Bombing Iran Is a Terrible Idea

[AUUSN 823]

Iran hawks are playing with fire. We are close to a nuclear deal with Iran, but opponents continue to step up attacks aimed at torpedoing efforts to reach a settlement. They insist that we must walk away from the negotiating table, and that there’s a better deal to be had.

That belief is a fantasy.

The reality is that if negotiations with Iran fail, the wreckage will leave the United States without any good options. “If we undermine negotiations now, we’ll have only two choices — Accept the reality of an Iranian nuclear bomb, or use military force to attack Iran’s nuclear program,” former Sen. Carl Levin wrote in a recent op-ed for U.S. News & World Report.

There is hardly a nation in the world that wants a nuclear Iran. But the United States should only consider a war with Iran to be a last resort. “If you think the war in Iraq was hard, an attack on Iran would, in my opinion,be a catastrophe,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in 2012.

Furthermore, he added that such a quixotic attack would only “make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable, [as] they would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert.”

Yet the reality of this no-win scenario has done little to deter hawks, both in and out of Congress, from continued attempts to undermine negotiations. Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter, signed by 46 of his Republican colleagues, is only the most recent example of their continued campaign of political brinkmanship.

In his recent op-ed for The New York Times, former Bush administration official John Bolton backed up the idea of using U.S. military force against Iran.

“The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required,” he wrote.

“Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed,” Bolton added. “Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.”

These comments echo Cotton’s statements from earlier this month. “Israel struck Iraq’s nuclear program in 1981 and they didn’t reconstitute it,” Cotton said.“Rogue regimes have a way of getting the picture when there is a credible threat of military force on the table.”

Both Bolton and Cotton’s accounts of the strikes on Iraq in 1981 are completely wrong.

Those strikes actually drove the program underground, where it expanded. This is just what Gates warns would happen with Iran. As Deputy National Security Advisor Colin Kahl wrote in 2012, “new evidence suggests that Hussein had not decided to launch a full-fledged weapons program prior to the Israeli strike.”

“By demonstrating Iraq’s vulnerability, the attack on Osirak actually increased Hussein’s determination to develop a nuclear deterrent and provided Iraq’s scientists an opportunity to better organize the program. The Iraqi leader devoted significantly more resources toward pursuing nuclear weapons after the Israeli assault. As [political scientist Dan] Reiter notes, ‘the Iraqi nuclear program increased from a program of 400 scientists and $400 million to one of 7,000 scientists and $10 billion.’”

More importantly, these sentiments are reminiscent of the Bush administration’s failed policy toward Iran in the early 2000s. When approached with deals that would have seen all of Iran’s enriched uraniumconverted into fuel rods — and would have capped the program with some 100 odd centrifuges — the Bush administration balked.

Vice President Dick Cheney even once said, “We don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it.” The results? Negotiations collapsed and Iran went from only a few installed centrifuges at the beginning of the Bush administration to about 6,000 by the end.

While many conservatives are quick to spurn negotiations with Iran, they seem to have done very little in the way of analyzing what a war with Iran would actually look like. Maybe they need a reminder.

It would neither be quick nor painless. As former Brookings Institution fellow Noah Shachtman described in 2012, it would be a major major military action, with little chance of lasting success.

“Setting back Iran’s nuclear efforts will need to be an all-out effort, with squadrons of bombers and fighter jets, teams of commandos, rings of interceptor missiles and whole Navy carrier strike groups — plus enough drones, surveillance gear, tanker aircraft and logistical support to make such a massive mission go. And all of it, at best, would buy the U.S. and Israel another decade of a nuke-free Iran.”

Even a limited strike by U.S. air and naval forces would be massive,according to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It it is not a simple mission of bombers flying in and out of Iran, this is a complicated Offensive Air Strike that will involve many aircraft, each with its own role, such as Combat Aircarft [sic] whose role is to suppress enemy air defenses along the way, aircraft that fly fighter escort with the bombers, aircraft that carry specialized electronic warfare equipment to jam enemy radars and communications., plus probably air‐to‐air refueling along the way in and out of Iran.”

