chance we can get arms into the country and actually get this going, then something is going to have to give.

Iran (especially an anti-Western Iran) cannot possess a nuclear warhead for a plethora of reasons, and airstrikes only set that goal back, they do not eliminate it. You could also argue that an airstrike makes the climate much more urgent to go ahead and get a bomb, in effect speeding the process up.
 
Redress said:
Iran test-fires missiles amid nuclear tension - Yahoo! News



This is worrying news. Iran seems to be betting that no one will go to war with them to stop them from gaining nukes. The question is whether they are right in that, as we are not in a good situation to go to another war. I don't think just a bombing campaign would be effective.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Obama's foreign policy adviser Brzezinski suggests shooting down Israeli aircraft over Iraq if they try to strike at Iran.
 
FlanaganReport said:
Well, I would say that airstrikes are a terrible option, but it might just be the best bad option that we have.

Before we rush to that however, I would attempt to contact dissident groups inside of Iran and take a realistic look at the odds they could orchestrate some kind of rebellion. If that actually works, we can offer to recognize whatever government would come from this in exchange for all Iranian fissile material and an end to the nuclear program. If there is no chance we can get arms into the country and actually get this going, then something is going to have to give.

Iran (especially an anti-Western Iran) cannot possess a nuclear warhead for a plethora of reasons, and airstrikes only set that goal back, they do not eliminate it. You could also argue that an airstrike makes the climate much more urgent to go ahead and get a bomb, in effect speeding the process up.
Click to expand...


Ahh!

Only in the USA are attacks by it on other countries in violation of the UN Charter disscussed by oh so "serious" foreign policy buffs.

And the funny thing is they try and build their case this illegal act of War by giving us alleged examples of how the rouge country violated International law!

See how that works?
 
Last edited:
dragondad said:
Ahh!

Only in the USA are attacks by it on other countries in violation of the UN Charter disscussed by oh so "serious" foreign policy buffs.

And the funny thing is they try and build their case this illegal act of War by giving us alleged examples of how the rouge country violated International law!

See how that works?
Click to expand...

If we have the backing of the Security Council, it would not be a violation of the Charter to conduct military operations against Iran.

Really, in my view, the wording of international law is all semantics, and the manner in which it is written allows for us to do what we do.

Frankly, in my opinion, American interests come before the UN Charter, but if it can be shaped in a manner that is consistent with the Charter and international law, it saves a lot of headaches down the road.
 
FlanaganReport said:
If we have the backing of the Security Council, it would not be a violation of the Charter to conduct military operations against Iran.

Really, in my view, the wording of international law is all semantics, and the manner in which it is written allows for us to do what we do.

Frankly, in my opinion, American interests come before the UN Charter, but if it can be shaped in a manner that is consistent with the Charter and international law, it saves a lot of headaches down the road.
Click to expand...

What a refreshing dose of honesty.

You are all about the US following International agreements until the point you are not for the US following International agreements.

American exceptionalism at it's finest..........yet they wonder why the US is hated by many around the World?
 
dragondad said:
What a refreshing dose of honesty.

You are all about the US following International agreements until the point you are not for the US following International agreements.

American exceptionalism at it's finest..........yet they wonder why the US is hated by many around the World?
Click to expand...

Sorry sport but the UN Charter does not dictate that responding to acts of war is illegal. Iran has perpetrated hundreds upon hundreds of acts of war against the U.S., Israel, and many other countries. The U.S. has been more than restrained, but them attempting to become a nuclear power can not be allowed and we retain the right of self defense.
 
dragondad said:
What a refreshing dose of honesty.
Click to expand...

I say what I think.

You are all about the US following International agreements until the point you are not for the US following International agreements.
Click to expand...

I am all for acting within International agreements, but those agreements should never impinge the ability of the United States to protect its interests.

American exceptionalism at it's finest..........yet they wonder why the US is hated by many around the World?
Click to expand...

I do not wonder, I do not care if we are loved or not. Most of the world does not hate the United States, and the good we accomplish far outweighs the bad.

All of that said, we will arguable pick up just as many friends by "dealing" with Iran (not saying that is the correct path) as we will lose by doing the same.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Yes and No the real question is how long can Western Power keep Israel from going in an destroying these site along with some of the other Military Sites.

We already know that Saudia Arabia and Jordon will not stop them from flying thru there Airspace.

I personally see a three to four prong attack by Israel not only taking out these plants but hitting their(Iran) Air Defence and Naval Base's.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct, Scorpion. I also think Israel would need to cripple Iran's southernmost seaports to prevent Iran from interfering with shipments of oil traveling through the Strait of Hormuz.
 
The Center for Strategic and International Studies did a study on what an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites would look like. It goes through number of planes needed, routes, projected losses, flying patterns of tankers, political backlash, etc... It is worth the read.

Some highlights:
A military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route. However, the number of aircraft required, refueling along the way and getting to the targets without being detected or intercepted would be complex and high risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.

• With regard to the Arab States, most probably they will not condone any attack on Iran under the pretext that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and a security threat to the whole region, whilst Israel has some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons, and the delivery means using the Jericho missiles, in addition to Israel still occupying the West Bank and the Syrian Golan Heights.

