Yes Or No?...Do We Or Don't We?
 

Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, has openly resisted the idea that negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program can ever have any success. He has a huge plurality in the Israeli Knesset and can act unilaterally, without their approval, to launch an attack on Iran. He is a firm believer that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, how they use it is totally unpredictable. That is a new dimension when compared to other countries with nuclear capability, who have all acted responsibly over many years. Most countries and politicians tend to agree with Netanyahu and say that Iran's program must be stopped before they are successful in achieving a nuclear weapon.

Recent polls show that the Israeli population is very mixed on the idea of unilaterally attacking Iran. About one-third is definitely supportive. One-third is strongly against the idea. One-third is undecided. Israelis are unanimous however in expecting U.S. support in any kind of war that might result from an unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran.

Last September, U.S. Air Force chief-of-staff Norton Schwartz told the Israeli Knesset that any such attack by Israel would not slow Iran's nuclear development by even as much as two years. To do more damage, Israel would need our latest version of "bunker buster" bombs, which the U.S. has refused to sell them. But even with their use, according to Schwartz, permanent damage to the Iranian nuclear development facilities is uncertain. Of course, Iran knows this and has been in the process of moving their nuclear operations deep underground for several years.

Bi-lateral negotiations with Iran are ongoing. Obviously, if we placed our willingness to provide Israel with our "bunker busters" on the table, the negotiations might take a different turn. But our intent can't be hollow. If we put the threat on the table, we need to be prepared to follow through and provide Israel with the weapons. And if Israel launched such an attack, the U.S. would almost certainly be drawn into whatever military actions might result.

So, if you were POTUS, how would you direct your Secretary of State to proceed with the negotiations with Iran? What would your policy be--draw a line in the sand and step up the seriousness of the negotiations? Or continue the discussions with Iran using only the relatively ineffectual economic sanctions by a few western countries as a threat? Any broader sanctions to Iran's program by the UN as an example, isn't possible because Russia and China consistently side with their ally in blocking any UN actions or sanctions that might be detrimental to Iran.

So what would you do? What should we do?

VK: America has lost its will to fight as witnessed during the vietnam era. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan re-energized the patrioism in Americans that Americans all felt good about themselves and believed in America's exceptionalism. Following 9/11 the Bush Administration in its belief and desire to protect this nation from its enemies engaged in battles with Iraq and Afganhistian. Predictably, like Vietnam the doves cried foul and politicians interferred with the military's ability to wage a winning war. The situations regarding both theatres of battle detoriated becaue they were poorly managed

Iran like North Korea have leaders who are unbalanced and could unhinge easily and this unpredictability is why North Korea continues to successfully extort favors with their idle threats. Iran has continued down this path and if anyone has any doubt that Iran will not stop until it has nuclear capability is kidding themselves. The thought that North Korea and Iran have this capbility and can sell it on an open market to anyone changes the dynamic.

We have a present Administration that has rejected America's belief in its exceptionalism and hence Americans need not be patriotic. This is internationalism replacing nationalism and so the need to face Iran's challenge will not be met by America. It will be met by the UN and IMHO the UN is useless and in fact a deteriment to our American way of life

What would I do? I would move hard and fast and shove those nuclear plants down the Iranian leaders throats and in the process aid those Iranians who have fought a brave fight for freedom. Because in the long run freeing Iran from their oppressors will return to us many dividends in that part of the world and assist in maintaining peace.

Now that I have committed to my belief the doves will come out of the wood work with all sort of accusations and it all comes down to the fact Americans have lost their will to fight for what they believe and for their their freedom. As with Iran and other similar situations they will say that this is not their fight. Well that is exactly what France said about Germany in WWII and it was Americans that baled France out. France also had this international concept and the fight wasn't theirs until it was theirs.


But a weak President has only exacerbated a weak America and the rest of the world knows it and it is why they either have lost hope of our support or ignore us placing us all in more dangerous world.

I opine others can decide.

Your response was thoughtful and I appreciated reading it. I want to agree Rubicon, but my head nodding up and down is limited by a couple facts...

• We've entered three wars in the last fifty years and haven't won any of them. Not only haven't we won militarily, but we haven't achieved many of our original objectives for entering those wars. We can study and debate the military and political reasons for those results, but our failure to "win" is unassailable.