Even then, Cordesman added, “depending on the forces allocated and duration of air strikes, it is unlikely that an air campaign alone could alone terminate Iran’s program. The possibility of dispersed facilities complicates any assessment of a potential mission success, making it unclear what the ultimate effect of a strike would be on Iran’s nuclear facilities.”

Further complicating matters, U.S. military forces would not be able to simply focus on striking Iranian nuclear targets. They would also have tosafeguard the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow waterway connecting the Gulf of Oman to the Persian Gulf — through which some 20 percent of the world’s oil passes, as well as countless other U.S. and allied strategic assets in the area.

The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the “the rough effects of U.S. [military] action against Iran on the global economy — measured only in the first three months of actualization — [could] range from total losses of approximately $60 billion on one end of the scale to more than $2 trillion to the world economy on the other end.”

All in all, a U.S. or coalition attack against Iran now would be like setting off a bomb in a gunpowder factory. As Cordesman noted, any “military strike [against Iran] could be destabilizing for the entire Middle East region and potentially generate a nuclear weapons race in that part of the world.”

War with Iran is no joke. Critics of a deal with Iran should not treat it like one. A breakdown in negotiations will have serious repercussions for the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. That being the case, lawmakers should be more careful when threatening to use U.S. military force.

The enormous costs involved in engaging U.S. forces against Iran, both human and materiel, should not be bandied about lightly.

As Levin wrote, “We owe it to our friends and allies in the region, and to our men and women in uniform who might have to risk their lives if diplomacy fails, to give negotiations every chance to succeed.”

We should listen to his advice.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/bombing-iran-is-a-terrible-idea-42452cb5cca0

[AURaptor 1,122]

There is no dealing w/ Iran.

'peace in our time' has met the 21st century

[cptau 169]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

The only thing that can be done against Iran is to continue the economic sanctions and Strengthen them. That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

[alexava 6,973]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

The only thing that can be done against Iran is to continue the economic sanctions and Strengthen them. That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

sounds like a win-win plan to me.

[homersapien 11,370]

Seriously. Considering our history with Iran, suggesting we start a war with the goal of "regime change"?

John Bolton reminds me of General "Buck" Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove.

[homersapien 11,370]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

You act has if the current talks have already failed. Are you suggesting we walk away from the table?

If so, what's the point of sanctions if you just walk away from any opportunity they generate?

[alexava 6,973]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

You act has if the current talks have already failed. Are you suggesting we walk away from the table?

If so, what's the point of sanctions if you just walk away from any opportunity they generate? :dunno:/>

a lot of people have decided the talks will be a failure no matter what comes out of them.

[AUUSN 823]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

The only thing that can be done against Iran is to continue the economic sanctions and Strengthen them. That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

First they have to torpedo the talks, then the chicken hawks will talk military action.

[AUUSN 823]

5

Grounds for Cautious Optimism on an Iran Nuclear Deal

Given the overheated rhetoric and theatrics of the past few weeks, many seem to have concluded that the nuclear agreement under negotiation with Iran is a bad one that should be rejected out of hand. That would be a premature verdict.

In fact, while a fully informed judgment must await the more detailed final agreement set for late June, sufficient information is available to be cautiously optimistic about the characteristics of the framework accord anticipated by the end of this month.

Many Americans might be surprised to learn what has already been accomplished under the “joint plan of action,” the interim agreement that laid the groundwork for the comprehensive deal now being negotiated. In that accord, the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, France, China, Russia and Germany) were able to secure Iran's agreement to concrete actions that combined to stop and, in important respects, roll back key aspects of its nuclear program.

As a result of the interim plan, Iran has eliminated its entire stockpile of uranium enriched to the 20 percent level, or converted it to a form that cannot be easily enriched further, and it has halted the production of any more such material. It has also refrained from installing new, more advanced types of centrifuges for uranium enrichment and stopped short of completing construction of the Arak nuclear reactor, whose design was suitable for producing large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium. Iran has also provided international inspectors with enhanced access to verify Iran's compliance with the agreement's terms.

One reason for cautious optimism about the prospective framework accord resides in President Barack Obama's assurance that a deal must ensure it would take Iran at least a year to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon. This “breakout time” requirement is a function of both the numbers and types of centrifuges that Iran can install and the amount and level of enrichment of uranium available in Iran at any time.

