Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Eight Ways to Deal With Iran

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
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




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I say we follow the option that isn't mentioned. Leave them alone. Until Iran actually attacks the America we have no right to do anything to them. They threaten Israel so what Israel has been threatening them also. Let Israel deal with their own problems.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I'm with Buster.

Iran doesn't "need to be dealt with"

Sorry OP I didn't read your post. I stopped at:


The Iranian nuclear program is a complex threat to international peace and stability.


Says who?
The real truth here is in the answer



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Nuclear deterrence is a fine balance, introducing another player onto the field that is already over crowded has the potential to not only upset this balance, but topple it completely. I am not support of foreign influence in Iran, my response would be similar even if another nation were in the same situations

My choice would not be on your list: disarm the entire planet from weapons of mass destruction. I know it's a crazy dream


Just my opinion




edit on 27-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-9-2012 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Option 1: Seek an interim 'stop the clock' agreement.

wishful thinking

Option 2: Seek an interim "medium for medium" or "more for more" agreement.

buy time to finish the bomb

Option 3: Seek a final agreement that resolves the nuclear issue.

As if.
Option 4: Embrace the de facto status quo.

The de facto status quo is sanctions that have not worked,.

Option 5: Long-Term Isolation and Pressure.

As if that has worked out so well since the Carter admin and iran is still doing what they want to

Option 6: Launch a limited, and preferably clandestine military strike.

Been there done that see operation olympic games

Option 7: Launch a major, overt military strike.

The current US administration would not Isreal even wouldnt neither wants to be seen as the agressor including iran world opinion



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
This is so retarded,

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

Its like throwing a man into lions cage and taking away his gun, while mediator guy tell the audience that the lion is toothless and also the guy MIGHT be dangerous and will accidentally hurt the lion.

You can guess who the lion, the mediator and the guy in the cage is!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
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 ".



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Just read (well more like skimmed) the report. Interesting, but nothing really new.

2nd



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
You guys are extremely naive then and dont understand how the world works or have no insight.



Originally posted by HIWATT
I'm with Buster.

Iran doesn't "need to be dealt with"

Sorry OP I didn't read your post. I stopped at:


The Iranian nuclear program is a complex threat to international peace and stability.


Says who?
The real truth here is in the answer



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
I say we follow the option that isn't mentioned. Leave them alone. Until Iran actually attacks the America we have no right to do anything to them. They threaten Israel so what Israel has been threatening them also. Let Israel deal with their own problems.
Its isn't just the Americans that are involved. ME and UN is also involved along with EU and Asia (Russia & China). Lets be realistic.



posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
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.





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join