Iran (so far away)

Post Reply
User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17776
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Iran (so far away)

Post by dbcooper » 02 Nov 2011, 17:35

Odds on an air strike this month against Iran (from any party)?
Last edited by dbcooper on 12 Aug 2014, 15:16, edited 1 time in total.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9411
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Iran

Post by Sandy » 02 Nov 2011, 17:39

dbcooper wrote:Odds on an air strike this month against Iran (from any party)?
Unless there's an Israeli election, about 0. Unless they actually threaten to assemble a nuke.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17776
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Iran

Post by dbcooper » 02 Nov 2011, 17:42

Sandy wrote:
dbcooper wrote:Odds on an air strike this month against Iran (from any party)?
Unless there's an Israeli election, about 0. Unless they actually threaten to assemble a nuke.
A big IAEA announcement is expected next week about their programs, and the Israelis are making a lot of noise. The UK papers are full of speculations about the UK and US being involved too.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 12618
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Iran

Post by Kolohe » 02 Nov 2011, 17:53

Approaching zero, and the big IAEA nuke news this week may be about Syria, not Iran
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/ne ... m-1.393220
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17464
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Iran

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 02 Nov 2011, 17:58

dbcooper wrote:
Sandy wrote:
dbcooper wrote:Odds on an air strike this month against Iran (from any party)?
Unless there's an Israeli election, about 0. Unless they actually threaten to assemble a nuke.
A big IAEA announcement is expected next week about their programs, and the Israelis are making a lot of noise. The UK papers are full of speculations about the UK and US being involved too.

♫ Ain't it a bitch?
Now do we dare?
Your missiles there on the ground,
Our spies in mid-air...

Send in the drones... ♫

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17776
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Iran

Post by dbcooper » 02 Nov 2011, 18:01

Thanks for the link Kolohe. Did you see these two articles?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... -programme
A report by the UN's nuclear watchdog due to be circulated around the world next week will provide fresh evidence of a possible Iranian nuclear weapons programme, bringing the Middle East a step closer to a devastating new conflict, say diplomats.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the latest of a series of quarterly bulletins on Iran's activities, but this one will contain an unprecedented level of detail on research and experiments carried out in Iran in recent years, which western officials allege could only be for the design and development of a nuclear warhead. "This will be a game-changer in the Iranian nuclear dossier," a western official predicted. "It is going to be hard for even Moscow or Beijing to downplay its significance."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... ck-nuclear
Britain's armed forces are stepping up their contingency planning for potential military action against Iran amid mounting concern about Tehran's nuclear enrichment programme, the Guardian has learned.

The Ministry of Defence believes the US may decide to fast-forward plans for targeted missile strikes at some key Iranian facilities. British officials say that if Washington presses ahead it will seek, and receive, UK military help for any mission, despite some deep reservations within the coalition government.

In anticipation of a potential attack, British military planners are examining where best to deploy Royal Navy ships and submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles over the coming months as part of what would be an air and sea campaign.

They also believe the US would ask permission to launch attacks from Diego Garcia, the British Indian ocean territory, which the Americans have used previously for conflicts in the Middle East.

The Guardian has spoken to a number of Whitehall and defence officials over recent weeks who said Iran was once again becoming the focus of diplomatic concern after the revolution in Libya.

They made clear that Barack Obama, has no wish to embark on a new and provocative military venture before next November's presidential election.

But they warned the calculations could change because of mounting anxiety over intelligence gathered by western agencies, and the more belligerent posture that Iran appears to have been taking.

Hawks in the US are likely to seize on next week's report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is expected to provide fresh evidence of a possible nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

The Guardian has been told that the IAEA's bulletin could be "a game changer" which will provide unprecedented details of the research and experiments being undertaken by the regime.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 12618
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Iran

Post by Kolohe » 02 Nov 2011, 18:25

The Guardian likes to make shit up, particularly in these sort of matters. (or more precisely, take a source who's not nearly as 'inside' as they insinuate, and then take what they say and present it in the most dramatic fashion possible - note how the only pull quote is "game changer"*)

There is little chance of a Western direct military attack on Iran at this juncture with everything that's going on in the Middle East and North Africa right now and the other stuff going on the European and world economies.


*and also never trust an official with a buzzword, which is most of them.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17776
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Iran

Post by dbcooper » 02 Nov 2011, 18:26

Cool, thanks for the clarification.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24445
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran

Post by thoreau » 02 Nov 2011, 18:31

Every time there is an IAEA report or something like it, there's talk of war. Jim Henley and I fell for it for a while.