Currently, with approximately 10,200 operational centrifuges, it would take Iran an estimated two to three months to produce enough fuel for a weapon—an uncomfortably short window of time in which to detect the activity, let alone for the United States and the U.N. Security Council to agree upon and implement measures to halt it. A breakout time of one year would provide enough time; to achieve that goal would require limiting Iran to about 6,000 centrifuges, a 40 percent reduction.

A second reason for cautious optimism is reflected in National Security Adviser Susan Rice's promise that whatever deal emerges will include Iran's agreement to “frequent and intrusive inspections” that will be conducted beyond the agreement's fixed duration. These provisions will be designed to detect—and therefore deter—any future attempt to “sneak out” by establishing a covert enrichment or reprocessing facility inside Iran.

Her remarks strongly suggest that the forthcoming deal will reflect Iran's agreement to ratify and implement a package of stringent verification measures sometimes referred to as the Additional Protocol-Plus. These measures would permit International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit all of the facilities associated with Iran's nuclear activities, including sites they do not currently have access to. The measures would also allow them to conduct no-notice inspections of undeclared sites where Iran could be conducting clandestine nuclear activities.

Not only would the implementation of the Additional Protocol-Plus significantly enhance the ability to detect any breakout attempt, but because these are inspection and transparency measures that are overseen and established with the IAEA—and exist prior to and outside of any P5+1 agreement with Iran—they would not sunset when the fixed duration of the agreement is reached. In short, they would be of indefinite duration. This is yet another crucial aspect of the prospective treaty that is seldom if ever mentioned by critics of the agreement.

Another final, important issue will bear close examination in a prospective deal: sanctions relief. In return for meeting the obligations and constraints imposed on Iran in a comprehensive agreement, Iranian negotiators have been pushing for an early, significant lifting of sanctions. Undoubtedly, this position is driven by a desire to build support for the agreement at home. But an early removal of sanctions is not possible either on practical grounds—given the many entangled layers of national and international sanctions in place—or on political grounds in the United States and potentially other countries.

More important, unconditional sanctions relief early in the process would be unwise, as it would remove a key part of the leverage necessary to keep Iran from walking back on its commitments. At the outset, such relief should come in the form of a conditional suspension of sanctions, which would be easier to reinstate in the event of a material breach of the agreement. Look, therefore, for a compromise approach that involves phased sanctions relief wherein sanctions are suspended in phases as it is determined that Iran is meeting key obligations in the agreement.

An agreement with these provisions—a reasonable amount of breakout time at existing facilities, strong transparency measures of indefinite duration to guard against the construction of secret facilities, and a carefully structured program of sanctions relief—would constitute a strong deterrent against an Iranian political decision to pursue nuclear weapons. It would be deserving of support. Anything less would not.

http://www.rand.org/blog/2015/03/grounds-for-cautious-optimism-on-an-iran-nuclear-deal.html?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=rand_social

[JoeBags7277 734]

"There is no dealing with _____."

The M-IC wants a war, and the M-IC gets what it wants. Ike sure had it figured out. Too bad we didn't listen.

[cptau 169]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

You act has if the current talks have already failed. Are you suggesting we walk away from the table?

If so, what's the point of sanctions if you just walk away from any opportunity they generate?

The talks are are designed to create an agreement that will fail. Sanctions might work if left in place and we threaten to keep them until Iran stops nuclear weapons development and allows full international inspections on a periodic basis. Kerry has already stated that we will not have a legally binding agreement or the right of inspection under the agreement with the Iranians.

The core questions is why are we bothering with talks at all? Allow a graceful way to drop sanctions so we can trade with them again? Allow them to develop weapons that change the balance of power in that part of the world? Allow us to get completely get out of the middle east? Let Obama finally appear like he is earning his NPP and let Kerry get one too?

The middle east is becoming surrounded with nuclear armed countries: India, China, Pakistan, Russia, probably Israel, soon to have Iran, and then Saudi Arabia........

