Odds of War With Iran Rise to 40 Percent, Atlantic Panel Says

Odds of War With Iran Rise to 40 Percent, Atlantic Panel Says

www.theatlantic.com

The probability of conflict with Iran is now at 40 percent, according to The Atlantic's Iran War Dial. We've assembled a high profile team of experts from the policy world, academia, and journalism to periodically predict the chances that Israel or the United States will strike Iran in the next year.

Peace remains more likely than war. But the chances of conflict have ticked upward for the second month in a row, from 36 percent in June, to 38 percent in July, and now 40 percent in August.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I would note that The Atlantic panel (I am one of its 22 members) was polled before concrete news about the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report was released. The report is filled with much bad news for people who a) don't want Iran to get the bomb; b) have convinced themselves that Iran's nuclear program has only peaceful intentions; and c) don't want Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities this year.

The report confirmed that a recent boast by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that Iran had added nearly 1,000 centrifuges to the underground site was accurate. But it left open the question of what, exactly, Mr. Khamenei and other Iranian leaders intended to do with those machines, and whether, by racing ahead with construction, they were seeking negotiating advantage or trying to gain the capability to build a bomb before sanctions, sabotage or military action could stop them.

According to this panel, the chances of war with Iran currently sits at 40%. In my opinion, i believe it may be a bit higher...maybe 50%. On the other hand, considering that Israel is unpredictable, they could be gearing up now...

Or...considering that many other countries aren't really committed to a new war, maybe it is lower...30%?

I believe that the future is looking quite uncertain.

For those interested, here is the page of FAQ's regarding this panel:

www.theatlantic.com...

Here is a list of the members of this panel:

The panelists were selected because of their expertise on foreign policy and the Iranian nuclear crisis. We are very grateful for their assistance. They include:

Daniel Byman (Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings)

Shahram Chubin (Nonresident senior associate in the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Program)

Golnaz Esfandiari (Senior Correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and editor of the Persian Letters blog)

Azar Gat (Ezer Weitzman Professor of National Security in the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University)

Jeffrey Goldberg (National correspondent for The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting)

Amos Harel (Military correspondent, Haaretz)

Ephraim Kam (Deputy Head of the Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv)

Dalia Dassa Kaye (Senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation)

Matthew Kroenig (Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Georgetown University)

John Limbert (Distinguished Professor of International Affairs at the U.S. Naval Academy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs)

Valerie Lincy (Executive director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control; editor of Iran Watch)

James Lindsay (Senior Vice President at the Council on Foreign Relations)

Marc Lynch (Associate Professor of Political Science and International Affairs and Director of the Middle East Studies Program at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University)

Gary Milhollin (President of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control)

Trita Parsi (Founder and president of the National Iranian American Council)

Paul Pillar (Professor at Georgetown University; former CIA analyst)

Barry Rubin (Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs)

Karim Sadjadpour (Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, formerly chief Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group)

Kenneth Timmerman (Author, journalist, and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran)

Shibley Telhami (Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, non-resident senior fellow at the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution)

Stephen Walt (Professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government)

Robin Wright (Former American Academy of Diplomacy journalist of the year, and author of Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion across the Islamic World)

www.theatlantic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

They can pay for it. The U.S. is broke.

More hype.

Every other day, more hype.

I'm sick of it. Leave those poor people alone.

War over what!? I haven't seen concrete proof yet...unless they are holding out?

reply to post by daaskapital


By their calculations the risk of war is increasing by 2 points every month - the fact things have been pretty hot is important - which means that in the past/this year it raises by 24 points.

If we are at 40% now, that means 100% is (+/-)three years away.

Do they say what is the % at which war breaks out? Is it really 100%?

However, I'm not so sure if this deserves much highlight. This are mixed opinions mashed up into a vote or statistic rating. One secret piece of information, one secret order or one sudden event could change their conclusions pretty fast.

You can't trust those people. There is way too much money to be made from war. Propaganda everywhere.

When is the last time Iran started a war?


Link

think that telling people that Iran has not started a war in 200 years is a great point to make while supporting this position. The US can't even go 2 years, let alone 200 - so which country is really the greater danger to mankind? Anyways, it got me thinking - When exactly was this war that Iran started 200 years ago? Because if I make this point I need to be able to back it up. So after much research I believe that the answer is: 1826 during the 4th Russo-Persian War. If anyone finds an error in this or a more recent war that Iran started please post.

I still fully expect the Iranian situation will play itself out with Iran's demise as we know it from internal or external upheaval. There's a high chance someone will attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure in the short term but conventional weapons even those of the US may be ineffective. Such an attack will certainly draw a counter attack and that may very well draw other nations into the conflict.

There is an increasing chance that Iran will attack Israel with either conventional, nuclear or WMDs. This will draw a response from Israel and Iran won't like it. It's my belief they will deliver a knockout punch to the Iranian military and when the dust clears most of modern Iran won't exist. It will probably cause 50 to 75 percent causalities of the civilian population and be something from Dante's Inferno which we have all feared since 1945.