• In the process of fighting those three wars, we've killed and maimed thousands of young Americans. The result is that the American public has largely lost it's appetite for war. The sacrifices made by American families who sons and daughters fought hose wars are all in a very narrow slice of the American public, generally the lower income, less well-educated classes. If a vote was held today to question whether we should enter a war as you suggest, but that the human sacrifice be shared by all classes of Americans, it's almost certain that the answer would be a resoundingly 'NO'.

• And it's quite apparent that our war efforts in recent decades have cost the country so much treasure that it's arguable that we couldn't afford to finance another long war, which an attack on Iran surely would cause.

So as much as I'd like to agree with all that you've said, I'm afraid that we've reached a point in our national history where we're simply incapable of doing what you suggest. Or if we did, it would likely be the fourth consecutive losing effort, which would likely tip the county into complete bankruptcy.

This is pure insanity! It's hardly an expression of 'patriotism', It is an outrageous expression of puffed up American superiority, and an open insult to the other peoples of the earth. Historically, no attitude has hurt us more than this infantile interpretation of reality.

As usual, Israel is in a difficult position. But I believe we should make it clear that we will cannot support any direct attack on Iran until all other options have been exhausted. To me, that includes a Iranian nuclear strike on Israel. Remember, Iran does not yet have 'the bomb'. If they did, it is questionable whether they could deliver it through Israeli defenses. The sanctions you all but dismiss, indeed have had a serious economic impact, and the oil boycott could really be more effective than anything else to date. I think we are overreacting to Netanyahu's paranoia. That is what he is SUPPOSED to do. Finally, I think it is a huge stretch to assume Iranian decision makers will authorize any nuclear attack, completely ignoring all of the dire consequences including the complete destruction of their nation. I am convinced these are the sobering thoughts which have given pause to every leader all these years in every country with nuclear arms.

Since we seem to be losing Russia as an ally and they are getting more and more cozy with Iran, is it then your suggestion that we simply sit on our hands until that mushroom cloud is seen in this country...or do we pay the nth payment of blackmail to Iran to keep them from making that happen.

NOBODY wants war....EVERYONE, not just you....believe it or not knows the expense in men and money, but it does not seem our President is able to even speak with a commanding tone let alone do anything thus we have ourselves a small problem.

I do not advocate war in anyway, but the world situation is terrible and I look for leadership and do not see it anywhere.

What Leadership?
 

Again, I'm not defending Obama. But if you start with the proposition that we have no intention of going to war with Iran, then what kind of "leadership" do you expect from the POTUS?

He's said repeatedly that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, that Israel is a friend and always will be. He's directed our State Department to continue negotiating with Iran. He's lead a coalition of western countries to apply economic sanctions against Iran. He has been unsuccessful in getting either Russia or China to cooperate, but after all they both rely heavily on Iran for oil, unlike the U.S.

So short of throwing down the gauntlet of threatening military action--a threat which cannot be a hollow one--what leadership would you propose from him?

You dont defend Obama but you pick on one part of one sentence to discuss...you are very transparent VK.

My point is, if you want to discuss leadership, is that this is not a NEW situation. He has spent so much time with politics that maybe he could have spent making peace with Russia to put some pressure on. His head is on ONE thing and one thing only.

My point, until you made it the one sentence is that this is serious stuff....my comment on Obama leadership is the ONLY thing you seem to see,but you are typical. We need to put more and more pressure on....we keep offering and offering more and more....we make no attempt to rally, at least the President does not do it as dramatically as he allows immigrants to get freedom if you will. Would it not be a great thing to call that national press conference and talk to Iran in public....let them know he takes it seriously. NO, he will talk about anything political.

Now, I understand that you do most of this stuff in private, but again, since the only thing you picked up on was any criticism of Obama, let me just say that he needs to be more hard more public.

Start talking to them the way he does with anything political is a good start.

Finish The Sentence
 

Bucco, I don't think Obama is a particularly good leader. As the result, he won't be getting my vote in November. But I'm not going to become as enraged with him as you are unless, using the Iran situation as an example, I can't finish the sentence....

"Damn that Obama. How come he doesn't...."....with some reasonable and specific alternative.

"Be more public and stronger in his objections to both Iran's development of nukes and Syria's continuing massacre of its people"

He spoke stronger on Trayvon Martin ! And IT DOES MATTER...he has the pulpit...USE IT for something other than political gain. Use those speaking skills that he has to make headlines letting the world know he cares about those things

Let the world know.....we have big time problems in this world....and you chastised me in public for discussing issues that YOU felt were unimportant.....you actually told me to just go away since I was always talking negative about him but you join in here with the stupid issues in going after Romney (many times I am sure legitimate).