The Saudi's have cash and lots of oil. They always buy what they need.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

[JoeBags7277 734]

The talks are are designed to create an agreement that will fail. Sanctions might work if left in place and we threaten to keep them until Iran stops nuclear weapons development and allows full international inspections on a periodic basis. Kerry has already stated that we will not have a legally binding agreement or the right of inspection under the agreement with the Iranians.

The core questions is why are we bothering with talks at all? Allow a graceful way to drop sanctions so we can trade with them again? Allow them to develop weapons that change the balance of power in that part of the world? Allow us to get completely get out of the middle east? Let Obama finally appear like he is earning his NPP and let Kerry get one too?

The middle east is becoming surrounded with nuclear armed countries: India, China, Pakistan, Russia, probably Israel, soon to have Iran, and then Saudi Arabia........

The Saudi's have cash and lots of oil. They always buy what they need.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-24823846

Not probably. They have the second largest stockpile in the world. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves if need be.

Unless something drastic has changed and that something for whatever reason hasn't been discussed amongst credible news sources, ( that is to say, those other than the war cheerleaders in the MSM) Iran is not enriching uranium at anywhere near the levels necessary for nuclear arms. Its sad how often this needs to be repeated.

[cptau 169]

The talks are are designed to create an agreement that will fail. Sanctions might work if left in place and we threaten to keep them until Iran stops nuclear weapons development and allows full international inspections on a periodic basis. Kerry has already stated that we will not have a legally binding agreement or the right of inspection under the agreement with the Iranians.

The core questions is why are we bothering with talks at all? Allow a graceful way to drop sanctions so we can trade with them again? Allow them to develop weapons that change the balance of power in that part of the world? Allow us to get completely get out of the middle east? Let Obama finally appear like he is earning his NPP and let Kerry get one too?

The middle east is becoming surrounded with nuclear armed countries: India, China, Pakistan, Russia, probably Israel, soon to have Iran, and then Saudi Arabia........

The Saudi's have cash and lots of oil. They always buy what they need.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-24823846

Not probably. They have the second largest stockpile in the world. They are more than capable of taking care of themselves if need be.

Unless something drastic has changed and that something for whatever reason hasn't been discussed amongst credible news sources, ( that is to say, those other than the war cheerleaders in the MSM) Iran is not enriching uranium at anywhere near the levels necessary for nuclear arms. Its sad how often this needs to be repeated.

that's why i said probably, the Israelis haven't admitted to anything. whatever they have i guess is meant for the middle east apocalypse or armageddon.

The IAEA said Iran had enough uranium for one weapon in 2009. how much do they have now?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/19/iran-iaea-united-nations-nuclear-weapon

Ironically the Iranians have the capacity for nuclear weapon development. they don't have the capacity for nuclear power. they depend on the Russians to fuel their Russian designed nuclear power plant.

[homersapien 11,370]

I haven't heard about any proposed US military action against Iran. This administration lacks any resolve for it anyway. There's no US political resolve for it period.

That might slow but not stop the development of the weapons. The best hope is that sanction might cause a regime change.

The only nation that might attack Iran are the Israelis.

The Iranians are not Arabs and most Arabs don't even consider them to be moslems because the Iranians are Shia.

The Iranian regime desperately needs an enemy to help them convince their populace that the current government is needed.

You act has if the current talks have already failed. Are you suggesting we walk away from the table?

If so, what's the point of sanctions if you just walk away from any opportunity they generate?

The talks are are designed to create an agreement that will fail. Sanctions might work if left in place and we threaten to keep them until Iran stops nuclear weapons development and allows full international inspections on a periodic basis. Kerry has already stated that we will not have a legally binding agreement or the right of inspection under the agreement with the Iranians.

The core questions is why are we bothering with talks at all? Allow a graceful way to drop sanctions so we can trade with them again? Allow them to develop weapons that change the balance of power in that part of the world? Allow us to get completely get out of the middle east? Let Obama finally appear like he is earning his NPP and let Kerry get one too?

The middle east is becoming surrounded with nuclear armed countries: India, China, Pakistan, Russia, probably Israel, soon to have Iran, and then Saudi Arabia........

The Saudi's have cash and lots of oil. They always buy what they need.

http://www.bbc.com/n...e-east-24823846

That's absurd.