• The more there is an Israeli threat to the survival of the regime in Iran, the more Iran will be determined to acquire nuclear weapons. Iran would withdraw from the NPT based on the argument that it needs to acquire nuclear weapons to protect its sovereignty and any further aggression by Israel and the U.S.

• A strike by Israel on Iran will give rise to regional instability and conflict as well as terrorism.
Click to expand...


Certainly we can debate the points, but it sets up a good foundation to understand the complexities of a large scale military operation. Read the whole study here.
 
Fake Conservatives (right wing authoritarians is the correct term) ALWAYS think military force on the part of the USA is valid if a "good outcome" can be argued.

That's why they've spent Trillions in the Middle East and squandered the lives of nearly 5000 soldiers.

Right wing pro-Israeli think tanks have pretty much taken over our foreign policy in regards to the Middle East and they control the debate.

Real Conservatives can spot this B.S for what it is.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e26FhQo_2JY"]YouTube - Ron Paul "The High Tide" Campaign For Liberty[/ame]
 
Agent Ferris said:
Not to mention that Obama's foreign policy adviser Brzezinski suggests shooting down Israeli aircraft over Iraq if they try to strike at Iran.
Click to expand...

Advice, fact check before you post, it will save you looking stupid. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who made the comment you refer to, was an adviser to Carter, and has not been an adviser to Obama. You are getting him confused with his son Mark, who advised Obama when he was a candidate.
 
FlanaganReport said:
The Center for Strategic and International Studies did a study on what an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites would look like. It goes through number of planes needed, routes, projected losses, flying patterns of tankers, political backlash, etc... It is worth the read.

Some highlights:



Certainly we can debate the points, but it sets up a good foundation to understand the complexities of a large scale military operation. Read the whole study here.
Click to expand...

Regardless ... Iran has repeatedly violated any trust given to them, they have repeatedly lied to the IAEA, the world, anybody else who may have asked them about their nuclear program.

Iran needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary. Diplomacy with the lying sacks of pig feces that run Iran have failed. What do you think should happen next?
 
Vader said:
Regardless ... Iran has repeatedly violated any trust given to them, they have repeatedly lied to the IAEA, the world, anybody else who may have asked them about their nuclear program.

Iran needs to be stopped by whatever means necessary. Diplomacy with the lying sacks of pig feces that run Iran have failed. What do you think should happen next?
Click to expand...

Personally, I would continue to build concensus around the world that Iran is indeed a threat.

I would go to the Security Council and seek to classify the Iranian program as a "threat to international peace and security." (That exact wording is very important)

I would then make an attempt to establish ties with, and arm, Iranian dissident groups to openly revolt. At the same time, continue to implement medium and short range missile defense into Europe. If that fails (and it would be hard to accomplish) then I would start to make the preparations for an airstrike.

I agree that Iran cannot be allowed to possess a weapon, but until airstrikes are the least bad option, I would not give the go ahead for them.
 
FlanaganReport said:
Personally, I would continue to build concensus around the world that Iran is indeed a threat.

I would go to the Security Council and seek to classify the Iranian program as a "threat to international peace and security." (That exact wording is very important)

I would then make an attempt to establish ties with, and arm, Iranian dissident groups to openly revolt. At the same time, continue to implement medium and short range missile defense into Europe. If that fails (and it would be hard to accomplish) then I would start to make the preparations for an airstrike.

I agree that Iran cannot be allowed to possess a weapon, but until airstrikes are the least bad option, I would not give the go ahead for them.
Click to expand...

Good plan. I like it and it will work; however, such a plan of action will not prevent Israel from striking Iran. Israel will never allow Iran to become a serious threat.

I like the idea of arming disident groups. I would like to see the Iranian Republican Guard eliminated. In any event, your reasoning is sound and your strategy effective.
 
FlanaganReport said:
I would go to the Security Council and seek to classify the Iranian program as a "threat to international peace and security." (That exact wording is very important)
Click to expand...

While I agree with you here, I'm not confidant the UN can handle this issue, in fact, I know they cannot. But, it would force the other nations to go on record and I agree again, the wording so important.

I would then make an attempt to establish ties with, and arm, Iranian dissident groups to openly revolt. At the same time, continue to implement medium and short range missile defense into Europe. If that fails (and it would be hard to accomplish) then I would start to make the preparations for an airstrike.
Click to expand...

The airstrike your only option, really. Obama will not foment open revolt in Iran, he clearly already had that chance.

I agree that Iran cannot be allowed to possess a weapon, but until airstrikes are the least bad option, I would not give the go ahead for them.
Click to expand...

But, an Osirak, Iraq type strike would and could be very effective...and it sends an absolute definitive message to Iran. If you build it, we will come.
 
Vader said:
Good plan. I like it and it will work; however, such a plan of action will not prevent Israel from striking Iran. Israel will never allow Iran to become a serious threat.

