Iran

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

...
I still don't know why Iraq was invaded...

Think chessboard. Think: pawn, bishop, knight, rook etc ...

[Wiglaf]

Originally Posted by RJM Corbet

Think chessboard. Think: pawn, bishop, knight, rook etc ...

Actually, I think my difficulty was more that it was the wrong move (or series of moves); many others would have been better.

Iran, on the other hand, is a threat. What is more, I believe the delay and lack of credibility of the west moves events towards greater force or serious problems with a nuclear Iran. For example, if you threatened to bomb the oil fields as part of any air strike against the facilities, China and Russia would lose a main advantage of opposing fuel sanctions. Fuel sanctions being the most likely to work; Iran lacks domestic refining capacity. Furthermore, a fuel sanction would take time and as Iran beefs up protection of their facilities the odds of an air strike being ineffective increases. Wait to long and options narrow.

[RJM Corbet]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

...Iran, on the other hand, is a threat...

How come? Iran doesn't have nukes. They wish ...

[Wiglaf]

Iran is working on nukes, has produced a fuel rod, is testing delivery systems, has taken hostages since 1979 (more recently under the cover of criminal arrests), has been supporting terrorists for decades, and has been threatening the Strait of Hormuz since the 1980s.
If Russia and China won't get Iranian oil either way (because the fields would be bombed if sanctions didn't work), then they might be more likely to support gas(petrol) sanctions which, combined with cyber attack, offer the best hope of preventing a nuclear Iran without air strikes or invasion.

[RJM Corbet]

Yes but Wiglaf, even India, Pakistan and Israel only have regional delivery systems, I don't know if China has ICBMs or submarines or long-range bombers: but it's a long way from Iran developing a reactor fuel rod to becoming even a regional nuclear power. It may well be necessary to prevent that happening over the next decade or so, via sanctions, etc. But to use it as a reason for invasion at this point, is completely spurious.

Hostage taking and threatening the Strait of Hormuz is not in the same league as developing long range nukes?

But Iran does have oil and does hold a tactical position and isn't exactly friendly towards The West, which is busy securing not only its oil supply but also the pipelines, hence the interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The invasion of Iraq was on the pretext of nuclear/bio weapon development, complete dishonesty from Bush, Blair et al, whether the invasion was a good thing or not. The western governments completely hoodwinked their own people, and invaded a sovereign nation. I'm not saying it was a pretty place. Same with Afghanistan, on the auspice of smoking out Bin Ladin.

The point I'm making, I think, is that a 'western' invasion of Iraq is all set up, and they're just looking for the excuse to go in there, which they can sell to their own voters, etc.

It may be necessary and the right thing to do, to ensure the western way of life into the 21st Century. It may well be. Obviously a civilization must protect its energy supply. But somehow one feels that Iran is a whole new level, and that Russia and China will be drawn in, as they have not been so far in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc.

India, Pakistan and Israel have nukes. It has the potential to become a World War 3, if you like, and it's likely to escalate nuclear, which we and our children are going to have to live with in the first half of the 21st Century.

I don't have any answers, especially about the right&wrong of it ...

[River Boy]

I think the big question diplomats are asking themselves is what is Iran's intentions towards Israel. If they are looking to nuke anyone it will be Israel.

I don't think they are a threat to the Western world, more just an irritation, but Israel could get nervous and look to go to war with Iran and then the question is how many other powers get sucked in. Strong possibility the US will support Israel, but I really hope the UK stays out of it, I certainly don't see Israel as an ally after the liberties they've taken in recent times.

[Peter Graham]

What nukes would give Iran is the ability to use threats and conventional strikes against their neighbors without fear of retaliation.

No, it wouldn't. I agree with Snowdog. The Iranians aren't stupid and they will be very well aware of what will happen if they upset Western friends (for which read Israel or any oil-rich state with big Western markets).

It would allow them to bully other states - the ones we don't care about - but, quite frankly, they can probably do that already if they are so minded.

Think of North Korea's actions against South Korea. Iran would completely control the Strait of Hormuz. They would also have free reign to bully Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and others in the region.

No-one is going to bully Saudi Arabia whilst they are such good pals with the UK, US et al. In human rights terms, Saudi is up there with the absolute worst, yet somehow we never talk about regime change or democracy for them. We flog them weapons instead. Just like we did to Iraq before...oh, wait.....