And you think we should abandon negotiations so that we can force them to to the negotiating table?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

The current deal will not be agreed upon unless we make major sanctions to Iran, i.e., lifting all sanctions. This will accomplish nothing except giving Iran billions of dollars to continue their development of a nuclear bomb. I can't understand why that is so difficult to see.....unless of course we are willing to trust them. I sure as hell don't and there is no reason to based on their record.

Some day a lot of people are going to have to explain to their children and grandchildren what happened in this time in our history, if they are still lucky enough to ask questions.

[autigeremt 6,606]

AUSSN....

I don't want military engagement with Iran, but do you really believe that Tehran will actually adhere to any agreement? They never have in the past.

[AURaptor 1,122]

AUSSN....

I don't want military engagement with Iran, but do you really believe that Tehran will actually adhere to any agreement? They never have in the past.

I'm guessing he'll come back w/ some sort of reply saying we have to, because the alternative would be such a vast mistake , or something.

So, Iran gets the bomb, and they will with this deal, then what ? That's the part of the equation the proggies don't want to talk about.

[homersapien 11,370]

AUSSN....

I don't want military engagement with Iran, but do you really believe that Tehran will actually adhere to any agreement? They never have in the past.

Well, if they can talk with a country that calculatingly overturned their elected government and replaced it with a totalitarian government, I think we have an obligation to try and reciprocate. Don't you?

[homersapien 11,370]

AUSSN....

I don't want military engagement with Iran, but do you really believe that Tehran will actually adhere to any agreement? They never have in the past.

I'm guessing he'll come back w/ some sort of reply saying we have to, because the alternative would be such a vast mistake , or something.

So, Iran gets the bomb, and they will with this deal, then what ? That's the part of the equation the proggies don't want to talk about.

Well, it's not like the hawks are offering up any solutions outside of the current negotiations. What's your plan for preventing them from building a bomb?

You are a riot. Stop the negotiations since they won't work! Well, then what?

[autigeremt 6,606]

AUSSN....

I don't want military engagement with Iran, but do you really believe that Tehran will actually adhere to any agreement? They never have in the past.

Well, if they can talk with a country that calculatingly overturned their elected government and replaced it with a totalitarian government, I think we have an obligation to try and reciprocate. Don't you?

What does that have to do with Iran adhering to any agreement (given their inability to do so)?

[homersapien 11,370]

AUSSN....

I don't want military engagement with Iran, but do you really believe that Tehran will actually adhere to any agreement? They never have in the past.

Well, if they can talk with a country that calculatingly overturned their elected government and replaced it with a totalitarian government, I think we have an obligation to try and reciprocate. Don't you?

What does that have to do with Iran adhering to any agreement (given their inability to do so)?

Just pointing out that the "trust issue" goes both ways.

Don't you think it sounds a little righteous for us to say they should not be trusted given our history with them?

And to insist they are inherently unable to abide by an agreement is defeatist from the start.

[autigeremt 6,606]

LMAO!

Their well rounded history (in areas related to funding terror and supporting it) along with their desire for power in the name of radical religion (the leadership for sure) is proof enough.

[homersapien 11,370]

LMAO!

Their well rounded history (in areas related to funding terror and supporting it) along with their desire for power in the name of radical religion (the leadership for sure) is proof enough.

And therefore.....?

[WarTim 3,456]

The "negotiations" are a political sham. No deal unless barry takes it to the U.S. hating UN. Then, the senate can deal him out.

[TheBlueVue 177]

LMAO!

Their well rounded history (in areas related to funding terror and supporting it) along with their desire for power in the name of radical religion (the leadership for sure) is proof enough.

And therefore.....?

homie, your eagerness to align with the biggest state sponsor of terrorism is not only not surprising AT ALL but, it is also rather quite in keeping with the liberal pedigree who have a storied history of somewhat eagerly aligning with America's enemies. Never mind Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas AND provides safe harbor to Al Qaeda operatives, there's hardly anything for a liberal quite like teaming up with a rogue state, such as Iran, that has so many irons in the fire working against the home team...."we owe them", right? :-\ What an absolutely pathetic comment!