I would not rule out the possibility that some day the US will be in a dark enough place that it will attack Iran, but I think we'll see more signs leading up to that. Like Kolohe said, the world is not in a place where that can happen right now.
"The first rule of Grylliade club is 'Why are we talking about Grylliade club?'"
--Jake

User avatar
Jake
Posts: 2332
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:38

Re: Iran

Post by Jake » 02 Nov 2011, 18:43

Here's how I originally read this exchange:
dbcooper wrote:
Sandy wrote:
dbcooper wrote:Odds on an air strike this month against Iran (from any party)?
Unless there's an Israeli election, about 0. Unless they actually threaten to assemble a nuke.
A big IKEA announcement is expected next week about their programs[...]
Before I realized my mistake, I was trying to visualize the sheet of instructions to assemble a flat-pack nuclear warhead with a single wrench...
"Quis pimpodiet ipsos pimpodes?" -- Ellie

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6299
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Iran

Post by Jadagul » 02 Nov 2011, 20:04

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
dbcooper wrote:
Sandy wrote:
dbcooper wrote:Odds on an air strike this month against Iran (from any party)?
Unless there's an Israeli election, about 0. Unless they actually threaten to assemble a nuke.
A big IAEA announcement is expected next week about their programs, and the Israelis are making a lot of noise. The UK papers are full of speculations about the UK and US being involved too.

♫ Ain't it a bitch?
Now do we dare?
Your missiles there on the ground,
Our spies in mid-air...

Send in the drones... ♫
*applause*

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Iran

Post by Hugh Akston » 02 Nov 2011, 21:45

The US will attack Syria before it attacks Iran. And that won't even be until Obama starts his second term.

Iran would have to actually roll tanks into Iraq or hoist missiles that are clearly nuclear toward Israel before the US does anything about it. And while Obama is driving straight past Congress on his way to UN HQ to make his impassioned speech for intervention, Israel will be busy bombing the unholy crap out of Iran.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 12618
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Iran

Post by Kolohe » 02 Nov 2011, 21:55

I think if Israel had the logistics for it, it would have already taken a pot shot or two at Iran's facilities like it did to Syria's.

And who was actually behind Stuxnet is still an open question.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 13131
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Iran

Post by Aresen » 03 Nov 2011, 01:10

Attacking Iran because they have built/intend to build/may build/could build a nuclear bomb would be a totally stupid, counterproductive, reckless and useless idea.

It is therefore not beyond possibility that the US, British or Israeli governments might do so.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Most people don't realize Stephen King downplayed the horror that is Maine. - Jennifer

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 6000
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Iran

Post by Pham Nuwen » 03 Nov 2011, 10:55

I just can see it happening. Do I think it likely? No. But there are so many domestic issues needing to be addressed right now, Obama might decide he needs some wag the dog action.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Ayn_Randian
Posts: 10727
Joined: 08 May 2010, 14:58

Re: Iran

Post by Ayn_Randian » 03 Nov 2011, 11:21

I am not seeing it all. The President promised to end Iraq (nyuk, nyuk) to satisfy his base. He threw in with OWS to energize the base. An Iran conflict would absolutely tank him with everybody - I think that the American public is extraordinarily war-weary, which is why they elected the guy in the first place. He'd be a goner.
It has the effect of making me want desperately to do the opposite of what Green Day is suggesting I should want to do. Billy Joe Whassname may have created a generation of war mongers. - Jason L

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 6000
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: Iran

Post by Pham Nuwen » 03 Nov 2011, 11:38

Ayn_Randian wrote:I am not seeing it all. The President promised to end Iraq (nyuk, nyuk) to satisfy his base. He threw in with OWS to energize the base. An Iran conflict would absolutely tank him with everybody - I think that the American public is extraordinarily war-weary, which is why they elected the guy in the first place. He'd be a goner.
Damn my phone posting. Everything gets screwed up.

I could just see it happening. Like its a miniscule possibility. Again, I don't believe it likely unless obama wants some wag the dog manuevering from further domestic issues.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Iran

Post by fyodor » 03 Nov 2011, 12:03

Ayn_Randian wrote:I am not seeing it all. The President promised to end Iraq (nyuk, nyuk) to satisfy his base. He threw in with OWS to energize the base. An Iran conflict would absolutely tank him with everybody - I think that the American public is extraordinarily war-weary, which is why they elected the guy in the first place. He'd be a goner.
I wonder how far away Iran is from testing a bomb. If they did that under Obama's watch, wouldn't that hurt him just as much politically (even if nothing could have prevented it other than the one equally unpopular option)?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24445
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran

Post by thoreau » 03 Nov 2011, 12:19

fyodor wrote:I wonder how far away Iran is from testing a bomb.
Iran is not going to test a bomb anytime soon. Iran is not even going to build a bomb.

Iran is going to do a lot of things that could, if desired, be very quickly reconfigured to make a bomb. Iran is going to develop a lot of expertise that could, if desired, be very quickly turned toward bomb production. Iran is going to make materials that could be put into a bomb.

But Iran is not going to test a bomb. Unless they believe that the greatest threat to the continuation of the regime is a foreign invasion in a time window that still leaves enough time to assemble all of this most-definitely-not-a-bomb-nuclear-technology into a bomb.

As it stands, the US public has no appetite for a regime-toppling attack on Iran, and right now the greatest threat to the power of Iran's leaders comes from some mix of rival factions at the top and the potential for angry mobs in the streets. They're one dead blonde brunette girl away from another riot.
"The first rule of Grylliade club is 'Why are we talking about Grylliade club?'"
--Jake

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6796
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Iran

Post by fyodor » 03 Nov 2011, 12:50

thoreau wrote: As it stands, the US public has no appetite for a regime-toppling attack on Iran, and right now the greatest threat to the power of Iran's leaders comes from some mix of rival factions at the top and the potential for angry mobs in the streets. They're one dead blonde brunette girl away from another riot.
Sure. And I'll accept your analysis that Iran's not likely to go so far as I suggested. But I don't know if any of that would save Obama from "weak on defense" charges if Iran were to be seen as moving closer to that capability. That's my main point. It doesn't mean that those making the charge would have had any better idea of what to do were they in power. But that wouldn't necessarily stop them from making the charge and it possibly being effective. It's damned whatever you do in that sense. But people out of power, especially Republicans, can always claim they woulda coulda done something in the tough guy department that would have backed someone else down, however much evidence shows that nothing much would have backed Iran down.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24445
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran

Post by thoreau » 03 Nov 2011, 13:13

fyodor wrote:
thoreau wrote: As it stands, the US public has no appetite for a regime-toppling attack on Iran, and right now the greatest threat to the power of Iran's leaders comes from some mix of rival factions at the top and the potential for angry mobs in the streets. They're one dead blonde brunette girl away from another riot.
Sure. And I'll accept your analysis that Iran's not likely to go so far as I suggested. But I don't know if any of that would save Obama from "weak on defense" charges if Iran were to be seen as moving closer to that capability. That's my main point.
As long as Iran doesn't do a nuclear test that leaves any seismic or radiological evidence, both they and Obama have a fig leaf to cover themselves with here.
"The first rule of Grylliade club is 'Why are we talking about Grylliade club?'"
--Jake

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 12618
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Iran

Post by Kolohe » 03 Nov 2011, 14:04

You know what saves Obama from a 'weak on defense' charge?

That he's killing people on Ten Most Wanted list faster than they can fill it.
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14606
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Iran

Post by lunchstealer » 03 Nov 2011, 14:08

thoreau wrote:
fyodor wrote:
thoreau wrote: As it stands, the US public has no appetite for a regime-toppling attack on Iran, and right now the greatest threat to the power of Iran's leaders comes from some mix of rival factions at the top and the potential for angry mobs in the streets. They're one dead blonde brunette girl away from another riot.
Sure. And I'll accept your analysis that Iran's not likely to go so far as I suggested. But I don't know if any of that would save Obama from "weak on defense" charges if Iran were to be seen as moving closer to that capability. That's my main point.
As long as Iran doesn't do a nuclear test that leaves any seismic or radiological evidence, both they and Obama have a fig leaf to cover themselves with here.
Yeah, but that's a difficult proposition for the likes of Iran. Israel or South Africa may have been able to pull it off back in the day, but I suspect that orbital sensors are rather more sophisticated now than they were in 1979.

Certainly it'd have to be an oceanic/atmospheric test to avoid seismic detection. Underground or underwater tests would simply transfer too much energy into the earth to go unnoticed by modern seismic networks.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
JD
Posts: 9613
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Iran

Post by JD » 03 Nov 2011, 14:46

We've probably got better sensors for atmospheric tests too. We had optical sensors in 1979, and I'm sure we have something similar (but better) now. Even an oceanic test would leave nuclear byproducts in the atmosphere, which I know various intelligence agencies are looking for...

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24445
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Iran

Post by thoreau » 03 Nov 2011, 14:50

So I guess what I am saying is that if they don't do a test they and Obama have a figleaf. They can walk up to the edge, but without a test there is no attack on Iran in the foreseeable future.
"The first rule of Grylliade club is 'Why are we talking about Grylliade club?'"
--Jake

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests