Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

liamenator · 04-10-2006, 02:52 PM

If the United States does choose to go the counterproliferation route, with large-scale air and missle strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure it will be a reaction to a conclusion reached in Washington that, given the history of suspision and tension between the two countries and the inherent anti-Americanism in Iran there would be no possible way to help accelerate a regime change in Tehren. This is probably true, and it has been argued by Kenneth Pollack among others that it would probably have the opposite effect. Thus the strikes would be aimed at slowing down the Iranian nuclear program, delaying the ability of the current regime to acquire nuclear weapons before the end of their reign.

The Israeli Osiraq raids in Iraq proved to be a success in employing this strategy as they delayed Hussein's nuclear program enough so as to ensure he did not possess such weapons in time for the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War... while delaying it by just enough so that he was unable to acquire nuclear capabilities before he was deposed. Many argue it was an act of tremendous foresight that had obvious benefits for the region and the world as a whole.

So.. There is a substantial case to be built for such a strategy. No doubt, the US would face tremendous international criticism - as Israel did with Osiraq, and there would be other serious ramifications.

Iran would innevitabley support terrorist attacks at the US, or carry them out themselves. Also, Afghanistan and Iraq present obvious avenues in which Iran could strike a blow at US interests in the region. Backdoor Iranian support in both areas has been critical to US efforts in both areas to this point. Domestically, it would be the death knell for the Iranian reform movement due to their percieved "ties" to the United States (however, argueabley, this movement is dead anyway).

The main problem I see is that this strategy does not do anything to address 2 of the 3 primary concerns of the United States in regards to Iran: Iran's support of terrorism and their violent opposition to the middle east peace process.

Complex issue.. I have more to add, but Ive got to go to class now, lol.

04-10-2006, 02:52 PM	#14
liamenator First Line Centre Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Ottawa Exp:	If the United States does choose to go the counterproliferation route, with large-scale air and missle strikes against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure it will be a reaction to a conclusion reached in Washington that, given the history of suspision and tension between the two countries and the inherent anti-Americanism in Iran there would be no possible way to help accelerate a regime change in Tehren. This is probably true, and it has been argued by Kenneth Pollack among others that it would probably have the opposite effect. Thus the strikes would be aimed at slowing down the Iranian nuclear program, delaying the ability of the current regime to acquire nuclear weapons before the end of their reign. The Israeli Osiraq raids in Iraq proved to be a success in employing this strategy as they delayed Hussein's nuclear program enough so as to ensure he did not possess such weapons in time for the Iran-Iraq war or the Gulf War... while delaying it by just enough so that he was unable to acquire nuclear capabilities before he was deposed. Many argue it was an act of tremendous foresight that had obvious benefits for the region and the world as a whole. So.. There is a substantial case to be built for such a strategy. No doubt, the US would face tremendous international criticism - as Israel did with Osiraq, and there would be other serious ramifications. Iran would innevitabley support terrorist attacks at the US, or carry them out themselves. Also, Afghanistan and Iraq present obvious avenues in which Iran could strike a blow at US interests in the region. Backdoor Iranian support in both areas has been critical to US efforts in both areas to this point. Domestically, it would be the death knell for the Iranian reform movement due to their percieved "ties" to the United States (however, argueabley, this movement is dead anyway). The main problem I see is that this strategy does not do anything to address 2 of the 3 primary concerns of the United States in regards to Iran: Iran's support of terrorism and their violent opposition to the middle east peace process. Complex issue.. I have more to add, but Ive got to go to class now, lol.