I hope I'm wrong but anyway you look it doesn't look good. My best,

Originally posted by Juggernog
When is the last time Iran started a war?

Pretty much every day. Whenever Hezbollah fire a rocket at Israel can be counted as an act of war, seen as they're Iran's Proxy militant group

Originally posted by nostromo85

Originally posted by Juggernog
When is the last time Iran started a war?

Pretty much every day. Whenever Hezbollah fire a rocket at Israel can be counted as an act of war, seen as they're Iran's Proxy militant group

It still isn't Iran directly however.

Would you fire rockets into a country full of people who bulldozed down your home and chucked you into an open jail?

Originally posted by nostromo85

Originally posted by Juggernog
When is the last time Iran started a war?

Pretty much every day. Whenever Hezbollah fire a rocket at Israel can be counted as an act of war, seen as they're Iran's Proxy militant group

One, Hezbollah are not the ones firing rockets into Israel.. Most are from Hamas apparently... When are hezbollah launching rockets from Lebanon? If they did, maybe its because the Israeli's are always crossing into Lebanon which is illegal.

Regardless, Hezbollah are funded by Iran, and Hezbollah aren't exactly a group of girl scouts, are they? No.

And the reason they cross the border into the Lebanon is to target the militants in that area, the same militants that used to be known as the PLO, and its not like they decided to go to Munich an assassinate some peaceful athletes or anything, is it?

reply to post by Juggernog


I do not see the argumentation as having much relevancy the accounting would only make sense in terms of the inception of the political systems that governs the nations. It still would be a positive argumentation for Iran even if it would lose much of the impact...

reply to post by nostromo85


If we start accounting indirect support of conflict then the US would look even more criminal, in fact we could argue that the US already attacked Iran once by the support granted to Iraq, on the Iran-Iraq war...

Yes, they're having trouble condoning another militant rape against another of israel's natural enemies, so let's show some figures, you know, prepare the viewers for what they are about to view. Yawn.

Goodwill's all used up, zionists. We are wise to you. Thanks for bleeding us dry.

reply to post by Panic2k11


Hahaha, of course. The USA is the dirty cop of the precinct (I'm not American (or Jewish for that matter)). But if we're talking about whose the bigger bad guy out of principle, then it's not America. Sure, they're probably helping an Ally to make a quick buck via weapons sales and putting their banks and fast food places in the region. But at least they're not trying to destroy a country of the face of the map, like Iran is with Israel.

reply to post by nostromo85

they're not trying to destroy a country of the face of the map, like Iran is with Israel.

I sincerely do not get your point, the Anglo-Americans were behind the establishing of the nation of Israel, they are behind the weakness of the UN to enforce all resolutions against Israel, they are behind the Israeli nuclear program and they have the blame not only for the general mishandling of issues in the region but on the creation of the Iran problem. Most of what comes in rhetoric from Iran is a result of all this type of double-dealing and meddling.

The US would never actively call out for the destruction of a nation, that type of rhetoric does not go well in the West, but look at Cuba, Iraq, Libya and now Syria you could also examine closely the US involvement on the Yugoslav Wars and past behavior on South America. If this is not the covert destruction of nations, by preventing keeping them to evolve any degree of independence. I'm not stating that the US is the only to blame in all scenarios but it is their policy that if not outright creates the issues permits them to fester...

Do you think that Cuba would be the same without the embargo and general policy from the US towards them ? We wouldn't even have had Castro fall into the Soviets sphere let alone a Cuban missile crisis had the US policy been fair and proactive attempting to solve the issue, the same gos to the Palestinian problem, why do you think that most Arab nations if not outright a quasi protectorate of the US hates them.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by nostromo85

 

they're not trying to destroy a country of the face of the map, like Iran is with Israel.

I sincerely do not get your point, the Anglo-Americans were behind the establishing of the nation of Israel, they are behind the weakness of the UN to enforce all resolutions against Israel, they are behind the Israeli nuclear program and they have the blame not only for the general mishandling of issues in the region but on the creation of the Iran problem. Most of what comes in rhetoric from Iran is a result of all this type of double-dealing and meddling.

The US would never actively call out for the destruction of a nation, that type of rhetoric does not go well in the West, but look at Cuba, Iraq, Libya and now Syria you could also examine closely the US involvement on the Yugoslav Wars and past behavior on South America. If this is not the covert destruction of nations, by preventing keeping them to evolve any degree of independence. I'm not stating that the US is the only to blame in all scenarios but it is their policy that if not outright creates the issues permits them to fester...

Do you think that Cuba would be the same without the embargo and general policy from the US towards them ? We wouldn't even have had Castro fall into the Soviets sphere let alone a Cuban missile crisis had the US policy been fair and proactive attempting to solve the issue, the same gos to the Palestinian problem, why do you think that most Arab nations if not outright a quasi protectorate of the US hates them.

I think you're maybe jumping the gun, on a HUGE scale here. After WW2, Jewish people were leaving Europe in all directions, and heading into Palestine way before Britain handed over control to form the state of Israel. America has nothing to do with it, and also to note, there was a civil war inbetween WW2 and the formation of Israel in '48 between Arabs and Jews, so Iran wanting to do what it is saying it will, is nothing new at all.

Also, if Israel didn't have nukes (if that what you meant by a nuclear program), then they'd be invaded by Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, pretty much all of its neighbours (like Yom Kippur), and you'd have another Holocaust. I don't get why people have such a huge problem with them having nukes when you look at the scenario. They're surrounded by people who want to get rid of them and they've had nukes for decades and showed more restraint to not using them then America has, as we all know. On the other hand, (back to Iran), not only do they keep mentioning how then want to destroy Israel, but they have enriched their Uranium way past a grade for just medical or energy usage, combined with the fact they will not comply with the IAEA who are basically trying to do them a favour if what they say is true, that they want a nuclear program for energy.
As for double dealing and meddling, In this case we have a right to meddle in their affairs if they're trying to build weapons to make good on their promises to take out a group of people.

As for the other nations you mentioned, Well the U.S. never got involved officially with Libya, and even if they organised a covert overthrow of Ghadaffii, good! Don't forget its the same guy who blew up a 747 over Lockerbie and other general D**K moves to promote or conduct terrorism in the west since the '70's.

As for the Yugoslav, I do recall a certain Slobodan Milosavic commiting genocide on Muslims and like Ghadaffi for that matter, evicting anyone he didn't like from his land. So, once again, Well done everyone for getting rid of another tyrant the world didn't need. Same for Saddam Hussein, for gassing his own population, it's just a shame we all went to war to protect Kuwaiti oil rather then lives on that one.

As for what I think about the U.S/Cuba, Well I don't really know all that much about that, but yes, the united states do appear to be a little harsh with them.

The problem is that ATS is full of people right now who just want to bash the US for its policy for taking care of scum who commit genocide, and eventually its going to end up that someone is going to come along, possibly the Iranians, who will make good on their promise one day and then you'll all be shocked that America didn't do anything because you've been whining about it.

reply to post by nostromo85

Following the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 November 1947, recommending the adoption and implementation of the United Nations partition plan of Mandatory Palestine, on 14 May 1948 David Ben-Gurion, the Executive Head of the World Zionist Organization[8] and president of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel, a state independent upon the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine, 15th May, 1948. Neighboring Arab states invaded the next day in support of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,

from Wikipedia

After WW2, Jewish people were leaving Europe in all directions, and heading into Palestine way before Britain handed over control to form the state of Israel. America has nothing to do with it,

Stating that the Anglo-American establishment had nothing to do with it is very disingenuous, I would be more correct in stating that the Anglo-American establishment were to blame for WW2 by not intervening on the civil war in Spain. Not forgetting that WW2 had just ended and the Anglo-American establishment had almost the run of the world at that time, with some restriction by the Soviets not fully grown as a major threat, but a concern.

Considering that the UN as is still normal today caters to the same Anglo-American establishment and the Jews in Palestine were in active engagement with the English, see British Mandate for Palestine, there was a major political at home and by the US to provide a solution to the Jews (the Jews in the US, Canada and UK and during WW2 had acquired not only a large political influence but due to exodus from Europe that consisted not only of people but their values had a major economic clout but also a corrosive community especially after what had just happened). Europe was in shambles and the dislocated refugees were not very welcomed, Nazi propaganda and influence had a large impact especially in Northern Europe (including the Soviet Union and France) and historically Jews were never well regarded in Catholic Europe, since the middle ages. The Anglo-American establishment had all to do with the formation of Israel as they had responsibility over the territory but since then not only closed their eyes to what was taking place (and still occurs) of the expansion of what was in face of local opposition as the state of Israel, one must be almost brain dead not to understand that this served many purposes especially since Jerusalem has been the navel of two of the main religions of the world.

As a comparison if you know history and geopolitics, the blame there by the Anglo-American establishment is several magnitudes larger than for instance the blame that Spain has over the situation in Moroccos and the Polisario Front.

Also, if Israel didn't have nukes (if that what you meant by a nuclear program), then they'd be invaded by Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, pretty much all of its neighbours (like Yom Kippur), and you'd have another Holocaust.

Not so, if anything has been learned by previous confrontations is that there is no match in the region in conventional warfare, the nuclear program was not only unnecessary but it was illegally obtained in breach of many international accords, in fact by acquiring the capability they have created need for other regional powers to obtain it too, without too much benefit. (There is also the suspicion of a link to the South African nuclear program)

I do not state that it it was not in the best interest of Israel, I state that it was against the best interest of the rest of the world.

U.S. never got involved officially with Libya

I will end here since you clear have a lack of information... See Muammar Gaddafi - War against Egypt and Muammar Gaddafi - Berlin discotheque bombing. Muammar Gaddafi world-view was shaped by his interactions with the Anglo-American establishment (and Italy). He was almost driven to the position he took. I'm not defending the mentality but at times he took the time to call things as they were.

You can at times look at nations like you look at people in a society, the same methodology of control and how rogue nations are created is keenly similar. Israel is like the kid that had a very tough and violent upbringing it is no mere accident that it behaves as it does...