Eight Ways to Deal With Iran, page 1


Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times
Topic started on 27-9-2012 @ 01:49 PM by hp1229
A good reading for those interested. It has 9 pages to it. I have posted just the excerpts and options by themselves. The article goes into the pros and cons of each.

The Iranian nuclear program is a complex threat to international peace and stability. In this ambitious paper, former national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley says that stopping it requires an equally complex and sophisticated strategy.

Why conduct a review of Iran options now?

Partly because of the American experience in Iraq. The U.S. military action there was not, as many suggest, either a war of choice or a war of preemption. It was, rather, a war of last resort. After 12 years of diplomacy, 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, increasingly targeted economic sanctions, multiple international inspection efforts, no-fly zones over both northern and southern Iraq, the selective use of U.S. military force in 1998, and Saddam Hussein's rejection of a final opportunity to leave Iraq and avoid war, the United States and the international community were out of options. The choice was either to capitulate to Saddam Hussein's defiance of the demands of the international community or to make good on the "serious consequences" promised by the United Nations for such defiance. The United States and its international partners on Iraq chose the latter course.

Option 1: Seek an interim 'stop the clock' agreement.
Option 2: Seek an interim "medium for medium" or "more for more" agreement.
Option 3: Seek a final agreement that resolves the nuclear issue.
Option 4: Embrace the de facto status quo.
Option 5: Long-Term Isolation and Pressure.
Option 6: Launch a limited, and preferably clandestine military strike.
Option 7: Launch a major, overt military strike.
Option 8: Acquiesce in a Nuclear-Armed Iran./quote]
LINK


reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 02:09 PM by SLAYER69
reply to post by buster2010



Actually that was posted as option 8

Option 8: Acquiesce in a Nuclear-Armed Iran.


But do nothing UNTIL they attack America? ---> That would be called a False Flag for sure by some if they did.


reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 02:18 PM by buster2010
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to
post by buster2010



Actually that was posted as option 8

Option 8: Acquiesce in a Nuclear-Armed Iran.


But do nothing UNTIL they attack America? ---> That would be called a False Flag for sure by some if they did.



True some would call it a false flag but yes we shouldn't do anything until attacked. Preemptive strikes even when crying we are defending ourselves are just aggressive acts of war.


reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 02:24 PM by SLAYER69
Originally posted by buster2010
True some would call it a false flag but yes we shouldn't do anything until attacked. Preemptive strikes even when crying we are defending ourselves are just aggressive acts of war.


Couldn't agree more....
Iran could launch pre-emptive Israel strike-commander
(Reuters) - Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state was preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, made the comments to Iran's state-run Arabic language Al-Alam television.



reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 03:07 PM by neo96
reply to post by luciddream





Why can't Iran have Nuclear energy weapons? Their enemies have it, having one would make others think twice about offense.


And that has worked out so well like Pakistan who has nukes and has gotten "bombed the hell out of ".


reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 03:15 PM by SrWingCommander
reply to post by luciddream




3 Reasons

1) They signed the non proliferation act. They basicly SAID, we won't build nuclear weapons....then went about doing it.

2) They are essentailly a state sponsered supporter of international terrorism. Doesn't really matter what their beef is, or if it is legit. They have/are supporting a proxy war against Israel by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in the areas north of Israel. They export terror. Do you want them exporting nuclear tech to terrorists?

3) While I know there is debate over the true translations, they have basicly threatened Israel with genocide. They have stated the world will soon be free of both the US and Israel. While attempting (allegedly) to build a nuclear weapon. Threatening Talk......Threatening Actions.

IMHO......The IDF WILL launch a limited strike, probably before the end of the year. Iran will retalliate, by attempting to seize the Strait of Hormuz AND by attacking US assets in the region (whether the US assists Israel or not) and possibly terror strikes within the US and Europe. The resulting chaos will cause a crash of the US and EU economy and potential civil unrest in both places. It could, (but in my thoughts won't) start a third World War,and at least a very large regional one. Could also possibly set up or begin the sequence of events that are the Judeao-Christian eschatological events..........but that's a whole other thread.

I HOPE I am wrong, I HOPE a better solution comes about. I don't even think it really matters what "side" you support, sympathize with, or root for, it is likely going to happen and we are all along for the ride.
edit on 27-9-2012 by SrWingCommander because: clarification



reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 08:02 PM by buster2010
reply to post by SrWingCommander





1) They signed the non proliferation act. They basically SAID, we won't build nuclear weapons....then went about doing it.

There is NO PROOF they are building a nuke.



2) They are essentially a state sponsored supporter of international terrorism. Doesn't really matter what their beef is, or if it is legit. They have/are supporting a proxy war against Israel by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in the areas north of Israel. They export terror. Do you want them exporting nuclear tech to terrorists?


Israel also sponsors international terrorism and has also been committing acts of war against Iran by proxies. Not only has Israel been stealing American nuclear tech they also been trying to sell it on the black market. Recently declassified documents shows they tried to sell it to south Africa. Israel already is a bigger threat than Iran.


3) While I know there is debate over the true translations, they have basicly threatened Israel with genocide. They have stated the world will soon be free of both the US and Israel. While attempting (allegedly) to build a nuclear weapon. Threatening Talk......Threatening Actions.


They have only threatened the Zionist like America should have done many times in the past.



IMHO......The IDF WILL launch a limited strike, probably before the end of the year. Iran will retalliate, by attempting to seize the Strait of Hormuz AND by attacking US assets in the region (whether the US assists Israel or not) and possibly terror strikes within the US and Europe. The resulting chaos will cause a crash of the US and EU economy and potential civil unrest in both places. It could, (but in my thoughts won't) start a third World War,and at least a very large regional one. Could also possibly set up or begin the sequence of events that are the Judeao-Christian eschatological events..........but that's a whole other thread.


If the IDF strikes first then Israel will be at fault not Iran. Iran always says "if we are attacked". If they are then they have every right to strike back. Israel will not start the war because they know they have no chance against them if they did they would have already started one. They want America to do the fighting for them.


reply posted on 27-9-2012 @ 08:06 PM by buster2010
reply to post by princeofpeace





You guys are extremely naive then and dont understand how the world works or have no insight.


If you think that then you are extremely delusional.


reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 03:20 PM by Krono
reply to post by buster2010




I wouldn't be particularly pleased if the Iranians did actually develop an nuclear weapon and quite frankly, IF there is evidence (which I don't think there is) of the Iranians developing a WMD then there should be atleast a missile strike against the nuclear facilities.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN - Is he going to declare war?
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags
Turkey says it is prepared for possibility of war with Israel
  Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
IDF general: Likelihood of regional war growing
  Posted 18 days ago with 14 member flags
Full-scale Middle East war is \'imminent\', warns Israeli general
  Posted 17 days ago with 10 member flags
Netanyahu: Palestinian Statehood Bid \'Doomed\'
  Posted 4 days ago with 9 member flags
US Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms
  Posted 11 days ago with 8 member flags