I like the idea of arming disident groups. I would like to see the Iranian Republican Guard eliminated. In any event, your reasoning is sound and your strategy effective.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I would say this in regards to Israel though. I think that United States can prevent them from striking just by saying so. Remember, they asked Bush if they could attack and he said no. Israel certainly does not want to see a nuclear Iran, but at the same time they do not want to upset the United States, and a strike would almost certainly have backlash directly against American forces in the region.

I think that until it is absolutely critical that sites be hit, Israel can be persuaded to stand down simply by telling them to do so. I am not sure we have reached that point yet, but we will before to long no doubt.
 
Charles Martel said:
While I agree with you here, I'm not confidant the UN can handle this issue, in fact, I know they cannot. But, it would force the other nations to go on record and I agree again, the wording so important.
Click to expand...

Well, really, a mandate from the Security Council (which would come from classifying it as a "threat to international peace and security") would be all we needed from the UN.

I think that wording, followed by actual sanctions could have a real effect, but if it is not done properly, you are correct, it would simply be a waste of time.

The airstrike your only option, really. Obama will not foment open revolt in Iran, he clearly already had that chance.
Click to expand...

Well, the end result of an airstrike is not really a good option in my view, so I would rather have that as a last resort.

Perhaps not even foment a revolt so much as convince dissident groups to hit nuclear sites themselves.

But, an Osirak, Iraq type strike would and could be very effective...and it sends an absolute definitive message to Iran. If you build it, we will come.
Click to expand...

This would be much harder to carry out in Iran for numerous reasons in my opinion and might result in the opposite effect that we intended.
 
FlanaganReport said:
Well, really, a mandate from the Security Council (which would come from classifying it as a "threat to international peace and security") would be all we needed from the UN.
Click to expand...

Or...we could ignore the UN and declare this a national defense issue of the US. There is always that.

This would be much harder to carry out in Iran for numerous reasons in my opinion and might result in the opposite effect that we intended.
Click to expand...

True, but any strike after they've actually built a weapon would be even harder to carry out and...while considering unwanted effects, it would result in one wanted effect. We could set the Iranain weapons program back at least a decade. I'd live with the others.
 
Charles Martel said:
Or...we could ignore the UN and declare this a national defense issue of the US. There is always that.
Click to expand...

Haha, there is always that yes. That said, I think the United States still can glean some benefits from the UN, and therefore should not simply declare that it is irrelevant.

But if it comes to that, I would perhaps take it to NATO to get a mandate. It is always easier and better to act internationally with some form of mandate if you can get one.

True, but any strike after they've actually built a weapon would be even harder to carry out and...while considering unwanted effects, it would result in one wanted effect. We could set the Iranain weapons program back at least a decade. I'd live with the others.
Click to expand...

Well, we "might" set the program back, assuming we know where all the sites are and have successful attacks. That said, most estimates are that Iran is still a bit away from being able to produce an actual weapon, so I would say we still have a small window to try other ideas.

But of course, we have to weight the possibility that we set it back (maybe) with the possibility that we fail, and the retaliation that will inevitably come, in Iraq, Israel, the world oil markets etc.

While I agree that waiting makes the prospect even worse, I think we have to bite the bullet and wait for a bit longer.
 
FlanaganReport said:
Haha, there is always that yes. That said, I think the United States still can glean some benefits from the UN, and therefore should not simply declare that it is irrelevant.

But if it comes to that, I would perhaps take it to NATO to get a mandate. It is always easier and better to act internationally with some form of mandate if you can get one.
Click to expand...

My concern is we depend...and then alter our decision on what to do based on some UN or Nato opinion or decision. We must decide for ourselves...then try to get an international relevance to go along with it, but if they don't...we MUST act alone if necessary.

Well, we "might" set the program back, assuming we know where all the sites are and have successful attacks. That said, most estimates are that Iran is still a bit away from being able to produce an actual weapon, so I would say we still have a small window to try other ideas.
Click to expand...

I say the getting smaller window is ripe for plucking. You are correct, a window remains open, it will shut rather quickly.

But of course, we have to weight the possibility that we set it back (maybe) with the possibility that we fail, and the retaliation that will inevitably come, in Iraq, Israel, the world oil markets etc.
Click to expand...

What happens to Iraq, Israel, world markets, in fact the entire ME if IRan builds a nuke? :shock:

While I agree that waiting makes the prospect even worse, I think we have to bite the bullet and wait for a bit longer.
Click to expand...

And I respect that. But...if I'd like to borrow the keys to the F-18 strike fighter if you don't mind, you can sit here and....wait.:2wave: See ya!
 
youknowwho said:
first of all, it's "regime" not Iran, since the election, they don't represent Iran. second, they have no domestic audience. the regime is unstable enough that will get toppled in a year or two. and that's why I'm scared, 'cause I know that they will go for a suicide mission before falling, and I believe Israelis should be scared too.
Click to expand...

So would you support an Israeli preemptive strike?
 
Red_Dave said:
So would you support an Israeli preemptive strike?
Click to expand...

nope, that's exactly what they want. I believe open war is the worst way of doing that. instead supporting the inside opposition is more effective and less dangerous for Iranian and Israeli people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom