US Debates Military Strikes on 'Nuclear Iran'

September 15, 2004
By Guy Dinmore in Washington

The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

Analysts close to the administration say military options are under consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is preparing actual action.

September 15, 2004
By Guy Dinmore in Washington

The Bush administration's warnings that it will not "tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the Islamic republic's nuclear programme.

Analysts close to the administration say military options are under consideration, but have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is preparing actual action.

news.ft.com...

This is not surprising to me in the least. I have said time and again, and will stick with my belief, Iraq is but a mere stepping stone in the war on Islamofacist terrorism. Those who think the deaths of a thousand U.S. troops are a great and unacceptable number to further the cause of freedom and democracy worldwide ain't seen nothin yet.

Hey, who said that? "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH"

The enemy has gravely underestimated the true spirit of the U.S. patriot, and having declared war on the United States, is reaping that which he has sown.

It is clear, either the Iranian cooperate, and shut down the nuke program they currently have, or the U.S. and/or the Israelis, will without question take 'em out.

Is there ANY place that the US havn't considered bombing?!?!

Nixon at one point suggested the Capitol apparantly, so nothing is safe!





[edit on 16/9/2004 by Corinthas]

Not surprised in the slightest......

I don't know why America can't just let other countries be, I really don't think they can make nukes, but even if they can, they're not that stupid that they would actually use them!

Bush, do the world a favour, and bugger off and die!

Has it occured to anyone that if the USA attacks Irans Nuclear sites in response Iran would supply the insurgents in Iraq with WMDS. You would think that the USA was trying to bring peace to the middle east not increase the tensions in the region and encourge state sponsed terrorism.
If you destroy Irans Nuke sites they will rebuilt them underground then how is the USA going monitor Irans nuke proagram?

Originally posted by stumason
Not surprised in the slightest......

I don't know why America can't just let other countries be, I really don't think they can make nukes, but even if they can, they're not that stupid that they would actually use them!

Bush, do the world a favour, and bugger off and die!

We tried that once you know.. leaving countries be.. and they trained militants and armed them to the teeth and flew planes into our buildings and declared war on us.

Try opening your eyes.

As the world progresses technologically it will only get easier to make nukes
,one could realistically argue that every country will eventually become nuclear powers. So all the US and its allies are accomplishing is a very elaborate war to stall the eventual production of these weapons, it may be better to let countries have nukes but Iran and the axis countries would still be a wild card concern. Its going to be a real problem in the next few decades esp with computer power coming to the point where simulations of such weapons are so realistic that the theoritcal obstacles of building one will be greatly reduced.

Hey, something struck me as funny the other day when I was looking at members of NATO and I just can't ..., oh yeah, I remember, Isreal isn't a member of NATO, how could I forget. So if a strike is done on Iran, it would be Isreal acting unilaterally. Now, I can believe that events could build up that the US may go in and bomb Iran for whatever reason; however, I think it would be more likely that Isreal has the greatest return on investment in such an endeavour and the United States jumping on the Isreali bomb Iran "band-wagon" is slim.

[edit on 16-9-2004 by pfunkarocka]

Originally posted by stumason
Bush, do the world a favour, and bugger off and die!

You hearts in the right place but that kinda makes you as bad as him... sadly.

We tried that once you know.. leaving countries be.. and they trained militants and armed them to the teeth and flew planes into our buildings and declared war on us.

An interesting point....

Still, the increasing rhetoric from Washington to "bomb Iran" is troubling to say the least. There are other ways to resolve these issues, and this administration's rush to military action, especially when world opinion differs significantly, is all the more reason the administration MUST not be allowed a second term....regardless of who else assumes the helm...

We tried that once you know.. leaving countries be.. and they trained militants and armed them to the teeth and flew planes into our buildings and declared war on us.

Try opening your eyes.

'cough cough' excuse me while i choke on my pretzel . err are you saying that afganistan armed and trained al queda?? thats strange I thought it had something to do with the millions of dollars and weapons that the cia gave osama to fight the soviets? oh gosh, thank you for telling us that....oh well best get back to rewriting the history books

Originally posted by Gazrok

We tried that once you know.. leaving countries be.. and they trained militants and armed them to the teeth and flew planes into our buildings and declared war on us.