Iraq and Afghanistan are still on western radar, so as long as there is any prospect that the perceived benefits of the two military expeditions in those countries can be undermined in the eyes of the lumpen masses, they will have our support and Iran will stay well clear.

I still don't know why Iraq was invaded.

For oil and pride.

North Korea and Iran were bigger threats at the time,

It wasn't about neutralising threats. Not really.

Regards,

Peter

[Boneman]

Originally Posted by Wiglaf

I still don't know why Iraq was invaded.

It was so that Bush and Blair could show what wonderful world statemen they were: they made the world safe from the weapons of mass destruction that never existed except in Politicians' rhetoric. By maintaining a state of fear in ordinary citizens (you and me) they justified their actions as 'making the world a safer place'. So countless Iraqis died, along with our Servicemen and women, so Politicians could advance their personal ambitions - why haven't they been hauled before the Hague? They took our countries to war when they knew it was illegal...

[paranoid marvin]

I do believe that they thought there were some WOMD in Iraq; I don't think that honestly thought there was any threat of Iraq launching them against the West, but I doubt they would have made such a political statement without expecting some. even if they'd found one depot with nuclear/chemical/biological armaments they could have turned round and said 'told you so' - the fact that they found none I think suprised them.

As for nuclear capabilities being useless without a delivery system; well one man with a briefcase, one modified barrell of oil in a tanker, one carefully disguised crate in the hold of a cargo ship is all the delivery system you need.

[svalbard]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

I do believe that they thought there were some WOMD in Iraq; I don't think that honestly thought there was any threat of Iraq launching them against the West, but I doubt they would have made such a political statement without expecting some. even if they'd found one depot with nuclear/chemical/biological armaments they could have turned round and said 'told you so' - the fact that they found none I think suprised them.

As for nuclear capabilities being useless without a delivery system; well one man with a briefcase, one modified barrell of oil in a tanker, one carefully disguised crate in the hold of a cargo ship is all the delivery system you need.

Do you believe? What brings you to that conclusion? It seems to have escaped nearly every intelligence gathering agency in the world.

Nuclear capabilities? I agree, all it takes is one man with a briefcase or a few in bomber called the Enola Gay.

[River Boy]

Maybe they were hopeful of justifying the war with even the most primitive signs of nuclear development, even if it had been inactive for some time - but they didn't even find that. I don't think they genuinely considered Iraq might be a serious nuclear threat.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by River Boy

Maybe they were hopeful of justifying the war with even the most primitive signs of nuclear development, even if it had been inactive for some time - but they didn't even find that. I don't think they genuinely considered Iraq might be a serious nuclear threat.

I would posit that even one nuclear bomb is serious. Although the whole suitcase neuc, is likely to be way beyond Iran's capabilities at this time, the ship bomb thing is clearly a threat to any port city anywhere.

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by svalbard

Do you believe? What brings you to that conclusion? It seems to have escaped nearly every intelligence gathering agency in the world.

Nuclear capabilities? I agree, all it takes is one man with a briefcase or a few in bomber called the Enola Gay.

I just don't think they would have been so voiciferous about it. Let's face it, it was the only reason they could give to 'justify' war, and when they found nothing it made them look pretty stupid; people who want to be remembered for posterity (ie all politicians) really don't want to be remembered for having egg all over their faces. I think they would find something, no matter how trivial - and that would have been all they needed to confirm they were right.

We already knew that Saddam had used poisonous gas attacks in the past - did anyone truly believe him when Iraq declared that they had all been disposed of? This coming from the same people who were declaring that the allies were on the run when in fact they were rolling through the streets of Baghdad?

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by Parson

I would posit that even one nuclear bomb is serious. Although the whole suitcase neuc, is likely to be way beyond Iran's capabilities at this time, the ship bomb thing is clearly a threat to any port city anywhere.

If you don't have the capability , then you only need the cash. I do think though it is morally wrong for one nation to deny another technology that it itself has - to say to one nation that they do not deserve/can be trusted to have nuclear energy or weapons, when they consider themselves derserved/trust-worthy.

Personally I think the US should disarm their own nuclear weapons before telling others that they should not have them.

[Moonbat]

But then who would protect the rest of us? Israel?