Meanwhile we have potential problems in this world that will DWARF all this crap on here.

A Difficult Choice
 

This discussion assumes a US – Iran model with the US having the capability of restraining Israel. That capability exists only for a period. Israel could today use ‘bunker buster’ weapons as a method of preventing Iran from developing atomic weapons. Israel does not have such weapons today and unless we decide to provide them will not have in the near future.

If Iran succeeds in fully hardening its production sites and then succeeds in developing atomic weapons, Israel’s choices become few. Iran has threatened/promised to use nuclear weapons to destroy Israel as soon as it possesses them. Israel’s response may be to destroy those weapons in a preemptive strike. Since such a strike could no longer be carried out with ‘bunker busters’ Israel would have to use its nuclear arsenal. According to Jane’s Defense Weekly, Israel has between 100 and 300 nuclear weapons, most of which are two stage thermonuclear devices with a minimum impact of 200 kiloton and some in the megaton range.

Should Iran strike first, Israel has a more than sufficient response capability in its fully hardened missile sites and its nuclear capable Dolphin submarines. Either of these cases in truly a disaster. The challenge for the US is preventing the possibility of nuclear/thermonuclear war in the Middle East. Israel has and has had since 1967 nuclear capability and a strict never strike first policy. Iran has not had nuclear weapons and does not have a never strike first policy. Our challenge is not how to negotiate, but how to make certain that Iran can never possess nuclear weapons.

This requires the destruction of Iran’s enrichment program. It can be done voluntarily by Iran or by outside force. The only sanction left that can potentially move Iran from its intent to possess nuclear weapons is a blockade. No petroleum products or weapons either into or out of Iran. We still have this capability, but must be ready for reaction from the rest of the world, particularly Russia and China. President Obama has not, to date, been willing to stand up to pressure from Putin. This has not been a good thing and certainly would not be helpful in such a showdown. The situation is strikingly similar to that faced by President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis.

The choice appears to be a blockade and potentially a conventional war now or a nuclear war involving strikes against Israel, Iran and the US. Iran will certainly not hit the ‘Little Satan’ without concurrent strikes against the ‘Great Satan’. No easy choices remain.

Russia and China's Response?
 

Great summary of the situation; probably pretty accurate.

The question regarding a blockade, which is significantly different from Kennedy's situation with Cuba, is the "outbound stuff" from Iran. Presumably, they are shipping lots of oil to both Russia and China and neither would be terribly happy about a U.S.-allied blockade of Iran.

A blockade of Iran's outbound shipments of oil would obviously be at the Straight of Hormuz. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that almost all of their shipments of oil to Russia and China go thru there. It's probably not reasonable to think that Iran could negotiate a way to ship oil overland from their northern borders thru Armenia and Georgia to get to the Black Sea (to supply Russia), so the naval blockade might work.

Trying to blockade the Straight of Hormuz might be kind of wild and wooly--trying to separate the Iranian tankers from all the other tankers shipping oil from Saudi Arabia and Iraq out to the world. Kind of like picking all the cars from Michigan headed north on I-75 on the first of April. And then, what does the commander-in-chief do if Russia and China choose to have their warships (of which they have plenty) ride shotgun with the tankers coming out of Iran with "their" oil? A major naval war? Not likely.

Then there's the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sets the international rules on the use of the 25-mile wide straight. To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the U.S., accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. Do we suddenly "change our mind" on this well-respected international law?

Not exactly the same situation that Kennedy faced blockading Cuba.

In my opinion before any of this, he must give it the same importance as these other press events on national television and say WITH THE SAME CONVICTION as he uses with politics how much he opposes what it is happening in Iran and Syria. He is supposed to be "the leader of the free world".......a statement with some assertiveness would go a long way.

A blockade of Iran's shipments would not be this difficult. Approximately 90% of Iran's shipments go from Kharg Island in the very northern end of the Persian Gulf. Shipments from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE would not be impacted. There might be some impact on the southern Iraq shipments, but none on the northern pipeline shipments. Russia does not rely on Iranian oil, but China does. There would be a great deal of diplomatic bluster, but China lacks the military resources needed to challenge us in the Middle East.

NOW add todays events...

A Egyptian tank has crossed into Israel and killed

A Russian ship has turned off his transponder on its way to Syria

And there is talk that Russian troops are going to Syria.

Ahhhhh....yes