An interesting point....

Still, the increasing rhetoric from Washington to "bomb Iran" is troubling to say the least. There are other ways to resolve these issues, and this administration's rush to military action, especially when world opinion differs significantly, is all the more reason the administration MUST not be allowed a second term....regardless of who else assumes the helm...

Fact is, the majority of U.S. citizens see the terror threat for what it is, and as a result, will put President Bush back in the White House for 4 more years. Yes, because, in spite of world opinion, Bush and the U.S. citizens who will put him in office have the guts to defeat Islamofacism, period. The war in Iraq is but a steppingstone to victory, the Iranian mullahocracy will fall, they simply will not be permitted to obtain nukes, end of story.

Smokenmirriors gets a way above for that one. Those of you who want Bush to "bugger off and die" or some such can ask our buddy Vlad Putin how he feels about Islamofacist terrorism about now.

Let's just appease the terrorists, right Mr. Chamberlain?

Feel free to keep your head in the sand and sit around and have a few verses of kumbaya on me. The enemy has shown his face (again) and I guess the good ole' US of A will have to rescue your collective arses. (again)

And for my countrymen who think we should just leave this to the UN or some "World Organization" (collectively known as the anybody but Bush crowd) I say to you that you never learned anything on the schoolyard. There are bad people out there unlike anything your wealth and privilaged upbringing allow you to even consider. They would rape, murder, behead, steal, pillage, and torture you just for the sheer sport of it. They shoot children, blow up old ladies on trains and busses, any crash airliners out of a sick sense of duty and a personal sense of hopelessness.

Time for you to grow up, hold your nose, and make sure the world is a safer place for our children.

I'd just like to know how a nuclear power program is meant to equate to a military nuclear program.

Nuclear power production is nothing like the same as nuclear weapons production....or, for that matter (when you get as far as actually having a viable weapon) a nuclear weapons delivery system.

Iran has agreed to inspections (of which several have taken place) and no weapons materials have ever been found.....the one instance of 'enriched material' (which actually refers to enriched uranium material for a power plant not enriched bomb-grade material) was found to have been a speck of contamination.

This isn't anything but more excuses to make war IMO.

If the USA attacks Iran on this basis it will do so alone and it will create far more trouble than it thinks it will solve. Iran has not attacked the USA and, in fact, has never attacked anyone first.

This IMO is the USA dancing a jig (again) for Israel because Israel is scared of other countries in the region having any kind of nuclear capacity whatsoever.....despite Israel's estimated 200 or so actual warheads.

Iran has been on the journey away from fundamentalism and back towards a more liberated society. This can only slow (or, God forbid, reverse) that process.

These threats and the entire atmosphere of hostility - despite there being no evidence of an Iranian bomb at all is intended to create a hardline reaction; it is an actual objective IMO. IMO some actually want this to escalate to the point where the US starts a conflict with Iran.

It's all about permanent wars, foreign civil unrest and repeated small/medium-scale terrorist outrages producing a compliant populace lving in permanent fear.......signing every cheque presented to them (cos the tax-payer is the best most reliable bill-payer there is!) so long as the snake-oil salesmen claim it'll make them safe(r) as the threat levels rise and fall and they're played for all they're worth.

Ask yourself a few questions there Sminkey...

If you were sitting on top of a huge oil field with all of the more or less free energy you could ever need, why would you spend billions developing a nuclear energy program?

Why would you throw a snit and disallow IAEA members access to inspect your sites if you had nothing to hide?

Why wouldn't you go to your old Soviet friends and buy a few heavy water reactors that couldn't produce weapons grade material unless you wanted some fissionable material?

Why would you develop fairly inaccurate IRBM's to carry conventional warheads?

Why is it pretty much assumed by every major western intelligence agency that Iran seeks nuclear weapons? (disreguard that one.. the entire western world is an evil puppet of the Bush machine)

Oh why not just bomb everybody who has Nuclear technology.

I want the good ole USA days back

My country is a bully.
What happened to the cold war days of thinking u bomb us we bomb u theorey?
Korea h e l l o .
This is all nonsense. Who in the hell is running my good ole USA?

"Oh why not just bomb everybody who has Nuclear technology."

First off let me uncategorically state: If we could put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, I'd be the first one to support it.

That being said, I think it would be really stupid to let a sworn ememy state develop nuclear weapons during a time of war. The Mullahs in Iran would happily spread jihad over the face of the planet given the chance. They are known terrorist supporters.

I am not for "bombing" Iran. I would advocate the smallest surgical strike possible to destroy reactors and potential production facilities. Hopefully one B-2 mission would cover it.

If, in 1935, Hitler was developing nukes, should we have taken those out?

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
Ask yourself a few questions there Sminkey...

If you were sitting on top of a huge oil field with all of the more or less free energy you could ever need, why would you spend billions developing a nuclear energy program?

- Maybe because the oil won't last forever?

(Especially when the biggest consumers of it insist on consuming ever more and more of it as if there were no finite limits on the quantity of oil there?)

Why would you throw a snit and disallow IAEA members access to inspect your sites if you had nothing to hide?

- (Iran has recently had the inspectors in again by the way)

How about because it appears that no matter what cooperation Iran gives they are always being accused by those apparantly bent on creating hostilities?

What benefits have cooperating with the IAEA brought Iran? Even when the contamination was tracked down the first thing the USA does is ignore the findings and simply repeat the accusations.

Are you really surprised when they lose any remaining faith in the process?

Why wouldn't you go to your old Soviet friends and buy a few heavy water reactors that couldn't produce weapons grade material unless you wanted some fissionable material?

- er, you have got to be kidding? Who in their right mind would go to the Russians for their nuclear tech if western tech is available?

There is no logic to your point here at all. Just because they don't buy Russian is no reason to claim it is to produce weapons.

BTW the Iranian reactors do not produce enriched weapons grade plutonium.

The debate over enriched uranium is about something quite different and perfectly usual and 'normal' in the more efficient production of energy.

Why would you develop fairly inaccurate IRBM's to carry conventional warheads?

- Perhaps because you live in the historically very volitile ME on top of a valuable natural resource next door to Israel (with a history of aggressive first-strike attacks) and have an aggressive USA (with a history of attacking Iran and interfering in Iranian affairs) stomping about the region on the flimsiest of reasons?

Maybe a completely disarmed Iran is what you think reasonable?

Somehow I doubt even that would satisfy some. It appears only occupation and a suitably repressive puppet state is an acceptable 'answer'.......till the whole cycle starts over again.

Why is it pretty much assumed by every major western intelligence agency that Iran seeks nuclear weapons? (disreguard that one.. the entire western world is an evil puppet of the Bush machine)

- Nice line Sargon but I don't believe that is so.

Just like the 'everybody knew/knows' line over Iraq turned out to be false I believe this is similar.

Regardless of your 'what if' debate and however many 'yeah but just imagine if' arguements (or even the 'it's what everyone knows they want' proposition) you put up the fact remains Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and are nowhere near having one.

Not even close....and all the world's intelligence networks will tell you that....barring the Israelis and, of course, the USA.

But for all that I have no doubt that even if it comes to going it alone (and the US can forget any UK cooperation or contribution if they try this one) any war with Iran will be built on lies over their actual capability as happened with Iraq.

As I said Iran has been liberalising (hmm, 'liberal'-ising is that why the US right hate them so much?) the best way to stop that is to increase the tension and threaten them IMO.

There is no Iranian bomb and guessing about 'what ifs' doesn't make it so.

Go ahead, attack Iran...one more step towards the end for the US.
Land of the Morons.

A nuclear armed Iran would be a progress towards peace in the region. Israel would be forced to begin peace negotiations with the arabs since it won't be invincible anymore. A bargaining solution towards peace in the middle east could be found. What do we want more ?